I sometimes despair of Malta’s Archbishop. Archbishop Paul Cremona is an intrinsically good man. But he has not a single political fibre in his body – an essential quality for any senior prelate anywhere.

His latest sally into the political arena occurred during celebrations to mark the anniversary of Malta’s independence when the Archbishop addressed a congregation of political and other dignitaries at St John’s Co-Cathedral. In his homily, the Archbishop questioned whether Malta’s moral fibre had been strengthened or weakened in recent years. While economic progress had led to a higher quality of life for Maltese citizens, the social values of justice, honesty and solidarity also needed to be strengthened. Without a moral conscience the country was exposed to all kinds of corruption, to the detriment of the people.

So far, so very sensible. But looking at the sitting targets of the serried ranks of politicians in the front pews of the cathedral, the Archbishop then went on: “I’d like to put forward a proposal: what about setting up a governmental entity, such as a parliamentary secretariat in one of the ministries, tasked with teaching and honing the country’s moral fibre? We need to reach out... A social plan could be drafted to target everyone... Social media could also be used.”

Did the Archbishop or his advisers stop to think through the practical implementation and consequences of what he was saying? When he spoke about ‘moral fibre’ did he actually mean ‘moral fibre’ or did he mean ‘morality’? There is a distinction. Moral fibre is the inner strength to do what you believe to be right in difficult situations, whereas morality defines the extent to which an action is right or wrong, good or bad, a particular system of values and principles of conduct.

Moral fibre and moral courage are two sides of the same coin. There are two types of courage: physical, which impels a man to risk injury or death. And moral, which leads to a person staking his judgment on what he thinks is right or wrong, and sticking up for it.

To be really great, a man, or a nation, must possess both forms of courage. The last time Malta and the Maltese displayed both physical and moral courage (moral fibre) was during my parents’ generation between 1940 and 1943. Another example of moral fibre was the next generation’s resistance to the KMB Labour administration’s entirely misplaced attack on private and Church schooling in the mid-1980s.

Are these the kinds of moral fibre the Archbishop had in mind? I do not think so, because his homily immediately went on to speak of “theft, fraud, deception, tax evasion and injustice” – all areas of public life in Malta which have been found wanting in recent years, with some of the major offenders sitting not 10 metres away from the Archbishop’s pulpit. Monsignor Cremona was therefore talking about morality in Maltese public and private life. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, seeking to take political advantage of the Archbishop’s words, immediately questioned – with the hypocrisy of which only politicians are capable – the government’s moral standing on a number of issues.

But this is also where the Archbishop’s well-intentioned homily began to lose its way. He must have been at least sub-consciously aware that the Maltese Church itself has responsibilities in this area – “the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong”. For whatever reason, it has fallen short.

However, if you believe – as the Archbishop clearly, and rightly, does – that there is a genuine problem with public morality in Malta, then establishing a government ministry to set moral standards is surely the wrong way to go about it. Those who remember the heyday of the Soviet Union, or have read George Orwell’s ‘1984,’ will be only too well aware of the Ministry of Truth which sought to control every aspect of citizens’ behaviour. Worse, those with any inkling of what has been going on in Iran will be aware of the morality police, a volunteer militia set up by the Ayatollah Khomeini to control public morals.

Clearly, one hopes neither the Orwellian Ministry of Truth, nor the Ayatollah’s morality police were what the Archbishop had in mind when calling for a government minister to be made responsible for developing the nation’s ‘moral fibre’ or policing its moral standards. Of course, governments have a role to play in setting the parameters for how a society behaves. The state presumes to control our lives in all sorts of ways. But the structures in place to administer our laws, to enforce the rule of law and set our moral compass already exist.

The truth, which the Archbishop ducked, is that there are already the institutions in Malta to ensure our behaviour is not corrupt. They are simply falling short. These include the Church and successive Maltese governments. The Church has lost its voice because it has engaged in lost causes. It does not hold a monopoly on establishing the moral foundations in society, but it could help shape Maltese morality so much more effectively if only it changed its tone of voice. In Pope Francis’ brilliant recent interview, he said  “Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security’, those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists – they have a static and inward-directed view...” What a pity the Archbishop didn’t take that as his theme for the Independence Day homily.

In reality, we must look to successive Maltese governments for the answers to the Archbishop’s cry for stronger moral fibre. There is no need to establish a minister specifically to strengthen it. But there is certainly a need for better governance, accountability, transparency, better personal example by our leaders, and the unswerving application of the rule of law. All these fall within the remit of our government and existing institutions. The Global Corruption Index, which is produced annually by Transparency International, places Malta forty-third in the batting order of least corrupt countries. The top four are Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden. There is a clear north-south divide in Europe with the Protestant north scoring highest and the Catholic south trailing abjectly (Italy lies seventy-second).

What do these placings tell us about the religious and governance cultures of these countries? It is patently clear where the rule of law, good governance, respect for justice, truth, honour, a sense of right and wrong are strongest. Moral fibre and developing a moral compass have to be taught. Very few people have these qualities naturally. The young have to learn them from their parents, in their homes, from school and university, from the Church and other early influences. Those with moral fibre have learnt these qualities by precept and example in their youth. A person’s character, as Aristotle taught, is an attitude, the daily choice of right instead of wrong.

Our government and the Church already provide the framework for these qualities to be learnt. The existing institutions need to do it far more effectively. Another government minister is the last thing Malta requires.