Msgr. Professor Emmanuel Agius, Malta

You are a theologian talking very often of the ethical commitment of the church, how do you place such ethical commitment to the European secular culture context of the dictatorship of relativity?
Since 2005 I have been involved in two important groups on the European landscape. For fifteen years I served as a member of the European Group of Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) and lately more than before in the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences in the European Union (COMECE). The EGE is a high-level interdisciplinary group of independent experts chosen by the President of the European Commission after a public call. Its fifteen members do not represent their Member States but are chosen on their own merit. The range of topics addressed in the EGE’s opinions since 2005 is exciting, challenging and daunting. The EGE prepared reports on labelling of food, genetic modification of animals, cloning techniques, human tissue banking, umbilical cord blood, healthcare in the information society, human stem cell research and use, clinical research in developing countries, genetic testing in the workplace, ICT implants in the human body, nanotechnology, modern developments in agricultural technologies, synthetic biology, information and communication technologies, assessment of research, production and use of energy, security and surveillance technologies, new health technologies and citizen participation, the future of work in a digital and robotised culture, and genome editing.
I participated in discussions on these thorny issues both as a moral theologian and as an ethicists. Although not all members of the EGE shared the same religious belief, they were all convinced about the European values enshrined the European charters, treaties and declarations. My challenge in the group discussions was primarily to mediate Christian values within the context of today’s emerging technologies through rational moral reasoning. In a secular world, theological language needs to be couched in such a way as to make it understandable, meaningful, convincing and palatable to those who do not share the same religious worldview. Faith should never ignore reason, nor should reason be oblivious of faith. The hermeneutical task of Christian ethics is to comprehend the current trends of today’s technological and digital culture, to enter into an open, honest and transparent dialogue with scientific community, and to enlighten the debate in the public square with the Christian moral values and principles.

“We must “speak the truth with love” (Eph. 4.15), boldly in words and deeds. We must avoid retreat or retrenchment, which would make Christianity irrelevant. We must see the current chastisement of the Church as an opportunity for purification and a promise for resurrection. …The pillars of a pluralistic society which should shun ‘tribalism.’”

I found Christian anthropology and Catholic social teaching a veritable source of inspiration in our deliberations in the domain of science and new technologies. Really and truly, the core values endorsed in the European charters and treatises, such as human dignity, common good, justice, and subsidiarity, have Christian roots. My fifteen-years of experience as a member of the EGE were an enriching experience which taught me how to listen attentively to others rather than to impose my views, to respect unreservedly other worldviews rather than to believe uncritically that our faith has a ready-made solution to all the emerging challenges of today’s converging technologies, and to practice prudently the art of persuasion through rational argumentation rather than to manipulate discussions through authoritarianism. As Charles Taylor, the Canadian Christian philosopher of culture, maintains, competing ethical worldviews need to be addressed rationally rather than authoritatively since cogent and unequivocal argumentation is the ultimate arbitrator of moral truth. I strongly believe what the German philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, maintains on the important role of religion in the public sphere. I never doubted or compromised my ethical convictions. However, the great challenge for theologians is undoubtedly to learn the art of dialogue with post-secular, postmodern and post-truth culture and to discern and recognise its positive trends. The EGE offered me a unique opportunity to experience intensely the true meaning and practice of a ‘culture of encounter’ as defined by Pope Francis in Fratelli Tutti. During our monthly meetings in Brussels and other European cities, we disagreed on many issues, yet we struggled to find a consensus! We came from different backgrounds, nevertheless we worked together and learned from each other! With open, honest and transparent discussions we have collaborated relentlessly to consolidate the European values of tomorrow in the domain of science and new technologies.
Recently I have been appointed moderator of the COMECE Working Group on Ethics. The role of the COMECE in general is to dialogue with EU institution, providing contributions that promote common good, human rights and a human-centred approach in EU policies. The specific role of the group which I am moderating is to follow the discussions and policies adopted on health, research, new technologies and associated socio-economic issues, at the EU institutions in order to proactively prepare position papers which analyse technology and innovation from the horizon of Christian faith and Christian ethics. Currently we are drafting an important positon paper on the issue of energy and its impact of people’s quality of life and the agricultural sector across Europe and beyond. This is a thorny issue on the European landscape in the wake of the Ukrainian war.

