A patronising bishop out of touch with reality

Gozo Bishop Anton Teuma’s condemnation of childcare centres for children up to two years of age was insensitive and completely out of touch with reality to the point of ignorance. 

The truth is that Teuma’s patronising words, pronounced in a homily during a Mass for expectant parents, were a condemnation of all parents, who use or have used childcare facilities. 

To make matters worse, he even tried to justify his personal opinion as some sort of psychological truth. “I will never stop condemning childcare centres until the age of two. This is not me saying this, but psychologists with sense,” Teuma elaborated, while characterising parents who make use of these centres as people who “throw babies into childcare”. We just wonder who these ‘psychologists with sense’ are and in what manner have they ‘condemned’ the use of childcare centres. 

‘Condemn’ is a strong word to use. We condemn wrongdoing, sexual abuse, corruption, abuse of authority, the abandonment of children, rape, theft, murder, domestic violence… not childcare centres where young children are cared for. 

But in Teuma’s mind, childcare centres embody the egoistic traits of parents, who treat their children as “objects”. His language could not be more hurtful to all those who try to make a decent living, care for their children and try to provide them with the best upbringing possible, while using childcare services. 

Teuma’s words were an attempt to guilt-trip parents, especially women, who already find it hard to leave their children in child care, while they are constrained to return to the workplace after 18 weeks of maternity leave. It’s worse for fathers, who have to return to work after just 10 days of the child’s birth—it used to be two days up until a few years ago—denying them the possibility of playing a bigger role in the first few weeks and months of their new born child. 

Instead of cruelly bashing parents and accusing them of abandoning their children, Teuma could have condemned the structural problems in society that make it hard for parents to achieve an adequate work-life balance. 

He should have directed his ire towards policy makers and employers, urging them to change the system so that parents can spend more time with each other and their children during early childhood. 

Teuma could have argued for one-year paid leave for each of the parties in a couple after the birth or adoption of a child. In this way, the child could spend the first two years of their life with either one of the parents without them having to worry about their income. 

He could have argued for more incentives to encourage employers to adopt flexi-work solutions for employees with children. 

He could have argued for the introduction of special sick leave for parents when their young children are ill and have to stay at home. 

He could have suggested the introduction of reduced working hours without the loss of full pay for people who have primary school children in their care. 

He could have argued for improved quality standards in childcare facilities to ensure children receive the best care possible in safe, loving environments. 

Teuma could have spoken about a lot of things to encourage a healthier work-life balance that benefits parents and children but instead he chose to condemn mothers and fathers without distinction. 

Of course, there are adults who may view children as a burden to be dumped on grandparents or childcare centres. Of course, there are adults who may have warped priorities in life that inflict psychological hardship on their children. Of course, there are irresponsible adults. But Teuma’s words were not directed towards these people—although even in these circumstances there may be complex social and mental issues that require compassionate understanding and intervention. 

Instead, he took the widest paint brush possible to tar everyone with the same paint, condemning all for “throwing” their children in childcare centres as if this is a capricious decision taken lightly. Teuma’s ignorant generalisation is equivalent to saying all priests are paedophiles because some abused children in their pastoral care. 

But there is also something fundamentally wrong with Teuma’s understanding of childcare centres to depict them as some sort of gulag for children. Childcare centres that function within established quality standards are beneficial for a child’s social, emotional, cognitive and language development. 

And neither is there anything wrong if the mother wants to continue working after giving birth. We strongly suspect that this is what irks Teuma the most. His language is premised on the assumption that women should stay at home to take care of their children and thus are to blame for ‘objectifying’ children by abandoning them in childcare centres. Thankfully, Teuma’s reflection is a distressing reminder that the progress achieved in women’s rights, should not be taken for granted.