Today, our country celebrates the 50th anniversary of Independence Day. Independence, together with its consequent political events such as the achievement of Malta’s republic status and Freedom Day brought additional responsibilities in planning our country’s present and future.

Apart from bronze memorials that were erected to mark these important events, Malta is in dire need of recuperating its moral values once again. In a homily he delivered on Independence Day last year, Archbishop Paul Cremona suggested that a governmental entity, such as a parliamentary secretariat, should be created to teach morality and hone the country’s “moral fibre”.

When addressing the congregation made up of many dignitaries gathered at St John’s Co-Cathedral in Valletta, the Archbishop suggested. “I’d like to put forth 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 to adults and society at large. A social plan could be drafted to target everyone, young and old. Social media could also be used.”

Some critics equated his proposal with having morality police who would brutally enforce a Catholic moral code. Obviously, their criticism was erroneous. What the Archbishop proposed on that occasion was the reinforcement of the country’s moral fibre. In a later interview at his office at the Curia in Floriana, Mgr Cremona commented: “I spoke about the moral fibre, the universal values of honesty, trustworthiness, solidarity and justice, not about morality.”

The obvious question that comes to mind is: Does our country really need this parliamentary secretary in order to achieve this strengthening of society’s moral fibre?

Mgr Cremona explained in his reconciliatory tone: “What I meant was that an existing Cabinet member would be responsible for this. If we want parents to teach their children these universal values, why shouldn’t the State contribute to raising awareness?” The fact that his suggestion was criticized means that it hit people’s consciences.

The Archbishop continued: “I am glad my proposal fuelled a debate. At least it got people thinking.” In that interesting, Mgr Cremona rightly asserted that it was the Church’s duty to speak, with charity and in all truth. In his words, the Church’s voice is “to propose and not to impose”. He added that the Church should have a voice that our secular society could hear and ponder on. He said: “I speak with respect to the separation of Church and State but I hope the secular elements adopt a pluralistic approach. I hope this is not a trend of trying to silence the Church’s voice.”

The Church cannot be indifferent when ignorance of Christ and His Gospel, bad examples to others, enslavement to passions, mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, complete rejection of the Church’s authority and teaching, lack of conversion and lack of charity have become rampant in our country. She is obliged to help both Christians and people of good will to form their consciences on what is right, true and just.

Let us not forget that having an informed conscience is not a choice but an inherent moral duty. It should accompany the person in all of his/her life phases. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states: “The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to knowledge and practice of the interior law recognised by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults.

The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart” (§1784).

Law, order, peace, procreation, family, solidarity and so forth are values the State certainly cherishes. It would be of great benefit for the State if its citizens have their consciences rightly informed. If the Church has always been totally committed to carry out her vital ministry in this delicate area, would it not be wise that the Archbishop’s proposal be seriously considered once more? Would it not be a long-lasting Independence memorial?

Fr Mario Attard OFM Cap

Paola