Totems of identity: Why the Maltese love their crosses

An official circular reminding Mater Dei hospital nurses that Malta is a “multicultural society” and that they should remove “any religious items and images (such as holy pictures stuck to walls)” caused a storm whipped into a frenzy by the PN organ Net News – the news channel attributed what it dubbed “the circular on crosses”, to “the large number of foreigners in the country making repeated demands on Castille because they hold different religious beliefs.”

Crucially, the circular did not refer to the state-sanctioned display of the crucifix in public buildings as suggested by the first media reports, but to images stuck to walls on the personal initiative of employees.

Health Minister Chris Fearne nipped the issue in the bud by immediately distancing himself from the circular, ordering its withdrawal.
But why do the same Maltese – who largely accepted progressive civil liberties in the past years and ignore what the church says on migration – become so touchy about the display of religious symbols in public buildings?

Chris Fearne: Health Minister Chris Fearne nipped the issue in the bud by immediately distancing himself from the circular, ordering its withdrawal

More popular than religion

Popular religiosity may have deeper roots than official religion. Popular religiosity –which is anthropologically linked to magic and pagan ritual – may have stronger roots in popular culture than Catholic doctrine and allegiance to the church as an organisation.

The timing of the circular to coincide with Holy Week celebrations where popular religiosity reaches its peak, may well have backfired on its proponents: this is the season where the intrusion of religious symbols on public space intensifies.

Yet in the popular cultural universe, Holy Week is more related to the village feast than to religious reflection. In the context of public hospitals and clinics, religious symbols provide solace and hope, sometimes serving the same role as magical charms.

Indeed, popular religiosity has become increasingly autonomous from the church itself, which tends to focus on what it sees as more crucial social issues. Archbishop Charles Scicluna himself has vowed he would not carry out any “crusade” should Roman Catholicism be removed from the island’s Constitution as the official religion of Malta, and has advocated a level-playing field for all religions. This suggests that the church itself would not embark on a crusade against the removal of religious symbols from public buildings.

Yet this will probably not prevent others from appropriating themselves of holy images by way of resistance to what they perceive as a sort of ‘creeping multiculturalism’.

Don’t take away ‘my rights’

People may agree with giving rights to others, but only as long as they do not have to relinquish what they perceive to be their own rights. Many have voted for divorce and later supported gay marriage on the basis of the notion that they want to see others happy. In this case, many do not understand how the sheer display of symbols so intimately tied to Maltese life, and which make them feel safer and possibly happier, could possibly make others feel sad or excluded. This in itself is symptomatic of a culture which never developed a strong awareness of what is appropriate in public spaces and what is not.

Even up until a few years ago, drivers decorated their buses with holy pictures along portraits of music favourites like Bob Marley (perhaps an urban myth, but it seemed universally accepted that the reggae icon’s charisma was uncontested among Malta’s army of bus drivers). It explains why private devotion tends to spill in public spaces on the presumption that everyone is ok and comfortable with it.

Saints no, crucifixes yes

The circular expected nurses to do what MPs are not expected to do.

The circular may have been ill thought-out simply because it was enacted in a legislative vacuum. While it addressed the display of devotional items by employees, it failed to address the state-sanctioned display of the crucifix in public buildings including parliament.

Perversely it may have started addressing the issue where it is bound to create most opposition: at the popular rather than at state level. An alternative to addressing the problem would be that of first removing the reference to Roman Catholicism in the Constitution, rather than removing religious symbols from public buildings; and only then proceed to determine what is appropriate for public employees to exhibit in public buildings frequented by people of different faiths and beliefs.

For the logic behind such circulars is to prevent situations where people feel uncomfortable when receiving a public service. That does not mean that addressing institutional issues before tackling the behaviour of employees would not stir opposition, especially if such symbols are adopted by the political right-wing as symbols of resistance to multiculturalism…. something NET News did by linking the circular to the presence of foreigners in Malta.

Totems of identity

Another reason why politicians are not keen to upset the apple cart on religious symbols is that these are increasingly being perceived as symbols of cultural identity.

The overall picture emerging from surveys, including those conducted by MaltaToday over the past decade, is that a large segment of the Maltese population is composed of non-practising Catholics who may have cut the umbilical cord with the church, but not with its symbolism.

These surveys suggest a pick-and-choose attitude towards religious dogma and practice, but a strong attachment to cultural symbols. The latest survey conducted by MaltaToday showed that 88.8% of Maltese were against the removal from the Constitution of Catholicism as Malta’s official religion. An even stronger majority was against the removal of the crucifix from public buildings such as schools. In fact, at 94% opposition to the removal of religious symbols from public buildings has remained the same as it was in 2010.

“The cross is a fundamental symbol of our Bavarian identity and way of life,” said Bavaria’s CSU leader Markus Söder, as he hung a cross in the lobby of the state government’s headquarters in Munich

This suggests that in a time of change, Catholicism is morphing into a totem of identity as opposed to a way of life. The risk of this is that religion becomes more detached from the actual teachings of the Church, not just when it comes to moral issues but also when it comes to values like solidarity and social justice. For example, a survey held in 2017 showed 46% of the Maltese would like the Maltese Church to speak less in favour of accepting migrants.

That’s where the trouble starts, especially when religious symbols are defended by right-wing parties whose agenda is that of excluding others.

Cardinal Marx: “The cross was a sign of opposition to violence, injustice, sin and death but not a sign against other people”

That explains why the Roman Catholic Church has distanced itself from a campaign to reintroduce the crucifix in public buildings in Bavaria spearheaded by the Christian Social Union (CSU).  In April 2018 Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich, the president of the German bishops’ conference, warned that this had triggered “division, stirred up trouble and played people off against one another”.

“The cross is a fundamental symbol of our Bavarian identity and way of life,” said Bavaria’s CSU leader Markus Söder, as he hung a cross in the lobby of the state government’s headquarters in Munich. But Cardinal Marx warned that viewing the cross as a cultural symbol results constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding: “The cross was a sign of opposition to violence, injustice, sin and death but not a sign against other people”.