Francis Saliba, Mellieħa
No mention of 'secular'
I am one of those who feel justifiably aggrieved by Martin Scicluna's unfair criticism that our President had failed to act as "the ultimate guardian of our Constitution" because of his spurious claim that Malta's constitutional position is that of "a liberal, secular, Parliamentary democracy".
The Constitution of the Republic of Malta does not mention any "secular" democracy. It identifies Malta as a republican democracy whose religion is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion and it imposes on the authorities of that religion the right and duty to teach what is right and what is wrong. This is not some insignificant or meaningless article of our Constitution.
Dissidents who object to the President making any reference to this constitutional "right and duty to teach" may choose to pretend that they are defending a separation of state from religion.
What they are trying to do is to suppress any reference by the Head of State to Articles 1 and 2 of our republican Constitution and the imposed rights and duties on the local authorities of the Catholic Church.
As the "ultimate guardian of the Constitution" he is duty bound to protect these two articles of the Constitution and not to infiltrate arbitrarily the words "secular state" in substitution of the authentic official wording that the "Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion" is the religion of Malta.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
32 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Ms Manquareiel de Caveden
Jun 12th 2011, 16:46
Joe Zammit this is not the age of the divine rights of kings. Dust off your wig, we are in the 21st. century.
Joe Zammit
May 19th 2010, 22:49
Being secular does not mean behaving as if God did not exist. Whatever our profession is, we are all bound to profess our Catholic Faith publicly. The blurr would be to eliminate God in our speeches and actions and not if we include him.
We must remember also that every authority, including that of the President of Malta, comes from God and God we must thank publicly first and foremost!
Evarist Saliba
May 4th 2010, 12:57
@ Raphael Vassallo
You ended your contributions by putting a direct personal question at me.
My answer is "No", and I never wrote anything which could honestly justify your insinuation.
I do not waste my time with persons who use such tactics to bolster their point of view.
Raphael Vassallo
May 4th 2010, 17:36
'Tactics'? 'Insinuations'? All I did was ask a question...
Raphael Vassallo
May 3rd 2010, 13:53
Nobody said the President 'went against the laws of Malta'. The issue at hand is that the Presidency is a ceremonial and symbolic role which is supposed to represent ALL Maltese citizens - hence the word 'Republic', which literally means ' 'The People's (not the Church's) Thing'.
However, ever since George Abela took over the Presidency he has made it clear that he speaks on behalf of only the Catholic population, to the exclusion of all Malta's non-Catholic citizens. If his intention is to make non-Catholics feel like aliens in their own country – a country we contribute to as much as anyone else, I feel i ought to add – then he is doing an EXCELLENT job of it. But there are inevitable consequences, and one of them is that an increasing number of Maltese non-Catholics feels that he is clearly unsuited to the role of President, and as such should seriously consider stepping down.
Either way, Dr Abela cannot expect to publicly insult non-Catholics one day, and continue to enjoy their support the next. It just doesn't work like that.
Evarist Saliba
May 3rd 2010, 13:29
I have just discovered that part 2 of my comment never rached its destination.
- The deliberate ommission from the proposed EU constiturion of a reference to theChristian contribution to Europe's identity.
- The rejection of Buttiglione as an EU commissioner.
- The decision by the European Court of Human Rights that the crucifix should be removed from classrooms.
- The decision by Lord Justice Laws (UK) dismissing religious beliefs as subjective and having no basis in fact.
- The offensive and undiplomatic document compiled by officers of the FCO on the state visit by Pope Benedict. (To the credit of other British diplomats the compilers have been replaced)
- UK court decisions denying Christians the right to wear a cross, when other faiths are accomodated be it a turban, a dagger, sleeves and veils for modesty's sake, etc.
- More serious decisions which refuse to accomodate (without depriving the rights of anyone else) Christians who hold conscientious objections to certain activities. (Will abortion and carrying weapons during war be next?)
- Decisions by UK local councils to celebrate and promote non-Christian feasts while trying at the same time to de-christianise ones like Christmas.
Raphael Vassallo
May 3rd 2010, 18:39
Allow me to answer point for point: 1. The allusion was to 'Europe's Christian roots'. Europe does not have Christian roots, so the omission is entirely justified. 2. Buttiglione was rejected as JUSTICE commissioner (important proviso) because of his declared homophobia. 3. The EHCR ruling was against a particular Italian law, created by Mussolini in the 1920s, compelling state schools to have crucifixes in classrooms... and not against crucifixes in classrooms per se. 4. Lords was right. Religious beliefs are indeed subjective, and have no discernible basis in fact. (Feel free to disagree, but at least substantiate by producing the 'facts' in which religious beliefs are supposed to have their basis) 5. I actually agree on this one. It IS ridiculous to stop Christians from wearing crosses... or for that matter anything else they want to wear. 6. Not sure if I understood. 7. What have you got against non-Christian feasts?
Evarist Saliba
May 2nd 2010, 17:26
As usual, those who do not miss an opportunity to criticise the Catholic Church roam all over the place and ignore the real point at issue, which in this case is whether the President of Malta was wrong to say what he said in his welcoming address to the Pope. I have read his statement over and over again an I cannot see where he went against the Constitution or the laws of Malta.
There may be those who disagree with what the Constitution and the laws of Malta say, but that does not entitle them to censor the President. These, irrespective of whether they refer to the family, marriage or any other aspect which critics would like to change, were promulgated, and maintained, by successive democratically elected repreasentatives. The President was correct to reflect this reality. The overwhelming positive reception given to Pope Benedict also reflected Malta'sChristian identity.
Trying to soften the criticism of the President by claiming that he had to say what others wrote for him - like a puppet on a string - is adding insult to injury.
As to the attacks against Christianity by laicism, one could include (see part 2)
Pule' Carmel
May 2nd 2010, 03:31
My personalrelation with the Catholic Church and the Maltese state, bears no linkswhatsoever to whether the Pope or the President or the Prime minister are good public speakers or whether they attract people in a charismatic way. While I do yearn for my leaders to be attractive and pleasant in every way , I do not think that I will reject my Maltese identity or my Catholic Belief because the President or the Pope are drunkards or criminals in any way. Their actions may force me out to live elsewhere but my values are values that I carry andcare to live with, and I do not credit my values to a Catholic Church run by a Pope nor to the Maltese State run by a particularPresident or aPrime minister. My values are not absolute, but experience show that they are useful to live by, though they have to be relative to others, since I do live with other people, who have a right to differ from my values. I would however fight my Pope or my President or my Prime minister if he himself does not interpret clearly God’s or the State’s, teachings, which may evenchange, eventually.
William P Flynn
May 2nd 2010, 02:01
Dr Saliba
I didn't ask for your CV and I couldn't care less where you've been or where you chose to retire. I just marvel at your amazing lack of clear thinking skills in argument and debate which one would assume to have been a requirement of your intellectual training.
The disenfranchisement of Maltese Citizens abroad is not here or there. Maltese overseas don’t seem to care enough to escalate debate about getting the vote. Living in the truly free secular countries does that to one.
I can easily fulfil the voting qualification at a time and place of my choosing, but I place more importance on the power of the pen.
Your comments in this regard have been invaluable.
Your arrogance in denigrating the rights of a Maltese expatriate citizen to participate in argument and debate in Constitutional matters wouldn’t have gone down well with the hundreds of thousands of overseas Maltese. These are the very rights bestowed upon every Maltese citizen, wherever they choose to live, by the Constitution.
Your comments demean the Constitution as does the power it gives your religion. Article 1&2 shall be removed. It's just a matter of time
Joe Xuereb
May 2nd 2010, 01:45
@ Dr.Saliba, Francis. You were fortunate to have Malta as a retirement option for a fervent Catholic practitioner. I was not so lucky the minute I discovered that Malta is not as secular as it is supposed to be. But then nothing in Malta is ever as it seems, a country of clanging shutters and omerta`. Anymore than it is as Catholic as it claims to be. Certainly, a crowd of youngsters bored out of their minds on a small island after a coldish winter and scrambling over each other to wave flags at a visiting pontiff, I would not call that a reliable measure of catholic fervour in Malta. What I am getting at is that, should Articles 1 & 2 of our Constitution ever be revoked, you could always move to the Philippines. Why, Mr. Cowie could go along with you and you could carry each other's hat-boxes.
Dr Francis Saliba
May 1st 2010, 22:24
@WilliamPFlynn
I can live comfortably with the thought that an accident of birth made you a Maltese citizen like me but please face the fact that you are disenfranchised and disqualified from meddling in our affairs by voting.
I chose to practice my profession abroad as a medical officer in H.M. Oversea Medical Service and chose to spend my long leave periods regularly in Malta. I also chose to retire here when I had the choice of transfer to the UK or other parts of the Commonwealth. So your guess about my “probably not making it” is as unfounded as most of your other speculations about the Catholic religion and its adherents.
Charles Sammut
May 1st 2010, 16:30
The comments about my persuasion and belief (or lack of it) from some of the resident fundamentalist Catholics reinforce my opinion about this anachronistic religion.
According to J Farrugia, if you are not Catholic, you are all for broken families, vulgarities, immoral and lewd acts, for wife beating. With Catholics like you, the devil is out of a job!
Joseph MELI
May 1st 2010, 15:58
@Francis Saliba: I quite agree with you 100% and that he (The President) is in duty bound as to protect and safeguard our Constitution. May I also wish our President a quick recovery and may the Lord bless him.
Malta is a "Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith" and this is and will remain as our officia religion for the Maltese Islands and many will agree with me.
Dr Francis Saliba
May 1st 2010, 15:54
@WilliamPFlynn
I am disgusted by the effrontery of any expatriate who dares to abuse regularly the hospitality of our newspapers to show contempt for our Republican Constitution and who has the presumption to criticize our respected President when he is conscientiously carrying out his official functions with the manifest approval of the vast majority of the residents, voters of Malta and the civil and ecclesiatic authorities
The “modern Maltese citizens” are those who recently gave a resounding welcome to the Head of the Catholic Church by their personal attendance in their thousands, and through their highest civil and ecclesiastic authorities. Their thunderous applause and their enthusiastic singing submerge any isolated braying from interfering outsiders. You are not qualified to speak on behalf of Maltese society. You are merely a disenfranchised expatriate doomed to solicit, in vain, that we, the eligible voters of our democratic republic, be foolish enough to redraw our Constitution so that it would no longer declare that the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
Dream on!
William P Flynn
May 1st 2010, 20:30
Francis Saliba, of course you're disgusted. That goes without saying. You are a Catholic apologist. Delighted to have helped.
I am a Maltese citizen and there's nothing in the world you can do about it. There are thousands of Maltese who choose to live abroad as I think you said you did once. But you probably didn't make it.
You are angry because more and more people are following my example and coming out to push for a secular Malta; whereas the usual gaggle of apologists has remained the same. Same old names keep popping up with the same comment over and over. No imagination.
John Ebejer
May 2nd 2010, 08:22
There are many things, dottore, that disgust us, far more, infinitely more than what you say. How about excess of zeal and hypocrisy throughout the writings of a few people I can mention? Eh? Eh?
Joseph MELI
May 1st 2010, 15:48
@Mr.P.Flynn::::::How strange that an Australian Citizen, because, Mr. P. Flynn never lived for a long PERIOD..OF..time in Malta, but I am told that he had...always lived in Australia ? He like to interferes with Maltese affairs and he simply don't like our friend Mr. Cowie from giving his opinion on how Christians or Catholics are being treated by those of other religions in other countries, because they had been taught that to kill these persons (Catholics/Christians) they would find themselves later in heaven near God ? Maybe you(Flynn) are in support to these persons ?
Malta is and will never be a secular country and the Constitution with articles 1 and 2 are there to stay, and our country is run by persons that we had voted..FOR....OK. The...Priests have a constitutional right to speak of what is good and what could be bad for us. By doing so they are not causing any interference to our constitution, but something that we expected them to do. But if you think that Malta had shifted towards or Against religion, you are mistaken. This Pope had stole the hearts of the Maltese...people in MALTA&GOZO and had..ALSO..changed their opinion too!!! JUST.....WAIT...
E.Muscat
May 1st 2010, 13:35
@W.P.Flynn:so somebody from Australia can interfere in maltese politics but not a person from UK?Why suggest to Mr.Cowrie that the head of the English Protestant Church should bow her head to the pope?You describe Malta as 'run by priests' and 'shafted by the curia': are you living in dodo's land or are you learning more insults from Dawkins?
You have been in the sun too long and are getting thirsty!
William P Flynn
May 1st 2010, 20:09
And you sound as though you've been in the dark for ever. Come out see the sun. I can say whatever I like as I'm Maltese.
The queen shall not kneel and kiss the pope's ring not because she is the head of the Protestant church but because she is head of state. It's common protocol. Our head of state should have behaved likewise.
Get your facts straight.
John Ebejer
May 1st 2010, 12:11
But this is stupid. We don't need to have the word 'secular' in the Constitution becase today, for a State to be 'secular' is a fargone conclusion. the 'learned' gentleman should remind himself in which century and in which political grouping we are living. Once again and for the umpteenth time, the present President is a big disappointment for those yearning for this country to move forward in certain respects. No amount of smiles and benevolence will tarnish the disgusting speech he made before the Pope at the Airport.
William P Flynn
May 1st 2010, 12:11
Gerry Cowie should stop sticking his nose (or another part of his anatomy in the Maltese vernacular) into Maltese constitutional arguments. Surely there must be some constitutional protocol in England to keep him occupied. Like why his head of state won't kneel in front of Ratzinger and kiss his ring come September. Go on MrCowie, make her do it.
Francis Saliba is surprised because he knows about Article 1 and 2; but the majority of average modern Maltese wouldn't know and have little or no interest in the Catholic church and its machinations way back in the 1960’s.
Except for knowing they were baptised as babies, they don't realize Malta was shafted by the Curia and the then PM; thus making their country beholden to the Catholic scarlet-sashed bosses ad infinitum.
So, one can't blame modern Maltese citizens if they assume that, as part of the EU, Malta is a through and though secular state.
But it ain’t; and we have to make it so. Write, email, fax or phone your MP with this message “Off with Article 1&2 of the Constitution”. They’ll know what you mean. We can’t allow our country to be run by priests.
Gerry Cowie
May 1st 2010, 10:33
Charles Sammut should turn his attention to those countries where being Christian can mean that you can be imprisoned and tortured, even killed for your beliefs; where you cannot build a church etc.
Now how about that as an insult to those people?
How does he know if people are "insulted"?
Who are these people?
Mike F Abbot
May 7th 2010, 14:35
what's your point?
A wrong in another country doesn't have any bearing on what happens here in Malta. (you don't really honestly think like that do you??)
Oh, i see your point now... Christians are persecuted in other countries so let's pay non Christians back in this country... or at least just try our best to ignore them.
being persecuted/ignored/bullied by the majority is always wrong and always insulting - christian, muslim, atheist or otherwise.
Now... who is the majority in Malta?
E.Muscat
May 1st 2010, 10:26
We now know very well why martin scicluna is a proponent of divorce:'secular' democracy instead of 'christian' democracy,Dawkins instead of God?
Charles Sammut
May 1st 2010, 10:08
What if someone were to challenge the legality of the Constitution vis a vis human rights. It certainly discriminates against other religions by imposing one religion and not another. It is an insult to the ever-growing number of Maltese and immigrants who have either abandoned the Catholic Church or follow a different religion. They are treated as children of a lesser god.
J Farrugia
May 1st 2010, 11:09
Charles sammut go get a life. We know your anti catholic feelings. You think you can destroy our catholic principles and religion. Our religion is not the festas you see. They are our childrens' insitutes run by nuns, our elderly people's homes, yes run by nuns also, our moral principles to help those in need, our family traditions in Christmas when whole families (not broken families) meet and celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, our charity to various missionary countries. Our self sacrifice in sacrificing our children to go to foreign lands to preach the gospel of Christ. These are a few of our jewels which Malta is proud of. Where are your jewels Charles Sammut? In broken and divorced families, in vulgarities, in immoral and lewd acts, in beating wives, are these the new modern jewels of Malta?????
Sergio Vassallo
May 1st 2010, 11:23
The Constitution reflects the will of the majority and no one can prevent the majority to make the Constitution as it deems fit for its beliefs. The minority rights are respected, but they are a little bit on the arrogant side when they expect the majority to submit to them aren't they?
William P Flynn
May 1st 2010, 12:21
JFarrugia the church has committed enough lewd acts by child raping priests to drown Christendom let alone Malta.
Sergio Vassallo
Bzzz! Wrong. The Constitution should be for everyone; the head of state has no business kow towing to any religious or secular head; it's against protocol; and anyway what makes you think that the majority of Maltese are practising Catholics? That's a myth and always has been.
Raphael Vassallo
May 1st 2010, 13:53
Charles Sammut is 100% correct. Article 2 is blatantly discriminatory towards non-Catholic minorities, and its removal from the Constitution is one of the primary goals of The Malta Humanist Association and also Secular Malta. (Both these organisations can be found on Facebook).
A Constitutional case – followed if necessary by action in the European Court of Human Rights – is in fact among the possible avenues the MHA is currently looking into.
Naturally we know this will not be to the liking of the three or four anti-secularist propagandists who regularly comment on this website, but quite frankly we don't give a damn. This country belongs to us too, and the Constitution cannot be used as a weapon to subjugate minority opinions any longer.
T Camilleri
May 1st 2010, 16:51
Raphael Vassallo you know what the Italians told the European Court when it decided against having crucifixes in schools and public places. You can rest assured that our response will be very much stronger.
Raphael Vassallo
May 1st 2010, 17:05
@T. Camilleri
That's fine by me. Respond as loudly as you like. Fact remains however that our Constitution discriminates against minorities, and the majority - whose extent is open to doubt, by the way – is behaving just like a school bully.
Shakespeare's Isabella put it succinctly in Measure for Measure:
"O it is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it tyrannous to use it like a giant."