By Mario Schembri Wismayer
of Malta Today
Head of a prisoners’ self-help
group, often in the line of fire from the Maltese Church,
Fr Mark
Montebello thrives under
pressure and criticism. Mario Schembri Wismayer delves deep
into this complex person in an effort to understand him.
A monk
I ask how long Fr Montebello has been a monk. “I entered
in 1980 at 16. I was always close to the Dominicans. In 1989
I graduated and went to Rome. That period of my life was uneventful.” I
ask Fr Montebello why he chose the Dominican Order. “My
family was close to the Dominicans of Sliema. To me it was an
obvious choice. I used to know them personally.” So when
did he realise that he had a vocation? “Certain things
used to preoccupy me. A lot of youths used to gather on the Sliema
front in those days. I used to consider them to be sheep without
a shepherd and I used to wish to help them. Then I started to
spend weekends with the priests. One clue was that I did not
like it when it was time to leave them. One takes care of one’s
affairs; you avoid relationships and you study in order to join.
I was always fascinated by the idea of giving all my time and
commitment to Jesus.”
Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl
What caused him to set up Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl? “Actually
it was the prisoners who se t it up in 1995. When the two main
ones left prison they asked me to help them. I freely accepted.
I did not set it up. I was introduced to it. The prisoners called
it by the name it has. So as a group coming from the roots I
thought it was worth giving it my all. Today it includes volunteers,
families and others. It started in 1995 at the time of Jim Roland – he
was head of the prison. He was experimenting and the prisoners
set up this group while he was head. Other self help groups which
started at the time have finished.” I ask what the main
functions of the group are. “The main functions are that
of being a partner with the authorities and justice administrators – we
work alongside them for the improvement of justice in Malta.
We are a group of professionals. We provide advice and support
in improving the structures of the penal system. We are an uncompromising
enemy of criminality – be it large or small, but we are
also an untiring defender of the prisoners’ future possibility
to become a normal citizen. Whatever we do it is to safeguard
that possibility.” How many people are involved in running
this organisation? “I don’t work with large numbers.
We have a fixed set of people. We share our lives and form each
other through the help of the prisoners.”
Wording with prisoners
I ask Fr Montebello to explain further. “Formation means
instruction in the system as well as in the humanity of the movement.
We train to look at the person behind the prisoner. What we really
look at is the beauty within; what once was and what may be again
one day. That needs a lot of faith, study and sharing. We let
the prisoner change us; we change the way we see things like
justice, crime and persons. The prisoner is our catalyst of change.
We all train ourselves in this spirituality. It is all about
learning how to distinguish between the sinner and the sin. There
is what you do and there is what you are. We condemn the sin
but understand and assist the sinner. The bigger the sin, the
bigger the sinner, and the bigger our mercy. We are 17 committed
persons, most of them professionals within the correctional system.
We do have contact with the actual wardens but it is illegal
for the wardens to be part of this group. Most have a degree
in the social sciences, but there are others – managers,
an IT expert…” Society's criticism
I ask Fr Mark for his reaction to people who
say that prisoners are paying their just desserts and that
nothing extra should
be done to help them. “The most unfortunate thing that
could happen to society and to the actual and future potential
victims, is that a person leaves prison worse than when he entered
it and that is what is happening. Prison should be at the service
of society. People should pay their dues, but it should not only
be a place of punishment but also a place of therapy, where people
are healed from the causes of crime. Actually people who say
that there should be no help are illogical because they say they
want to benefit society, but simple incarceration is not beneficial
to society; it is making things worse. So when we defend the
possibility of a prisoner to live happily and uphold the laws
of the land, we are actually contributing to the benefit of society.”
Giving chances
I ask the monk if he believes in giving people
a second chance. “I
believe in giving real chances, that is, all round help. For
instance, when a magistrate gives a person a probation order,
without any help whatsoever to him or his family, it is impossible
that that person benefits from that probation. It is a question
of giving a real chance. Today we have prisoners who unfortunately
cannot be helped if not with the greatest of efforts. These are
mature men, moulded by the system itself. If there were only
those we would help them, but there are so many people who can
be helped and who have a real chance of changing that we have
to focus on them.”
