Tabloid Warning. It’s the Daily Mail speaking but it does quote YouGov research so I guess the material is “discussable” on an ephemeral level. The Daily Mail carries an article that claims that lack of love and (lack of) sex is driving the over-50s to divorce. Within the context of the whole divorce debate in Malta which does not shy away from throwing in the issue of whether divorce legislation causes marriage break-ups it is interesting to look at the list of troubles that married couples face – one can presume that these troubles exist with or without divorce.
28% – emotionally cold
27% – lack of commitment to marriage
25% – lack of interest in physical relationship
23% – inability to resolve or manage conflict
23% – other
14% – nagging
13% – met someone else
12% – abandonment
11% – alcohol/drug addiction
10% – nothing to talk about
9% – difficult relationship with step-children
9% – not contributing enough financially
8% – job that made things difficult
Recently someone dropped a comment on a newspaper discussion board comparing the relationship between divorce and marriage to that between funerals and death. The import was obvious – funerals do not cause deaths but inevitably take place following a death. As a prelude to the discussion on whether a referendum is eventually a “just” solution for our society or simply the mother of all scapegoats for the “sanscouillistas” in our parliament we can spend time discussing whether divorce is actually a cause of break ups or whether there is not enough on the list already. And I have not even included Tiger Woods.
At the time of the French revolution, part of the French population took to calling another part of the population “les sansculottes”. According to one theory, the name is derived from the fact that the partisans of this particular revolutionary faction wore pantaloons (full-length trousers) instead of the fashionable knee-length culotte. (Wikipedia’s summary). I’ve always wondered why rather than being called ‘Les Pantaloons’, they were defined by what they did not wear, but that must be down to the fact that the point where sartorial affairs and politics converge more often than not involves criticism rather than praise.
Anyway, together with the Jacobins, the sansculottes were among the violent elements of the revolution. Unlike the Jacobins, they came from the working class and have bequeathed us the term “sans-culottism” meaning extreme egalitarian republican principles. The sansculottes disappeared shortly after the fall of Robespierre’s reign of terror and they left us the image of the carmagnole, the red cap of liberty and the sabots (clogs).
In today’s exciting times we have witnessed revolutions linked to colours, such as the red, purple and orange revolutions. We have also, in moments of great social upheaval, witnessed the blooming of “styles” and “fashions” that are a result of or reaction to the current political mood. In that sense, the sansculottes were the precursors to the mods, the punks, the rebels and the twittervolutionaries of today’s world but never, ever in his life would Jacques (René, if you please) Hébert, the revolutionary mentor of the sansculottes, have imagined the possibility of the movement of “les sanscouilles”.
Balls
Yet, all through this past week you couldn’t help but wonder whether just such a movement is forming in our collective sub-conscious and whether or not it manifested itself in the guise of our more prominent politicians and so-called investigative journalists when the divorce issue was once again discussed. Maltese, being the flowery expressive language that it is, lends itself perfectly to explaining what les sanscouilles is all about – and unless the linguistic fascists are hiding in ambush behind some corner, the best way to spell the Maltese version of sanscouilles is bla bajd.
Yep. The sanscouilles movement is made up of a combination of political Farinellis combined with the journalistic eunuchs who tend to fan their divas during performances. Lest I be accused of gender bias, I invite you to consider this whole ballsy business as an extended metaphor that applies to male and female alike. The defining trait of the sanscouilles is their inability to shoulder a modicum of responsibility and provide an inkling of inspirational politics; instead of responsibly taking a stand one way or another, they will wait to see which way the wind is blowing and find innumerable ways to postpone putting their neck on the line.
Contrary to public perception, the notion of the sanscouilles has less to do with ideas of virility and more with the ideal of responsible leadership. A quick run through the week’s events on divorce should really lead this country’s last remaining conscientious voters to despair. The sanscouilles movement is gaining ground… it is out there. It is everywhere.
The Emperor’s Clothes
I was told that Joseph Muscat pulled of quite a performance on Tuesday’s self-referential show of investigative journalism. I was told that by friends of mine who don’t usually bother turning up at the ballot box on Malta’s five-year anniversary equivalent of Doomsday. It was when the press started to report Joseph’s refreshed position on divorce that I wondered how my friends could buy this kind of pitch from a politician who, in the words of a commentator on J’accuse, “appears to have acquired his political education from the back of a Belgian beer mat”.
Then it clicked. Surely the prancing and sashaying of Malta’s prime example of castrato journalism could only have unwittingly (absence of wit is taken as read in most programmes) aided and abetted Muscat’s unprincipled approach to the divorce debate. Of course, if, unlike me, you are more than willing to watch the Emperor march around naked without giving him so much as a word of warning as to his glaring state of nudity, then you too will be equally appeased with his idea of “responsible divorce” combined with a “free vote for his party”.
The presenter’s position is compromised from the start. Comforted by the fact that his bias no longer needs to be declared (it’s to himself, lest you were wondering), his programmes are beyond “boring and dull”, having transformed into a self-referential sequence exposing the very best of selective journalistic incompetence. At any other time, on any other channel, Lou could be playing whatever tune he likes but prime time investigative journalism on national TV deserves much more than the image of castrated journalists playing second fiddle to whatever member of Parliament is on stage at the moment. Given that WE’s other programme has now completely taken leave of all senses and started to discuss close encounters of the third kind, the urgent need of a non-castrated style of journalism is all the more glaring.
But back to Muscat. His particular brand of sanscouillism is of the incredibly non-committal kind while sounding the exact opposite. Unless you manage to cut beyond the words and look into what is really being said, you might as well be listening to Ahmed the Dead Terrorist. Which is why Bondi’s castrato style journalism could not work. If he challenges Muscat he gets reminded that he is biased. If he goes along with him he ends up promising to endorse his “responsible divorce” campaign.
Muscat’s tergiversation stems from an inability to place the divorce issue in real constitutional terms and fails to appreciate his responsibilities both as Leader of the Opposition and aspirant leader of a nation. Divorce is not the kind of “right” that results from some majority-voting stint but is a legal possibility that is enacted in the interests (more often than not) of the few. What Muscat fails to understand is that you can be in favour of divorce legislation without necessarily being in favour of divorce.
Muscat tries to get away with this new-fangled notion of “responsible” divorce as though there is such a thing as irresponsible divorce. Sure we do not want a situation where the mere repetition of the cursèd word thrice would result in divorce like some Red Slippers gone all matrimonial. On the other hand, this shuffling of feet and hiding behind terms is not progressive at all. A progressive leader should have taken the bull by the horns and by this time presented what his idea of divorce should be – caveats and all – and be pushing to get it enacted in parliament for the benefit of those citizens who fulfil the conditions and desire to move on to a different, married life. Instead we get enigmatic “responsible divorce”. Well, so long as it’s responsible. Then again. What if I said “responsible mercy killing”? What say you about “responsible heroin consumption”? “Responsible castration”?
The high kind of pitch
And while Muscat was busy dancing with Lou to whatever music was being played at the never-ending end credits, Malta’s own Don Quixote was busy meeting our Prime Minister on the matter of his draft law on divorce. Now, I have already once more lauded JPO for the single-handed way he has pushed the sanscouilliste movement into some form of action on the divorce matter. On the other hand it was particularly jarring to see the push and pull of the JPO-Gonzi saga shortly after the meeting took place. First JPO met some members of the free press and declared that next year would be a great time for the harvest of both parliamentary discussions and referendum.
What-ho? Yep. The erstwhile backbencher had apparently been given the nihil obstat from up high to announce to the men of the realm that divorce would definitely be on the agenda in 2011, as would be an eventual referendum. Referendum? Did anyone say referendum? Is our hero tilting at windmills, suddenly drained of all mental faculties? Has he too succumbed to sanscouillism? Who on earth mentioned referenda? Do these folks even know how things are meant to work in this constitutional republic of ours?
Better still out came the OPM claiming that, yes, there was an agreement to proceed with the discussion but there was no mention of a referendum and that it would be best left to the electorate to decide. The electorate? It was like being knocked out twice within an hour. No referendum plus the electorate can only mean one thing in my book: that we will wait for the next general election for the divorce issue to be placed in the party’s manifesto and that a vote on the matter could only be taken after such a national vote.
Marchons! Marchons! A la Castille! You could hear the hordes of sanscouilles marching in line. They would storm Castille once again and spread the revolutionary fervour of the ball-less to the four corners of the islands. The divorce question had become a question of pass the parcel all over again and from Muscat to JPO to Gonzi the movement of the sanscouilles could only offer the electorate a castrato version of realpolitik. Wash your hands and let them decide. Pontius Pilate would be proud.
