Joe Borg's name is synonymous with priesthood, lecturing, media, censorship, blogging... controversy. He says that Catholics cannot be conservatives.

You were behind the setting up of Church media branches Il-Ġens and RTK radio. The Curia recently decided to close down the newspaper. Do you agree with the decision?

It's important for the Church to communicate. And it needs to move with the times to get its message across. Newspapers or radio stations that don't have a following should be shelved and replaced by new initiatives. I believe the Church weighed the ever-increasing subsidies it was dishing out with the declining readership before reaching its inevitable decision to close down the paper.

The mistake was that the Church gave the impression that everything was closing down instead of taking the opportunity to launch a new media organisation with responds to new media opportunities and which would be ready to aggressively tackle different issues.

What do you mean by 'aggressive'?

We need media that delve deeper into a story, and are more controversial. When was the last time you heard a controversial story reported on RTK?

But is it the Church's role to get involved in controversial stories?

We all have to choose which stories and issues to opt for. The Church media should not be impartial. Its role is to delve into a story from a Christian perspective. Their provision of news should be different to the others. Since Christians cannot feel completely comfortable with any political or economic structure, the Church's media has to continually challenge society. It has to be controversial.

When you look back at the past 20 years, do you think the Church exploited the media well enough to get its message across?

The Church did not do enough. Along the years we've stopped investing the way we used to do in the past. I would like to emphasise that the Church should first and foremost use the media to strengthen human dignity rather than to serve its own needs.

Ten years ago, you resigned as chairman of the Media Centre and RTK radio. Rumours around the time had suggested the then Archbishop urged you to quit following pressure from the Labour Party.

If you search through the Church records you won't find any letter of resignation. I haven't spoke about the cause of my departure from that post for 10 years, so why should I speak about it now? A lot of things were said at the time. Some were correct, others weren't.

Was the Church seeking to protect its own interests at the time?

If I reply to this question, I will be saying what I've refrained from saying for many years.

Was there a political motive behind your resignation?

I have no doubt Archbishop Joseph Mercieca took his decision for what he sincerely believed were very valid reasons, which according to me weren't.

Was your relationship with Mgr Mercieca strained after that incident?

We disagreed at the time, but we met again afterwards to discuss matters. I have very good relations with him.

How would you describe the standard of journalism nowadays?

It's positive because there is less deference towards people in authority. Journalists probe more. It is negative because nowadays we are seeing more cases where journalists believe they should be the centre of the story. Stories are being injected with comment, the language is misused and stories are not sourced. I teach University students who aspire to be journalists and some of them are incapable of naming the Archbishop, they are unaware that Eddie Fenech Adami's home was ransacked, that Germany's capital is Berlin...

In a recent survey it emerged that many students consider themselves Catholic but do not believe in the basic tenets of Christianity. Does it surprise you?

No, I wasn't. If they had to spread the survey across Malta, we'd probably see the same results. People are still religious, but they're tailoring religiosity to their own needs. They are choosing religion which is not necessarily the one dictated by the institution. People say they are Catholic and then opt for the 'supermarket mentality' of picking and choosing. We, as a Church, have our faults as well. We preached a moralistic and legalistic kind of Christianity. We preached that being a good Christian means, first and foremost, abiding by the Ten Commandments. This is incorrect. The basis of Christianity is the recognition that God loves you and you gratefully strive to build a relationship with Him.

The Ten Commandments are presented to us in the context of a story of liberation. We have managed to portray them as a straightjacket instead.

During the bishops' synod, the Archbishop was right to say that one of the biggest problems of the Church in Malta was there were a lot of active Catholics who were nostalgic about an inexistent past. They weren't evangelised enough.

In the same survey, students expressed themselves in favour of divorce and sex before marriage. In your blog on timesofmalta.com, you said the Church did little to follow up these statistics. What would you do?

The fact that I comment in my blogs does not mean that I have solutions. In my commentaries, I generally point to problems. Studies show that one of the main areas of concern is that our family is not only in transition, but is facing crisis.

I would like the Church to be more proactive and publish a document adopting better policies and new initiatives aimed at restoring the family. Just taking steps against the introduction of divorce is not enough.

I would like to see a statement from the bishops setting up a commission made up of experts, even foreign ones, who will give us, within six months, an accurate portrait of the Maltese family. The Church needs to commit a percentage of its income, say 20 per cent, towards initiatives aimed at strengthening the family.

We should lobby to hold a Family Impact Assessment before each piece of legislation and major development. However, we need studies, not opinions. We can't afford to act in an amateur way any longer. The Church's Environment Commission is a commission which generally takes positions based on serious studies.

But how would such reports have an impact on the man in the street?

Your strategy needs to target people across society. The Church needs to set the agenda about family welfare and not mainly react and follow the lead of others. We need to set up alliances with others, even non-believers. I've heard several people underlining the need for divorce; I haven't heard anybody who says we shouldn't strengthen families. The divorce debate divides; working for pro-family policies unites.

In your column in The Sunday Times, you recently said that Christians should brace themselves for the almost inevitable introduction of divorce in the next 10 years. You seem to be resigned. Why?

I am not seeing a strong enough strategy from the Church to stop the undermining of the family.

There are certain worrying tendencies. In 1997, a Church survey showed two-thirds were against the introduction of divorce. Xarabank's survey in 2008 showed people were split right down the middle, with a small pro-divorce majority.

When you analyse the figures, you see those under 45 are overwhelmingly in favour of divorce; those between 45 and 60 are slightly in favour of its introduction; and those over 60 are dead-set against. In three years, the number of undergraduates in favour of divorce has grown. There is a trend in favour of divorce.

Opposition leader Joseph Muscat has also made the introduction of divorce one of his battle cries because he considers it a civil right and because he conveniently wants to tap the vote of the middle class. Of course, a not insignificant number of people in his party grass roots would object to the introduction of divorce. They are the same people who argued with Mgr Anton Gouder on Xarabank when he spoke about the Church's stand on feasts.

This is the contradiction we're facing. Some of those supporting us on feast reform would oppose us when we speak against the introduction of divorce; those who support our anti-divorce stance oppose our stance on feast reforms.

Do you think that a report commissioned by the Church could actually make any difference to people's opinion on divorce? Do you fear the Church's opinion on the matter may be irrelevant for many?

People are interested in religion. Just look at the interest generated when religious topics are discussed in the media. The three most commented on stories in the timesofmalta.com website in 2009 were related to religion (including two from Fr Borg's blog).

The Church as an institution is still in the hearts of many people, even those that criticise it. I think the Church still has an important role to play in moral leadership, and Archbishop Paul Cremona is one of its greatest assets. His contribution is enormous. We now have an archbishop who enjoys a place in the hearts of many.

Some Church exponents have suggested that those MPs who vote in favour of divorce legislation would be committing mortal sin. What's your opinion?

I think it could be morally legitimate for Catholic politicians to decide in conscience to vote for a law introducing divorce if they judge that within a particular circumstance it's a lesser evil. Let's say the family situation in Malta deteriorated so much that there are just as many cohabiting couples as married ones. In such a situation a Catholic politician could feel the need to vote in favour (of divorce). I discussed this with a number of the finest moral theologians in Malta who share the same opinion.

So are those bandying about the 'mortal sin' concept spouting nonsense?

No, I wouldn't say that. I fully respect their position. No one should be surprised when Church people arrive at different moral or pastoral assessments of particular situations. Just look at the American bishops - some of them refuse communion to Catholic politicians who voted for legislation which facilitated abortion. However, the majority have a different opinion. (Senator Ted) Kennedy voted several times for laws which facilitated abortion but during his funeral he had two cardinals and bishops officiating. Different bishops reached different conclusions.

While the vast majority claim to be Christians and good people, the level of racism in Malta has reached worrying proportions. Who do you blame? The government, the Church...

The problem is bigger than the two institutions put together. It's a cultural problem. We're small in number. Many feel threatened when they see people of a different colour, creed and culture. The media cooked up an image that we're being invaded. Racism is the result of fear and ignorance. Some time ago I heard a hysterical woman on radio saying the arrival of immigrants was the Islamic religion's attempt to convert us. Can you believe that? That's why it was positive to see the Swiss bishops calling on the electorate to vote against the ban on minarets.

Is the Church taking a position on racism?

I would like to see the Church taking a stronger stand. This is a huge pastoral problem. We're discussing the fundamental respect for man's dignity. Racism is a bigger sin than the other sins we tend to discuss. For example, as a symbolic gesture I would like to see half of those involved in the washing of the feet ceremony on Maundy Thursday to be refugees. But let's face it - nobody carries out as much work with refugees as Church NGOs. Mgr Cremona is so much in people's hearts that I would like to see him on the frontline.

Last year, you took an active role in the censorship debate, especially in the case of the Stitching play ban. With the benefit of hindsight don't you think the ban did more harm than good? Do you think theatre-goers are not educated enough to know when to draw the line?

In principle, I believe the slant should always be in favour of freedom of expression. It's better to make mistakes by having too much freedom of expression than stifling it. In the case of Stitching, if the classification board said nothing, probably there would have been no furore. This same board had not banned a play in 10 years. Was it fair to paint its members as ignorant people, as though they're censoring everything? I think if an organisation is operating well, you shouldn't try to destroy it.

Some people said you should have never got into the matter since you're not involved in theatre. Ultimately, theatre patrons are making an informed decision. Why did you get involved?

It was a nationwide debate. I felt the attack on the board was unfair. If six environmentalists chain themselves to Auberge de Castille, we call it advocacy. But when priests speak out they are accused of imposition. It seems that for such individuals I had no right to speak out.

But at the same time Fr Joe Abela got rapped on the knuckles by the Curia and had to resign from the Church's film classification board after testifying (in favour) in the case of Stitching. Isn't this a form of censorship from the Church?

I don't know what went on between my friend Fr Abela and the Archbishop, so I will not comment on that case. However, in my opinion, it is absolutely legitimate for another priest to have a completely different point of view to mine.

So what you're saying is that Fr Abela should have never been forced to resign.

I don't know what went on in that case. I am talking generally. Taking contrasting decisions on such an issue doesn't make you a bad Catholic.

The Stitching debate has prompted a wider debate on censorship, including the ban of students' publication Realtà. Do you think today's youngsters are taking freedom of expression to an extreme?

What people consider as good or bad nowadays is different to the past. People's attitude to, for example, sexual morality today is so different to what it was 25 years ago. People tend to be more lax; however, people tend to be stricter regarding the morality of actions affecting the environment.

But there is a contradiction - while there is a vociferous call for people to have the freedom to say whatever they want, at the same time these same people want to stifle the opinions of those who disagree with them. Just look at the intolerance shown on the blogs and forums.

On a personal level, you have a high profile in the media; you have made controversial statements, though you are not a renegade. Some call you progressive, others liberal, but a good number say you are very conservative. Who is Fr Joe Borg?

I don't think a Catholic can be conservative. As a Catholic you accept God's loving invitation and you start a relationship with Him. God is always new and this relationship with Him implies that you always discover new things. God is a feast. Catholicism is about the celebration of this feast. Catholicism is about being creative, not being conservative. It is about confronting the future aided by the beauty of the love of Christ for us. It is about enthusiastically exploring the future not conserving the past.

My insights might be different to those of others. For some people my views might come across as conservative, while others might think I'm too liberal. I would describe myself as Catholic and a sinner, but I thank God for His love, and for giving me this grace to serve Him as a priest.

Watch excerpts of the interview on www.timesofmalta.com.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.