The Catholic Church has its own protocol, so like it or lump it

Published: April 12, 2010 at 10:43am

protocol

I think there are rather a lot of people around who need lessons in protocol.

The Catholic Church is an organisation with its own rules.

The Pope is not just the head of a religion but a head of state.

There is strict protocol to be adhered to when formal invitations are issued, and that protocol reflects the organisation and the state in question.

If anyone seriously expected the bishops to issue formal invitations to a papal mass in the names of Mr X and Mrs Y then they have absolutely no idea of protocol, live on a planet of their own making, or think that because Catholicism is a la carte in Malta then that’s the way it is, full stop.

The bishops have made it clear that the only four MPs in our parliament who are married to X but living with Y will be invited without their lovers.

For heaven’s sake, shouldn’t this have been obvious?

Do we need to kick up a fuss around it as though it is something extraordinary and unacceptable?

To the Catholic Church, it is that way of life which is completely unacceptable. This is why the representatives of that church cannot be seen to be condoning it by extending invitations that signal acceptance.

In the past, it wasn’t only the Catholic Church which did this, but also society matrons. People who left their spouses and formed a relationship with somebody else fell beneath the social radar, were denied invitations by polite society and became part of a demimonde.

Society has changed but the Catholic Church has the same rules. It is not going to change them to suit some people who want to remake what they consider ‘their’ religion in their own image.

The point has been missed that the bishops have issued invitations even to those who have been married by the state rather than in church. They want to signal respect for marriage, however that marriage has been contracted.

The bishops cannot possibly issue a formal invitation to two people who are married to others but living with each other instead. You either like it or lump it – but those are the rules and that is the protocol and no amount of sulking is going to change it.

The Labour Party has said it is perplexed by this decision. Why? Because it doesn’t understand protocol and never did? Because it thinks that marital breakdown and the chaos that has followed as a result of there being no divorce is evidence of the hip way of life? That people who leave their spouses to live with somebody else are progressive and modern?

Come on. If you’re going to leave your spouse and start a relationship with somebody else, at least have the maturity to understand that your situation has changed in the eyes of Catholicism and you are now considered to be an adulterer living in a state of mortal sin.

If you don’t like that, then stop calling yourself a Catholic and move on.

Michael Farrugia, the health minister in waiting, is one of those who is married to X but living with Y. He told a newspaper that he can’t understand the decision, that he was at Easter Sunday mass with his ‘partner’ – irritating and silly word – at the Vatican and nobody stopped him. So why isn’t his partner invited to the pontifical mass in Malta?

Of course nobody stopped him going to mass at the Vatican. There are no signs on church doors declaring that entrance is forbidden to adulterers.

But formal invitations issued by bishops and popes are another thing altogether. They are subject to The Rules. They are governed by protocol.

The real mystery is why people who live in what Catholicism considers to be the mortal sin of adultery still wish to be accepted by the Catholic Church as members of the faithful flock. If you have so little respect for the rules of that religion that you transgress on a matter of primary importance, why do you still care what the Catholic Church thinks of you?

Or is this all about being rapped on the knuckles and put in your place as publicly as possible when you thought you were sorted?

I think it’s because Maltese people are conditioned from birth to be unable to make choices that we get this sort of childish behaviour. ‘I want to break every rule in the Catholic book, but still be invited by the Pope.’

That is why there are so many of us sitting on the fence and trying to have our cake and eat it. In the real world, it doesn’t work that way.




82 Comments Comment

  1. maryanne says:

    “For heaven’s sake, shouldn’t this have been obvious?”

    Of course, especially to journalists who should do their homework before speaking/writing. One such journalist was commenting on television this morning.

  2. Tony Pace mhux Tony says:

    Good morning Daphne
    At the risk of oversimplifying the whole issue, I so agree with your approach to this whole drama. If I am a member of a club which has definite rules, and which I was aware of when I joined and I have now changed my mind about either the validity of those rules or, have decided I am no longer in a position to abide by those rules, then, I bloody well have no option but to leave the club, and not expect the club to accommodate my new thinking or in this case, my new marital status.
    I know you hate overlong sentences, but I get so ruffled with idiot thinking I even stopped breathing whilst I wrote it.

  3. janine says:

    This is a club with its own set of rules and there are no half-measures. What cheek. How can these members of parliament honestly expect to be invited with their lovers? Can’t they go alone if anything?

    I can just imagine the Beata Marlene Pullicino Orlando fuming and sulking that she won’t get to meet the Pope with her lover this time round.

  4. Alex Caffari says:

    If I knew exactly how pork sausage was made and what the ingredients were, I would probably never enjoy them again. The same applies to politics and religion.

  5. red-nose says:

    Good, cool, reasoning

  6. Mobi says:

    Fair point.

    In other news, the pope might get arrested…

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

    • Marie-Louise says:

      He can’t get arrested. There a thing called diplomatic immunity. The link is just media opportunism

      • Mobi says:

        Well, I don’t know whether he can or can’t be arrested for whatever reason. But I feel he should be arrested and held accountable for his actions.

  7. David Buttigieg says:

    Excellent article.

    By the way, you were quoted (no names mentioned of course) by Mario Vella

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100412/opinion/its-a-long-way-to-1919

    [Daphne – That’s right. To the Labour Party and Malta Today, I am The Blogger, A Blogger, The Bidnija Blogger, The Blowsy Bidnija Blogger. First it was homosexuality now it’s Daphne Caruana Galizia: the love that dare not speak its name. Except that with them, it’s love-hate.]

    • La Redoute says:

      You forgot to mention Maltastar.

    • maryanne says:

      What do you expect from watersbroken Vella?

      [Daphne – Hmmm. Perhaps that’s why the Labour elves think I’m common because my surname is Vella. It hadn’t occurred to me.]

  8. Ta' Ninu says:

    timesofmalta.com have been very economical with their facts in their reporting on your case re Consie. What IS the full story?

    [Daphne – Believe it or not, that’s the full story. But more of that later this evening. I’ve just come in and am trying to catch up.]

    • Antoine Vella says:

      They are not uploading any comments on the story. I wrote to remark about Scerri Herrera’s insistence that, despite Asst. Commissioner’s Cassar denial, she “was still under the impression that it was Mr Cassar” who had sent over drinks.

      Strangely, the online report seems to have been changed. Earlier today it referred to the sending over of drinks but it’s now mentioning only the presence (or otherwise) of Mr Cassar at the dinner.

    • Harry Purdie says:

      It appears she lied again, under oath.

  9. kris says:

    Proset! Enough said.

  10. B Galea says:

    I think you’ve got this one arse-ways, although I agree with the concluding point.

    Protocol would dictate that they all be invited, regardless of whether they were married, living in ‘sin’, in a homosexual relationship or celibate. Protocol is nothing more than a set of adhered-by rules – it makes no value judgements. By excluding specific MPs from being invited, the Vatican has actually ignored protocol and decided to prioritise its religious wing.

    [Daphne – You are very wrong. Even state protocol – but that depends on the state – deems mistresses and lovers as surplus to requirements. That’s why Sarkozy married Carla Bruni in a mad rush before his state visit to England, where he was the guest of Queen Elizabeth. And he was divorced.]

    In this case the pontiff is wearing his religious hat, not his statesman one.

    Nevertheless, I fail to see why these MPs are working themselves up into a lather. Why would they be so anxious to meet this shifty character in the first place?

    • Antoine Vella says:

      B Galea, the Vatican has not excluded any MPs but told them that they can bring only their spouses.

  11. J Tabone says:

    Does this protocol also include the fact that you do not go to jail if you’re a priest involved in paedophilia ? It’s a give and take no ;)

    [Daphne – What a nonsensical comment.]

  12. J Tabone says:

    No one is above the law (except paedophile priests). Funny eh!

    The Vatican is a State. Malta is a State too. Well I guess you get my point.

    [Daphne – No, I don’t. You haven’t made it very well.]

  13. J Tabone says:

    Daphne you should be employed as a PRO for the Catholic Church. They need you badly, seriously.

    [Daphne – Perhaps you haven’t registered the fact that I do not consider myself to be a Catholic.]

  14. Zunzana says:

    Just heard the pogressive Fr. Colin on TVM, expressing his opinion that the church should have addressed these invitations as Mr. X and GUEST. Probably the word PARTNER would have sounded out of place on this occasion.

    [Daphne – OMG. ‘And guest’. Lie down and weep.]

    • La Redoute says:

      Biljett ghal tnejn, dhul b’xejn.

    • Antoine Vella says:

      The ‘guest’ idea was first mooted by Marlene Pullicino Orlando on yesterday’s Torċa.

      • La Redoute says:

        More nonsense. Isn’t this the woman who is ‘against’ divorce, but is quite content to live with a man who is someone else’s husband while her own husband lives with someone else?

      • Genoveffa says:

        Well I cannot understand the fuss here. Under Maltese law, and more so under Canon law, a person is still married to his/her wife or husband even if he or she is separated and living with another person. So a formal invitation can only invite the wife, as the Mrs. of the person being invited.

        Why on earth should the lover come into it? Anyway between this silly fuss and the removal of the phallic column from Luqa, lest it offend the Pope – I found the Times of Malta extremely comical today.

        Ah, and last but not least, Magistrate Herrera describing her teenage daughter as a whinging brat complaining that she’s the only kid on the block without a pic of mum on her Facebook page. Can’t little Herrara understand that her mother occupies a position which requires a certain level of decorum. Either it’s a case of the fruit not falling too far from the tree, or the poor kid must be cringing in embarrassment after her mother’s statement this morning.

    • Anne Callus says:

      Protocol is a word in Chinese for these people. This is simply unbelievable. I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote and no one could have explained and outlined it better.

  15. kris says:

    Jien miniex bniedem religjuz, anzi bniedem li ma nemminx fil-knisja u sa certu punt lanqas f’Alla, imma f’dan il-kaz jkolli naqbel mal-knisja, ghax il ligijiet tal-knisja hemm qedin u jridu jigu irrispettati minn dawk in-nies li huma parti minna.

    Issa jekk hemm ir-regola li int qed tghix fid-dnub trid taccetta, ma tistax taghmel ir-regoli kif jaqbel u trid int. Inkella tkun nisrani tal-kelma, u f’ ebda religjon tad-dinja ma jista jmur xi hadd u jghid ” iss,dik ma togobnix hej”.

    Nerga nghid li jien ma nemminx, u ghalija jista ma jsir xejn, imma ghal min jemmen, hija affari serja hafna. Tkunux ipokriti iktar milli intkom, ghamlulna pjacir lin-nies komuni, ghax minhabba l-ipokrezija tal-bniedem, il-knisja qeda fejn qeda illum.

    U haga ohra, trid tkun vera ma tisthix li iz-zwieg tieghek falla u qed tghix ma haddiehor, imbaghad tkun kontra id-divorzju.

  16. J.Tonna says:

    Well written, Daphne.

    May I add – those who were of the opinion that the MLP by changing its name to PL has changed the way it looks at the Catholic Church should read yesterday’s It-Torca. I do not advise them to buy it but read it online so as not to let rubbish into their own house.

  17. Genoveffa says:

    – now on this I fully agree – here it’s the members who are not playing by the rules and therefore need to be ousted. But let me get this straight – did the pogguti expect to be invited by the bishop to the pontifical mass with the pogguta? Ahjar ma nghid xejn!

    Re the Vatican, in Italy Berlusconi’s second wife (not pogguta) was not invited to the election of Pope Benedict, on exactly the same principle. No fuss was made. Actually there were comments when she went to the pope’s private audience with her family.

  18. Charles J Buttigieg says:

    I think that the Archbishop’s Curia could have acted in a diplomatic manner because even the way they issued the invitations they went against protocol. I try to explain my contention.

    If I were the spouse of one of the MPs in question I would have been seriously hurt if my husband and his partner received an invite as by such an action they would be declaring me an untouchable and sanctifying my husband and his mistress’s illegitimate union. Furthermore, since the church still recognises my marriage I expect to be treated exactly the same way as the wives of all the other MPs. By not inviting me I would feel discriminated against and totally excluded.

    [Daphne – Even the Catholic Church recognises separation. If a couple are legally separated, the Catholic Church recognises that, just as it recognises civil marriage. Far from being correct protocol, inviting an MP’s spouse when that MP is no longer living with him/her would be the height of bad manners. I do not expect the Labour Party to understand this, so I won’t press the point home. You are right in saying, however, that this would indeed be the correct procedure if there were no formal separation. In the absence of a public statement by the couple that they are now no longer together, the correct thing to do is to assume that they are.]

    In my opinion the Curia had a way out of this sticky situation by addressing all invitations as per this example- The Hon. Member of Parliament and Mrs. Gordon Brown. That is the correct protocol and the MPs who had deserted their families wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on.

    These MPs are very wrong to expect the cake and eat it, let’s face it if the law against adultery was still in force they would be imprisoned not posing as virtuous individuals and expecting our support.

    Bring in divorce and this nonsense will stop.

    [Daphne – My goodness, we agree on something.]

    • La Redoute says:

      It’s The Hon. Prime Minister and Mrs Gordon Brown.

      • Charles J Buttigieg says:

        I know I know, the name Gordon Brown was an example instead of using the name of one of our MPs.

    • Charles J Buttigieg says:

      Daphne,all the way I was referring to what I call triangular relationships not to cases where legal separations were obtained. You see we agree on this too.

      [Daphne – Please don’t tell me you are under the impression that Marlene and Jeffrey – one marriage but two of the MPs involved – are not legally separated, and that Chris Cardona and Michael Farrugia are not, either.]

      • La Redoute says:

        Is Charles J Buttigieg the new Kev – hanging out here to converse on serious issues, while carping and bitching about you elsewhere?

      • Karm says:

        It’s amazing how people like James Tyrell and Charles J. Nuttigieg use “smart” language whilst on Daphne’s blog, yet stoop to low levels with language to match to bitch about her on other places on the internet.

      • Charles J Buttigieg says:

        @ Karm

        Addressing me Nuttigieg doesn’t make me mad because you are the only person who thinks I’m nuts, there again you think I’m nuts for the simple reason that you seem convinced that if I am to the Labour born I have to be nuts. And I feel sorry for people who think like you.

        I am not accustomed to using hate phrases, derogatory remarks or in any way stoop to low levels when I write, I know the way to drive my message home in a civil manner. I may not always agree with the way DCG conducts her journalistic talents and this comes as no surprise to her, I only hope that Daphne respects my opinion like I respect hers.

        In closing, Karm, if you consider yourself a well-mannered contributor why do you hide your identity behind a pseudo name?

        [Daphne – For crying out loud, Charles, B and N are immediately adjacent to each other on the QWERTY keyboard. Next time, bother to look, before assuming somebody is calling you a nut. And let’s face it, that’s a fraction of what you call me elsewhere on the internet.]

      • Charles J Buttigieg says:

        Daphne, Karm’s wasn’t a typo, it was intentional. If you type Buttigieg with an N the the auto correct will underscore and correct it for you. Try it yourself and you’ll know I’m right. Why are you defending him\ her anyway?

        [Daphne – I’m not defending anyone, Charles. I’m pointing out the obvious: B and N are next to each other and it was a typo. Occam’s Razor: the most obvious explanation is the most likely one. Auto-correct doesn’t function on Maltese surnames. All of them get underlined in red. I can spell you name Nuttigieg or Buttigieg and both get scored in red. And there is no auto-correct function on the comment-posting system anyway. What do you do with yours – type them into a Word document and copy and paste into the comments box?]

        Name-calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear will encourage the readers construct a negative opinion about the other person.

        [Daphne – Oh for heaven’s sake, honestly. This isn’t one of those Facebook ‘hate Daphne’ discussions you enjoy so much, all quoting cod psychiatry and cod psychology, like a bunch of 18-year-old socialist students. Aren’t you a bit old for that? Men of 67, like women of 45, know enough to speak from experience of human nature without rustling around in the psychology notes like a member of Forum Zghazagh Laburisti.]

        I don’t do that and I don’t need to do that either, I follow a bit of blogging to satisfy my political conviction and as a past time not to create enemies or to attract insults. Unprovoked you had called me, Mr. Nobody, Baboon, Parrot, Elve (Sic), Weirdo and Kev…..Did I ever retaliate?

        [Daphne – Ah, but you certainly have no compunction about insulting others, like me for instance. Or are you one of those ‘grown-ups’ who still persist in thinking that a discussion on the internet is like a discussion with your friends in a bar, and no one can see or overhear?]

    • David Buttigieg says:

      “Bring in divorce and this nonsense will stop.”

