The public outcry over the application to have a cafeteria on the roof of the Paola parish church has inadvertently sparked a long-needed debate over the role of churches in our society, both as sacred spaces and as heritage sites.

It is fortunate that the parish priest, Fr Marc Andre Camilleri, is so eloquent and handled the media scrutiny with such aplomb, making extremely important points that merit consideration.

What is the historical context? For thousands of years, people of various religions have built temples as sacred spaces – whether as a place to pay tribute to their gods or as a spiritual sanctity. As the millennia rolled by, temples were destroyed by wars, other religions and the ravages of time.

But there is no doubt that many are respected as heritage locations which attracted skilled craftsmen and generous artistic commissions, resulting in some of our most cherished sites. This applies – in the Maltese context – whether we are talking about Neolithic temples, mediaeval chapels or St John’s Co-Cathedral.

However, some sites were deconsecrated as they were no longer needed: in Malta, we had a chapel at Ħal Ferħ which was turned into a disco and the Garrison chapel now hosts the Malta Stock Exchange.

What about the religious aspect? Some commentators have harked back to Jesus throwing the merchants and their customers out of the temple in Jerusalem. But, clearly, there are many pragmatic examples around the world of religious sites open to tourism, with tours, museums and heritage shops.

This is why it is important to understand what churches as buildings mean nowadays. It is for the Church in Malta to assess why congregations have dwindled over the past 50 years and why so few people are seeking vocations as priests or nuns. It is up to the Church to review its financing of parishes and its role in providing tuition, pastoral care and residential care for the elderly. This is something it is actively doing.

But, religion aside, there is also another aspect: the Church has lines that cannot be crossed easily, whether to do with dress code or the music it hosts, all of which is aimed at protecting the role of churches as spiritual spaces. These lines are not cast in stone and if they no longer make sense, then, indeed, they should be challenged. But that requires a sober assessment of where the new line should be, unless there is to be a free-for-all.

And that applies whether a church has a congregation of 12 or 120.

Once you allow the Paola church application, what would the next application be for? Is this not a slippery slope, many are asking.

Many of the 350+ churches have central locations that would have commercial entities salivating. What are we saying? That they could be deconsecrated and turned into shopping malls? That if the church is now too big for its original purpose, a smaller site could be found and the old church demolished to make way for flats? That the parvis would make a wonderful flea-market location?

If there is no roof with a view, as in Paola’s case, could a nave be boarded up to accommodate parish group meetings?

Such very complex issues – especially those with such a deep cultural context – are uncomfortable to discuss. It takes something that is perhaps, in and of itself, not that major to shake us out of our comfort zone. If nothing else comes out of this application, this debate alone would make it worthwhile.

Even small companies have strict brand guidelines to align with their mission and values. The Church deserves no less.