What to do when in Rome

The circumstances of the Church today, Archbishop Paul Cremona has often stated, resemble those it found itself in its first centuries, under the Roman Empire. A Church swimming against the social current, the nucleus of a minority, whose conviction and action finally triumph over the fads and decadence of the age. When in Rome, challenge the Romans.

Anyone following the exchange of New Year's greetings, however, would be forgiven for thinking that the Maltese Church actually finds itself in Byzantium.

A celebrated mosaic in the sanctuary of the church of San Vitale in Ravenna depicts the Emperor Justinian alongside Bishop Maximianus. To the right of the emperor stand his courtiers and praetorian guard, all deferentially positioned a step behind him. To his left is Maximianus, with an entourage of Church men. But is Maximianus standing slightly behind the emperor?

That is left unclear by the mosaic. Justinian's elbow appears to place him before the bishop but the bishop's feet appear to be closer to the viewer. The picture, heavily laden with symbols that can be read in more than one way, is ambivalent, reflecting the see-saw of terrestrial and spiritual power.

What about the New Year's greetings between Church and state in Malta 2009, as seen in print and on TV? The Prime Minister visits the Archbishop, who visits the President of the Republic (and who, this year, slipped back to visit the Archbishop in the afternoon).

Strictly speaking, this does not follow the formal order of precedence. Since Independence (but not before), the Prime Minister is second only to the President (or, earlier, the Governor), although the Archbishop comes third, before the Leader of the Opposition.

One can read too much into the show of deference. After all, US Presidents have repeatedly greeted popes with much greater deference and pomp than is strictly owed to the head of a minuscule state (although the fact that the Pope is a head of state has been the excuse given as to why he was being greeted, so as not to be bound by precedent to meet other religious leaders). And, yet, whenever it has come to the crunch, whether on abortion or on war, US Presidents have stuck to their chosen path, listening to their own drumbeat plus, of course, the polls.

And there is little reason to think that Malta is substantially different. Despite the widespread perception, no detailed account I have ever been given on Maltese Church-state relations could ever be read, straightforwardly, as a one-way-street relationship. Every Prime Minister has steamed ahead, listening to his own drumbeat, whenever he thought he could. In so far as the TV images recall Byzantium, it is the trickiness of the practical relationship, so dependent on personality and circumstance.

Other developments, already palpable, are more likely to affect the relationship significantly.

Mgr Cremona's sermon on Independence Day, last year, was marked by a rhetorical move that was under-noticed. In stressing that the Church was ready to contribute to Maltese society, the head of the Maltese Church, I believe for the first time on such an occasion, uncoupled Church from society.

Under Mgr Joseph Mercieca, Church pronouncements tended to assume that Church and society largely overlapped; to speak of one was to speak of the other. Social criticism was always criticism of one's flock. Mgr Cremona, on the other hand, suggested a critical engagement with society as an interlocutor.

It was, of course, simple recognition of the facts. But it still bespeaks a new attitude and a new kind of relationship. As in other countries, the Maltese Church is adjusting itself to being a voice of a new kind of authority - wisdom, rather than conformity; a critic of the status quo (which it identifies with "materialism") rather than its upholder.

What chance does it have to be, in turn, recognised as such? Currently, I would say the prospects are not good. Active in the social field, representatives of Church organisations can still speak with the authority of experience when touching on questions of "social problems" and suffering.

Wisdom is another matter. Two obstacles lie in its path, although they can be corrected. One is that Church schools, due to personnel shortages, are to my knowledge not provided with spiritual directors. To recognise wisdom when one hears it, it pays to have been trained to do so during one's schooling. (Catechism is not enough.) And if even alumni of Church schools are not trained, what of the others?

Second, there is Mgr Cremona's manner of speaking in public discussion. He often leaves his sentences unfinished. Presumably, it is because he expects the audience to finish them off mentally - since he believes that what he is saying is obvious. That may well have been his experience in parishes.

But for those who do not share his assumptions, what he means is not obvious at all. Among TV audiences, such people are legion. So he ends up coming across, even to some of his supporters, as weak.

His approach to Church-state relations deserve separate treatment on another occasion. But if the Archbishop is going to take the parallel with the Roman empire to heart, then he should recall that many of his listeners are sceptical.

ranierfsadni@europe.com