People outside the Church think that it is a monolith. It is definitely not. Different autonomous structures exist together. Different theological models give rise to different pastoral strategies. The number of spiritualities that it embraces is legion.
I am afraid that the side that today is becoming more prevalent in the Church is the more militant in character- Fr Joe Borg
Discussions and heated controversies within the Church have been commonplace for the past 2,000 years. St Paul famously publicly rebuked St Peter in his letter to the Galatians. He used harsh words indeed. The Councils are peppered with major disagreements. Some Council Fathers came to blows at Trent. During Vatican II, heated debate was commonplace within and outside of the conciliar aula.
In our time, some US bishops said it was a sin to vote for Barack Obama while others said it was not. Such lack of agreement scandalises some but enlightens others.
Some think disagreement portrays a Church in disarray. Others find enlightenment in such situations as they believe the expression of differing positions shows the Church as a truly pilgrim Church that seeks the truth. This is a Church that both teaches and learns. This tension brings pain with it, but if (and it is a very big if) handled creatively it can also bring growth.
It is within this context that we have to analyse the way forward in Church/society relationship – particularly the liberal trends that are encroaching on hitherto ecclesiastically controlled enclaves – and emanating strategies proposed by Catholics holding differing theological and pastoral models.
The main fault line (though not the only one) is delineated by the stretch of beautiful sea that separates our two main islands. The differences, at least on the practical /strategic level, exist at all stages of the ecclesial food chain.
I am afraid that the side that today is becoming more prevalent in the Church is the more militant in character. The feeling of “onward Christian soldiers” can be felt more and more within the traditional grassroots of the Church. The bastions are replacing the dialogical pjazzas. The past is preferred to the present while the future is abhorred and feared.
The speech that Archbishop Paul Cremona delivered during the Synod of Bishops, on October 15, 2008, becomes more and more prophetic. He had said:
“Many of our faithful still live in nostalgia of, and compare the present situation with the model of the Church that was present 30 to 40 years ago.
“Since the Catholic Church has not remained in a privileged position as it was then, they live in an atmosphere of shock when the Church, or its pastors, are challenged. Many times they stand in fear of speaking openly before this, many times, hostile culture.”
Note the key words: “nostalgia”, “atmosphere of shock” and “fear”. These words explain why so many Catholics live in a siege mentality. Ample evidence showed that this nostalgic mentality was very much alive and kicking during the divorce referendum campaign.
‘Kristu iva, Divorzju le’ was not just a fringe movement but it was the battle cry of the nostalgic core which mismanaged the campaign and misinterpreted the result. They firmly believe that had the Church been more militant the result would have been different. Even the delusional Don Quixote would not have come to such an absurd conclusion.
The militant nostalgics try to find refuge in a moral theology which emasculates instead of liberates.
In last Sunday’s commentary I referred to the statement that together with six other priests I had signed and published in the run-up to the divorce referendum.
A certain S. Cachia commented online that this was “a statement which endorsed mistakes in Catholic moral theology”.
Our statement was endorsed by Archbishop Cremona, whom this Cachia is now accusing of adopting mistaken Catholic moral theology.
Cachia’s position reflects that of certain moral theologians from Gozo whose interpretations are challenged by eminent moral theologians in Malta.
The militant nostalgics I referred to above still think that our ‘salvation’ lies in legislation and the protection it can give. Thus they are totally alienating themselves from the real and most relevant field: culture.
The Church lost the divorce referendum not because of lack of militancy but because it had already lost the meaningful position it once had in the socio-cultural environment.
It is in this agora that ideas are debated and that battles are lost and won. We are sorely losing. Just note that according to a study in 2009, 91 per cent of university students called themselves Catholics. A study conducted last year shows the number has now dwindled to 79 per cent.
It is only if we face reality as it is that we can move forward.
Archbishop Cremona prophetically told the Synod in 2008:
“We have to help the faithful recognise that that kind of Church does not exist anymore, and it cannot be proposed again in this changed world. We cannot continue comparing our reality to that reality.”
If one studies the different interviews Archbishop Cremona gave, particularly during the period between his appointment and Episcopal ordination, one would find a goldmine that can enrich Church - society relationships, even when thorny subjects are involved.
It is only if we try to find acceptable and realistic common grounds that we the Church will have a future. In this social space we discover what is really happening around us. We familiarise ourselves with the different value systems that surround us.
I am not harping for a silent or absent Church. Like Paul in the Areopagus, we have to strongly communicate our beliefs in an increasingly hostile environment. But we do that with a sense of service, not a spirit of militancy and superiority.
We present our position while respecting that of others. Non-believers have values as well; they have values different from ours.
The Church must seek engagement with the surrounding culture without losing her identity. It is by seeking such an engagement that the Church also learns how to communicate with people who are immersed in culture and well-versed in emerging trends.
We should also recognise and differentiate between the different competencies of Church and political leaders.
This balance is a difficult one and I do not claim dogmatic certitude for my position. However, my assessment of the current situation is that we have learnt the wrong lessons from the divorce referendum campaign and that we are rushing into repeating the same mistakes in the present IVF issue.
It is very painful to note that every time the Church cries “wolf”, less and less people are taking her seriously. Neither the message nor the people are to blame. We have only ourselves to blame.
And after reading the statement by the Cana Movement last Friday I have only one comment: some do not want to learn.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt