The case of faith healer Edward Spiteri hit the headlines recently following revelations in our sister newspaper about reports drawn up by the Christian Charismatic Renewal movement alleging the misappropriation of thousands of liri.

The Christian Charismatic Renewal movement, which falls under the Curia, had conducted its own investigations into some serious allegations about Mr Spiteri, as leader of the group Tigi Saltnatek. In its report, which it handed over to the Curia a year ago, the movement announced Mr Spiteri’s dismissal from the leadership of any Charismatic movement. In turn, the Curia banned Mr Spiteri from conducting healing sessions in churches, through a notice sent to all parish priests that was specifically “not meant to be read in public”.

But Mr Spiteri’s community insisted on keeping him as leader, and Tigi Saltnatek not only kept meeting in public places but also gained access to a very powerful platform – the airwaves. In fact, until a week ago Mr Spiteri was still conducting his weekly programme Erga’ Lura on Net TV following his break-up with Smash TV. This was because no one knew the reasons behind the Curia’s ban on Mr Spiteri, except the Charismatic movement and, of course, the Curia.

It is only now, a year since the report was handed over to the Curia and adopted by it through its decision to ban Mr Spiteri, that these allegations have been made public. In the meantime, two television stations have allowed him to go on air, totally unaware of his history within the church, while hundreds of followers kept flocking around Mr Spiteri and his group of supporting priests – hence the unprecedented split within the Catholic Church which the Curia is now claiming is “deeply regretted”.

In an official statement sent to The Malta Independent, the Curia defended its decision to keep the reports secret by saying they were drawn up by the Charismatic movement, not by itself, while Mr Spiteri is alleging that he reached an agreement with the Curia to keep the whole issue secret.

Our answer to the Curia’s position is: that is not good enough. This is not the first case where a potentially criminal offence committed by a member of the church was swept under the Curia’s carpets, only to end up under public scrutiny in the worst possible way. The case of sexual abuse by a Maltese priest which the Curia knew about for years surfaced in the same manner, and once again the Curia’s defence for not divulging its information was, to say the least, lame.

Of course one does not expect institutions to name and blame all its members against whom there are some serious allegations. But the Curia has to realise that it falls under the same civil laws of this country binding every citizen to report illegalities to the authorities. The Portsmouth Diocese, for example, works hand in hand with the police whenever it receives reports of sexual abuse or any other criminal offence. The Maltese Curia’s response team, on the other hand, keeps its investigations absolutely secret. And we all know that at worst that amounts to complicity.