I am increasingly horrified by the lack of Christian charity evinced by so many righteous Catholics and sad for those who do not know their New Testament thoroughly enough to see how often this lack can deviate from compassion in favour of the Old Testament. The basic tenet of Christianity “Love God and love your neighbour as yourself”, the parable of the Good Samaritan (which defines “neighbour” as one who practises kindness as opposed to one who shares the same faith), Jesus’s insistence on “brotherhood”, etc. are totally ignored by believers who manipulate faith versus rather than pro compassion, especially by confusing it with secular politics.

Correct me if I’m wrong. Jesus tells us to treat others as we would like to be treated, which, I assume, means that we should try to understand and respect the difference of others, even our enemies. And yet, here in Malta, it seems we refuse them, despite Vatican Council II, the right to be different. Is this charity? I think it is essentially Christian to vote for a measure which can allow non-believers another chance for love at a secular level, even if we deny it to ourselves.

I can’t believe the cruelty of the billboard Żwieġ li Jiskadi? – Le, grazzi. (Marriage that expires? – No, thank you). Does anyone really want marriage to expire, which it does at the point of separation, not divorce? It seems that those whose marriages succeed, instead of counting themselves fortunate, grow judgemental. Has it occurred to them that others go through hell when their marriage breaks up, that they too would love to say “Le, grazzi”, and that perhaps the suffering of separation actually teaches lessons of spiritual growth? That it is the material society of economic development we live in which shapes the prevalent consumerist attitude to marriage, and that this attitude might not be the fault of the immature? Some marriages are beleaguered by spiritual problems which, in Maltese society, are ignored by mindsets still attuned to rigid, patriarchal roles, supported by anachronistic presentations of the Christian message. The short, fresh, vibrant Bishop of London’s address to the royal couple, by refusing to resort to cliché, presented the goals of a Christian family which can really be the cornerstone of tomorrow’s society:

...you have aligned yourselves with what we believe is the way in which life is spiritually evolving, and which will lead to a creative future for the human race.

We stand looking forward to a century which is full of promise and full of peril. Human beings are confronting the question of how to use wisely a power that has been given to us through the discoveries of the last century. We shall not be converted to the promise of the future by more knowledge, but rather by an increase of loving wisdom and reverence, for life, for the earth and for one another.

Are Maltese marriages encouraged to evolve creatively even outside the home in a non-religious context?

Do we stress the duty of partners to help fulfil the potential talent each has to offer society? Or are women, for example, despite verbal concessions to the contrary, still expected to fit into pre-cast moulds of motherhood which stifle rather than fulfil their spirit and generosity? Marriages can fail because the spiritual self is stunted by role-playing, if partners do not put this essentially Christian and humane perspective into practice. Some persons evolve because of the failure of a static orthodox marriage. We should argue for the spirit of a true union, not the letter of a failed one even if, for some, it has to be through divorce.