The silence of the lambs

In the last couple of months the bishops, on more than one occasion, exhorted Catholics to take a more active stand in the public sphere. They referred to a “responsible and fearless commitment” and warned against people remaining silent because of “fear of criticism.”

It seems that among the Shepherds there is the feeling that the lambs are remaining silent and they wish to prod them into action. This brought with it the charge of crusading, which I don’t think is fair. If the environmentalists vociferously make their case in public then their actions are described as an exercise in advocacy. But if a similar kind of action is done by a church group then the action is described as a crusade. Can anyone tell me why there is this different attitude?

As, in actual fact, the flock is neither homogeneous nor regimented – conditions that conservatives strive to make the order of the day – different sounds and silences can be picked up. The Environment Commission and the Justice and Peace do not shy from grazing on controversial grass. These, I guess, are not that part of the flock that is worrying the bishops. These commissions’ forays in the public sphere can create a different kind of problem since they are bound to be met by fire not of the friendly type. This should not be considered as a problem, though. An important caveat could perhaps be made: these are Church commissions and the media should present their statements as such and not as the Church’s official position.

In a collective statement the bishops referred to those who keep silent because they are afraid of criticism. Earlier on this very week (on October 15, in fact), Archbishop Cremona made a similar statement during his brief address to the Synodal bishops meeting in Rome. After stating that many Maltese Catholics live in a state of nostalgia and shock, he continued: “Many times they stand in fear of speaking openly before this, many times, hostile culture.”

Whoever they may be, these are the kind of sheep that shame their name and status. They deserve the appellative “chicken” more than the appellative “sheep”. Are they many? If the answer is in the affirmative, as the Archbishop’s speech to the Synod seems to imply, it is very pertinent to ask why? Could it be that the paternalistic way the Church was very often run, stunted the growth of many of our lay people and did not help them prepare for the changes that occurred in our society?

Such silent sheep do service neither to the church nor to society. As Archbishop Cremona said on more than one occasion a pluralist society by definition needs different voices and opinion to function well.

There is, in my opinion, something worse than silent sheep. These are the sheep that emit yesteryear’s bleats throwing the fold to the Jurassic period, or thereabouts. It is not the first time that I cringe reading or listening to individuals that are clearly neither prepared technically to take part in media programmes not prepared intellectually. What they say would fit Iran or Afghanistan more than they fit to-day’s Malta. Archbishop Cremona, during his Independence Day homily and in his article to the Malta To-Day June 1, 2008 (just to mention two examples) charted with great clarity the way forward for the dynamic relationship between church and state, religion and society. Unfortunately, many in the Church lack this clarity.

The members of the flock should be particularly noisy within their home pen as well.

This is not happening as much as it should. It is a pity that today, in the Church, there are no grass roots advocacy groups, (remember the priests’ association Christus Rex?) worthy of note. In the last twenty-five years there was what I call a process of privatization. Many abandoned the ecclesial public sphere and retreated into their own private spaces. These ecclesial private spaces take the form of one’s lay movement, parish or some other area of work or personal interest.

Perhaps trying to find why this is so is as useful are trying to find out why Catholics of different shades of opinions prefer the comfy shade than the sun of the country’s public space which can be scorching.

The day that time did not stand still

It seems that this particular posting is still active so much so that from time to time it makes it back into the list of the ten Most Commented.

In that piece I wrote, among other things, that:

“A few days later an English journalist recounted to me his shock when a senior government official (whose name he mentioned) told him verbatim: We attacked the Curia and they succumbed and came to negotiate.”

I distanced myself from the assertion in this statement which is very clearly untrue. I wrote:

“People with little minds misunderstand the actions of wiser people who are always ready to extend the hand of friendship.”

I strongly distance myself from the false allegation of the “high government official”. I was head of the Press Office of the Curia at that time and so I know first hand that it is not true to say that Archbishop Mercieca “succumbed and came to negotiate.”

History will undoubtedly show that Archbishop Mercieca’s actions in those troublesome Eighties were inspired by his courage, love of our people and the interests of the Church. His sense of prudence emanated from his convictions. Besides serving our county, he helped to save it in a difficult hour.