[ANALYSIS] The goose, the gander and Fr Mark Montebello

Mark Montebello is no stranger to controversy having been the target of disciplinary action by his order on at least four previous occasions.

This time round, Fr Montebello has not been disciplined for deviating from accepted Church doctrine but for criticising the Church’s approach to IVF legislation as one which alienates minorities.

Others before him, like the late Father Peter Serracino Inglott, had openly questioned the attribution of full personhood to a zygote and even questioned Papal encyclicals like Humanae Vitae.

In this case Montebello strayed away from the ethical and moral arguments. Instead he attacked Church strategy for not learning anything from the divorce referendum and warning that its intransigence on IVF was turning minorities off.

This is why the threat of defrocking Montebello looks disproportionate.

Still unlike diocesan priests who are accountable to the archdiocese , Montebello’s position is complicated by his membership in the Dominican order.  For what Montebello says also reflects on the order to which he had promised obedience.

Still although the Curia insists that it was not even aware of the threat made to Montebello, the decision to censor Montebello-who is also an eminent philosopher and public intellectual, has a bearing on the Church and society at large. It risked impoverishing debate in the Church and society at large by silencing an inconvenient voice.

The argument that Montebello should either abide by the rules of the club or leave it, does resonate with a substantial chunk of the population

The Archbishop’s intervention

It is in relation to these wider implications which probably led the Archbishop to intervene as a mediator between Montebello and his provincial with the aim of reaching a solution through which the Dominican friar would continue expressing his views “in full loyalty to Church teaching.”

It is the recognition by the Archbishop that within these boundaries a very wide spectrum of views can be expressed. By not washing his hands off the matter and leaving it up to the order to silence the rebel priest, Scicluna has shown that he is different from his predecessors who probably did not feel the need to stand up for freedom of speech simply because they themselves rarely exercised it. Scicluna may himself have realised that’s what for the goose is good for the gander.

Partisan contortions

Ironically the social media reaction has exposed partisan fault-lines with some Labour sympathisers rushing to defend Montebello and other Nationalist sympathisers comparing the Church to an exclusive club whose rules Montebello had violated repeatedly.

PL supporters have used this occasion to lash out at the Archbishop whom they want to be less outspoken while defending the outspokenness of Mark Montebello, simply because he is perceived as sympathetic to their cause. In this sense their approach is contradictory since what counts for the goose also counts for the gender.

PM spokesperson Kurt Farrugia intervened in the debate by noting that “it seems freedom of speech in Malta is a privilege only afforded to conservatives” thus hinting that the freedom of both conservatives and progressives in the Church should be respected.

Yet party supporters, including OPM officer Josef Caruana, have recently signed a petition calling for the removal of the Archbishop for re-tweeting an article which drew comparisons between the mafia and the political patronage in Malta. The petition invited the Pope to replace Scicluna with an “apolitical” person. Moreover if Montebello is right in openly questioning Church choices, one cannot at the same time expect more conservative elements in the Church to remain silent when facing legislation, which they oppose.

Underlying the conflict between Montebello and conservatives in the Church is the perennial matter of which issues should be given priority by the Church. This is an instance where a wide spectrum of opinions exists within the Church.

Is the Church a club?

It is not just Labour supporters who appear contradictory.

Some PN supporters who normally defend the Church’s right to speak up on social and political issues, are not so comfortable when this freedom is used to question the choices made by the Church hierarchy which more often than not is in agreement with the PN.

The argument that Montebello should either abide by the rules of the club or leave it, does resonate with a substantial chunk of the population, including non believers who are baffled by Montebello’s persistence in remaining part of an institution, which he constantly rebukes. Yet this argument falls short of the historical reality of theChurch, which has a long tradition of debate between different theological and ideological strands.

There have been rare instances where priests were defrocked. In 1985 Nicaraguan Culture Minister Ernesto Cardenal was officially defrocked for refusing to resign his government post in the revolutionary Sandinista government.

Liberal theologian Hans Kung was banned from teaching Catholic theology after rejecting the dogma of papal infallibility but he was never defrocked.   

But the Church has also showed a degree of tolerance towards a wide spectrum of views.

The Church in Italy has coexisted with rebels like the late Don Andrea Gallo who advocated the legalisation of soft drugs and who at the venerable age of 81, participated in the Genova Pride in 2009, complaining about the uncertainties of the Catholic Church in respect of homosexuality. At 84 he said that the Catholic Church needs an openly gay pope.

But such diversity is not only found in the periphery of the Church.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops’ conference, had twice vindicated positions expressed by Mark Montebello.

In 2009 Mark Montebello was censored because of his claim that crucifixes did not need to be “flaunted” in public buildings.

The same position was expressed by Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the head of the German Bishops’ Conference, who is opposing a move to introduce crucifixes in public buildings in Bavaria. Marx insists that the crucifix should never be used as a symbol of identity to exclude others. In 2015 Mark Montebello was summoned to the Curia for a meeting with the Archbishop after blessing the rings in an engagement ceremony between two gay men.

Three years later when asked about the same issue the same leading German cardinal replied that any decision on blessing same sex unions should be taken by “the pastor on the ground, and the individual under pastoral care”.

Moreover Montebello is often accused of undermining the Church from within. But he remains a reference point for a minority of Maltese Catholics, who do not feel represented by the curia, thus contributing to keeping them in the fold.

The fact that gay couples had asked for his blessing underlies his role as an intermediary with social categories, that feel emarginated by the official Church despite their yearning for acceptance.

Labour’s favourite priest?

Over the past days many Labour supporters, who mainly used his case to lash out at the Archbishop whom they resent for being politically outspoken, have hailed Mark Montebello as a hero.

Ironically under PN administrations, it was PN supporters who were irked by Montebello’s statements.

Montebello was also vociferous on environmental issues under previous PN governments, going as far as joining activists protesting against the destruction of the Kalkara valley.

Montebello’s pro-labour credentials were reinforced by his friendship with former Labour leader Dom Mintoff.

This was only part of the picture. Montebello never shied away from unpopular causes and has been vilified across the political spectrum for his stance on prisoners’ rights and migration.

He disagreed with a paedophile register; he defended immigrants like the Nigerian Monday Iseki, who was charged with resisting arrest; and he even claimed Jesus was in favour of divorce.

Scicluna’s predecessor, the fellow Dominican Paul Cremona, under whose term the rebel priest found himself exiled in Mexico, did not turn any stone to defend Montebello.

Since Labour was elected Montebello has been noticeably less vociferous.

Yet he did sign a number of statements which were signed by left-wing intellectuals questioning Labour’s neo liberal drift and has continued to defend Malta’s constitutional neutrality.

Ultimately it may well be time to realise that priests with strong independent minds, be they Charles Scicluna, Father Joe Borg, or Mark Montebello cannot be neutralised and expected to be politically equidistant.

In the twisted logic of Maltese partisanship priests are only praised for being outspoken whenever what they have to say is music to partisan ears.

Mark Montebello’s troubled past

1992 Montebello banned from media by Dominican order for comments made on a radio talk show.

2005 Montebello was banned from speaking publicly because he said Pope Benedict’s appointment was “a sick joke”.

November 2009 Montebello is disciplined by his superior for “offending the sentiment of the Maltese” on more than three occasions.

November 2010 Montebello is sent to Mexico after being summoned to Rome for a meeting with the head of the Dominican Order, Fr Carlos Aspiroz Costa, in the wake of some comments he wrote in a newspaper.

April 2015 The Archbishop requests a meeting with Dominican friar Mark Montebello after he blessed an engagement of a gay couple. No sanctions imposed on Montebello.