Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna is currently in the news. There are some members of the Church who are not agreeing with his comments, which are seen as too political. There are others, on the Left, who are starting to appreciate his stand. Labour and the pro-Labour press are taking theArchbishop’s comments rather seriously. This explains whyhe is being strongly attacked by the Labour media.I believe that Archbishop Scicluna will come out champion and this not because I am a Catholic apologist but because facts are in his favour.
If any proof is needed, one has only to refer to the way the liberal media reported the recent news concerning the appointment of teachers in Church schools. It portrayed Muscat’s Government decision as a triumph of liberalism for Malta. The reaction of bloggers is very clear. People have not fallen for it. They believe that Labour wants to pick a fight with the Churchand worse, they are beginning to realize that this is pure dictatorship in the guise of liberalism. The archbishop is emerging as the voice of liberty against a number of oppressive decisions being passed by Government under the guise of liberalism.
Those studying Communicationsknow that in politics there is no such thing asnegative publicity. By attacking and criticizing the Archbishop, the Labour Media is merely confirming that Mgr. Scicluna is an important personality and that his words carry weight in society. Hence,Labour’s concentrated attacks on the Churchare in line with the current European values where there is no place for religion. Religion must be destroyed. Is this not reminiscent of a young Soviet Russia?
Were Mgr. Scicluna an irrelevant figure, the liberal media would not even bother to criticize him. It would simply ignore him. Those who thought that with the divorce referendum,the Church was strucka fatal blow,made the wrong assessment.The referendum campaign had more to it than just giving the rightto separated couples to remarry. The real aim was to eliminate the CatholicChurch as a player on the local political scene. This has recently been obliquely admitted or better still,confirmed by the same person who is enacting these illiberal laws during his official speechat the Otto Settembrecelebrations.
During her talk at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, the Vice-President of the European Union used a phrase that struck me. Federica Mogherini stated that if someone has power and does not use it, one stands to lose it. This is precisely what happened to the local Church in the past. The last archbishopto wield power in Malta was Archbishop Michael Gonzi. He was Malta’s last great bishop. The fact that the Left and the Liberals in Malta attack himwith the full support of the American Left is proof enough that he was a political giant. In the process, this same American left is discrediting itself. On needs to notice, that the concerted attack on the figure of MgrGonzi increased after Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley became American ambassador for Malta. At the same time, the figure of Dom Mintoff was revaluated. The truth is that the fight of the sixties derived from the fear that Malta may become part of the Communist block. Therefore, back then, MgrGonzi was doing America’s dirty business. This story should open the eyes of the Church, that America is an unreliable and disloyal ally. It has no problem to dump and demonize characters that had supported her in the past. At the same time, this story exalts Dom Mintoff’s political greatness. He was the man who used to describe America as the country of evil. Now those institutions and countries that attacked his image in the past are presenting him as a great leader.
Archbishop Scicluna wants the Catholic Church to remain relevant in Malta and heis dead set to do so. First of all, whether we like it or not, we are discussing Mgr. Scicluna’s sermons and tweets.In truth, he is acting like Dom Mintoff. When the America of Obama and Hilary Clinton was supporting all the dirt of liberalism, Mgr. Scicluna was challenging this empire with his tweets.
The assessment that needs to be made is whether these discourses will help the PNwin the next election or not. I would say not. They will help the local Church becomerelevant onceagain but they are not going to have an effect on the election results. They could, however, damage Labour. This is why the pro-Labour media is panicking. DrMuscat will lose votes but not to the extent of losing the election. Statistics are confirming this. While statistics are indicating that both Labour and the PN are practically head to head, the same does not hold when it comes to the trust of the Maltese population for our political leaders. Here, statistics are indicating that it, - the population - has more trust inDrMuscat. This explains why theisland’s Church structures need to be weakened.
On a political level, the Archbishop’s tweets and commentsshould not be seen in good light by the PN. On the one hand, they will definitely weaken the figure of the Opposition Leader, a scenario reminiscent of the 1960s. For many back then,Mintoff’s real opponentwas not DrBorg Olivier but Archbishop Gonzi.
Now, DrMuscat’s real opponentis not Dr Simon Busuttilas would be the norm but an outsider,MgrScicluna,who has revived his institution from the ashes. In the process, the figure of DrBusuttil as a political leader risks taking a downturn. If DrBusuttil does not supersede Muscat in terms of trust, he does not stand a chanceof winning.
If one looks at the political figures and background of ourprime ministers, one realizes that since 1964, we have had two prime ministers DrBorg Olivier and Dom Mintoff who both received their secondary education at the Lyceum.Mintoff was defeated by Dr Eddie Fenech Adami, who is a politician who was educated by the Jesuits. Dr Lawrence Gonzi received his education at the Seminary but today we have the return ofpoliticians with a Jesuiticalforma mentis.Dr Muscat was educated by the Jesuits. His three main opponents, that is, Dr Simon Busuttil, Dr Beppe Fenech Adami and Dr Mario de Marco were also educated by the Jesuits. They all think in the same way.The Jesuit educational system was created in the Counter-Reformation to teach the European offspring of the elite how to compromisewith ways of the world, as means to achieve a higher end. This is why there is a section of the electoratetoday which is seeing our two main political parties as split image of one another.
With Archbishop Scicluna, the situation is different. He was formed at a different school of thought: St. Edward’s College. St Edward’s was opened to challenge the Jesuits’ elitist predominance in education in Malta and ended up as the antithesis of the Jesuits.New historical research is showing that this collegewas created with the specific aim to form Malta’s future prime ministers.Instead, it has ended up givinga bishop to our Church.
Mgr Scicluna has a totally different form of education, very Platonicin nature.Our main political leaders have a Stoic view of politics. This explains why Mgr Scicluna is proving to be successful. He appears as the voiceof political diversity. The rest are representing more of the same type of politics. In the process,Mgr Scicluna is appearing as the true leader of the Conservatives in Malta. As a Platonist, he is also becoming the natural leader of the left, that is,of those, who are after social justice.
Pushed and shoved about by his two deputies, who both want a liberal party, Dr Busuttil’s perception of politics is completely different to MgrScicluna’s. The Archbishop is no liberal and clearly does not support economic liberalism, which he is attacking vehemently. This is why Mgr. Scicluna is succeeding where the Nationalists have failed. He isrevitalising his institution to a degree of national importance. It is this that Labour wants to demolish;but MgrSciclunais a hard nut to crack.