Reflections on Pope Benedict's visit

The Pope's visit meant different things to different people. According to your editorial (April 25), the only controversy, "locally at least", was President George Abela's statement that today's wave of secularism had as its starting point, "the strict separation between Church and state". The editorial asked the President to clarify and explain some of the terms used.

I am sure Dr Abela believes in the separation between Church and state. Had there been no such separation not only would the Church interfere in the state's affairs but also the state would interfere in the Church's affairs, and this would be unacceptable to everybody.

Perhaps not only the President but also the Church itself should explain how strict that separation should be inasmuch as both Church and state work for the well-being of the people. Can there be a strict separation between the spiritual and the material well-being when both institutions often work together for the same purpose? Is this what the President was referring to?

What is certain is that there can be no truly free Church unless there is a truly free State which can legislate freely. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany signed concordats with the Holy See.

Yet the Church was not free. In Italy there were continuous clashes between Church and State over the Catholic Action movement. The latter's premises were attacked, as were the offices of Catholic newspapers.

The Pope has the right and even the duty to say what the Church thinks on moral and social issues. However, Pope Benedict XVI, himself a head of state, even though he was here on a pastoral visit, while addressing the President on his arrival at the airport said our nation should stand up for the indissolubility of marriage as a natural institution and as a sacramental one.

In Malta there are those who do not believe in the sacramental institution of marriage, that is why they have a civil wedding. About half the population does not go to Sunday Mass. An increasing number of Maltese do not even consider themselves Catholics.

I think all these people should be respected. Therefore, maybe it would have been better if the Pope had uttered those words on other occasions. The granaries or Rabat would have been more appropriate. There he spoke more as head of the Church. Did the international media get what they wanted? Only partly. They seemed to have expected a theatrical gesture at the granaries, such as the Pope embracing and crying over the abused victims. That is not Pope Benedict's style. He did it away from the cameras, in his own way, quietly and sincerely.

Before the Pope left Malta the online international media focused solely on the meeting between the Pope and the abused victims. For them the Pope seemed to have come to Malta only for that reason.

What did the ordinary people get from the Pope's visit? They not only flocked to the granaries, some as early as 5 a.m., but also the streets just for a 10-second glimpse while he was passing in his Popemobile.

As I walked from Senglea to Kalkara I saw hundreds of people, particularly the disabled, who had been waiting for hours. The Pope simply brought them a ray of hope which entered their hearts and convinced them that spiritual happiness was possible. That is why they smiled, waved and cried.