No mention of 'secular'

I am one of those who feel justifiably aggrieved by Martin Scicluna's unfair criticism that our President had failed to act as "the ultimate guardian of our Constitution" because of his spurious claim that Malta's constitutional position is that of "a liberal, secular, Parliamentary democracy".

The Constitution of the Republic of Malta does not mention any "secular" democracy. It identifies Malta as a republican democracy whose religion is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion and it imposes on the authorities of that religion the right and duty to teach what is right and what is wrong. This is not some insignificant or meaningless article of our Constitution.

Dissidents who object to the President making any reference to this constitutional "right and duty to teach" may choose to pretend that they are defending a separation of state from religion.

What they are trying to do is to suppress any reference by the Head of State to Articles 1 and 2 of our republican Constitution and the imposed rights and duties on the local authorities of the Catholic Church.

As the "ultimate guardian of the Constitution" he is duty bound to protect these two articles of the Constitution and not to infiltrate arbitrarily the words "secular state" in substitution of the authentic official wording that the "Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion" is the religion of Malta.