Archbishop Paul Cremona speaks to Kurt Sansone about the Holy Communion controversy, divorce, and Church leadership.

The Church is perturbed by secularisation. Why?

We have to distinguish between secularisation, which is the process of dividing state from Church, and secularism, which is a way of saying that any mention of God or religion is alien to society. The Church is not happy with secularism especially because in some countries it has become a kind of ideology that does not permit, among other things, the manifestation of any religious symbols.

On the other hand, secularisation is a good thing and the Church has benefitted from it because now it is a moral power. Secularisation should lead to a pluralistic society, and while the Church cannot dictate things it has the duty and the mission to make its voice heard.

Over the past few weeks there has been a raging debate on the Church's stand in relation to cohabiting couples and Holy Communion. The Gozo Bishop has insisted that cohabiting people receiving Holy Communion is morally wrong because, among others, it causes scandal. There was a softer position advanced by Fr Brendan Gatt and Fr René Camilleri acknowledging the issue of scandal but insisting it depends on circumstances. What is the correct approach?

We bishops made a joint declaration outlining clearly the official position of the Church based on a document by Pope John Paul II - Familiaris Consortio. The Church is not there to judge. Ultimate judgment is in God's hands. The Church is there to save and it is her mission to bear witness to Christ's teachings.

People who get married want to be visible witnesses of Christ's teachings about marriage. Furthermore, the Eucharist is a way through which we can have full communion with the Lord, and this is also transmitted through the way of life that the Church proposes. All the elements that went into this debate revolved around these two important things.

In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict said charity was linked to the truth and so the Church cannot explain love without telling the truth it believes in.

Is it a blanket 'no' to Communion for cohabiting couples?

It is a question of going through a spiritual journey towards the Lord and having somebody guiding you. This is when having a personal dialogue with a priest who really wants to accompany you throughout this spiritual journey would be a very good thing.

These decisions would then be taken within that context, especially for those who want to remain faithful to the Church. God will accompany them in this spiritual journey.

The debate was ignited after Fr Ġorġ Dalli spoke on television. The bishops convened the Episcopal Conference to come out with the first official statement. Did it make sense to have the Episcopal Conference reacting to a television show?

The Episcopal Conference meets regularly, at least once a month. It is not such an extraordinary event for us to meet even because our conference is so small - three people - that it is not difficult to meet.

Things were said during the programme that differed a great deal from what the Church teaches, and in these talk shows everybody is free to say what he likes. However, we are talking about a priest, and people automatically associate what a priest says with the Church he represents. We were not reacting to a talk show but were speaking to the people who wanted to know what the Church teaches.

Was Fr Ġorġ Dalli mistaken?

I spoke to Fr Dalli for over an hour at my residence and I would prefer to leave it at that. Everybody knows what Fr Dalli said and what the bishops' conference said.

The Episcopal Conference made it quite clear that cohabiting couples could not receive Holy Communion. Considering how the debate developed with the Church-produced programme on TVM a few days later expanding on the subject and also including the viewpoints of people like Fr Gatt, do you believe the bishops' first statement was draconian?

Whenever the bishops issue a statement they cannot go into details about individual cases. They just put forward the teachings of the Church. In that programme there was the time to expand on what we said.

Is it healthy for the Church to have this public debate going on between priests, the bishops and Church officials?

It is to be expected. It is not a question of healthy or not healthy. The Church is not the same Church it was 30 or 40 years ago. It is important for theologians to reflect on Church teachings but they have to begin from what the Church teaches; they cannot disregard it. It is healthy to delve deeper, in a theological and profound manner, into what the Church teaches.

You have been visiting various parishes; however, you appear to be keeping a low profile and allowing others to speak on your behalf. Who is running the show?

I am sure that when I was elected archbishop three years ago, the Pope and his aides knew my character and the leadership style I would adopt, and I was chosen, perhaps, even because of those characteristics. I am not authoritarian and it is a great challenge for me whenever I have to impose a decision. I prefer dialogue. I am a person who listens to people.

I obviously have the formal modes of listening, such as the presbyterial and pastoral councils, but I accept what they say when it makes sense to me. Once an argument makes sense to me, I then make it mine and even change my mind.

However, I have also been given ideas by people who have come to talk to me personally. Christ's leadership was not only manifested by his behaviour during the Sermon on the Mount when he had a lot of people in front of him. His leadership was also manifested in the personal meetings he had with the adulteress woman and the Samaritan woman or when he taught the apostles.

Do you feel the Gozo Bishop is stealing the limelight and possibly speaking out of turn on a number of sensitive topics such as celibacy, cohabitation and divorce?

We are two different dioceses and both of us proclaim the teachings of the Church - but obviously in different bishops there are different styles of leadership. Really this is what divides us. Otherwise, on the main issues of the Church we are together because both of us proclaim the teachings of the Church.

Parliament will sometime this year debate legislation to regularise the civil status of cohabiting couples. Will the Church object to such legislation?

The Church was concerned about the exploitation that could have occurred between cohabiting couples. We were worried about the individuals in the relationship because if one of the partners opted to back out there was no legal basis to defend the other spouse and this could lead to exploitation. We are talking about all types of cohabitation because they could be brothers or sisters living together.

So the Church would not favour a law that regularises the relationship of cohabiting couples but would favour one that protects the individual rights of the people in that relationship.

That is our position and it has been so all along. As a Church we believe in the stability of a relationship based on marriage because we believe it is for the good of the couple involved. Marital breakdown leads to a lot of suffering, if not to both partners at least to one of them and especially for the children.

