It was good to hear that the vigil in support of Archbishop Paul Cremona, which was to be held at Attard in front of his residence, has been cancelled.

Holding a prayer vigil in support of the Archbishop, in my opinion, is not a good idea, even if it is a vigil of prayer. Nor is the online petition seeking signatures as a sign of support.

I am not surprised the Archbishop himself expressed the wish that this vigil won’t take place and that people should pray for the Church in Malta elsewhere, at home or in their churches.

The least helpful thing in this particular situation of the Malta Church is for the formation of two opposite camps: those for the Archbishop and those against him. I cannot read anybody’s mind but I do not think that this was the intention of those who began this critique, although, given our tendency to polarise things and to see all in black and white terms, they could have foreseen it.

I strongly believe that both those who feel the Archbishop should be supported and those who believe that some loyal criticism is necessary have the good of the Malta Church in mind. This is common ground and should be our point of departure.

The meeting the Archbishop was reported to have had with some of the priests in question was a step in the right direction. Clarifications and exchange of ideas are always helpful. We do not know what has come out of that meeting. Maybe a short note about its contents would have been appropriate.

The way forward should be for a forum in which such an exchange could be made among more people, both those who are directly involved and others whose contribution could be helpful. Nothing but good can come out of feedback that is well given and well received.

The least helpful thing in this particular situation of the Malta Church is for the formation of two opposite camps

The hurt of people at having seen a respected and appreciated archbishop ‘attacked’ is understandable. On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind that it was not the man who was being criticised but his leadership.

This distinction is important because it helps us avoid setting up pro and against camps to the detriment of the very Malta Church.

It also has to be kept in mind that leadership, especially leadership in the Church, should not be limited to capabilities in administration. Church leadership appeals directly to the community; the head of a local Church needs to be able to inspire the community and the Archbishop does this wonderfully by his goodness, his gentleness, his affability, his friendliness, and his pastoral commitment, among other things. An excellent administrator who lacks these qualities could hardly be a good Church leader.

The Church under Pope Francis is being revitalised because the Holy Father has both charismas; he is a very good administrator but he also inspires people. Actually, the second came first and people could see it the very first moment he stepped on to the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica to be announced as the new pope.

Not all have the two charismas. I believe that being inspirational is much more important than being a good administrator because being inspirational is a charisma which you either have or you have not while if you are lacking in administrative capabilities you can always seek the help of others.

It is for this reason that I suggest that a forum consisting of the right people should be set up to see to improvements that can be made.

Prayer vigils may be held, by all means, but their aim should be to pray for the good of the Church not to support one side against the other.