Archbishop urges both sides of divorce debate to propose 'concrete' measures to strengthen families
Archbishop Paul Cremona said today that the most important message in the statement issued by the Church on Saturday evening was the need for society to reflect on how it could strengthen families.
Both sides in the divorce referendum campaign had declared that they wanted to see strong families, and the Church therefore, wished to see them get together to propose concrete proposals on how that could be done. "This should not be just a wish list," Mgr Cremona said when interviewed on the PBS breakfast show Bongu.
The statement, he said, had been issued before the result of the referendum was known, because the Church wanted to assure the people that its intentions were genuine.
He recalled that even after the last general election, he had written in The Times calling on MPs to translate their comments on the family into practical measures.
Mgr Cremona said the Church, too, needed to reflect on its actions in view of a changing society. The Church, he said, had always been and remained, at the forefront of promoting marriage stability.
The state too needed to shoulder its responsibilities in marriage preparation since a broken marriage was detrimental to society.
Now that the people have taken their decision in the referendum, the Church respected the choice but society needed to move on from here. This should be a starting point for action to help marriage and families, Mgr Cremona said.
In its Saturday statement, Mgr Cremona said, the Church had also sought reconciliation between the two sides. It had expressed its regret for any hurt caused during the referendum campaign. Such hurt, he said, could have taken various forms. One could have said something which, unintentionally, may have hurt some people. There may also have been some exaggerations from both sides.
At the same time, he stressed, the Church had been duty bound to declare during the referendum campaign that the people had responsibilities before the Lord.
The Church, Mgr Cremona said, needed to reflect how it communicated its message not just to the faithful, but the community at large. It needed to see how it could be closer to the individual members of society in a changing scenario. One had to reach a point where the faithful acted as Christians, independently of the changing culture of society, Mgr Cremona said.
Asked about the 'fear' factor, Mgr Cremona said the point of reference with regard to the Church was the pastoral letter, where the Church listed the responsibilities of the faithful and their responsibilities before God. This was nothing to do with fear, but explaining the teachings of the Church.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
85 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr david debattista
Jun 13th 2011, 15:24
There are those among us who can give you some good ideas, The question is WOULD YOU LISTEN JUST BECAUSE ONE IS PRO DIVORCE ! Or would you black list him or her and say we are a danger to society and immoral .
Mr Alex Buds
Jun 2nd 2011, 15:38
Here's a concrete proposal: priests & clergymen who know zip about what the daily rigors of marriage entails should stay out of discussions about marriage, divorce, etc. in future.
It's like me lecturing a farmer on how to do his job in agriculture when I hear these folks preaching.
Miriam Zahra
Jun 2nd 2011, 09:33
Dear Mgr. Cremona:
Thank you for defending Jesus` wise teaching when He said in Matthew 19:6: ``What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.`` Divorce leads to a lack of self-esteem, fear of marriage, depression, stalking, rage, murder, suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, promiscuity, poverty, elevation in healthcare costs, misery, sin, etc. The entire family suffers. I do not want anyone to suffer in this manner. Divorce will never be the solution. Statistics show that people who divorce and re-marry several times always regret having divorced their first spouse after it is too late - they actually wish that they could go back in time and truly make their first marriage work.
Those who fail to recognize God`s wisdom that divorce is wrong are simply lacking in spiritual grace. Marriages in crisis are the result of the married couple avoiding daily family prayer, avoiding the Sacraments, and the failure to keep God at the center of their relationship. Married couples fail to depend upon the Sacrament of Marriage that binds them and provides them with the necessary graces to face the daily struggles of life together.
I sincerely believe that married couples and their families should pray daily for them to have loving, happy relationships. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the daily Rosary should be offered for married couples daily. Married couples need to grow in virtue during their marriage and grace is necessary for this to occur. All of my relatives live this way and never divorce.
May God bless all marriages with His grace.
May the Priestly, Sacred Heart of Jesus bless you, Mgr. Cremona.
Miriam Zahra
Mr Alex Buds
Jun 1st 2011, 20:03
Whatever, dear Bishop. The Church cannot mend all the damage it has done now. It is obsolete.
Josephine Phillips
Jun 2nd 2011, 00:40
1) One way out of obsolescence is to allow priests to marry! Then perhaps they will have firsthand experience on which to draw, when advising their flock. Celibacy was Paul's recommendation, not a rule.
2) Another way is to make worship more inclusive. As a visitor I feel completely alienated by the typical Mass (maybe I picked the wrong churches?). Perhaps making the 'stranger' or newcomer feel welcome is part of the Christian mission - to evangelise...
Gerry Cowie
Jun 1st 2011, 19:56
I hardly think His Grace the Archbishop is phased by nonsensical secularist statements. The pro lobby's campaign was all about knocking the Church! Now that the small minority has won, surely they should be happy with the result and stop the Church bashing!
Jesus warned His followers that they would face persecution of all sorts but the Holy Spirit would guide them.
Malta is not going to turn into some quasi-secularist state just because a few people have it on their own personal agendae. Only the selectively blind would deny the Catholicity of the people of Malta. They are not going to turn away from their God and their religion just because of a vote for divorce legislation.
Stand firm and Long Live Catholic Malta!
Mr Alex Buds
Jun 1st 2011, 23:26
Move to the Philippines buddy. They like your kind there (for a little while longer).
Mr Matthew Grima
Jun 2nd 2011, 17:59
"Malta is not going to turn into some quasi-secularist state just because a few people have it on their own personal agenda"
You just wait and see.
Mr Alex Buds
Jun 2nd 2011, 20:02
"Malta is not going to turn into some quasi-secularist state"... this is true. It will be secular, sooner or later ( no silly "quasi"s) and when it finally is, that will be a most excellent thing.
Simon Oosterman
Jun 1st 2011, 16:20
In the referendum Catholic dogma voted NO and Christian compassion voted YES. The Maltese Church needs more compassion and less doctrine. Replacing Mgr. Mario Grech with Fr. Montobello would be a good start.
Roxanne Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 19:32
Sweeping statements such as 'Catholic dogma voted NO' are outdated and a cliche. Some catholics actually reflect on what such things as divorce would mean to society as a WHOLE ... to the children of the future, to the mentality of the future. What about compassion for those children growing up in a society where everything they want is already at hand? Where everything is so easily obtained? Where nothing is as important as instant gratification? Where everybody has a 'right' to and for everything? What kind of society will the future bring?
