Editorial
The Church's right to speak and participate
The Justice and Peace Commission of the Archdiocese has just proposed a number of measures, including a fee on medicines, as part of its pre-budget proposals.
The Jesuits, who in Malta do not run parishes but work in education, at the University, in spirituality, in the social sector and among young people, on the other hand, regularly pronounce themselves on the issue of illegal migrants.
Church authorities speak against the legalisation of divorce and same-sex marriage.
Are these bodies doing something that should not be their business in a modern society? Are these instances of the Church trying to impose itself on society? The answer to such questions would depend on one's concept of the relationship between state and Church, between society and religion. This is a dynamic relationship that reflects the stage of development that a given society is in.
Ours is a pluralistic society even though the vast majority of the Maltese are Catholics and only a minority adhere to different beliefs or to no belief at all. Fortunately, our society has matured over time and is adapting well to the ever-changing relationship. A rabid kind of anti-clericalism is not the characteristic of mainstream Malta. On the other hand, the Church has abandoned its traditional belief that relations with the state should be based on a theology that looks at the Church as a perfect society.
It is positive to note that the position of Archbishop Paul Cremona on Church/ State and religion/society issues augurs that present and future questions will be met by a very sensible attitude by the Church. His homily on Independence Day witnesses the best trends in Catholic teaching on the relationship between Church and state.
He distinguished between the three stages that characterise the democratic process: opinion forming, decision taking and implementation. The Archbishop, after acknowledging that in a democratic society decisions are made by Parliament or by a referendum, unequivocally said that "the Church does not have any role in the decisional state which belongs to the State and to Parliament".
But while the Church, as an institution has no role, members of the Church, as citizens, should, like other citizens, be guided by their consciences when they participate in the making of decisions by the state. One hopes that the clarity of Archbishop Cremona on this aspect of Church-State relations is shared by most Catholics - lay and ecclesiastic. It may not always be the case.
Archbishop Cremona also outlined the important role that the Church has in the other two stages. It is vital that the Church makes its voice heard at the opinion-forming stage and participates in the implementation phase. A pluralist society by definition is a society built on differing opinions. The Church would be failing society if it does not contribute its voice together with the other voices and opinions. Besides, it is a known fact that the Church has contributed and still has an enormous potential for continuing to contribute to the well-being of our society.
Going through several comments made in different blogs and newspaper letters and opinion pieces one gets the distinct feeling that today there are several who would like to deny the Church these two very basic rights. This is a pity. It is only when all sides show respect to the rights and duties of all concerned that society can face the challenges before it without the risk of rapture and unnecessary trauma.
Popular Stories
Labour Party resorts to political...
Why calling an election now makes sense
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Top businessman touches some raw nerves
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
Stemming the tide of migrants
Smoke signals of the very worrying kind
Did justice prevail in the Lockerbie...
Frustration over fuel price increases
In Discussion
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Stemming the tide of migrants
Roadworks, traffic chaos and...
Labour Party resorts to political...
Does it really pay to use public...
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
This country must remain competitive
Frustration over fuel price increases
Migration challenges must be addressed
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
s.bugeja
Oct 13th 2008, 17:26
The church has a right to voice its opinion and we have the right to voice ours even if this means criticizing the church as in the case where the church suggested that a fee should be levied on 'free medicine'. this suggestion came as a lightning bolt out of the blue for most honest patients who do not abuse the system and who already pay for these so called free medicines through taxes. this is tantamount to suggesting that all drivers should pay a yearly fine because some drivers contravene the highway code!!
Anthony Baldacchino
Oct 13th 2008, 16:08
I can understand the Church being anti divorce and anti Gay rights, even if I do not share the same opinion, but for a fee on medicines and hospitals, I just cannot understand, why must the Maltese Church be different, not for the poor but against????
louise vella
Oct 13th 2008, 15:22
The Church has the right to speak. Our society believes strongly in freedom of speech and it's a freedom we have to defend with all our might. The Church too has to respect the freedom of others to speak.
In this regard let me quote what Dr Mario Tabone Vassallo, who used to conduct a current affairs programme entitled Bla Kantunieri on RTK radio, wrote in Il-Mument of 12 October page 15: ".... kont twaqqaft hesrem bla ragun, wara li kkritikajt dik li jien rajt bhala attitudni falza li taf tkattar l-immigrazzjoni illegali lejn u bi hsara kbira ghal pajjizna".
So he was simply dismissed by the Church radio for speaking against illegal immigration.
d.attard
Oct 13th 2008, 13:52
Quote: It is vital that the Church makes its voice heard at the opinion-forming stage and participates in the implementation phase.
Do not these two elements contradict one another?
The church has every right to make its voice heard like all the individuals and groups making up society, ranging from agnostics to sports associations.
But why does the church wants to participate in implementations is to me baffling. Final decisions are based on imputs of all members of society. The responsibility of implementation rests with the administrative. Where the church fits in the administrative role is beside me.
Quote: there are several who would like to deny the Church these two very basic rights.
From comments I have seen, I rarely come across opinion that wants to deny the church her right to opine. I do, however, come across opinions that oppose church imposition.
Church opinion is of course influenced by its dogma and therefore does not embrace a wider spectrum of values that act in the interest of the common good.
Being a EU member, Malta must embrace democratic and secular principles that place such nations heads and shoulders above nations inspired by fundamentalism.
j n ebejer
Oct 13th 2008, 13:35
Mr. Flyn's comments sounds Elizabethan- no catholic can ever be tolerated to be king of England. I beleive it still stands in progressive England? It does sound as intolerance towards catholics, does it?
As if, a catholic politician cannot reflect his beliefs and those he represents in parliament - maybe that is why he was voted for the first place.
William P Flynn
Oct 13th 2008, 12:10
Why is it "vital that the Church makes its voice heard at the opinion-forming stage and participates in the implementation phase" beyond its own followers? Malta does have "a society built on differing opinions" and their representatives fill the benches of both sides of parliament.
The archbishop's expectation, as he said on Bondiplus, is that elected parliamentary representatives will vote along religious lines "guided by their catholic faith".
This unequivocally contradicts his words that "the Church does not have any role in the decisional state which belongs to the State and to Parliament". Secular parliamentary representatives may vote along party lines or individual conscience - but NEVER according to religion.
The secular state should have NO relationship- ZERO- with any church/churches except that the secular state guarantees their individual freedom to exist and practice.
Any incestuous, clandestine or lopsided relationship with any religion would render the state beholden/ineffective; it shouldn't place one group, sect or religion above any other.
Every time the church's representatives/supporters superimpose religious opinion into the divorce debate they depict themselves as absurd, anachronistic biblebashers.
This editorial's observation that the general public has strongly resented the obvious implication of interference/undue influence into legislative matters is abundantly correct.