The recent tweet by Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna about his views regarding the Planning Authority’s recent approval of high-rise buildings may have ruffled some feathers in certain areas but confirmed that, unlike his two predecessors, this archbishop is not going to sit on a fence watching the two main parties playing the old political game, while the institution he runs remains silent. Mgr Scicluna is adamant to make his voice heard; he has also written an article that was published in The Malta Independent in favour of the environment and against high-rise buildings. Strictly speaking, he did not speak about a religious matter. There is nothing religious in this type of construction, but whether one agrees or not, the issue is of national importance.

I am sure that political strategists active in both parties agree that His Grace is extremely different from his two predecessors. He is a political animal. Many within Labour are comparing him to the late Archbishop Michael Gonzi.  It is not only our political parties that have started to search for their roots but also the Church. Labour is putting up films of Mintoff on social media. To combat Labour’s propaganda, the PN is resorting to images of Fenech Adami’s meetings prior to 1987.

Any hidden admiration or interest for Mgr Michael Gonzi has remained covert within the Church. I am sure that with time there is going to be a re-evaluation of his contribution to our history. This time round, the Church is not going to make the mistake of putting up films of Sir Michael Gonzi (as Mintoff used to tease him) or the attack on the Curia. Instead, the Church is going to remain with her feet firmly on the ground.

From a historical point of view, any comparison between Mgr Scicluna and Mgr Gonzi is not banal. The resemblance is not only just in their physical appearance. Both short in stature, Mgr Gonzi however, unlike Mgr Scicluna, was extremely lean. Frankly, I don’t think that deep down Mgr Gonzi and Mgr Scicluna have the same forma mentis, even though there are common elements as for example, love of their country and the confidence of always speaking up in a direct manner.

Mgr Gonzi was a product of the Colonial Age. He did his post-graduate studies at Bede College in Rome; a College that trained priests in the English rather than in the Roman tradition at the time. He witnessed the savage attacks on the Catholic Church by France during the Third Republic and later had to react to the rise of Communism and the Cold War. Mgr Scicluna too has had to endure similar attacks but this time they did not come from the East but from the West, the same West that Mgr Gonzi sought to ally to his Church and protect. 

Unlike Mgr Gonzi, Mgr Scicluna has an added advantage. Being the product of post-colonial Malta, he is open to new technology and does not fall into the trap of historical nostalgia.  Unlike Mgr Gonzi, he will not resort to old medieval diction in order to fight post-modern battles.

The figure of Mgr Michael Gonzi has come under attack in recent years, but behind this demonization process are the interests of foreign agents who have wanted to use past events to manipulate for their own purposes. The Church's past allies have now turned into her foe. The sixties are conveniently used by Western Agents to put the local Church in a bad light, when in reality, the Church was fighting for what she perceived the necessity, rightly or wrongly, to keep Malta under the influence of the Western sphere.

In those days, Mgr Gonzi was considered to be fighting for Western interests against the threat of Communist ideology as represented by Dom Mintoff. Today, Western powers are supporting much of these same Communist thoughts and ideologies that they fought against during the Cold War. But this is normal in history. There are periods where historical characters are constructed, but then the same historical characters are revised, deconstructed and reconstructed again.

Yet, there is one important point about Archbishop Gonzi. Irrespective of what is said about him, he left behind him a very strong Church. A Church so strong that three decades were to pass before politicians from both the left and the right managed to dismantle what Mgr Gonzi built.

Like any good political leader, Mgr Gonzi was one of those characters, who are either loved or hated. There are no middle ways. The same can be said about important political leaders. Dom Mintoff fits this category; one either loves or hates him. One of the reasons for this is because these past leaders used a direct language. Mgr Scicluna is joining this bandwagon.

One cannot call into question Mgr Scicluna's environmental credentials. He has taken a stand on bird hunting in spring and has been the only major leader who said no to hunting. Both Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil supported spring hunting. Now, the Archbishop has launched another attack, this time against the construction of mega towers, which at first both major parties, in different measures, supported. He is not in the least concerned that backing these constructions are some of the most powerful and wealthy families in Malta.

Usually, the Church has always been cautious as to how to speak about business interests. The major historic accusation against the local Church is that the Curia was always behind local business tycoons.

In the past, these persons were loosely called “freemasons”. Today, some prefer to use the word “mafia”. The historic freemasons were at peace with the Church during Mgr Gonzi’s time. He was too strong a figure to be attacked up front. Mgr Gonzi knew how to deal with them. They were the cause of the downfall of his predecessor Archbishop Caruana, who ended up being literally betrayed by his own Vicar General, Mgr Bartolo. Slowly, the situation started to change during Mgr Mercieca’s time. Mgr Mercieca’s policy was to steer clear of   propellers.

Reading Mgr Scicluna’s stand on the environment, one cannot but surmise a subtle message that things are changing in the Church. They are changing for the better. Scicluna is not naïve to allow hidden powers to continue their traditional games. While many observers read a sort of environmental awakening, I see a Bishop who is not prepared to leave his Church in the hands of unscrupulous individuals who seek to manoeuvre power behind the throne. He is showing that his Church is ready to confront them head on, irrespective of whether they are hiding behind a single or double-barrelled surname.

Mgr Scicluna’s media usage is a clear message that the time for complacency and silence is over. However, Mgr Scicluna has a long way to go. The fact that he has had to resort to The Malta Independent to make his views known shows that there is need for soul searching within the Church. Why did the Church’s media lose effectiveness, when the Church in Malta was one of the institutions that created printed journalism?

Mgr Scicluna’s recent tweet is not just a message to please a bunch of leftist environmentalists. It has a deeper significance. It means that he is moving his Church towards new pastures. It is no longer the Church of the catacombs or an institution that seeks to balance its statements. It is a Church that is admitting that she does not represent the whole nation and by so doing is admitting the fact that our Mother Church is becoming more dynamic; prepared to call a spade a spade. And move on for the good of all society.