A European one, of course - of values such as solidarity, respect for human rights. Values which we see all around us, every day, all the time. I mean, isn't it all OBVIOUS?
Mr Bartolo Edward
Jun 1st 2011, 15:09
@ Travis Brannon
I searched about "higher criticism" and found that I already have been exposed to it. This is the way I have been taught to interpret the holy books, because it is irrational to interpret ancient texts ignoring their historical contexts and validity. I know many are angry because some interpret the holy texts in irrational ways or in aspects they were never intended to describe or talk about.
Alfred Galea
Jun 1st 2011, 13:46
I think that the Church should be an example and update her structures.
We cannot continue to have a science to teach the word of God, through philosophy the people cannot be led to salvation. We need lateral thinking.
I would suggest that:
1 There will more dialogue and the right people to be chosen.
2 The Church should update Catechesis to a knowledgeable standard; and should identify the stages in life in order to have a learning module for each stage.
3 The modules should be followed and monitored by pastoral care.
4 The Curia should be revamped.
5 The Church should not play hide and seek; the truth must be said and She must not hid behind theologians.
6 She should explain the varieties of marriages, the sacraments and freewill. I would suggest that a comparison be made between various Cannon Laws, contracts etc.
7 The Church must explain that one cannot murder a person go to that person’s funeral and at the same time receive the Holy Eucharist.
8 The Church should open their unutilzed property to families in need.
9 The Church should explain how a defrocked priest can have the sacrament of marriage. This situation has led people to vote yes in the Divorce referendum.
Ms B Cassar
Jun 1st 2011, 13:43
Silence is golden jghidu. I think the best opportunity for the bishops to pick up some self respect in this moment is to stay silent and not do anymore harm than that already done. I think at this moment people have had enough of your intrusion in their private lives. Since last Saturday you kept bombarding us still with yourarguments, no matter you had such a deep fall with the result. Learn how to respect others by giving the fundamental right to people to live their lives as they want and off your hands from our homes, our lives and our privacy. This is something I really hate about the church - first you harm people and then you come out with apologies, nontheless just to repeat the same thing again and again because HANZIR TAQTALU DENBU HANZIR JIBQA. I guess you don't take your mistakes and your supposed confession very seriously yourselves because otherwise you wouldn't act like this. Live and let live Archbishops. The best asset the YES campaign had was yourselves being stubborn with indoctrination and with blackmail. The harm done to the church was done from it's same members- clear example: Joe Zammit.
Frank Camilleri
Jun 1st 2011, 17:38
@ Ms B. Cassar
Why you are using such an insulting negative tone in your post?
What is the point of referring to our archbishop as 'Mr' rather than 'Mgr'? Not that our humble archbishop is after titles. But I find the intent of this action and the tone of your comment is to hurt rather than to discuss. You have a very powerful pen and excellent exposition. I am sure that you could have argued in a much more sensible way.
I am sure you are aware that people have feelings. We all know the feeling when someone hurts us.
Re the gist of your posting, no one is interfering with your life. The archbishop has a right and duty to speak out.
I notice with concern the anger expressed against the Church in many posts. In a way, this is positive. It shows that the people still want to be a part of the Church. However, they want to dictate the rules! Perhaps, this is due to lack of knowledge about the Church of Christ and its moral duty to convey His message of Christ based on love and understanding.
I sincerely hope that I did not hurt you with my post.
Mr M Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 17:39
What rubbish !
The BIshops and the church had every right to speak during the referendum campaign! It is not the BIshops who have to learn how to respect, but you . How dare you use that Maltese saying to describe the church ?
In telling the truth the church did not harm anyone. Divorce is a sin and you not agreeing to it will not chnage anything.The Bishop of Gozo was right when he said that if one is not in the state of grace one cannot receive Holy Communion.
Many half truths were said during the campaign, and the church or the Bishops were not the ones who said them.
I hope Ms. B Cassar you are not one of those who voted Yes because you believed IVA when they said that a man on minimum pay can keep two or three families on his low pay.?
I hope that you did not vote Yes because you believed IVA when they said that children will be taken care of and that maintenance is guaranteed.?
I hope that you did not vote Yes because you believed IVA when they said that women will not lose any pension ?
The BIshop cannot as you put it " live and let live " if by that you mean "do not interfere " .
He has a duty towards us Catholics, and one of his duties is to instruct !
angelo cilia
Jun 2nd 2011, 12:03
Joe Zammit was a godsend to the Yes side.
This person drove more people to vote yes than any billboard or ad the "IVA to divorce" side could ever put up.
Nice work Joe !
A job well done indeed !
Ms B Cassar
Jun 1st 2011, 13:26
Jidhrilkom li tafu tant int u dak ta Ghawdex Sur Cremona, issa ghidulna naqra intom x'behsiebkom taghmlu biex issahhu il-familji. Hamnaqtu tant wat il-kampanja li il-familja trid tibqa b'sahhitha, mela issa mghadiex b'sahhitha u ghandha bzonn min jghinha? Infakkrek li id-divorzju ghadu ma dahalx mela suppost skond il-kampanja taghkom il-familji kollha b'sahhithom, mela kif qed tistennew li nghidulkom kif se jissahhu? Sinjal li kienu imissrin diga hux? Mela id-divorzju ma jkissirx familji hux, imma jkunu diga imkissrin qabel id-divorzju?
Issa la urejtu li triduha hafna li tafu kollox, li intom ma tizbaljaw qatt u li intom l-iktar haga ta power u importanti f'Malta, issa ghidulna ftit x'hemm bzonn ghax il-briganti u l-ilpup lebsin ta naghag huma biss cwiec - biex inkun tajtek summary ta x'tahseb il-knisja flimkien mal-PN fuq il-maltin.
Isa illuminana Sur Cremona halli forsi tgbru giehkom.
Messagg zghir iehor li xtaqt naqsam - Il-bierah fiz-zejtun l-arcipriet baghat iduru bieb bieb nies biex ituhom is-santi u jitkellmu fuq kristu. Kemm ghandi zmien din il-haga qatt ma saret qabel. Hija arroganza sfaccata li taqt il-kundanna li kull dar hija abitata minn kattolici u hija iktar u iktar stampa cara ta kemm il-knisja qed tibza li in-nies tbeghdu minnha u il-flus mis-sasla se jonqsu. Ibqghu sejrin hekk ta, ibqghu aqaw fil-baxx iktar ghax l-ewwel titfghu il-gebel u tweggghu lin-nies imbaghad oqghodu ejjew biex tippruvaw tindottrinawhom. Il-vera tal-misthija. HALLUHOM IN-NIES JEKK IRIDU JIGU HUMA. TIDHRU LI MA TGHALLIMTU XEJN MIT-TKAXKIRA TA NHAR IS-SIBT. Kieku tghallimtu ma tipprovax tkomplu timponu lilkom infuskom fuq in-nies.
Mr Bartolo Edward
Jun 1st 2011, 13:17
Quote: "Yes indeed! And I assume the Church has never made a mistake in past, or been a source of human suffering."
The church is composed of humans who are imperfect. The first shining example of imperfection is that of Judas who betrayed Christ, there is also that of St. Peter, the first Pope, who blasphemed rejecting Christ while he was under arrest. There are many other instances of imperfection throughout history, and I also dare mention the Inquisition. This is why the church is relevant, because it is made of sinners, and yet, it was given the mandate to proclaim the Word of God. I pity you trying to intimidate me with this, because, this is one example that shows precisely the relevance of the Catholic Church: a church made of sinners for sinners. Had it been the other way round, I wouldn't have dared to even opt to be a catholic!
Quote: " I would encourage you to read the German Higher Criticism concerning the Gospels and their historical legitimacy."
I cannot rely on anything without proof of the legitimacy of the source, and I hope, as an intelligent person, you understand the reason. Unlike what you think, I have passed through a profound crises of faith that dragged itself several years, and I am still struggling to remain faithful. Even Mother Theresa had a crises of faith, and still, she remained dedicated to Christ.
My fellow human being, life has taught me to be careful, and to be on the watch out what to accept and reject. Notwithstanding everything, I am finding a great deal of truth in the humble gospels, and the witness is life itself.
Peace be with you.
Mr Ernest Vella
Jun 1st 2011, 13:02
Ma taghmilx sens din il-mibeghda lejn il-Knisja, ghax jekk noqghodu nsemmu d-dnubiet u l-izbalji ta xulxin ma nieqfu qatt. Kulhadd nesa' li partitarji socjalisti kissru l-Kurja u profanaw it-tabernaklu u l-Ewkaristija Mqaddsa giet mitfugha ma' l-art, kemm sawtu nies, sparaw fuq in-nies, u l-frame ups li saru fit-80's....u ta dan hargu jghidu li kburin b'dak kollu li ghamlu.
Ejjew minflok noqghodu nfittxu x-xaghra fl-ghagina u nsemmu l-interdett u l-vjolenza tat-80's, nahdmu flimkien ghal familji taghna. Min ma jridx jibqa Kattoliku jaqbad u ma jibqax imma mhux nilghabuha ta nsara fejn irridu imbaghad lil Knisja rridu naghlqulha halqa.
Mr William Flynn
Jun 1st 2011, 12:38
Speaking of a Catholic family's predicament, perhaps there may be a situation when the bishops can offer some guidance.
Let's say hypothetically father finds himself in a situation where he sees one of his sons whipping himself with a "discipline" (a knotted whip designed to inflict self pain) as he recites 50 hail Mary’s. He bought the “discipline” from Opus Dei together with a metal clawed cilice; which Opus Dei exhorted him to wear every day except Sundays and feast days. For they told him he cannot grow into a better man unless he embraces and experiences pain every day; suffer like Christ.
Should the father:
1. Look for a good psychiatrist for him?
2. Get a cult interventionist to rescue him?
3. Tell him he's doing the right thing for, after all, pope John Paul 2 whacked himself with a heavy belt every day?
4. Call child protection department?
And they made Escriva a saint? What a travesty! And there are people in these columns wondering why the majority want the church to be seen and not heard?
The pope empowers Opus Dei, celebrates the sainthood of Escriva, and yet speaks of love of family and children. I find the hypocrisy by the Catholic church insufferable.
Crawl into your churches and do the mumbo-jumbo there; secularism gives you that right; but the church and its bishops cannot expect daily attention any more in the news media; unless they are gluttons for punishment.
Mr M Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 18:14
I have been trying to ignore you. The filth and hatred towards God and His church should not be posted in this website in the first place.
You cannot harm the church by your writing. The church has survived in Communist countries, it will still remain strong here.
It takes much more than Flynn from Australia . a man who gives the impression that he is being drowned by his hatred towards God to make us turn atheists.
A. Farrugia
Jun 1st 2011, 23:32
@ Mr. Borg,
sadly, what comes out of certain bloggers' writing is born from what is bottled up inside them and it is not possible for certain types to constitute anything constructive in the debate.
Some foreigners have no interest in our country except, it seems, to criticise and denigrate. Is is sad and pitiful, I agree, but then it just shows that it is up to us who are living here to build up this society in which we live.
And yes, anyone who reads TimesofMalta.com would be forgiven to think that the only pleasure certain commentators get out of life is by attacking those who contribute in practice to Maltese society, like Church leaders and others of a certain calibre with whom they take issue... they're called armchair critics. Luckily we have been spared having to suffer rubbing shoulders with them!
Mr Philip Sciberras
Jun 1st 2011, 12:33
Issa li ghadda kollox u r-rizultat hu maghruf, l-irgulija mill-kummentaturi favur l-"Iva" tesigi qabel u fuq kollox ir-rispett versu dawk ic-cittadini li hasbuha diversament u ivvotaw "Le". Huwa f'mumenti bhal dawn li r-rebbieh juri l-kobor tieghu u d-dritt civili akkwistat fil-kamp tal-battalja kontra l-forzi reazzjonarji jakkwista l-qawwa u t-tifsira vera tieghu. Naturalment,ir-rebha ghandha sservi biex jissokta t-tigdid liberali u sekulari f'dan il-pajjiz ckejken taghna ha nwassluh tassew fuq l-ghatba tal-millenju bl-akkwist ta' drittijiet ohra favur il-minoranzi, huma x'inhuma l-fehmiet, it-tendenzi, jew il-kulur tal-gilda taghhom. Fl-ahharnett, kif gja ktibt drabi ohra, jekk tabilhaqq il-Knisja lokali trid tiggedded u thares il-veri interessi tal-familja Maltija hi ghandha, qabel kollox, ma tibqghax maqtugha mir-realtajiet socjali u lil-poplu ta’ Alla tkellmu u tfehmu bil-lingwa tal-lum. Inutli li tghid li qalbha tinghafas ghat-tifrik taz-zwegijiet ghaliex din, sfortunatament, hi realta’ ukoll u l-koppja fiz-zwieg m’ghadiex taccetta l-ipokresija ta’ dari fejn tinzamm marbuta flimkien, akkost ta’ kollox. Ukoll, ghandha tinqata’ mid-diffikolta’ religjuza-kulturali kif tinterpreta forom ohra ta’ relazzjonijiet, eterosesswali jew m’humiex. Fuq kollox trid,illum qabel ghada, taccetta d-dikotomija bejn Stat u Knisja u tammetti illi mhux dak kollu li hu sekolari hu hazin jew zbaljat. Meta taghraf dan kollu u ma tibqghax insensibbli, u lanqas, kull x’hin ifettlilha, ma tohrog mill-kexxun tal-antikalji l-anatemi u d-dnubiet mejta hemmhekk jibda r-rinnovament taghha li jqarribha lejn il-poplu. Xi hadd darba kiteb illi jekk tabib irid ifejjaq lil-pazjenti tieghu, l-ewwel irid ifejjaq lilu innifsu.
Mr Frank Muscat
Jun 1st 2011, 12:27
FOR THE SAKE OF THE CONFUSED AMONGST US - ARE THE PETRINE AND PAULINE PRIVILEGES DECLARATIONS OF ANNULMENT OR EXTRINSIC FORMS OF DIVORCE? I have raised this thorny issue several times in my contributions to the media but no local bishop or theologian worth his salt has had the decency and the courage to tackle it publicly. To my knowledge, the media has dismally failed in addressing this issue head on to the local Church... Conspiracy of silence from the media, including The Times and Sunday Times?
Victor Rodenas
Jun 1st 2011, 12:39
I am sure that 80% of the population never heard or do not know what exactly the Petrine and Pauline privilages are about.I suggest that you will write about them in another comment.Thank you.
Sean Grima
Jun 1st 2011, 12:57
Wikipedia states that:
"It is said that the Pauline Privilege differs from divorce in that it leaves the Christian partner free to remarry, despite the fact that Paul does not himself comment on the lawfulness of such a remarriage. It differs from annulment because it dissolves a valid actual marriage, in favor of the faith of the Christian partner, where annulments declare that a marriage was invalid from the beginning."
"In essence, the Petrine Privilege is an extension of the logic of the Pauline privilege to cases of marriage between baptised and non-baptised spouses."
Therefore they seem to be somewhere in between, and in any case, they are very rare exceptions - the use of the Petrine Privilege requires the Pope's authority.
Mr William Flynn
Jun 1st 2011, 13:46
I know the answer to the question. Ready? Here it is:
Who cares.
Mr d. attard
Jun 1st 2011, 13:51
I see your point Mr Muscat, but remember that here we were talking about civil divorce.
One of the church's failings was to confuse the two and made it look as if her teachings was under threat. None of the sort. Catholic marriages remain catholic marriages. Re the privileges you mention, these, plus what god has put together let no man put assunder except in the case of bad marriages... guided me to, inter alia, go for a yes vote underpinned by the christian concept of love. i also took comfort from the fact that major christian religions like the orthodox churches and the communion churches all tolerate some form of divorce. Our church seems to want to apply these principles on an ad hoc basis as it keeps holding the key to each and every annulment. What will now hopefully happen is that the annulment process within the maltese church will come up to scratch as otherwise those wanting a second marriage in church will de facto end up marrying outsiude the church. This is what happens in so many countries and catholic communities I know, namely that civil divorce is very often followed by church annulment in a reasonable period of time (very often less than one year). Now will the church go into a siege mentality and use its influence to militate for a conservative society or will it open itself up to the beautiful concept of love as lived by Christ? we will have to wait and see, yet such change will not come from the incumbents, it has to come from so many preiests who want the church to develop on the latter lines.
Mr Christopher Xuereb
Jun 1st 2011, 12:17
I could never quite grasp the opposition to divorce. With the legal regimen currently in place (separation) what we have is, effectively, 'divorce without remarriage'. Saturday's vote was about 'divorce with remarriage'. Unless an ecclesiastical annulment is obtained, new attachments formed after the breakdown of a first marriage are adulterous as far as the Church is concerned, independently of whether the adulterous couple contract civil marriage or not....so why the opposition?
Travis Brannon
Jun 1st 2011, 12:52
One word: power.
Mr Matthew Grima
Jun 1st 2011, 12:54
Because we are told that we need to oppose it, beeq beeq.
Mr Peter Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 12:10
So saying to people that oting for divorce is a grave sin and that anyone who voted for divorce was not in communion with Christ and culd not receive Communion has nothing to do with fear ? What about calling people brigands, traitors and wolves in sheeps clothing ?
Your best bet Archbishop is to admit fault and pledge change. Your own tone was very measured during the campaign but many of those around you and particularly your fellow bishop in Gozo went overboard.The Maltese people are no longer sheep and your church needs to accept this and change accodingly if it wants to survive. Going forward this trend is only likely to grow so open your eyes and reslve to change. The alternative is to perish !
Mr Ian Grech
Jun 1st 2011, 11:53
Paul Cremona is trying to take us for another ride and trying to rewrite history (which is still very fresh). The letter last Saturday was not about families but yet another deceitful act by the church. If they (the bishops) had any qualms about the way the campaign was being run, they had ample time to speak and take control of thier flock. (Well Mario Grech did speak, loud and clear, which sort of lends even less credance to the Saturday letter).
The bishops forgave me, and countless others, for nothing. I would guess that of all things Paul knows that for someone to be forgiven s/he has to confess to the sin (or crime), which as far as I am aware no one in the YES campaign did. So why was a forgiveness issued? I never did any harm to Paul, Mario, Anton, Josef or any other one of their sheep who were out in arms lying through the skin of their teeth and terrorising the populace into voting NO. There were no exagerations from the YES campaign either. What is exagerated? Saying that marriages will only last until the woman reaches size 10 perhaps. Or misquoting studies by experts even?
The bishops also asked for forgiveness 'if' any member of the church (for which they are responsable) said something to hurt others. It is not 'IF' dear Paul. 'IF' could be used when there were doubts but in this case there are none and all proof is in the open. You knew what was going on yet at no time reigned anyone in and urged respect. At no point did you or any member of your church made any real point against divorce legislation, opting instead to use psychological torture (that is what it is) promising eternal damnation and withdrawal of communion. You knew, or rather know, that YOUR words were breaking families apart with devout parents being ashamed, or worse - not on speaking terms with, their children whose marriages failed. The campaign which You had control over was full of lies. Your interest was never families but influence, becasue influence is power.
Rather than face reality you keep bending words in an exercise to hide the truth, among which that the Cana course with all its pomp is a failure. It is not only civil marriages that are breaking up but also those celebrated in church (for which the Cana course is a requirement). Whether issued with your divinely inspired proclamation of annulment or not, people are still getting on with their lives and settling down in new realtionships into which children are born. These relationships (becasue they cannot evolve into 'legal' families) are not ones you want to see prosper and would rather see these people, my fellow citizens, suffer.
Ms B Cassar
Jun 1st 2011, 13:28
I really agree with you. Unfortunately the church and the clergy seems it never learns the lesson. It didn't learn it 50 years ago and it didn't do it now. In fact with whatever they say they try in every form to impose what they want. Then they ask the public why so many people are against the church in Malta. The moment that you begin minding your own business and not try to indoctrine people, you will begin to gain respect. But I guess that is far fetched.
Anthony Busuttil
Jun 1st 2011, 11:46
I think that YOU as the spiritual leader of our Mother Church in Malta , built by Jesus Christ on LOVE, you should show us really that you are his representative on this land, show love , and makes believe what you said last Saturday <forgive me after 10 pm> and reverse back the decision taken by the conservative Monsignor and reinstate Dr Deborah schembri back. This is against human right and against the teaching and love of our LORD. If this is not done its useless what you say.
Re FAMILY, I think only the Government can really and truly start helping the families. I think every one knows that the biggest problem facing families is finances. Yesterday GAs went up again with other fuel. So Dear Shepherd please address this to the Government, be blunt same as you did during referendum and I assure you all Malta will be BACK behind its spiritual leader. Bless us all.
Mr Maria Camilleri
Jun 1st 2011, 11:39
Maybe the Church should keep silent and do some soul searching, on how to modernise their archaic institution before "urging" others.
The Curia should "urge" themselves to:
1. continue educating their priests - as they are the face of the church;
2. update the Cana course - I've just attended and believe me, the things I heard were worthy of the Spanish Inquisition;
3. discuss issues such as sexuality, contraception, role of women, homosexuality, IVF, abortion and euthanasia maturely.
Mr Albert Farrugia
Jun 1st 2011, 12:00
You say you attended a Cana course. Now, can you please explain why you did so? What is the logical reason to attend a even organised by an "archaic instition" with which you dont identify? I am very much interested to hear logical reasons. Please, however, leave out one possible reason, that it is the only way to get a Church wedding. Why would you even contemplate a Church, archaic, wedding? Do you see what i mean?
Mr Matthew Grima
Jun 1st 2011, 12:57
Sadly Mr Albert Farrugia, in Malta, we have people discriminating others on their religion. So just to shut people up, most prefer to get married in Church, as is expected by the Maltese society. I baptised my son due to this understanding (no ceremony, just the ritual and the certificate, it's the latter that I wanted), though I regret doing it.
Mr Patrick Bellia
Jun 1st 2011, 13:14
ghax bil fors ghax ma jzegekx u biex thallsu tal kors u talli jaghmillek it tapit il knisja, nhaseb ma tistax tghidli mhux veru. hux hekk
Jason Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 14:22
Mr. Maria - you seem extremely knowledgable. Why don't you start writing articles on the subjects you mentioned and publish them? I am sure they will make very interesting reading.
Mr Maria Camilleri
Jun 1st 2011, 15:06
maybe because my partner is catholic?
Mr William Flynn
Jun 1st 2011, 11:34
The less said about the "apology" the better.Those who remember the 60's still talk about those events. But this is bigger.
What happened to the advice the other day from some theologianthat the church should remain silent for a while? (For ever preferably).
We know a week is a long time in politics but the diabolical, deceased policies of the bishops are hardly cold; and Cremona, the "good detective", carrot in hand is already out on the hustling again.
The "bad detective" will follow later today or tomorrow with a stick (the refusal of the wafer, perhaps).The good detective and the "bad detective" always work as a team from behind the mirror in the interview room. Their job is to play on emotions.
The bishops don’t accept just how many types of situations have to be defined as a family. We don't need god, religion or a bishop to protect our family because evolving humans have had to rely on and become part of a family for millions of years just to survive; and eons before the Bronze Age fairy tales were written.
There are as many Maltese living outside Malta in countries where divorce is legal as there are in Malta where divorce is not legal as we speak. I know of no couple who have put their family and themselves through a divorce just because divorce was available. No one chops off their arm without a drastic reason.
Folks know where to find clergy; there are 365 churches and everyone has a telephone.
Now leave the rest of us, the vast majority, alone, please.
The Maltese are not fearful children any more. We can deal with our problems; perhaps you might wish to deal with some of yours.
Like why Ratzinger wept and nothing happened.
Jason Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 14:20
Mr. Flynn - all the energy you consume in your extreme dislike and anger for the Catholic Church will not boil half a cup of water in a million years. Stop wasting it.
Mr William Flynn
Jun 1st 2011, 20:06
Mr Jason Borg - Thank you for your feedback. I consume almost no energy at all posting a couple of hundred words; it's one of life's little pleasures
.
And I am not out to boil water, silly man; but what runs through the veins of your religious brain ....much lower boiling point.
Enjoy.
Stephen Koludrovic
Jun 1st 2011, 11:31
Lets stop bashing the church too much. They have their agenda and they follow it.
Mr Albert Farrugia
Jun 1st 2011, 11:26
I always expected a Yes vote, but I have to admit I am amazed at the level of hate against the Church which this referendum has exposed! People like Victor Caruana below and to a certain extent Paul Barret, if I interpret them correctly, seem to imply that the Church cannot even open its mouth. In short, these people seem to be yearning for a "Silent Church". Well, that was the position of the Church in the former Communist block countries. And yet, where are these now? Many are declaring the Church to be a spent force. Weakened it most definitely is, and credibility it as of course lost. But, as Mark Twain once famously said "Rumours of it's death are heavily exeggerated". It's so ironic, is it, that people posing as "Liberal", as protectors of freedom, should unleash such a hateful campaign against fellow Maltese citizens simply because they have a certain view of the world and of life. And why? We all voted as we pleased, the Yes victory won, in what is supposed to be a Taliban state, and Parliament will enact the new law. What is, then, the problem? Does being liberal (something which i believe i am, also) have to mean being a hater?
Mr Joe Gatt
Jun 1st 2011, 12:26
Enough harm has already been done.
Time will heal, perhaps.
Talk is Cheap, so,
At times silence is golden
Mr Melvin Caruana
Jun 1st 2011, 11:21
il malti jghid lil min tafu is saqsix ghalih
Travis Brannon
Jun 1st 2011, 10:54
There is only one way to strengthen the family and that is to teach people how to truly love. And perhaps the Church has failed in this capacity? I believe so. With its adoption of the charismatic movement, something that came out of the Pentecostal movement in the US, the Catholic Church has become weakened by an ever increasing reliance on irrationality and belief in things which don't actually exist. As if a person will learn how to love, selflessly and self-sacrificially, by speaking in tongues or through the ministry of some charlatan who claims he can heal with the Holy Spirit. Learning how to love like Jesus, the singularly most important task a human being can claim for himself, is a very pragmatic task and is grounded in the material side of life, not in some ethereal, metaphysical dimension. And love is what keeps the family together, and real love, real respect, and real self-sacrifice. This is being lost in the turmoil of modernity, as our sexuality is being grossly manipulated by the media. So much emphasis on sex and so little on giving love. And the Church turns to the irrationality of the charismatic movement, supernaturalism and dogma, instead of getting some boots on the ground and teaching people how to really love. And it's actions during the campaign were not what I would exactly call loving, understanding or merciful. They were dogmatic, irrational and cruel.
Mr Joe Gatt
Jun 1st 2011, 12:33
Travis Brannon
`There is only one way to strengthen the family and that is to teach people how to truly love`.
I use to think that love was spontaneous, is there now also a Masters degree in love, or perhaps evening classes, so one may study and learn.
One may lead by example, ie shows repect, compassion and understanding.
Tyranical and Dictatorial statements, produce adverse reactions, I guess some organizations tru their Policies and Agendas will always be out of sinch and detached from reality.
Pity
Paul Sammut
Jun 1st 2011, 10:49
I am still very much disappointed in the way the church is dealing with Deborah Schembri's problem. All in all it was Deborah Schembri who was the winning factor with its honesty and clear arguments put forward without any hatred that tilted the balance well in favour of the Yes Campaign. She never tried to impose like the Clergy did. Deborah always explained the clear intentions behind the proposed divorce law. Most of our clergy are foundamentalists. Do not take me wrong, I am in favour of the church teaching its own religion, but obviously I am against imposing. The challenge is for the church to teach in such a way and manner that its teaching is trenched in the minds of its followeers, but not impose on them, especially others who do not care much about our faith. In the last minute so called reconciliation statement issued by the state it falls short on apoligiising to Deborah Schemri for what they did to her. This shortcoming is till around today. So unless they go back on their dictatorial decision they took against her and include her back in her prior job, the statement issued by them is useless and against the Catholics teachings. Unless they include her back in the fold I consider them taking us for a ride.
PS
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Jun 1st 2011, 10:48
As a first step give back the job to Deborah and the rest of the lawyers that your regime harrassed during the campaign.
As a second step do not speak again about state issues. Make your propaganda in the churches for those who still believe a word of what you say
Mr Patrick Zammit
Jun 1st 2011, 10:44
If the church is really genuine, it should explain why it is withholding a fundamental human right to people in front of her annulment tribunals, that is the right for a person to be defended by a lawyer of that person's choice.
This is more important knowing that a spouse who has an annulment procedure in front of a civil court has his case suspended if the other spouse opens a case in front of the church tribunal, with the conclusion of that church tribunal overriding the civil case.
And why is a detailed copy of the sentence not given to the spouses? Or is transparency non existent in the church's vocabulary?
Mr Patrick Zammit
Jun 1st 2011, 12:19
Maybe I have not made myself clear enough.
In front of the church annulment tribunal, we have sadly accepted a situation that goes against human rights.
Would anyone accept the following fictional situation which mirrors the church's position?
The government issues a list of lawyers that persons involved in court cases may choose from to defend them in front of the courts. The list only includes lawyers who have not expressed themselves against the policies of that same government. Lawyers who do that, are immediately crossed out from that list.
This is not church bashing but shows what a previous government (under EFA if not mistaken) imposed on the people.
Mr Bartolo Edward
Jun 1st 2011, 10:42
The mission of the church is that of spreading the Word of Christ. Those who are convinced that their ad-hoc intentions or convictions (aka opinions) can overrule what Christ ordered, are rejecting Christ himself. If anyone claims oneself to be a Catholic, and please note the "IF", one can in no way reject what Christ has ordered, and at the same time, be a Catholic. It is a pity that many Maltese people equate catholicism with the Maltese "religious" festas.
For any catholic who genuinely intends to honour Christ, the only way, is, was, and will always be, a total, un-compromised submission of one's will to the will of Christ. There is no way arguing against the gospels or against the teachings of the church.
I urge the archbishop to be couragious, faithful and perseverant like the martyrs and proclaim the Word without letting himself be intimidated. Remember, Christ has anointed you to serve him whatever challenge that may demand.
Travis Brannon
Jun 1st 2011, 11:42
Yes indeed! And I assume the Church has never made a mistake in past, or been a source of human suffering. You speak with ridiculous arrogance and a great deal of ignorance, despite your religious and moral fervor. I would encourage you to read the German Higher Criticism concerning the Gospels and their historical legitimacy. This was work done in the 19th century. The world and spiritual life are not as simple as you think they are, or have "faith" that they are. The Catholic Church is guilty of some of the worst atrocities in human history. The most recent - rampant paedophilia and the subsequent cover up THE WORLD OVER - being the most easy to call to mind, not to mention the Inquisition, the Crusades, the elimination of indigenous cultures in the New World, and passive complicity in the anti-semitism of the Nazis. You my friend have been ideologically seized by ideological state apparatus that you, in your unfortunate ignorance, cannot understand. And this is the worst form of ignorance, because in your ignorance, you jump up on your moral high horse, alongside hypocritical priests, and start moralizing to the rest of us.
Mr FRANS H SAID
Jun 1st 2011, 10:35
Unfortunately this is TOO little, TOO late. I had stated so from the very begining of the "Kana" movement. The very name is misleading. The very courses are a blindfold. If the authorities want to stengthen families they must ensure proper equality, in everything, including marriage and division laws and maintenance and children access. The women are still considered to be the weekest link and the males as the supreme commanders.
Mario Scicluna
Jun 1st 2011, 10:33
''Archbishop Paul Cremona said today that the most important message in the statement issued by the Church on Saturday evening was the need for society to reflect on how it could strengthen families.''
Where was the Church since 1975 then? Is it that the Referendum outcome dissappointed the Church that much that NOW they urge society to reflect on how it could strengthen families?? Mela because they have the Kana course for couples(few weeks) they thought it was enough 'u barra bid-daqq'? First, they have to admit and apologise, the Curia failed miserably to strenghten the family since 1975(separation introduction), now they blame it on others. Typical.
Ms B Cassar
Jun 1st 2011, 13:35
It's very surprising that it took last Saturday to let the church understand that we are in 2011 and that people do not accept indoctrination and mind twisting. This fully is proofed by the apology and once again proves that the church has lived and is still living in 1900. The ridiculous arguments of the bishops clearly show that they have a pair of blinds infront of they eyes to open and close them whenever suits them right. The church has always and will always be out of touch with the people because unfortunately it expect everyone to live their life according to their rules and not according to the individual conscience. Quite arrogant I must say.
Mr Patrick Zammit
Jun 1st 2011, 10:30
"The statement, he said, had been issued before the result of the referendum was known, because the Church wanted to assure the people that its intentions were genuine."
Were the threats of eternal damnation also genuine?
Mr M Farrugia
Jun 1st 2011, 10:30
Kif tista familja tkun b'sahhita meta l-maggoranza tal-familji marru kontra il-Kelma ta' Alla, Għalfejn allura il-Knisja theġġeg lil poplu sabiex jaqra il-Bibbja, sempliciment sabiex jghid li qara il-Bibbja. Il-Bibbja mhux ktieb tal-istorja komuni. Hija il-Kelma ta' Alla miktuba. Nistaqsi lil-Knisja Maltija kif se tagixxi ma dawk li permess ta' dan ir-rizultat marru kontra l-Kelma ta Alla. Lil Paul Barett nghidlu li l-Knisja kienet qed titkellem ghal insara kattolici u minkejja li din hija ligi Civili ghanda dritt taghti direzzjoni lil-insara. Nistaqsih x'ippretenda dan Paul Barett kulhadd isawwat lil KNisja fuq il-mezz tax-xandir u media oħra u ma titkellimx, jekk dan huwa li ippretenda nghidlu li ghandu l-istess mentalita tat-tlettinijiet u s-sittijiet.
Ms D Galea
Jun 1st 2011, 10:29
High time that Caeser started doing his duty like organizing marriage courses for all , providing care for people with special needs and setting up orphanages.These are a few of the responsabilities that so far has been left for the church to look after ,with the fidili shouldering the financial responsability.
Mr Saliba Francis
Jun 1st 2011, 10:25
Providing the facility of an easy "no questions asked" divorce for married couples who encounter the difficulties associated with married life, is not any acceptable way to strengthen marriage, even if the couple are obliged to "think it over" for four years. Divorce provides a strong disincentive to try hard to strengthen and save that marriage.
Ms Gillian Snook
Jun 1st 2011, 12:00
Mr Saliba Francis,
Putting your mind at rest. I can assure you that a 4 year separation to work things through either to divorce or to stay in the marriage is more than adequate.
Try thinking of all the things you have achieved over a 4 year period............. food for thought.
Mr Saliba Francis
Jun 1st 2011, 16:49
Welcome to your opinion. It is not mine. That four year separation period won't be wasted in idle twisting of thumbs. Most often it will be spent in an anticipatory form of re-marriage called co-habitation. That "four year period" is only the beginning of the end towards a waiting period of a few months or weeks. It happened almost everywhere else. In Malta we are fast deveoping a mentality of "everyone else is doing it so why not here?"
Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior
Jun 1st 2011, 10:24
The usual Church-Bashers/Haters are out again!
JC.
Kevin Camilleri
Jun 1st 2011, 10:02
The Bishop is RIGHT!
The Government's 1st Priority MUST be to strengthen families. Healthy families, mean a healthy society.
Mr Paul Barrett
Jun 1st 2011, 09:46
Quote: At the same time, he stressed, the Church had been duty bound to declare during the referendum campaign that the people had responsibilities before the Lord. Unquote.
It appears that the message has not got across to the Church that they interfered with and tried to influence the result of a secular matter concerning a secular law which in no way compromised the teachings of the Roman Catholic faith.
They are perfectly free to intervene with marriages and set the rules for pre-marriage courses for their faithful but should not try and set rules or laws for the rest of the population.
Mr John Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 10:25
Dear Mr. Barrett, whilst I fully agree with you in terms of church should not interfere with what non-Catholics do and how they vote, the problem that the Church was having is the following:
Many in Malta claim to be Catholics (irrespective of whether they go to Church or not), so the Church had every right to remind its "followers" that the rules of their club state they should not be in favour of divorce. I think it is only fair that if you want to be part of a club, you can pick and choose what rules you like to follow and which rules you prefer to turn a deaf ear too.
Furthermore, since the divorce law was raised by an MP who had a personal agenda and gain... should be now propose that a man can have multiple wives? Isn't that giving me my freedom and a right I should deserve? Why should men in arabic countries have this right, yet I in Malta can not?
So where does the buck stop?
Mr JOSEPH AGIUS
Jun 1st 2011, 12:03
Mr Borg, you want to us to think that you do not understand plain English.
WE DID NOT WANT FOR DIVORCE! Is that clear enough? Or don't you realise that saying we voted for divorce is a very weighted statement? We voted for a divorce for particular people, not for everybody. For those who, not being Catholics, do not wish to be tied up by the diktats of the Catholic Church, and for those who, though born as Catholics, no longer identify themselves with this Church. Unlike you, we believe they have a right to divorce. We know that Catholics who divorce, divorce themselves also from the Church. That is their choice. It is a free country; we are not in Afghanistan.
If we who voted YES for this reason have, in the eyes of the Church, committed a a grave sin, let the Church say so clearly. Things will become easier for all of us. In the absence of an answer we will rest assured that we committed no sin; indeed that we did the right thing.
Mr Paul Barrett
Jun 1st 2011, 12:21
@ Mr John Borg.
Thank you for your reply. Personally I can only just afford the one wife that I have at the moment so even if I had the option of another three, I would sadly have to pass on that delight LOL.
Victor Rodenas
Jun 1st 2011, 09:45
Everybody agrees that families should be strengthened,but I think that we`re starting a bit too late.Now the cancer of broken marriages has turned aggressive, doctors tell us that if a disease is not treated early by time it will reach a stage were it cannot be treated any nore and the patient dies.I am not trying to be a pessimist,the same thing happened with drugs.In the 60`s many said,..`what drugs in Malta,never,our children have strong values they will never take drugs`,everybody knows what the outcome was.In the 60`s Malta did not prepare itself enough for the huge wave that was about to hit us.Before the wife (and family)depended solely on the father`s wage,so if the husband mistreated the wife she had no choice,she had to stick to him with six or more children to feed.Nowadays this situation changed,families are extremely small(less mouths to feed)and women are educated,they work are are always told to go out and work(watch TV)Other aspects are seeing how other people live abroad and the fast changing of demography in Malta (too fast)So as Malta is a global village of the World very little can be done now.Some might say ,even if we save one family its a victory.....I agree on that....then nothing wrong in saving a family or two,..but the majority will sink and we cannot turn back the clock now.The World is what it is(or what it has become)no monumental task is in the offing,pro tempore we wait and see if all this talk about strenghtening families will fade out in a few weeks.Good luck.
Mr mark johnson
Jun 1st 2011, 09:45
Why don't you start by saying you will no longer split up families with church annulments.
Hypocrite.
Mr W Cassar
Jun 1st 2011, 10:02
Exactly how can you take the church seriously!
Mr Patrick Zammit
Jun 1st 2011, 10:28
Do not do like I do but do as I say.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jun 1st 2011, 12:16
"you will no longer split up families with church annulments"
and you know that you should not do it, but we can split them up through divorce, and we are not being
hypocrites, because only your side can be hypocrites, we are being liberal and caring.
Mr Anthony Mizzi
Jun 1st 2011, 09:41
Shouldn't Archbishop Cremona also consider removing Black-List and reinstate back Dr. Deborah Schembri to defend her clients in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal?
Was Dr. Deborah Schembri included in the Bishops' '10pm apology'?
Ms D Galea
Jun 1st 2011, 10:26
Are you in favour of giving to Caeser what belongs to Caeser as well as what belongs to God?
Mr John Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 09:29
Agree, irrespective of whether the Church is saying this or not, broken families are not good for a healthy society.
However, I hope that the help to aid marriaiges doesn't come in the form of more financial aid from government just as the "father unkown" aid is. As this will only encourage families to breakup to take advantage of the cash and whathever other benefits government has to offer.
Alana Attard
Jun 1st 2011, 11:34
Agree with you. By giving cash to single mothers the Government is always encouraging more girls some of them on purpose to have children. Instead of helping married woman rearing their children he always insists the women should get a job no matter what's their children's fate. Therefore who is in the right track has to pay NI and Tax for the ones that don't render anything economically.
victor caruana
Jun 1st 2011, 09:29
Why do you insist that the family is your prerogative. Nobody owns you any explanation. we are a secular state and we will discuss it on a secular basis. If your church wants to take note of what emerges from this debate it is up to the church to inform its fidili and not the other way round - fidili want to dictate to the free thinkers. meta se titghallem??
Mr carmel callus
Jun 1st 2011, 10:17
Kif dardartu lil kulħadd. J'alla qatt ma tiġi bżonn xi fidil jew xi qassis. Għallinqas tibqgħux tinsulentaw b'dan il-mod lil min ma taqblux miegħu.
Mr Stefan Camilleri
Jun 1st 2011, 10:31
The Archbishop should have a say in this discussion because the Church is playing the major role is supporting Maltese families by;
a. being the only institution which runs courses for engaged couples
b. Runs/finances drug/alcohol etc rehabilitation centres
c. Runs/finances centres for the disabled
d. Runs/Finances centres for battered women and children
e. Runs/Finances centres for unmarried mothers
f. Runs/Finances homes for abandoned children
g. Provides financial support to families in need
etc etc...
The 'fidili' are paying for all this , saving you added responsibilites and taxes.
If I were the Archbishop I would pass on all the responsibilites to our secular society immediately.
Mr Tony Camilleri
Jun 1st 2011, 11:58
Mr Stefan Camilleri inti taħseb li hija l-Knisja biss li tagħmel dawn l-affarijiet?
Taħseb li s-single mothers u oħrajn mhux mit-taxxi ta' kulħadd jitħallsu?
Il-Knisja tagħmel ħafna u tagħmel tajjeb li tagġmlu imma tagħmlu minn dak kollu li jagħtiha kulħadd mhux minn dawk biss li jmorru l-quddies.
Kemm ħadtu għalikom li 53% ivvutaw favur id-divorzju?
Mela m'għadkomx tqishom li huma wkoll huma insara?
Jew biex tkun Nisrani trid bilfors tkun "fidil" u tibdi b'għajnejk magħluqa?
Dak iż-żmien għadda biex qatt aktar ma jerġa' lura Mr Stefan Camilleri.
Mhux qed ngħid li l-Gvern qed jagħmel biżżejjed għax ir-riżultat tar-referendum juri li l-Gvern raqad għax kieku ma kienx hemm dat-tkissir kollu tal-familji ma kienx ikun hemm bżonn id-divorzju.
Il-Gvern Nazzjonalista li issa ilu mill-1987 raqad raqda nobis f'kollox għax ħsiebhom biss f'buthom u mhux fil-bqija tal-poplu.
Alla ħares ma kienx hemm liġijiet soċjali imdaħħla minn Gvernijiet laburisti ta' qabel għaliex kieku Malta l-agħar pajjiż tat-tieled dinja u la hemm pensjonijiet, la għajnuna lir-romol lil dawk li jkunu qieghda, u lil kull min jieħu xi benefiċċju soċjali.
Anki fuq dawn il-Gvern Nazzjonalista raqads raqda nobis għax ħafna minnhom ilhom is-snin ma jiżdiedu jew żdiedu bil-laqx, kontra ż-żieda enormi u s-salarju doppju li Gonzi ta lilu nnifsu u lill-Ministri tiegħu.