MaltaToday previous editions

6 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 10 APRIL 2019 ANALYSIS AN official circular reminding Mater Dei hospital nurses that Malta is a "multicultural socie- ty" and that they should remove "any religious items and images (such as holy pictures stuck to walls)" caused a storm whipped into a frenzy by the PN organ Net News – the news channel attributed what it dubbed "the circular on crosses", to "the large number of foreigners in the country making repeated demands on Castille because they hold different religious be- liefs." Crucially, the circular did not refer to the state-sanc- tioned display of the crucifix in public buildings as suggest- ed by the first media reports, but to images stuck to walls on the personal initiative of employees. Health Minister Chris Fearne nipped the issue in the bud by immediately distanc- ing himself from the circular, ordering its withdrawal. But why do the same Mal- tese – who largely accepted progressive civil liberties in the past years and ignore what the church says on migration – become so touchy about the display of religious symbols in public buildings? More popular than religion Popular religiosity may have deeper roots than official re- ligion. Popular religiosity – which is anthropologically linked to magic and pagan rit- ual – may have stronger roots in popular culture than Cath- olic doctrine and allegiance to the church as an organisation. The timing of the circular to coincide with Holy Week celebrations where popular religiosity reaches its peak, may well have backfired on its proponents: this is the season where the intrusion of reli- gious symbols on public space intensifies. Yet in the popular cultural universe, Holy Week is more related to the village feast than to religious reflection. In the context of public hospi- tals and clinics, religious sym- bols provide solace and hope, sometimes serving the same role as magical charms. Indeed, popular religiosity has become increasingly au- tonomous from the church itself, which tends to focus on what it sees as more cru- cial social issues. Archbishop Charles Scicluna himself has vowed he would not carry out any "crusade" should Roman Catholicism be removed from the island's Constitution as the official religion of Malta, and has advocated a level- playing field for all religions. This suggests that the church itself would not embark on a crusade against the removal of religious symbols from public buildings. Yet this will probably not prevent others from appro- priating themselves of holy images by way of resistance to what they perceive as a sort of 'creeping multiculturalism'. Don't take away 'my rights' People may agree with giv- ing rights to others, but only as long as they do not have to relinquish what they per- ceive to be their own rights. Many have voted for divorce and later supported gay mar- riage on the basis of the no- tion that they want to see oth- ers happy. In this case, many do not understand how the sheer display of symbols so intimately tied to Maltese life, and which make them feel safer and possibly happier, could possibly make others feel sad or excluded. This in itself is symptomatic of a cul- ture which never developed a strong awareness of what is appropriate in public spaces and what is not. Even up until a few years ago, drivers decorated their buses with holy pictures along portraits of music favourites like Bob Marley (perhaps an urban myth, but it seemed universally accepted that the reggae icon's charisma was uncontested among Malta's army of bus drivers). It ex- plains why private devotion tends to spill in public spaces on the presumption that eve- ryone is ok and comfortable with it. Saints no, crucifixes yes The circular expected nurses to do what MPs are not ex- pected to do. The circular may have been ill thought-out simply be- cause it was enacted in a legislative vacuum. While it addressed the display of de- votional items by employees, it failed to address the state- sanctioned display of the cru- cifix in public buildings in- cluding parliament. Perversely it may have start- ed addressing the issue where it is bound to create most opposition: at the popular rather than at state level. An alternative to addressing the problem would be that of first removing the reference to Ro- man Catholicism in the Con- stitution, rather than remov- ing religious symbols from public buildings; and only then proceed to determine what is appropriate for public employees to exhibit in pub- lic buildings frequented by people of different faiths and beliefs. For the logic behind such cir- culars is to prevent situations where people feel uncomfort- able when receiving a public service. That does not mean that addressing institutional issues before tackling the be- haviour of employees would not stir opposition, especially if such symbols are adopted by the political right-wing as symbols of resistance to mul- ticulturalism…. something NET News did by linking the circular to the presence of for- eigners in Malta. Totems of identity Another reason why politi- cians are not keen to upset the apple cart on religious sym- bols is that these are increas- ingly being perceived as sym- bols of cultural identity. The overall picture emerging Why the Maltese love their Why are the Maltese willing to accept laws and decisions that defy church doctrine, but are then so defensive displays of popular religiosity in public buildings? JAMES DEBONO asks Cardinal Marx: "The cross was a sign of opposition to violence, injustice, sin and death but not a sign against other people"

• Cover