Simple question: should the Archbishop keep his mouth shut in the public sphere and only preach about religious matters from the pulpit?

Many people seem to have a simple answer. His supporters quite naturally support his actions while his detractors say he should know his place.

Mgr Charles Scicluna insists he does know his place. “I will not shut up,” he said. “I will not be confined to the sacristy.” According to him, he has a duty to be one of the many voices in society, and failing to speak out is a disservice to the people.

Anyone who has come into contact with Mgr Scicluna will know he is a character. Diminutive he may be, but lacking personality and stature he certainly is not. He is also pretty fearless. Yet on last Tuesday’s edition of the current affairs programme Times Talk, he was, rather unusually for him, also agitated. Angry even.

Angry that he is coming under attack seemingly every time he opens his mouth; angry that his words are constantly being interpreted as partisan political statements; angry that, according to him at least, some of his comments are not being reported by the State broadcaster.

So should he keep his mouth shut? Some would suggest that because of Malta’s very particular historical context, yes he should. They would say that Archbishop Michael Gonzi’s combative style in the 1960s – and the heavy-handed interdiction he imposed on Labour Party members – fomented a political division that must never be allowed to rear its head again.

While it is true that the political climate in Malta today is far better than it was five decades ago, one cannot use that as an argument in relation to today’s Archbishop. Or, rather, one can – but in the opposite sense: it is because Malta is a better place today that we are able to engage in the kind of debate that was just not possible for a fledgling nation in the 1960s.

And, as Mgr Scicluna himself pointed out, if it ever wants to grow up, to mature, this nation must get away from the notion that expressing oneself in favour of one point of view, or one issue, is to lend support to a particular political party.

This can be the case, no doubt about that. But for someone like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – of all people since he has used various avenues to make his views known on a host of issues – to label the Archbishop as the Opposition’s new deputy leader does smack of being, again to use Mgr Scicluna’s words, rather “puerile”.

No one is saying we should live in a confessional state. Nor that a Church leader should have – as may have been the case in the past – disproportionate influence.

But they do have a right, a duty even, to speak out on matters – that may seem to some to go beyond the religious realm – which affect our lives.

The right to life itself, the rights of animals, the plight of migrants and the underprivileged, the environment, the rights of workers. The list can go on. These are issues all active citizens in our society should be voicing their opinion on – not least someone who has been given the challenging task of leading a Church in the modern era.

Opponents to this approach need look no further than Pope Francis. Should he be keeping his mouth shut too? Or should he continue to lead by example and speak out on a range of issues that he believes will improve human existence?

Given his vociferous nature, maybe the Pope could himself apply for the post of Opposition deputy leader. Now that would leave Mgr Scicluna speechless.