Archbishop Wilson and the Catholic Church -- L-Arċisqof Wilson u l-Knisja Kattolika

 

I think I wasn’t the only person learning, with disgust, but without much surprise, that Archbishop Philip Wilson from the Roman Catholic Church in Adelaide, was found guilty last May in a NSW court of hiding child sexual abuse that had occurred by the priest Fr Jim Fletcher in the Hunter region of NSW in the seventies.1

 

It wasn’t a surprise, not from knowing the details of the case, but with the sheer volume of accusations over many years no only of the abuse proper but also, and worse, the lack of serious action or concealment by the Catholic Church, to my mind it was almost inevitable that some time, somewhere, someone from the top echelons was going to get it.

 

The Maltese have a saying, loosely equivalent to ‘there’s no smoke without fire’.

 

The case isn’t yet over, as the Archbishop has appealed against the sentence of 12 months detention given by the magistrate, who had also commented that the accused did not display any remorse for his actions.

 

Meanwhile, the Archbishop has stood aside from his position which is currently being operated by an administrator, but did not resign from his position.  There were many well known leaders in the Australian scene, including Prime Minister Turnbull and the Head of the Opposition Shorten who declared that the Archbishop should resign straight away.  From his side, Archbishop Wilson remarked that he was conscious of the calls of many to resign, nevertheless he made it clear he would be waiting till the very end of the legal process, and if this turned out to be negative to him, would resign at that point.

 

I will declare without hesittion that the Archbishop has all the right to do so.  The mud thrown on his character has now become a stain, despite his useful work with children victims of sexual abuse in the Wollongong diocese.2

 

For me however, there is another point to be made, and this is how this story reflects on the Catholic Church itself and on its processes.

 

Naturally, the appeal may well end up on his side as he and doubtlessly many others in the Church wish for, and in that case he’ll feel vindicated.  However there is also the real possibility of the inverse result and the sentence be confirmed.  And how would the latter reflect on the Catholic Church, which does not seem to feel the need to ask for his resignation?

 

In case the Archbishop loses the appeal, it would be difficult not to conclude that even today, in 2018, the Catholic Church still does not have adequate internal processes to deal with similar cases, not even processes coherent with the country’s laws that adminsitrators can follow.

 

It would be difficult not to conclude that the Church does not always take appropriate steps, leading wherever they may, unless it is not forced to do so by an external, lay, authority.  The necessary steps take place, unless they lead to one of the princes of the Church.

 

It would be difficult, even for Catholics, not to conclude that the processes of the state are not superior to that of the Church.

I very much regret that the reputation of the Catholic Church, my own and that of many of the readers of this page, just keeps sliding down into the abyss.  I regret even more that even today, teh Church still does not seem to have learnt its lesson.

 

It is risking heavily by leaving the accused, the Archbishop Wilson, with his title, formally representing the church established by Jesus Christ even if his work is currently being undertaken by someone else, until the appeal is heard in the coming mid-August.

 

To me, the ulterior reduction of the credibility of the Catholic Church, if the appeal is lost with Wilson still being formally an Archbishop, is too too big and ugly a consequence.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

Naħseb li ma kontx waħdi li nisma b’diżgust, imma mhux daqshekk b’sorpriża, li l-Arċisqof Philip Wilson tal-Knisja Kattolika Rumana f’Adelaide kien misjub ħati f’Mejju ta’ din is-sena f’qorti ta’ NSW li ħeba l-abbuż sesswali tat-tfal li kien seħħ mill-qassis Fr Jim Fletcher fir-reġjun Hunter ta’ NSW fis-snin sebgħin.1  

 

Ma kinetx daqshekk sorpriża, mhux għax kont naf bid-dettalji tal-każ, imma ilna nisimgħu għal ħafna snin b’akkużi mhux biss tal-abbuż imma wkoll, u agħar, ta’ nuqqas ta’ azzjoni serja jew ħabi mill-Knisja Kattolika, tant li f’moħħi kien kważi inevitabbli li xi darba, x’imkien, xi ħadd mill-kbarat kien se jlaqqatha.

 

Kif jgħid il-Malti, il-qasba ma ċċaqċaqx għalxejn.

 

Il-każ għadu ma spiċċax, għax l-Arċisqof appella mis-sentenza ta’ tnax il-xahar detenzjoni li ngħata mill-maġistrat, li kien ikkummenta wkoll li l-akkużat ma weriex indiema għall-azzjoni tiegħu.

 

Sadanittant, l-Arċisqof warrab fil-ġenb mill-pożizzjoni tiegħu li bħalissa qiegħda titħaddem minn amministratur, imma ma rriżenjax mill-pożizzjoni.  Kienu ħafna personaġġi magħrufa fix-xena Awstraljana, inkluż il-Prim Ministru Turnbull u l-Kap tal-Oppożizzjoni Shorten li stqarrew li l-Arċisqof għandu jirriżenja minnufih.  Min-naħa tiegħu, l-Arċisqof Wilson irrimarka li kien konxju tal-għajta ta’ ħafna biex jirriżenja, madankollu huwa għamilha ċara li se jistenna li jispiċċa l-proċess legali kollu, u jekk ma jingħatax raġun, joffri r-riżenja tiegħu dakinhar.

 

Jien se ngħid mingħajr tlaqliq li l-Arċisqof għandu kull dritt legali li jagħmel dan.  It-tiċpisa ta’ tajn fuq il-karattru tiegħu issa saret, minkejja x-xogħol siewi mat-tfal vittmi tal-abbuż sesswali fid-djoċesi ta’ Wollongong.2

 

Il-kwistjoni għalija hija oħra, u din hi kif din l-istorja tirrifletti fuq il-Knisja Kattolika nnifisha u fuq il-proċessi tagħha.

 

Naturalment l-appell jista’ jinqata’ favurih bħal ma jixtieq hu u bla dubju ħafna oħrajn fil-Knisja, u f’dak il-każ iħossu vvindikat.  Però hemm il-possibiltà reali l-appell jista’ wkoll jinqata’ kontrih u s-sentenza tiġi kkonfermata.  U din tal-aħħar kif se tirrifletti fuq il-Knisja Kattolika, li ma jidhirx li qiegħda tħoss il-bżonn li titlob hija stess ir-riżenja tiegħu?

Fil-każ li l-appell jinqata’ kontra l-Arċisqof, ikun diffiċli ma tasalx għall-konklużjoni li l-Knisja Kattolika anke llum, fl-2018, għad m’għandhiex il-proċessi interni adekwati biex jittrattaw każijiet simili, u lanqas proċeduri koerenti mal-liġijiet tal-pajjiż li l-amministraturi jistgħu isegwu.

 

Ikun diffiċli ma tasalx għall-konklużjoni li l-Knisja mhux dejjem tieħu l-passi neċessarji skont is-sewwa, iwasslu sa fejn iwasslu, sakemm ma tiġix imġiegħla tagħmel dan minn awtorità esterna, lajka.  Dawn il-passi neċessarji jsiru, basta ma jwasslux għal min huwa meqjus wieħed mill-prinċpijiet tal-knisja.

 

Ikun diffiċli, anke għal min huwa Kattoliku, ma tasalx għall-konklużjoni li l-proċessi tal-istat huma superjuri għal dawk tal-Knisja.

 

Jiddispjaċini ħafna li r-reputazzjoni tal-Knisja Kattolika, il-knisja tiegħi u ta’ ħafna mill-qarrejja ta’ din il-paġna, kull ma jmur qiegħda tinżel iktar l-isfel fil-ħama.  Jiddispjaċini iktar li anke llum, il-Knisja jidher li għadha ma tgħallmitx għal kollox il-lezzjoni.

 

Qiegħda tieħu riskju kbir tħalli lil dan l-akkużat, l-Arċisqof Wilson, bit-titlu tiegħu, jirrappreżenta formalment lill-knisja ta’ Kristu anke jekk xogħlu bħalissa qiegħed iwettqu ħaddieħor, sakemm jinqata’ l-appell f’nofs Awwissu ta’ din is-sena.

 

Għalija, il-konsegwenzi ta’ tnaqqis aħħari tal-kreddibiltà tal-Knisja Kattolika, jekk l-appell jintilef meta Wilson jkun għadu bit-titlu formali tiegħu ta’ Arċisqof, huma kbar u koroh wisq.

1http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-22/adelaide-archbishop-philip-wilson-guilty-concealing-child-abuse/9783612, retrieved 17/7/2018

2http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-03/who-is-archbishop-philip-wilson/9883638, retrieve 17/7/2018

1http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-22/adelaide-archbishop-philip-wilson-guilty-concealing-child-abuse/9783612, retrieved 17/7/2018

2http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-03/who-is-archbishop-philip-wilson/9883638, retrieve 17/7/2018

Political messaging in sports -- Il-messaġġi politiċi fl-isport

 

As we know currently the World Cup of football (i.e. soccer, not footie) is under way in Russia.  For its fans, this is a veritable feast with interesting matches, one after another.

 

A story coming out of Russia some time ago was about two Swiss players or Kosovan Albanian origin.  These two scored a goal each against Serbia, and in their ensuing celebration made a hand gesture in the form of an eagle, which represents Albanian identity.

 

FIFA fined the two players and their football association $10,000, as it considered these gestures as unsportmanlike conduct.1  Naturally, the gesture wasn’t sporting in nature – it was political.  FIFA followed its rules, but were players in the wrong for making the gesture?

 

I think this depends upon the position one takes on the message being given.

 

Serbia and Kosovo have a bloodied history, especially after the Balkans war that led to the dismantling of the state of Yugoslavia, with one of the states emerging being Serbia containing the autonomous region of Kosovo whose population is predominantly Albanian.  Kosovo declared itself independent in 2008, a declaration accepted by many countries, but not by Serbia and other countries, and in fact to this day Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations.

 

Coming back to this game of football, there were Serbian supporters in the ground wearing shirts with the image of Ratko Mladic, a Bosnian-Serb general, who was found guilty of genocide during the Balkans war by the International Criminal Tribunal that was set up to consider the matter.  Did these supporters do the wrong thing?

 

Those sympathising with Serbs will probably say that the supporters did nothing wrong, and condemn Albanian players for provocation.  Those sympathising with Albanians or Kosovans, will probably say the opposite.  Anyone who is neutral or couldn’t give a damn from all this and only wants to watch a game of football, will probably say that these and similar political gestures have no place in football or in any other sport, and be better stamped out to avoid trouble.

 

Does the lack of war mean that peace prevails?  Does silence imply there are no problems?  For someone feeling, reasonably or otherwise, to be long suffering from some injustice, would you blame her for taking the occasion to ventilate her frustration?

 

The first example I remember reading about political messaging in sport happened many years ago. I refer to 1968, when the black Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos had raised a fist each with black gloves, as a symbol of Black Power, on the podium at the Olympic Games being held at the time in Mexico City, where they had won the gold and bronze medals respectively in the 200 metre sprint.  Apart from that, they were barefoot to protest against poverty, and wore beads and a shawl to symbolise the lynching of blacks in the US.

 

The Australian Peter Norman, who took silver in the event, also took part, by wearing an emblem of the Olympic Project for Human Rights.

 

For their audacity, the athletes were immediately heckled by the crowd who were singing the American anthem.  Smith and Carlos were also ejected from the stadium they were in, and were not allowed to race for their country again.  The Australian Norman declared that he was no longer chosen for his country and was forgotten (although the Australian olympic committee disputes this) so much that recently the federal Australian parliament issued him an apology in 2012, nearly 50 years later.2

 

Do you also agree that political messages should not be made in sport, in order to avoid trouble?

 

Today, few people are heard saying that what Smith, Carlos and Norman did that day was wrong.

 

Think about it:  if this incident was fine, and the others not, where do we draw the line?  And who is going to draw it?  I think that each case needs to be considered, and I’ll be the first to say that the process is subjective and controversial, and be sure that not everyone will decide the same way.

 

Carlos once said during an interview that “morality was a far greater force than the rules and regulations they had”.3  I couldn’t have said it better!

 

---------------------------

 

Bħalissa bħal ma nafu għaddejja t-Tazza tad-Dinja tal-futbol (mhux footie) fir-Russja.  Għal min hu dilettant tal-futbol, din hija festa sħiħa b’partiti interessanti, waħda wara l-oħra.

 

Storja li ħarġet mir-Russja ftit ilu kienet ta’ żewġ plejers ta’ oriġini Albaniżi tal-Kosovo, li jilagħbu għall-Isvizzera.  Dawn it-tnejn skurjaw gowl kontra s-Serbja, u fiċ-ċelebrazzjoni għamlu ġest b’idejhom bil-forma tal-ajkla, li tirrappreżenta l-identità Albaniża.

 

Il-FIFA mmultat liż-żewġ plejers u lill-assoċjazzjoni $10,000 għax qieset lill-ġesti bħala aġir mhux sportiv.1  Naturalment, il-ġest ma kienx sportiv – kien wieħed politiku.  Il-FIFA mxiet skont ir-regoli tagħha, imma l-plejers għamlu ħażin li għamlu l-ġest?

 

Jien naħseb li dan jiddependi fuq x’pożizzjoni wieħed jieħu fuq il-messaġġ li qiegħed jingħata.

 

Is-Serbja u l-Kosovo għandhom storja mdemmija, speċjalment wara l-gwerra tal-Balkani li wasslet għat-tifrik tal-istat tal-Jugoslavja, b’waħda mill-istati li ħarġu minnha tkun is-Serbja li ġo fiha kien hemm ir-reġjun awtonomu tal-Kosovo li l-popolazzjoni tiegħu hija predominantement Albaniża.  Il-Kosovo ddikjara lilu nnifsu indipendenti fl-2008, dikjarazzjoni aċċettata minn ħafna pajjiżi, imma mhux mis-Serbja u pajjiżi oħra, u fil-fatt il-Kosovo għadha mhix membru tan-Nazzjonijiet Uniti.

 

Nergħu niġu lura għal din il-logħba futbol, kien hemm partitarji Serbi fil-grawnd li libsu flokkijiet b’ritratt ta’ Ratko Mladic, ġeneral Serb tal-Bosnja, li kien misjub ħati ta’ ġeniċidju waqt il-gwerra tal-Balkani mit-Tribunal Kriminali Internazzjonali li twaqqaf apposta.  Dawn il-partitarji għamlu ħażin?

 

Min jissimpatizza mas-Serbi, aktarx jgħid li l-partitarji m’għamlu xejn ħażin, u jikkundannaw lill-plejers Albaniżi bi provokazzjoni.  Min jissimpatizza mal-Albaniżi jew il-Kosovani, aktarx jgħid il-kontra.  Min huwa newtrali jew assolutament jiġi jitmellaħ minn dan kollu u jrid biss jara logħba futbol, aktarx jgħid li dawn il-ġesti u messaġġi simili politiċi m’hawnx posthom fil-futbol u lanqas fi sports oħra, u aħjar jinqatgħu kompletament ħalli ma jinqalax inkwiet.

 

In-nuqqas ta’ gwerra jfisser li hemm il-paċi?  Il-kwiet ifisser li m’hemmx problemi?  Min iħoss, b’raġun jew mingħajru, li qiegħed isofri xi inġustizzja fit-tul, int tlumu li jieħu l-okkażjoni biex jivventila l-frustrazzjoni tiegħu?

 

Jien l-ewwel eżempju li niftakar li qrajt dwar messaġġ politiku fl-isport seħħ ħafna snin ilu.  Qiegħed nirreferi għall-1968, meta l-atleti Amerikani suwed Tommie Smith u John Carlos, kienu għollew idhom bil-ponn f’ingwanta sewda, bħala simbolu tal-qawwa sewda (Black Power), fuq il-podju tal-Logħob Olimpiċi li kienu qiegħdin isiru f’Mexico City, fejn kienu rebħu midalja tad-deheb u l-bronż rispettivament fil-ġirja tal-200 metru.  Apparti hekk, kienu ħafjin biex jipprotestaw kontra fl-faqar, u libsu żibeġ u xalla madwar għonqhom biex jissimbolizzaw il-qtil, tas-suwed fl-Istati Uniti.

 

Kien ħa sehem ukoll l-Awstraljan Peter Norman, li kien rebaħ il-fidda, li kien libes emblema tal-Proġett Olimipiku tad-Drittijiet Umani.

 

Għal dan l-ardir, l-atleti qalgħu tgħajjir immedjat mill-folla li kienet qiegħda tkanta l-innu Amerikan.  Smith u Carlos tkeċċew ukoll minnufih mill-istadju li kienu qiegħdin fih, u ma tħallewx itellqu iktar għal pajjiżhom.  L-Awstraljan Norman qal li ma ntgħażilx iktar għal pajjiżu u ġie minsi, (għalkemm il-kumitat olimpiku Awstraljan jiċħad dan) tant li riċentement il-parlament Federali Awstraljan ħareġ apoloġija għalih fl-2012, kważi 50 sena wara.2

 

Int ukoll taħseb li aħjar messaġġi politiċi ma jsirux fl-isport, biex ma jinqalax inkwiet?

 

Illum, ftit nisma’ ‘l min jgħid li l-atleti Smith, Carlos u Norman għamlu ħażin dakinhar.

 

Aħseb ftit, jekk dan l-inċident tajjeb, u l-ieħor ħażin, allura fejn se nħożżu l-linja?  U min se jħożżha?  Jien naħseb li kull każ irid ikun mixtarr, u nkun l-ewwel li ngħid li dan il-proċess huwa suġġettiv u kontroversjali, u żgur mhux kulħadd se jaqtagħha l-istess.

 

L-atleta Carlos darba qal waqt intervista: “Il-moralità hija forza ħafna ikbar mir-regoli u r-regolamenti li kellhom”.3  Ma stajtx nagħmel stqarrija itjeb!

 

1https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/07/02/for-albanians-its-not-just-an-eagle-heres-the-deeper-story-those-world-cup-fines/?utm_term=.e41ce806776e, retrieved 2/7/2018

2http://theconversation.com/i-will-stand-with-you-finally-an-apology-to-peter-norman-10107, retrieved 3/7/2018

3https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/24/they-didnt-takeaknee-the-black-power-protest-salute-that-shook-the-world-in-1968/?utm_term=.d7a67bd1a900, retrieved 3/7/2018

1https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/07/02/for-albanians-its-not-just-an-eagle-heres-the-deeper-story-those-world-cup-fines/?utm_term=.e41ce806776e, retrieved 2/7/2018

2http://theconversation.com/i-will-stand-with-you-finally-an-apology-to-peter-norman-10107, retrieved 3/7/2018

3https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/24/they-didnt-takeaknee-the-black-power-protest-salute-that-shook-the-world-in-1968/?utm_term=.d7a67bd1a900, retrieved 3/7/2018