The state has its own way of reaching out to people but as a Church we want to put forward the idea that the state should have a duty to protect and help those couples whose relationship is on the rocks because they need a lot of help.

Every marital breakdown leads to poverty, hurt and psychological pain and the state should help them. But we also believe there should be some kind of investment into the preparation of couples who want to enter even into a civil marriage, and counselling for couples who are going through a bad time. The Church does provide help but there are those who do not feel comfortable coming to us. The Church cannot do it alone.

Would the Church broadly agree with a law regularising the individual rights of people who are cohabiting as a form of compromise to avoid the introduction of divorce?

These are two different things. When we spoke about the rights of people involved in cohabitation we were talking about the rights of individuals. So long as any law protects the rights of individuals, especially the vulnerable spouse, the state should go ahead and legislate.

However, there are also people who are inspired by the Church's teachings who then translate this into action by their vote. It is all a question of what kind of society we want to live in. This is the kind of society the Church is proposing; and then there are other voices, thank God, which colour the debate; and people eventually choose. The message of the Church will always be the same.

Is the Church preparing itself for a scenario where divorce will become law, or will such a development catch you off guard if and when it happens?

The Church has two missions. Its first mission is to address its own members; not just those who were baptised but also those who after being baptised have chosen to embrace the Church's teachings and embark on a spiritual journey that passes through the Church.

When I speak as the bishop of these people I have to put everything in the light of the Gospel. When I speak to society at large, and I know there are people who embrace this position and others who don't, I have a duty to pass on the Church's message.

If divorce is introduced, and hopefully it will not be, it will make no difference for the Church and those who believe. It will make a difference to the quality of marriage in our country, and we are afraid because we see statistics in other countries that show divorce can solve some problems in a few cases but in the long run it will create more problems than solutions.

There are those who argue that being in favour of divorce is also being in favour of marriage because it gives individuals the chance to re-enter into a stable relationship based on marriage. How do you react to this?

My reaction is based on facts. In places where divorce was made legal and subsequently diluted, making it easier and easier to dissolve a marriage, the problem ended up being marriage itself. People opted not to enter into marriage in the first place. Marriage may end up not being a true challenge for young couples.

Would a Christian Member of Parliament voting in favour of divorce be committing a sin?

I would put it in a different way. If he is a committed Christian and Catholic I think his main preoccupation would be to promote those things he believes in. I would not mention sin.

There would be a conflict in that individual were he to vote in favour of divorce. If there is somebody who is convinced that the teachings of the Church are for the better of society, wouldn't it be a contradiction for him to vote for divorce?

Would you expect him to vote against?

I am talking about something that is logical. It is only logical for somebody who really believes in what the Church says to propose it also to society at large. Environmentalists do not simply argue that they are the ones to take care of the environment but they also propose their discourse to the rest of society. Society may not accept all they say but they would have done their duty to deliver their message because that is their idea of loving society.

The issue of child abuse by the clergy came to the fore during the Pope's visit to Malta. Did it have to take a papal visit to put the plight of these victims back in the spotlight? Why has it taken seven years for the Church's Response Team to hear the victims again (last) week?

We have to ask pardon for all these years during which no conclusion was reached by the Response Team.

I totally believe in the integrity and honesty of the Response Team's members because they are thorough in their approach. With regard to this case, we have to ensure that in the future we do not have to wait so long.

The Response Team was set up 11 years ago by my predecessor. During this time it has enabled people who would otherwise have kept the abuse locked inside to open up.

The Response Team was a listening ear and provided an independent investigative avenue. It has done sterling work but now we are overcoming the initial phase and reviewing the statute that set it up. The Response Team had a mission to report to the bishop on whether there was a probable indication that abuse could have taken place or did take place. Investigating this matter took time.

Since I became bishop I set up another Response Team headed by another retired judge. The case of these alleged victims did come into the limelight during the Pope's visit and for us it was important to reflect on other issues such as what we could do to prevent abuse from happening, protect minors and prevent anybody over whom there is any doubt from entering the priesthood.

You use the word 'alleged' to describe the victims of this case. When the Pope was in Malta the Vatican's official statement did not use this term, which led people to believe that either the Holy See was jumping to conclusions or it was so convinced there was a case and that these were victims.

I cannot answer for the Vatican. I am not speaking here about the Response Team's investigation because it will reach a conclusion about the 'probability' of abuse. However, this case is also in the courts and that is why I used the word alleged.

These victims were moved when you and the Pope met them, but it took so long to arrive to this stage.

We have to apologise for this. The case is being studied by the Response Team and we have to make sure in the future there will be no recurrence of this situation.

When do you expect this case to be resolved?

I cannot say, but it will not take long. It is not a court case. The witnesses are heard, the alleged victims are listened to and then it will be up to the Response Team to give me its verdict on whether there was a probability that abuse occurred.

On June 21, I received a letter from the Vatican's Congregation of the Faith confirming the visit by the Promoter of Justice, Mgr Charles Scicluna, to Malta. He was expected to meet the "alleged victims" and "supplement the investigation done by the Response Team".

The letter, which we will be making public, says that Mgr Scicluna's help is being offered at this time "as a means of support for an expeditious conclusion" of the cases at hand. In this letter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also expressed its gratitude for the investigation the Response Team is holding and for the sterling work done by the archdiocese in the field of protection of minors.

Watch excerpts of the interview on timesofmalta.com.