      I would wager that even with divorce, MPs like the ones in question would still not divorce ‘because they are Catholic’, continue “living in sin” and still expect to be treated as a married couple in cases like this!

  19. pippo says:

    Ghax dawn jaqilbu id-dinja ta’ taht fuq. Imbaghad iridu illi kulhadd joqghod kif iridu huma anke jekk qieghdin hazin kullhadd irrid jaccetthom.

    Mur gibu lit-tabib Farrugia, johrog xi qassis u jghidlu ma tistax tidhol ghal-funzjoni mal-habiba, x’kien jaghmel.

  20. Marku says:

    Haga naturali din ir-reazzjoni, ghax kif nafu sew, l-importanti f’dan il-pajjiz mhux li tkun Nisrani imma li tidher li int Nisrani.

    • La Redoute says:

      Being seen to be more Catholic than the Pope is just a subdivision of being seen in all the right places.

  21. ciccio2010 says:

    How can one say one belongs to the Catholic Church if one ignores its fundamental tenets? There is no room for confusion with marriage and family.

    Some people are unable to face the truth and to admit that they lead a contradictory life. If one does not wish to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, then, in our society, one is free to do so, and one should therefore not pretend that, for political mileage or public acceptance, one is holier than the Pope.

  22. Anthony says:

    In spite of my old age, I never cease to be amazed by people who should know better. The Pope is already in the soup for allegedly consorting with paedophiles. Now he is expected to invite partners (read pogguti/ manifestly public sinners) to his religious do’s. I look forward to more amazement.

  23. Paddy says:

    With your article ‘Ending Celibacy’ you were the talk of the town, straight to the point. I hadn’t read such a good article, in foreign or national papers for a long time.

    This write-up is even better, Father Corapi on EWTN on Monday nights (2200/2300) could not do better.

    Nobody beats you, just take care.

    • Harry Purdie says:

      Paddy, re: foreign newspapers, here’s the closing sentence of an article on this situation by Maureen Dowd, a Catholic, of the New York Times late last week, a renowned columnist to whom Daphne holds no candle (no pun) and is just as eloquent and inciteful. “The storm within the Church strikes at what every Catholic fears most. We take our religion on faith. How can we maintain that faith when our leaders are unworthy of it?” I told Daphne years ago that the rock is unworthy of her and should expose her literary skill and intelligence to the real world. I assume you would agree.

  24. albedo039 says:

    Well said, Daphne…an article of great insight. Let’s stop calling ourselves Catholics if we don’t intend to stick to the rules. Kullhadd kif jaqbillu.

    Even if you join a sports club you have to abide by its (sometimes ridiculous) rules, ahseb u ara the laws of a religion….come on, let’s be realistic!

  25. TonyM says:

    Dear Daphne, you are more than right…as usual. I myself had a marriage breakdown, got separated legally and am living happily with my partner. For this reason, I think I was mature enough not to consider myself any longer as part of the Catholic Church’s flock.

    I still have my beliefs, which I keep to myself, and I practise in life all what I learned through my whole life. I never expected the Catholic Church to bend its rules for my sake, and I do not expect it to be done at any time.

    I have accepted my life as it is and bearing or enjoying the fruits of my own decision. I have “lumped” it to the best to my ability and according to circumstance. The last thing I can expect is an invitation from the Pope!

  26. Joseph A Borg says:

    Very wise words indeed. Protocol doesn’t prohibit the church from inviting mass murderers though

    [Daphne – Protocol doesn’t prohibit anyone from doing anything. It’s a code not a ban. It stands to reason that mass murderers would not receive an invitation from a pope or a bishop – not unless they were a head of state like Robert Mugabe, and look what an uproar that caused with the previous pope’s funeral. They wouldn’t receive one from a president or prime minister, either – religion has nothing to do with it in this case. Mass murder is an international crime, not a religious transgression.]

    • VinceP says:

      Now that mass murderers are mentioned. If my memory serves me right when Pope John Paul II visited Chile he refused to give the communion to President (dictator) Pinochet just because the Chilean President was facing accusations of mass murder.

  27. kris says:

    Miskina l-magistrata, minhabba it-tfal xehdet daloghodu, jahasra hux. Hares, han nsaqsik mistoqsija ta’ iblah li jien pls,jekk tirraport lil ta TYOM int jtellawhom il-qorti il pulizija jew?

    [Daphne – Ovvja, imma l-ewwel iridu isibu min huma.]

    Fuq il-Maltastar qatt maj jsemmu x’ ghamlet HI! Imma x’ taghmel int, halluwna nghixu tal-Maltastar,

    U haga ohra, xorta baqghat tghid li minghalija Michel Cassar baghtilha d-drinks!

    Michael Cassar, Patrick Spiteri….differenza f’ kollox, kemm fisika u kemm morali.

    • La Redoute says:

      This time, she didn’t say he sent her drinks at lunch time. She said the lunch wasn’t important but she’s still under the impression it was him. In other words, according to Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s testimony, Michael Cassar lied when he denied her previous claim.

      Oh, and now she says it was he who phoned her, and not she who phoned him which, of course, is rubbish as Michael Cassar knows something that Magistrate Herrera does not: the proper channel for communication between the police force and the law courts.

  28. Lomax says:

    I totally agree with you. There couldn’t have been a clearer logic in this.

  29. Frank says:

    Bull’s eye! Daphne, brava!

  30. muhaha says:

    such a refreshing read!

  31. John Schembri says:

    Another reason why the Church did not issue invitations ‘with partner’ is that if it did it would be officially recognising and approving of ‘the partner’.

  32. vincent magro says:

    Ilbierah rajt l-ahbarijiet tas-Super One li qal li “dawk kollha li huma separati m’humiex mistednin ghal quddiesa tal-Papa”. Jien hsibt li l-kbisja kienet harget xi stqarrija ohra, ghax ftit qabel kont qrajt l-istqarrija fuq it-timeswofmalta.com li semmiet biss lil-membri parlamentali, mhux li mhux se jkunu mistednin huma jekk huma separati, imma li jekk huma separati, ma jistghux jiehdu l-habiba ghall-quddiesa tal-Papa.

  33. Hot Mama says:

    I am still reeling (in a good way of course ) with yesterday’s insightful treatment of celibacy in the Catholic Church and there you go again with another gem of an article! You should be syndicated.

    Bravo, Daphne. Encore!

  34. Hot Mama says:

    Look at this! The National Enquirer being touted for a Pulitzer Prize for breaking and following up the John Edwards sex scandal when the mainstream conveniently looked the other way.

    I am thinking that you should also be honoured with a journalism award for steadfastly writing about Consuelo Herrera while our mainstream media does nada.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/04/12/enquirer.tabloids.pulitzer/index.html?hpt=C1

  35. The Saint says:

    Prosit tassew. As usual an excellent article helps to explain the obvious to people who don’t and are not ready to accept the obvious. Unfortunately these are supposed to be our leaders.

    Catholicism is not a la carte.

    But after all, this way of thinking is a reflection of the malaise of today’s society . People are too arrogant and want to act and follow the rules according to their whims.

  36. Steve says:

    Prosit kemm ghal dan l-artiklu u anki ghal dak tal bierah.

  37. Hot Mama says:

    JPO’s own parrot can type too! Kos!

  38. Cannot Resist Anymore! says:

    By the same token should Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston not have attended and led the funeral service of Senator Edward Kennedy as some conservative catholics wanted him to?

    Senator Edward Kennedy was separated from his wife and living with another when he passed away and worse still, he supported pro-abortion rights even though he claimed that he was a staunch Catholic.

    Methinks the local church would portray a better image of her Founders’ thoughts if it were not to adopt these exlusive attitudes.

    It’s just a thought and I am a Catholic!

  39. Pip says:

    How were the invitations issued when the Pope was here last? I can’t remember any fuss being kicked up then, or could it be that all our MPs were above board last time round.

  40. C Galea says:

    I don’t give a damn about the church since I’ve never been part of it.
    However, as far as I know the church is supposed to follow the teachings of christ. That’s the only reason why it holds unto existence.
    Would you think that the christ they portray in the bible would have blatantly refused “sinners”? Or would he have strived to collect as many “follower sheep” as possible?

    The church is being really ridiculous now.
    I’ve heard faithful followers showing their disgust at such declaration.

    • La Redoute says:

      This is getting really boring. Invitations were issued according to protocol. They were addressed to Mr and Mrs where appropriate, and to Mr or to Mrs where not.

    • Mandy Mallia says:

      C. Galea – It is not the Catholic Church that is being ridiculous, but the members of parliament who expected to be invited with someone who is not their spouse when they or the other person are married to someone else.

      The Catholic Church does acknowledge these unions and so it cannot condone them by sending a joint invitation to a couple it does not consider a couple.

    • Mike says:

      Dear Mr/Mrs. Galea,

      You fail to make a distinction between accepting sin and accepting the sinner (cliche indeed, but you choose to adopt these terms). Christ never condoned sin, or moral evil; He never gave the adulteress a pat on the back and told her ‘That’s the way, matey’ in a laissez-faire attitude which is today deemed ‘progressive’.

      I fail to see how you claim that many ‘faithful followers” are showing their disgust: unless It-Torca is the home of these faithful followers (the way they spun the headline and worded it is simply horrendous).

      When Jesus DEFENDED the adulteress (NOT adultery) He told her “Go now and leave your life of sin.” I doubt he could have made it any clearer.

      The Catholic Church will accept anyone, but it is there to be a light and moral authority. What truly baffles me is why people who choose to ignore the teachings of the Church, and seemingly have no will to change, would even want to attend in the first place.

      They either don’t believe in the claims of the Catholic Church and Christianity, or else they are lukewarm people who want the best of both worlds; which is definitely not a noble or respectable trait.

      The Church also never condoned moral evil just to gain popularity. Even in its arguably darkest times during the Renaissance, Pope Clement VII refused to annul Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

      Surely if the Church cannot be criticised for something it is for sticking to the moral standards, at least officially, taught by Christ.

      Christ never ”strived to collect as many “follower sheep” as possible”, as you seem to think.

      The situation reminds me of the event recorded in John 6 where Jesus talks about the Bread of Life. The crowd remarks: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”, at which Jesus sarcastically answers: ”Does this offend you?”, and in sum reminds them who He is, and that he will not change His teaching even if this meant that no one would follow Him.

      He then turns to the apostles and asks: ”You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.” It just shows the Jesus was ready to part with his closest friends; those which he was going to build the Church upon. He was ready to get rid of all this, because He stuck to his guns and called a spade a spade. In modern times its ironic how being politically correct has made some priests so tame, when what the Maltese ”Catholic” population needs is a real shaking. If only all priests were as blunt as Daphne in certain situations.

      I do apologize for maybe excessive reference to the Bible, but how else would people remove these misconceptions they have about what Jesus said and did?

      Sometimes you read people’s comment about how ‘hip’ Jesus was, and you know that they’re thinking in terms of John Lennon or Barack Obama.

      Albeit I believe, as Daphne rightly pointed out, that the issue is primarily one of protocol, rather than ‘condemning’ the sin, or the couple.

  41. Samantha says:

    Allura missha tavza ukoll li min hu poggut mhux mistieden ghal quddiesa fuq il-fosos mhux tghid li kullhadd mistieden!
    Two ways two measures.

  42. It wasn’t only tas-Super One li qal li “dawk kollha li huma separati m’humiex mistednin ghal quddiesa tal-Papa”. . Even Father Colin said that and he added that they were feeling that they were not welcome in the Catholic Church.

    Is it only the MPs who aren’t having their ‘partners’ invited or even the other VIPs?

    [Daphne – It’s right across the guest list. The MPs made the news with Malta Today because Jeffrey’s one of them and that newspaper has taken to currying favour with him for the same reasons the Labour Party and Consuelo Herrera do.]

  43. Maria Gauci says:

    “…have been married by the state rather than in church. They [church officials] want to signal respect for marriage, however that marriage has been contracted.”

    I don’t know the reason these people were invited, however, it’s not a matter of respect for these unions for sure. According to church teachings, these people are still living in sin irrespective of how the marriage has been contracted.

    As for the rest, WELL SAID!

  44. All religions have two main drawbacks, as I see it.
    a) Most of their claims cannot be supported by science because on a practical level they
    b) tell us how to live our lives well

    Nobody can really tell us what’s good for us and what isn’t …

  45. Bus Driver says:

    The MPs made the news with Malta Today because Jeffrey’s one of them.

