I counted up to hundred after I read on the website of the Archdiocese the homily that Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino, the Judicial Vicar, delivered on the occasion of the beginning of the Forensic Year. Then I counted to another hundred. After counting up to four hundred, I felt I had to react in order to emphasise that the Monsignor's thoughts do not represent the best insights of Catholic theology.

Since the website of the Archdiocese is not visited by thousands I thought that a short but strong note in my regular column on The Sunday Times would be enough.

However, then things escalated. Yesterday (October 10) RTK and The Times covered the homily.

Passe theology

Thanks to providence or fate, it was my turn to review newspapers on Campus FM. I usually review them on Monday. Since a colleague was abroad, I was asked to replace him. Could I stay silent when faced with a front-page story reproducing the homily of a very high official of the Church in Malta? If you answer in the affirmative I think you are expecting a lot.

Worse still; the story had added comments by the Monsignor. Among other things, he said that "the Archbishop cannot say anything different from what I am saying." He also insisted that what he said were Christ's words not his.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Instead of "Roma locuta est, causa finita est", should we now say "When Said Pullicino speaks let no dog bark"? I have no problems with the Monsignor's right to think what he wants to think and to say what he thinks. However, I have a problem with his attempt to say that he was expressing was also the opinion of the Archbishop and Christ himself!

The homily by the Monsignor reveals a theology which is passe. His vision of the Church's role in society is myopic.

An old priest phoned me yesterday and read an extract from a classic textbook of moral theology that was used when he was a seminarian some fifty years ago. Even this old textbook said something completely different from what was said by Mgr Said Pullicino.

Comments made by a number of members of the legal profession in The Times indicate that legion will not be the name of those who will loose any sleep over the words of the Monsignor. I will not waste time refuting his words point by point: not worth the effort.

Why post it on the website?

The point I wish to make is not about substance but about form.

Who decided that the homily by the Monsignor should be posted on the website of the Archdiocese? Why was it not removed when it is clear that it does not reflect the position publicly taken by the Archbishop? If I send the webmaster a copy of the homily I will deliver tomorrow, will he or she post it?

I can understand if they just trash it. I am a no-body while Said Pullicino is both a monsignor and also a very high official of the Church. Nevertheless, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology is not a no body. Why were his comments to The Times never posted on the website of the Archdiocese?

Anyone who is keen on conspiracy theories can keep on asking such questions and even spin a cloak and dagger TV serial. I am not so inclined. I am certain that the homily was uploaded for some contingent and objectively irrelevant reason. It was not posted there for a strategic reason. It was not removed just because no one had the guts to do it.

However, the presence of the homily on the official website would give it an aura of credibility and of officialdom, at least with those who think that the Church is a well oiled and organised structure which does things as part of a holistic strategy.

This aura of semi-official respectability was strengthened by the coverage that the homily was given by RTK yesterday. I think that the homily had news value and should have been reported. Did RTK do a follow-up in its news bulletins today to show that there are different views than those expressed by Monsignor Said Pullicino?

Whoever is responsible should know that perception is king. Please blame no one for concluding that the prominence of the homily on the official website gives it the veneer of the respectability resulting from official approval.

Is the Church a beggar?

The homily of the Monsignor is not the only form and substance issue the Church had this week.

Earlier on this week Curia officials published the financial accounts of the Archdiocese and gave information about the pastoral work that is financed by the Church. During this press conference the Church was described as a beggar. Monsignor Portelli who uttered that statement probably feels justified to use that term and probably he has objective reasons to believe so.

Like the phase "Murderous Feasts" used by the same monsignor in the diocesan magazine, Flimkien, also this phrase is an unfortunate one. In Malta no one believes (I include myself in this "all") that the Church is a beggar. The worse was still to come.

Within a few hours, the Archdiocese inaugurated the brand new headquarters of its bank. The headquarters cost hundreds of thousands of Euros and the bank is worth millions. (I will not go into the argument of whether the Church should own a bank or not.) My point is one about perceptions.

The perception that the Church is not a beggar will be strengthened by the emphasis on the fact that the Church owns a bank. This unnecessarily created PR problem should have been avoided unless the Church wants to prove that it is very loyal to the words of the Gospel.

"Do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing." I do not think that that was the case.