Divorce: Church did not conduct a crusade - Archbishop

Mr Matthew Grima

Jun 3rd 2011, 15:12

In other news, Pigs have been spotted flying over Filfla.

Mr Saliba Francis

Jun 3rd 2011, 14:28

The long defunct anti-clericals at the times of the Knights, the British and the Strickland era do not form any part of the virulent anticlericalism going on at this time. They could only date from the sixties or thereabouts.

Mr Joe Brincat-LL.D

Jun 2nd 2011, 21:12

There were some replies to an earlier comment I posted here, which require some reply. Anticlericalism in Malta dates from the times of the Knights, through the British presence in Malta, in the 18th Century among some of the intelligentia who were to lay the foundations for a future Nationalist Party, the Strickland era and up to the present day. So do not pin all the blame on the Labour Party.

The second point is about the Bishop of Gozo. He was explaining the wording of the Gospel John 10, " At the explicit level, Jesus identifies himself as the gate. This image, however, is interpreted in two senses. In verse 8, Jesus notes that any shepherd who approaches the sheep other than through him (the gate) is a thief and bandit. " (this is copied from the Center for Liturgy, St Louis University, USA, as an explanation to the Gospel of May15) The words thief and bandit are found in the Gospel.

Distortion by the press is a serious threat to any democratic process. Should the Bishop of Gozo, on whom so many unjustified insults were heaped, clip the wording of the Gospel so that no one is offended. Christ was very outspoken. Make no mistake about it. At least a Bishop should have the right to quote the original text, which is available to everyone in so many languages.

Mr Kevin J Vella

Jun 2nd 2011, 16:18

Well, from what I understand of the bloodshed that the Papal Crusades represented in European History which the Church is so ready to sweep under the carpet as if they never happened, the term is used to denote Christian Holy Wars against the infidel and his satanic ways. Perhaps no blood was shed, dear Bishop, and technically you are right. In practice though you have hurt the people and according to the infallibility concept of the catechism you have proven that your ex-cathedra utterances were nothing but a sham aimed at trickery and deception. Now dear Bishop I would respectfully advise you to meet with your colleagues and reflect the cruelty and underhandedness you have demonstrated. Had you fought cleanly and honestly all these sorry and lame excuses would not be necessary and you might have won the referendum through realistic appeals. As Ms Attard Gialanze said - you've made your bed, now lie on it! If you have nothing but opinionated or righteous statements to utter, with respect, begone and come back when you have learnt that the people is intelligent and not some medieval village that are afraid of the dark or of people like Galileo, Copernicus, Leonardo and Darwin.

Mr michael catania

Jun 2nd 2011, 15:56

The church did not conduct a crusade but its fanatical followers did. Archbishop Cremona did not make any attempt (or could not) to temper their attitude and arrogance to more decent levels accepted by to day's civilized society. Finally I want to state that I have a lot of respect for Archbishop Cremona for his humility and shown kindness.

Ms Sarah Attard Gialanze

Jun 2nd 2011, 11:08

They (local Church officials) made their bed, now they have to lay in it! They cannot deny what we have seen and heard being stated by priests, bishops and so on! Stop making excuses, you are only trying to cover your tracks. The Maltese are not as stupid as you might think!!!!

Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Jun 2nd 2011, 10:24

Pull the other leg!

Joseph Debono

Jun 2nd 2011, 09:50

When reading many of these comments one must think that many voted 'yes' because they wanted to give the church a lesson. One must think that those who voted 'no' were 'hypnotized' by the church. I find this very insulting to the No voters and to the ZwiegBlaDivorzju campaigners. If anything the 'Kristu iva - divorzju le' type of campaigning or the one employed by the man from Paola played only in the hands of the Yes camp. They were welcome ammunition. Likewise it was welcome ammunition for the intellectuals and some party strategists to do everything to invoke the situation of the sixties. Let us be blunt and grown up.
Many voted yes because:
1) they needed divorce themselves. I can understand this very well.
2) they knew some relatives or friends who needed divorce. I can understand this as well when the angle of seeing things this way becomes predominant.
3) Many, especially PL supporters voted along the line given by their leader.This is amply manifested in the Labour strongholds. Given the propaganda made to make the church look like behaving as in the sixties, this strong vote is doubly understandable.
4) A small minority in PN strongholds voted to give the PN a lesson.
5) A considerable number voted on strictly civil considerations and decided that all other factors cannot outweigh the civil one.

