|
Matthew Vella’s interview of the Gozo Bishop, Mgr Nikol Cauchi, (MaltaToday 10 April) makes very interesting reading.
I do agree with the Bishop’s stand on many issues, but a few observations on what he said would certainly not be out of place.
No doubt, the Maltese Church is no longer what it used to be some 30 year ago. He says that out of the 95 percent of the islands’ Catholics less than half of them practice their catholic faith. This he blames on today’s open mindedness of the faithful, which he seems to prefer. What exactly is this open-mindedness: receiving the sacraments irrespective of whether one is in the required state of grace or not?
Regretfully, he makes no mention of the standards of some of today’s clerics, other than to defend those Ministers of the Church who, in a survey held in his diocese, admitted that they are not following the law on celibacy. Does this mean that he is happy with today’s open-minded kinky clerics that, say, go strolling in their Bermuda shorts and fancy T-shirt in Paceville, travel abroad discreetly in the company of female friends (if only the Sussex
Gardens walls could talk), spend hours on end behind closed doors in offices or private residences, (at times under the pretence of work), attend social dinners/dos at friends or elsewhere, or organize roof-top barbeques for the very friendly? Not to mention those clerics who are accommodating enough to do errands of a very personal nature for chummy female companions. Is the Curia truly in a deep slumber or is it just pretending?
Of course the removal of celibacy will not stop paedophilia amongst priests. I am convinced that the relaxation of the celibacy rules will not make priests better ministers of God. I do not think that we needed Bishop Cauchi to remind us that paedophilia is not only a characteristic of the priesthood. Who ever said it is? But on the other hand, one should not escape justice because one happens to belong to the clergy.
The late Pope John Paul II publicly declared that there is no place for paedophiles within the Church. He went on to recommend that paedophile priests should be expelled from the Church and handed over to the civil authorities. Because of the ‘privileged’ status clerics enjoy in society, due to their spiritual commitment, a sine qua non characteristic in priesthood is definitely ‘the best behaviour’, and an ‘exemplary lifestyle’.
I do not consider it to be fair for the Church to remove celibacy and, at the same time refrain from introducing divorce. The church just cannot keep on giving preferential treatment to its clerics, while remaining firm on its views on divorce. Lest I be misunderstood, I am totally against divorce, just as much as I am totally against the removal of the celibacy vow for priests. If a cleric wants to have his cake and eat it, there already exists a way out. Unlike a married person, a priest can leave the priesthood and seek new pastures elsewhere. The cleric’s position, as it is, is already more advantageous than that of a married person.
For the sake of the argument, let us deviate from the issue of sexuality in priesthood. I wonder what Bishop Cauchi’s views are vis-à-vis those clerics who defiantly go against their very own vow of obedience which they made on the day of ordination, when while lying on the floor they promised obedience to their bishop, depart from the church’s teachings, and blatantly contravenes Canon Law. Surely, they do not deserve to be called ministers of God, do they?
Bishop Cauchi admits that the Church is slow in its pronouncements. He claims that this is the result of lack of information. But does the Curia endeavour to establish the truth when the clergy is criticised? Or does it bury its head in the sand, rather than investigate the criticism? If the church authority really wants to seek the necessary information, it knows where it should start from, particularly when the criticism comes from known sources. I agree that one should not be carried away with what cikku l-poplu says but the Church has an obligation to investigate reliable hearsay and be transparent with its findings, rather than sweep the dust under the carpet in the hope that one forgets, as some of the serious people, referred to by Mgs Cauchi, may suggest. To what extent does the Curia monitor sabbaticals?
I was always taught that sins are only forgiven (in confession) if there is true repentance. Until then, unless I have not been misled or misinformed in my catholic teachings, one is not supposed to be in the state of grace to receive the Sacraments. And what about administering them? How can than the Church permit certain priests to say mass, hear confession and administer the other Sacraments, when their public behaviour reveals them as sinners? Are they out of line with the Church teachings or aren’t they? Are such priests befitting to be ministers of God or are they not? Should they be divested of their ministerial duties? Is this, perhaps, the open-minded class that has succeeded in improving the quality of churchgoers, at the cost of quantity, Mgr Cauchi referred to in his interview with Matthew?
I implore Bishop Cauchi’s to enlighten the not so open-minded class of Catholics (practicing or not) for, to many, the situation is tantamount to confusion and aberrations.
John G Borg-Bartolo
Attard |
