It is common knowledge that in the past religions thrived on their followers' ignorance, jealously retaining the power of information for themselves. This power, so vividly and dramatically portrayed in Umberto Eco's masterpiece The Name Of The Rose, transformed religions of whatever denomination or source into repositories of knowledge that, when controlled, wielded immense influence and generated colossal wealth.

That, by and large, the Church is still a good influence is epitomised by the life and work of people like Mother Teresa of Calcutta but then there is also the questionable influence that is so far removed from the Sermon on the Mount that it reminds me of the wisecrack about the Vatican's parking bays, usually full of sleek, black, expensive limos, marked SCV, Stato Città Vaticano, or, ironically, Se Cristo Vedesse (If only Christ could see this)! As usual, I digress but I love it.

Because the Church is slowly but surely losing the power of superior knowledge as more and more people become better informed and are able to tap that power at the drop of a hat, the Vatican and its satellites are reacting in a way that verges on intolerance and bigotry. The Curia's reaction to the somewhat questionable taste in costume during the Nadur carnival ending in court is a case in point! Does the Curia not realise that the more it protests and prosecutes, the more rebellious people will become?

Reportage about a bioethics meeting held in Parliament last week gave the distinct impression that this country is not being run from Parliament or Auberge de Castile but from the Archbishop's Curia. The Reverend Prof. Emmanuel Agius, dean of the Faculty of Theology, as part of the committee reporting to the House Social Affairs Committee, accused the state of dragging its feet with regard to legislation covering assisted reproduction with the rider that should the government go along with the Vatican recommendations it would be an "honour" for Malta to be accused of not going along with all the modern reproductive technologies. Possibly the PM and the PN would be awarded the Order of the Golden Rose!

I could have taken that in my stride if Rev. Agius did not add fat to the fire by stating that the Church's position held good not only for the Catholic politician but also for non-Catholics and that the Church could not remain neutral in the face of such speedy developments in bioethics and reproductive technology, bearing in mind its long history of involvement therein. A statement like that takes Church-state relations to the days when Popes hurled anathemas and so-called heretics were burned at the stake. It is simply not on.

Why should our House of Representatives enact social policy laws that are based on the precepts of a Church that has always prided itself on its ambivalence to new geographical, scientific or historical discoveries?

The cherry on the cake was when committee chairman Edwin Vassallo declared that should the Vatican issue further documents about IVF before the law is enacted next summer, these will have to be analysed, presumably to ensure that Malta's laws will reflect those of the Vatican in every respect. The state is the state and the Church is the Church but not in Malta! It seems as if Malta is being run by a bunch of Catholic Brahmins!

This overt hiding under ecclesiastical mantles gets worse. When questions were raised about "the meaning of marriage, homosexual and heterosexual couples and the link between love and procreation", Rev. Agius advised that science does not supply an answer because its remit was not religious. Because science supports a utilitarian philosophy about how many people it could make happy, science by deduction is deemed to be amoral! Whatever next?

Although it is still unclear whether the Reverend Professor and his committee are suggesting or dictating policy to the government, the tone and, even more, the House Social Affairs Committee's reaction, strongly suggests the latter. One may be sure that some bizarre legal technicality will be found to create a legal loophole that will transmogrify some form of IVF to one that is acceptable to the Curia. Possibly a method that is highly distressing and humiliating like the one that closes an eye about terminal patients and the elderly being slowly starved to death instead of being given a quick, painless and, above all, dignified exit with a lethal injection. The blind letter of the law is heartless. Think of all those marriages that have been saved through IVF. Think of all those sick people who have been cured through stem cell research. Does the end justify the means? I, for one, think it does.

There will come a time when we are all long lost and forgotten that the Church, if it still exists, will apologise about the damage caused by this issue and other social welfare ones just like it did to Galileo so many centuries after he proved that the world was round! Will they ever learn?

kzt@onvol.net