Society's share
I ask what proportion of a criminal’s
blame can be placed on the doorstep of society. The word society
is a little too
vague; it includes too much. The common people are not responsible
for housing or employment. On the other hand, some people may
help; employers may be more sensitive to ex-prisoners and the
problems they meet on the place of work. These people tend to
get the blame for everything. We had many cases where when people
are asked for their criminal records after their probation period,
they usually leave the next day because they assume that they
are not going to be engaged. When we talk about society helping,
we must include the prison itself, government, which does not,
in principle, employ ex-convicts, which is a great scandal, the
unions, the employers. The ETC does help out these prisoners
and this is commendable. They have training programmes.” Apology
In the past Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl and myself
have appeared to be very demanding. And that gave the impression
that we’re
very critical about what the government tries to do in this
field. Sometimes I myself used very sharp words in this regard.
I realise,
now, that we did not appreciate enough the difficulties involved
in bringing forward certain reforms. I realise this now, and
I would like to apologise to anyone who may have been hurt
by undue criticism. We thought that people might have moved faster. We thought
that our particular point of view would have been understood.
But I do realise now that it is not easy to understand, and I
do acknowledge that. I would like to provoke your readers to
understand that as Christians we should try to understand what
Jesus meant when he said: “Love your enemies”, which
is a very profound and provoking statement which I think is absolutely
true.
Difficult cases
I ask how Fr Montebello would deal with a paedophile
or a serial killer? “Without specialised help little can be done. Giving
people prison sentences and nothing else, cannot help; the greater
the illness the more drastic the cure has to be. You don’t
throw a sick person into bed without giving a cure – you
can’t expect him to cure himself. You can’t expect
a child molester to go to prison for three years and come out
cured; that’s idiotic, actually. Admittedly, these are
the most difficult questions. Paedophilia is still not really
understood scientifically and this makes helping out more difficult.”
Study abroad
I ask if Fr Montebello studied abroad. “I
studied in Rome where I read philosophy – Plato – and
in Madrid where I studied Aristotle. I also studied ecclesiology
in Brazil” I
ask if he is influenced by the writings and teachings of anybody
in particular “There is a branch of philosophy that we
call personalism – I adhere to this ideology - that the
human person is the most basic- the foundation stone of all that
we call reality. Everything is a construct of the mind and that
is the fundamental of everything. The human person is the centre
of all consideration. If you change the constructs, you can change
everything.”
Clash with the Church
I bring up a controversial subject. I point
out that in the past Fr Montebello had fallen foul of the Church
authorities.
I ask him to mention the incidents that brought about this state
of affairs. “We have different ecclesiologies – we
understand the Church differently. The authorities in Malta project
a monolithic Church – there is one way of being catholic;
anything else is heresy or apostasy. I say that this is not true;
for example, the recent manifesto of Alternattiva Demokratika,
called for those who co-habit to be given certain rights. The
Church said this should not be. As if this is the only opinion
of the Church! Abroad the Church has certain pastoral attitudes
to people who live like this. In Malta the monolithic Church
is somewhat intolerant. Another example would be the Church’s
attitude towards homosexuals. It is not a question of doctrine
but of politics. It is not a question of doctrine.”
What happened
I make sure that I am understanding him by
distinguishing between the monk’s reservations about what
is morally wrong and how the Church reacts to what is wrong.
I ask Fr Mark if he disagrees
with the Church when it is a question of doctrine “Of course
not” So he only disagrees on the basis of how to react? “Exactly.” Harking
back to the original cause, I ask Fr Montebello to tell me what
happened. “It was a series of programmes on the then Live
FM. The first set of programmes was called “The Truth will
set us free”. It dealt with morals and religious subjects.
That was stopped and I began another programme which was called ‘The
strength of the will’ which was basically philosophy and
that was stopped too. After that there was the ban of a year.”
Reaction
I ask how Fr Montebello reacted to this,
as a person. “It
follows very logically with what the Church in Malta thinks itself
to be. The same problem was created last year when I published
a book about Maltese philosophy. Again the Church objected on
some items, especially where the book touched upon religion in
very lay terms. You have a clash of two models of the Church.” I
ask how come the priest embraced this very different model “First
when I was still in Malta – it was a decision I took for
saying the truth – to be always saying the truth. Secondly
I was influenced during a study visit to Brazil under the tutorship
of Fr John Xerri. But not only that. You need to see that every
view is not exclusive and the fact that A is in opposition to
B does not make one right and the other wrong; they can both
be wrong or right.” I ask if this is only characteristic
to the Church of Brazil. “It began there. It is just another
world view. That was the beginning of what later led to my assimilating
certain outlooks. What worries me about the local Church is that
it is making itself irrelevant. And sometimes because of its
monolithic structure and understanding of itself it actually
decides to exile itself. A case in point is the conscious abdication
to involve itself meaningfully in the EU debate, simply because
it does not see any other position where it is not forced to
say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It should not side
with yes or no; it should side with Malta. This image of a wholesome
monolith is very, very weak. The Church in Malta is one of the
few institutions which can do a lot of good in this country and
yet we are in this situation. I blame all this on the weak leadership
of the Church“ I point out that under Gonzi the Church was
more monolithic “Yes,
but at least we knew where we were. I think that Gonzi had phases.
There were times he was very social minded but then he was incensed
personally against Mintoff. But the Church never understood Mintoff
and Dimech - two great men of the century.“
A changing Church
Did Fr Montebello think that the role and relevance
of the Church today has changed? “The Church still projects
herself as the conscience of the people, which is absurd. Society
has
changed but the Church has failed to adapt. I think the Church
in Malta still has not come to terms with the Vatican Council.
Its mentality is still Tridentine, after the Council of Trent
model. Take, for example, the elaborate ceremonies. In a country
which is corrupt; the innumerable masses said every day; how
come they did not change Malta? Something must be very wrong.
The Synod is supposed to think things over; yet it’s nothing
but a long drawn monotonous, futile exercise.” So what
is your alternative. “The thing is that the Church is Malta
is still very sacramental. It has to become prophetic. It is
very sacramental and power oriented. Nobody seems to care. That
is the irrelevance of the Church in Malta today.”
Why stay?
If Fr Montebello is so annoyed by the Church
why remain in it? “I believe in the Church. I believe in
Jesus and I don’t consider Malta to be the whole of the
Catholic Church. In other words I see people suffering but the
healing hand of
the Church is withheld, unfortunately. I’m not saying that
the Church in Malta does not do any good, but what is done is
done despite the institutional set-up.” Changing subject
I ask what in Fr Montebello’s opinion is so different with
the Cottonera Project today rather than 1998? “I think
things are worse now because the Cottonera project is uncontrollable.
They are doing whatever they like. They are building higher than
the bastions, blocking passage ways and the like. There is no
respect to the architectonic character of Vittoriosa. We’ve
got a monster in our midst and we have not got any say as to
what’s being done. For instance in the name of the Cottonera
project a valley at Kalkara is going to be destroyed. We’ll
fight, but the voice of the people is not being heard. For the
benefit of Cottonera they are trying to destroy a Valley! They
actually say this – in the last press release the Planning
Authority actually said “for the benefit of Cottonera!”
Dom Mintoff
What do you think of Mintoff? “My relationship with Mintoff
is personal. I think that, like Emmanuel Dimech, he was one in
a million and basically I would call him a sign of contradiction
because he is a lot of things to many people – all things
to all men. What I like is this contribution he is giving lately;
at least we have another path, different from the no and the
yes. Polarisation is bad because it corners people with no possibility
of compromise or benefit.”
The European Union
I ask Fr Montebello for his opinion about
the EU. “I
think Europe is still evolving – it is still unprepared
within itself. Joining the EU now is joining something which
is still in a process of elaboration. Our contribution to that
evolution will be negligible. I think we should wait and see
how things develop. Secondly I think Europe does not want us
in but it does not want us out – it is afraid of us remaining
out. Thirdly I believe very strongly in independence and self-determination,
even on a personal basis. And I think that once we have this
we should not lose it willingly. It’s idiotic to loose
it willingly. Maybe that is why I did not get married!” but
aren’t you married to your community, I ask? “Yes
but self determination is not destroyed over here!” I ask
for Fr Mark’s thumbnail analyses of the Malta Labour Party. “Like
all institutions it has its defects. I think that Alfred Sant
is very much misunderstood. He is a victim of outrageous negative
propaganda from his opponents. He is blamed for things that he
is not responsible for. Labour is not as bad as they say it is.” I
ask for a thumbnail portrait of the Nationalist Party. “The
Nationalist party did a lot of good to the country. However,
today it has cornered itself into the dangerous position of either
EU or nothing and I think that the art of politics lies in the
skill of retaining opportunities and alternatives. So what happened
here is, to put it simply, bad politics. They should never have
become cornered. They should have worked on another alternative.” What
about a third political force in Malta? ”No. I prefer the
two party system, with all its disadvantages, I still think its
better than a multi party parliament.”
Inspiration
From where do you derive inspiration? “Inspiration
is a question of having serenity, internal strength and having
the
capability of seeing things. Letting things touch you profoundly.
So two things; serenity and contact. The first comes from prayer,
and from prayer alone, while the second from contact with the
people; prisoners, colleagues and the people I meet.” |
