Doing what a Church should do

Following the publication of the financial and pastoral reports of the Archdiocese of Malta for 2010, a perception was created that old people’s homes and, to a lesser degree, children’s homes, run by the Archdiocese are in deep financial trouble.

Let the Church discern the areas where it should be active- Fr Joe Borg

The perception was strengthened when, following a press conference, TV viewers were shown images of the effect of lack of maintenance at the Senglea home for old people whose management cannot afford a renovation project of some €30,000 – an insignificant sum compared to sums spent on other less worthy initiatives within the Archdiocese.

I met several people who expressed doubts on whether the Church should keep on managing homes for old people and for children. “The Church should do the work that the Church should do”, one person told me, quickly adding “and it should lump these problems on the government”.

It is true that running old people’s homes is not a dogma of faith. It is also true that the Church could reach a decision that it will not continue to run such homes.

In fairness sake, Church officials at the launching of the financial/ pastoral report repeatedly said that the Church is not planning to make these homes or any other part of its social apostolate redundant.

However, the Church cannot decide not to be actively involved in the social and charitable apostolate. The choice is about what type of social and charity work it should do, not whether or not to do social and charitable works.

This work is a core mission of the Church as much as liturgical celebrations and other forms of evangelisation are part of its core mission. The idea that the social and charity apostolate is optional is as grave an anathema for the Church as the denial of one of its dogmas would be an anathema.

The Church in Malta should be proud that at all times it has served the country in so many areas of the social and charity apostolate. The initiatives chosen reflected the needs of the times when they were chosen. The criterion should be that the most vulnerable and the poorest should be given preference.

In one period of time, redemption of slaves was the charitable activity chosen; in another era, looking after orphans was a priority. Today it could be work with drug addicts, refugees, battered wives, problem children, illiterate adults, lonely people, workers with precarious contracts, and so forth.

The poor will always be with us. The Church should be on the lookout for those poor who are not being catered for by the state or by other NGOs. These are the people who should be served.

It is not just the duty of Church authorities to serve them. The social and charity apostolate is a duty for each and every one of us. This is as important a duty (if not more) as going to Mass on Sunday is a duty. Our love for God has to be shown through love for our neighbours.

Let the Church, through its various structures, discern the areas where it should be active. Let it try to get – as it legitimately should get – funds from the state.

However, it would be shameful if the members of the Church play Scrooge and force the authorities to desist involving the Church in charity activities that need and should be done.

Closing places where care, cure and love are dispensed is worse than closing down churches.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt