Helena Dalli: Malta's Church and State Protect Institutions Over Victims

Helena Dalli, the Maltese sociologist and former European Union Equality Commissioner, has launched a scathing critique of the culture of silence that pervades powerful institutions—from the Catholic Church to government structures in Malta—arguing that so-called safeguarding bodies often function as nothing more than reputation management units when they refuse to speak publicly about known abuse cases.

Writing in the Times of Malta this week, Dalli dissected the phenomenon of omertà, a term historically tied to Sicilian mafia codes but, she argues, equally at home in the corridors of power occupied by clerics and bureaucrats. Her commentary comes amid renewed scrutiny of how institutions in Malta handle abuse allegations, particularly a child abuse case in Gozo where the Curia's silence has been interpreted not as procedural caution but as active protection of the institution itself.

Why This Matters

• Institutional silence in abuse cases is a calculated choice to control information, not a procedural necessity, according to Dalli.

• Safeguarding commissions that stay silent when cases are public knowledge become complicit in protecting reputations rather than victims.

• The culture of omertà in Malta's Church and judiciary has been publicly criticized by both Helena Dalli and her husband, Patrick Dalli, who raised concerns about silence surrounding judicial misconduct in 2024.

• Legal reforms may be needed to compel institutions to report abuse, mirroring changes already made in domestic violence legislation.

The Anatomy of Institutional Omertà

Dalli's analysis frames omertà not as a passive failure to communicate, but as an active social mechanism designed to regulate loyalty within communities that distrust external scrutiny. In institutions with deep roots in Maltese society—such as the Catholic Church—this silence draws on centuries of accumulated trust and deference, making it particularly effective at discouraging victims from coming forward.

"A safeguarding commission that stays quiet when the case is public knowledge is not a safeguarding commission," Dalli stated. "It is a reputation management unit."

Her argument centers on the idea that "no comment" is never neutral. It is, she insists, a calculated form of impression management that prioritizes the institution's public image over the testimony of those it has harmed. When a body established to protect vulnerable people instead opts for silence, it sends a clear message to potential victims: speaking up is futile, and the institution will always come first.

This dynamic, Dalli argues, allows wrongdoing to persist unchecked. Victims' narratives are "contained, discredited, or simply drowned out" by the louder silence of those in authority. The Gozo child abuse case exemplifies this pattern, where the Curia's refusal to comment publicly has been widely interpreted as an effort to shield the Church from reputational damage rather than to support survivors or assist the criminal justice process.

From Suits to Cassocks: Where Omertà Thrives

Dalli's critique extends beyond the Church. She has long been vocal about a "laissez-faire culture" in Maltese government spending, pointing to squandered public money and inadequate oversight of consultants. As a former Labour MP in Malta, she highlighted how public departments routinely ignored criticism from the Ombudsman, operating with minimal accountability.

The concept of institutional silence took on additional resonance in 2024, when her husband, Patrick Dalli, publicly condemned what he described as an "omertà surrounding accusations of misdeeds by Maltese judges." He criticized the Maltese media for failing to challenge judicial misconduct, arguing that the same code of silence protecting clerics also insulates members of the Malta judiciary.

Helena Dalli's perspective is informed by her sociological training and her tenure as EU Commissioner for Equality from 2019 to 2024, a role in which she championed transparency and accountability in addressing discrimination. Though she faced controversy in 2021 over internal EU guidelines suggesting gender-neutral language—an initiative withdrawn after pushback from the Vatican and Pope Francis—her broader track record reflects a consistent challenge to entrenched power structures.

What This Means for Residents

For those living in Malta, Dalli's intervention raises urgent questions about the effectiveness of safeguarding mechanisms and the independence of bodies tasked with protecting children and vulnerable adults. If a safeguarding commission prioritizes institutional reputation over transparency, it fundamentally fails its mandate.

Legal reform may be necessary to break the cycle of silence. Dalli has previously advocated for changes to Maltese law that would allow third parties—such as teachers, social workers, or concerned citizens—to report suspected abuse, rather than requiring the victim to come forward. This approach mirrors reforms already enacted in Malta's domestic violence legislation, which recognized that victims often face insurmountable barriers to reporting.

She has also called for priests accused of abuse to be treated like any other citizen before civil courts, questioning why clergy should be "simply defrocked while another person is imprisoned" for the same crime. The current system, in which the Curia sometimes handles abuse allegations internally without reporting them to Malta Police unless the victim initiates a formal complaint, undermines public trust and allows offenders to evade criminal accountability.

The Cost of Silence

Dalli's analysis suggests that omertà is not a permanent state but a fragile equilibrium maintained by those in power. It can fracture when external scrutiny intensifies or when the cost of silence begins to outweigh the cost of speaking. High-profile cases, media pressure, and legal action can all force institutions to break their silence—but the burden of triggering that shift often falls on survivors and activists rather than on the institutions themselves.

The sociologist warns that silence is never a neutral stance. It always protects someone, and in institutional contexts, that someone is rarely the victim. Instead, it shields those who hold authority, allowing them to control the narrative and minimize disruption to their operations.

For Malta, a small nation where institutions like the Catholic Church wield significant social influence, breaking the culture of omertà requires more than individual acts of courage. It demands structural change: legal obligations to report, independent oversight of safeguarding bodies, and a public commitment to transparency that values the safety of individuals over the preservation of institutional prestige.

Habermas and the Public Sphere

In related commentary published on March 22, Dalli reflected on the ideas of Jürgen Habermas, the German philosopher known for his work on the public sphere and the role of open debate in democratic societies. Her invocation of Habermas underscores a broader concern: that Malta's democratic health depends on the ability of citizens to access information, challenge authority, and hold institutions accountable through public discourse.

When institutions refuse to participate in that discourse—when they deploy omertà as a defensive strategy—they undermine the very foundations of democratic accountability. The result is a society in which power is increasingly opaque, and those harmed by it have fewer avenues for redress.

Breaking the Code

Dalli's intervention is a reminder that institutional silence is a choice, one made repeatedly by those in positions of authority. It is not an accident, a procedural quirk, or a well-meaning attempt to protect privacy. It is a deliberate strategy designed to control information, manage public perception, and preserve the status quo.

For Malta, confronting this culture means asking difficult questions about the independence of safeguarding bodies, the adequacy of legal protections for victims, and the willingness of institutions—from the Church to the judiciary—to submit to genuine external scrutiny. Until those questions are answered, the silence will persist, and with it, the conditions that allow harm to continue unchecked.