Probably most people think President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca devoted most of her address on Republic Day to state that the Catholic religion is no longer central to cultural activity in our country.
I don’t blame anyone who reaches this conclusion as the media framed their reporting of her address from the perspective of the reference to the Catholic religion in two short paragraphs out of a 10-page speech.
This is unfortunate. Such reportage missed the core theme of the address, which I believe was a réveille against the neo-liberal mentality that is becoming mainstream. This mentality should be a matter of concern more than the changing position of the Catholic Church.
The whole country is being influenced by a particular neo-liberal tendency which threatens, among other things, to reduce humans to one dimension – as economic producers – and change the process of secularisation into a process of secularism. These issues were skirted, or rather ignored, by the media.
Anyone who reads the presidential address, in contrast to anyone who reads media reports about it, cannot but be impressed by the number of references to critical thinking. To hammer in the fact that the term is not being used loosely but that it refers to a widely acclaimed academic theory, the writer of the speech also refers to “both scientific and experiential critical thinking”.
A reference to critical literacy is added to leave any doubting Thomases out in the cold. The fingerprints of the academic stream that forms the backbone of the address, if not of the actual writer, are all over the speech.
The model of the society outlined in the address – a society based on critical reflection – is as challenging to all of us as it is innovative to these kinds of ‘formal’ addresses. The themes that emerge and that should have been followed up by more critical reporting, reflecting and commenting on our media are many. Just a sprinkle should suffice.
How could the results of an analysis of society through the tools of critical thinking change current public policy? One consideration, albeit done discreetly, is the President’s routing for critical literacy. If adopted, this proposal would radically change our educational system presently influenced by the utilitarian concept of employability.
The President praised the critical and active citizenship of those who worked for “political responsibility to transform the human situation”. This is in sharp contrast to the concept of citizenship as a commodity to be bought and sold; a degrading innovation introduced with the support of then Minister Coleiro Preca.
The Church is not like a naughty child that has to be carted around as long as it is seen but not heard
The way forward for our country mentioned in the address is for the potential emergence of a critically reflective society interweaving intellectual thought with popular wisdom, instead of a society whose populace holds authority in deference.
Now let me comment about the two paragraphs on the changing positioning of the Catholic religion (not the Catholic Church) in cultural activity (my emphasis).
Why just a reference to ‘cultural activity’, or is ‘cultural’ interpreted here to include a wide range of human activities, including those that lead to the building of a base, legitimising society and the construction of its symbolic universe? Lack of clarity naturally can lead to diverse and possibly conflicting interpretations.
The presidential address refers to secular process, religious diversity and how to act in this context. Impressive! Three complex processes were thrown together in one sentence that was left almost hanging in the air except for a vague reference to extreme reactions by fundamentalists in unspecified countries.
Is the President referring to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in a number of countries or is she referring to the secularist fundamentalism which is also the source of intolerance and subtle persecution, particularly of Christians? Does she see both or any one of them as a threat to the authentic secularisation of our islands?
There should be nothing intrinsically wrong in the changing of the positioning and role of the Catholic Church as a result of such a process. Only fossils do not change.
This process and other social change mechanisms have transformed the role of political parties, parenting, the economy, people’s work and leisure patterns, educational establishment and the media. Why should it surprise us that the same processes have also changed the role of the Church?
The Church is not interested in being society’s centrepiece as its role can be active and beneficial just the same in a changing Malta.
Apostolic Administrator Bishop Charles Scicluna put it very aptly:
“The light does not have to be at the centre of a room to shed light on the entire area, and yeast affects the dough wherever it is found in the mixture. Equally, we must pray for the Church to continue being a strong presence and of service to the Maltese society.”
The Church’s role in a pluralistic Malta is essential, since a pluralistic society depends on the mutual existing of different voices. But the role referred to by Bishop Scicluna cannot be effectively actioned if the Church does not resist the attempt of reducing it to a peg instead of a centrepiece.
The flogging of tickets by the presidential office for its Christmas breakfast and midnight Mass, presided by a cardinal, to boot, where punters had privileged seating at St John’s Co-Cathedral over the ‘hoi polloi’, is just one latest example where the Church was reduced to a convenient peg.
I trust this was not done with the involvement of the Church, and that the Church will publicly express its disapproval of what happened. It was disappointing that the President, who had just told us that the Church has lost its central position in cultural activity, would rush to use it as a peg.
The Church is also reduced to a peg when its prelates and priests are invited to bless events, monuments, band or political clubs, business enterprises, roads... you name it, we bless it!
Church officials sit through inauguration ceremonies, listening to speeches sometimes of a political or commercial nature, smiling inanely throughout, before the final sprinkling of holy water on a commemorative plaque.
Sometimes this is exacerbated by holding a “quddiesa tal-okkazjoni” (Mass tailored for the occasion). Religious rites and ceremonies should only be done in a context where their meaning could be appreciated and explained through a short homily in an environment of faith.
The Church is not like a naughty child that has to be carted around as long as it is seen but not heard. The proclamation of the Word, in season or out of season, on every facet of the human experience in the service of all men and women, particularly the vulnerable, is of essence. This probably can be done more freely and effective by a Church on the periphery, particularly of power structures, than by one in the centre, as long as it resists the attempt to reduce it to a peg.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt