I cannot but praise the editorial team of The Sunday Times of Malta for how the archbishop’s opinion (January 7) regarding priestly celibacy was used to capture readers’ attention, thus increasing the possibility of having them reading the whole interview with him.

Notably, many important and serious issues were tackled in the interview concerning both the Church and our nation, which binds the Catholic Church of Malta constitutionally.

The latter is known to be a subject much at heart to His Grace and, in my humble opinion, he has matured in his way of shouldering this constitutional onus in a truthful and loyal way.

However, I’m very sceptical about the fruitfulness of such a tactic because the only subject that featured in public discussion was that of celibacy, which, as the archbishop himself admitted, is not within his remit to legislate.

Unfortunately, little attention was given to the rest of the interview, which dealt with other important topics that are closer to us and challenge us personally as citizens, particularly in our way of doing things and our decisions as political beings.

While, as a citizen, I’m processing the rest of the article to let it challenge my views and actions, I feel the need to challenge some assertions made by His Grace.

I’m sure the archbishop knows more than I do that the first written evidence we have about clerical celibacy comes from a council held in Spain, c. 305-6. And, if this can be dismissed as something provincial, it is specifically prescribed in the third canon of the Council of Nicea (325) – which bound the universal Church – that forbade “any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta [any woman] dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion”.

From the way these early legislations are written, it is clear that the custom was already in vigore but needed to be reinforced.

It is true that most of the priests came from among married men but, after their ordination, they separated from their wives to dedicate themselves completely to the service of Christ and the Church – something which we anachronistically can judge as unjust.

An immediate counterargument would be that based on the Scriptures, particularly where St Paul specifies that bishops and deacons must be married only once, etc. But, at that point, the various roles within the Church still weren’t well-defined and there seems to have been a clear distinction between leaders of established local communities and itinerant preachers (called apostles).

Another biblical argument would be to state that we know for sure that at least Peter was married when the Lord called him. However, this is debatable. The fact that the Gospels speak only of the mother-in-law who, after being healed by Jesus, “rose and served them” (Mt 8, 14-15) probably shows that Peter was a widower. Otherwise, it would have been the wife of Peter to serve them.

Furthermore, when Peter asked Jesus what was their prize for leaving everything – and everyone – to follow Him, the Master replied: “Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life” (Mt 19, 29). Thankfully, he didn’t include 100 wives because that would have been rather expensive!

I feel the need to challenge some assertions made by His Grace- Fr Gilbert Scicluna

Therefore, it is not simply a “centuries-old rule” but a millennial one.

It is not only false that the obligation of celibacy was introduced only in the second millennium of the Church’s history but, in reality, it was out of laxism and lack of enforcement that the Eastern Churches had to concede to allow their priests – but not their bishops – to remain with their wives. And, to date, men aspiring to the priesthood can get married only before their ordination while bishops are chosen from among the celibate clerics and monks.

I can understand and share His Grace’s pain when we “lose good priests just because they chose marriage”. However, we cannot overlook our belief that no truly divine calling can arise outside of the Church’s framework.

It is clear from the Gospel that Christ entrusted the Church with the power to legislate: “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 18, 18).

For clarity’s sake, when considering the local context, the ‘mass exodus’ that sent shockwaves among Catholics in Malta was more from among the religious. Even if clerical celibacy is made optional for diocesan clergy, the religious will still remain bound by the vow of chastity.

Secondly, looking at the Eastern practice offers no solution in these cases because, although married men can be ordained priests, priests cannot marry after ordination.

Thirdly, some of those who left are now engaged in relationships, which cannot be sanctified by the sacrament of marriage.

Here, I’m just stating the facts without passing any judgements. On the contrary, I respect the decision of those who chose to leave instead of conducting a secretive double life. But, again, can we really speak of secrecy with profiles on social media and on dating and hook-up apps?

While I pray for the archbishop because in no way do I want to be in his shoes, both locally and in Rome, I feel bound by filial obedience to make these observations.

The bottom line of my argument is that such a delicate discussion can only take place within the context of faith and not in a secularised context.

Only in the light of faith can celibacy for the Kingdom be meaningful and freely embraced. Outside a faith-based perspective, it is just a senseless repression. In the light of faith, it is a gift of love… just like marriage, after all.

Fr Gilbert Scicluna serves at the parish of Christ the King, Paola.