The alleged negative treatment of Christianity to which Jacqueline Calleja eludes (Demonising The Catholic Church, June 19) is a reaction to numerous recent events, which remind the world at large that the Church is simply a reflection of fallible human desires and emotions that plague the clergy and seculars alike, with temptations of greed and the flesh which are part and parcel of our mortal existence.
There is nothing rhetorical, blasphemous, derogatory or offensive in the least about surfacing ill-gotten conduct for public scrutiny, more so in knowing that in many confirmed instances, persons within the highest echelons of the Church's hierarchy conspired to cover up sexual or other forms of criminal conduct, either directly or in subterfuge fashion.
The most common ploy was to shield offending clerics by transferring them from parish to parish, at the risk of endangering more victims.
In her ritual defence of the Church Ms Calleja conveniently resorts to a generic condemnation of those who were transgressed against and now seek justice, rather than deal with specific instances of wrongdoing. The negative image of the Catholic Church is self-made. For every instance of invalidated destructive criticism there are multiple instances that call out for justice and penalties to be carried out with impartiality.
The hard line approach of the Vatican on key moral issues may not be negotiable, yet to the vast majority of humanity, including many who are Christians in name only, their rigidity does not represent the changing mores of a progressive secular world.
Nowhere around the globe is the "spirit of the age" more evident than in Europe and to a growing degree within the more fundamentally Christian United States. This is a losing battle for the Vatican, as evidenced by the latest legalisation of marriage for partners of the same gender in California and the legalisation of euthanasia in other states. Look no further for evidence than the sharp decline in church attendance in Malta, more so among younger generations.
Morality and religious observance are in no way interrelated. The implication by Ms Calleja is ludicrous to the extreme. That the Church defends those most in need is beyond question. Equally true, other charitable organisations of worldwide renown that have no religious affiliations, such as Unicef or the Red Cross, are equally virtuous in attending for those in dire need of assistance.
Further, no evidence of intimidation against folks of faith who quote Scriptural writings in defence of what constitutes solid Christian conduct, has ever been proven.
It is true, however, that biblical admonitions no longer incite the fear of God within an ever growing secular society, thereby decreasing if not eradicating Church influence. The matter of who speaks for God is equally relevant. The separation of state and Church bodes well for a nation's progress.
So now Ms Calleja is speaking on behalf of God, divining his thoughts how he would respond to a given situation. Her sheer arrogance is overwhelming.
How else would she have interpreted Christ's crucifixion and the sacrifices of early Christians put to death in such a distinct fashion. Her stance diminishes her credibility as a person of independent thought and judgment, to one who echoes a dogmatic inflexible Church, no matter its many imperfections, which brings intelligent debate to a dead end.