After the Church’s splendid hibernation (bar some exceptions) during the gay marriage and adoption debate there seems to be a fresh mid-spring breeze in the air. Six curial or inter-diocesan commissions have just released a statement aimed at enlightening prospective voters for the forthcoming European Parliament elections.

Since the statement can easily be accessed from the website of the Archdiocese I will not summarise it here, preferring to comment about some of its content and the significance of the publication.

While the political parties are basing their campaigns totally on local issues, the Church document is based on European issues viewed from the perspective of the Church’s social teaching. One could say that this is the most European-based manifesto touted around during the electoral campaign.

Solidarity, human dignity and the common good are the tripod of values on which the statement is based. This brings to mind a May 1 tweet by Pope Francis: “I ask everyone with political responsibility to remember two things: human dignity and the common good.”

These basic principles are then briefly applied to concrete issues such as migration, vulnerable people, the environment, precarious employment, children at the risk of poverty, religious liberty and unemployment.

The writers then made an attempt to further translate these important (and many times, hot issues) into more concrete examples, but this generally tended to skirt away from giving an incisive application by illustrating the argument with local cases.

The right to work and precarious work could have been illustrated by references to the local situation. The document shied away from defining the family as that made up of a man and a woman. Specifically local environmental issues were not mentioned. Such local illustrations would have added value to the document.

By refraining from doing this sufficiently well the signatory commissions risked having a document outlining a general statement the type of which most would agree with in principle but not necessarily so in practice. Besides, the listing of local examples would have made the document look like an agenda that our MEPs would be expected to follow.

There could have also been more emphasis on European values that have to be safeguarded. It is unfortunate that some on the local scene are pushing forward a myopic version of such values, equating them solely with a particular so-called liberal agenda.

However, the fact that six ecclesial commissions managed to come up with a joint statement on this subject is already a welcome first. Notwithstanding my critical observations I consider the contents very enlightening.

This statement remedies to some extent, albeit a modest one, the absence of the Church from the public debate on the occasion of Malta’s first decade as member of the European Union. The abovementioned commissions – in the absence of others – would have rendered all of us a sterling service had they teamed up to mark this anniversary.

At least they gave us a very pro-EU declaration. They unequivocally stated: we need the EU.

In the run-up to EU accession there was a lot of ambivalence in several Church circles. Part of the ambivalence was due to lack of information.

I remember a very high-powered and to a degree tense meeting, where top brass ecclesiastics were warning the rest of us about the ‘dangers’ of joining the EU. It transpired that the examples they gave had nothing to do with the EU. All these examples all had to do with actions of the Council of Europe. Unfortunately they thought that one equals the other.

Some may ask why I described this document as the position of the Church.

Given the high status of the signatory commissions and their collective clout one could really and truly say that this was a statement by the Church in Malta. We should move away from thinking that the Church expresses itself only when the bishops speak. The Church can and does speak on different levels; quite naturally, each level has its own authority and competence.

The bishops’ voice – when uttered – is the most authoritative, but the voice of the rest is also important. There should be more statements at this level, quite naturally, not at the exclusion but in co-ordination with the former.

There could have also been more emphasis on European values that have to be safeguarded

Given that the statement by these commissions must have been cleared at the highest level I doubt whether we need an episcopal pre-electoral declaration. What we need is a way of making it clear to those who need things spelled out for them that this statement represents the position of the Church on the subject. Given the present unhappy situation at the top end of the Church in these islands I am afraid that a statement by the bishops risks changing this mid-spring breeze into a scirocco.

• It was this column which first announced that the Communications Office of the Curia, in reply to my queries, has informed me that the bishops will be publishing the results of the Vatican questionnaire in preparation for the October Extraordinary Synod about the Family. That was February 23. I had praised this courageous decision, which would have placed our Church among those who opted for full transparency in preparation for next October’s Synod.

Since then, the report about the questionnaire was published and parts of it were leaked to The Sunday Times of Malta. These were accompanied by comments from the president of the Episcopal Conference, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech.

This leak does not fulfil the promise to publish. I have since then repeatedly asked when the full report will be published as promised. A date has never been given. The report has not even been discussed by the Presbyteral and Pastoral Councils though some members have been given a copy.

I don’t think I am the only one eager to discuss the results of the public consultation.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt