The Archbishop’s Curia this week chose to remain silent about the nature of the appointment given to a Maltese priest in Malta in the mid-1990s who was convicted of paedophilia in Italy in 2004.

While acknowledging that Fr Felix Cini had served in Malta between 1995 and 1996, and insisting that he had not returned to Malta since the conclusion of Italian court action against him 2004, the Curia refused to answer questions on where he had served in Malta, and in what capacity.

In a right of reply (see letter on page 25) to last week’s front page story exposing how the appointment of the Maltese Fr Felix Cini to a parish in Cercemaggiore, in the diocese of Campobasso, had caused a split in the community after parishioners discovered gruesome details of the priest’s conviction and subsequent plea bargain on paedophilia charges, the Maltese Curia states, “The priest involved was ordained and incardinated in a diocese in Italy. Therefore, he is not a member of the Maltese Diocese and does not fall under the discipline of the authorities of this Diocese.”

The Curia also clarifies that, “On his request, prior to the alleged charges, he served in Malta for less than a year between 1995 and 1996 and then returned to Italy. Since 2004, he was never assigned any pastoral ministry in Malta and did not even return to the island.”

The replies, however, raise more questions than answers. Subsequent questions sent to the Curia, however, were only answered with a terse statement to the effect that, “At this stage we insist on our right of reply.”

Most pertinent of all, The Malta Independent on Sunday had posed the question of where and in what capacity had the priest served in Malta between 1995 and 1996, and whether any background checks had been carried out prior to his service in Malta.

It was a relatively short time span between 1996 and the end of 2002, when the Italian investigation into Fr Cini began. And the Curia’s reluctance to answer the question of where and in what capacity he had served in Malta fails to do justice to Maltese parents, who, it could be convincingly argued, have a right to such information so as to try to determine if their own children, who are generally reticent for a number of reasons about coming forward with such information, had been subject to undue attention as the Italian children had been.

The Curia’s statement that since 2004 the priest had not been assigned a pastoral ministry in Malta appears to imply that he had in fact been assigned a pastoral ministry between 1995 and 1996, but a request for clarification along such lines was also unanswered.

The Curia’s statement that the priest had not returned to Malta since 2004 also raises questions, mainly over whether the Maltese Church had been in contact with the priest to ascertain such information, short of which such a statement would be inexplicable, but questioning along such lines was also stonewalled.

An Italian investigation into Fr Cini had begun in late 2002, just six years after he had served in Malta, and after 17 children aged between 10 and 14 years of age reported having received undue attention at the hands of the priest.

Charges were filed in 2003 and Fr Cini eventually submitted a plea bargain in 2004, avoiding a lengthy trial and a possible prison sentence, and instead being landed with a two and a half year sentence in a special community.

The proper Italian legal term used is ‘patteggiamento’ – in other words he accepted the sentence to shorten the trial. Later he said that he was advised to do so, even though he felt he was innocent and that it was a case of mistaken identity.

He claimed that unnamed ‘political pressure’ was brought to bear upon him to make him take this legal way. His claim was met with rather widespread scepticism.

Although a number of Italian media reports claim he had returned to Malta for some time following the sentencing, the Maltese Curia insists that he has not returned to Malta since 2004.

The abuse took place while Fr Cini was in Comunità Siloe in Sasso d’Ombrone in the commune of Cinigiano near Grosseto.

During the investigation, all 17 children, accompanied by their parents, testified to “undue attention” received from the priest. Two computers were also taken from him and police investigators claimed they found a history of porno-paedophile web pages having been accessed.

After being posted to Cercemaggiore, the people of the small community were outraged to find out through the Internet, and through a local paper, about the murky past of the new priest in their parish.

Some of the people were aghast that such a priest had been thrust upon them without them receiving any warning, but others objected to the protest.

They claimed that, in the months he has been in the new parish, he has succeeded in attracting more and more young people to the church. A candlelight protest was held, attended by many people, and 3,000 signed a petition asking the bishop to let him remain there. It was also claimed that, ever since he came to Cercemaggiore, his behaviour had been “impeccable”.

Archbishop of Campobasso-Bojano, Monsignor GianCarlo Bregantini, has announced that the priest is being sent elsewhere, thus closing the issue, at least in his diocese.