Thursday, 7th February 2008
The Mullah of Mosta
Thanks to the brouhaha about the election a statement by the Mullah a.k.a. the Mayor of Mosta went largely unnoticed.
L-orizzont of Monday February 4, 2008 gave us this gem of a paragraph:
“The Mayor of Mosta clearly stated that as a Catholic and as long as he remains Mayor of Mosta he will not let the celebration of civil marriages in the offices of the Local Council of Mosta.” (p.19)
Though I am not planning on marrying either ecclesiastically or civilly I find this statement highly preposterous and offensive. Civil marriage was introduced in Malta by the Labour Government in 1975.
Its introduction was beneficial to the Church. Before the introduction of civil marriage all those who wanted to marry in Malta had to celebrate a Church marriage. This forced also those who did not believe or were not practicing to perform an essentially religious act that they had no faith in. The introduction of civil marriage was positive to the Church because it helped her move away (at least in this aspect) from the cultural form of Christianity which characterised religious practice in Malta for centuries.
Its introduction bestowed on an ever increasing number of Maltese a basic human right. Now they could have their marriage sanctioned by the state and not by a Church for whom they cared not. People’s consciences were respected. Civil marriage is a right legally enjoyed by all who want to use it. No one let alone the Mayor of Mosta can deprive them of this right. If he does not want to perform the ceremony I think he should have the right to abstain but he has no right not to let the premises of the Council used for this purpose.
Last Sunday Dr Chetcuti Caruana spoke more as a Mullah than as a Mayor. He treated the Local Council more as a madrasa than as democratic and popular structure.
Years ago we had the Republic of Zejtun based on violence. I hope that we will not now have the Republic of Mosta based on bigotry.
What the secretaries did not do
The general secretaries of the PN and the MLP should be congratulated for their joint statement appealing to their supporters to be prudent and tolerant throughout and after the electoral campaign. They agreed that during and after the campaigns, people would not be carried to or from political activities in open trucks and vans and no unlicensed or derelict cars would be used. Jason and Joe appealed to their supporters to avoid incidents.
It is not a historic agreement (there were others similar to it before) but it is positive just the same. It is another step in the direction the country has now been following for many years i.e. general elections free from physical violence.
But in recent years that was an opposite and negative movement: an increase in moral “violence” resulting from the over politicisation of the party media. One would have expected the general secretaries to target this kind of “violence” which could be more vicious and harmful than physical violence.
I would have expected the general secretaries to promise the following:
i. The news bulletins on their radio and television stations would be bulletins with news and not mere propaganda. At present they are a mixture of comments, twisted facts, innuendos and allegations all rolled in one. Their motto is: opinions are sacred, facts are free, and insinuation is supreme.
ii. All discussion programmes on the same stations would have an equitable proportion of persons with different opinions and all would be permitted to air their views.
iii. Quotes and sound bites would not be taken out of context or chopped of in the middle to give an impression totally opposite to what the speaker said in the first place.
iv. A number of promotion spots for the Partit Nazzjonalista would be broadcast on the media of the Labour Party and vice versa.
v. Both parties should co-produce a number of political spots urgent their supporters to respect those on the other side.
vi. Manwel Cuschieri and if there is an equivalent on the other side would be drawn off the air immediately.
vii. Programmes in the scheme of electoral broadcasts of the Broadcasting Authority would also be carried by the stations.
Jason and Joe the little dessert you provided is good but it leaves all hungry and under nourished. What you gave us is not the most important thing that you should give us.
Xi twerwir! The hunters are coming
Crudely, simply but correctly put, killing is at the heart of hunting fanatics. There are men, and I guess some woman, who have pleasure in capriciously killing members of other species. The more they kill the more their pleasure heightens to the point of climax.
Now that we are in the vote hunting seasons the hunters’ ghaqda deemed it fit to turn its guns on our politicians. And what better way there is to terrorise politicians than to use that awful four letter word? I dare not write but I guess if I give you its consonants you will figure the rest: V*T*.
They said that have close to 18,000 v*t*s at their disposal. Quite naturally they did not add their wives and kids. They expect that these will follow suit. They also mention a few thousand trappers. Tot them up and you will have over 50,000 suldati ta’ l-azzar.
So you see, the future of this fair land is in the hands of those fanatics who get their kicks from killing. Did I hear someone mentioning the common good; macro economic solutions, more jobs, a first class education for our kids or good social services? To hell with the future of our children so long as we kill the birds, the ghaqda thinks that hunters think.
They are wrong. Most hunters are not fanatics. They will put their sports (or so they call it) in the second, third or fifth place compared to the priorities I mentioned. This is what they did during the elections for the European Parliament. The hunters’ electoral candidate netted in just over 3,000 votes. Quite a far cry from the 50.000 suldati ta’ azzar they claim they have.
