When asked to react to Mgr Charles Scicluna’s comments regarding the Civil Unions Bill, it was reported in The Sunday Times of Malta (January 5) that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said the Church was entitled to voice views on matters it believed were important to its teaching. He affirmed that “yet, as a modern democracy, State and Church matters are separate”.

Why is it that whenever politicians want to put forward an agenda which is not in line with the teaching of the Church, they always refer to the separation between Church and State?

What’s the use of affirming that the Church is entitled to voice its views and not take heed of what it is saying?

Why should one conclude that in a modern democracy, State and Church matters are separate when the main teaching of the social doctrine of the Church is the dignity of the human person and the common good of society? Is a modern, democratic society void of morals?

Is not the voice of the Church in a pluralistic society a voice urging us to live in harmony? Who is the Church addressing with its teaching if not, primarily, us who profess to be Catholics? Why is it that on such an important matter as civil unions and the adoption of children by gay couples we simply treat the Church as an outside entity, rather than consult it in our debates and discussions?

Why are we trying to accommodate and please everyone rather than look for moral principles that help our society survive as one that is built on justice and peace?

Let us not be disillusioned. We are not narrow-minded or less democratic by listening to what the Church has to say on matters that deal with the human person. The Church is the champion of humanity.

“The object of the Church’s social doctrine is essentially the same that constitutes the reason for its existence: the human person called to salvation, and as such entrusted by Christ to the Church’s care and responsibility.” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)