The news that a Curia spokesman has said that the Maltese Church would look positively at enhancing specific elements of the current Church-State agreement that grants supremacy of the Ecclesiastical Tribunals in matters of marriage annulments is a step in the right direction, but probably does not go far enough.

The self-inflicted wound by the Maltese Church in the way it conducted itself in the divorce referendum has called into question the whole balance of Church-State relations in Malta. While the Church is a force for good in Maltese society – and over the centuries has done outstanding work in the parishes, in schools and many charitable institutions – it is a human institution like any other. It does not hold a monopoly on establishing the moral foundations in society. While its views are to be respected, ultimate responsibility for the kind of society which a secular, liberal, parliamentary democracy like Malta should adopt lies in the hands of our representatives in Parliament, representing the sovereign will of the people.

The need for a new, wide-sweeping Concordat between Church and State, taking in not only the infamous 1995 accord between the Holy See and the Government of Malta, but also Church-State arrangements in other secular matters, is now overdue. Taking as its model and start-point the agreement reached between the then Archbishop of Malta and the then Malta Labour Party leader, which was signed on Good Friday, 4th April 1969, the new agreement between the Maltese Church and the leaders of the three political parties in Malta might be drafted along the following lines.

Declaration of agreement

between the Church authorities and the political authorities

The Church Authorities in these Islands and the representatives of the Nationalist Party, the Labour Party and Alternattiva Demokratika (‘the Political Authorities’) make the following declaration:

Without in any way resiling from Article 2 of the Constitution of Malta, and specifically that “the authorities of the Roman Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong”, it is necessary in modern society that a clear distinction is made between the political community and the Church. The very nature of the Church demands she does not interfere in politics. The Church does not impose threats of mortal sin or other forms of coercion as a censure.

To this end, the Church undertakes that, while she may make a contribution to any public debate on any matter on which she holds a valid view, she shall not seek to interfere – as opposed to participate – in this process, since it is fundamental to ensuring that legislators in Parliament, and society, are not placed under duress when considering issues of a social, ethical or political nature. The Church undertakes not to mount, or publicly support through financial means, any public campaign to this end.

The Church agrees not to take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society as she cannot and must not replace the State. The Church Authorities accept that they do not have the role of supplying objective norms governing right action, let alone proposing concrete political solutions. While the just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics, the Political Authorities accept for their part, that the two spheres of Church and State are distinct but inter-related, and the ethical foundation for political choices is to be supplied by reason without the privilege of divine revelation. The Political Authorities assert their duty to give their citizens all freedom that is consistent with the rights of others, arbitrating in the name of the common good of society, while enacting laws that benefit the well being of society as a whole.

Furthermore, the Church Authorities agree that the Church-State agreement between the Holy See and the Republic of Malta drawn up in 1995, granting supremacy to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal over the Civil Courts in marriage annulment cases, shall henceforth urgently be reviewed with a view to its amendment or revocation.

Moreover, the Church Authorities agree that in cases of clerical misdemeanour, such as child sex abuse or any other criminal acts, the requirements of the criminal law in Malta shall prevail at all times over Canon Law. The Church Authorities accept that the mandatory reporting of such crimes to the civil authorities shall invariably be respected and that the withholding of such information will be treated as a crime.

The Church Authorities and the Political Authorities hereunder represented sincerely hope that, through the guidance of Our Lord, goodwill between the Church and State in Malta will be instrumental for peace to reign in future among us.

***

Given the still festering clerical abuse cases at St Joseph’s Home, the Church might also wish to consider including a paragraph, either separately or in the Declaration itself, as follows:

“In recognition of this, the Church Authorities, in a spirit of reconciliation, make an unconditional announcement acknowledging the moral responsibility of the Church for the harm that was done to the long-suffering victims of clerical abuse in the St Joseph’s Home some three decades ago. They agree to name the guilty perpetrators of these crimes and to offer financial compensation to the victims for their suffering.”

I believe that a statement along these lines would do much to show the faithful that the Maltese Church intends in future to be more transparent and accountable in a spirit of reconciliation, compassion and forgiveness.

In the wake of the Church’s disastrous performance in the divorce referendum, there is an urgent need for a clear re-calibration of Church-State relations in Malta – a clear separation of powers between Church and State. It is a lesson for the political authorities as much as for the Maltese Church. I have drawn closely in my draft proposals above on the Church-Malta Labour Party Declaration of 1969 which had brought a form of closure to the dreadful years of the 1960s following the Church’s regrettable interdiction of the Malta Labour Party and its supporters.

It is necessary, 40 years later, to draw up a fresh agreement, building formally on statements already made by Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Cremona. Without the need to amend our Constitution, for the sake of our democracy a clear agreement, up-dating what was agreed with one political party in 1969 to account for modern conditions and the lessons learnt from recent events, should be put in place without further ado.