Fr Mark Montebello’s blessing of the rings of a gay couple landed him in yet another fix. He is once again the talk of the town and making news. Whether this is for good reason or otherwise is up to you to decide.  On my part I will not pass judgement. It’s for his superiors to take whatever action they may deem appropriate to conserve and protect the Dominican Order. 

Here I pen random thoughts about a subject which has been coming back to me for quite some time. I am taking Fr Montebello’s fix with his superiors as an example.

I will deal with this issue from one perspective. Can a foot soldier, in a political party, trade union, football club, band club or in the church winding corridors take decisions or act in a way which are beyond their remit impacting directly or indirectly on the organisation and continue to form part of that association?

It’s very clear to me. Once a person decides to join a club or an organisation members are duty bound to abide by the rules and regulations as set in the statute book. There is no choice.

Unless, that is, at the time of recruiting new members, a short-sighted, spineless  organisation, has entered into some sort of arrangement or made promises to a member conceding him/her rights and benefits which are not granted to other members in the same organisation. I very much doubt any organisation would be willing to concede such concessions.

The late Dom Mintoffsecured such concession from the MLP prior the 1996 general election. Later he kicked the MLP government out of office. I very much doubt Church authorities have ever granted such concessions.

Indeed, by all means one can work tirelessly from within the official structures to influence and push the organisation to change and adapt to new challenges. I see no harm in that. However, a member has to accept that ultimately it is the supreme body of the organisation that is empowered with the final word and to take decisions.

A free for all is a no go area on two counts.

I firmly believe that the strength and effectiveness of any organisation is found in the constant loyalty and observance of the rules and regulations of the organisation by one and all.

Secondly, an organisation, of whatever nature, has people, in leadership roles, at the very top to observe, give direction, address shifts and adapt to changes. Leaders do not party all day long. They carry the responsibility to look beyond what many cannot see. It is for them to make changes which should help the organisation continue to be relevant. Failing to adapt, organisations may become irrelevant.It is a huge responsibility for persons sitting in the driving seat and all are accountable for their actions or otherwise.

The church authorities are not any different. 

An organisation, I should say an institution like the church,should not speak in public with more than one voice and be expected to be taken seriously.

I take exception at clergy people sitting on discussion panels promoting diametrically opposing views on a wide range of sensitive subjects. A more coherent line of thought in line with Church teaching would certainly help the institution earn credibility with followers. In the absence of this many would be left wondering which Church teaching is correct.

I have no scruples, bias or bad feeling about gay marriages. Love is a wonderful thing. If two people of the same sex are in love and wish to conserve their affection, nobody should stand in their way. Gladly, we live in a lay country and there are clear demarcation lines between the State and the Church. It is now well defined and enshrined in our laws.

However, I take exception when the marriage Sacrament – husband and wife with family values - is put under unwarranted stress by clergy people.To my knowledge, this has not been altered.

Good intentions do not count here.

The leadership of the church should not let rumours abound in the media. Time has come for Church authorities to take a stand and make clear statements. Similarly, this stand should be adopted by political parties and all other organisations.

Half-truth or make-believe is worse than a full lie. 

[email protected]