On Independence Day, he called for political action to strengthen moral fibre. Archbishop Paul Cremona tells Kurt Sansone it’s not an indecent proposal.

What’s in a word? A lot, it seems, as Archbishop Paul Cremona found out in the aftermath of a homily he delivered on Independence Day.

Mgr Cremona had questioned whether it was time to strengthen the country’s moral fibre and proposed that some political entity, like a parliamentary secretariat, should take charge of this.

For some, his words immediately evoked images of morality police prowling the streets to enforce a Catholic moral code.

But for Mgr Cremona, a man who exudes prudence and chooses his words carefully, the debate about morality came as a big surprise.

“I spoke about the moral fibre, the universal values of honesty, trustworthiness, solidarity and justice, not about morality,” he says during an interview at his office at the Curia in Floriana.

This is not a subtle distinction. Mgr Cremona explains that moral fibre is about an individual’s inner strength to stand up for what he believes is right, even in the face of adversity.

“Morality, on the other hand, is about a code that an individual chooses to abide by that guides him on what is right and wrong,” he says.

As he pauses for thought, he explains that his homily was inspired by an occasion he had attended where parents were being asked what they wanted for their children.

I spoke about the moral fibre, the universal values of honesty, trustworthiness, solidarity and justice, not about morality

“Most parents said they wanted their children to be honest, sincere and helpful, and this surprised me because I thought they spoke to their children about a successful career and a good job rather than these values,” Mgr Cremona says. These universal values benefit society, even a secular one, he argues.

A storyteller, the Archbishop recounts another life experience to highlight the meaning of moral fibre. He speaks of a man who was asked by his employer to do something that went against his moral convictions. The man, fearful of losing his job, went to his employer and asked not to be assigned to the project.

“Not only did he not lose his job, but the employer appreciated his honesty and trusted him more,” Mgr Cremona says as his eyes light up.

He tells yet another story of a man who sat on an interviewing board and was handed an envelope with money as a token of appreciation by a candidate who was selected for the post.

The man returned the money because he felt it was not right to keep it.

“Isn’t the value of integrity displayed by this man a desirable attribute in every society?”

It is a pertinent question but does the country need a parliamentary secretary tasked with strengthening society’s moral fibre to achieve this?

Mgr Cremona admits that he may have misled people into understanding that he called for the creation of a new post.

“What I meant was that an existing Cabinet member would be responsible for this,” he says.

“If we want parents to teach their children these universal values, why shouldn’t the State contribute to raising awareness?”

The answer may have come last week when Opposition leader Simon Busuttil presented a parliamentary motion suggesting the creation of a commissioner to ensure public officers and politicians adhere to the highest ethical standards.

The Government indicated it was willing to accept the proposal that will also see the creation of a parliamentary committee to raise standards in the public sphere.

Mgr Cremona steers clear of the political fray.

With a smile, he says it is now time for him to take a step back from the issue: “I am glad my proposal fuelled a debate. At least it got people thinking.”

But the Archbishop’s homily also got people writing. Former minister Michael Falzon last week described the Archbishop’s suggestion as an “indecent proposal”.

Martin Scicluna, head of Today Public Policy Institute, implied that the Archbishop was politically naive.

Both commentators premised their arguments on what they felt could have been a blurring of the lines between Church and State.

Mgr Cremona is unfazed by the arguments. He says the Church has a duty to speak, “to propose and not impose”.

The Church must have a voice that can be heard in a secular society, he adds.

“I speak with respect to the separation of Church and State but I hope the secular elements adopt a pluralistic approach.

“I hope this is not a trend of trying to silence the Church’s voice,” Mgr Cremona says.

If we want parents to teach their children these universal values, why shouldn’t the State contribute to raising awareness?

He acknowledges that the reaction to his homily could be the result of the Church’s history when it spoke down to people in an authoritative way. But the Church is different now, he says.

“Society and secularisation have changed the Church.”

But isn’t his call for the State to strengthen the moral fibre an admission that the Church has failed to inculcate such values in the faithful?

With more than 90 per cent of the population calling themselves Catholic, they are also responsible for the erosion of universal values, he answers.

“All of us need to be challenged, including Church people.”

When Mgr Cremona delivered his homily the audience included politicians, the judiciary and other dignitaries, but he insists the message was meant for everybody, from top to bottom.

“Church leaders and politicians should be the first to give a good example,” he says in words that reflect Pope Francis’s recent admission that he was a sinner and the Church an imperfect body.

If the Church believes it is perfect it will make the same mistakes of the past, he adds.

And it is precisely the mistakes of the not-too-distant past that Mgr Cremona wants to avoid, not by being silent but by choosing words carefully.

Whether he succeeds may be a question of interpretation.

ksansone@timesofmalta.com