Completely wrong – in fact, theology is taught at the University of Malta and not at the Curia.

This thread started with a direct reference to the Catholic Church ergo I didn’t confuse the two notions. My point is and was that Catholic teaching should be carried out by the Catholic Church and not the state.

Religion is part of education. There is no educated person alive who is not fully informed about different religions. You have confused ‘religion’ with Roman Catholic dogma, which is different.

Classes in religion, including Roman Catholic dogma, are offered across all schools, and are optional. It is up to you whether you allow your children to drop them or not.

I went to a school where many of the girls were non-Catholic – Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, the works. We had Catholic dogma classes, mass on Fridays, prayers before class, the lot. Everybody was fine with the mix and most of us grew up to be agnostic.

Corruption was always present and now it’s become institutionalised. Swearing and blaspheming are rampant. The list is endless. Back-stabbing and dishonourable behaviour are rife.

Maltese schools have become multi denominational – so yes, I think this is a move in the right direction.

However, I think that the one thing that sets you on the right/wrong path is mostly the way you were brought up.

Similarly I know many of your age, generation and your socio-educational demography who are practising Catholics and I also know many 20 to 30 year olds who go to church on Sunday and live a Catholic life.

But the point is not if you, me or how many are Catholic or not. The point was that if you send your children to a state school, one must not expect the state to provide religious teaching.

To add to T. Brincat’s other comment on same thread; the fact that state education states that it is Christians does not mean that the state is able to impart Catholic teaching. I am Catholic and try my best to practice my religion but am unable to teach religion.

The school syllabus is the same throughout Malta, whether the school is state-run, run by the Catholic Church, or independent.

I’m well aware of this but I do not agree with it. Religion classes at school should suffice for this purpose. It did in my day.

After school hours should be for the children to enjoy family time or to do some activity they enjoy. I don’t even like all this homework they get.

I cannot imagine any child choosing to go to MUSEUM instead of say, playing an instrument or doing sport. However, if as a parent you want children to be exposed to religion so that then they can make their own choices later on in life, then you should be able to assume that by sending them to a school which professes to be a Catholic one, that religion would be taught there. Make it optional by all means but not exclude it and I think this is where this is going to.

I’m not in disagreement with what you write but I do not agree with the way it is being done and with what I believe are the motives for it.

Churches and religions have a role to play in society, and the present Archbishop has shown how this should be done. But whether that message is accepted or not is up to those at the receiving end, and not a matter of ‘influence’.

Also, you should never make the mistake of confusing the Catholic Church’s social influence with its influence in terms of shaping ethics and morality. When the Catholic Church was at its most powerful in Malta, people were at their most immoral, and that includes the leaders of both the foremost political parties at the time.

Children who do not go to MUSEUM classes cannot take part in official First Holy Communion ceremonies or be confirmed in the Catholic Church – even if they are taught RE at school.