It is quite commonplace nowadays to refer to Christmas by some other name that excludes its religious associations.

President Barack Obama gave an example of this recently when lighting his country’s national Christmas tree: “A symbol,” he said, “of hope and... holiday.”

To me, Christmas under another name does not, like Shakespeare’s proverbial rose, smell - or in this case, sound - as sweet.

It is argued that by calling it merely a holiday, or ‘Winterval’, or another purely secular name, it makes the season a more universal celebration in which everyone, whatever the culture or creed, can participate. However, for centuries, people the world over have already been doing precisely that, so this change of name evidently has a more serious purpose.

Under the guise of ‘inclusivity’, it would appear to be no less than an attempt to eliminate what Christmas really stands for: to evict Christ Himself from the celebration of His own birth, in the mistaken belief that we will all somehow be the better and happier for it.

Every Christmas I spend in Malta, I never fail to rejoice at the country’s visible celebration of the Christian festival - the re-enactments of the Nativity, the beautifully-crafted cribs, the illuminations everywhere and the plethora of music and events commemorating the birth of our Lord.

Every Christmas, too, I say the same prayer: that the Maltese people won’t let these traditions die but will pass them on to their children. This year I add the hope that, however the rest of the world may refer to it, in Malta the season will always be called by its proper name.

Happy Christmas.