Do you think synodality is a deconstruction of our concept of authority, from an inherited Platonic and Roman view of a monological perspective overlooking the Council view?
A paradigm shift in the exercise of power and authority is so badly needed by the Church to become a communion. According to the Preparatory Document of the Synod on Synodality, one objective of the synod is precisely to examine “how responsibility and power are lived in the Church, as well as the structures by which they are managed, bringing to light and trying to convert prejudices and distorted practices that are not rooted in the Gospel.” The prevailing culture that the clergy knows what is best has led to many types of abuse (power, economic, conscience, sexual). Bishops are called to learn how to be good listeners and to strengthen the space for debate so that the entire ecclesial community could contribute in the process of discernment and participate actively in the decision-making and decision-taking processes. Clericalism and ‘hierarchicalism’ do not reflect the spirit of a communal and synodal church as envisaged by the Second Vatican Council. Clericalism arises from an elitist and exclusivist vision of vocation that interprets the ministry received as a power to be exercised rather than as a free and generous service to be given. A clericalist culture reinforces and perpetuates clergy advantages and status to secure power and privileges rather than service and mission. The Vademecum of the Synod on Synodality raises the following pertinent questions: “How do we promote participation in decision-making within hierarchical structures? Do our decision-making methods help us to listen to the whole People of God? What is the relationship between consultation and decision-making, and how do we put these into practice? What tools and procedures do we use to promote transparency and accountability? How can we grow in communal spiritual discernment?” goal The language of authority must transforms itself into a language of synodality. The linguistic paradigm of synodality is far from the willing of power. It starts by asking questions and not by giving solutions. The fundamental behind language is mutual understanding rather than supremacy and dominance.

You seem to say synodality is not about changing doctrines, but synodality is a space where every Catholics can meet with dissent, discussion and dissolving disagreement to mutual understanding and dikonia. Has the church accepted the common priesthood of all or is clericalism still an impediment in creating the space for dialogue?
It was Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, the relator general of the synod on synodality, who remarked, that synodality does not mean changing doctrines, but rather a fostering of attitudes that inspire communion, participation and mission of those journeying together to become one church where everyone matters and feels welcome. The clerical mind-set which considers the laity’s role as simply restricted to ‘praying, paying and obeying’ does not make sense in a synodal church. Communion would remain wishful thinking if the laity are relegated to a subordinate role. Change of mentality and conversion of attitudes open up spaces in which the laity can express themselves and share the wealth of their experience as disciples of the Lord. Baptism is the identity card that empowers all members of the ecclesial community to full participation in the life and mission of the Church. It is only when the Holy Spirit renews the Church that synodal attitudes and dispositions are nurtured to give up the clerical mentality and embrace the equal dignity shared by all baptised.
Structural and institutional conversion finds its inspiration in an ecclesiology of communion whereby the Church really and truly becomes a welcoming space for listening, dialogue, and participation in decision-making, since all baptised are called to be missionary disciples. The Church at the universal level is transformed into a synodal Church when the baptismal authority and responsibility of all members are acknowledged. The entire People of God share a common dignity and vocation through baptism. Together, all the baptised are the subject of the sensus fidelium, the living voice of the People of God. Thus, attitudes like the “concentration of responsibility for mission in the ministry of Pastors; insufficient appreciation of the consecrated life and charismatic gifts; rarely making use of the specific and qualified contribution of the lay faithful, including women, in their areas of expertise” need to be eliminated. Everyone’s gifts and roles, without clericalising lay people and without turning the clergy into lay people, can contribute to the Church’s mission of evangelisation.

