He was not known to mince his words. Nor was he one who kept his opinion to himself. I refer to Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles. The pastoral problem with theological underpinnings which the early Christians had to grapple with was not whether they should own a bank and buy a bigger one. It was about how the Church should treat converted gentiles.
Paul disagreed with Peter. Paul was not happy just to have a private tête-à-tête with Peter. First, he confronted Peter when there were other persons around. He then published his strong disagreement in the mass media available at the time. He wrote a public letter to the Galatians.
Paul said that he opposed Peter “to his face because he clearly was wrong” (Gal. 2:11). Paul publicly accused Peter of lack of courage “because he was afraid of the circumcised”, of hypocrisy and of not being “on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel”.
Stern words indeed and sterner still when addressed to the pope by a bishop.
Fast forward two millennia. The Church is officially more in line with Paul’s communication strategy than with the omertà strategy of those who believe in secretive soft whispers in private. Canon 202 (3) states that believers “have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful”.
The best way to make one’s opinion known “to the rest of the Christian faithful” is to do what Paul did: use the mass media available to you.
Canon law reflects repeated teachings of the Church, which emphasise the importance of public opinion in the Church. Pope Pius XII told journalists that “something would be lacking in her life if she has no public opinion. Both pastors of souls and lay people would be to blame for this.”
One of the best ever documents of the Catholic Church about the place of public opinion in the Church is the 1971 document Communion and Progress (CP), which was published by the order of Vatican II and speaks of public opinion and pluralism in the Church.
“There is an enormous area where members of the Church can express their views on domestic issues” (CP 117).
The role of Church leaders is not to just tolerate debate but to “make sure that there is responsible exchange of freely held and expressed opinion among the People of God” (CP 116).
Some of those who do not make use of their right (nay, duty) to speak publicly say that “dirty linen” should be washed in private.
Dirty linen? I do not think that there is anything dirty in the strivings of APS to buy HSBC. Some consider it to be a very good business proposition, others (me included) consider it to be pastorally unacceptable.
In line with the Church’s teaching, I expressed myself publicly; but I never imputed bad intentions to those who have a different opinion. I respect those who differ from me. Legitimate disagreement and lively debate among members of the Church is a sign of a healthy organisation, not a weak one.
Catholics should be fully aware of the real freedom to speak their minds- Fr Joe Borg
Gozo Bishop Anton Teuma presents us with an interesting case study about the contemporary adaptation of Paul’s communications strategy. Like Paul, he had made his position clear during internal discussion. But, similarly to St Paul, he also felt bound in conscience to publicly air his grave concern about the possibility of APS buying HSBC.
On October 12, he gave a homily which was broadcast live on UTV. The homily was reported by the Times of Malta and can be accessed on the YouTube site of the Diocese of Gozo. Those who shirked their duty to report him with the due prominence that such a news story deserved, served neither the cause of good journalism nor that of the Church.
I believe in a Church which allows “unrestricted liberty of expression” even in the non-editorial pages of the official Catholic media (CP. 141). I know that this is not easy. In the course of my second stint in the Church’s media, despite my best efforts, regrettably there were instances where the pluralism in the Church was not as well-reflected as it should have been.
I believe in a Church in which “Catholics should be fully aware of the real freedom to speak their minds” (CP 116). It is a pity that many Catholics are not conscious of their rights and duties to speak their mind. I am lost for words when someone tells me that they cannot speak out on the APS/HSBC issue because they are employed with a Church organisation, or they lead a commission that is largely financed by the Curia.
It is very worrying that some people feel this way about the Church. This attitude of serfdom, so common in Malta, is, unfortunately, and, I add, incredibly, also amply present in the frame of mind of many inside the Church.
Like St Paul, I believe in a Church whose members should be proud that they “did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear”.
I believe in the Church preached by Pope Francis three days after his election: a poor Church and a Church for the poor. This is not a slogan but a pastoral imperative. It can be put into practice by a vibrant debate in full respect of and love for the persons that hold different strategies as to how this should be done.
None of us holds a monopoly of the truth. Together, in a spirit of discernment and synodality, we need to strive to find God’s will.
The Spirit shall guide us.