“The Constitution says Malta is a republic based on work. The article declaring that the Roman, Catholic, apostolic religion is the religion of Malta is just a pious declaration and no more. If it is removed, no difference in constitutional law will be felt”.

Exactly my point. So, the Church’s Board of Censors publish a guideline and is fully independent from the government Censors who ultimately decided whether ‘Stitching’ should be banned.

You are critical of ‘the present administration’ as if censorship is its latest creation. So, why not promote the complete removal of the government’s Censorship Board and let those who want to be guided by the Church’s ratings follow their conscience?

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090627/local/churchs-film-classifier-left-after-common-conclusion

Pat, Malta is a secular state. The fact that “Stiiching” has up to now been banned from being produced on stage was not the fault of Father Abela (once again the term used in the above article), but mainly due to that silly woman who is the so-called chairperson of the censoring board.

We do not need a censoring board for either drama, the theatre or the cinema, enough reasons have been given in my post above.

Whether or not Malta is secular, and people seem to do whatever they like are the Church’s own statistics of the low percentage of people that are still frequenting Mass on Sunday, the number of separations and co-habitation for lack of a divorce law, and the number of annulment applications before the Curia’s own tribunal which in themselves are the granting of divorce with the Almighty’s blessings.

John II – Apologies to Dun Anton. Please note that the term Dun Gouder was used in the article, hence my repetition.

I do not understand all the fuss about the firing of this priest. The Church has its own classification board (formerly known as the board of film censorship) which is distinct from that of the State. To me the Church’s board is irrelevant. I remember when, as a teenager, I would use the Church board to learn which were the most spicy movies and go watch them. What interests me is the board of the State and this should be strictly secular. The State has no business appointing on this board persons who let their religious convictions interfere with their judgement but I very much suspect that many key public posts are deliberately filled by persons of a manifest Catholic persuasion because this is what the present powers that be want. The state board of censorship has no right to ban something because it may hurt the religious feelings of anyone. That anyone is free not to see the play or movie or whatever. If Catholics have such sensitive feelings, don’t agnostics or atheists have feelings too? Is sentiment a monoply of Catholics? That any adult (very often much less qualified than I) should tell me what I may or may not read or watch is an insult to my intelligence. While the Church’s censorship does not bother me as it is not enforceable on me, that of the state does because I must obey it. In my view, the Church may teach whatever it likes. It is the State which should totally ignore the Church and give me my rights. If the State ignored the rantings of prelates, theirs would be like a voice crying in the desert as far as I am concerned. And this is where I am at odds with the present administration, much to my regret.

I am afraid there are still too many cobwebs in our laws and administration dating back to the time when Malta was a theocracy under the Knights (with the Bishop and the Inquisitor elbowing for power simultaneously with the Grandmaster) and to the colonial period when the Church was the most valued ally of the imperial government in making sure the docile populace within the island-fortress continued to suffer in silence in the hope of a future heavenly reward.

It seems it will be some time before some politicians will keep their religious convictions out of the administration of the country. They want political glory on this earth and eternal glory in the next. The two are not always possible.

Just within the faculties of theology I believe. Truly hope so at least.

Still, another proof of how non-secular Malta is. Not sure why we would need more proof, but there is always some nutter declaring that Malta is secular.

Those selected, before they can take up the post, have to go before the Archbishop and make a “declaration of faith”.

If, at any time, the Archbishop decides that he no longer approves of any lecturer, all he has to do is to write to the Uni and say so – upon which the lecturer is automatically considered as being dismissed and a new one chosen ….

http://www.education.gov.mt/resources/pdf/CHAPT327.pdf

Not to be pedantic, but you cannot say “Dun Gouder”. “Dun” (like “Sir” in English) is used with the christian name or the full name – never with the surname only..

I know that the church does not exert direct political interferance, but it does exert a lot of indirect and subtle pressure. It is about this that I am talking. Why do you think that Malta is still without a divorce law? Secular my foot.