This year's budget introduced a series of social accommodation measures aimed at easing the struggles of middle-income earners who are increasingly priced out of Malta's property market. Among the centre-pieces is the Church-State partnership to provide around 260 affordable housing units, to be sold at approximately 30% below market value.

On paper, this is a commendable initiative. However, it raises a fundamental question of moral consistency: how can the Church present itself as a champion of social housing when, as a landlord, it has evicted families, including those earning slightly over €38,000, without offering alternatives or considering its ethical obligations?

The Church proudly presents itself as part owner of this affordable housing project, contributing land and moral legitimacy. Yet this same institution has, in recent years, acted in a manner that contradicts the very principles it claims to promote.

While it publicly supports the rhetoric of "housing as a right" and frames the new scheme as an act of social justice, many families have faced eviction from Church-owned properties. Some of these tenants had lived in their homes for decades. Others were on stable but modest incomes - including those earning just above the €38,000 threshold - who suddenly found themselves excluded from the very scheme the Church is celebrating, while simultaneously being pushed out of the homes they relied on.

If the Church is committed to "dignified housing for all," the first moral obligation should be not to destabilise the housing security of its own tenants. Instead, it has too often acted as a private landlord prioritising financial gain over compassion.

The new scheme is accessible to individuals earning up to €33,000 and couples up to €38,000. This sounds generous, yet it leaves out a substantial category of earners - the so-called "just above €38K" group. These are people who do not qualify for social housing, cannot afford soaring market prices, and now discover that the Church, while celebrating its social conscience, has done nothing for them.

Worse still, some tenants earning slightly above this threshold were evicted from Church properties under the justification that they "earned too much" to justify remaining in subsidised rents - yet they do not earn enough to access the new scheme. They were simply "chucked out," stuck in an impossible no-man's-land.

The Church's involvement in the new housing scheme is framed as an expression of Christian values and social teaching. But morality cannot be selective. You cannot preach about housing dignity on Monday while issuing eviction notices on Tuesday.

A true social mission requires consistency. It requires a Church that acknowledges its role as a landlord, not just a charitable institution. It must also protect existing tenants, especially vulnerable middle-income earners. Furthermore it must avoid evictions unless absolutely necessary, and only after offering real alternatives. Ultimately it needs to stop hiding behind income thresholds that it knows exclude many who are struggling and focus on practicing the compassion it publicly promotes

Another key issue is that the Church's partnership with the State allows it to project social virtue while shifting financial and operational responsibility elsewhere. The Church contributes land - much of which was transferred to or developed with State assistance - while the government handles development costs and administration.

Should the Church wish to participate meaningfully in national housing policy, it must be held accountable like any other major landlord. Its actions cannot be above scrutiny simply because it is a religious institution. Therefore these steps are essential: Public transparency on eviction practices and rental policies; a moratorium on evictions unless safe, realistic alternatives are provided and inclusion of middle-income earners above €38,000 in future phases of the housing scheme, many of whom have already been harmed by Church landlord decisions

The affordable housing measures in the budget are promising, but the moral burden rests heavily on the Church. As part owner of the scheme, it cannot promote itself as a defender of housing rights while simultaneously evicting families, some of whom are now excluded from the very scheme it promotes.

To be a true partner in social justice, the Church must stop acting like an ordinary landlord and start acting like the moral authority it claims to be.

Dr Katya De Giovanni is a warranted Organisational Psychologist and Member of Parliament