    Why should JPO complain? His wife has been invited as well. Both are MPs.

  46. Marc Ellul says:

    Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, don’t you agree that the MP, who is also in a ‘state of mortal sin’, should not have been invited in the first place?

    Why is it that “this way of life becomes perfectly acceptable by the Catholic Church” if you happen to be an MP? Frankly I don’t see the logic here – it is a contradiction of the very foundation of this protocol.

    [Daphne – Step by step explanation to allow no room for confusion: 1. The Catholic Church does not care whether its guests are Roman Catholic or not. 2. It is in duty bound by protocol to invite representatives of the powers in the state where the mass is being celebrated, and also envoys of other states. Obviously, these are not all Catholics. 3. The Catholic Church is in duty bound to uphold marriage, however and in whichever denomination marriage is celebrated, and even if it is contracted through the state. It has researched the marital status of all its guests, regardless of religion or the lack of it. 4. People who are married to X and living with Y – regardless of religion – are invited without Y. X is obviously not invited either because they are no longer together. 5. Here’s the rub: if divorce were available in Malta and those MPs had remarried, their spouses would have been invited.]

    • Marc Ellul says:

      #5 is an important clue to this state of affairs since even if we had divorce, one cannot re-marry by the Catholic rite without the previous marriage being declared null.Therefore because divorce is not a remedy recognised by the Catholic Church, I presume that whether two people live together through cohabitation or on the grounds of a civil marriage following a divorce, they will still be considered in a state of adultery in the eyes of the Church.

      [Daphne – Yes, but the Catholic Church (and not just in Malta) has bound itself over to recognise the laws of the state. This has led to an anomaly in which if you divorce and remarry, in the eyes of the Catholic Church you are both an adulterer and a respectably married person.]

      The only conclusion that I can draw here is that the state of mortal sin and the Church’s doctrine has nothing to do with all this. As long as the other half is officially recognised as the spouse through some form of marriage, then all is fair play.

  47. SPTT says:

    Couldn’t agree more.

  48. Today was one of those days when I almost smashed the TV – hearing Fr Charles Tabone praising Super One and Alfred Zammit because they are always willing to host him on their programmes as some other stations do not; hearing them criticise ‘certain’ newspaper headings and articles about these invitations when in reality It-Torca was one of the worst; hearing Toni Abela all out begging for unity in the forthcoming visit and showing how devout he is.

    Then, cherry on the cake, hearing Fr Charles phoning in to say how much the Archbishop appreciated the opportunity Super One gave Fr Charles and to sincerely thank him.

  49. Claude Sciberras says:

    ‘Bring in divorce and this nonsense will stop.’

    I beg to differ. Divorce unlike separation would not be recognised by the Catholic Church and hence the situation would remain the same (kif suppost).

    [Daphne – God and Caesar, Claude. The Catholic Church respects the laws of the state and so recognises both divorce and remarriage. Agreeing with them is another matter. When you seek to have your marriage annulled by the Catholic Church, you are first asked to get a divorce.]

    At your wedding in front of God and all your family and friends you make a vow to love your wife/husband come what may. The Catholic Church holds that as an unbreakable promise. If you don’t like it don’t get married by the Catholic rite – nobody’s forcing you. The Catholic Church cannot be against divorce but then invite a divorced/remarried couple.

    [Daphne – In fact, it can and it has done.]

    The only cases that it might allow would be those in which there never was a Catholic marriage.

    • Claude Sciberras says:

      Yes but it will get in a bit of a tangle. What if the state recognises cohabitation for example or same sex marriages would the Catholic Church invite the hon mr and mr brown?

      [Daphne – It would have to. States recognise unions through marriage not cohabitation. This cohabitation law proposal is a total canard.]

      • Claude Sciberras says:

        If it were to invite the Hon and Mr. Brown it would be going against its own teaching and in a way condoning it as you said in your piece above on adulterers, no?

        [Daphne – The Catholic Church by its own admission recognises the laws of the land. If those laws include divorce and remarriage, then so be it. To put it simply, if we had divorce and those four MPs had remarried (except for Marlene Pullicino who, because she models herself on the Madonna, is against divorce and will have to have it foisted on her by Jeffrey), then they would have been on the Bishops’ guest list.]

Leave a Comment