The fact that the two main political leaders have decided to support the yes vote in the upcoming referendum on spring hunting has helped Archbishop Charles Scicluna to voice his opinion on the matter without risking to end up in political controversy. Let’s for the moment imagine the case of one of our political leaders opting for the no vote. This would have made it more difficult for Archbishop Scicluna to publicly air his opinion on spring hunting. If for the sake of example, DrSimon Busuttil would have opted for a no vote, the choice of Mgr Scicluna would have definitely been interpreted as a pro-Nationalist stand and would have led to a barrage of accusations and criticism against the Church and its hierarchy.
The accusation would have been that our Catholic Church has always toed the Nationalists’ line. On the other hand, if the scenario was different and Busuttil went, as he did for a yes vote but Dr.Joseph Muscat would have opted for a no vote, the accusations would be that Muscat had even succeeded to buy Mgr. Sciclunaover to his stand. None of these conjectures can be formulated and the different choice made by our main political leaders from that of the archbishop in this referendum has liberated the Church from future accusations of favouring one or the other political party. It definitely will help the Church to engage in the public debate without being accused of bias as now there is a historical precedent where its opinion differed not only from that of Labour but even from the one taken by the leader of the Nationalist Party.
At the same time, the fact that Archbishop Scicluna said no to spring hunting earned him the admiration of a section of the population which in recent years has become diffident about the Church. These includea section of the media who in the past had been with the Church but now hasstopped toeing the same line of conservative talk. Certain media gurus who are today on the anti-clerical liberal trends come from families who,in the past,were part and parcel of the Church bureaucracy and owe their family fortunes to such an alliance and the resulting land speculation of the Church property.
On her part, the Church can claim a history of an anti-hunting lobby tradition. In past posts, I had the opportunity to discuss Herbert Ganado's thoughts about hunting. Ganado was one of Monsignor Gonzi's right hand men; perhaps his most trusted layman.Yet, Ganado had a very advanced view about our environment and foresaw the end of hunting. At least this referendum is not about abolishing hunting altogether. It is only about allowing birds to mate and procreateduring their mating season, which is spring. On his part, Ganado was part of a Church lobby that, as far back as the 1970s, was even more radical and spoke about the total abolishment of hunting from our islands for the safeguarding of our environment. This is what Ganado had to say on this matter:
"For nature to maintain a certain ratio between one animal species and another, and I suppose that all creation has a role to play, man should never annihilate any one of the animal species. So for example those countries that are killing birds not for food but for the cruel sport of hunting, besidesremoving birds which are so sweet, one day will be the cause that insects, which these birds eat, will multiply to such a great extent that they will become harmful to our crops. Never are insecticides a good substitute (besides the fact that insecticides can be dangerous) to the work of nature. The disproportionate number of hunters in Malta will not only one day kill hunting but also all birds that we are so much in need." Herbert Ganado, Rajt Malta Tinbidel, Malta, 1977, vol. iv, p. 52.
More than thirty years later, Mgr Scicluna has spoken on the same lines, explaining why he will be voting ‘no’ in this referendum. The Jesuits have also joined in by declaring their intention to support the No vote in this referendum. Perhaps, the fact that Archbishop Scicluna and the Jesuits have declared their stand has made this referendum less boring but their declaration, unlike what has been anticipated does not instigate antagonism from the hunters against the Church. Despite the fact that certain elements of the English press tried to depict the hunters as a violent group, the way this referendum campaign was conductedis proving one thing; referenda and elections in the future are going to be less intense, and perhaps "more boring” in terms of media coverage to what we had been used to in the past.