A quondam wound reopened

As if the Church hasn't enough problems with its ever-decreasing flock, Archbishop Paul Cremona chose to buttress the Prime Minister's statement - that the St John Co-Cathedral museum project divided the county and should thus be abandoned - in order to save the government's face. This was an obvious political move by the Archbishop, of the type we have not seen for some time.

Possibly, the Archbishop was dragged into this situation by the Prime Minister and his apparatchiks who decided that it would be politically convenient to end the discussion on the said project. But, surely, His Grace could have refused to be persuaded into this mire of political expediency had he wanted to. This, especially since, as it transpired after the project was scotched, the Archbishop had expressed the Church's position on the venture to the Prime Minister months ago, stating that "it was not within the competence of the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation to carry out a major project such as the proposed underground museum..."

There was the negative vote by the highest Church dignitaries of the Cathedral Chapter itself. Therefore, the Prime Minister knew where the Church stood on this matter but there was also a greater force pushing and he, thus, forged on, probably thinking that, by time, he would manage to rein in the dissenting members of his parliamentary group.

Strangely, the Archbishop didn't reiterate the aforementioned Church's position a few hours before we, as people's representatives, were about to start debating the Leader of the Opposition's motion against the project in Parliament. If His Grace had to say something at that stage, one would have expected it to be about the Church's position as revealed to the Prime Minister months before. But instead, the message was something else when the Archbishop accepted to put his name to the damage-limitation statement concocted by the government, contending that the project should not be an element that divides the Maltese public and so should not be carried out.

Come again? Is the public divided on this matter? Has public opinion been scientifically surveyed and clinically examined before coming to such a conclusion? Or was the government afraid that there would be a majority of the people's representatives voting against the project? What we do know is that, had the Prime Minister been confident that the government would win the day, he would not have backed out moments before the debate was to start, dragging with him the Archbishop, who was happy to oblige. Only the politically naïve and those blinded by political partisanship fail to see where the division lies.

By colluding with the Prime Minister with regard to the infamous joint statement, the Archbishop must have been aware that he would be eating a generous portion of the humble pie which the Prime Minister should have consumed on his own after months of ignoring the St John museum issue and pooh-poohing its detractors. This was not a case of retracting when realising that one is on the wrong path - that would have been a sign of good leadership and humility, which is commendable - but the Prime Minister only reversed from hubris-mode and pulled away in the last minute when he realised that all was lost and that, if the Leader of the Opposition's motion came to the vote, the government would lose.

This is why the position taken by the Archbishop has seriously worried those who spoke to me, who care about the Church, are practising Catholics and support Labour. If I were to sum up in three questions the comments, made by my constituents post-joint-statement, they would be the following: Are we heading back to square one with the Church? What, pray, made the Archbishop join in to mitigate the government's embarrassment on a project which the Church had already dismissed? Why had the Archbishop chosen to serve as kicking-post in an issue which was all the government's doing? And there was quite a bit of kicking in the Archbishop's direction after the said event.

It was these individuals' strong reactions which compelled me to write this piece. These people don't write letters to The Times, they don't comment on blogs but they are genuinely hurt and worried and they do talk. I can't say how representative of those who wish to see a clear delineation between Church and state this reaction is but it is certainly the response of the majority of those who spoke to me on the issue, including two priests.

No doubt, this unnecessary hand-holding between the Archbishop and the Prime Minister has sounded alarm bells to those who have been there before. It is a pity that, by letting himself get involved in this way, the Archbishop has reopened a wound for some practising Catholic Labourites and others who appreciate the secularity of state.

The author is a sociologist and a Labour member of Parliament.