…Air Malta in the air. This is what the current pre-discussion stage on the future prosperity of our national airline should be all about; and it looks as though the approach being taken by the government, opposition, unions and Air Malta takes into full account a situation calling for maturity and responsibility from all sides.

I was struck by the fact that the kick-off to this sensitive element of the island’s infrastructure took place in what was, I imagine, the dignified atmosphere provided by the presence of the President.

This had the salutary and psychological effect of raising expectations for the operation of a modus operandi far removed from the dares, threats and challenges with which we have been made familiar in the past. Nothing has happened or been said since to dampen this optimism, which does not mean that nothing will happen or be said, as talks develop, to depress it.

Which is why all those involved, from the President downwards (his initial inclusion and availability an agreeable injection into the philosophy of dialogue) must keep their feet on the ground and Air Malta, not their heads, in the air.

I do not wish to make any of this sound like a dose of idealism being administered to a state of play where only realism counts. I have no quarrel with realism; on the contrary, I seek a deeper realism.

The thing is that at this moment in time, there has been no issue in living memory where those who are being called upon to examine and help to bring about a just solution, just to Air Malta, just to the workforce, just to the rest of us – and, how can I out it? – to an actuality in need of adjustments, are conducting themselves with an understanding of what is required of them. They tread on eggs, of course; we must encourage them not to break any.

The declaration of the General Workers’ Union general secretary that the union will keep the future of the workers at Air Malta at the top of the agenda was to be expected. He will discover that the Prime Minister will be doing the same, in parallel with another consideration – keeping Air Malta in the air. Failure on the latter inevitably spells disaster for the former.

My main concern at this moment is that the media will prefer, narcissus-like, to ‘shellack’ these talks with speculations from this source, that source, any which way source best left out of column inches editors are committed to fill and, unlike our airline, best left off the air.

In short, let self-control prevail, at least until agreement or open disagreement is publicly revealed. Sadly, this is not happening; it would be tragic if the fourth estate were to emerge as a talks-sinker – or stinker.

Contraception and things like that

Let me start this piece from the side. A few months ago, a Washington Post staff writer revealed that over a two-year period a landmark federally funded study showed that, “Sex education classes that focus(sed) on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity. (This study) could have major implications for US efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.”

Only a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed the programme started to have sex within the next two years. On the other hand, just over half the students who attended safe-sex programmes became sexually active over the same period.

Despite these findings, the Obama administration zapped more than $170 million in annual funding targeted at abstinence only programmes and expanded a pregnancy prevention initiative to $183 million.

Crossing eastwards from the United States to the UK and fast-forwarding to last week, readers of The Daily Telegraph may have come across an article about a pilot scheme being carried out on the Isle of Wight that allows girls as young as 13 to sashay into a pharmacy and collect from the chemist a month’s supply of the contraceptive pill, no questions asked; no prescription necessary.

This, you might have thought, was sassy enough, but listen to the sprightly tone of a member of the IoW NHS Primary Care Trust, Jennifer Smith.

“They are already sexually active, we haven’t encouraged them to be sexually active (who did?). I would suggest that what we’re doing is entirely responsible by providing contraception to these most vulnerable women, for whom, for the most part, pregnancy is not a good outcome. We are linking them with people most able to support them in further decision-making and appropriate behaviour in the future.”

Like what? Not only has Smith devalued meaning; she has consigned logic to the asylum.

Where do parents enter in all this? Are they involved at all? Has the state conformed to Chesterton’s remark that, “(It) did not own men so entirely, even when it could send them to the stake, as it sometimes does now where it can send them to the elementary school”.

These are questions we will be facing even as we pat ourselves on the back as we journey towards the paradise of sexual health.

The next goal, I have no doubt, will be some form of agitation for the concept of the “right to sexual and reproductive health” to be extended to the syllabus of sex education. The achievement of this particular objective seems to have been the focus of a UN ‘expert’ who came up with a 21-page, single space document, ‘Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, on the right to education’.

Innocuous enough; in it there is not a single reference to education as this word is properly understood, but the words ‘sexual’ and ‘sexuality’ occur 233 times; and it comes up with another right, “the right to pleasure” through sexual activity.

Here, too, parents are not only kept on the sidelines as though they had no responsibility for their children. But wait, and silly me; they do feature in a remark that some parents create a “barrier” if they choose to exempt their offspring from sex education in schools. These are expected to “provide appropriate direction and guidance on sexual and reproductive matters that does (sic) not interfere with the rights of children (my emphasis)”.

It is of some comfort to report that the document was rejected; the rapporteur was accused of “usurp(ing)” the rights of parents, acting in “contravention of his mandate” and violating his “mandate and code of conduct”.

Common Sense

The Gozo Bishop’s contraception comments were deemed “unproductive and hysterical” by GU Clinic head Philip Carabott. Below the headline a photograph of a somewhat sad-looking girl who should have had the smile of freedom all over her face, for she is seen fingering a sheet of contraceptive pills.

The report was posted three days after the the bishop’s comments, a time period that allowed ample time for the high-powered National Conference held in Gozo that had as its theme ‘The Beauty of the Body; and its Theology’ – the translation is loose – to receive the coverage it deserved.

The Theology of the Body is, of course, the name of a remarkable and challenging book written by Pope John Paul II a few years after he was elected to the papacy. One rarely comes across references to it in Malta, either from the pulpit or in the media; which itself speaks volumes. I assume it features on the curriculum of seminarians.

Perhaps it was typical of Bishop Mario Grech to organise a conference on the subject; there is a depth to him buttressed by scholarship and it has fallen to him, very often, to pass on, as is his pastoral duty, the teaching of the Church, even when this happens to be uncomfortable teaching.

His personal contribution was pitched at a deep level because the matter in hand was not shallow. This may explain why, to my knowledge, no attempt, serious or otherwise, was made by the media to cover what either he, or the guest speaker, Rev. George Woodall, had to say.

Both addressed the sacredness of the body, its integrity as a means of total communication, and the wholeness of this communication in the relationship of a man and a woman who become one flesh in marriage.

This runs counter to the prevalent, hedonistic culture, a hedonism that has been amplified by contraception and, following from that, a contraceptive mentality that is chipping away at the very foundations of sexual morality. The evidence is all around us.

Instead of addressing any of this the report pounced on one remark, one of many, in Grech’s closing talk which warned that our education system could be abusing students if instead of teaching them how to control their sexual energy, it offered them information and methods, such as contraceptives, to give in to the culture of pleasure.

Where is the hysteria there? Why is so self-evident an assertion, in the context of the world we live in, unproductive? It may be what some, perhaps many, do not wish to hear; but that’s another matter.

The bishop was calling for an approach that does not ignore morality, leave out ethics or which ignores the theology of the body and, therefore, the whole meaning of the body including its sexuality, a concept greater than sex.