Finance Minister Tonio Fenech is as entitled to his opinions as the next chap. But those he expressed in regard to individuals who agree with the introduction of divorce legislation could not be more miserable, inappropriate, even cruel. Those who feel divorce legislation should be extended in Malta to the civil aspect of marriages taking place here are not denying the indissolubility of Catholic marriage.
Civil divorce and Church marriage are being mixed up by the anti movement to such an extent that it must be done on purpose. To confuse, not to clarify. Certainly not to argue seriously. Nobody is saying that Church indissolubility is wrong. Nobody is trying to interfere with or discard Church teaching. Much less to impose on it. Rather, it is the No lobby which is trying to impose on those who feel they need divorce legislation.
And, as was to be expected, a chunk of the lobby is doing that by ignoring the separation of Church and State. By talking as if ours was a theocratic society, where religious law prevails, rather than a secular one.
Tonio Fenech, usually a sensible, well-mannered man, gave a prime example of that. Astonishingly, he arrogated to himself the faculty and right to speak in the name of Our Lady of Sorrows. He brought Her into what should be a civil discussion. That was not surprising. The lead was given at the outset by the bishops. They blew warm, then hot, then scalding hot.
Mortal sin underlies the bishops’ briefing to priests, even when it is not mentioned specifically. It is a wonder that no one has as yet invoked the provisions of the Electoral Polling Ordinance, in the context of the prohibition of “corrupt practices” in electoral issues. Emboldened by the absence of such an initiative the bishops have upped the ante, making a mockery of Archbishop Cremona’s undertaking not to turn the Curia’s position against divorce legislation into a crusade.
Politics, as always, crept into the debate. The Nationalist Party, while harbouring within it the initiator of the issue and others who agree with him, and notwithstanding its 30-year-old commitment to separation of Church and State (see ex-Nationalist Minister Michael Falzon’s article in yesterday’s The Sunday Times), came out formally against the divorce legislation amendments.
Mr Fenech, an aspirant to the NP leadership as he confirmed to the family magazine Vida some months ago, felt he had to come out in force according to the party line and to his values, as he called them. Such, to repeat, was his right, though the weekend media lambasted him for exercising it.
It is not his nerve in assuming to speak for Our Lady of Sorrows that irked me in particular. It was his statement to the effect that those who are in favour of divorce legislation had no place in Our Lady of Sorrows’ procession.
Who is Mr Fenech to say that? What sort of Catholicism permits him do so? Catholics, sinners all but some – like me – worse than others, are encouraged to have faith in Divine Mercy. Even when I was interdicted by the bishops, our parish priest encouraged me to frequent Church activities, though being interdicted – forbidden – from participating in the sacraments stood.
Those who, despite their stand on divorce legislation, feel they should join processions do not do so for show. They join in collective prayers, they seek guidance. They believe. Mr Fenech would have them throw that belief away because, while subscribing to the indissolubility of Catholic marriage, they are in favour of civil divorce. Cruel is a heavy word, but it applies here. Purely in this context, for the Mr Fenech I know is kind and considerate. That is how he should be viewed despite his aberration.
But an aberration it was. I am surprised the bishops directly or indirectly did not rebuke him gently for it. As May 28 and the referendum approaches, we grow closer and closer to the 1960s and the years of hell fire and brimstone…