I must confess that the fact that the only official speech made on Independence Day is the Archbishop’s homily during the Pontifical Mass held as part of the official celebrations of our national day has always irked me.
Not that I think that a Mass to thank God for our country’s achievements is out of order, but because I believe that Independence Day is a civil remembrance of the anniversary of Malta attaining its political sovereignty, and that religion should take a back seat in these celebrations.
The Archbishop’s address last Saturday must be the cherry on the cake. The importance of the need of the strengthening of our citizens’ moral fibre is undoubted, and pushing towards this aim is a good idea. However, for the Archbishop to suggest that there should be a government entity such as a parliamentary secretary devoting its efforts to teaching and honing the country’s moral fibre is nothing short of an indecent proposal.
First of all, it is an incredibly stark admission that the Church has failed in its mission of teaching and inculcating moral principles among its flock.
In this situation, the Archbishop then incredibly implies that he can do nothing about it and resorts to the state for help. This approach also implies that the Archbishop is still confused about the fact that Malta is not a confessional state but is one where the separation of Church and State is undisputed. Both implications are unacceptable.
The Church in Malta has always insisted on imposing faith in a dogmatic way. When it came to the way people behave in life towards other people it has only sent weak messages. Witness its messages against racism and against social service fraud.
Many of its pronouncements are only made after some public outcry. It never even bothered to open its mouth with regard to that most immoral of Maltese practices with so many citizens ‘selling’ their vote to get something for which they have no right.
The Church was more interested in opposing contraception, divorce and IVF as matters of dogmatic principle without appreciating the need to understand human frailty before imposing theological dogma, however correct this may be. No wonder Pope Francis thinks the Church has got its priorities wrong.
The Archbishop’s suggestion also implies that the morality of the Catholic Church and what should be the secular morality of the state are one and the same thing. This assumption belies the fact that the Archbishop is not aware of the real implications of the separation between Church and State that should be the norm in any modern European state.
I presume that he agrees that we are not living in Iran or Saudi Arabia, with their silly morality police creating absurd situations because the morality of the predominant religion is imposed by the State.
Although there is a lot of overlap between what is considered immoral by the Church and what should be considered immoral by the State, the actual differences are of paramount importance.
I will not make a list of sexual peccadilloes that the Church deems immoral and the State should not be interested in. The list of situations where the morality of the Church and the morality of a secular state do not overlap is endless. Which morality does the Archbishop want the government to ‘hone’?
Malta today includes a number of citizens who are not Catholics. Former Maltese emigrants who have returned to Malta have brought with them religions that were unheard of three decades ago. We have Maltese citizens who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, Pentecostals, and what not. There are some 400 Maltese Muslim children attending State schools and an equal number who attend the Muslim School at Corradino.
This approach also implies that the Archbishop is still confused about the fact that Malta is not a confessional state
What morality should the state embrace and ‘hone’? The answer, of course, is none of the moralities considered sacrosanct by the all these religions – not even the one embraced by our Catholic Archbishop. This is not to mean that the State should not inculcate a sense of morality in its citizens.
Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy had developed the idea of a positive ‘laïcité’ that recognises the contribution of faith to French culture, history and society, allows for faith in the public discourse and for government subsidies for faith-based groups. Sarkozy visited the Pope in December 2007 and publicly acknowledged France’s Christian roots, while highlighting the importance of freedom of thought.
Last April, France’s Education Minister, Vincent Peillon, called for “secular morality” classes to be introduced in schools so that children are taught to “understand what is right and to distinguish good from evil”. He added that: “It is also about knowing your duties as much as your rights – and above all, it’s about values.”
Considering the number of children with different religious backgrounds in our State schools, it is about time that children, whose parents opt them out of religion classes, are given lessons in ethics instead of being left doing nothing.
Meanwhile, the Archbishop would better see how morality is being taught during religion lessons in government schools, over which the State has ceded him control.
micfal@maltnet.net