Will it be politics, infernal politics?
Usually politicians speak metaphorically of heaven and hell. Heaven is their spot in government while hell is the other party's tenure of office. Last Saturday during the mass meeting of the Partit Laburista at Ta' Qali, the Labour leader, for some strange reason, decided to move on from the metaphor to the real thing.
The introduction into the local political discourse of the fear (or lack of fear) of hell by Dr Joseph Muscat is as undesirable as it is wanton. It is as disrespectful of people's believes as it is demagogic. Isn't the political environment hot enough with the discussion about the minimum or living wage; higher or lower utility bills; blues against reds and so on and so forth? Do we need more heat generated by the high temperatures of the infernal regions?
Following the mass meeting of the Partit Laburista on One TV I was flabbergasted. You can watch it on You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PQB-CRscVJY#! )
The sequence started ok. Dr Muscat in a very civil but assertive way made an electoral promise.
"Il-breakthrough il-gdid fil-qasam tal-libertajiet civili li se jaghmel Gvern gdid jekk jinghata l-fiducja huwa li jwaqqaf l-istituzzjoni ta' unjoin civili bejn koppji ta' l-istess sess."
("The new breakthrough in the field of civil liberties that will be introduced by the new government is the setting up of civil unions between couples of the same sex.)
The audience was very supportive. Clapping was universal. He exhorted the crowds.
"Hbieb tieghi, hbieb tieghi, tibzghux, tibzghux."
(My friends, my friends, do not be afraid. Do not be afraid)
Then all hell (pun intended) broke loose. His non-verbal was louder than the ever increasing vocal energy he used to communicate his declaration.
"Dan huwa l-Moviment li ma bezghax li jmur l-infern biex jghid dawk l-affarijiet li jemmen fihom."
(This is the Movement that was not afraid of hell and said the things that it believed should be said."
At this point his voice reached a crescendo so much so that one could notice a quiver in his voice. Anger was all over his face. The crowds approved with their clapping.
Dr Muscat continued his harangue, angry as ever. (And I ask why all this anger?)
"U kif missierijietna ma bezghux li jmorru l-infern and they stood up to be counted, we will stand up to be counted ghad-drittijiet tal-koppji omosesswali u tal-familji godda f'pajjizna."
(And in the same way that our fathers were not afraid to go to hell but stood up to be counted so we will stand up and be counted in favour of the right of homosexual couples and the new families.)
The scene was an unnecessary throwback to the worst instances of the Sixties. This is 2012. More than forty years have passed since that fateful and unfortunate (in this respect) decade. The mistakes done (including many by the Church) opened wounds in our society which still linger on.
I think that the Church learned a lot from that those mistakes. History proves it.
During the dark Eighties the Church was under tremendous pressure because of the attack on its schools and the confiscation of its property. However the Church under the guidance of Archbishop Mercieca defended its turf and the future of the schools with great dignity. Archbishop Mercieca went twice to court to defend the basic human rights of the Catholic community. It was his right and his duty to do so.
I was in a meeting when someone suggested that the Archbishop should write a pastoral letter and have it read in Churches to explain why he had gone to court. Archbishop Mercieca declined to do so. He did not wish the liturgy to be eschewed because of this controversy. He wanted to keep the tension to the minimum possible even if he was attacked that he was not doing enough to defend the church. He only did the minimum that he felt in conscience bound to do.
The proposal to introduce civil partnership for gay couples will undoubtedly be controversial. Many will be against. Many will see it as just a first step to gay marriages. The debate will be heated.
But does anyone think that our present bishops would threaten anyone with hell fire if he or she would be in favour? The bishops will undoubtedly do what in conscience they would feel bound to do but they wound not do anything as inflammatory as the speech of Dr Muscat. The bishops would be betraying the Church and the democratic process if they remain silent. But their participation in the national debate would certainly be most civil.
One hopes that the attitude of Dr Muscat last Saturday is the exception that will not be repeated. It would be a great pity if we pass from politics, bloody politics to politics, infernal politics.
(Owing to a technical problem, comments submitted earlier today - Wednesday - were lost)
Popular Stories
In Discussion
36 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joseph Borg
Oct 2nd 2012, 21:23
Hypocrite. In your article you condemn the 60's and the 80,s. Do you imagine telling Mikiel Gonzi that the PN in govt have legalised the law of divorce. Think if this was debated and legalised under Dom Mintoff govt at the time of archbishop Gonzi what kind of excomunication would the labourites receive. And rthe worse is coming if the law of IVF will come to pass as well. You are a catholic priest and suppose you know that Christ teaching is not a fashion that changes in times.
M Abdilla
Sep 29th 2012, 10:35
You condemn the memory of the Church in the 60s, yet never have I read anything from you condemning the PN for their constant reminding of the 80s...hypocrisy at its very best!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Sep 29th 2012, 22:43
During the 1960s, the church and the PN were licking each other's backside.
Joe Zammit
Sep 29th 2012, 09:03
Those who make fun of hell prove the despair and hell they are already experiencing here on earth.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 29th 2012, 04:18
No less a person than the present leader of the Labour Party has, once and for all, dispelled the canard that the Malta diocese sent anyone to hell.
We have it from his own mouth in a public utterance that it was diehard Labourites, the "suldati tal-azzar" who deliberately opted to go to hell so as to foster their socialist ideas.
No one sent them there. It was their deliberate choice. That is what Joseph Muscat's meant by the words: " ... Dan huwa l-Moviment li ma bezghax li jmur l-infern biex jghid dawk l-affarijiet li jemmen fihom ... ". Moreover his other words: ""U kif missierijietna ma bezghux li jmorru l-infern and they stood up to be counted, .... we will stand up to be counted .... " imply that he has no regrets about that choice to go to hell and that the LP is willing to do the same again.
So, please, could we have less talk about the Church sending anyone to hell?
M Portelli
Sep 30th 2012, 09:05
You embody the true spirit of all that was distorted in the 60's. Your misguided love for the Temporal Church and the status quo coupled with your propensity to put your political belief above all else leads you to very unchristian paths. If anything the above comment merely reinforces why it is necessary to take up the plight of those who are marginalised. One can only welcome your outbursts because they help illustrate to the young the democratic climate that prevailed in the 60's. So please do young readers a favour and keep airing the fact that your world view is pretty much still fixated in the spirit of the 60's.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 30th 2012, 10:56
@ M Portelli, today at 09:05.
I set no value to your personal opinion about me. However I would appreciate any intelligent comment that would question the truth of my observation. So far you have provided any.
M Portelli
Sep 30th 2012, 13:51
Of course dear Sir, who would expect anything else from you? You set no value on anything except your own view and your version of fact to the exclusion of anyone or anything that deviates from a fit into that particular tight little pigeon hole you favour. Give up your semantic fencing, there are too many narratives that are well and truly alive in the memories of the living for you to attempt such crass disparaging of the marginalised departed. The truth of your observation indeed !
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 30th 2012, 20:50
@ M Portelli today at 13.51.
What I expect from you is logic in preference to your brash and negligible opinion. There is nothing wrong in that. Please try it.
I set a big value not on biased opinions but on logic and I do not detect any in your comment. I spot only unsolicited opinions and inappropriate bombastic cliches such as "semantic fencing" "narratives that are well and truly alive in memories of the living" (as if your "marginalized departed" had different memories) etc.
I hope that you do not dare deny that Joseph Muscat boasted openly about staunch laborites who chose deliberately to go to hell to further their aim and his augury that present day labourites would be ready to do the same. Those are the words of Joseph Muscat. I am only quoting him. That is today's news and not something from the remote past that has to be dredged up from fading memories about any marginalized departed.
M Portelli
Oct 1st 2012, 17:49
Oh dear lord , here's another one who assumes he can put a straight jacket on 21st century language use and semantic value precisely because the only opinion he can stomach is his biased own. Talk of warped logic. Your illogical allusion to present day news with the disingenuous intention of disparaging the marginalised dead gets you no nearer to heaven. Your logic stumps itself in the bigoted potholes you dig yourself into. You go through great lengths to impose memory barriers on yourself . Nonetheless, you are powerless to impose them on the collective memory of thousands as you are powerless to dictate how language should be used.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 1st 2012, 21:00
@ M Portelli today at 17:49.
Your response to my request that you use less bombast is to open the flood gate to more meaningless bombast. Don't you even realize it when you are being swept away by your pompous verbosity instead of presenting logical arguments!
Now, please get back on track and start to fume about Joseph Muscat's unbelievable lack of judgment when he boasted about the MLP's deliberately choosing to go to hell in the past and its eagerness to do so again, now!
It is an axiom that: De gustibus non est disputandum - if only there wasn't 'the grave risk of dragging the rest of us with him into his hell.
M Portelli
Oct 2nd 2012, 12:47
Thank you for proving my point with your latest comment. Don't work your amygdala into overdrive.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 4th 2012, 17:12
@ Mr M Portelli, Oct 2 at 12:47
You do not have any point that I could prove or disprove and that could put a strain on any part of my brain. It is agreat pity that you do not understand that.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 28th 2012, 10:01
@ Henry S Pace, yesterday at 21:01.
Could you please provide more corrections and re-write your last paragraph so that it would become comprehensible and so that it would conform to the truth?
Gonzi kept his promise to introduce a divorce bill but it is a flagrant lie to claim that Gonzi "voted in favour of the Divorce Law" when parliament voted on it.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Sep 29th 2012, 00:21
Gonzi the politician and all the otehr politicians who voted against divorce (and that includes two LP MPs) did not respect the will of the majority.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 29th 2012, 11:25
@ Joseph Carme Chetcuti.
The "will of the majority" is irrelevant where matters of individual conscience are concerned, unless you harbour some illusion that the voice of the foolish majority is the voice of God. Morality is irrelevant to democracy or any other form of government.
Henry S Pace
Sep 27th 2012, 21:01
@ Francis Saliba M.D.
A CORRECTION. i WANTED TO SAY TtHE PL LEADER JOSEPH MUSCAT.
' Your version is total "bluff" with no relation to the true course of events. Gonzi did NOT vote in favour of
te Divorce Law. 'h
The PN Leader declared in Parliament that he is ' catholic ' yet he voted in favour of the Divorce Law. e divorce law - he voted against ;
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 28th 2012, 09:54
@ Henry S Pace yesterday at 21:01.
Could you please make another correction by rewriting your concluding paragraph.
Gonzi did introduce a divorce bill for discussion in parliament
Lucienne Dimech
Sep 27th 2012, 20:24
But fr why should one go to hell if he stands up for gay rights? Aren't the gay also children of the same god who,is meant to father all of us (poor fellow)
carlos ellul
Sep 27th 2012, 19:13
I think that what Joseph was trying to say, is that he doesn't mind passing from the same calvary the 'suldati tal azzar' had passed if the issue in question is morally right (gay rights). His anger reflects the hurt many labourites still feel about the injustice they suffered in the past. An injustice that set the ball rolling for various good reforms that strengthened tolerance but also violence which unfortunately culminated during the 80s.
The 50s-80s had effected us all and we should forgive and forget. Its time for our political parties to mature and stop mentioning things that happened 20-30yrs ago and have no impact on what is happening now. Its a shame that while both the church and the MLP had given their apologies on their share of mistakes, the PN (the party had remained silent while half the country was suffering during the interdett + was against various social policies including pensions, women rights and the discrimination of homosexuality) still think that they had always been in the right side of history.
Henry S Pace
Sep 27th 2012, 15:33
' U kif missierijietna ma bezghux li jmorru l-infern and they stood up to be counted, we will stand up to be TThere is nothing to bluff aboutcounted ghad-drittijiet tal-koppji omosesswali u tal-familji godda f'pajjizna."
This is nothing to bluff about. The PN Leader declared in Parliament that he is ' catholic ' yet he voted in favour of the Divorce Law. Again what he said on Saturday is nothing new. He must be afraid of the Lord God and not of hell. JM becareful of what you say.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 27th 2012, 16:26
@ Henry S Pace, today at 15:33.
Your version is total "bluff" with no relation to the true course of events. Gonzi did NOT vote in favour of the divorce law - he voted against.
The Prime Minister held a non-binding referendum about the presentation of a divorce bill in parliament. He complied with the expressed wish of the minority of voters that actually bothered to vote in favour of the presentation of a divorce bill in parliament. But then, as a true Catholic, he voted AGAINST the divorce bill because he felt bound to do so in compliance with Christ's unequivocal prohibition of divorce and because of his respect for God's teaching and his final judgment.
pat muscat
Sep 27th 2012, 14:14
Malta may have a laid-back image of relaxation, of sea, sand and sun. But for gays, who suffer from discrimination, lack of dignity and basic human rights,Malta is closer to hell!
Only last week, a TOM journalist was doing his work, asking the Prime Minister Dr Lawrence Gonzi whether the time has come to give gays, the basic rights of civil union and marriage. And what happened in this meeting chaired by the Prime Minister who 'embodies' he says change?
Gonzi's crowd started booing the journalist !
Did the Prime Minister stop the crowds, or apologized? NO, ma tarax!
He simply continued talking,as if booing against gay rights is the normal thing to do!
The truth is Father Joe, that your friend, GonziPN, has an obsession with old taboos ( infern for Labourites, infern for those who vote for divorce) and a contempt ( as GonziPN's cheering crowd showed) for new ones, that is contempt for gay's civil rights!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 27th 2012, 15:14
Taking pride on deliberately choosing to go to hell is one of Joseph Muscat's most recent accomplisments. Neither GonziPN's nor the Church promised "infern" for anyone voting for divorce. The Church taught it was wrong and categorically disapproved by Christ. Only Christ, and not any other human being would decide who goes to hell or to heaven according to his own personal volition.
These obvious truths about your "old" and "new taboos" do not come in useful to boost your libertarian agenda but all intelligent readers won't be fooled by your tampering with true facts.
pat muscat
Sep 27th 2012, 16:57
@DR Francis Saliba.
It is indeed a pity that whilst contemporary European authors- Andrea Camilleri 'il diavolo, certament' (2012 Mondadori) write about the devil and hell in order to entertain European readers, GonziPN and friends-the liberal Party as one blogger calls it!!!......- are still writing and using ' fear' as a political weapon against the LP and against gays; and this in 2012!
Mr Joe Borg
Sep 27th 2012, 18:59
@ Pat Muscat. Saying that there is "infern" for Labourites is plain stupid. I know many Labour supporters who are very good Catholics. There is nothing which says that you cannot be both a good Labour supporter and a good Catholic. It is also plain stupid that there is "l-infern" for those who votes in favour of divorce legislation. I do not meddle in people's consciences. Please note that while the Catholic Church feels competent to declare that someone went to heaven (this is what canonisation is all about) it has never declared that someone went to hell.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 27th 2012, 19:56
@ Pat Muscat, today at 16:57.
I have said more than enough to convince any intelligent person that GonziPN is NOT "still writing and using fear (of hell) as a political weapon". On the contrary, it was Joseph Muscat leader of the LP who without any provocation from anybody actually boasted that MLP stalwarts actively sought to go to hell in pursuit of their political objectives.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 27th 2012, 11:28
@ Mario Scicluna today at 10:05.
No value should be attached to the opinion of someone who is so naive as to believes that Dante's Inferno
portrays a "good glimpse of hell" and that it accurately describes the eternal punishment promised by Christ for those who flouted his laws.
One might just as well express brash pride that the Labour Movement did not fear to go to hell ( ... li ma bezghax li jmur l-infern).
Mario Scicluna
Sep 27th 2012, 10:05
''The proposal to introduce civil partnership for gay couples will undoubtedly be controversial. Many will be against. Many will see it as just a first step to gay marriages. The debate will be heated.
But does anyone think that our present bishops would threaten anyone with hell fire if he or she would be in favor? ''
Let me remind you in case you forgot, or wish to forget Fr. Borg about the 'Crusade' that was conducted recently during the Divorce Referendum issue, indirectly and directly orchestrated by the Church in Malta.
Lest we forget the images portrayed of Our Lord, Our Lady of Sorrow processions instigating that the Lord himself is against Divorce , billboard and signs on church Purvis and all that other farcical nonsense! Nonsensical to say the least and sheer madness , not to mention the insults and ridicule for those whom supported this CIVIL RIGHT. Taf x'kien jonqos Fr. Borg?, li nigu mheddha li nintefaw l-infern ukoll. Nobody said it from within the Church ranks, but it was very close to being said. What about the fanatical and frenzied attacks on Onor. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando eh? Or the orchestrated attacks on Deborah Schembri being booted out of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal?
If introduced, the Church and PN shrieked, it will bring havoc on those stable marriages, relationships, families etc. Imma how stupid can anyone get! Divorce is for those that their so-called 'marriage' is ALREADY broken!!!
Ultimately, the Divorce Referendum passed with an astounding YES majority, despite the hate and lies, and yet, PM Gonzi 'e bella kumpanijja' voted AGAINST the will of the people in a legitimate and correct exercise of democracy/ Unbelievable! The PN Prime Minister Gonzi and his close clique voting in Parliament against such a civil right, for conscience!! Mela ahna mhux kuxjenza ghandna wkoll Fr. Borg, or are we children of a lesser God??
To add insult to injury Fr. Borg, after such maniacal campaign and declarations on family morals, l-ghaqda tal-Familji' and what not, The 'Partit Nazzjonalista' tar-Religio et Patria came up with a flash of sheer genius proposition, the Cohabitation Law! What the Hell?!! Ahna ahna Jew M'Ahniex? The PN and Curia were against legal and responsible Divorce that would stabilize and solidify the rights of separated couples, children etc from the outset, now it's encouraging the Cohabitation???
And now? The proposal to introduce civil partnership for gay couples. Whilst in my opinion, they have every right, It would be interesting to know if in reality, these individuals are welcome in the Church or not, same as us lot called 'midinbin' after we legally separated and cohabitated. Needless to say, for love of course.
Fr. Borg, I suggest you have a good read by an important someone going by the name of Dante, I'm sure you met him in your studies, and you will get a good glimpse of Hell, and not panic and unnecessary fuss over what JM's declarations.
M Portelli
Sep 27th 2012, 11:32
The reverend's umbrage and hand wringing has nothing to do with hot coals, roasting pits , frozen lakes of blood and guilt, William Blake, Hieronymus Bosch paintings , the junta of the 60's or gentle bishops . it's more to do with the potential loss of the Pink vote and stoking the fear factor. He is becoming rather obvious and sadly predictable as the days go by and the electoral ticking clock gets louder. His tolerance for the possibility of an alternative political scenario seems so limited it drives him to assume he can put a straight jacket on language use now. What is hilarious is that in this digital age, the right reverend is imbued with a fantastic amount of arrogance that assumes he is sole proprietor of the semantic value for the word 'Infern' and that only he can sanction its use in public speaking.
Mario Scicluna
Sep 27th 2012, 05:47
''I think that the Church learned a lot from those mistakes. History proves it.''
What did history prove Fr. Borg? Has it really Fr. Borg??
Mistakes you say? Burying persons in the 'Mizbla' is a mistake Fr. Borg? Not giving absolution and refusing to administer various Catholic Holy Sacraments are also common mistakes during Archbishop's Michael Gonzi's fanatic rule, aided of course by Partit Nazzjonalista ? 50 long years had to pass until ultimately, the (latter or former not sure) Archbishop had to utter a forced apology. And let's be clear and frank about it, I sincerely hope it was a genuine one.
And lastly Fr,. Borg, besides the usual rhetoric and usual scaremongering by the Curia and it's traditional PN ally, why is it that there is not a 'clear' and 'concise' position by the local Church about IVF and is keeping mum(scuse the pun) whilst an election is approaching? And please don't insult my intelligence quoting Cana's communique...
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 27th 2012, 10:34
@ Mario Scicluna, today at 05:47
The mistake is when you adopt the deceptive name "mizbla" for that section of the Addolorata Cemetry that was reserved for the burial of non-practicing Catholics. That is a pejorative term spread by the MLP to incite hatred of the Church and the government of the day.
Another mistake is to fail to understand that the sacrament of reconciliation is not at the disposal of those who openly refuse to repent and to ask forgiveness.
Your third mistake is to speak of a non-existent "fanatic rule" by an Archbishop who never formed a part of any Nationalist Party government but who had actually served as a senator representing the labour movement (not the Nationalist Party)
Your fourth mistake is to pretend that the Partit Nazzjonalista was "aided" by the MLP-Church dispute. That is an MLP lie intended to camouflage the real reason for the long equence of rejections of the MLP at the polls long after that dispute was settled.
william cauchi
Sep 27th 2012, 13:14
''Your fourth mistake is to pretend that the Partit Nazzjonalista was "aided" by the MLP-Church dispute'' Ho, Ho, Ho, Ho, Ho.
Francis Saliba, you could make most Maltese, of whatever colour, that lived through those times, laugh all day and night. Mind you, I was a Nazzjonalist and still am, but with big, irrevocable reserves about it's current line-up.
But to negate what was so black on white means that your blinkers, and what's in between, needs a total refurbishment.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 27th 2012, 15:51
@ William Cauchi today at 13:14
It would need much more than your string of HO HOs to provide a logical argument in support of your glib assertion that the MLP-Church dispute aids the Nationalist Party to obtain the current string of electoral victories spread over decades and so long after that dispute was over and done with.
Your claim is not substantiated by any "black on white" proof that you do not provide, neither to blinkers. It is most likely due to total red-green colour blindness. There is no remedy for it.
M Portelli
Sep 26th 2012, 21:24
What a naive and disingenous attempt at behavioural analysis.I see indignation is the sole prerogative of a minute section of society with a particular moral post code is it ? Civil right for a particular minority not on the agenda, miffed are we, fear of losing the pink vote is it ? Why don't you give us your exalted and incisive analysis of that crass and shameful display by Prime Minister Gonzi together with that disgusting crowd orchestration greeting his deprecation of the civil rights the LGBT community aspire to? Is it European Malta 2012 or isn't it? Perhaps your brilliance can't percieve why the political performance by said Prime Minister is first class 1962 -69 denigration rhetoric and crowd orchestration worthy of the misguided Junta of the time? Don't tell us your hawk eye missed that revealing shot of Carl Gouder's shell shocked countenance in the midst of that shameful booing crowd? Why don't you take time out to analyse that? Talk about hell and fear indeed! What could have been worse for that Pn MP than the vehement repudiation of the democratic aspirations of the minority he belongs to? Let's face it, the lip service to political correctness uttered by the Prime Minister fooled no one. Truly a case of L' enter c'est l'autre moment for Karl Gouder there. definitely a case of certain 'other people' being the most effective kind of hell, those that insist on cognitive dissonance what ever the costs. The PN the party for change was it ?
Ps While you're at it, why don't you analyze the effects the Prime Minister's 'fish wife' screeching delivery has on undecided voters? Should be right up your academic street no?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Sep 26th 2012, 20:13
" Dan huwa l-Moviment li ma bezghax li jmur l-infern biex jghid dawk l-affarijiet li jemmen fihom." (Joseph Muscat).
The correct translation of these fighting words by Joseph Muscat is NOT: "This is the Movement that was not afraid of hell and said the things that it believed should be said."
The precise translation is: "This is the Movement that was not afraid to go to hell .... "
I believe that the difference is significant - although the usual lot will again pretend not to understand.
Please choose the reason of your report below: