A repeated insult to Pope Paul V

It is a known fact that Pope Paul V watched vigilantly over the interests of the Church in every nation. This means that his decisions had always been taken in the strict sense of Christian teachings. This preamble is important as in 1610 Pope Paul V had issued a Papal Bull in which he declared St Publius as one of the patron saints of our islands. This was nothing new for the local inhabitants as the devotion towards St Publius goes back many centuries. Thus the local tradition and the teachings according to Saint Bede (declared a Doctor of the Church in 1899 by Pope Leo XIII) were vindicated.

All this has to be seen in the way the local church authorities seem to go out of their way to ignore the first Maltese saint. I have written on numerous occasions on this topic, but the Curia either ignored my writings or else was not capable to reply with good and strong arguments. I have challenged any serious person for an open debate but no one has accepted.

I am saying all this as year after year, the readings from the Acts of the Apostles always stop short by a mere four verses. The second readings during the festive Mass start from Verse 16, Chapter 27. Why start so early? These could start from Verse 21 (four verses later) or even more appropriate from Verse 27 (11 verses less). Thus, the long narrative could be shortened without in any way losing the important facts. To make matters worse, the readings stop abruptly at verse 6, Chapter 28. For the full narrative as regards Malta there only four more verses. Thus with any of the “shortened” versions, the additional four verses will not lengthen the narrative more that it is at present.

These four verses are: “(7) Now in the vicinity there were estates belonging to the head of the island, whose name was Publius, and he received us and entertained us hospitably for three days. (8) And it happened that the father of Publius was laid up with fever and dysentery; but Paul went in, and after praying and laying his hands on him, he healed him. (9) After this all the sick on the island came and were cured; (10) and they honoured us with many marks of honour, and when we sailed, they provided us with such things as we needed.”

These four verses are the most important narrative about the Maltese and their leader. The hospitality by the Maltese has always been synonymous with us and we should be proud that even a holy book praises our actions. Therefore how can the learned leaders of the Church censure such an honour? When I consider these puerile attitudes I am not surprised about the stupid pique in certain parishes. It is some of the very clergy that have instilled hatred and division, it is these very clergy that keep on fomenting such enmity.

I make an earnest plea to the Archbishop and his Curia: Make a profound examination of your conscience, delve deep why our first saint is methodically emarginated. Jesus had stated that no Prophet is recognised among his community, and I state, this is why our first saint is not recognised by some of the Maltese. No wonder that Malta does not boast of more recognised saints. A word to one and all: To persist in error is diabolical.