The seven brothers
Then it came. When you least expected it and from the last place you would expect it. The voice of reason. Seven Church brothers sat down around a table and fleshed out a declaration “on conscience and divorce”. In the land of sanscouillism, seven men of the cloth came up with an eye-opener of a declaration that made you want to stand up on the nearest pulpit or stage and shout “Hallelujah”. Here was a ballsy statement divorced from the fire and brimstone rhetoric of brother Said Pullicino and divorced from the foot shuffling opportunism of the sanscouilliste community. The seven brothers called a spade a spade. And they reminded the whole bloody lot of the sanscouilliste community of the political role of one’s conscience – and one’s responsibility towards both society and one’s conscience.
For yes, there was much more to be read into the seven brothers’ invitation than a simple reminder that a real Catholic votes with an informed conscience. They went beyond that. They had no qualms reminding the devout that “for Catholics divorce is wrong whether permitted by civil law or not”. However, they did also emphasise the importance of evaluating one’s options by acting with an informed conscience bearing in mind one’s own morals and values – in this case God’s teaching.
The seven brothers introduced a new, important angle to the argument. They have not only repaired the damage to the Church’s image caused by Said Pullicino’s media-eval stance, but have provided an important example for the wider society. I dare go so far as stating that theirs is the real Christian democrat position that is miles apart from the tergiversation within the soul of the supposed Christian democrat party of Malta.
This is the how the role of a social actor is fulfilled. With a clear indication and an appraisal of every individual’s role in society and how he should go about fulfilling it. Instead of fire and brimstone, the brothers gave us the duty to inform our conscience and decide in good faith based on those considerations. After all, it is not just votes on the introduction of divorce that require greater reflection and an informed conscience. Someone, somewhere, still has faith in intelligent voters who will get us out of this mess.
www.akkuza.com is still sick of laryngitis. We’re sicker still of the sanscouillistes but still can’t find the right prescription.
The Church (in Malta) has spoken. Then again it has not. Seven men described by the Times as “high-profile” priests got together and fleshed out a declaration “about Conscience and Divorce”. The paper is described as follows by the Times:
The paper is a personal initiative of the priests even though some of them occupy prominent roles within the Church hierarchy. According to sources, the position paper has the tacit approval of the Archbishop who had mentioned the initiative during a meeting of the Diocesan Assembly.
So it is not exactly an official position of the Catholic Church – as, I must haste to add, neither was Said Pullicino’s Sunday Rant (although, one controversial element was its appearance on the website of the Archdiocese – giving it more than a look of tacit approval). In any case while the inner workings of the Church as to what constitutes approval or otherwise are not up to us to dicuss it would be sensible to have a clear cut statement at least confirming that whatever consitutes an authority in this corner of the world for the purposes of church business is in accord with the statement by the seven brothers in Christ.
The statement is a welcome contribution in the sense that it is a much less “fire and brimstone” approach to the social role of catholics in society. It must be handled in that manner. It is not blackmailing a catholic into submissive obedience but is reminding him his duty to use his conscience according to God’s word. The word “sin” is used once and qualified with “possibly” – a word denoting uncertainty. It’s not that simple though. For Catholics Divorce is not good – point 4 of the letter is as clear as crystal on that and I have absolutely no intention to argue with that because it is neither my business nor any other lay person’s. What this letter does contrary to Said Pullicino’s Sunday Rant is that it puts the catholic person’s decision in perspective of the society around him as well as making it clear how his conscience should deal with the issue.Incidentally the Times’ accompanying picture of the infamous billboard is not only misguiding but unfair towards the very efforts of the seven brothers to clear the air.
In a very Lutheran approach, the seven brothers ask the Catholic to look into his heart and use his own conscience at what he thinks is the best answer – as inspired by God and as they believe God’s will is for the common good. Man’s free will and choice based on informed reflection can lead him to any decision – he will have to face his own conscience when deciding if he chose based on good will, good intention and upon proper reflection. And that – may I remind you – is what applies to the practising Catholic.
Personally I have long reached the conclusion that were I a practising Catholic I would vote in favour of divorce legislation. As a practising catholic that would not mean that I am in favour of divorce or that I would use the option but that I am aware of my role in a wider society in which people with different faiths from my own are being discriminated against by this imposition of one faith’s precepts over another. On a social level the arguments for and against the evils of divorce might as well be the arguments for and against the evils of marriage. As a catholic living in a wider society that is not necessarily catholic I would feel safe in my conscience voting for the introduction of divorce legislation by way of my belief that I have a duty to contribute to the general well being of society as a whole. The possibility of divorce does not detract from that well being. In certain cases (though not all) it could even improve it. (An argument that applies for both marriage as contracted nowadays and divorce).
