Over the past days we have assisted at a veritable summer storm of criticism despondency and worse about the church in Malta’s leadership. Coincidentally, absolutely coincidentally, the storm began with harsh words expressed by a parish priest who had been removed and ended with the arraignment of a priest charged with improper relations with underage girls.
Between these two events, the accusations, mainly about Archbishop Paul Cremona, flew fast and fierce – there has been no promised change in the church, the same people are there as they have always been, the church lacks leadership. Some tied their adverse comments to comments made by the Bishop of Gozo, although clearly he had other targets in mind when he uttered those words.
It is quite intriguing to try and decipher what caused this sudden summer storm. The fact remains that suddenly people who had been mostly silent for months if not years have found some reason to voice their criticism and to voice it publicly.
Maybe these priests know something we do not know. It was Pope Francis himself who said this week he has only two or three years to live, but otherwise there does not seem to be any change in the bishop of Malta on the horizon.
If that were the case, ie if Archbishop Cremona is about to resign, the race to the top is about to reignite. One would have thought this group of priests have learnt the lessons from the past – the appointments of Bishop Gerada in 1968, and that of Archbishop Mercieca in 1976 went diametrically against the wishes of this group.
The appointment of Archbishop Cremona just a few years back seemed to forecast a new beginning for the church, but all the hope and optimism then unleashed has petered out. Hence the recriminations, the despondency at so many promises left unfulfilled.
The church is a very complex organisation and totally unlike the democratic institution some seem to think it should be. On the purely human level, the church is a pyramidical structure where the Pope through his subordinates exercises full power.
At ground level, then, the church is composed of various levels of membership beginning with those who claim to be members, those who militate in the various organisations, from festa enthusiasts to apostleship and missionary persons. The church too has its own structures, the parishes, the ancillary services, the schools, etc. The priests who have voiced their ill-pleasure come from a very restricted area within the church.
This does not mean that what they say must not be taken note of. On the contrary, past episodes show that more people take notice of what these people say than one would imagine.
There have unfortunately been attempts to read this summer storm in partisan terms, within the context of the internal struggle inside the PN after the divorce vote and the election disaster. Such a reading is far too far-fetched to make any sense. The fact it has been made shows how even something which is a-political can be read in political terms and thus show how difficult the church’s task is as it strives to respond to the needs of people.
At one point, the discussion verges on the personal and the messages seem to have an underlying text running through them, regarding this or that member of the hierarchy. To bring out all the dissatisfaction in public hardly helps the church to face up to its internal problems. Nor can these protesting priests pretend they represent the church: this is no ‘We are the church’ grassroots movement such as was the case in Austria.
But to express and disseminate dissatisfaction on a national level hardly helps matters except make people fall away from church attendance and membership. That, as the statistics show, is already happening on its own without any need to push it more.
Recent history tells us that whenever a change in bishop was imminent, the Vatican was flooded by missives from Malta against this or that candidate. To this, for presumably the flood never stopped, we now have media concerted attacks. It does not seem this is a step in the right direction.