Usually I write stuff I like writing about. Sometimes, however, I write things that cannot go unwritten. Last Sunday’s column was an example of the latter.

Three sentences from that piece elicited discussion. In the din that followed, what I actually wrote could have been confused with things others wrote, so permit me to remind you.

First, I wrote that all those I spoke to readily admit that there is an elephant in the ecclesiastical room although they remain in total silence about it in public or, worse still, deny its existence.

Then I added: “More and more pastoral operators are everyday realising more clearly that the leadership situation in the Archdiocese of Malta is worse than that experienced by the Nationalist Party after the 1976 election. The number of those who believe that unless this situation is tackled problems will continue to compound is on the increase.”

In the past few days, several elaborated on the above.

Last Monday’s Times of Malta said that senior Church officials told the newspaper that veteran Curia insiders exert control over the Archbishop. I have no indication that this happens and I would be very surprised if this turns out to be a fact.

Fr René Camilleri, head of one of the most important secretariats in the Archdiocese and member of the community set-up by Archbishop Paul Cremona in Attard, confirmed what I wrote: “The feeling that there is a leadership vacuum is widespread and very real.” Camilleri then gave a number of examples that illustrate this.

Confirmation of the state of affairs was also given by Fr Joe Inguanez, head of Discern, the Curia’s institute for research. He told Malta Today that “the Maltese Church is at a standstill” and that “there is much justified criticism of the leadership at the top”.

Times of Malta said it spoke to a number of priests who expressed frustration at the lack of direction from Church leaders.

A member of the senate of priests told Times of Malta that during a meeting of this highest consultative organ of the Archdiocese, there was general agreement that a leadership vacuum had developed.

Since members of this senate are bound by confidentiality, I don’t agree that members should speak to the press about what transpires during these meetings. But that is another matter.

Last Tuesday, Times of Malta reiterated that it spoke to several priests who agreed that the situation I described was widespread. The fact all these priests and others commented to Times of Malta under condition of anonymity speaks volumes. But that is another subject for another time.

Some weeks back, Saviour Balzan, managing editor of Malta Today, had also written a very negative commentary about Cremona’s leadership.

Quite naturally, I do not begrudge anyone the right to disagree with this substantial list but I think it is despicable and vile to impute revolting motives to any one of them. I particularly refer to the piece written by Prof. Victor Axiak in Wednesday’s edition of Times of Malta.

Axiak did not bother to disprove in any way what I, Inguanez, Camilleri, the several priests who spoke to Times of Malta or Balzan wrote.

Instead, he wrote an opinion piece where he hallucinates that during the last two years there has been an attempt to crucify Cremona. Furthermore, he went on, this crucifixion is motivated by the wish to embroil the Church with partisan politics.

Axiak did not even try to prove this in any way. He just spouted it out. It seemed like a stream of consciousness.

Certainly, I will not retort in the same vein, that is by ascribing to Axiak any political or other bad motive. Who am I to judge or to impute motives?

Nevertheless, I cordially invite him to state clearly by name and surname who of us, the above or any others, have acted as part of a concerted conspiracy to ensnare the Church in a political quagmire. Come now, Axiak, please do accept the invitation.

Please don’t hide behind a generic statement. Your audience asks you for a clear and unequivocal statement.

Another reaction to what I wrote came from those who have said that although what I wrote is true, I should not have written it publicly.

I respect their position. To write or not to write is not an easy decision and different people can come to different conclusions. I have no problem with that.

But underlying the reasoning of some (certainly not all) of those who hold this position is a culture of omertà.

I do not believe in such a Church; and not even the Church believes in such a Church. I invite you to read what several Church documents say about public opinion within the Church.

The Church is not harmed by dialogue but rather by the siege mentality reflected in the omertà culture or in the holier-than-thou fantastical diatribes like that of Prof. Victor Axiak

The Church landmark document about the media, Communio et Progressio (1971), makes a heartfelt appeal for a vibrant public opinion within the Church.

“Since the Church is a living body, she needs public opinion in order to sustain a giving and taking between her members; without this, she cannot advance in thought and action. Something would be lacking in her life if she had no public opinion. Both pastors of souls and lay people would be to blame for this.”

The document adds that the development of public opinion within the Church is essential. And further down states that apart from matters touching fundamental Christian principles, clergy and laity should encourage a free expression of opinion.

Describing how people feel about the leadership of the Church in Malta clearly falls within the area of freedom of expression Christians are in duty-bound to exercise if they love the Church. Resorting to the media is a must as the internal channels of communication proved to be ineffective, not to say useless. The importance of public opinion and disseminating opinions in the Church is not a new concept in the Church. Paul openly criticised Peter in Galatians.

This freedom of expression is also enshrined in the Code of Canon Law that was revised in 1983 to reflect the dialogical style of communication with the world adopted after Vatican II.

The Church is not harmed by dialogue but rather by the ghetto style or siege mentality that is reflected in the omertà culture or in the holier-than-thou fantastical diatribes like that of Axiak in Times of Malta.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt

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.