The seven brothers have introduced a new, important angle to the argument. They have, in a way, repaired the damage to the church’s image caused by Said Pullicino’s medieval stance. Their contribution should not only be noted by the greater society but should be used as an example. After all it is not just votes on the introduction of divorce that require greater reflection and an informed conscience.
***
Declaration about Conscience and Divorce
We, the undersigned, have all written about the introduction of divorce in Malta. Sometimes, we may have seemed to contradict each other. So we decided to meet and clarify together our ideas on conscience and divorce and on what stand Christians could take regarding the proposed legislation favouring the introduction of divorce.
We all agreed on the following points:
1. All citizens, Catholic or not, if asked to give their judgement whether they wish or not the introduction of such a law in favour of divorce have the right and duty to follow their own conscience which needs, however, to be well informed and well formed, keeping in mind the common good.
2. Catholics should strive to have a Christian outlook on the family and on marriage and, according to the teaching of Christ and the Church, witness to this in all circumstances and to strive to see it practised in all structures of society.
3. Both as citizens as well as Catholics they should work hard so that in their country there should be stable and lasting marriages, strong families bound by love and fidelity because this is of great benefit to society at large.
4. For us, Catholics, divorce is wrong whether it is permitted by civil law or not.
5. The decision of every Catholic concerning legislation in favour of divorce in order for it to be a good and responsible decision must be reached with a formed conscience and enlightened by the teaching of Christ who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life.”
6. The Catholic, who not caring about having an informed and formed conscience, decides to follow one’s whim, without seriously paying attention to the teaching of God’s Word and of the Church, but only follows one’s feelings, one’s own thoughts or personal advantage, if not also one’s prejudices, should realise that one is not doing one’s duty as a Catholic. One is responsible for such action before God and may possibly be sinning.
7. In order that as Catholics we reach a good moral judgement whether we want or do not want the introduction of divorce law we must in a responsible manner form our conscience and then decide according to this conscience.
Therefore, after trying seriously to form one’s conscience according to God’s Word and the teaching of the Church and trying sincerely to discover the whole truth and what really leads to the common good, a Catholic:
a) may either reach a right decision or may also in all sincerity reach a decision which, in itself, is mistaken. But whatever the case, one is always obliged to follow and decide according to one’s conscience,
b) may still, in spite of having all the necessary knowledge and having done everything to find the whole truth, in conscience not see why to vote against legislation favouring divorce. This one too has the right and the duty to follow what one’s conscience tells one.
c) may also see that in this matter one is faced by the choice between two situations which both in themselves are harmful to the common good. It is legitimate, in this case of conflict, for one to choose the lesser evil after prayer, reflection and sincere search for the whole truth.
8. This declaration should calm all those who are worried that among us there might be differences regarding the teaching of the Church. This declaration is meant to throw light on the moral responsibility of every Maltese regarding their conscience and regarding the common good of society when they have to take a position about a possible proposal to legalise divorce in our country.
Rev Prog Emmanuel Agius, Dean of the Faculty of Theology.
Fr Joe Borg
Fr Charlo’ Camilleri, O.Carm. Lecturer at the Faculty of Theology.
I read through Mgr Said Pullicino’s fire and brimstone sermon before the assembled judiciary and other representatives of the legal profession with the patience of a Job tried and tested. Earlier in the day I had published my initial reaction on the blog and for the benefit of those who are lucky enough not to yet have the words reverberating in their ears, I shall translate what LorSignor Said Pullicino (Their Sir – definitely not mine) said:
“Before such a clear doctrine of its Teacher (aka Jesus of Nazareth) the Church has nothing to discuss about divorce and the introduction thereof. She (the Church) must limit herself to teaching that whosoever cooperates in any way with the introduction of divorce into the laws of Malta, whosoever applies the law of divorce and whosoever makes recourse to such a law (not being the innocent party), is breaking the Law of God and therefore will be committing a grave sin (ghalhekk ikun qed jidneb b’mod gravi).”
