On the other hand it is true that religious organizations provide the bulk and a wide range of social work.

There is nothing wrong that we have church schools and other church run institutions for the elderly, orphans and others in need. Social work is part of the Church’s mission. The Christian belief based on love for others is put into practice.

The State, especially in the current circumstances, as happens in Church schools should subsidise or pay the salaries of the employees of the religious charitable institutions. In the long term it should plan to widen its services and provide for state run care for the handicapped, orphans and other people in need.

An area lacking in appropriate structures is that of young offendors. There was an approved school, but this was closed down. The only institutions available for these persons are prison or Mount Carmel hospital.

That property was transferred to the State in the early 1990s. In return, the state pays the teachers’ salaries; at least of those teachers who teach main subjects.

It is worth noting that when a church school employee is on maternity leave, the school has to fork out the salary of the temporary replacement of that employee.

As time passed, many parents who are well off (many of them Labour-leaning) didn’t pay any donations to their children’s church schools which needed new computer labs, to upgrade their class rooms, or normal maintenance works.

So some of the schools devised certain ways to raise funds which can be burdensome to the parents. There are other schools which never ask for donations and organise one event in a year, normally some sort of a marathon, where they raise nearly enough money to fund the school expenses.

There was one specific school which did what it liked and even had an extra class for corrupt paying parents, or where the list of ‘lucky’ students was bigger than the ones drawn in the lottery. Ara hallini!

Dar tal-Providenza through Father Martin Micallef’s managment skills trimmed (or rather pruned) a lot of needless expenses.

The introduction of the euro played a part in this deficit, because one rarely sees fifty cents or euro coins in the church collection.

I am in favour of an ‘otto per mille’ system.

Tax payers will instruct the IRD every year to have an established percentage of their income tax directed to this or that voluntary entity which is burdened with a social responsibility, like Arka respite centre, Dar tal-Providenza, Puttinu cares, YMCA, Salvation Army and what have you.

It’s the Church which is bearing the brunt of so many social problems.

Indeed, the Church is doing much more than it should.

The Church does have a duty to fill in the gaps, in my view, particularly in view of the fact that it was Christ himself who started filling gaps in his society and the Church should emulate the life of Christ.

However, the situation we are facing is indeed absurd because we are collectively doing what our ancestors used to do with the disabled, the sick and illegitimate children: now we don’t hide the individuals but we hide from our responsibility to care for them.

Besides, I still can’t understand why church schooling, which is private schooling, should be practically free of charge. I know the reasons which led to it but what is the philosophy behind it? The real philosophy?

This is the water-and-electricity mentality (as I call it) which is so rampant in Malta.

We all want to consume as much water and electricity as we possibly can but few Maltese were ready to really foot the bill by paying what is really due for their consumption rather than a fraction due to some subsidy or other.

This leads to artificial financial comfort which becomes unsustainable (for the State and ultimately for the taxpayers). In other words, we are not ready to really pay for what the actual product or service costs but rather what we think it should cost: nothing or pretty much almost nothing.

The same goes for the national social bill: for how long can the Church possibly keep on footing the social bill?

This is artificial and instead of criticizing the Church for its anti-divorce stand (which was, after all, fully predictable given its teachings) we should be thankful as a nation that the Church in Malta is footing the bill and is giving the most vulnerable amongst us a roof, food, clothing and an education, not to speak of medical and psychological care, in some instances.

It’s definitely high time that we assume our responsibility.

Well done indeed for bringing this up. It is yet another big elephant in the room, which we choose to ignore.

Frankly, I still need to think what people are disgruntled about, because they have homes, jobs, cars in their (own) garages and a holiday booked for next summer.

Why don’t we just admit that we’re a nation of “geddumna fix-xghir”,, behaving like spoilt brats? What about all the millions who have lost jobs and homes? We’re still afloat and certainly it is not due to any good luck.

We’ve had it so good for twenty odd years that we’ve come to take this as the norm, for granted.

A real shame.

How many of you know that the Deaf Association was forced to employ signing interpreters, because the government wouldn’t? Without exception, no other country does this. All of them simply cannot believe that the state actually refused to help the deaf directly.

In fact, the government, when Louis Galea was minister of education, closed down the special school for the deaf and arbitrarily shoved deaf pupils into the mainstream.

I mean, what difference would another 3 or 4 salaries have made to the 30,000 already on our payroll?

Unfortunately, because the deaf community is so small, underfunded and resourceless, nobody in power cares and nobody in journalism wants to pick up the horror-story – for that is what it is – and blow it wide open to the public. If anybody out there is interested in doing so, they can contact me.

I believe that the Community Chest Fund is surrounded with too much hype, and that it is one of the causes of the financial problems of the Church.

A lot of social and business organisations save their donation money to be paid to the Community Chest Fund in return for some advertising during the broadcasting of L-Istrina, the annual live event on PBS.

I do not see why the cases covered by the CCF should not be financed by the State and why those cases should be paid for out of people’s generosity.

However, the Church needs to re-organise its finances.

The model it uses to finance the Dar Tal-Providenza proves to be effective.

It advertises the cause, and the money flows in, because the public knows very well what Dar Tal-Providenza stands for. I think that the Church can do the same with its other homes. The public should be informed about the mission of each home, and then the money will come in.

If the Church informs the conscience of secular judges it would have achieved its aim.

The State should never be the default carer as it should never be the default educator or employer.

I believe these things are too important to leave them for the State to handle.

To the contrary, I believe such things should be done by societies closest to the individual whether it’s the family, church or the local pigeon club. People do feel a sense of belonging and perhaps even a shared identity with these but never with a State which in itself is an artificial thing.

I believe the State should be there as a last resort, when all things fail not as the first resort. If all charity had to be done by the State we would surely be a sad society.

[Daphne – When it is done by the state, AP, it is not charity. That is the point.]

I think that for someone like me who has Catholic sensibilities, you come up with the best analyses. Fr Joe Borg’s comment is also spot on but then he is a priest – which does not follow, of course, for I have read some dodgy commentary by some priests.

One of the Church’s missions is to minister to people in need. Through this visible activity the Church raises awareness about social injustice.

This leads to having a political role in the classic sense of the word. This is what she is good at.

When the Church went beyond this classic definition of politics, things got very messy indeed.

So no, I do not advocate for the easing of the burden of taking care of the poor (used in the wide sense too), for that would impoverish the Church to no end.

This said, however, the government should not lean on the Catholic Church as a crutch but should be a partner in providing for the people in society who fall through the net.