My latest post “Towards a political church” caused quite a stir. Mixed with the comments there was quite a good dose of venom.  Darnel was abundant, but wheat was not at all scarce. Most comments prove that whatever one writes, meaning always lies within the mind of the reader. It is always very instructive to read the different points of views on what one writes and the different ways people understand the same thing.

Out of respect for those who – independently of whether they agreed with me or not – made very valid points let me reflect some more on the subject.

The use of the work political quite rightly came up for a lot of comments. Like many other word, the term political has different meanings depending on its context. I thought that the context of my article pointed out the meaning of political with a capital “p”.

The same applies to the word church. I clearly stated that there are different levels: hierarchy, commissions, individual priests, other individual Christians. I was not advocating that the institutional (or hierarchically) church should – manifestly or covertly – support a political party. There could be some very rare exceptions when this could be historically justified; but in the great generality of cases it should not be so.

This also applies – with some exceptions as the reference Dr Brincat made to Canon Law shows - to individual priests. Our bishops have clearly and rightly warned against priests becoming part of “il-miskja politika”. Miskja means the thick of the battle and does refer to the core of party politics. However, this does not mean that priests cannot take a principled position which can be construed to mean (or in actual fact shows) support for some policy or other of some political party. The contest will make such a position acceptable or not.

Lay people are part of the church – an essential part. They can and should take an active part in politics. They should be in the miskja politika.

A continuum, not a monolith

There is a whole continuum from enunciating principles to the other end of the spectrum, that is, proposing technical solutions. The easiest is the former; the most difficult position is the latter.

One can have different applications of the same principles and different proposed solutions because it is totally legitimate to have different readings of one situation. For example, I had written more than once about the position of different USA bishops before the last presidential election in the USA. Some were implying that it was a sin to vote for Obama, others had a different position.

One can find different Catholics in different political parties. There is generally no one Catholic practical position even if there is agreement about basic principles.

I hope that this clarifies my position, though I would not be surprised if it muddles it further … at least in the perception of some.

Lessons from Ireland

However, as another attempt at clarifying the issue let me share with you some thoughts from a homily delivered on January 1, 2012 by Dublin’s Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.

The bishop appealed for a “mature” debate about the role of faith in society and warned against crude caricatures of religion. He also said that society must acknowledge that despite the scandals, the Church’s overall contribution to Ireland has been positive.

Bishop Martin said: “the Catholic Church, the faith of the majority of the citizens of the nation, had a dominant influence on the values which keep our social interaction intact. … A new situation now exists and this requires a change in the manner of interaction between Church and State. Faith in Jesus Christ cannot be imposed on any individual.  When attempts are made to impose faith on a society then the originality of faith is inevitably damaged,” he said.

However, he warned “this does not mean that faith has no contribution to the political or even the economic life of a society”.

The bishop admitted that Church leaders have over the years overstepped the boundaries of their legitimate mandate. “Yet the contribution of individual believers and of the Church as an institution to Ireland’s development and social culture has overall been positive. A mature future-oriented dialogue between Church and Irish culture should build on those positive aspects of our past.”

While accepting that criticism of the Catholic Church is legitimate, he added that criticism is different from negative and cynical caricature of faith or spin. Caricature of faith does little to build up in society the values that endure.

Take away the word Ireland and put instead the word Malta. The words of Bishop Martin will nicely fit our situation. Whatever mistakes committed by the Church, its positive contribution to society by far outweighs its lapses.