Following President George Abela's welcoming speech to the Pope on the occasion of his pastoral visit to Malta, some concluded that the President is against the separation of Church and state.
Probably, they watched the President delivering his speech as people usually watch TV: with one eye on the set and the other on something else. However, if one reads the presidential script attentively one would reach a radically opposite position.
President Abela, as expected, chose his words very carefully: "Today, we face the wave of secularism which has as its starting point the strict separation of Church and State: a laicist model advocating that the State should be strictly separated from religion, which is conceived as belonging exclusively to the private domain. This profane character, which has developed in some European states, is driving people to be laicist or even anti-Christian."
In just one sentence, President Abela twice qualified "separation of Church and State" by the word "strict". He is thus not objecting to "separation" but to "strict separation". The two are very different.
The President is objecting to the latter attitude, which results in the relegation of religion exclusively to the private domain. Once more, one must acknowledge the careful choice of words. The word "exclusively" is the operative word.
President Abela says this is "driving people to be laicist or even anti-Christian". He does not use the word "lay" or "secular" but the word "laicist". There is a world of a difference.
Vatican II documents, for example, would have no problem with singing the praises of the secular, that is, the legitimate autonomy of created reality, but would shudder at a laicist mentality that is tied to an anti-Christian attitude.
The President showed that he is for separation between Church and State by clearly declaring that we are not a confessional State. He refers to an inclusive society embracing "believers, agnostics or atheists".
He speaks of the moral foundations of society, not to its religious foundations. He asks for "the reinvigoration of the moral consciousness of the State", not for a religious renewal or reinvigoration.
Even agnostics or atheists would not be against the reinvigoration of the moral consciousness of the State, though they would be in favour for different reasons than believers, and would probably (in some areas at least) have a different vision of this reinvigoration.
The strict separation of Church and State and the concomitant reduction of religion exclusively to the private domain of the sagristija (sacristy) is not an option for a country whose people have been seeped in the Christian faith for 2,000 years.
Christianity marks our culture more than any other influence. The Church is the largest non-governmental organisation in Malta. It runs a good chunk of our education system and has an important role in our welfare system. Thousands look to the Church for guidance, solace, support and direction.
The Church has a democratic duty - not just a pastoral duty - to make its voice heard. Democracy and pluralism function only if different voices engage in dialogue and dialectics with other voices and opinions.
The President was also criticised for delivering a speech that was clearly 'Catholic'. These critics say the President should not make a Catholic speech while wearing the Presidential hat. I will leave for another occasion my opinion on this point.
I take this occasion to wish the President a quick recovery.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt