The recent controversy about part of the proposed project for the parish church in Paola was providential. It not only provided consensus but also raised a very important question, an answer to which the Christian community needs to calmly discern to provide. The government also needs to consider whether it should have a role.

Let’s start from the easier part, the consensus. All agreed that there should not be a restaurant on a church’s rooftop. The parish priest said there was not going to be one. He is an honourable man. So, are we to understand that it was the project architects’ fault that the application was for a Class 4D permit, aka a restaurant, and the plan also provided for an outdoor bar and a lounge to boot?

The Curia stepped in to correct this ‘mistake’: no to a restaurant, yes to a small cafeteria. Now, those who visit the interpretation centre at the Paola parish church can at least quench their thirst with a coffee or a soft drink and assuage their hunger with a muffin or a pastizz.

However, The Sunday Times of Malta (April 24) indicated that this may not be the case as, following talks with the government, it could be that the cafeteria will be located elsewhere.

However, a problem still exists. Church organisations do not live only by oxygen and sanctifying grace. Money, though not of the Church’s essence, is needed. At a time when congregations are decreasing annually, how can one guarantee the upkeep of churches while respecting the fundamental nature of the Church?

This question should interest the State as well. A secular State’s interest is not in churches as places of worship but as historical monuments and an important part of our heritage. Though EU funds have been used a lot, it seems that this is not enough. If the government is ready to fork out millions to buy band clubs, it should also be ready to help save the patrimony consisting of churches.

The Church should be wary, though, that any government aid does not become a poisoned chalice. The Church has to resist the temptation of forfeiting or placing on the back burner its duty of prophetic denunciation for the government’s offer of funds. Neither should it let churches become just tourist attractions.

Besides, the Church cannot on the one hand say it needs government funds for the upkeep of church buildings but then spend tens of thousands of euros on projects (opri is more appropriate) that smack more of the Church of yesteryear than the Church of tomorrow.

This is why I believe that while for the government the problem of the upkeep of churches, which are part of our cultural heritage, is primarily a budgetary issue, for the Church this is only secondarily so. For the Church, the policy about financing of church buildings (the same applies to works of mercy and education, which, for centuries, have been part of the Church’s mission) is first and foremost an issue of vision.

What kind of Church does the Church want to be in a secularised society? How is the Church going to finance today what yesterday was spontaneously financed by believers, whose numbers have now diminished substantially? Isn’t it more in line with the mission of the Church to focus its efforts on churchgoers rather than church buildings?

For the Church, the policy about financing of church buildings is first and foremost an issue of vision- Fr Joe Borg

Unfortunately, we live in an age where the commercial model is taking over all sectors of society. Though fundraising and a limited amount of commercial activity can be beneficial for the Church, it would be sad if it were to adopt a model that makes it more and more dependent on commercial initiatives rather than on the generosity of believers.

After the election of 2013, PBS had to stop the transmission of TVHemm, the popular current affairs programme hosted by Norman Vella, after he was unceremoniously kicked out through an order from the government.

Later that year, Vella was arrested while he was at his place of work. He was accused of taking a photo of the then head of communications at Castille, together with the present president of the Labour Party. The court had harsh words against the police, clearly telling them that they had no basis for this arrest.

Vella claimed that his dismissal was an act of political discrimination against a journalist. He took his case to the Employment Commission. The government said that Vella’s transfer was carried out because his services were “essential” to the functioning of the immigration section at the airport. A more implausible reason than this could not have been given.

Vella defended his case in court.

After 11 years, the Employment Commission reached a decision. It was scheduled to be announced on April 24. Since a member of the commission was not going to be present, all the parties’ lawyers were informed and they all accepted that the commission should go ahead and read its decision. Vella flew to Malta from Luxembourg, where he is now working and living with his family, specifically for the decision.

The sitting started and Pawlu Lia, the lawyer for the prime minister, objected to the reading of the decision, although he had previously agreed to it. The sitting had to adjourned.

Indeed, Lia’s action is as spiteful as it could be.

But if you think that this is just Vella’s problem, think again. The attack on one journalist is an attack on all journalists. Political discrimination against one journalist is discrimination against all journalists. A spiteful action against one journalist is a spiteful action against all journalists.

Most of all, remember that all attacks against journalists are attacks against your freedom of reception of information.

Vella’s case is your case.