Fr Mark Montebello is an outspoken person, one who does not mince his words when it comes to expressing himself on matters dear to his heart.
Over the years he has grown to become a media personality too, with his frequent appearances on television stations, participation in radio shows and articles in the newspapers.
He does not limit himself to Church matters, but speaks out on social issues and takes a deep interest in what goes around him.
His campaigns about the rights of prisoners and against the development of Kalkara Valley stand out among his many involvements in recent years.
Like any other person, Fr Mark is entitled to an opinion and is entitled to express it, although it must also be said that the rest of us are entitled not to agree with him, and there have been several cases when we didn’t.
Fr Mark must also realise that exposure in the media is good but over-exposure is detrimental, although it must be pointed out that very often it is the media that looks for him for his views because of their controversial content, rather than the other way round.
Recently, Fr Mark was banned for six months from speaking on Church issues, morals, ethics and faith by Archbishop Joseph Mercieca. This happened after Fr Mark wrote an article in the Church newspaper Il-Gens, in which he described the election of Pope Benedict XVI as a bad joke.
This led to a spate of letters in the same newspaper the following week, criticising Fr Mark for his views on the leader of the Catholic Church. A few days later, Fr Mark was told not to speak his mind on the subjects already mentioned, a ban he said he will obey.
The Curia, as is the case in all similar circumstances, did not express itself on the matter because it is standard practice that the Archbishop maintains confidentiality regarding his meetings with members of the clergy.
Some argue that the Archbishop’s decision could be described as a form of censorship by the Church. Freedom of expression, as long as it is within the limits of decency, is one of the pillars of democracy, and as such all should be free to state an opinion. But does this mean that priests are free to say whatever they feel, even if this goes against the Church they represent?
On the other hand, there are those who believe that since Fr Mark is a priest, he should not openly criticise the Church to which he belongs, at least not in the way that he sometimes does. But does this mean that the Church does not tolerate dissenters and is ready to shut them up each time, in its opinion, they go beyond what the Church thinks is reasonable?
These are two different and differing trains of thought. And, in a way, both are valid arguments that deserve
attention.
As said earlier, priests are citizens like the rest of us and as such have a right to form an opinion and give it in public. But then, should priests say what they really think or should they, in their position, be more careful, especially when it comes to matters that concern the Church? Should they go against the grain even if they feel that they have valid reasons for doing so?
If, then again, the Church silences them, would it not seem that it is afraid of internal criticism and that it does not allow different currents to work within its own system? Are priests really free or do they have to agree with all that happens within the Church? Can they not have reservations and, if they do, can they not speak about them?