It has been a sad and perplexing week for most of us. The conviction of the two out of three priests who systematically abused a generation of young boys that were entrusted in their care has been received with mixed feelings.
Many people feel that the sentence was inadequate and are implying that the long arm of the Church has influenced the course of justice. They may be right.
For those who believe in God and those who believe in the message of Jesus Christ, the abuse of children is, by Jesus Christ’s own admission, such an unforgivable sin that the perpetrator had better tie a millstone around his neck and drown himself. These are indeed very strong words from the Son of God who is love and compassion itself.
If we truly believe Christ’s words one wonders how the abusers even dared think of doing what they did, not for fear of human justice but because of the total absence if not negation of divine mercy for this particular sin.
It is, for a Catholic born and bred like myself, most painful to have to read about these cases, which, over the last decade, have besmirched, irretrievably and irrevocably, the good name of the Church throughout the world as more and more cases come to light as the abused pluck up the courage to accuse the hitherto unaccusable who were always protected by their hierarchy and in whom lay Catholics had, since time immemorial, implicit trust.
Very often it was the victim who suffered irreparable mental damage and who carried the guilt and not the paedophile.
We will never know or understand the full implications of clerical child abuse. It is horrendous.
As more and more cases come to light, the mind boggles at the sheer audacity of former priest Charles Pulis, who has been defrocked by the Holy See, and Fr Godwin Scerri, who both were convicted last week of sexually abusing minors in their care.
When viewed objectively, the events of the last few months fall into place rather neatly. The mixed messages from the Church hierarchy about divorce; that curious lack of coherence contributed mightily to the unexpected Yes result as did the trumpet blasts of the prophets of doom and gloom; those who cut and paste scripture to suit their purposes and with whom any form of rational argument was and is utterly impossible.
Now that the sturm und drang is over, the Church is so depleted of its moral force that not a murmur has been made, not a remark has been passed about the cohabitation laws that are being drafted in Parliament as we speak. This is a contradiction of the first degree. Only yesterday, half Malta was threatening hellfire and demoniacal brimstone on all those who were going to vote Yes to divorce and the government was pushed into staging a €4 million consultative referendum not to take the moral responsibility of introducing divorce into this country.
What has now become of John Zammit of Paola who threw the good book at me so many times without the least attempt at rationale? Does Mr Zammit approve of cohabitation? Sink me in a billabong if he does. I am utterly flummoxed.
Cohabitation is not a solution to the social problems around us. We do not yet know whether a couple has to register as a cohabiting unit or not to be subject to the new laws, which, logic dictates, should safeguard the livelihoods of each partner in case of separation, death or illness. If all cohabiting couples are automatically subject to the law then the classification is going to be mind-boggling while should one have to register as a cohabiting couple then there will be very few people who will opt for this second-class form of marriage for that is precisely what it is, which is why the gay activists invariably regard it with a jaundiced eye. The law will perforce be a damp squib, which is possibly why the usual Torquemadas are being so pertinently silent about it. Ergo it is a law that will prove to be a thorough waste of time and which will be appreciated by nobody.
On a different note, I read that, happily, Richard England’s Manikata church has been granted Grade 1 protection by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, which will prevent unwarranted accretions to what is one of Malta’s architectural landmarks. At this juncture, what I wish to know is whether all the other churches in Malta are similarly listed? We all remember the Lija parish church case when my article about the pointing and the peeled effect of the restoration became my claim to fame. The cleaning process went on unhindered as the rumour was bandied about that the Church representatives on various heritage committees declared the Church to be above the law.
Therefore, Mepa’s ruling about Manikata may put a stop to this nonsense. The Church is the curator of at least 85 per cent of our national artistic cultural heritage. It happens to be so because of the piety of its members who, over the centuries, have donated and bequeathed untold treasures to it in the hope of gaining eternal life. It must take full responsibility for these treasures for they are an integral part of our common heritage.
What goes around comes around.