Is the Church becoming irrelevant?

A detailed research exercise carried out by the curia has confirmed that church attendance has decreased further, which is not at all surprising.

The research, published earlier this week, found that only 38% of the Maltese go to mass every Sunday. There was a significant drop of 12% from 2005 levels.

Furthermore, the data shows that 6.5% of the population, which translates into some 30,000 people, are atheists.

Of the 92% who say they are Catholic, 25% do not pray every day or do not pray at all.

While one cannot come to certain conclusions from the data provided, it seems that society, as expected, is becoming more and more secular, like the rest of Europe. The data also seems to show that for a good number of Catholics, religion is not about spirituality but more about tradition – as if going to church once a month and praying occasionally is enough.

The Curia said the drop in church attendance was to be expected and that it wants to use the data to be more effective pastorally. First and foremost it should try and understand what the numbers mean, and whether the institution is losing its relevance in today’s society. Undoubtedly, the Church remains an important institution in Malta, not only because of the authority that it still holds but

Editor’s pick

also because the work carried out by its many institutions can be seen and touched. But it seems that its spiritual influence is slowly eroding.

Some might argue that Malta is not yet ready for an outspoken archbishop, and that Charles Scicluna is too vocal on ‘issues that do not pertain to religion’ – that this is pushing people away.

Others might argue that society is moving too fast when it comes to civil liberties, and that because of its stand on certain issues, the church is becoming obsolete. Whatever the case the Church still has an important role to play in society and, if it intends to remain relevant, it needs first to understand what the numbers are saying.

It was very disappointing to see that no capping was included in the proposed review of the Fuel Station Policy. The government evidently does not believe that we have enough fuel stations as it is. On the other hand we feel that there are enough to cater for the entire country a few times over. It seems that for now, developers will continue making hay.

We feel that the proposals, although moving in the right direction, are nowhere near enough.

The ERA proposals state that no new stations should be built on ‘undisturbed’ ODZ land. So we are now making a distinction between disturbed and undisturbed ODZ, rather than between ODZ and DZ.

The footprint of the fuel stations is also set to decrease from 3,000sqm to 2,000sqm, which frankly is still too large. It has been argued that fuel stations would not be viable without ancillary facilities such as car wash facilities. Since when is this the case? None of the old fuel stations (which are being relocated under the controversial 2015 policy) had such facilities? Why have these facilities become such a necessity now?

The minimum distance from existing stations is being increased from 500 metres to 1.5km, but this is also ridiculous. There is no logical reason to allow fuel pumps so close to each other.

The 7 metre height limitation is also illogical, especially when considering that most modern fuel stations have only one floor. If 3.5 metres is enough, why set the limit at 7?

Also, the planning gain is a positive thing, but then again it should also be the obvious thing. Developers must always be made to compensate the country for the environmental damage their enterprises cause. On the other hand we’d rather not have any new fuel stations, no planning gain and no damage done to our countryside.