Archbishop Michael Gonzi

In this archive article from The Tablet, one can see that Malta immediately started implementing (wrongly) the Second Vatican Council, whereas laity in other countries had already founded the FIUV in 1965. We all know the results ... as the Maltese saying goes: "Il-qattusa għaġġelija frieħ għomja tagħmel".

Some food for thought for us, as the new Pro Tridentina (Malta) Committee is gearing for the challenges ahead.

AGGIORNAMENTO IN MALTA

DEAR SIR,

 

Your special correspondent, in reporting on the aggiornamento in Malta in THE TABLET of December 24th, 1966, took care to check his facts and was kind enough to offer practical suggestions. For this we are grateful. Unlike him, "Observer," in his letter in THE TABLET of January 7th, 1967, based his statements on " rumours " and " impressions " and declined to suggest remedies.

For the record, I have checked each of his examples and the following are my findings: 

 

(a) After his summer audience with Pope Paul, Archbishop Gonzi informed the college of parish priests, the cathedral chapter, and several other persons, among whom the undersigned, that the Pope, without being asked to, had asked him to continue in office.

(b) In 1966, Archbishop Gonzi lifted the ban on the Labour Party unilaterally in order to respond to the new climate of the conciliar Church. Earlier during the year, before the elections, the Labour press had been very emphatic about this climate and, at one stage, even commended the pre-election pastoral letter.

(c) The pastoral council is due to meet every month and not, as "Observer " stated, every quarter. The first two meetings were lively but, as was shown in the report circulated to the press, constructive. The archbishop explicitly asked members to put forward their frank views in a spirit of charity. During its January meeting it voted on the first, fifty-page draft of the Maltese pastoral plan.

(d) Contrary to what "Observer " stated, the new organisations are not the monopoly of a few individuals. The pastoral council has been criticised as being too big because of its fifty members (of whom twenty-six are laymen). The council of the Maltese sisters' conference is formed by representatives of each of the female religious institutes. Young priests have been appointed to new full-time offices to serve youth, labour, and to direct research and reorganisation.

(e) As regards the liturgy, Canon Houtart of FERES reported that he had found the people aware of its essentials when he personally surveyed the pastoral situation of Malta in 1958. Today, they flock to weekday Masses celebrated in Maltese, and join in congregational singing supervised by the liturgy commission. There are no hints of a movement for return to the Latin Mass in Malta.

(f) In the field of ecumenism, Archbishop Gonzi takes part or sends a representative to the major interconfessional services and meetings. Some time ago he invited the "high dignitary" mentioned by "Observer" for tea. The latter's feeling of isolation could be due to other reasons: few speak French in Malta, and few residents belong to his community.

(g) The Catholic press is being reviewed. Meanwhile it is absurd to state that one of the foremost Catholic papers mounted a campaign against the use of the clergyman suit by priests. There were letters in favour and against in most of the papers which found space for this particular issue.

(h) The PRS never formed or tried to form a conference for female religious. Like the Fathers Provincial, it is aware that this is the competence of the ordinary. In fact, Archbishop Gonzi, after consulting the Congregation of Religious, invited Fr. G. B. Andretta to launch the new conference. The PRS prepared the way by taking a census of female religious and by providing office facilities.

These and other "external changes" may not be enough, but they are a beginning. They must not be allowed to encourage a false sense of security and complacency. But they not only do not prove but actually challenge "Observer's" non sequitur that our heart is not in aggiornamento.  

 

Yours sincerely, 

 

(Rev.) BENJAMIN TONNA 

65 Old Mint Street,

Valletta, Malta. 

(Director, PRS).

Benedict XVI vs Francis - the smear campaign continues

Benedict XVI and Francis: two pontificates with different priorities.

Soon after the election of Pope Francis, some notable Catholic journals started odious comparisons between the current Pontiff and the Pope Emeritus, aimed at putting into a bad light the ‘reform of the reform’ championed by Benedict XVI. One of the latest is the article Francis looks to the Future by The Tablet, a British Catholic weekly journal that stresses that: "It is committed to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council."

Although this journal prides itself as having had as contributor Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, it nevertheless regularly attacks him, as the quote from the above-mentioned confirms:

"Benedict XVI’s ecumenical priorities were more to do with resolving issues from the Church’s own past. He put great store by the possibility of reconciliation with the Vatican II-denying Society of St Pius X, and encouraged long and tortuous conversations which seemed to be going nowhere from the start, given the non-negotiables on both sides. He reversed decades of church policy by re-authorising the celebration of the Tridentine Rite, which seemed not just a gesture towards the Lefebvrists but a reactionary move in liturgical policy generally, as did the imposition of a severely inadequate, if linguistically more accurate, translation of the Mass into English."

What The Tablet seems unable to understand is that:

• the pontificates of Benedict XVI and Francis have different priorities but both are at the service of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church;

• attempts at creating friction between the two will simply backfire, case in point being the first encyclical by Francis that will have a huge contribution from Benedict XVI himself.

Further comments at this stage are superfluous.