Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/563633
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 30 AUGUST 2015 Opinion 21 A wave of changes in lifestyle is now reflected in Maltese law. Starting from divorce, to that of civil rights in gender and sexuality, as well as civil unions and adoption by same-sex partners, this latest change needs to be qualified by a framework by which the secular State also enables civil society to operate on a ground by which liberties are not simply given, but also protected, owned, and defended. When I say I am with Charlie – in this case, His Grace Charles Scicluna – I do not mean that I agree with his position on these changes. What I mean is that I understand and to some extent I also share a core aspect of his preoccupation, which, to me, is related with forms of liberty that appear to be gained by sheer omission. I can't speak for His Grace, but I see this as problematic because it is a leap that may well need a number of transitional contingencies. Whether we like it or not, the law in Malta is deeply seated in an Aristotelian-omist understanding of the world, which is not so easily disentangled from how it subsequently evolved over the years. is is evident in how the law is taught at University, especially in the sphere of ethics and morality (not to mention how lately the doctrines of Natural Law and the Common Good have been used on several occasions as an expedient tool against secular reforms). is also means that liberty, as understood from this context, is pretty much qualified as a positive form of liberty – which, incidentally is something that the Catholic Church shares with several political traditions that one finds on the Left. Here we have an understanding of freedom that is tied to society, its perceived needs, and more so the constructs that make a moral imaginary – even a secular one. us while I would disagree with those who still insist that the Catholic Church must retain its privileges, because I actually am convinced that a separation between Church and State must first and foremost give the freedom to the Church (any church) to be free to exercise its rights and not be encumbered by the duties of State; I would be the first to argue that here we have several challenges which bind us with deeper considerations. I would call these double binds, rather than paradoxes, because while indeed the Catholic Church should not be privileged, we must recognise that we are still operating, morally, legally, and in most of the basic philosophical understanding of rights, justice and statehood on a common ground that is shared with the Catholic Church. is is in a state of evolution and it will change with time. But there is the risk that if this gradual change is not sustained by measures that help civil society evolve, a dangerous moral vacuum is left wide open. Far from suggesting that this should be filled with a Catholic creed (because ultimately, it is up to individuals to choose what moral understanding they have of themselves as a society), I would argue that any moral imaginary, secular or otherwise, that is evolving in Malta is bound to be founded on a positive understanding of freedom and responsibility, mostly because negative liberty on its own does not suffice. When the Catholic Church agreed with the PCI I want to conclude with a curious historical fact, which has always strengthened my resolve upon insisting on the necessity of a secular state and more so the separation between State and Church. When thinking of Italian politics or the Italian State, it is easy to recall how historically the Democrazia Christiana and the Catholic Church ruled the roost for many decades after the war. Likewise, when we try to make an argument for a secular State, we draw parallels with that context. However, we often forget that when one speaks of a secular position, this is not solely concerned with a religion, but more so with an ideology. Not many know that the film director and author Pier Paolo Pasolini started off his young career as a teacher in a remote village. Being gay, Pasolini found himself in deep trouble with the church authorities and therefore with the state, and with pressure from the local parish priest, he was fired from his job. Somewhere Pasolini mentions this in parallel with how he was expelled from the Communist Party (the PCI) on precisely the same counts – those of morals and perceived indecency. He recounts how the letter he got which fired him from his job and that which he got from the PCI which fired him from the party were almost a carbon copy of each other. Church, State and Party judged Pasolini by sharing the same bigoted form of moralising. When many years later, Enrico Berlinguer argued for a secular State he also argued for secular politics. He stated that the PCI should be neither atheistic, nor theistic nor anti-theistic. His point was not simply linked to the transformation of his party, but also to the moral question which underlines the building of a new State that is free from ideological and religious assumptions. If we want to have a fair society that guarantees our freedoms while also protecting what we hold dear in terms of our moral freedom, we need to make sure that we don't find ourselves staring in a vacuum that we hope to fill with some notional idea of liberty that does not obstruct. Rather in our diversity and in the various outlooks that we hold, we need to demand and share a sense of liberty that is enabling. is means that as a diverse and pluralistic society we cannot afford to have a State stuck to models and forms of thinking that are, in effect, still confessional. Confessional States are not just Catholic or eocratic. Communist States were as confessional as much as States that claim to be moved by a specific political or economic dogma that excludes those who fall by the wayside. And let me state this unambiguously: While at present, liberal democracy is the only proved and viable defence against confessionalism that we have (imperfect as it is), it does not mean that all liberal democracies are free from confessionalism. It is not easy to achieve this balance, but achieve it we must if we are to lay the grounds for a civil society that is not characterised by a vacuum in its moral imaginary. While a state can't moralise, it needs to have robust grounds on which society protects individual liberty through social responsibility, which guarantees equity of rights and opportunity through mutual respect and social justice. Liberal shortcuts may look attractive, but they are not enough. On this, I am on Charlie's side. John Baldacchino is currently Chair of Arts Education at the University of Dundee in Scotland secular quandary Rather than decriminalise vilification, the State should go for total protection of creeds: But how could this be done without leaving Malta in a barmy situation where impersonating a nun in Carnival would land you in jail as it is construed as a hate crime? I understand Charles Scicluna to some extent. I also share a core aspect of his preoccupation which, to me, is related with forms of liberty that appear to be gained by sheer omission