In the European cultural context Sunday observance and parish community and the hierarchical system seem to have failed. What structural change are the theologians of the West thinking to revive the church which is asleep?
The phrase “believing without belonging”, coined by the British sociologist Grace Davie in 1990s, describes the growing number of people who say they are “spiritual but not religious” and leave organised religion behind. More and more people in Western society have absolutely no problem with faith, but they do with religion. Secular society relegates religion to the individual’s private life. The process of secularisation, postmodernity and the global surge of clerical abuse of minors account for the widespread decline of people’s trust in the institutional church. Western society, which is becoming ever more and more post Christian, is in need of a church that rediscovers its own authentic identity. What is needed is a church that listens, discerns, and accompanies.
If Christianity is to do great things again, it must recover its voice. We must “speak the truth with love” (Eph. 4.15), boldly in words and deeds. We must avoid retreat or retrenchment, which would make Christianity irrelevant. We must see the current chastisement of the Church as an opportunity for purification and a promise for resurrection. In order to survive, the Church requires a desexualisation and repagination of institutions and hearts, clear-sighted and fervent faith, the renewal of supportive communities of family, parish and school, and a willingness to collaborate with people who are more post- or pre-Christian than Christian. The current crisis is an opportunity for the Church to awake from its slumber to rediscover its true identity and mission entrusted to her by its founder and to discern new paths of evangelisation.

Does the West suffer from the absence of God from its horizons, what is to be blamed, science and technology, consumer culture of the globalised market?
It has been more than 130 years ago that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared: “God is dead”. This assertion is often misunderstood and taken out of context. Nietzsche was referring to how the Enlightenment had contributed to the erosion of religious beliefs, which had long served as a foundational belief system for much of the world. After the Enlightenment, the idea that the universe is governed by physical laws and not by divine providence had become mainstream. Philosophy has shown that governments no longer needed to be organised around the idea of divine right to be legitimate, but rather by the consent or rationality of the governed. Europe no longer needed God as the source of all morality, value, or order of the universe; philosophy and science are capable of doing that for us. The surge of secularization in the West has led to the belief that scientific revolution has rendered God superfluous. Moreover, neoliberalism, globalisation and digitisation have fuelled a consumerist culture which attacks faith at it roots because it makes us believe that life depends on what we have, so we forget about God. In Laudato si’, Pope Francis remarks that the globalisation of the ‘technocratic paradigm’ is shaping the lives of individuals and the workings of society without any reference to the transcendent. These signs of the times are a challenge to the church whose mission is not to denounce today’s culture but to enter into a meaningful dialogue to foster a ‘culture of encounter’.

The Western culture remains Christian but with globalised inter-cultural migrations will the Christian culture remain? As an ethical teacher do you think the ethical fibre of the West is holding or evaporating? What is globalising is Western Humanism which is Christian, will such humanistic commitment hold in the world?
The Western culture is built on the diversity of distinct cultural, religious and social traditions. Migration is not a recent phenomenon, though in the last two decades we have seen a shifting trend. For instance, since many decades ago Europe has become the home to people of many different racial, ethnic, religious and national backgrounds, and its economy and cultures have been enriched by the contributions of migrants from around the globe. In an increasing globalised world, migratory movements will continue to shape Europe’s society. Many Christians are apprehensive that the strong flaws of migration and the lack of social integration will eventually wipe out Christianity. In a multicultural context, the Church’s challenge is to foster a culture of encounter and recognition. Rather than adopting a defensive approach, Christian communities have the responsibility to welcome the ‘stranger’ and enter into an open, honest and transparent dialogue with migrants who confess other faiths. It is only through genuine dialogue and sincere encounter that one recognises and consolidates one’s own identity, appreciates other faith traditions and acknowledges the commonality of moral values cherished by all faith communities. This approach reflects the process of synodality which incorporates all people of good will who are journeying together to achieve self-fulfilment and to build a better world for both present and future generations. Pope Francis proves wrong the confrontational rhetoric of Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilization’. He repeatedly pleads to the international community to foster interfaith dialogue and religious groups for a peaceful co-existence. Since becoming Pope in 2013, Francis’ major trips have been to non-Christian nations including Egypt, Bangladesh, Morocco, Japan and Thailand, pleading for religious pluralism and peaceful coexistence. Fratelli tutti projects a vision of a universal brotherhood where solidarity, friendship, mutual support, and common good become the pillars of a pluralistic society which should shun ‘tribalism’. The ethical fabric of our societies and their structures would never collapse if the fundamental ethical values embraced by believes and non-believers alike remain enkindled and vibrant in people’s hearts.