BishopAccountability.org
	Reforming the Church in Malta? By Klaus Vella Bardon Times of Malta September 3, 2011 http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110903/opinion/Reforming-the-Church-in-Malta-.383046 The recent divorce campaign and the unhappy case of sex abuse have given the opportunity for anti-Catholics, pseudo-Catholics and Philistines to vent their spleen against the Church. Some even seemed to be concerned about the welfare of the Church while working relentlessly to undermine the very values that underpin a Christian society. Martin Scicluna is a prime example. He gloats over the "debacle" of the Church in the divorce referendum and with pompous arrogance proposes a road map for the renaissance of the Church in Malta. With his predictable style, he flogs the same hackneyed arguments to death and has the temerity to pretend that he is concerned about the welfare of the Church in Malta. It's a case of the wolf portraying himself as the sheepdog. He insists on emphasising that it is only now that the Church has been trying to address the issue of sexual abuse by members of the clergy. There were never any impediments to anybody to bring accusations of abuse to the attention of the police and the public authorities. His cheap and unfair attempt to flatter the Archbishop at the expense of his predecessors does not cut any ice with those of us who were not born yesterday. Both in the secular domain as well as that of the Church, such issues were previously not given publicity. Now we have gone to the other extreme. Exposing abuse by the media is one thing. Giving us sensational and prurient details of such sensitive cases is nothing less than gutter journalism, irrespective of whether the abuser is a Catholic or otherwise. Unfortunately, the media seems to have failed to distinguish between the principle of "what is in the public interest" and its corrosive counterfeit of "what interests the public". Contrary to what Mr Scicluna insists there is no reason that the Church should be held financially liable for failings of individual members unless it is proven that the Church authorities were culpably responsible of mishandling such grave issues. It is a prerogative of a civilised society that people are entitled to the due process of law when being accused of misdemeanours. Such investigations take their time and I am sure he must be aware that even criminal proceedings in court do not work at the speed of light! With regard to the Church's stand on divorce, Mr Scicluna is right to complain that the Church failed to convincingly explain to the public the negative long-term social consequences of divorce legislation, which are not just a Church-related issue. In this, the Church was handicapped by a number of factors. The media, with few exceptions, even under the guise of so-called debate, canvassed shamelessly in favour of divorce. Worse still, the divorce debate was contaminated by partisan politics. True to form, with the exception of a handful of its MPs, the Labour Party lived up to its anti-Church reputation and promoted divorce for all it was worth. Labour sympathisers even resorted to exorcising the demons of the 1960s in order to stifle the Church from making its views heard in the public sphere. Unfortunately, public opinion has been brainwashed into swallowing uncritically the PL's version of that sad chapter in our history. Revisiting that turbulent phase in our recent history is painful. Yet, in order to achieve authentic reconciliation, the Church in Malta has a grave and long neglected obligation to enlighten and inform our society of why events unfolded as they did. As regards the referendum, the greatest failing of the Church was in its own ranks. The Church does not consist of just the hierarchy and the Curia. This is a puerile concept. The Church includes all its members and they have been found wanting. The Archbishop has been let down by a flock that is largely indolent, indifferent, uninformed and unprepared to stand up and be counted with too many placing partisan and narrow self-interests above any other consideration. This was further compounded by the constant sniping at the Church authorities by renegade priests who were more interested to be politically correct and pander to the mood of the media-driven opinion. These confused messages, even by leading Churchmen, should have been nipped in the bud. With friends like these, who needs enemies? The Church authorities should have pre-empted this manoeuvring and publicly and clearly censored those who refused to be loyal to its teachings. Mgr Anton Gouder, having the thankless task of being the Church's pro-Vicar, was attacked on both fronts. As to the welfare of the Church, Mr Scicluna can rest assured that there are still many of us who can make the distinction between wolves and sheepdogs.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.