Archbishop warns country is under threat from 'ideology of secularism'
We cannot surrender to ethical and moral pluralism - Bishop Grech
President Eddie Fenech Adami among the congregation at Victory Day Mass at St John's Co-Cathedral, Valletta, yesterday. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi
Legislation that leads to divorce as well as abortion and euthanasia would weaken society, Archbishop Paul Cremona said yesterday.
In his homily during the Victory Day concelebrated Mass at St John's Co-Cathedral, Valletta, Mgr Cremona stressed the importance of making the right decisions, looking not only at what could be achieved but also at what could be lost. The mention of divorce comes a month after Mgr Cremona, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech and Vicar General Annetto Depasquale said in a joint statement that anything which weakens and breaks up marriage and the family, including cohabitation and divorce, has serious and lasting consequences for the common good of the country.
In July, Social Policy Minister John Dalli said he was planning to propose a discussion on divorce in the Cabinet and Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said his government was prepared to kick-start a national debate on the introduction of divorce. This followed Labour leader Joseph Muscat's declaration that he was prepared to present a Bill in Parliament proposing the introduction of divorce.
Yesterday, Mgr Cremona underlined the importance of preserving important values, which the country has also fought for in wars. Today, he continued, the country was being threatened by the ideology of secularism, which although based on personal choice, was a strong force which influenced society, sometimes even via legislation.
And confronted by this development, Mgr Cremona said, one could not remain passive, taking solace in the fact that people were still free to live the values they believed in.
As this ideology became stronger, it would become more difficult for people to live their personal values - it would be more difficult for parents to pass on the values they believe in to their children and more difficult for young people to make free choices as they would be surrounded by the wrong messages and influences.
Mgr Cremona said silence and acceptance of a value-free society was not neutrality but a way to strengthen secularism. It was not right to accept the ideology of secularism merely because of its strength or out of fear that Malta was not like other countries.
The Archbishop said the Church would join society in speaking about sustainable development, the environment, justice and other values, adding that important values included the defence of the human being, the unborn child, the elderly, the sick, immigrants, as well as marriage and the family.
However, the effects were already being felt on marriage and the family - even though most marriages remained strong - and the country was already experiencing the negative effects which stemmed from consumerism and materialism, Mgr Cremona said.
Speaking at the Xagħra parish church yesterday on the feast of the Nativity of Our Lady known as Marija Bambina, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech said Christians have a duty to take an active part in the development of the country's history.
The people of God are today being called upon to take an active part in the formation of the country's history by defending 'human reason'. Relativism needs the light of reason, which is considered as that ability by which humans identify what's true, he said. More than a chronicle of events, history is the tradition of spiritual and moral values, he said.
While one notes that there are people who strive for today's events to be in line with those of yesteryear, there are those who want to make others forget yesterday's history and start afresh. And there are those who want to write history without any reference to God.
"It bodes well for those among us who are sympathetic with a secular and a lay society to remember that when history is laid out with God being absent, it would be a history against humans. Plurality of temporal choices is a good thing but we cannot surrender to ethical and moral pluralism.
"This would be detrimental to the democratic life that requires a solid ground based on ethical principles that are not negotiable," Mgr Grech said.
In this context, he added, it does not make sense for Catholics, especially those involved in the public sector to abstain or remain silent when these lay values are under threat. In such a situation, it is not the Church which lies in danger but the future of mankind and of democracy.
In a pluralistic society as ours, there are those who claim that it is arrogant to suggest that moral truth tied to a particular belief ought to lead a civil order that would bind everyone.
As with religious fundamentalism, such reasoning is tantamount to intellectual fundamentalism.
If it is a grave thing for choices based on religious ethics to surface in the public order, it is likewise grave for every Christian position to be labelled as a "confessional choice" and as such be considered as a private choice.
As happened in the past, also today the Church will offer its part in the formation of the history of my country, Mgr Grech concluded.
The Mass at St John's Co-Cathedral was attended by President Eddie Fenech Adami, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg, Speaker of the House, Louis Galea, Labour deputy leader Anġlu Farrugia, Chief Justice Vincent De Geatano and members of the judiciary, Police Commissioner John Rizzo, AFM Commander Carmel Vassallo, the Knights of the Order of St John and of the Order of the Santo Sepulcro among others.
After Mass, President Fenech Adami laid a wreath at the Great Siege Memorial in Republic Street, Valletta.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
No appeals board for first part of power...
