The secular goose and the Episcopal gander

Last week’s blog – If God says so - was well received. It made it to the most commented list. (The Editor gives us a hug every time this happens. So please do comment.) Two or three weeks ago my blog titled: “This is not the way to debate divorce”, also made it to the top ten. The one about Kate and Michelle was not similarly welcomed. Their image managers should be fired immediately for not mounting a decent campaign to boost their image.

So what should I write about to-day? “Write about the militant speech that the Archbishop delivered on Victory Day,” a friend suggested. He was clearly disappointed. But since for him Cremona can make no wrong, he added: “It was not his fault miskin. It is the fault of those terrible monsinjuri konservattivi that surround him at that horrible Curia.”

The evil monsinjuri konservattivi

That’s a good subject, I said to myself.

I tried to image Archbishop Cremona tied to his throne in the dark dungeons of the Kurja. (Even they are fighting to survive the surcharge.) The evil monsinjuri konservattivi were shouting in his face, burning him with cigarettes, putting red hot coals on his chest and beating him with iron rods. Finally the good soul succumbed to their pressure and agreed to deliver the nefarious homily of Victory Day. Henceforth the day will commemorate the victory of the monsinjuri konservattivi over Mgr Cremona.

I tried to paint the scene in my imagination which I then could transcribe in my blog. To tell you the truth I found the enterprise a bit difficult. Was it Mgr Depasquale who handled the burning coals? Or was it Mgr Cordina who burnt him with cigarettes? He has a saintly face; but no one ever knows what the human heart harbours! Or was it Mgr Mifsud Bonnici who shouted the most obscene threats? Who could it be? Perhaps Mgr Tony Portelli was the one who used the iron rods?

Naaaay. None of this sounds credible.

In desperation I racked my brain. I got it! Eureka! (Fortunately I was not taking a bath at the time of the illumination.) It must have been Mgr Anton Gouder. His oversized stature (due to obesity) gives him the looks of an evil manigold. Alas, I got it wrong once more. He is not a monsignor. He had refused the red socks which were the final act of magnanimity of Archbishop Mercieca. Besides, the strict diet Fr Gouder is doing is diminishing his size considerably. Any bathroom scale will come to my help on this one.

Image wise I had a problem. What was I to do? I was distraught.

Militant? My foot!

Since I do not usually put up the white flag quickly, I resorted to Plan B. What about reading the homily to find examples of the Archbishop’s violent use of language, his militant battle cry and the attempt to rouse the troops into a attack on anything secular? I would then weave them together to show that behind Mgr Cremona welcoming smile evil lurks. (I would ignore the fact that he, miskin, did it under duress). I would surely find ample evidence to support the criticism levelled against the homily by so many wise and able commentators who undoubtedly researched very well their pieces.

It turned out that this was a very stupid way of proceeding since one should not feel obliged to read about what one is set to write about. Remember: I said so therefore it is so! No need for research and to hell (apologies for using a theological term during a secular debate) with facts!

My stupid strategy landed me in hot water. I could not find any militant spirit in that blessed (a fitting term, I guess) homily. While commentators criticized Archbishop Cremona for criticising the secular it turned out that he criticised secularism. These two terms refer to different realities. Mgr Cremona did not speak against the legitimate distinction between the religious and the secular. He did not in any way deny the legitimate autonomy of created reality. He advocated no Taliban state. He attacked secularism or the ideology which would rather have the church shut up in the sacristy emulating the behaviour of the three proverbial monkeys.

The whole debate about his speech – it is the fifth most commented item on timesofmalta.com – has am eerie tinge to it. If an environmental NGO, for example, says that silence is not an option for its members everyone would praise this stance as an effort to get people to shoulder their environmental responsibilities. If the Archbishop makes the same appeal to Church members he is accused of initiating a crusade. If a socially oriented NGO vehemently condemn one particular position and proposes a different one, people will say that they are engaging in advocacy. If the Archbishop timidly proposes an alternative to some position he is accused of militancy. If Greenpeace scale the façade of Castille they are admired for doing a well thought out media event. If the Archbishop raises a finger he would be accused of trying to impose the teaching of the Church on the rest of society.

It is very clear that in the estimation of many, what is good for the secular goose is not good for the Episcopal gander!

Sant’s admirable stand

In It-Torca of the last two Sundays – September 7 and 14 – Dr Alfred Sant wrote extensively describing his fight against cancer. The articles are very well written. This is to be expected from a writer of the calibre of Dr Sant.

But these articles have value on another level as well. Dr Sant bared his soul and shared with us this very difficult and at the same time intimate experience. These two articles show a side of Dr Sant which most did not know about. Besides, his courageous behaviour and its description in both articles give a boost to those passing through similar experiences.

Last Sunday’s article can be accessed on http://www.it-torca.com/news.asp?newsitemid=7440