I find it incredible that there are still people who are of the opinion that the Catholic Church in Malta should steer totally clear of politics and should not involve itself in any political controversies whatsoever. Likewise, I simply cannot understand why some people are scandalised when the Archbishop pronounces himself on some matter associated with political controversy.

Indeed, the role of a vibrant, active Church demands that it should seek to have an energetic role in all matters of national interest. Otherwise, it would not be fulfilling its important social mission.

I understand why some people react as they do. We have to start with the local historical context. In the 20th century, we had two bitter politico-religious disputes in Malta, those of 1928-32 and 1958-69. Some people are still afraid of the influence of the ecclesiastical authorities and will do their utmost to exclude the Church from all political debate.

They seem to forget a very important point: the Malta of today is a far cry from the Malta of the days of the politico-religious disputes. Maltese society today is predominantly secular and even a potential future politico-religious dispute would be very limited in nature and would probably be dismissed by a substantial part of the population as nothing more than normal Church-State friction due to the changing norms of society.

Having said this, I cannot, however, ignore the fact that the Church is being greatly let down by a small reactionary and ultra-conservative group whose approach to controversial topics of public discussion alienates many people. If one examines what the Archbishop says about matters of political controversy connected with the Catholic Church’s teachings, one will find that he usually just states facts.

The poor result obtained by Equality Minister Helena Dalli in the contest for deputy leader for parliamentary affairs has opened up a can of worms

Sometimes, he does so in an ironic or satirical way but always stating facts and never offending anybody. Obviously, you may agree, partially disagree or totally disagree with what he says.

Very different is the approach used by some people who publicly comment on matters of political controversy impacting one’s life as a Catholic. These people use fire and brimstone arguments to sustain the point they are trying to make. They do not refrain from using such terms as “evil”, “perversion”, “gates of hell”, etc., when referring to actions or beliefs which they do not condone. This approach usually has highly undesirable results.

People tend to view such an approach as unacceptable interference in one’s private life and the imposition of a certain code of morality on others. The end result is usually a wave of anti-clerical comments in the media, highly damaging to the Catholic Church.

For the local Church to be effective in its approach to matters of political controversy which directly affect it, it also has to take cognisance of the fact that the major political parties are divided into three distinct levels. This division is taken for granted by those of us who are directly involved in politics but is usually latent in the case of people whose only political involvement is voting at elections.

You have the leadership and administration of a political party who are the ones who steer party policy, then you have the less important party officials who have a very limited say in the formulation of policy and finally the supporters whose actual active political involvement might be minimal.

Recent political controversies with religious connotations have amply demonstrated that sometimes important decisions are taken and laws enacted which do not necessarily have the support of the majority in a political party. The recent Marriage Equality Act is a prime example of this.

You had the leadership of the Nationalist Party directing its MPs to vote in favour of it and denying them a free vote on it. You had one Nationalist MP still voting against it and several other PN MPs criticising it although voting in favour. Then you had a substantial amount of ordinary PN supporters absolutely against this new law.

This shows the different opinions at different levels of power existing within political parties today where a powerful clique may push forward, support or promote a particular agenda or course of action which might only have the real support of a minority, albeit a powerful one, and which might be opposed by a majority with no real power at all.

Similarly, within the Labour Party, the poor result obtained by Equality Minister Helena Dalli in the contest for deputy leader for parliamentary affairs has opened up a can of worms regarding the question of how widespread support really is within the party for Labour’s controversial programme of liberal reforms and legislation.

To conclude, I believe that the local ecclesiastical authorities should definitely make their voice heard on matters of political controversy affecting the Catholic Church. However, they have to make sure that their logical arguments and objective debates are not torpedoed by the actions of a minority of Catholics who still think that we are in the 1960s when people felt free to censure others about their way of life and when interference in the private lives of others was an accepted course of action in Maltese society.

We are living in 2017, in what is a predominantly secular, liberal, consumer society. The Catholic Church has to deliver its message within the context of these modern-day realities.