The Archbishop recently expressed concern about the Maltese Church’s difficulties in getting its voice heard. “We do not want any privileges or an advantage,” he said “buta right everyone has and which is a basic principle of democracy”. Although the Church’s right to voice its views was “never explicitly denied” it was still being undermined.

He might also have added that the Church’s right to have its voice heard is indeed already enshrined in Article 2 of the Maltese Constitution, a privilege given to no other Church in Malta. And he might then have gone on to ask himself, frankly and honestly, why, despite this constitutional privilege, the Maltese Church’s voice is not being heard in today’s Malta.

He might then have gone further to ask why the Church elsewhere is heard with respect, and the voice of Pope Francis is listened to with awe and anticipation throughout the secular world. Are our Archbishop and Bishops to blame for their own plight, or is there, as the Archbishop was implying, a conspiracy to drown them out?

Nobody can dispute that the Church has every right and duty to teach its principles, as it sees them, and make its voice heard. It should have every opportunity to do this. However, nowhere does it follow that the citizen has to follow those principles, or indeed to hear them.

In fairness to Archbishop Cremona, this is not what I think he was asking for. He was pleading to be heard – to be heard with respect and not have commentators like me undermine, as he might see it, the message. But to be heard the Bishops must have something worthwhile to say, and which people want to listen to. Just simply because they are talking about their religion is not in and of itself a good reason for them to be heard. Indeed, there are good reasons for keeping religion out of society.

The great thing about modern-day Malta is that the citizen is free in all consciousness to listen to the Maltese Church, or shut his ears by applying his own rational analysis, intelligence and the exercise of his or her free will to a problem.

Good Bishops are politicians in frocks. Like politicians, the Bishops must capture the hearts and minds of those they are addressing. Pope Francis does not complain that he is not heard, or listened to. On the other hand, his predecessor was largely ignored. Why?

The issue which the three Bishops should confront is why they are not being heard. I cannot help thinking from everything I have seen of the Maltese Church, especially during the divorce referendum debate, that the problem is essentially organisational.

The Church should be a marketing man’s PR dream. It has a good message to convey. Its contribution to the social fabric of this country has been exceptional and continues to support areas – drug abuse, the mentally disabled, children’s homes – which would collapse if left only to the government.

Yet the Church is not being heard. In a democracy, all institutions are faced with the challenge of acceptance. In this case, the acceptance through a process of persuading the public about the Church’s view of things. To be heard the Church must do three things. First, it must identify its audience. Secondly, it must be clear about the message it wants to put across. And thirdly, it must devise a coordinated action plan of how this should be done.

The Church’s Maltese audience is no longer a captive one. Yes, there are many loyal, mainly elderly, ladies and some gentlemen who will support the Church come hell or high water. But the same cannot be said of the majority, who do not go to Church except for the public rituals of weddings, funerals and Christmas and high days. This, I would suggest, is the audience the Bishops should be trying to reach: they are mostly young, upwardly mobile, sceptical of religion, questioning and more concerned about the here and now.

Let the Bishops read the mood and appear tolerant, understanding and thoughtful, rather than judgmental and authoritarian. This is what Pope Francis does so admirably

This is the challenge. What kind of message can the Church aim to put across to get through to them? The question the Bishops should ask themselves is, if Pope Francis can do it, why are we failing? He is a master at it. His messages resonate because they deal with issues that people are worried about – mostly social justice issues which affect people’s daily lives – and he expresses them in language which is generous, non-condemnatory and which people can understand.

The Bishops’ aim must be to promote an informed public about the Church’s policies and views on subjects of concern to the ordinary man in the street through all the media available, expressed in plain, simple, easily comprehensible language.

What are the subjects which the Church should focus on? Three days after the Archbishop’s plea to be heard, the Bishop of Gozo made an excellent intervention about the abuse of social services in Malta and Gozo, corruption and tax avoidance. A few days later, Bishop Scicluna spoke about the merits or otherwise of decriminalising the use of some drugs. One did not have to agree with every iota of what they said. But the key point is that these were subjects of real concern.

There are a whole host of other topics the three Bishops should tackle: immigration and racism; integration; hypocrisy in society; greed; envy; environmental degradation (despite the lay Church Commission being a powerful voice); the illegal slaughter of birds; the increasing discrepancies between rich and poor; drugs; endemic corruption; tax evasion; the bitter political apartheid which reflects a society split by class and tribe.

All these are subjects to savour, on which the Church should have strong views. They should express them.

All three Bishops should have a coordinated speaking plan – based on a pre-arranged action plan – on the subjects outlined above and others.

The impact of the three Bishops speaking on the same topic, each in his own style, but putting their intellectual weight and experience behind the subject would have a significant effect.

It would be difficult for the Church’s voice not to be heard in such circumstances. But it is vital that the message is coordinated and uniform, that there is no discord (as there was during the divorce referendum campaign), and that the texts are succinct and in tune with what people are prepared to listen to.

The Church must learn how to express itself effectively in a secular world if it is not further to alienate its diminishing flock. Let the Bishops read the mood and appear tolerant, understanding and thoughtful, rather than judgmental and authoritarian.

This is what Pope Francis does so admirably. It is not a skill bestowed only on Francis. It is a skill that can be learnt.

The Maltese Church’s inability to articulate its views in language which is meaningful and relevant to the faithful, and does not hurt and offend those whose conscience tells them otherwise, has been the hallmark of the last few years. The key lesson for the Maltese Church is that it needs to take a hard look at itself and sharpen up its communication skills. Then, we might listen.