I do not personally know Fr Albert Schembri former parish priest of Hal Gharghur. It could be that he was a student of mine in some media class at the time when I used to teach seminarians at the University. But that would be about all, if it is at all.

Although I have no personal brief to defend him I cannot but react strongly to the sensational and unethical story in the front page of The Malta Independent on Sunday (March 2). The front page story is given more importance as it is printed reversed out from a black back ground while it also features a photo of Fr Schembri. The title is very unfair: “Rogue priest leaves parish in debt.”

I looked up the word ‘rogue’ trying to find synonyms in my electronic dictionary. “Scoundrel; reprobate and scallywag” were among the choices I was given. Not the nicest of compliments, I suppose. But things got worse. I looked up scoundrel and my computer gave me ‘crook, villain or cheat.” Scallywag is not much better. Among its synonyms one finds mischief maker and rapscallion, which means a disreputable and dishonest person.

What did Fr. Schembri do to merit all these commendations from the editor of The Malta Independent, Mr David Lindsay?

According to the story, Fr Schembri, during his stint as parish priest of Gharghur, neglected to pay a number of bills with the consequence that a debt of €26,000 was accumulated and that some of the marriages celebrated in the parish were not registered.

Let’s take these allegations one by one while assuming that they are true.

If Fr Schembri did not register marriages he failed in his duties. That makes him, at worst, sloppy with his paperwork and as a result negligent in this particular duty of a parish priest. (For all I know, Fr Schembri excelled in other aspects of his ministry as a parish priest. The paper does not bother investigating this dimension of the story, and it does not bother to get the reaction of Fr Schembri barring some comments lifted from his writings on Facebook.) But does negligence in one aspect of his duties make him a rogue priest? Hardly, I think. Does that merit front page coverage in a national newspaper alongside stories of the ‘invasion’ of the Ukraine and the nomination of the president of Malta? My sense of news value tells me otherwise. The editor of The Malta Independent thinks differently.

Then there is the grand allegation of leaving a parish with debts of €26,000. (The parish I come from has much more debt that and we have always had very good parish priest.) Is David Lindsay, the editor of The Malta Independent, for real? The paper is the property of big business. If Lindsay consults with any of his bosses he would have been told that €26,000 is a risible sum for any organisation. Hal Gharghur is a parish made up of 900 families. If the worst comes to the worst – which it should not as the sum could easily be paid from the regular income of the parish - the amount in question is tantamount to the onerous sum of €29 per household. If every household contributes 50 euro cents a week the problem would be solved.

Where is the big scandal, Mr Editor?

Besides these were not monies spent on some luxurious bath room for the parish priest nor were they the result of an extravagant spree of drinking Petrus wine with friends. (I have recently been told that Petrus comes to the tune of €2,000 a bottle.) The money was spent on water, electricity used in the parish church and some back dated tax payments.

Once again I ask: what is the big deal?

If one wants to stretch the argument one could say that Fr Schembri was a mediocre administrator and that he should not have been given a post which besides a full time pastoral role includes a lot of administration. All this could have been admissible fair comment. But not being a very good administrator and being a rouge priest are not one and the same thing. This notwithstanding, the editor, for reasons known only to himself, preferred to tar Fr Schembri by the title of ‘rogue priest.”

Let us hypothesize that the directors of Standard Publications were to ask Mr Lindsay to take care of the paper’s finances and administration on top of his editorial responsibilities. Let us say that Mr Lindsay proves to be a below average accountant or administrator, would that make him a rogue editor?

There would have been a story had the paper had proof that Fr Schembri had run away with the money or squandered it. But this is not the case. In fact a Curia statement, printed along with the story, stated unequivocally that “it is not true that the ex-parish priest was investigated by the Curia for siphoning off funds.”

So where is the beef in the story? Is this material for a front page story?

The least the paper should do is to apologise to its readers and Fr Schembri.