Last Sunday, a newspaper published a blow by blow account of a woman’s relationship with Fr Charles Fenech. She is alleging that she is the victim of sexual abuse. Actually, what was published was an abridged version of her affidavit. We do not know which details were omitted and why.
The ones that were printed were graphic enough – a record of furtive fumblings which seems to have taken place over a span of years. The woman in question would drive to her time-allocated tryst on alternate Saturdays.
Along the years, she seems to have discovered other women vying for Fenech’s attention. Still, this does not seem to have been a bar to her accepting a trip to Lourdes partially sponsored by Fr Charles.
Her uncle accompanied her on this trip. She says he knew what was going on and her obsession with Fr Charles. Nine months after the Lourdes trip, in March last year, the woman filed a complaint asking the police to proceed with criminal action.
Although she was not a minor, she claims that her mental state made her vulnerable to abuse. When the stream of medical certificates produced by Fr Charles eventually dries up, all the evidence will be heard, and a judgment about his criminal liability or otherwise will be made.
The whole due process bit has been bypassed and he has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion. I don’t think this can be avoided.
There is no way anybody can shackle people’s ability to reach their own conclusions on the knowledge they may have of the facts at any particular moment in time. So that’s not really the point here.
What I’m interested in is the different ways in which the public reacts to reports of sexual peccadillos by different people holding a position of trust.
Take the present case. From the reports that have emerged to date it appears that Fenech has reneged on his religious vows and juggled a string of women on the side. Immoral behaviour certainly and not at all charitable. Whether it is criminal behaviour is another matter.
What is certain is that it has earned him nearly universal condemnation. Why is this kind of opprobrium not also shown towards, say, politicians or public officials who philander?
Why isn’t the public’s reaction the same when politicians’ dalliances are exposed? Why is a sexual scandal the undoing of some politicians, while others survive?
What people hate more than actual wrongdoing, is duplicity
Why did François Hollande’s secret meetings with his actress mistress do nothing for his street cred, whereas Bill Clinton’s popularity ratings soared to the highest ever during the impeachment proceedings over the Monica Lewinsky affair? And closer to home, why do politicians’ extramarital relationships attract little attention?
It’s not as if most people aren’t in the know about the games of musical beds being played. The bushfire telegraph system works as well, if not better, than any formal report in the media. So why hasn’t there been much of an outcry over this?
Is the public blasé because the sexual mores of its elected representatives represent its own mores? I would say that’s part of it. If the members of the electorate aren’t too cut up about fooling around with their spouses or partners, it’s a bit rich for them to expect their elected representatives to act differently. After all, the political class is simply a sample of Maltese society.
I think the public could live with philandering politicians. In fact, it has done so for many years with people turning a blind eye to the affairs of politicians of all political stripes.
There was also an unofficial pact of silence between the main political parties – a sort of ‘I won’t reveal yours and you won’t reveal mine’ kind of deal. The only exceptions to this lax attitude occurs if the politician has abused his or her position by conferring privileges to the new love interest or when there is hypocrisy involved.
People tend not too take much notice if politicians are getting their jollies outside the matrimonial bed, but to get justifiably annoyed if the ministerial bedfellow is then given perks elsewhere.
Another thing that raises eyebrows is hypocrisy. If, for example, a politician makes himself out to be a promoter of family values and then runs around with someone he isn’t officially hitched to, that’s going to raise eyebrows.
Because what people hate more than actual wrongdoing, is duplicity. Bible-thumping and then ignoring the moral code that you preach is one sure way to earning public condemnation.
And that’s why Fenech’s alleged sexual misconduct has gone down so badly with the public. Not necessarily because it constitutes a crime but because it breaches the moral code which he was supposed to uphold or profess. Politicians should beware of falling foul of public opinion on precisely the same counts.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt