Austin Bencini
Joseph Muscat and Benedict XVI
The Leader of the Opposition wants a free vote on the undefined draft law on divorce, which he intends to present before Parliament. Yet, the same Leader of the Opposition did not allow his own Labour Party any free vote on the motions that in effect spell the end of the PL after nearly 90 years of existence.
Neither did he give the delegates a free vote on what may be a threat to the serene co-existence between the Church and the state, relations existing ever since the fall of the Dom Mintoff/Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici Labour governments.
On the morning of the PL conference's last day, Joseph Muscat thundered in the pro-Labour Sunday paper It-Torċa that the "waste of time for internal discussion and campaigning" among the mythical Labour delegates had come to an end. Clearly, they were expected to unanimously pass all power to the New Movement about which nothing is known other than who its leader will be: the self-appointed Dr Muscat. And unanimously did they vote.
Where was the passion, the anguish witnessed in conferences that saw the end of a line and the beginning of a completely new one such as when the Italian Communist Party accepted social democracy? Then, for the first time, unanimity was thrown out with delegates "in favour"' and others "against".
Yet, not all is clear within the labour ranks. This week's pro-Labour newspapers published articles by regular columnists begging to differ from the Labour conference's unanimity on the divorce issue. So why did the delegates accept so easily Dr Muscat's will?
More fundamentally, why did no one ask Dr Muscat how he intends to implement the "aspiration" of the new movement, also approved unanimously, to bring about a secular state. Surely, Dr Muscat's secular aspirations must include the removal from the Constitution of any reference to the Catholic Church. Indeed, Dr Muscat will have the best of opportunities to clarify the issues at hand before none other than the head of the Universal Church, which he wishes to marginalise from public life.
Yes, the leader of the New Progressive Movement would assure the visiting Pope that he spoke in favour of the Cross remaining in the classroom but then how would he explain his real secular aspiration to remove the wording from the Constitution whereby "Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Church be provided in all state schools".
The Pontiff will, no doubt, be informed of the PL conference's unanimous acceptance that the state would officially prepare young couples for marriage, preserving the fundamental values of marriage, which, of course, would include Dr Muscat's private member's Bill on divorce. Clearly, therefore, the Cana Movement, like the PL delegates, must now see what the leader of the New Movement defines as "the signs of the times".
Could there not have been one delegate, one member of Parliament ready to distance oneself from Dr Muscat's New Progressive Movement by still agreeing that the Constitution should protect the Church from Dr Muscat's progressive political correctness by calling the Catholic Church as the "religion of Malta"?
The Pontiff might, of course, ask what is there in the Constitution of Malta to stop any Parliament from introducing divorce or even abortion, not to say euthanasia, even if the Church were constitutionally allowed to "teach" each to be wrong. Surely, Dr Muscat would answer with the intellectual honesty one credits him that no such provision exists.
Would not the Pontiff, to balance the constitutional equation, ask if Dr Muscat intended to remove also the reference of pupils having the right not to undergo religious education against the will of the parents or the law prohibiting the Church from using moral pressure on voters during elections?
On the other hand, Dr Muscat may protest that none of the above measures are in the Progressive Movements' intentions and that it will not even contemplate any changes in the constitutional balance that exists in the Church-state relations. While this would please the Pontiff, pray, what leaves up the New Movement's leader's secular sleeve other than the old cynical ploy to win votes?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Frans Sammut
Feb 19th 2010, 09:00
@ Andrew Camilleri
A little correction, if you allow me. Dr Bencini is not using hypotheses or imaginary situations. He is only flustered that Dr Muscat did not fall for the ploy his cronies and (possibly) himself had been carefully and unobtrusively (for some) laying. KZT's peculiar nomenclature of the Vatican "Se Cristo Vedesse" is more apt. Yes, if Christ is to be brought into it, the Nicaragua-like tricks indulged in by some notorious quarters were only amateurish when compared to those designed and effected over here. I think Dr Muscat's trapeze exercise is working well. Perception wise, that is. What he and the Pontiff have to say between them is another matter. Shouldn't we wait and see what emerges from their little pow-wow? Don't allow Dr Bencini to stampede us to conclusions. There are matters that must discussed in private before their eventual publication. Dr Muscat, as a church-going practising Catholic is definitely trusted by His Holiness. The young leader knows his onions, trust me.
Anthony Mizzi
Feb 18th 2010, 21:10
@.Muscat
- We need to believe (90 per cent of us) so that the others (like you) can wallow in their unbelief and allow us to face the coming storms.
