The Church's role in Malta

I WAS not intensely surprised by Mr. Douglas Brown's article on Malta (December 6). Here in Malta we are quite accustoined to flying visits from journalists, who after a few days among us feel prepared to write on Malta.
This is evident from his somewhat sweeping and inaccurate statements and, in at least a couple of instancy, even disparaging remark on the Church in Malta.
For one thing, I would still like to hear from the writer why ou "ecclesiastical history" is far "from edifying." For another, it is simply without founda ion to state, in 1968, that Archbishop Gonzi still "declares that it is a mortal sin to vote for" the Malta Labour Party. Not even at the time f the 1962 General Electio s was such a statement made y the Archbishop.
Corn ng now to Humanae Vitae, gladly subscribe to his statem nt that the Cana Movement iS "far more concerned with family happiness than with theological niceties." The Movement, however, did not evade the theological aspects of the encyclical; so much so that al national Study Week with ieetings for the clergy, doctors, undergraduates, married and engaged couples was
held under its auspices, with the participation of University theology professors.
Another point is that it was not the Cana Movement who took it upon itself to give instructions to pastors and confessors. This was done in the Pastoral letter by Archbishop Gonzi issued specifically not "on the day after the Encyclical" but a week after, on August 6.
This does not mean that the Church in Malta has no problems nor are we insensitive to certain crises within the Church. It would have been more constructive and interesting to your readers, however, if Mr. Douglas Brown described how Malta was meeting the challenge by showing also what the Church was doing. This he could have learned if he took the trouble to contact the right people. (Rev.) Charles G. Vella, Director, Cana Movement Sliema, Malta.
Douglas Brown writes: The unseemly jurisdictional quarrels between the Grand Master and the Inquisitor of Malta are a matter of received history; so are the modern archiepiscopal condemnations of the Malta Labour Party. If Fr, Vella wishes to challenge either it is for him to make out a case. But need he bother? The purpose of my article was to praise the genuine piety of the Maltese Church, as it impressed an English Catholic visitor who normally lives in a lees favourable spiritual environment. I am sorry that Fr. Vella's narrow professionalism should have caused him to be so ungenerous as to reject this sincere tribute.
In regard to the Cana Movement's attitude to the clergy over Humanae Vitae, I refer Fr. Vella to its Family Bulletin for last September, page 2, where the editor writes:
"We appeal. to our pastors and confessors to develop sympathy, tact and understanding in encouraging the faithful towards the path of grace."
The National Study Week, to which I had no space to refer, was an admirable exercise that sprang naturally from this attitude.