At an event to mark the World Day for Social Communications, the Archbishop’s delegate said that “a secularised society is one where society is autonomous, not necessarily linked to a particular religious belief. Within such a society one would be able to reason things out rather than limit oneself to a definition emanating from a religious belief. On the other hand, secularism means stifling any reference to religious meaning, not allowing freedom of worship, attacking and ridiculing those promoting their religious beliefs”(my italics).
By any objective reading of Malta’s Constitution, we are a secular, liberal parliamentary democracy. By secular (adjective) and secularism (noun), I mean a government that is concerned with the affairs of this world and is not itself involved with religious or spiritual matters. I therefore do not recognise the meaning given to “secularism” by the Archbishop’s delegate which implies a deliberate stifling of religious freedom by those espousing secular democracy.
By contrast, a theocracy is a government in which its rule is directed overridingly by religious beliefs, similar to those that existed in the Middle Ages in Europe. Today, Islamic theocracies exist in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and elsewhere. It is fair to generalise that most theocracies are authoritarian in nature and, because their laws are based on Sharia or Islamic law, fairly extreme in their application. The only Christian theocracy is in the Vatican State.
Following the teachings of any religion is a matter of personal conscience, not legal duty
Despite these definitions, some people in Malta may still believe that under Article 2 of our constitution, the Maltese Church can dictate to the government and thepeople of Malta what they are to do on lay, social issues like marriage or divorce or, indeed, other areas such as IVF treatment, abortion or even contraception – and expect compliance.
Article 2.1 states: “The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion.” Self-evidently, it is the declared official religion of Malta, just as the Church of England is the established Church in England. The misunderstandings arise, however, over some people’s interpretation of Article 2.2. that states: “The authorities of the Roman Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.”
Nobody can dispute that the Church has every right and duty to teach its principles, as it sees them. It should have every opportunity and be given every right to do this. However, nowhere does our constitution state that the citizen has to learn, to believe, or to follow those teachings. To state this is not to stifle the Church’s voice in any way, as the Archbishop’s delegate implied in his definition of secularism.
To force all citizens to do so would be to adopt what theocracies, such as Iran, do – a practice which would be utterly alien to a functioning, mature, liberal, parliamentary democracy, which we pride ourselves on being.
This is why the separation of the Church and State is such an important issue. The citizen in Malta is free in all consciousness to accept or reject the teachings of the Catholic Church by applying his own rational analysis, intelligence, judgement and the exercise of his or her free will to a problem. And with this freedom comes the right to comment if these teachings infringe any perceived human or civil rights, whether it is, for example, the liberty to practice birth control or the freedom to enter into same-sex civil unions.
By what objective criteria should the correct separation of Church and Statebe judged?
Six years ago, Archbishop Cremona, then in his prime, quoted approvingly from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s encyclical of 2005. It is worth repeating the relevant extracts for these affect every aspect of any discussion about secularism and the separation of Church and State. This stated:
“The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics… the two spheres of State and Church are distinct, yet always inter-related… the Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the side-lines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church.”
This is the position which the Archbishop adopted six years ago. Quite correctly, he did not claim that the doctrine of the Church should automatically have the force of law, only that its views should be heard. If the law happens to coincide with the Church’s specific teachings it is because the law reflects some secular value independent of religious belief.
Our legislators are elected to a secular parliament with a duty to cater for the needs of society as a whole, recognising that minorities also have the right to the State’s support. Legislators cannot properly represent the heterogeneous society that Malta has become while being religiously sectarian. There are different faiths within the State, but there can only be one law.
Individuals must decide how to behave in accordance with their own religious or other beliefs. All major religions, including the Catholic Church, accept that in a democracy Parliament’s decisions about what sort of behaviour should be lawful are not necessarily the same as what is considered morally right on a purely religious basis. This is why sodomy and adultery in are no longer criminal offences even though the Church forbids them.
It is the duty of society and the State to weigh up the issues on the basis of the interests of the community as a whole, not simply on the basis of private religious beliefs. Following the teachings of any religion is a matter of personal conscience, not legal duty. The enforcement of that duty depends not on the law of the State but on personal conscience. Of course, assuredly, people are entitled to hold a particular religious view on any issue. But this is a matter of private conviction, as opposed to the basis for the enactment in Parliament of any law which applies to everyone.
What is of fundamental importance in a pluralistic democracy (as opposed to a theocracy) is that the distinction is maintained between the right of individuals to hold religiously based convictions and the right of others not to have those convictions imposed upon them on civil issues. This distinction is crucial to a mature, liberal democracy.
This is why, given the heterogeneous, multi-faith nature of Maltese society today, it is so important that the clear separation of Church and State is made explicit in any future revision of Malta’s constitution. I do not personally believe that the primacy of position held by the Catholic religion in Malta as a defining component of our national identity should be rejected.
But constitutional recognition should also explicitly be given to the changed nature of Maltese society today, including the acceptance of other faiths and of none. The principle of the separation of the Church and State in Malta should be explicitly enunciated in the constitution. The forthcoming constitutional convention offers an opportunity to debate the issue.