Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/811845
14 THE Church seems to be going through a bit of inner turbulence at the moment. On the interna- tional front, conservative theo- logians appear to be concerned with the possible interpretations of Pope Francis' encyclical 'Amor Laetitia' (among other things). It has been argued that the more moderate approach taken by Pope Francis to issues such as divorcees receiving sacraments is at vari- ance with past Catholic teaching. 'Amor Laetitia' itself has been de- scribed as contradicting Pope John Paul's 1981 encyclical on the same subject, 'Familiaris Consortio'. Pope Francis has also defied the traditional Church establishment in various other ways; he has been sharply critical of the Vatican's no- toriously Byzantine bureaucracy, of its perceived decadence and its arcane financial institutions. For this he has even been labelled (mostly by American critics) as a 'communist' Pope. The contrast can only be heightened by the fact that he was appointed to succeed Pope Benedict, who was widely re- garded as an arch-conservative. Locally, too, the Maltese arch- diocese seems to be in the eye of a storm. Archbishop Charles Sci- cluna may have kicked a hornet's nest with his views on (among other things) the teaching of Islam in Church schools. Interestingly, Bishops Scicluna and Grech have also weighed in on the broader di- visions engulfing the Church as a whole. Their recent pastoral letter elab- orated on Pope Francis' Amor La- etitia: concluding that divorcees could, in fact, be administered Holy Communion. Apart from seeming to contra- dict earlier messages from the same Church (especially during the 2011 divorce referendum), the Bishops' apparently concilia- tory tone on this issue has irked the same conservative theologians who took umbrage at Amor Leti- tiae. In brief, the Catholic Church seems to be deeply divided on some of its most fundamental theological principles. Fr Mark Montebello is himself no stranger to some of the basic arguments at the heart of this division. He has often been outspoken in his criti- cism to the Church's approach to such issues; and where, in former years, his outspokenness earned him stern rebukes from the Curia, the Church authorities today seem to lean more in the direction of his past arguments. Does he himself agree with my previous assessment of the Church as a divided institution? If so, to what extent? Could it be (as some have claimed) the beginning of an- other schism? "No, I don't think we're any- where close to a schism. What I think is at present causing some turmoil is the changed official po- litical standpoint of the papacy. From a far-right stance taken by the anti-Communist John Paul II and the anti-liberalist Benedict XVI over more than three decades, now, with Pope Francis, we have had four years of a third-position- ist Peronista who seeks to medi- ate tensions caused by conflicting extreme poles. Some ecclesiastics, particularly in conservative areas of Europe and the United States, are never comfortable with shifts, however slight, to the left. That's what Pope Francis is trying to do in order both to decrease what he calls the Church's 'self-referential- ism' – or a Church 'turned on itself' - and, in what might be considered to be more or less the equivalent of Peron's 'justicialismo' (justicial- ism), to draw the Church's mes- sage closer to the concrete situa- tions of suffering people beyond ideological differences. Such shifts are not unheard of in the Church's history. In a way, Pope Francis is abetting issues of the Second Vati- can Council which John Paul and Benedict derailed...." But isn't that last point also an indication of unbridgeable differ- ences? Pope John Paul II is held in great reverence throughout the Catholic world – perhaps in Malta more than elsewhere – and if he 'derailed' Vatican Council II, it is more than likely that millions of Catholics worldwide agree and applaud that stance. Doesn't it also mean that the Church itself is divided on its own mission (or, at least, on VC2)? "Pope John Paul is revered for reasons which probably have nothing to do with the Vatican Council: namely for his media ap- peal, his 'messianic' self-presenta- tion and, in his latter days, for his apparently brave endurance of ill- nesses. Furthermore, some aspects of his teachings, for instance on the human body and on human rights, deserve respect. Nevertheless, it would hardly be logical to suggest that all of this implicitly signi- fies an agreement with his overall treatment of Vatican II; or, if we come to that, with other aspects of his pontificate, for instance how he dealt with paedophile priests or with rogue candidates for saint- hood. This does not suggest in the least that the Church is somehow divided on its mission... but rath- er on the means to accomplish it and on what pastoral emphasis is needed at different times and in different places of the world. That is something healthy..." Perhaps, but Fr Mark also hinted at a political divergence earlier: he described Pope Francis as a Per- onist, and that the movement has been to the left. Given that Pope Francis is also viewed as a 'liberal' successor to a much more con- servative pope, could it also simply be a power struggle between the two political arms of the Church? Is it a case of the liberal wing of the Church fighting to reclaim power from the conservative wing, after decades in the wilderness? "I would be cautious to call Pope Francis a liberal. He still seems to be a conservative, but not an ex- tremist. Due to his political