RSS
Comments
We are not talking about some philosophical or theological treatise here, but about the participation of religious persons in partisan, divisive politics And I’m sure she will agree that nobody has a monopoly on truth in that sphere. And “there’s the rub” - opinions (for they are no more than that) expressed by religious persons will acquire a greater weight simply through their association with the church – the same church, it should be said, that is obliged to cater for the religious needs of people of all political persuasions. It is wrong, whichever way you look at it.
As for Ms DeBono’s hopes regarding apologies for the events of the 60s, I am not aware that people who suffer wrongs are expected to apologise – only the ones who commit the wrong should do so.
It is true that there are some major differences, but the basic fact is the same. Namely, they both accepted posts while not being ready to fulfill, to the full, the obligations implicit in those roles.
Did they make this clear to those responsible for apppointing/electing them before they were elected/appointed? If not, they both erred in the same way and to the same degree.
It is interesting that Fr Joe lauds the enactment of the Marriage Act in 1975 as a favour done to the church and as the bestowal of a human right to non-Catholics. Of course, it was a progressive act which society had been clamouring for but at that time, it was depicted as an attempt by Mintoff to undermine the church. How times change ! Fr Joe should extrapolate his analysis and conclude that the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta is also a human right which should be available to those who want to benefit from it when their marriage collapses. It may also be seen as a way of freeing the church of the burden of having to process annulment applications when in reality, it is the dissolution of marriage that is being sought.
I agree with Charles Sammut. The brash statement of the mayor of Mosta pales in significance with that of the president when he declared that he would contravene the constitution and not give his assent to a law enacting divorce. It is also rumoured that he has indicated his opposition to a law regulating in vitro fertilization and as a result, government has failed to move the relevant legislation in parliament. If this were to be the case, it would be grave indeed.
Is there a comparision between civil marraige and abortion? Absolutely not.
The differences do not stop there. The Mayor of Mosta is saying that he will deny Maltese citizens the exercise of a legal right which existed before Dr Chetcuti Caruana contested the election. He knew what he was going for and did not utter any word before the election.
The President of the Republic Dr Fenech Adami said something completely different. He said that given a choice between behaving in accordance with his conscience and not doing so he would choose his conscience. He would not sign a law that his conscience tells him no to sign. He would prefer to resign than sign such a law.
That is the honourable way for anyone in politics, in public life and in private life as well.
The stature of Dr Fenech Adami grew stronger by his statement.
This is unjust and unfair and will inevitably attract reply and controversy.
Do they have a right to free speech? Of course they do – but matters are not that simple. All decisions in life imply choices. When a person takes holy orders, in my view, it implicitly and explicitly accepts a certain way of life - for example renouncing to the universal right to marry and have children. In my view, this should also include renouncing partisan, divisive, political activities.
Many persons of my age still bear the scars of the totally unnecessary religio-political disputes of the 60s. I’m sure nobody wants them to return just because a some priests cannot, or will not, rein in their partisan political passion.
1) Reverse the recent PN hijack of the PBS news division and let the real journalists at PBS do their job.
2) Demand that the church authorities take steps to curb certain priests who seem to find partisan politics more congenial than their religious duties.
The Mayor of Mosta, at least, is elected to office, the President is not. In my opinion both acted indiscreetly, but to different degrees.
On a serious note, a big thank you for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation would still be to make the wedding day special, which is why I believe staying out of a local council office might be a good idea altogether.
On the hunters' issue. I really do hope that our politicians will once and for all stand up against these bullies and not let the welfare of the country falter due to some votes. To use public threats of vote withdrawals is an incredibly low blow.
Take care!
Of course, all of us, who are but citizen-journalists and bloggers also have the duty to show our disapproval. Sticking up for people like the Mayor of Mosta just because he has been justly 'scolded' would only put us in collusion with him and his 'convictions'. So yes, thank you Fr Joe, for informing us about such sorry incidents. Carry On Regardless!!!
Allow me to point out that what happened in Mosta last Sunday = according to L-Orizzont - was not the expression of an opinion by the Mayor. He communicated a decision not expressed an opinion. He decided that there will not be any civil marriages in the premises of the Local Council of Mosta.
Had he just said that he would not do them then I would not have commented. In fact I wrote that he should be given the right not to officiate. But he went further. His decisions means that he will be depriving Maltese citizens from one of their rights. This is not acceptable. He has no right to do so. Such action should not just be criticised.
They would agree to disagree , but then the "authorities" should step in and impose on them(that;s why they are called Authorities) this measure , after all that's what they are there for , they should see that there is balance in broadcasting especially during election time .