Lino Spiteri, for reasons known only to him, alleges that an attempted coup against Archbishop Paul Cremona is in the air (August 26). I do not hold this against him. His background is politics where, it seems, plots, coups, back-room stabbings and conspiracies are quite common.

Let me put his mind at rest. The Church is different. In the Church, we discuss openly without any fear of victimisation. We leave coups and conspiracies for others. The attempt to put a wedge between the Archbishop and those who recently wrote about problems affecting the Church in Malta falls flat.

Spiteri will be happy to know that together with Fr Renè Camilleri and Fr Joe Inguanez, I had a meeting with the Archbishop. He gladly acknowledged that our contributions to the media emanate from our love for the Church and appreciated our good intentions.

The meeting was an example of the fraternal spirit of respect that should characterise the relationship between priests and their bishop. We had a fruitful, frank and open discussion about the problems affecting the Church and we will be meeting again in the coming days. (The Archbishop approved the contents of this paragraph.)

Spiteri also tries to put a wedge between Camilleri and myself.

Although prior to publication, Camilleri did not discuss with me his comments to the media and neither did I, both agree that reforms are sorely needed if the Church we love and serve is to move forward. Both agree that there is a radical feeling of discontent among the clergy and the grass roots of the Church and that this malaise has to be addressed.

We both agree that it was high time to speak in public about this issue and we were not afraid to do so because we strongly believe that the Church herself welcomes and encourages a vibrant public opinion as essential for its well-being.

We both agree that the accusations of a political agenda in what we have written are totally untrue and those who disseminate such false allegations are doing a great disservice to the Church.

Camilleri and I are reading on the same page when we advocate for widespread reforms within the Church. Trying to pit us against each other is futile. (Camilleri is in agreement with the contents of this paragraph.)

Spiteri describes me as a hawk who wants hawkish reactions from the Archbishop. This is another mirage of Spiteri.

I am hardly a hawk. Let me count the ways.

When a very high official of the Curia said on television that a Catholic MP who votes in favour of divorce legislation commits a sin, I publicly declared without delay that I strongly disagree. I criticised the decision to stop Deborah Schembri from serving as a lawyer in the Church tribunal. I also criticised the use of the procession of Our Lady of Sorrows to broadcast anti-divorce messages.

What was hawkish about this?

Dialogue, especially with people who are not in agreement with the Church, is always the way forward

I repeatedly defended the right of Catholics to be part of different political groupings stating that political pluralism is the norm among Catholics. I described the Church as a rainbow featuring different opinions and positions as this is part of the DNA of being a Catholic since the word ‘catholic’ means, essentially, ‘universal’. Wilfully excluding people from the Church is in direct opposition to her essence.

Dialogue, especially with people who are not in agreement with the Church, within and without, is always the way forward. The Church thrives on it. In fact, I had openly criticised the pastoral letter dealing with IVF because I considered it as a prime example of a stumbling block towards the Church’s mission of inclusion.

What was hawkish in these positions?

In my commentary to The Sunday Times of Malta besides referring briefly to perceptions that exist about the leadership situation I put forward radical proposals about parish feasts (organisers should give as charity the amount spent on festas); the creative celebration of Sunday Mass; the turning of parish budgets into a pastoral instrument reflecting the true nature of the Church and a concrete proposal for the change in the leadership style that should be adopted in parishes.

I could have stopped at criticising the leadership impasse but I chose to go beyond it because the Church is more than that.

Is there anything hawkish in these proposals?

Can Spiteri point towards any writing of mine which states that the Church should don the vestiges of a warrior as he wrongfully alleged in his piece in Times of Malta? Or where did I ever write anything which even indirectly states that the Church “should stand up to the government on what are termed to be moral issues, transcending the right of people who want it to be a secular State”?

Spiteri might want me to refresh his memory by pointing him to another commentary of mine regarding the necessary separation of Church and State where I quoted President John Kennedy’s position on this matter before the 1960 presidential election.

All my writings point to a diametrically different position. Indeed, some people in the Church sometimes criticise me for not championing enough the ‘rights’ of the Church in a secular world.

So why is Spiteri being grossly economical with the truth in my regard? Opinions are sacred but the respect for that inconvenient reality called the truth is even more so.