A teaser in a secular state

In times gone by Malta was practically run by the Church. The establishment of a secular Maltese state – ‘stat lajk’, as Dom Mintoff used to say – took a long and distressing time to become a reality.

Moreover, most so-called religio-political issues were clashes between the wish of those who wanted a secular state and the Maltese Church that did not want to lose the power and privileges that it enjoyed in our society. Even so, the Roman Catholic Church is recognised as the religion of the majority in the Maltese Constitution itself.

A recent contribution in The Times by Carl Scerri – described in a footnote as a priest and a doctoral student – viewed the issue of our secular state in the light of comments made by the Prime Minister on the proposed cafeteria on the portico of the Paola parish church.

Scerri rightly said that the church was expected to respect Malta’s secular state whether it agreed with the state’s action or not. It has the right to declare what, in its opinion, is right or wrong. But its right stops there. The Maltese state has no obligation to follow the teachings of the Church in its decisions. Perhaps the now settled issue of divorce was the most recent important issue that exposed the difference between the right of the Church to say what is right or wrong and the right of the state to respect but ignore the church’s opinion.

Did the Prime Minister go overboard when he said that he was against the idea of the Paola Church cafeteria and venture into the church-state historically sore relationship that we all had thought is just part of our history? Scerri argues that while the Church has accepted its position in a Maltese secular state, the Prime Minister’s making public his opinion on the matter – rather than keeping it to himself – indicated that it is now the state that is not respecting the principles of the separation of the Church and the state.

Some have suspected that the government wants to intervene in the issue so that it will fork out some public money for the maintenance of the church – thus increasing its influence on the Paola parishioners who would then be expected to express their gratitude when the general election is held. In today’s circumstances, I do not consider such suspicions as being paranoid.

Technically, the state’s rights on the matter are limited to the need of the Paola parish priest to obtain a Planning Authority permit for the proposed cafeteria. The issue here is a planning issue not a philosophical one as to whether the proposal of the cafeteria is the right thing to do from a point of view that rests on religious tradition and ethics.

The Paola parish church is enormous when viewed in comparison with the size of the parish population. That many in the parish no longer feel the need to hear what their parish priest wants to say – let alone blindly following his directions – is a fact.

The parish church needs substantially expensive maintenance works. This is a fact independent from spiritual considerations and the relations between state and church.

Rather than relying on donations from his dwindling flock, the parish priest sought to create an income stream that could help to provide some funds for the much-needed restoration.

Many of those who thought that this idea is a non-starter are not even churchgoers and, most probably, they are not prepared to dig into their pockets to contribute towards the physical needs of the parish church.

Mostly as a result of the power the Maltese church enjoyed in the past, the church – in its various forms and branches – is a traditional target of serious criticism as well as of humorous and banal attacks made by Maltese society. And so, criticism of the Paola parish priest’s proposal spread like wild fire and the issue quickly became the butt of jokes, memes and imaginative cartoons on the social media.

As for my opinion, I think the Paola parish priest is right and that this issue does not justify any interference from the state.

Suspensions and reinstatement

Apparently, there is a new government policy that allows some workers faced with criminal charges to return back to their workplace when their case is still pending.

The case of a Transport Malta official accused of committing non-consensual sexual acts on a female co-worker and sexually harassing her and another woman, returning to work but with a different entity – Infrastructure Malta – has raised the hackles of many.

The man was initially suspended from his role at Transport Malta and appeared in court in 2022, when he denied sexual harassment charges. The case is still ongoing.

The change in the place of work of the man is obviously intended to assure that the alleged victim and aggressor do not meet face to face at work.

Although the person concerned is not a civil servant, it seems that in such cases, government entities follow the procedures of the Public Service Commission when deciding on whether someone who is accused of a crime should remain suspended. In the past, this procedure has led to situations where a government employee suspended on half pay would be given the rest of his salary when found not guilty. Government would have then paid full salary or wages to the employee for the whole period when they were suspended until there was a definite decision by the courts. This period could take up to several years.

A women's support NGO – Fidem Foundation – hit out at the decision that the man is to return to work as a ‘slap in the face’ for all victims of abuse. Fidem Foundation described this decision as ‘another step backwards in the uphill battle for the protection of women’s rights and a shocking example of poor leadership.’

The indignation shown by this NGO is understandable but the fact is that no one is guilty until they are so declared by a Court of Law. On the other hand, Fidem Foundation seems to be assuming that the man in question is guilty.

Criticism on the long time the justice system takes to arrive at a decision in such cases would have been more appropriate.