I have one devoted reader who, to spare his blushes, I shall call ‘Angry of Ta’ Xbiex’. There are doubtless many others like him.

If as an impartial and objective commentator on events in Malta, I have the temerity to expose shortcomings in the Maltese Church, I can be assured of an apoplectic response from Angry of Ta’ Xbiex. I can hear him choking on his corn-flakes over his breakfast

My recent article (‘IVF: Only in Malta’, TMIS, 12 August) appears to have had this effect on this elderly gentleman judging by his letter (TMIS, 19 August). In it he castigated me for referring to the recent pastoral letter by the Bishops of Malta as “inept” and for accusing them (I actually specifically excluded Archbishop Paul Cremona from any of my strictures since we all know that the letter was led and drafted by Bishop Grech of the diocese of Gozo) of “putting the boot in” if their so-called Magisterium was transgressed.

I have no hesitation in standing by every word I used to describe the Bishop of Gozo’s letter. A pastoral letter which manages to hit the jackpot by dividing both the clergy and the laity must perforce be described as inept, though others might choose to call it – as many did – tactless, uncharitable, lacking in compassion, jarring and discordant. As to the Maltese Church “putting the boot in,” how better to describe the Bishop of Gozo’s intervention in the IVF debate a few months ago in which he spoke in lurid and emotional terms of “a culture of death” and “highly abortive IVF treatment”? The Bishop has form. The sooner we draw a veil over his threatening stance in the divorce debate over a year ago, the better. Bishop Grech may have many qualities, but emotional intelligence is not one of them.

All this said, I am grateful to Angry of Ta’ Xbiex for prompting me to look again at the way the Maltese Church handles such sensitive social, moral and ethical issues in modern Malta. In the wake of the bloody nose its reputation received following the divorce referendum 15 months ago, it is apt and timely to take stock of how things stand today. As decisions on IVF, cohabitation and civil partnerships loom, how well placed is the Maltese Church to handle such delicate issues and, importantly, to carry its ever diminishing flock with it? How might it organise itself to do better?

My interest in the Church is as an important institution contributing to the Maltese way of life. One does not have to subscribe to all or any of the Church’s doctrines to appreciate that it plays an important role in Malta’s traditions and daily life and makes a vital contribution through its work in the parishes, in old people’s homes, with those suffering from disabilities, in the schools and the many other charitable institutions which it supports, where Malta’s welfare state is still largely absent.

But it is still an ultra-traditional, monolithic Church which is being overtaken by a fast-changing society. When it steps into the public square and expresses its views on sensitive social issues – as it has absolutely every right to do – it almost invariably ends up shooting itself in the foot. This is what has happened over both divorce and IVF. I am only a disinterested observer. But if I were advising the Maltese Church on how it might make itself more relevant, and therefore more respected, I would focus on three key issues: Leadership, organisation and communication.

The Archbishop strikes one as an intrinsically good man who has been weak in dealing with the rigidly conservative and out of touch elements among his advisers. He has been particularly undermined by having a fundamentalist bishop in Gozo shouting from the sidelines, blinded by his own self-righteousness. (While realising that the Gozo diocese is a historical hang-over outside the Archbishop’s remit, one has to question why Gozo, an island of about 30,000 souls, which is not even the same size as the combined parishes of Birkirkara and Mosta in Malta, has to have its own bishop?. Perhaps the Papal Nuncio to Malta would kindly take this up with Rome?).

In the aftermath of the divorce debacle, Archbishop Cremona should have carried out a clear-out of those around him in the Curia who had so misadvised him and so embarrassed the Church’s standing. He should have replaced them with younger, more intelligent clerics who are more in touch with the flock. There is an urgent need for new brooms in the Curia, untainted by recent events. No leader can operate if he is constantly hobbled by poor advice. Unless the Archbishop is prepared to exercise the leadership to ensure he has the right advisers around him, not the old guard who has so blatantly failed him, the continuing decline of the Maltese Church will become unstoppable.

At the same time, once rid of those Monsignors who have hijacked his Curia, he needs to lead the renewal and regeneration of his Church with a more outward-looking and youthful appeal. This is a Church which is seen as living in the past. It is largely made up of ageing parishioners. The young are deserting it in their droves. Only dynamic and brave leadership, and a more open and transparent approach can rescue it now.

Hand in hand with better leadership, energised by a new breed of young advisers in the Curia, comes the need for better organisation. The Maltese Church gives the impression of being ponderous, over-centralised and backward-looking. This I suspect is because its structure and way of operating is outdated. It needs streamlining. There are too many elderly Monsignors promoted well above their level of competence, especially in Gozo. Given the dearth of leadership, the promotion system in the Church leaves one utterly bewildered. The selection process for promotion and priests’ in-house training need a radical overhaul to ensure only the most worthy receive the recognition they deserve.

The third crucial issue is good communications. The Maltese Church must learn how to express itself effectively in a secular, pluralistic world. It currently comes across as authoritarian and soulless. It must adopt a more intelligent, more rational, less dogmatic tone of voice. Its inability to articulate its doctrines – which are necessarily what they are – in language which is comprehensible to the faithful, and does not hurt and offend those whose consciences tells them otherwise, has been the hallmark of the last two or three years.

Modern Maltese society no longer consists of the unquestioning, malleable (and gullible) faithful of the 1950s or 1960s. Today, society will make up its own mind on moral issues. The Church must aim to persuade its flock by rational force of argument, not by doctrinal diktat.

The Maltese Church is at a pivotal stage. Unless it regenerates its leadership, streamlines and modernises its organisation and smartens up its communications skills, it will become an institutional irrelevance – part of the pageant of festas, fireworks and colourful processions designed for the entertainment of tourists, but with little devotional significance.

Martin Scicluna is the Director General of Malta’s only independent think-tank, the Today Public Policy Institute.

He writes here in his personal capacity