31 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 13th 2008, 13:07
Oh, and Paul: can you point out a single instance in which I "threatened" you in any way?
Because as I recall, it was your webite that posted a list of journalists who were "campaigning to introduce abortion to Malta", with my name at the top.
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 13th 2008, 12:25
The arguments for divorce and abortion are the same? Hardly.
The general argument for abortion revolves around a woman's right to make choices that affect her destiny as a human being. (And I know you disagree with it, so let's not get lost in debating the point.)
The argument for divorce, on the other hand, centres on the marriage contract, and points out that like all other civil contracts it should also have an escape clause.
The two are not even related, still less interchangeable. To put it another way: you would be hard pressed to find a pro-choice person who is also against divorce. But reverse the order, and you will find thousands.
The same applies to euthanasia (although the argument here is entirely different: euthanasia is actually a vast subject in its own right, infinitely more complex than divorce, and it is depressing to see such a serious matter reduced to a little pawn on a Maltese political chessboard.)
Evarist Saliba
Sep 13th 2008, 10:00
@Raphael Vassallo
Just as an afterthought. Divorce has been with western society for centuries. In England, for example, since Henry VIII introduced it as one way of getting rid of his wives. Another was beheading! On the other hand, euthanesia is a very recent phenomenon; hence its acceptance is in its first stages. Abortion has been longer with us, and its acceptance by secular society is far more widespread. The argument brought forward in defence of divorce (and secularism) that the world does not fall apart, imediately, on their introduction is specious at best.
As in cancer, the disease will take long years before it manifests itself and kills. In the case of cancer caused by smoking, there were scientists who scoffed at the claim that smoking was damaging to health. Others went further and falsified evidence to support their claim.
Let us not turn against the bishop for warning his followers of a similar danger that he sees in secularism and what it, ultimately, implies
Evarist Saliba
Sep 13th 2008, 08:50
@ Raphael Vassallo
I will have to wait until secularism survives the millennia that Chrisianity has to be able to satisfy your curiosity. I would also want to know what relationship one is to establish between secularism and atheism. And in my anwer I will avoid the wild passion that you tend to display in your writings.
As to the question you put to the bishop, if I were him, I would point out to you that the figures you quote show that euthanisia is already creeping into secular western society as surely as abortion (which you conveniently omit to mention) has done already.
P. Vincenti
Sep 12th 2008, 22:41
Hi Raphael, that's fuzzy logic to me at best. Good to discuss without the usual threats flying about however. An interesting point is that if one grabs a typical letter in favor of divorce and exchange the word divorce with abortion throughout, the arguments used for divorce are the same. That should indicate something don't you thnk?
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 12th 2008, 20:33
I'll answer your first question when you tell me how many massacres, pogroms or genocides were carried out specifically in the name of secularism.
As for your second, there are 26 member states which permit divorce, and euthanasia is only legal in three of them. What's the Bishop's explanation for that?
Evarist Saliba
Sep 12th 2008, 13:53
@Raphael Vassallo
Your argument that what applies to the church when it went wrong cannot be applied to secularism is bewildering. Are you attributing infallibility to secularism?
As for the scenarios that you built up on what might happen if divorce were to be introduced in Malta I have this question to put. What is happening in the countries where divorce is rampant, your scenorios or that envisaged by the bishop?
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 11th 2008, 17:33
"Divorce weakens the family, weaker families are less able to defend the unborn and so abortion would be a step closer after legal divorce in our country."
What kind of logic is that? This is the trouble with absolutists. They only see one way any situation can possibly develop, and it always ends in abortion.
For one thing, "weaker families are less able to defend the unborn" is at best a woolly premise for an argument.
For another, how about this scenario instead? Divorce allows currently cohabiting couples the option of marrying their partners and starting up a new family - something they may be reluctant to do in a union unrecognised at law. This way, divorce might bring about more babies which are wanted, thereby actually decreasing the demand for abortion.
(I am not saying this will necessarily happen; it's just one other possible scenario...)
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 11th 2008, 16:33
Au contraire, Paul. The only point conceded was that the slight may have been unintended. It remains a slight, and it surprises me that the Archbishop would not pause to consider the implications of his words beforehand.
