In their articles and speeches commemorating Dom Mintoff, some seem to give the impression that the conflict between Mintoff and the Malta Labour Party and the Church in the sixties was just a “today we sleep as friends, the day after we get up as arch enemies” episode. These people try to incriminate the Church as the promoter of this conflict and to suggest that Mintoff and the Malta Labour Party were just victims of an unjust plot. I believe that the story of this conflict is much more complex.

This conflict was the result of an anti-clerical, socialist philosophy that aimed to lessen the influence of the Church in Malta. In Malta, it was Manuel Dimech who gave birth to the socialist movement. Dom Mintoff, as a confirmed socialist and reformer who had strengthened his belief in socialism during his studies in England, wanted to change Malta into a socialist country. Mintoff knew that various Popes had condemned socialism in their encyclicals; he was a teenager when Pius XI wrote the encyclical Quadrogesimo Anno where he explained the Church’s strong disapproval of Socialism.

The first politico-religious question in Malta was between Lord Strickland and the Church in the late twenties and early thirties. It was the first official rebellion against the Church in Catholic Malta. This conflict left many casualties in the sense that thousands of Maltese quarrelled with the Church and left them embittered against it. After the war, when the Constitutional Party of Lord Strickland had practically disintegrated, thousands of Stricklandjani rushed to join the Labour Party because of their deep-seated animosity for the Church, their bitter hatred of the Nationalists and also because of Mintoff’s charismatic personality. This historical migration of thousands of citizens gave Mintoff a very fertile field where he could sow his socialist doctrine and his anti-clerical views.

In 1921, when the Labour Party was founded (significantly on the 30th anniversary of the encyclical Rerum Novarum), Catholic activists in its core included priests. They propagated the introduction of legislation that gave rights to workers along the teachings of the Catholic social background. These Catholic activists were very powerful and influential in the first years of the Labour Party. One of them was Monsignor Michael Gonzi who was elected Senator in the Legislative Assembly in 1921 on behalf of the Labour Party. Monsignor Gonzi resigned three years later when he was ordained Bishop of Gozo. In those years the Labour Party worked hard for social justice according to the precepts of the Catholic Church. When Dom Mintoff was elected secretary of the Labour Party in 1939 things began to change within the party and in the Labour Party’s electoral programme of 1945 there was no reference to religion. After the Labour victory in the 1947 election, Mintoff’s strong aspirations led to a Cabinet crisis and a split within the party, and Mintoff became leader of the re-founded Malta Labour Party in 1949.

When Mintoff was elected Prime Minister in 1955, one of his first steps was to seek integration with Britain. The Church in Malta was alarmed because it argued that in Protestant Britain the Catholic Church of tiny Malta would be swallowed up. No firm guarantees that the position of the Catholic Church would not change in case of integration were forthcoming, and the Church could never accept integration without fear and consternation. Mintoff was not happy that Archbishop Gonzi did not support him. This was just a taste of the bitter conflict to come.

In 1958, deep differences with Britain led to Mintoff’s resignation and after the riots, which characterised the protests of Labour supporters, Archbishop Gonzi went on Rediffusion and condemned the violence. Mintoff issued a pamphlet protesting that “Within 24 hours Sir Michael Gonzi was broadcasting to the nation condemning violence and indirectly giving his support to the Colonial Administration. One hundred Labour supporters were sent to prison, among them two former Labour ministers. While they were still serving their sentence, the Times of Malta published a picture of His Grace celebrating Empire Day on Mabel Strickland’s roof garden.” It was obvious that Mintoff was picking on all possible excuses to attack Archbishop Gonzi.

The conflict further darkened in the sixties when Mintoff affiliated the Labour Party to the Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organisation (AAPSO). This organisation was considered to be a “communist front organisation”. AAPSO had even nominated Mintoff as a member of its council. It was supported by Soviet Russia and China, the two Communist giants. It was praised and encouraged by Communist leaders Kruschev, Chou-en-Lai, Ho Chi Minh, Tito and Nkrumah. The Church in Malta condemned without hesitation this affiliation, declaring that it was the first step to Communist infiltration.

The conflict between the Malta Labour Party and the Church was much more complex than I have written. It was a bout between heavyweights − a staunch Catholic Labourite and a staunch socialist Labourite and their many backers. Both parties made mistakes and hit below the belt and unfairly. For Labour’s part in this trial of strength, one should read Labour newspapers between 1958 and 1962 where the Archbishop and the priests were rebuked, vilified and ridiculed repeatedly. On the other hand, the Church’s reaction of mortal sin and interdiction was surely exaggerated.

The Church has since begged pardon for its stand. Labour has not.

Joseph Fenech

MOSTA