Who says? What coming storms? We have been having hurricanes with the decline of morality on the island in recent years with gambling (the family that plays together stays together), clubbing, drugs, teenage pregnancies, clerics who prefer meddling in politics and media instead of going after the lost sheep, you mention it we got it and suddenly you wake up and discover there are coming storms. You have certainly been in hibernation.
What a percentage of believers, wow 90 per cent, you believe to believe. Wow 90 % of a whole population, this is more like fundamentalism and not religion. Ever seen the latest statistics on church attendance and practicing Catholics in Malta?
Who has been at the helm of the country for the past twenty years?
Dr. John Zammit
Feb 18th 2010, 19:53
Since Dr. Joseph Muscat has burried the Labour Party to a new progressive movement which in fact is not and is changing the badges, flags and all that was done by Dom Mintoff, the Front Favur Dom Mintoff (formerly Front Maltin Inqumu) is receiving calls and new members to continue the politics of Dom Mintoff and to support Alleanza Liberali which is formed from Mintoffjans from all over Malta. We are sorry to say that if Joseph Muscat and his team want us to forget Dom Mintoff he is not going to succeed and not even be in government.
The new "movement of progressives and moderates" will not succeed and it is a farse, especially when we know that Joseph Muscat is afraid to pass progressive laws like divorce, especially by moving a private members bill as soon as possible not when and if he will be in government. All Mintoffjans who are leaving Joseph Muscat's "movement of progressives" can join us at Front Favur Dom Mintoff by contacting us through the website: www.freewebs.com/mintoffjani - where they can find alot of information.
Albert Borg
Feb 18th 2010, 19:49
Mr. E Muscat,
yes i reiterate, religion is personal belief. don't shove it down my throat. i can respect the fact people might need it to help them in their lives, personally i haven't found a use for it.
by no way am i saying that teachings are wrong, but i obviously heartily disagree with a lot of 'principles' or lack thereof. for all i know Jesus of Nazareth said we shouldn't judge, but people seem to be doing otherwise, other than simply voicing dissent and presenting logical arguments (and those don't include out of context phrases quoted from a book written approximately 2000 years ago as many 'hardcore' catholics do). if they believe that's the way, then so be it for them.
the beauty and genius of a constitution is that it can be changed accoring to the need, it is not written in stone.
Andrew Battenti
Feb 18th 2010, 19:24
E. Muscat, are you proposing a return to the Mintoff years?
ROBERT HENRY BUGEJA
Feb 18th 2010, 19:05
Dear E.Muscat...you are undoubtedly confusing our fundamental freedom of rights with your own way of interpreting the scriptures....DIVORCE is celebrated by many EU countries which you yourself have voted for, remember?!!!! Except the reality of the present my friend. KEEP YOUR EYES WIDE OPEN and see the pitiful situation hundreds of maltese couples are in due to the fake system of seperation!!!
E.Muscat
Feb 18th 2010, 18:25
@KZT:the only secular state that works very well is China:why?An ancient civilisation that has kept most of the old teachings,has a disciplined gigantic workforce,kept capital punishment,does not go for degenerated art,and every chinese wants to become a capitalist!
There is many things wrong in the catholic church:no marriage for priests and no to condoms and birth control,mainly.Both of these are church tenets and could be changed.
But militant islam needs to be combatted:do you know how?Only when the west invents mind reprogramming will it succeed.In the meantime we have to use what methods we have
available.
The only replacement of 'glue' is Babel and extinction.It may be toxic but it does keep us alive for a certain time!
Gerry Cowie
Feb 18th 2010, 18:15
As an EU citizen, I question W Flynn of Australia's interest in this issue. As one who claims such a rich heritage it is strange that he should wish to attack the very institution which has played such a major part in that rich heritage - an institution of which he has told us in these columns he is a lapsed member.
What is this "our constitution" to which he refers?
People are so sick of secularists trying to change Malta. Suggesting that secularism is the only way forward is anachronistic.
The Catholic religion is, like it or not, a dominant force in the Maltese islands. It is impossible to prevent people from acting upon their firmly held beliefs. One would hope nonetheless that they would use such beliefs wisely.
Albert Borg has his head in the sand if he too chooses to see Malta as having no religious influence within her.
This is a matter for the voters of Malta. No doubt they will decide for themselves the best way forward on the subject of divorce.
Andrew Battenti
Feb 18th 2010, 18:00
Mr. Zammit Tabona's point about Malta distancing herself from the Vatican City, (properly, not as the "modernizers" would have it) will only happen when, not if, the Papacy becomes an Orthodox Patriarchate.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Feb 18th 2010, 17:28
This is precisely why I had suggetsted that the PM should have made the Archbishop our president instead of George Abela. At least we would have cut out the hypocrisy of insisting that we are a secular state when we are anything but.
