|
I refer to the interview Fr Mark Montebello gave your journalist James Debono, Silence of the stray lamb (MaltaToday 15 May 2005).
While I consider that Mark Montebello has his good points, he seems to be allowing the rebel sentiment in him to overpower him. Not only did he go overboard when he stated that the election of the new Pope was ‘a sick joke’ but, as your correspondent rightly remarked, he did not mind at all to defy the Archbishop’s ban of refraining from speaking publicly on certain matters
No doubt Fr Montebello overstepped his limits, as a clergyman, and the church authority had a duty and an obligation to discipline him and all those who like Fr Mark bring the Church to disrepute.
If Fr Montebello wishes to be free to speak his mind in the manner he does, he should leave the priesthood. The Church does not need priests of the like of Fr Montebello. Definitely, his behaviour is far from becoming for a Minister of God.
Having said this, I would not hesitate to say that the Church authority seems to be using two weights and two measures in the exercise of its authority within its fold. In fact James Debono also made reference to another blatant defiance of the Archbishop orders, by perhaps an equally controversial cleric, a certain Fr Joe Borg.
Again one may recall that way back in 2003, the church authorities prohibited Fr Mark from participating in a Super One’s TV programme ‘Robin Hood’, which had to discuss Malta’s EU membership. On that very same day, this Fr Joe Borg participated in a PBS Radio Programme ‘Fuq tlieta toqghod il-borma’ which included a discussion on Malta’s entry into the EU. I also recall the occasion, and the manner, in which the same Fr Joe denounced the Archbishop for refusing to accept an invitation to participate in a PBS Radio Programme (11 October 2003) which the very reverend gentleman himself conducted.
And what about the more recent, continual, public defiance of the Church authority, when this same Fr Borg went against the Archbishop’s wishes to refuse to accept Government’s offer ‘to share in the exercise of civil power’ which according to the Curia itself, contravenes Canon Law, and which goes against the Church teaching? Not to mention the total disregard of the vows of obedience the priest promised the archbishop when he was ordained a priest.
How can the Curia discipline one priest and let the other have it his way? Aren’t the above-mentioned offences equally serious to warrant disciplinary action too? Isn’t this an obvious and critical sign of weakness on the Curia’s side? Has the Curia truly lost its grip on some of its priests? Is it right for the Curia to afford a system of two weights and two measures? Is the Curia toothless, or is it perhaps waiting for the appointment of the new Archbishop, to exercise justice without fear or favour?
John G. Borg-Bartolo
Attard
|