Given all these decisive factors togethers, the No vote never really had a chance. Nonetheless it is as high as 47%. Congratulations to the ZwiegBlaDivorzju and congratulations to persons like Fr. Joe Borg.

R. D'Emanuele

Jun 2nd 2011, 09:41

In this referendum, lots of secrets, surprises and enigmas were revealed!

Maryann Borg

Jun 2nd 2011, 09:04

Reposting part of comment by Mr. Briffa:"Many people were hurt by the words spoken against them, sometimes even from the pulpit by Church leaders. You now have the difficult task to bring into line those within the Church who transgressed and whose words have alienated so many genuine good people from the Church. Only you can restore the respect for the Church and project it as indeed a caring, loving Church for all humanity, irrespective of personal circumstances."

Ms B Cassar

Jun 2nd 2011, 07:46

I've been thinking just one thing. If the result was vice versa, if the NO won this referendum, would there have been all the excuses being made today???

- would some parlamentarians said that the minority has to be respected too?
- would the clyde attard (the one of the wine) said that the minority did not understand Christ?
- would the church put up that ridiculous apology ?
- would the government especially Gonzi have thought of those people who needed divorce and those who voted yes?

Because it seems that the minority (that in the past they used to tell us that those who wanted divorce were only a minority) TODAY has much more importance than usual. It seems to me that all these institutions are much more concerned of the minority (because they say it's democracy). But in reality if the result was vice versa, would they have thought of the minority?

Even in the EU referendum there was a minority but to my knowledge no one thought of them, they completely ignored them. So I guess that this time the minority never had so much importance while usually they ignore it straight away. As I usally say Malta is a Circus put up to please the authorities as they like. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT IF THE RESULT WAS VICE VERSA THEY WOULDN'T GIVE A HOOT OF THE MINORITY. How ridiculous can you be.

And by the way I'm still waiting for the apology of the Chief Circus Bishop of Gozo for calling us Briganti and Lpup. But I guess he's too arrogant to be a man and apologise.

Mr C Muscat

Jun 2nd 2011, 07:39

The mistake was that with all the media headed by superone's under bartolo punching all over against the church, the church's side remained neutral. If divorce is wrong the church is obliged to fight against evil.
Now that the harm to our country has been done, all we can do is pray to God for ourselves and for our children. One has to bear in mind that less than 50% of the population has voted for divorce...

Mr Criss Camilleri

Jun 2nd 2011, 06:28

Le tridx tmur! L-interdett biss kien jonqos. Din kienet KRUCJATI akbar mis- 60's. If I was the bishop I would ask ALL churches to start counting their collections as from last Monday, the 30/5/11,

Ms Sabrina Borda

Jun 2nd 2011, 06:26

Everyone knows it is wrong to call somebody a liar, so I will not commit to call that to anybody here.

Ramon Casha

Jun 2nd 2011, 06:00

When I was young I was taught that the church is not only made up of priests and monks and nuns, but of ALL its faithful. Unless the church changed its doctrine in this regard, then this was a church action, and it had all the zeal of a crusade.

Weapons were not used, but words certainly were, and were used to attack, and the church authorities didn't say anything to stop these tactics from being used. For instance do you remember the big billboard in front of Żebbuġ church? They might not have written JPO's name but everyone interpreted them as referring to him, which they probably were. How about calling those who wanted to vote for divorce traitors and sinners and telling them not to enter the church doors again?

The church did not speak with one voice on this matter. We had some saying that people should vote according to their conscience, almost immediately followed by someone else pushing back with the idea that if conscience leads one to vote Yes, then it's a flawed conscience.

Paul Sammut

Jun 2nd 2011, 03:39

What about Deborah? She was attacked personally and banned in a most undemoctratic way by the most doctatorial institution on the island. Unless you apoligize and let her back do her work its useless your Holyness ! It goes against our own teachings !! Unless you remedy this espidode, it will haunt you forever.

Mr Richard Curmi

Jun 2nd 2011, 02:07

Mr Joe Brincat LLD

Brilliant. That's the way to go. I liked mostly and agree totally with your last 2 paragraphs.

Malta should now turn her attention to other very serious issues.

P.S. If I recognised you well trough your post, this:"I have lived, and suffered, through crusades in the past." underpins even more strongly your objectivity. Thanks

Mr John Azzopoardi

Jun 2nd 2011, 01:11

Enough already. I am pro divorce, but a catholic. The archbishop is an honest man. We now need to move forward. I know that there is a core of anti catholic group who are now taking advantage of the situation, but as I a catholic, some people are now bordering on offending. Let's all grow up.

George Camilleri

Jun 1st 2011, 22:48

'Crusade or no crusade - that is the question'. I assume that both sides are using it in a modern, metaphorical sense - I haven't seen anybody aiming arrows or battering rams against the other side, anyway.

The modern meaning, citing Encarta, is 'a vigorous concerted action to promote or eliminate something'. What's wrong with that? The introduction of divorce is a serious issue and I dare say both sides were actively crusading, so to speak.

Any medieval connotations are all in the mind of the accuser. And no hysterical secularist outbursts will convince anyone that the Church overstepped its mark in the campaign. I augur that the Church continues to uphold and preach its values loudly and explicitly.

Steve Mizzi

Jun 1st 2011, 21:52

Of course it was a crusade unfortunately for you and fortunately for society in general you ended up holding the sword the wrong way round and committed hara-kiri.

angelo cilia

Jun 1st 2011, 21:43

"Church did not conduct a crusade"

Weasel words said in sheep's clothing.

Mr David Farrugia

Jun 1st 2011, 21:40

Oh yes. A crusade it was. Problem was it backfired.

Mr Chris Grillo

Jun 1st 2011, 21:39

Well, excuse me...but didn't the church say that 'I am a rogue in sheep's clothing'? Good on you Dun. What about the left hand not knowing what the right is doing? I read that in a book somewhere.

Mr Joe Brincat-LL.D

Jun 1st 2011, 21:26

The Church has every right to propound its doctrinal position. This is not because we have Article 2 of the Constitution. It is a human right. The Catholic Church in Greece won a case in Strasbourg in the face of the Orthodox majority. Who on earth would expect that the Catholic Church would promote divorce ? I have written elsewhere that not even the High Church of England endorses divorce. In a recent synod of their bishops the doctrinal position has not been changed, much to the displeasure of Prince Charles.

The Church would certainly continue to dissuade its members from seeking divorce.

I have lived, and suffered, through crusades in the past. On this occasion, there were dissonant individuals, priests and especially lay persons close to the Church (or who appoint themselves as the true pastors) who have done more damage than good to their own cause. This brought an adverse reaction.

What I cannot understand is how arguments which should have been in favour of a civil remedy for a particular situation (the same as civil annulment of a marriage) were used by quite a few as a springboard for churning anti-clerical and anti-religious sentiments. Crusades are wrong, pseudo-matryrs are ridiculous, but fomenting anti-religious feeling is a disruptive factor. It is not progressive, it is not the hallmark of being intellectual, it is not the certificate of intelligence.

The matter of divorce will settle for those who think they need it. Others would not even bother about it. But the anti-religious and anti-clerical feelings will take decades to heal.

Mr Angelo Vassallo

Jun 1st 2011, 20:53

@ Ms Manquareiel de Caveden

Jien OK u ninsab hafna ahjar minnek Grazzi

@ Silvan Cutajar

Yes I am serious. In the 60's the attack on the church came from the MLP which was presenting itself as the Socilaist Party in Malta. The Socialist/Communist Parties in Europe were being proposed as the way forward for Europe (ta' Abel skont Mintoff) and creating an aetheist generation, a Europe without God.

You said "But do not impose our Lord's will on the rest? What is HIS will? Can you enlighten us?
catholics
For your information Catholics fast and not go on a diet before Easter. Iddahhaqx Silvan. Divorce has nothing common with this.

Mr F J Brincat

Verament, qieghed nara t-tazza nofsa mimlija u mhux nofsa vojta bhalek.

Mr Patrick Zammit

Since you quoted Christ to show us that you know what he said, why not you do just that, sell everything you have and donate the proceeds to the poor. Come on give us an example and we start to believe in you instead of believing the Catholic Church.

Mr William Flynn

Jun 1st 2011, 20:38

The church needed to be closer? No thanks. Doesn’t the bishop get the message? Saturday is telling him the church is TOO close; suffocating in fact. No, no! Backing off is what it needs to do.
With 365 churches, 3 bishops, an army of priests, Muzew, Catholic Action, plus a regiment of Opus Dei members under every rock, in every club, layer of society and government organization, including Parliament; how much closer can it possibly get?

The bishop playing the "good detective" Cremona has been out on the hustings all day. But where is the "bad detective" bishop Grech? Having coffee and doughnuts?
I imagine people are looking forward to hear his first comment in the light of the new political landscape.

I hazard a guess there would be a choice comment or two by readers.

Mr william cauchi

Jun 1st 2011, 20:22

You are perfectly right dear Archbishop.

No villages were plundered.
No heads rolled.
None were hung and quartered.
No one was burned at the stake.
No one was sent into exile.
and much worse that i wouldn't dream to mention.

Those were the crusade of the old church not the present day ''modern'' church.

But was there a modern crusade. Perfectly so, and many felt it very deeply, creating great uncertainaty and conflicts between family members and friends.

Mr RAYMOND Buhagiar

Jun 1st 2011, 20:14

They want ppl at church or no ??? Everyone has his decisions and not always Church rights

Mr Alex Buds

Jun 1st 2011, 20:09

But it did approve of, finance, and contribute to a crusade!

Charles Sammut

Jun 1st 2011, 20:07

It is immaterial whether there was a crusade or not. Fact is the majority of voters saw through the deceit and ignored the Church and its mumbo jumbo.

Next logical step is to have a binding referendum to completely expunge any reference to ANY religion in the Constitution. This is to guarantee that in future, no religious fundamentalist, of whatever faith or belief, will be able to insist on the introduction of any archaic, barbaric laws.

Patrick Mulholland

Jun 1st 2011, 19:51

The only crusade I hear and read about, on a daily basis, is the anti-church (or anti-Christ) crusade! And this from crusaders who say that they have every right to speak out. Yes them, only them and no one else can speak out.

Mr Jimmie Rowe

Jun 1st 2011, 19:32

Yes ofcourse he would deny it, the church now hasen't got a bloody leg to stand on, but they sure tried their hardest to get the Maltese to vote their way of thinking, IT FIRED BACK IN VENGENCE.

konrad borg

Jun 1st 2011, 19:32

To all the commentators who evidently feel the church is grovelling at their feet and cannot help sounding patronising. Please remember that this man is apologising not for his stand, and not for himself but on behalf of others for their approach. The church can only speak to catholics, so you shouldn't have felt in any way threatened or obliged to comply.

Henry S. Pace

Jun 1st 2011, 19:17

@ Pat Hobson

' Remember Briganti, sheep in wolves' clothing..... '

Ms Hobson this phrase was not Bishop's Grech personal phrase but the same phrase use by the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Scripture.

I do appeal to you to read this passage carefully..

Roberta Sciberras

Jun 1st 2011, 19:13

"The Church did not impose anything on non-believers but, as was its right in a democratic country, it spread its message to Christians."

The church would only have been in a position to say that if its position had been:"How you vote in the referendum is up to you because this is a civil matter and the church does not go into it. However if as a catholic you do make use of divorce you cannot remarry and remain catholic because that would be contrary to the words of Christ."

Since the church went far beyond that and allowed several of its Monsignors (to say nothing of bishops!) to declare that voting Yes for divorce and, wonder of wonders, even not voting at all is a sin, your Excellency cannot now claim that the church did not impose anything on non-believers. What the church did, or tried to do at any rate, was mobilize its faithful so they would impose their own beliefs on all and sundry.

Let me tell you sir that, as a catholic I could not in all conscience comply with that. To me it would have been a sin of arrogance. That is why I voted Yes.

Ray Briffa

Jun 1st 2011, 19:05

I`m sorry Archbishop Cremona....you promised at the start of the campaign that there would be no crusade and you now say that there was indeed no crusade. Under your weak leadership, we had several crusaders mushrooming and projecting themselves as defenders of the faith against the devil himself....when all that was being asked for was a basic civil right. Many people were hurt by the words spoken against them, sometimes even from the pulpit by Church leaders. You now have the difficult task to bring into line those within the Church who transgressed and whose words have alienated so many genuine good people from the Church. Only you can restore the respect for the Church and project it as indeed a caring, loving Church for all humanity, irrespective of personal circumstances.

Miriam Sammut

Jun 1st 2011, 19:03

Silence is Golden!!!!

Mr A Bonello

Jun 1st 2011, 18:56

It was a guilt and fear mongering campaign

Joseph Borg

Jun 1st 2011, 18:54

As far as I know, priests threatened elderly people to vote NO otherwise .....
As far as I know, nuns forced elderly people to vote NO otherwise .....

There's no need to use violence and swords to conduct a crusade. We're in 2011 and other 'modern' methods can be used to do so.

Wouldn't it be better if the church reflects on what had happened and starts by educating our teenagers on what real marriage and commitment means? Why not give their empty houses to volunteers (like MUSEUM coordinators) so our children can gather in a safe place to play, learn and grow up in a catholic environment if they really want our future generations to believe in the catholic church?

The archbishop cannot accept the fact that we are no longer in the sixties when people believed in heaven and hell. Most of us (including myself) are not interested on what happens after we die. It's our present life and future that matters and, sorry to say but, sun shines because there is a scientific explanation for it and not because of miracles!!

Henry S. Pace

Jun 1st 2011, 18:48

' Divorce: Church did not conduct a crusade - Archbishop '

This is a fact

The Archbishop should be thankful to the 'Wise ' Theologians who did great harm to the
Church im Malta. At one time I looked at them as 'WEATHERCOCKS' His Grace should also by thankful to those priests and religious whe were the avangard in favour of divorce: Like Fr Montebello, Fr Colin Apap and others.

Mr James Tyrrell

Jun 1st 2011, 18:37

Archbishop Cremona there is a wise old saying, when you find yourself in a hole it sometimes makes sense to stop digging!

Mr Ian Grech

Jun 1st 2011, 18:36

Again more attempts at re-writing recent history. If their's was not a crusade I do not know what it was.

Marianne Tabone

Jun 1st 2011, 18:35

L-anqas haga li jistghu jaghmlu certi nies hu li jitkellmu b'rispett lejn il-figura tal-Arcisqof! Ma qbiltux mieghu imma ppruvaw uzaw ton ta' rispett. Lilna li vvutajna le ghajjartuna moghoz. Ma gara xejn ta! Min ivvota le ivvota hekk ghax hass li dak hu ta' gid aktar mill-iva. U z-zmien ghad jaghtina parir. Ghandu jkun hawn nies li ma baqghalhom rispett lejn hadd. Anqas ghalihom infushom ghax meta twaqqa' d-dinjita ta' xi hadd tkun qieghed twaqqa' d-dinjita tieghek stess. Nappella biex il-kliem ikun meqjus aktar.

Mr Angelo Vassallo

Jun 1st 2011, 18:32

Sinjuri,

Verissimu li saret KRUCJATA izda mhux mill-Knisja u l-Isqfijiet imma saret KRUCJATA INKALLATA U MAHMUGA KONTRA L-KNISJA. Krucjata li fiha tfajtu l-arlogg erbghin sena lura u dahhaltu f'qalb il-Maltin u l-Ghawdxin il-mibeda kontra il-Knisja kif kien sar fis-snin sittin. Kulhadd qal li ried waqt il-kampanja referendarja izda meta tkellmet il-Knisja permezz ta' l-Isqfijiet qam kjass enormi. Dik demokrazija!!! Demokrazija ala Partit Laburista!!!!

Il-knisja ma setghet qatt taqbel mad-divorzju ghax KRISTU l-uniku Kap taghha hekk qal. Kieku qablet mad-divorzju kienet trkun qeghda tehodha kontra Kristu. Dwar id-divorzju l-Knisja ma tistax taghzel bejn IVA u bejn LE.

Victor Rodenas

Jun 1st 2011, 18:30

Why do`nt we let bygones be bygones and start anew.Now the Maltese answered the 4,000,000 euro question and they voted Yes.Now the King is noticing that he is not wearing any clothes,he is naked.Lets continue to strenghten the family,people can suggest ways how this could be.I suggest that a year before a couple get married they completly seperate from each other ,no phones,letters,e-mails ,nothing.This seperation can last six months,then if after these six months they insist to be together again,they will be good canditates for a lasting marriage.Well, Priests do it when they are still at the Seminary,in fact they stay out for one year and if they return they will become a priest.....Alas,still,after a few years some still have a change of mind and resign.So nothing is full proof.Another thing comes to my mind,.....many couples are non practicing Catholics but still want a Church wedding,in my opinion it should not be allowed.They do it for other motives,such as for the sake of the parents and family members or to have a nice video of their marriage,this is wrong.Someone said,~you have to be either hot or cold ,you cannot be lukewarm.

Mr Bartolo Edward

Jun 1st 2011, 18:18

Dear Archbishop, you don't need to apologize for proclaiming the Word of God. I urge you to be bold, look forward and let the example of St. John the Baptist guide you. St. John did not apologize to Herod, and continued to tell the king, that taking the wife of his brother, was against the will of God. There is also St. Thomas More who sacrificed everything including his own life not to lose God.

I, very humbly, urge you to follow Christ without fear, and to proclaim his Word with all your means and all your might, even if you have to face martyrdom!

Ms Rudi Mcbeal

Jun 1st 2011, 18:17

It was very clear that the Crusade had been definitely against the church, not vice-versa, and used to win the referendum.

Robert Caruana

Jun 1st 2011, 18:09

Initially the church really attempted to avoid a crusade. The position paper drawn up by 7 prominent priests and endorsed by Archbishop Cremona was exemplary - it clearly outlined the Catholic teachings on divorce but allowed a certain margin for those Catholics who after considering everything, including of course Christ's teachings, the Catholic perspective on divorce and the present day reality of Maltese society still felt that having divorce legislation (although not necessarily agreeing with divorce per se) is better than not having it.

However the Archbishop then seemed to lose control of over zealous, fundamentalist elements in the Church including priests and lay people. As the debate became more fierce and the pro-divorce movement statrted sounding more and more convincing, the whole process did turn into a modern day crusade, with priests abusing of their position and frightening voters with veiled and less veiled references to sin during masses or any other occasion. Here people like Mgr Said Pullicino and Bishop Grech stand out for the tone and language used. Some parish priests even usurped Holy week functions and processions to continue push forward their agenda at all costs.

While the church has a right to put forward its teachings, the fact remains that the behaviour of the local Church has alienated many young people and reopened what we thought were closed wounds among the elderly. Call it a crusade or whatever else you may want, many Catholics are hurt at the the way the Church has conducted itself and it is clear that its strategy has backfired badly - divorce legislation will be introduced anyway while the Church has lost the respect of many. It clearly has a lot of reflect about and needs to work hard to pick up the pieces.

Mr John Cassar

Jun 1st 2011, 18:04

And I am the Holy Roman Emperor.....

Apologize once and for all...and get a new PR advisor.

Victor Pulis

Jun 1st 2011, 18:01

Mgr Cremona told RTK that to crusade meant to attack. Swords were used to spread the gospel during the crusades in the Middle Ages.

There are many kinds of attack besides with swords and the crusaders did not use their swords to spread the gospel. They used their swords to spread terror. Ask the christians of Constantinople and Hungary. Ask yhe thousands of innocents in Jerusalem when the crusaders conquered the city and flooded its streets with blood.

Victor Pulis

Jun 1st 2011, 17:58

But there had been only one confirmed case where a priest had refused to give a woman Holy Communion after she said she would vote yes. An apology was promptly made.

The apology was made by the archpriest who also offered to administer the sacrament himself.
In Gozo none other than the bishop stated that those who were not in communion with the teachings of the church could not receive communion. Another priest told his congregation that those voting yes were not welcome in church.
On the other hand some priests offered to administer communion themselves if other priests refused. So how can the curia expect to be taken seriously when its policies are in a shambles? A house divided falls a wise man once said.

Mr Tony Camilleri

Jun 1st 2011, 17:49

Sure. Not at the level of the 1960's but still a crusade.

Mr Andrew Azzopardi

Jun 1st 2011, 17:46

A great pity it did not! The Bishop of Gozo took a more pro-active approach, and received a massive vote of confidence from his flock.

Joseph Debono

Jun 1st 2011, 17:44

I am convinced that more than a hundred comments will be made everytime one of our church leaders speaks at this moment in time. This is all a sign of how the people have the church at heart or of how the church has become a burden on their heart. But even the latter have ties to the church. This is a good moment in time for the church. I am convinced that our church leaders are listening.
The Christian message is a complex one. It cannot be expressed in one word, sin or no sin. This was a trap by some journalists and some priests did fall into it. I do not blame them.
The church must find ways how to enter into a mature dialogue with society without having any fear that its message will be diluted.
Society is very willing to enter into dialogue with the church. The comments that will follow these reported words of our archbishop will be a testimony to this. Even where some comments would be patronizing, at core there will be the wish to have a better and reformed church. This augurs well. And if some feel that some comments are church-bashing, these should not forget that Christ was at his strongest on the cross.

Charles Massa

Jun 1st 2011, 17:41

Mela ma kont Malta fi zmien ir referendum Mons?

Mr Joe Gatt

Jun 1st 2011, 17:38

Hey Mons, really?

You certainly got me fooled this time too, you may now pull my other one, Please, anytime with pleasure.

Regards

Ms C. Dimech

Jun 1st 2011, 17:37

Is this guy serious??? are we THAT stupid that he thinks we are going to actually believe there was no crusade? This did not happen 40 years ago!!

What about the children who came back from their cathecism classes in tears because their teachers told them that if their parents voted yes that meant that they did not love them and that they were going to split up???? and this is NOT from just one parish... what a BUNCH of hypocrites,

Elaine Compagno

Jun 1st 2011, 17:37

Ara vera jahsibna bciecen ta....

Mr Mark Zerafa

Jun 1st 2011, 17:24

re: "The Church did not impose anything on non-believers but, as was its right in a democratic country, it spread its message to Christians."

Tell that to the Marines. Rather than spreading its message to Christians, the Church tried to influence the outcome of the referendum and impose its views on one and all, Christians and non-christians alike.

Mr Peter Paul Sacco

Jun 1st 2011, 17:22

Bis-serjeta' Mons? L-aqwa li ghidtilna 'sorry'.

Mr JOSEPH ZAMMIT

Jun 1st 2011, 17:22

Church did not conduct a crusade.

Come on, Mons, stop insulting our intelligence.

Mr Ronald Cauchi

Jun 1st 2011, 17:19

I do believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy , but it's stretching my gullibility a bit too far to tell me that the Church did not conduct a crusade. It did so covertly and overtly and went beyond the limits of Free speech by indulging in invectives, and name calling by some of its highest echelons. This was not only "not cricket" but at times verged on the criminal by breaking the Corrupt Practices Act.

Mr Joseph Calleja

Jun 1st 2011, 17:18

Archbishop Paul Cremona if you believe that there was no crusade then I must say I have an igloo in the middle of the Sahara Desert I would like to sell. Interested? The church had a message to convey, the Archbishop said. Some call that crusading. Glass half full or half empty? So telling voters that if they vote yes for divorce, they will be committing a sin, isn't that crusading? Then there are "those people favouring divorce who are wolves dressed up in sheep's clothing." I am not even going to mention what else the holier than thou and the anti divorce movement said. I don't even want to mention the many billboards that went up outside churches and all over Malta. That is crusading at best. You still haven't cleared up the question of sin. If one voted yes for divorce?. Is it a sin or not. Simple answer Yes or No will suffice. Your Excellency, the referendum is over, the will of the people was heard, now, can we please move on. Families need to reflect clearly what has happened so they can get back to normal.

Ms Rhonda Balzan Bastow

Jun 1st 2011, 17:10

I was more than a little concerned that letters were sent to women in Malta imploring them to vote LE.
I am so proud of us. This will bring more family suppot services for the children, women and men in the difficjlties of marriage breakdowns. seems hard, but doing nothing would have been much harder...

Mark Brincat

Jun 1st 2011, 17:06

And I'm Mother Theresa!