Mr Muscat, not all things are bright and beautiful in the catholic Church. Just shift your eyes towards Ireland. A secular state does not allow general mayhem and does not necessarily abort or euthanase like billyho. It merely gives its citizens the right to choose. Still less should we even in our wildest dreams contemplate emulating miltant Islam! If Religion is 'glue' as you claim its history has proved to be highly toxic!
Dr Bencini gives the impression that the Pope will be coming to Malta on an inspection visit to examine the conduct of our PM and Leader of the Opposition; just checking whether they have been good altarboys or not..................utter rubbish!
We are not, read my lips; NOT, citizens of the Stato Vaticano known as SCV which stands for Se Cristo Vedesse!
Andrew Battenti
Feb 18th 2010, 16:52
Let us assume, for arguments sake, that the Labour Party wins the next election. Dr. Muscat will find it difficult to muster a majority in parliament on votes of conscience.
Even if his proposals become law, they will inevitably become the subject of interminable wrangling; with the ultimate beneficiaries being the politico-legal community and their masters in Brussels, not Maltese families.
Malta would have by then, lost it's moral imperative in the European Union, and today's youngsters will have inherited a stable door that can't be shut.
Unfortunately for Malta and Dr. Muscat, this is socialism.
Robert Henry Bugeja
Feb 18th 2010, 16:18
Dear Mr.Bencini,
We are not here to please the Pope but to please our own nation and our needs and if the sign of times requires the need to introduce divorce then so be it. WE ARE AFTER JOSEPH!
Anf for the sake of fairness, Mr.Bencini...leave everyone to have a free choice and do not try to force your opinion down the public opinions throat!!! We know exactly what's GOOD or NOT GOOD and who's sincere and who's LYING!!!
Andrew Camilleri
Feb 18th 2010, 15:00
This article is so full of immaginary situations and hypothesis, it ends up a total mess. I suppose the idea is to feed thoughts to the masses who are terrified by going against the church's views on divorce. Scaremongering comes to mind - but based on a load of hypothetical situations.
E.Muscat
Feb 18th 2010, 14:32
@Mizzi,Flynna and Borg:Religion is not only a matter of personal belief or not : it is the glue that holds people together.Take the example of Islam:it is 1.5 billion strong anbd growing at a phenomenal rate : and do you think anybody on this earth can change their belief?Not to be thrown into the trash can of history a belief has to be confronted with another belief.You may say that both are wrong but your choice gives nothing to the spirit of anybody since you are sterile:don't you see a big danger?
We have a softie west,obese and shouting for extinction since it joyfully kills its babies,makes drug addicts of its youth,robs its common people (workers mostly) of having a decent job while making them lazy by paying them not to work and you call that civilisation with a purpose with no religion required except hedonism?
We need to believe ( 90 per cent of us ) so that the others (like you) can wallow in their unbelief and allow us to face the coming storms.
Anthony Mizzi
Feb 18th 2010, 11:18
A phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
Matthew 22:21
I believe that no Pope has even closed the doors of the Vatican to Heads of States who endorsed divorce, who are divorced or who have members of their families who are divorced.
William P Flynn
Feb 18th 2010, 10:48
"The Pontiff will, no doubt, be informed of the PL conference's unanimous acceptance.." Why is a foreign head state, the Pope, being informed of internal Maltese politics? It should be none of his business and he should refuse to be briefed on political manifestos.
"the constitutional balance that exists in the Church-state relations" is the bishop lecturing the PM and his Catholic Party. These then do what they're told under fear of withdrawal of the sacraments or the fires of hell.
References to religion in the Constitution above guaranteeing freedom of worship to all are anachronistic.
I think people are so sick of the Curia and the clergy meddling that the idea of removing the reference in our Constitution to the "official religion" and the church's "moral rights" over all citizens would be a vote catcher.
Albert Borg
Feb 18th 2010, 10:35
Dear Mr Bencini,
i'm an atheist, i abhor religion, but i never tried imposing my views on anybody so as not to practice. Why should my country impose the believes of a few upon everybody?
Malta is no more christian than a rock. If people choose to follow that faith it's their choice, but let it be a choice, not a a forceful induction.
Whatever happened to the freedom of religion? Next election i'll be willing to vote for anybody who promises to rid us of this rediculous clause in OUR constitution, coz if nobody has realised so far it's rather oppressive and discriminatory agains non-belivers, and members of other faiths alike.