My initial reaction was simple: The Church, being a private institution (even though we are press-ganged into its membership at a moment in life when we cannot raise much objections), is within its rights to determine the parameters of what constitute bonus points towards an eternity of roasting in hell in the egregious company of infidels. True. There are no two ways to go about that. This is no democracy – it is a Universal Catholic Top Heavy Illumination claiming that its dogmas and precepts are inspired by the Old Man in the Sky. Since the witch doctors, druids and augurers of the past, this has been an absolute unqualified condition of religious authority and it is not up to mere mortals to contradict that.
I bow my head low (as low as is politely possible) to such authority over their flock of fervent followers as I would bow my head to the authority of whatever religious leader has over his particular flock. When Said Pullicino does his pick’n’mix selection of biblical tracts and papal encyclicals in order to substantiate the conclusion that the Catholic Church reaches in this particular corner of the world, I cannot be bothered to cross-refer him to other similar collective quotations used by other denominations to reach dramatically different conclusions since I already know the retort that lies in such a battleground, and it involves diabolical citation of scriptural writings.
The Books of Our Judges
Sure. We cannot interfere in Said Pullicino’s expounding of Catholic dogma – nor can we question his absolute statement, which rules out any form of discussion with the Catholic Church on divorce. It’s their problem. “Their” being Catholics. The problem is that gathered before Said Pullicino was no ordinary flock but the representatives of our legal community (oops I almost said brotherhood) gearing up for the opening of another Forensic Year. I am told that such gathering is by invitation and does not form part of the official events of the legal fraternity so presence at such a gathering was optional.
Having said that, I do find it jarring that a symbol of the wisdom of the secular state and a group of people representing one of the main institutions that guarantee the balance of power in the land gather so forcefully before a particular confession to the point that the speaker from the pulpit could claim that “The tradition in the Church that at the beginning of the judicial year, the Judges and the Administrators come to the Altar to request the help of God, the Holy Spirit, in order that he can help them in their ministry (his words not mine) of administration of justice began in the Middle Ages”. So that’s it then? They gather for the sake of perpetuating tradition, right?
The eminent LorSignor goes on to expound the principle of illuminated decision implying that secular law is really an expression of Natural Law (the Law of God expressed by man in recognition of His Justice) and that such service as is given by administrators of justice is in order to put into effect this natural law for the COMMON GOOD. What follows is a rambling about no man being an island and then a warning of the dangers of a secular society. The cheek. The absolute gall. He WAS speaking to representatives of the state with a duty to apply the laws of that secular state when sitting at the bench.
LorSignor went on to attack the consequences of certain “secularisation” and lists the offending laws with the usual confusion of evils (divorce, abortion, homosexuals) that benefits those who have already ruled out any discussion on any one of them. Which is why he concludes the first part of the Sermon and the Rant with the unequivocal condemnation of collaborators with an eventual law on divorce to the status of “committers of grave sins”. Speaking to an assembled congregation of servants of the Constitution, he actively urges them to break the law by not performing their duty before the law.
And my reaction to that was simply: resign. Not Said Pullicino, but the judges called upon to refuse to administer the law of the land. Should they decide to do so then their position is untenable. We cannot have “conscientious objectors” sitting on our benches in court. We cannot have servants of the law subjecting their discretion to their moral values. Should a judge decide that Said Pullicino’s brand of Catholicism is also his then he is free to do. What he is not free to do is to usurp the workings of a secular state with the morals of a Church that dwells in Middle Age traditions.
The Satanic Versions
What Said Pullicino fails to notice is that having judges sitting on secular courts but applying religious principles above secular law is equivalent to the final admission that this state of ours has succumbed to the Catholic Version of Sharia Law. Which is worrying. Because what will stop Said Pullicino from reviving Mosaic Law in his next Medieval Traditional Sermon next year? And what will he stop at exactly? Given the propensity to confuse adultery with divorce, and given the willingness to throw divorce, homosexual marriage and abortion in the same basket, what will stop LorSignor reminding next years’ legal beavers listening in to his rant that Leviticus 18:22 was confirmed by Paul the Tourist in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28?
What was that about? I’ll tell you what that was about. Here’s Leviticus: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” And here’s Corinthians: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” What guarantee does Said Pullicino give the secular members of this state that homosexuality will not become his next pet inspiration and anathema? And if it will not? Why not?
strong>To’ebah (abomination)
All is not lost though and it is important to keep matters in perspective. Others have begun to react to this Medieval Speech – Here’s what just-retired Judge Philip Sciberras had to say: “I am a practising Catholic but I believe the state is obliged to regulate such situations by introducing laws. Members of the judiciary should not object to hear divorce cases because of some medieval imposition.” Michael Falzon (of the Constructor’s Association) pointed out the apparent contradictions in Roman Catholic practices in his blog on MaltaToday (“The Tribe that lost its head”, Friday 8 October) and I.M. Beck also had something to say as to the insensitivity of some arguments.
The truth of the matter is that much as we might find it interesting to try to “convince” the Church and its flock of the politically and democratically heretic nature of this latest intervention, we might as well be arguing with a gagged, blindfolded and deaf monkey. Said Pullicino told us that clearly: “the Church has nothing to discuss”. And so be it. In doing so the Church (in the guise of Said Pullicino) is also abdicating its tradition of social contribution that started in the early 1800s.
I count myself among those who argue in favour of a social role of the Church in discussions about family, social cohesion and solidarity. What I refuse to consider is the Church of indulgences, fire and brimstone, mortal sin and whatever other superstition it chooses to revive. By shifting the argument from social participation as a peer with valid experience in society to the field of supernatural abomination and fear, the Church does not only not wish to discuss but it also finds itself in a position when it stops being anybody with whom it is worth discussing. The Church has abused the supernatural before to meddle with the secular – remember the abuse of the Fear of Mortal Sin in the 60s when reading a newspaper could win you a timeshare in hell?
Kill your idols
This is a secular society at the start of the 21st century. We are proud members of a wider community that recognises basic fundamental rights as being the foundation of harmonious living in which society strives towards a common good. These include respect for the dignity of man, the right to life, the right to integrity of the person, the right to private life and to a family and the right to marriage and the founding of a family. This society believes in freedom of thought, conscience and religion and believes that we are all equal before the law, which is why it is founded on the principles of non-discrimination and recognises cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
This society has enshrined such principles as solidarity, equality and justice in its basic tenets and now, thanks to the Charter on Fundamental Rights within the European Union, we have added an extra cushion and guarantee to these rights and principles. The preamble to the Charter states that: “Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.” The ultimate aim is a future of peace based on common values.
Given the choice between the comfort of secular law inspired by the common fundamental values of mankind and the volatile superstitions of the Catholic imposition I know where my heart lies. What I do find disappointing is the abdication of responsibilities by the majority of our political leaders. It is evident that they are biding their time – unable to really fathom which way the wind is going to blow in the end. They have been dealt quite a blow by Said Pullicino since any MP voting for the law will surely be branded a “co-operator” and public sinner – so a huge big up (well done) to Pullicino Orlando for continuing his crusade. It is not a sinful crusade. It is a crusade to grant a civil right and possibility to numerous individuals who would love a second, civil chance at marriage. No amount of Taliban-like rhetoric should prevent that right from being enacted at law and applied in the courts of our land.
Pauline Privilege
I had not heard of the Pauline Privilege until the whole ruckus began. Look it up – it is an interesting, exceptional circumstance that relates to ‘pagans’ (who incidentally don’t only live in the African bush). It is an interpretation of another of Paul the Tourist’s letters (1 Corinthians 7:10-15) and is interpreted “as allowing the dissolution of a marriage contracted between two non-baptized persons in the case that one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and converts to Christianity and the other partner leaves the marriage”. In that case the Church is perfectly happy to recognise the divorce for the sake of greater proselytising.
Pauline Privilege or no Pauline Privilege, we are not meant to be discussing the contradictions of the Church. The issue at stake is the secular laws and their application. There is no doubt that Said Pullicino’s faux pas has not contributed in any good way to the issue of the introduction of divorce. When I say faux pas I repeat that this is not in any way a judgement on the beliefs and interpretations of the religious institution but on its evident intent of holding the servants of the state in a moral blackmail and preventing them from performing their duty.
It is in that sense that we risk being damned as a nation. Condemned to the damnation of the imposition of the beliefs and values of the few over the laws for and by the many. It is, in its own way, another watershed in the defining of this young nation of ours.
www.akkuza.com is recovering from a savage bout of the common cold and flu.
“Ideas, Vision, Discussion” is the heading of the new Pre-Budget Document presented by the PN government. There must have been plenty of exchange of ideas, possibly a little vision and quite a vivid discussion happening at the meeting of the PN Executive Committee presided over by (PN President) Marthese Portelli (read the link and do tell me how many ideas and how much vision you can discern from the over 1,000 word interview – apart from the “jobs for Gozitans rant” and the claim to fame of multiplication of votes in favour). The executive met in the open manner of dialogue and transparency that the PN has gotten its potential voters used to. Where other parties elsewhere might hold open conferences to discuss such points of principles before the media and anybody interested, the PN must needs first get its hydra-like head together and hammer out a “common position”. We will not know exactly what the ideas, vision and discussion are all about – instead we will be presented with a single strategy.
Undoubtedly this single strategy will be built with one basic premiss in mind: VOTES. The discussion that could be prompted by such a strategy -once it is forged – is simply one based on limiting the number of votes that could be potentially alienated with a wrong step. For suggestions in this direction read Ranier Fsadni’s “Legitimising a divorce law” that already includes some calculations based on “voter alienation”. There will of course have been a number of principled positions such as those of Tonio Borg and Carm Mifsud Bonnnici who will have thundered on about the anathema of divorce to a confessional party. We will not be able to confront them with questions about the constitutional relevance of their statement and with questions about how they plan to reconcile their concept of catholic imposition with the lay state. We cannot ask members of the PN conclave whether they believe the PN should be a champion of universal rights or a champion of the catholic model of society.
The PN conclave met behind closed doors and the strategy that their archaic system of voting will forge supposedly will represent the automatic 40% of the population who already know where there vote will go come next election. The internal debate will be a “long process” in the words of an undoubtedly charming Portelli (mother, lawyer AND politican) but it will remain that for a long enough time to refine the positions. We can only count on the renegades trumping the conclave members once again. And on more anonymous voices feeding their master’s voice for the occasional doctored update. (Unless of course MaltaToday or the Indy get a longer version of these “leaks”).
At the moment all we can doat this stage of extended “discussion” is watch the smoke that comes out of the chimney… and don’t we all know that when it comes to smoke generation the PN spin gurus can turn into a mean machine.
Apologies for the relative paucity of blogging but we have been affected by a rather irritating bout of the gastric. It was not nice and it has kept us away from the nicer side of blogging for over three days now. Just so you know, we are following the Great Divorce Debate at PN HQ with a rabid interest and are particularly intrigued (and vaguely suspicious) of Ranier’s speculation as to how PN will proceed with the gambit. Will the Gonzi clan really take the neither here nor there approach as advanced by Ranier as the final solution? Will they do their turn of “turiamoci il naso” and find a way to include the civil right while shoving a load of constitutional caveats in a slipshod manner? Short of doing a Re Baldovino (of the Belgian variety) it might be Gonzi’s way out to keeping his premiership period relatively Vatican approved.
Then there’s Minister Fenech’s spanking new document called pre-budget something in which we are told that the economy is shrinking and that one of the reasons (surprise, surprise) is that notwithstanding 20 odd years of nationalist direction we still have a relatively stupid population. By relatively stupid we mean that we still have an extremely high level of early school leavers. Which is not the best statistic to stand aside the glaringly obvious fact that our need to diversify the economy can only be satiated by improving on the quality of our workforce (and not the manual labour kind). Being competitive means also offering a relatively competitive wage system though at the same time the Blues at the Helm would love to tell us how our salaries have gradually approached EU27 averages over the past ten years (there’s a sweet straight line graph of steady growth somewhere in that document).
Surely the funniest pages in the doc must be the new buzzowrd of “creative works” or the monetarisation of creativity in order that it contribute towards the growth and happiness of this tiny nation. Find it and read how the government intends to become the champion of creativity (and don’t forget competitiveness). Correct me if I am wrong but if there is one place that is definitely an infertile ground for competitive development in the creative world (and pardon the heretical combination) then that is this tiny country of friends’ networks where the few IT and creative enterprises only exist because of a continued and sustained patronage from government contracts. Q.E.D.? I guess it’s more a case of tough shit.
Finally the image accompanying this post is my latest foray into the world of self-deprecation. It’s a tee I made with one of my favourite holiday images when I did my best impression of how I thought Adonis would pose (while floating on a boat near Comino). The captions read “MY BODY, MY TEMPLE” and “Our bodies are our gardens and our wills our gardeners – William Shakespeare. (My gardener sucks).” Who said Threadless tees are the only nice tees around? (this one’s from Vistaprint) I know, I know, it’s gym time for me… but at least I get some jest out of it.
P.S. Watch this video of the Sliema Council Meeting (take 2 – they found the keys and got the time right). You’ve got to love the eye contact that’s happening in the meeting. Video from Maltatoday.