In any case it is becoming a standard feature of anti-secularist arguments to forge a subliminal connection between atheism, and the various political and economic ideologies that happened not to involve God in their calculations. Nazism has time and again been used to undermine Darwinism, on the grounds that Hitler's eugenics programme was somehow influenced by natural selection . (In fact the opposite is true: eugenics employs a process of unnatural selection.) Atheism has been variously held responsible for the massacres of Stalin, Mao and the Khmer Rouge, as though the ideology that propelled those Communist regimes was a disbelief in God. (it was really absolute power.)
The same argument by extension also applies to other aspects of the sermon. Divorce = abortion = euthanasia. Same old slippery slope each time.
@Evarist - the Church apologised because the accusations were true. For reasons outlined above, the same argument cannot be fairly applied to secularism.
Evarist Saliba
Sep 11th 2008, 14:02
@ Raphael Vassallo
To get the right context in which the bishop was speaking one should bear in mind that he was speaking in a church, and for him the victory he was celebrating was essentially one against strong threats to the faith espoused by the Church he leads. In fact, the State had a separate function, not in a church, to celebrate the secular and military aspect of the victory of 1565.
The bishop sees that the biggest threat to the Church in Malta today is secularism, and its full implications. He has the duty to point this out. For this he is vilified by many exponents of today's secular rights and freedoms, as one can see in other blogs.
Now, what would a Catholic say if someone implied that, in promoting its faith, the Church hobnobbed with elements which used violence? Such accusations have in fact been made. When the accusations were valid, the Church has had the courage to admit its faults. No one can accuse the Church that it has not learned from its past mistakes, even in our island.
P. Vincenti
Sep 11th 2008, 13:09
Divorce and abortion related?
James Scerri proposes that abortion and divorce should be made legal and then leave it up to others to prove it is morally wrong. He says this is a matter of “ freedom of expression in both cases!” this is the trouble with secularism. It wants all the rights and no obligations. Divorce weakens the family, weaker families are less able to defend the unborn and so abortion would be a step closer after legal divorce in our country. And what about the freedom of expression of the unborn child? How right is that?
P. Vincenti
Sep 11th 2008, 10:52
Dear Raphael, may I suggest that in the future you hold back from reacting so hysterically each time someone speaks up with an opinion that is different to yours? I think it was absolutely clear to all that no direct comparison was ever made. Had you not let your emotions cloud you, even you may have seen this at the time, as you do now, saving you ample typing time.
M Vella
Sep 11th 2008, 00:29
The church never had much spiritual credentials and its cultural ones translate into cultural drab dull colourless dross long discarded by the continent.
Its star is presently as bright as a moonless night.
It is therefore trying to do two things:
on a wider scale be an example of western theocratic ambitions
on a local scale, pick up a war to rally its tattered uninspired troops.
So lower the sails I say and let her bleet her hoarse bleet in the wild emptiness of her naturally arid habitat
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 10th 2008, 23:07
@Evarist Saliba
As a matter of fact I included the excerpts to avoid any charges of quoting out of context.
The significant part, I think, is towards the beginning of the sermon, and can be paraphrased as: "This is the feast of Our Ladies of Victories, when the Maltese overcame the threats of Fascism and Nazism. Today, the threat is secularism."
As for the "no less strong" part, I invite you to consider the implications. Secularism is portrayed as less violent than, but as powerful as Fascism and Nazism. Personally, I am flattered that His Grace considers me less violent than a Fascist or a Nazi, but then again, the power of Fascism was achieved precisely through fear and violence.
Having said that, I have now overcome my passion and I think the offence was most likely unintended. But how would a devout Christian react if a secularist said the same thing about Christianity?
Jeremy J Camilleri
Sep 10th 2008, 10:11
Perhaps regarding materialism, the Church would do well to lead by example. I mean, it does own a commercial bank.
AT least they no longer demand cash for absolution on your death bed.
WHilst I agree that the ARchbishop has EVERy right to speak about Christian values, I would like to know what he really wants.
Why is he against a secular society?
Is he in favour of a society where church and state laws are one? like Saudi Arabia for example....
Evarist Saliba
Sep 10th 2008, 08:48
@ Raphael Vassallo
You criticise the bishop for equating secularism with ideologies which led to "people being murdered" yet in your own quotations of what the bishop said you say that when he spoke of the ideologies against which we fought during the last war he qualified this by "din id-darba mhux b'theddid vjolenti, izda b'mod sottili mhux inqas qawwi". For the benefit of English speakers this reads "this time not with violent threats, but in a subtle way which is not less strong."
Haven't you let your passion to dull your understanding of the bishop's words. He specifically distanced secularism from the violence of the fascist ideologies we fought against in WWII.
EvaristSaliba
James Scerri
Sep 10th 2008, 08:20
Abortion & Divorce should be made legal! However, its up to the Church and anti-Abortion/Divorce entities to spread the word/knowledge why this shouldn't be done. Its freedom of expression in both cases! People are free to make their choices, good or bad, and the Church's role in this is to help and aid people to do the right choice!
The Church should upgrade to the 21st century instead of sticking to traditions which they came up with in the 15th century!
Malcolm Schembri
Sep 10th 2008, 07:44
...........country was already experiencing the negative effects which stemmed from consumerism and materialism, Mgr Cremona said
Materialism - looking at the picture above one could see a excellent example of materialism.
Jeremy J Camilleri
Sep 9th 2008, 22:20
'Today, he continued, the country was being threatened by the ideology of secularism, which although based on personal choice, was a strong force which influenced society, sometimes even via legislation'
Is the Bishop proposing a state where religion and laws intertwine, such as Saudi Arabia?
As for consumerism and materialism, I suggest the Catholic church shoudl lead by example..Maybe give away the money it amassed by promising deliverance to dying folks...
Godfrey Vella
Sep 9th 2008, 20:39
Are we to assume that the Bishops do not agree with the notion of the secular state? Do they maintain that religion and politics should be intimately intertwined and that sectarian beliefs should dictate the laws that govern our secular society? Or are they perhaps concerned with the rise of the secular ethic? They claim that there are no values but religious values. But what are these based on? The Word of God as transmitted through the scriptures? Even if one were to discard the horrors of the Old Testament, the message of brotherly love proposed by Christ is more than somewhat contradicted by his promise of eternal damnation to those disagree with him. Secular humanists do have values. They are not based upon some sacred text or dogma, but upon rational thought, Man’s common humanity and a sober assessment of the outcome of our actions on others .Secular Humanists believe that people will continue to find solutions to the world's problems so that quality of life can be improved for everyone. So please let us acknowledge that secularism is a force to the betterment of our society and not the threat that the Bishops would have us believe.
Paul Barrett
Sep 9th 2008, 18:44
@ Paul Borg
Thank you for your enlightenment on this issue.
That said, I cannot understand why Catholics true to their faith should have anything to fear from a state divorce law being enacted - they are under no obligation to apply for a divorce and as such it would not effect their lives at all.
To deny the option of divorce in Malta to those desperately unhappy in their current situation, whether of different beliefs or not is however more than slightly oppressive and is frankly out of step with all but one other country in the world.
There are more than just a few separated couples in Malta, living with new partners who would very much like to legally regularise their family.
(Just in case you ask, I have been extremely happily married for over 30 years and have no personal interest in seeking a divorce for at least the next 30 years, if ever LOL).
Franco Farrugia
Sep 9th 2008, 18:43
I seldom speak about the divorce issue, for there is nothing to be said - and this, for various FACTS:
1. Whatever anyone says, whether it is Church or state, couples will continue to have problems and separate, divorce or no divorce. Such former partners will eventually find other partners and live with them.
2. Whatever anybody says, one Party will NEVER bring in divorce in this country.
3. On the contrary, most probably the other Party will, indeed, bring in divorce in this country.
Conclusion: We are merely holding on to what we believe to be precious - in so doing, we bury our heads in the s andand ignore the facts.
We also continue to speak as though we are doing so on behalf of multitudes of people when the truth is otherwise: that we are merely speaking for ourselves ... not even for our families!!!!!!! Let alone multitudes of people.
Franco Farrugia
Sep 9th 2008, 18:37
I think it is a question of free thinking. Just because one thinks in ways which are not blessed by the Church does not mean that one is wrong.
The Bishops have a right and a duty to speak. But they cannot expect that they are not criticised for what they say and do.
We are a lay state, fullstop. It is not the Bishops who govern the country. And they cannot expect that politicians follow their teachings, just because politicians 'are catholic'. Otherwise, this would be tantamount to having a catholic / christian taliban.
How can we continue to try and thwart people by saying: look here, we are not governing the country ... but indirectly, they demand that politicians follow their teachings. Isn't that the same thing?
The time when only Church members were educated, is over. All voices should be heard. And the state has to cater FOR ALL! EVEN FOR ONE PERSON!!!!
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 9th 2008, 17:17
In his homily yesterday Archbishop Paul Cremona went to great lengths to equate the "ideology of secularism" with Fascism and Nazism.
Here are the relevant quotes:
"Bħala pajjiż qegħdin niċċelebraw il-Vitorja, kelma li tgħaqqad dan il-Jum ma’ mumenti storiċi fl-istorja ta’ pajjiżna: l-Assedju tas-sena 1565, u t-Tieni Gwerra Dinjija...
"...Fit-tieni każ, fit-Tieni Gwerra Dinjija, l-antenati tagħna taw ħajjithom biex jiddefendu l-kwalita tal-ħajja tagħhom, li kienet fil-periklu li taqa’ taħt il-qawwiet tan-Naziżmu u tal-Faxxiżmu, li kien ibiddel ukoll il-mod ta’ ħajja tiegħu fil-kuntest ta’ valuri, u ta’ fidi nisranija...
"...Illum, anki fi żmienna, il-pajjiż tagħna u l-wirt tiegħu tal-valuri msejsa fuq it-tagħlim ta’ Sidna Ġesu Kristu, li huwa espert ta’ l-umanita, qiegħed ukoll taħt theddida ta’ l-ideoloġija tas-Sekulariżmu, din id-darba mhux b’theddida vjolenti, iżda b’mod sottili li mhux inqas qawwi...."
Is it fair to link secularism with an ideology that resulted in millions of innocent people being murdered? In other countries secularists would be howling for an apology. But in Malta we are so used to being insulted that we hardly even notice any more...
Joe Tabone-Adami
Sep 9th 2008, 15:46
Maltese society as a whole should be thankful to our Bishops, Mgr Cremona and Mgr Grech, for their guidance on ethical, family, and social issues. As usual, when the Catholic Church expresses its considered views, there arise voices - two, till now - of contempt and derision. Truth has always stood up to such voices, particularly when these show lack of correct knowledge.
Chris Borg
Sep 9th 2008, 15:32
@ James De Giorgio...some parish priests are forcing firework artisans or whatever you might call them to produce even more fireworks to compete with feasts in the same parish other than that of the patron (tas-sekonda)....
Paul Borg
Sep 9th 2008, 14:32
and to put arguments on the basis of fact as to why the nullity should not be granted@Peter Green : Your argument is not relevant to the issue.
@ Paul Barrett : You not only may be wrong: but you are wrong!!! Its a protestant and anti clerical urban myth. I don't suppose that you are aware that at the canonical court considering the issue of nullity there is a canon lawyer whose only role in the court is to protect the marriage bond. Money has nothing to do with it: it is the facts of the case considered against the canon law provisions concerning the definition of nullity that form the basis for the determination. Note that nullity is not a divorce; it is a declaration that under church law the marriage never existed and reasons may include such things as bigamy, consanguinity, lack of proper consent or forced marriage, lack of maturity, inability or unwillingness to carry out the duties of marriage etc etc etc.
James De Giorgio
Sep 9th 2008, 14:29
Oh my God, Peter Green! So the church is poisining our kids with fireworks debris? Find me one piece of evidence which supports your statement. Has the church itself as an institution, EVER donated money for fireworks? No!
It is the factories themselves who collect for them and make them and blow them to bits.
I call for serious debate here not immature allegations which are unsubstantiated by the truth. thanks
Evarist Saliba
Sep 9th 2008, 13:49
@ Paul Barrat
Keep the debate serious by not twisting the truth. Both Catholics and non-Catholics married in Malta, in church or the registry, can have their marriage annulled, and not divorced. They have to pay for the service in both cases.
EvaristSaliba
Peter Green
Sep 9th 2008, 13:11
The church of Malta is really the most hypocritical institute of the land! They talk about family values while they poison our kids with hundreds of tons of fireworks debris! Some fireworks have heavy metals to get some colours. Some fireworks chemicals are very poisonous which remain active in the fireworks smoke and debris. No wonder our kids have the highest ashma in the world.
Mr Bishops we want action from the church not infantile talk about secularism! Stop poisoning our kids!
Paul Barrett
Sep 9th 2008, 12:53
I may be wrong but the way I understand it at the moment, a Catholic couple can obtain a divorce (annulment) by paying the Church and each get re-married to someone else. This seems unfair then that non-Catholics cannot get a divorce through the State.
Is this a rear-guard action to protect income in case Catholics decided to opt for a State divorce rather than a Catholic annulment.
Where does the Commission for fair Competition stand on this.
Please choose the reason of your report below: