Much has already been written or said about the amendments to the Criminal Code, which the Minister for Justice recently presented to Parliament. If enacted, Bill 113 would introduce significant amendments to our penal law, changes which, as expected, are bound to be controversial since they not only pose another ‘challenge’ to that one important institution in this country, the Church, but also touch upon issues that seem to matter notwithstanding the significant changes that have occurred in our society over the past decades.
The Bill itself lays down that its ‘objects and reasons’ “are to update the provisions of the Criminal Code on crimes against religious sentiment also given that since these laws have been enacted in the 1930s the Criminal Code has been amended several times in order to impose criminal sanctions on the instigation of religious and other forms of hatred and to provide for the better implementation of the right to freedom of expression with regard to the striking of the necessary balance between the right of everyone to receive and impart information and ideas and the need to protect society and vulnerable persons in particular from certain forms of pornography and indecency”.
Once enacted, articles 163 and 164 of the Criminal Code would be abrogated. Together with article 165, the current provisions fall under title IV of the Code, which is entitled ‘Of crimes against the religious sentiment’.
There are, unfortunately, many in the Church who would still rather conceive it as a Societas Perfecta needing no change
Article 163 criminalises the vilification of the Roman Catholic religion whereas article 164 extends this to other cults. Article 165 deals with cases of the obstruction of religious services. The Bill is proposing to reduce this offence to a contravention except where the disturbance causes serious danger, in which case the punishment is increased by one degree.
Leaving aside the argument as to whether articles 163 and 164 should be abrogated or not, what struck me was how some individuals, including opinion leaders, reacted to the expected response of religious leaders such as Archbishop Charles Scicluna.
There is, in circumstances such as these, a tendency by some to resort to comments referring to a return to the 1960s and to fresh attempts by the Catholic Church to meddle in political issues. My immediate reaction to this is one of disappointment because I would have hoped that we had matured enough as a nation not to find it necessary to exhume the ghosts of the past whenever convenient and, often, in an attempt to exert pressure on Archbishop Michael Gonzi’s successors in particular to shut up whenever it suits us.
On the one hand, we seem to want a Church that is more in tune with modern times and more relevant to contemporary society. However, when there is some attempt by the Church leadership in that direction, this is not well met by the very same quarters that constantly harp on the need for change and updating.
Last week, I was amused, to say the least, that a local newspaper carried on the front page the comments by a leading Maltese theologian, who I greatly esteem, on the recent pronouncements regarding bestowing titles on particular churches as well as the tendency by young clergymen to perpetuate anachronistic practices in the Church. I fully agree with him and fail to understand how, in this post-Vatican Council II Church, being guided by the humble Pope Francis who is constantly and visibly leading the Church to become more authentic and in tune with the Gospel, it should still mean so much to some, including a significant number of religious and clergymen, to have a church declared a basilica or for a parish priest to be called archpriest instead.
What really struck me about the feature I am referring to was that when the front page article continued on the inner pages of the newspaper, on that same page there was a whole article on how declaring the church in question a basilica would respond to the deep desire of the population of that particular locality. On the same page, the newspaper carried two articles, one in total contradiction to the other.
To me, this really brings out the absolute confusion some, if not many, end up in when confronted with the religious phenomenon.
It is a confusion that is not limited to these two small islands of ours. When the Synod of Bishops reconvenes in Rome next month, cardinals and bishops who have been labelled, mostly by the media, as either ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, will resume the heated debate on how the Church must come to terms with sa ociety that is in constant metamorphosis and no longer conforms to the models perpetuated by the Christian churches across the centuries.
One of the major issues to be taken up at the synod is that of how the Catholic Church should regard divorced and remarried Catholics. The position of the Church so far has been that of excluding these individuals from communion. Speaking at the beginning of August, Pope Francis stressed that these people are not excommunicated and should not be treated as if they had been.
A ‘blocking minority’ of bishops in the synod have, so far, stopped any attempts to adopt a more flexible approach to the current ban on allowing divorced and remarried persons to receive communion. They consider this as a betrayal of traditional teaching on the permanence of marriage.
This theme was also taken up by Gozo Bishop Mario Grech in his pastoral letter on the occasion of the feast of the Assumption. The bishop, who is representing the Maltese and Gozitan Churches at the Synod, decided to call a spade a spade when referring to challenges facing families today.
Firstly, he recognises that there no longer exists one form of family, that is a man and a woman united by the sacrament of matrimony and their offspring. Reflecting, in my view, a difficulty to accept diversity as a gift rather than as something one can no longer ignore, he seems to imply that all other forms of families are inferior because they somehow represent something gone wrong such as a widow or widower who has lost his or her spouse or separated and divorced persons. Admittedly, he concedes that it is difficult to find a perfect family.
The bishop refers to huge changes in relation to marriage and the family. He mentions how the family has been impoverished in terms of ideals and values and that it is passing through moments of precariousness thanks to the introduction of divorce, civil unions, gender identity issues, assisted reproduction and others.
He speaks of these as factors that undermine Catholic certainties about marriage and the family.
Hence, although no longer harping on the fact that only one model of ‘family’ exists, the implication remains one that renders individuals in any other form of union, which is not a sacramental union between man and woman, deficient, a necessary inconvenience that we can no longer avoid because it is no longer negligible.
The Gozo Bishop takes up Pope Francis’s words regarding divorced and remarried persons not being excommunicated. He picks up on one of the ancient symbols of the Church, that of describing the Church as Peter’s boat and states that no one has the right to refuse any other individual the right to board the vessel and that, whatever a person’s condition or choices, he or she has a place in the Christian community.
Pope Francis as well as the two Maltese bishops have an uphill struggle in their attempt to reach out to those who have been made to feel excluded and ensure that the Church becomes more inclusive not only in pastoral orientation but also in its official teaching.
There are, unfortunately, many in the Church who would still rather conceive it as a Societas Perfecta. When something is perfect then, of course, you don’t need to change anything.
The Church must come to terms with change sooner or later and it is good to take note that, despite the summer heat, some signs of movement in that direction have been given.