Love him or hate him. Agree with him or disagree with him. Whatever your preference, you have to agree that he showed great intellectual honesty and courage. I write of Bishop Charles Scicluna and his position against spring hunting expressed clearly during the TVM programme Dissett.
Bishop Scicluna, quite rightly, said that it does not make sense to kill birds, namely turtle doves and quail, on their way to breeding. Killing birds during this season implies killing them as well as their possible offspring.
Bishop Scicluna showed courage by taking a position which is different from that of the main political leaders. Unlike several MPs who shamefully and cowardly are afraid to declare their position he stood up to be counted.
Faced by the question of Reno Bugeja he could have waffled around, giving an unclear answer. He preferred to be prophetic and not political. He gave a straight forward answer and the answer was a resounding no.
He rightly said that the Church should not take an official position. The question after all is neither about fundamental human rights nor about the salvation of souls. This is a question about which Catholics can have different positions. The decision of whether to be in favour or against limited hunting in spring should be the result of the informed answer to the question about whether or not a limited hunting season is sustainable or attainable. If one believes that it is not sustainable or attainable then one should vote no, as I will do. Others can legitimately arrive at an opposing position.
But I digress ….
Was it right or prudent for Bishop Scicluna to express an opinion knowing quite well that it will be viscerally attacked by the pro-hunting lobby? A quick glance at the reactions on the social media evidence the primitive savagery that taints some members of this lobby.
Why not? Church people, particularly prelates, should stop acting as politicians saying what is convenient to say instead of saying what should be said. Bishop Scicluna was asked a direct question about an issue of important public policy which has moral reverberations. It was right of him not to shy away from an answer. Nay, it was his duty not to shy away from an answer.
Church leaders who always look over their shoulders before answering such question to see what the populist reaction would be, lack the necessary verve that should characterize leaders. The Church and its leaders should be in the agora and not in the sacristy.
It is interesting to note that some of those who lauded Bishop Scicluna’s position on hunting rubbished him for his position on gay marriage. One should not be surprised or deterred. Faced by such reactions, Church leaders should just smile and move forward – with apologies to a much cruder reaction graphically described by Dante.