On threats and opportunities

There is both an enormous similarity and an abysmal difference between the phrases “Good morning, Lord” and “Good Lord, morning”. The first is the attitude of people who look around and see opportunities amid the problems surroun­ding them (though they do not negate these difficulties).

The second is the attitude of those who, when faced by opportunities, see only threats. These two categories are present in the Church as well.

You will probably remember the controversy that erupted when The Da Vinci Code was released as a film. Many panicked. In Malta, a group wanted to organise a pilgrimage of reparation; others wanted the film banned.

Fortunately, the Curia refused to panic and exploited the positive opportunities offered by the film’s release. Thousands of copies of a booklet discussing the Christological themes evoked by the film were distributed. Would it have been possible to discuss these issues on mainstream media had the film not been released, or if the predominant attitude was simply one of panic?

The same two attitudes are evident in the crisis created by clerical child abuse which is still shocking the Church. Panic was the reaction of conspiracy theoreticians who see the situation as just a threat. Their panic was accompanied by denial.

On the contrary, others, the Pope included, exploited the opportunities by calling a spade, a spade, and blaming no one but the existence of sin and dirt inside the Church. Consequently the evaluation of people wishing to join the ministry was bettered, structures protecting children strengthened, and measures punishing perpetrators toughened. The result was a saner priesthood and a safer environment for children.

The proposal for divorce legislation provides us with another example. I do not want to minus one iota from the seriousness of the decision that faces us and the onerous responsibility we will all have to shoulder if a referendum is held to decide the issue.

However, should we panic as if the walls of Jericho are falling all over us? Such panic would paralyse us, and is therefore negative. We should use this situation to emphasise more the value of the family; and search for new ways to strengthen the family; and reflect better on the role of the Church in a pluralistic society.

We should distinguish between the legitimate difference there could be between the Catholic’s attitude towards divorce and the appraisal of divorce legislation. We should emphasise the teaching of the Church about the primacy of conscience that is informed and formed by the Word of God, the Magesterium of the Church, and the understanding of common good.

The bishops are doing a good job as the conscience of the country, thus harvesting the opportunities. Others are taking a different position.

A clear example lies in the homily delivered by Judicial Vicar Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino on the occasion of the opening of the Forensic Year. At the time of writing it is posted on the website of the Archdiocese http://maltadiocese.org/lang/en.

His position about the role of the Church in society is myopic and his reference to “grave sin” flies in the face of the strategy adopted by our bishops. However, I am happy at the assurance that his “theological” reasoning is not characteristic of the theology and pastoral care shown by the Ecclesiastical Tribunals.

One can discover positive opportunities even when faced by a negative position of an esteemed monsignor.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt