The decision by the Nationalist Party to abstain on the Civil Unions Bill has been met with a chorus of disapproval by the gay community, independent media and a sizeable portion of PN sympathisers.
I, for one, would have preferred the Opposition to vote in favour of the Bill, short of that to grant its MPs a free vote. I’m sure the PN would have benefited from a free vote because it would have presented itself – following the divorce mess – as a true coalition of liberals and conservatives.
For the sake of fairness, the Opposition did take a stand. In fact, it took a double stand: one in favour of civil unions and the other in favour of more reflection of gay adoptions.
The abstention was not a no-position stance.
In no way can one compare it to Pontius Pilate’s actions.
Had it been like that it would have been condemnable. The abstention was the technical device used to remedy a situation where the Prime Minister, purposely, combined together two different issues.
This is why I do not find the abstention objectionable.
To say I am disappointed by the failure of successive Nationalist governments to introduce civil unions is an understatement.
I’m confident that Simon Busuttil wants the PN at the forefront for civil rights; the question is whether the rest of the parliamentary group is on the same page.
I have my doubts. The PN has a lot of soul searching to do. It needs to urgently discuss its aspirations and future positions on civil issues.
Busuttil’s statement last Sunday that “Muscat has silenced the Church”, stirred a lot of controversy. In his Talking Point, ‘Dragging religion into politics’, Lino Spiteri accused Busuttil of wanting the Curia to “start fighting Nationalist battles”. I find Spiteri’s accusation unfair. I have no doubt this was not what Busuttil had in mind.
God forbid the PN expects the Church to fight its battles. That would spell disaster for the party.
Yes, Busuttil needs help in reconstructing the party, but I’m sure that he is not seeking the bishops’ help for this mammoth task. He knows that would be political suicide.
What I believe Busuttil meant was twofold.
Firstly, that the Prime Minister managed to silence, not only civil society – who, too, have been silent on this matter, as they have been silent on other important matters, such as the citizenship scheme and the LNG tanker – but the Church, too.
Clean politics does not, and should not exclude the Maltese Church from expressing its views with prudence and respect
Labour’s resounding victory in the polls gave many the impression of a government which has the licence to do as it pleases.
But this is not what democracy is all about: civil society, the opposition and the Church have the right, and the duty to express themselves on issues that matter.
The government’s attitude of neutralising whoever disagrees with it is pretty obvious, and worrying.
Secondly, I believe Busuttil was expressing his genuine concern that no debate is happening in Malta on issues that matter, and that this is unhealthy for democracy. He’s right.
Spiteri argued that the bishops know that the “Church has grown weaker than ever before and that direct or perceived meddling in politics will not help to reverse that situation, but will make it worse.”
True, the Church has grown weaker – out of choice. Following the mess it made with the divorce issue, instead of analysing what went wrong, the Church has decided to keep its mouth shut. In France, and Spain the Catholic Church was up in arms when civil unions between gays were introduced. In Malta the Curia was dead silent.
The least I expect is the Church to engage in active debate, and express itself on these important matters. It was only Bishop Charles Scicluna who expressed the Church views on the matter; Scicluna’s comments made the silence of Archbishop Cremona, and of Bishop Mario Grech (whom I have always admired for his outspokenness) sound shriller.
No debate is happening on important issues and I consider that to be unhealthy. With the exception of a handful of priests like Fr Joe Borg and Fr René Camilleri, the Church has lost its voice.
Personally, no argument by the bishops against civil unions would have changed my mind on the matter – I agree with civil unions for gay couples, and would have had no problem had government decided to call it by its proper name, ‘gay marriage’.
But I would have loved to see the Church engage in a healthy debate on the matter, expressing its views, and putting forward suggestions.
Clean politics does not, and should not, exclude the Maltese Catholic Church from expressing its views with prudence and respect. It has an important role to play in Maltese society.
The Maltese Church has a lot of soul searching to do. I am not happy with a defunct Church.
Frank Psaila is a lawyer and presents the TV programme Iswed fuq l-Abjad.