Using the religion card

What happened in court last Tuesday, after the former Chief Justice was declared guilty as charged, illustrated a point on desecularisation made by Dominic Fenech three days earlier in an interview in The Sunday Times.

Two priests were lauding the guilty party for his religiosity, for reading for a degree in theology and taking trips to Lourdes. The muddle of religion with crime was surreal to the secular mind. This, while a mockery of authentic spirituality was made, reducing religion to the conspicuous consumption of religious acts.

It is in instances like this that our attention is drawn to the reality that separation between Church and state is far from de facto in this country. What have the former Chief Justice's devotion to God, his prayers and rosary beads got to do with the crime he is answerable for? What effect were the priests' declarations on the offender's religiosity supposed to have on the sentence? This religious aspect was obviously being exposed in the hope that the judge, as a representative of the state, would take it into account. Are we to be surprised by this? Not quite.

I recalled how, when some months ago, I wrote about a desecularisation trend, a sizeable part of hell broke loose. I had written about the events surrounding the cancellation of the St John's Co-Cathedral project: "No doubt, this unnecessary hand-holding between the Archbishop and the Prime Minister has sounded alarm bells to those who have been there before. It is a pity that, by letting himself get involved in this way, the Archbishop has reopened a wound for some practising Catholic Labourites and others who appreciate the secularity of state" (A Quondam Wound Reopened, March 2009).

I was then writing about the episode where the Prime Minister, fearing that he would lose a vote in Parliament , issued a joint-statement, with the help of the Archbishop, declaring that the St John's Co-Cathedral museum project was dividing the country and would, therefore, be abandoned.

This, when the Church had already decided, months before, and for different reasons, that the project had to be ditched. So even though the Church's position - as it later transpired - was known to those involved, the Church did not reiterate why it had decided against the project earlier but instead accepted to put its name to the damage-limitation statement issued by the government.

In The Sunday Times interview, Prof. Fenech stated that "in recent times there have certainly been events which have shown we are not a secular state, and, I fear, less secular than we used to be". Prof. Fenech reminded readers that Labour had to fight hard to start the secularisation process in Malta and, all along, efforts are being made to reverse this development.

For instance, Labour introduced civil marriage but when the Church/state property transfer negotiations were being discussed with a Nationalist government, the Church pressed for special consideration for the Catholic marriage rite. The government back-tracked so that those who marry in a Catholic church have their marriage recognised by the state and do not need a civil marriage.

So where does this leave us? We know that, when it matters, and when the Nationalist Party has its back against the wall, it can rely on the Church to lend a hand, as in the case of the St John's Co-Cathedral project. We also know that the Nationalists do not care whether the secularisation process goes in reverse, as in the civil marriage instance. On the contrary!

It is also a fact of Maltese political life, as Prof. Fenech aptly put it, that "the Nationalists keep smiling, make promises they have no intention of keeping, blame the other side each time they make a mistake and are generally self-righteous". To this I add that they would unscrupulously use anything to reach their goals, Church included. We've been there before.

But the minute Labour touch this desecularisation issue, the Nationalists get into trench- warfare mode.

It doesn't matter that Labour is for the separation between Church and state and not against the Church. They will twist and spin to their hearts' content because they are happy to deliberately confound the issues, even if that means that they are being deceitful. As long as they think it will win them votes, the end justifies the means.

In a society where the example that it is acceptable to try and mix religion, crime and decisions to be taken by the state is set from high up, it is not so difficult to confuse minds and the Nationalists do not bat an eyelid when it comes to taking advantage of this.

Dr Dalli is Labour shadow minister for the public service and government investments.