In his last diatribe against Gozo Bishop Mario Grech, Martin Scicluna has even gone as far as to “question why Gozo... has to have its own bishop”. He even suggested that “perhaps the Apostolic Nuncio in Malta would kindly take this up with Rome”. (The Sunday Times, September 6).

I’m afraid all Gozitans might feel this man is an enemy of their diocese- Mgr Anton Gauci

First of all, Scicluna might do well to consult the Vatican’s An­nuario Pontificio to find out whether the Church has dioceses with a Ca­tholic population much less than Gozo’s and with fewer priests.

Secondly, perhaps he should suggest to the nuncio “to take up with Rome” the question of whether Mgr Grech has shown himself so courageous and faithful to Christ’s “stern” and “insensitive” injunctions in the Gospel as to merit being put up as an exemplar to many fellow bishops.

Scicluna perhaps admits that sometimes poking noses could be not only very condemnable but also ridiculous. I am afraid all Gozitans, not only priests, might feel that this man is an enemy of their diocese, their Curia, their cathedral and their seminary. I am also afraid that Bishop Nikol Cauchi turned in his grave when he learned about such a suggestion to the nuncio.

Obviously, we do not know how much Scicluna’s religious background, upbringing, education and Church life qualify him to pose as a teacher to bishops and priests as well as counsellor on what his imagination considers as the Church’s “shortcomings”. He calls himself “only a disinterested observer” and yet he goes on to “advise” in a magisterial way and tune.

He says Archbishop Paul Cremona “has been weak in dealing with the rigidly conservative... advisers”. He feels authoritative enough to call the Bishop of Gozo “a fundamentalist” and, posing as a judge, say that the bishop is “blinded by his own self-righteousness”. I will not go so far as to call this a type of “chagrin” which devours one’s intestines.

Could all this be just because Scicluna sees in Gozo’s bishop a stalwart opponent to those who would wreck the Church when it opposes behaviour condemned by Christ himself 2,000 years ago?

Scicluna feels authoritative enough as to give peremptory advice to the Archbishop. This judge wants Mgr Cremona to rid himself of “monsignors who have hijacked the Curia”.

Is it because these monsignors, faithful to God and Church, were against the introduction of divorce?

Scicluna tells he is worried to see people “deserting” the Church. I imagine he himself is a staunch church-goer who has never “deserted” the Church.

Forgetting that wise adage that “old heads grow not on young shoulders”, he wants “young advisers in the Curia”, not people with years of experience. He sees the Church’s “way of operating... outdated”. Obviously, if the local Church is wisely and faithfully following in the Vatican’s footsteps, then, for Scicluna, the Vatican too could be “outdated”, no? For Scicluna, “especially in Gozo”, we have “too many elderly monsignors promoted well above their level of competence”.

Apart from not knowing how he reached this conclusion, one might be inclined to ask whether Scicluna is competent to hold discussions with these people on Church doctrine or whether, as the Maltese saying goes,“b’denbu bejn saqajh” (with his tail between his legs), he would simply run away.

Scicluna feels himself so wise as to preach that “the Maltese Church must learn how to express itself effectively in a secular, ‘pluralistic world’.”

For him, perhaps because it faithfully follows Christ’s injunctions, it is “authoritarian and soulless”. Then how “authoritarian and soulless” was Christ himself !

For Scicluna, the Church should use a “language” that does not “offend those whose conscience tells them otherwise”. Wonderful wisdom! I do not qualify this tone as “pride”, as I would myself be posing as a judge. But what should one say if told that the Church “offends” people when proposing God’s laws if those same people have erroneous consciences that “tell them otherwise”?

How mistaken was the Catholic Church when condemning such heresies as Nestorianism and Arianism promoted by people “whose consciences tell them otherwise”?

Scicluna says: “Today society will make up its own mind on moral issues”. So, does this mean there should be no Church to guide society “on moral issues”?

Does Scicluna believe God really backs him if he preaches that the Church should not guide society by its teachings and, eventually, by corrections, perhaps also condemning behaviour qualified by God as “condemnable” and leading to perdition? I am pretty sure he actually does not.

It was St Paul who said: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his blood.”

Christ was so “stern” and “insensitive” as to whip the sellers in order to defend God’s Temple. He was so “stern” and “insensitive” that he found no difficulty to make his listeners shudder when speaking of hell. He was so “stern” and “insensitive” that he did not find it difficult to tell his Apostles: “Will you go away?”

That was the “doctrinal diktat” of Christ. That Christ was “seen as living in the past”, not minding that, to use Scicluna’s phrase, people desert it (Church) in their droves.

How terrible when one presumes to play the part of a teacher in an environment in which one might not be really qualified.

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.