stance, as I explained above, extremism is not in his blood. On the contrary, his carriage is to avoid extremism and forge a third position which is beyond excesses. This may appear to be too liberal for conservatives. However, it is really a way of purg- ing the immoderation of far-right policies and redefining them in the light of Vatican II." Coming to the local aspect of the same dilemma: How does Fr Mark (who had criticised the Church's previous position during the di- vorce referendum) interpret the apparent change in direction on the part of the Maltese bishops? Does it reflect the movement of the global Church under Pope Francis... or is it part of the after- math of the divorce referendum itself? "What some ignore is that, dur- ing the pontificate of Paul VI and the early years of John Paul II (say, till 1981), it was the normal pas- toral practice to allow divorcees who were properly guided practis- ing Catholics to receive holy com- munion as long as they did not cause scandal. Steered by Ratz- inger, John Paul II then changed this policy and issued a prohibi- tion. Pope Francis not only rein- stated the practice but went a step further and even sanctioned it. So the policy is not entirely new. Only the degree of its official endorse- ment is different. In Malta, this – I think – has nothing to do with the divorce referendum. It only seems to be in contradiction with the lo- cal Church's referendum position, because that position was itself an ambiguous hullabaloo which had no head or tail." At the same time, however, the softened stance on divorcees is not the only indication that the Church may be facing inner turmoil Archbishop Scicluna recently said he would not be tweeting on controversial issues in view of the forthcoming election. It will be noted that Scicluna has often been criticised by Labour supporters for his perceived 'political' commen- tary. To what extent is Scicluna (or any other bishop) conditioned by this sort of criticism? Is the per- ception that the Church is some- how 'in league with' the PN having the effect of silencing the Church... or is it more that the Church shouldn't get involved in political matters anyway? "It seems to me that Archbishop Scicluna made an apparently mi- nor, though in reality a very sig- nificant, improvement in the local Church's political standing. With- out much fanfare he proposed that the Church in Malta is just one voice amongst others. This is un- precedented. Never, to my mind, has the local Church seen itself from this perspective. All prior bishops have claimed some sort of ascendency over other social and political entities. Now, for the first time, it seems, Archbishop Sciclu- na has introduced a more unpre- tentious and, possibly, a more real- istic stance. Most of the clergy and the laity - the greater part of which, however intelligent, are nescient in matters theological or ecclesiolog- ical - did not get this. They prob- ably still think of strength through partisanship. By contrast, Arch- bishop Scicluna seems to think of strength in terms of a level playing field, which is liable to give the lo- cal Church more elbow space and, possibly, more moral power in all public matters, whether political or social." Perhaps, but there is a level at which a Catholic would expect his or her Church to speak out, to offer guidance, and so on. Some might interpret Scicluna's decision as a case of bowing out of the lo- cal political scene altogether. If the church falls silent on all political issues, isn't there a danger that it will increasingly be viewed as ir- relevant? "I hope to have made it clear in what I have just explained that, taking on the new position which Archbishop Scicluna wisely pro- poses, the local Church would be able to speak on any matter what- soever. It is obvious that in Malta the Church structures are by far the most developed, widespread and efficient when compared to any other non-governmental en- tity; and this, in the context of a level playing field, gives its voice a morally loftier degree of weight without, if consistent, acceding to haughtiness or condescension. To my mind this should enhance the Church's relevance." One thing Scicluna's comment did seem to emphasise was a deep- seated sense of caution in the way the Church approaches party poli- tics. How much of a shadow do the political controversies of yester- year - the 'interdett' in the 1960s, the church schools issue in the 1980s, divorce in 2011, etc - still cast over the Church today? Is the hangover of these events still being felt today? "Enormously. The 1960s inder- diction was a most tragic mistake which lacked judgement, foresight and charity; a grievous abuse of power. The 1980s Church schools controversy was unnecessary and futile on the part of the Church. The divorce referendum was a complete fiasco on all fronts. What is most awful and painful, how- ever, in each of these cases – and in others too, such as the crusade against Manuel Dimech – is that the Church still appears to be un- repentant and has not been serious on making amends. The aforemen- tioned new position of Archbishop Scicluna may be an opportunity to do so convincingly." Meanwhile, not all the current is- sues are 'political' in the traditional sense. Fr Mark himself recently Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 16 APRIL 2017 Without much fanfare [Bishop Scicluna] proposed that the Church in Malta is just one voice amongst others. This is unprecedented. Never, to my mind, has the local Church seen itself from this perspective PERSPECTIVE Love is not a religion