In his opinion piece ‘Religion and the embryo’ (November 18), Martin Scicluna contends that religion has no place when laws are being formulated in a secular society. He reasons that “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”.

I can’t see why Scicluna distinguishes between secular and religious values. The Church’s social teachings are fundamentally based on the dignity of the human person and if both the State and the Church are working on common ground and believe in the dignity of the human person and the common good, I don’t see why a secular State should consider it taboo to consult the Church when dealing with the human person and social issues.

The Social Doctrine of the Church states “the mutual autonomy of the Church and the political community does not entail a separation that excludes cooperation” (425), and when Pope Benedict addressed the US Bishops in 2012, he emphasised that “the legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation”.

We cannot go on building walls between reason and religion simply because Malta has become secularised.

We have to convince ourselves, as a democratic nation, that by consulting the Church, rather than being threatened and bullied, the State becomes enhanced.

When Pope Benedict addressed politicians in Westminster in 2010 he said that “the role of religion in political debate (is) to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles”.

Cooperation between Church and State on social issues enriches debates and help bring about more dignified and lasting solutions.