Numerous opinions have been expressed by some members of the clergy and laymen on the prevailing situation of the Church in Malta and, in particular, the leadership qualities of Archbishop Paul Cremona. I tend to feel that some of them are a bit brash, to say the least, others subtle, while a lot has been said by laymen in favour of the Church and its leader.

I feel perturbed on how this will impact the spiritual well-being of the faithful.

Some questions that beckon an answer are: is this the tip of the iceberg? Are there more who are in disagreement? How should I, as a lay member of the Church, react to this situation? How do I interpret the words ‘leadership crisis’ within the Church context and how does this affect my spiritual well-being?

I would humbly express my feelings and reactions as a member of the Catholic Church who regularly attends Mass and am hopefully striving to lead a life as required by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As I grow older, I have become more careful in expressing opinions and being judgemental on anything, for that matter, and would surely be on my guard when it comes to subjects relating to the Church. You see, opinions should not always be black or white; in fact, they come in shades of grey. I am careful for the basic reason that, in addition to preserving the formation of my conscience, I would not want to be responsible in any way for misinforming somebody else’s.

During childhood catechism lessons I was taught that one should strive at attaining a well-formed conscience by essentially adopting an upright and truthful attitude to the true goodwill of our creator.

Since we are, at times, subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin, it is indispensable for a human being to have a conscience which has been formed by a true understanding of the teachings of the Church.

The rule of thumb in adopting an informed conscience is in asking oneself whether you would want something done to others, done to yourself. If the answer is no, then you should not do it.

Can the recent ruse by a number of clergy, no matter how well intentioned, actually mislead the faithful?

If I were the Archbishop would I want one or more of the clergy expressing their conflicts of conscience in such a manner? Would I be hurt by such comments? Would I worry about the future of the Catholic Church in Malta? Would I consider resigning from my anointed responsibility?

This is something I cannot answer because there is a long haul between having empathy with the Archbishop and being in his shoes.

I consider the members of the clergy as teachers and, at that, an instrument and guidance in forming one’s conscience.

Therefore, in expressing their opinions I am sure they keep in mind that what they say will impart and impact an influence on the conscience of their listeners. Will it misinform more than form one’s conscience?

It annoys me a lot to think that very little compassion is being shown towards the man and the responsibilities he shoulders.

I empathise with him in the sense that, at times, a leadership position can be humanely a lonely one indeed and in spiritual matters unless born with faith more so.

I expect more understanding and prudence from men who form such an integral part of the Church. For a man of God I would expect them to have a more sensitive understanding of the role of the leader of the Maltese Church.

I have never had the privilege of meeting him, but the Archbishop comes across to me as being a man of great humility, love and spirituality. I do follow him as closely as possible whenever he preaches, writes or features in discussions. I can still feel his preaching through his silence.

For me, he always came across as the shepherd looking after the lost sheep. I see him as being careful in his thoughts and expressing them in ways that do not conflict with the universal teaching of the Church and, at the same time, leaving the door always open for dialogue and consensus. He oozes compassion and love for the children of God.

Another preoccupation that I have is how easily it has become for Catholic priests to express publicly their objections or conflicts of conscience at the way the local Church is being run or as some of them have explained the leadership crisis.

There is nothing implicitly wrong in having some of the clergy not in total synch with the leadership of the Church, in fact, this may be healthy. It is normal to have contentions but I feel that expressing them in public can be wrong for many reasons.

To the non-discerning Church member, these opinions might lead to misconceptions such as who forms part of the Church.

If these writings are interpreted as an ‘us and them’ divide within the clergy, wouldn’t this serve to dilute the faith of the other members of the Church?

If the Archbishop has become such an easy target for some clergymen how would one expect a laymen to interpret this? Is this not a sign of disrespect towards the head of the Maltese Church?

Church doctrine states that a bishop is ordained, consecrated and entrusted with the duty of providing oversight and authority. He is given responsibility by Christ to lead, teach and exercise authority over the faithful. The members of the clergy assist their bishop in shepherding the faithful.

Can the recent ruse by a number of clergy, no matter how well intentioned, actually mislead the faithful? Can this be misinterpreted to exacerbate the wrong belief that one does not need to attend church functions to be a member of the Church?

It is stated that people holding positions of authority and trust are amenable to adopting different leadership styles. Not all persons in leadership positions display the same personality traits but are still successful.

This is acceptable in business environments and much depends on the dynamics of the whole team. But Jesus was not a manager; neither was he running a successful business. He preached to the living, the love of God the father, providing a spiritual leadership that culminated with his untimely death on the cross.

Jesus had a following not because of the position he held in society but because he was seen to by his followers as being someone who was larger than themselves.

Doesn’t this scenario also apply to the Church on leadership matters, which, after all, should not be construed as a business entity but a spiritual one at that? Could it be that the expected leadership qualities of some of the clergy are at a tangent with those displayed by the Archbishop? If so, should these conflicts be displayed in such a flagrant manner?

Does this situation indicate that there is a serious communication problem within the Church hierarchy? I would be interested to know how communication within the clerical community is being handled. Could it be that the feelings of these priests have not been communicated directly or not heeded to by the Archbishop?

If there is a communication problem then how difficult would it be for these same people to teach us faithful the words of Christ? I have long come to believe that a person who does not communicate well does not teach well.

Another leadership quality one looks upon is the ability of a leader to adapt to and, moreover, be an agent of change.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church will not change stemming from the belief that it has been written through divine intervention. Is the prudence and tolerance that has been shown in recent years by the Church being construed as a weakness in leadership?

Jesus preached repentance, which essentially means looking at old ways with new eyes. This message is alive and still true in these days and we should look at the Church with a new vision. In criticising the leadership of the Church, how does one reconcile his views to this new vision?

I perceive a spiritual leader much distinct from a temporal one. I see him as one who can fill a room with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and gentleness, even while speaking on hard things.

Recent writings may have prompted a lot of discussion, however, it may have also done spiritual damage to the Church.