What sort of person embargoes an apology?
When an apology is calculated, it’s isn’t an apology but a tactic, a piece of strategy. Apologies come from the heart, otherwise they are meaningless and worthless.
If you plan your apology for effective and well-timed release, then it is false. It shows that you are primarily concerned not with forgiveness and making amends, but with your image.
The archbishop of Malta and bishop of Gozo wrote a statement of apology for those they have hurt and forgiveness for those who have hurt them, sent it to the media and embargoed it until 10pm, when polling-stations closed.
They were right in not making it public before 10pm, because that would have been in breach of the electoral law. But they shouldn’t have released it to the media with an embargo tonight. They should have spoken out tomorrow morning.
The bishops released their statement before 10pm with an embargo until 10pm because they wanted to make the front pages of the newspapers tomorrow, Sunday. Their main concern appears to have been maximum publicity.
54 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Daphne,
I tend to disagree with your statement for the only reason that the bishops’ apology statement should have been delivered last Thursday, the last day of the referendum campaign.
It would have made more sense in the bishops’ context statement of an apology.
right
Daphne, was just trying to break in to your previous post to register my disgust. These ‘apologetic Bishops’ are the pits. They scare the shit out of the population with hellfire and damnation, then they say they’re sorry. Keep digging, ‘Bishops’, think you’re about to lose the bulk of your flock. Very, very sad.
If the bishops felt it hould be given maimum publicity, what is wrong with that? It is a public apology and it should be given publicity. Besides critics are saying it is late however one can easily see that if this apology was issued before the vote, it would be manipulated for anticlerical propaganda. Tomorrow morning eveyone will be awaiting the unofficial and the official results of the referendum and the apology will not be given publicity.
The Catholic Church in Malta and the universal Church have apologised in the past. However I fail to recall anyone who has apologoised for attacking and critcising unjustly the Catholic Church eg the lie that the Church makes a profit from cases of nullity of marriage heard in Church tribunals .
David, no one is attacking the the Church unjustly in this context. The ‘Bishops’ have brought it upon themselves with their mischievious, manipulating press release. This is an extraordinary attempt to retain a diminishing following–total folly.
“An apology is a good way to have the last word.” (unknown author)
Am I the only one who fails to see what exactly the Bishops are “apologizing” for?
[David – However I fail to recall anyone who has apologoised for attacking and critcising unjustly the Catholic Church eg the lie that the Church makes a profit from cases of nullity of marriage heard in Church tribunals].
No one has contested that the Church makes a profit. If the Church has published financial statements showing that its tribunals make no profit, I must have missed that.
What was wrong in the declaration you refer to, is that he was completely mistaken in his opinion that the Church’s primary motivation in opposing divorce, is loss of profits.
Check out the Curia’s yearly accounts. The Tribunal costs the church almost €500,000 annually.
[Pheidippides – Check out the Curia’s yearly accounts. The Tribunal costs the church almost €500,000 annually].
You forgot to tell us how much the Curia earns from people applying for annulments. Are you saying the Church Tribunal is working at a loss?
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with the Curia making a profit from a service it gives. My problem is that with the church-state agreement, the Church has monopolized annulment proceedings leaving customers with no choice.
Exactly. The income from annullment cases is not enough to meet the expenses, leaving the Curia to make up for the losses.
[Pheidippides – Exactly. The income from annullment cases is not enough to meet the expenses, leaving the Curia to make up for the losses].
I don’t have the figures to check that, but I’ll take your word for it. In any case, the profit/loss from Church tribunals is not an issue for me, and I believe the Church’s opposition to divorce has nothing to do with any financial aspect. It’s all about social control.
Too little , too late. Credibility is built up on past actions. They have lost the plot.
Harm has been done and it’s too little too late now. Probably in this referendum they will be the winning camp but with lesser followers.
A genuine apology counts from the moment it is made. It cannot be embargoed.
Expressing sorrow while not clearly delineating what you are actually sorry for, shows that the expression of sorrow is only an exercise in P.R.
The questions remain:
For what exactly do the Bishops feel sorry?
What would they do differently?
In the absence of a reply to both questions, the Bishops’ press release is just empty words and a damage-limitation exercise in the hope that people forgive and forget.
It doesn’t work that way. One should make amends for the intentional harm done.
Amen
Unfortunately for the Church, the Bishops lost it when they told the people to vote “Le.”
Initially, Bishop Cremona was correct to illicit a statement from the committee of “wise priests,” who essentially said that people had to vote according to their conscience.
In the end, it seems that the Bishops believed that “Good or True Catholics” could not, in good faith and in good conscience, also vote “Iva” or “Yes.” There was no stone unturned to ensure how the bishops expected “the faithful” to vote. An apology is not going to be enough to undo all of the long-term damage caused to the church.
Perhaps, if their is some mercy possible (since this is now before the results are acutally known), the Bishops may be spared if the “Yes” vote actually wins.
My expectations are that the “No” vote will carry because of the fear campaign, of those who in revenge may not want their ex-spouses or potential ex-spouses to remarry (so easily, if at all), of those too confused or tortured to reason to a rational vote that would oppose the church, of those too weak to take a courageous stand, of those who have never formed their values after challenging authority, of those who don’t care about it because they don’t see the benefits for themselves in the matter, and because of the dogmatists who cannot tolerate world views that may disagree with their own interpretations of how they think the world should be (in their own image).
But, if the “Yes” vote does win, perhaps we may cross the divorce rubicon and Malta’s democracy will have stepped from adolescence into adulthood.
As always, the people of Malta shoot off their mouths and do not bother with thinking. They have no need. The most important thing is to be seen to be ‘progressive’ by rubbishing all institutions that make Malta what it is.
Can you please explain in further detail? Unless, of course, your intention was only to “shoot off with your mouth” without even “bothering to think”.
Ok then, let me do some more shooting my mouth off and not bothering to think.
Here are some more institutions that should be rubbished for making Malta what it is: parliament, university, the police force, the law courts, the education system, the media.
If Mr Brincat is so happy with these institutions I begin to understand better Anna Vella’s smug comment that Malta comes tops as being one of the happiest countries in the world. Truly a fool’s paradise.
I don’t get this embargo idea. How can the function of the press be silenced on any issue, even though for a specified time? Isn’t a free press supposed to be… well.. free? I’ve never heard of such a thing before.
With so many “media experts” wearing the white collar preaching at university and on TVM, you’d have expected they’d play their cards better. I guess the Holy Spirit and the weeping Madonna were off duty yesterday.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/998958–vote-on-legalizing-divorce-has-devout-malta-divided
Dear Bishops,
You are totally wrong if you think that your so-called apology will in any way erase the harm caused, especially by Bishop Grech.
I do not only mean that harm caused to the IVA movement people, but the harm that you inflicted on the church that you lead. You have turned the clock back to a more unpleasant time. I doubt whether from now on anybody with a bit of intelligence will accept your words at face value.
I had great expectations when you became our pastor. I am now having second thoughts.
There was never a bigger example of bigotry.
I agree with your ‘No, it isn’t over’ in today’s The Malta Independent on Sunday.
I would suggest that if the ‘No’ vote wins, all those who voted ‘Yes’ now and intend to vote for then PN in the next general elections should vote only the first preference and preferably for new blood whilst dumping all fundamentalists. And that includes the current PM and others of his ilk.
Where is the apology , do you have a copy? I have seen Salvu gesticulating on ONE TV (how convenient) and feeling offended before ten o’clock, naturally quoting the convenient extracts and leaving out the rest .
From The Times which is more reliable:
“The bishop this evening expressed regret if anyone was hurt by any words or actions taken by members of the Church during the referendum campaign.”
” they unconditionally forgave those who had hurt them.”
Putting it in simple words Daphne:”I am apologising if by any chance a member of my group hurt your feelings , and I am forgiving unconditionally those who hurt me”. “Don’t publish this press release before ten in respect of the electoral law”
What’s wrong with this statement?
BTW : I was nearly hit by a busload of ‘anzjani’ reciting the rosary on their way to vote!
Hallina Salv!
[John Schembri – ”I am apologising if by any chance a member of my group hurt your feelings , and I am forgiving unconditionally those who hurt me”…What’s wrong with this statement?]
It says a lot without actually saying anything of substance.
What exactly are they apologizing for? They didn’t say.
The Bishops’ statement is being misrepresented as an admission that the Church had abused and hurt the divorce movement. That is not true at all. The Bishops did not apologize exclusively to the “Yes for Divorce” movement. They apologized to everyone, on BOTH sides of the spectrum, for any hurt that may have been caused by some priest.
I belong to the “No for divorce” movement and I felt hurt that some priests had insinuated, or categorically stated, that I was some fundamentalist crusader or some High Priest of an outmoded Christianity when I was only quoting Christ. I accept in all humility the bishops’ apology on behalf of any offending clergy but I will not try to make capital out of it – I will only defend the bishops when I feel that they are being unjustly attacked.
There was a deliberate abuse of the electoral process but it was made by a section of the media when it prematurely published the bishops’ statement, under a press embargo, when voting was still in progress and the distortion of a general gentlemanly apology into an admission of wrong doing by the whole Church against the divorce movement.
I agree that the timing of the apology was naïve because they should have anticipated that it would be misused.
What apology? They didn’t specify what they are apologizing for. That only opens the floodgates to speculation.
Conceit is a double-edged blade. If nay prevails may those that sowed fear of a forgiving God get to experience the God of thunder and lightening they so vehemently seem to desire .
This apology feels cold and calculated. The apology is hollow because should a divorce debate pick up next election these three men shall revert to the same tactics .
Dr Saliba, the church is NOT apologising to the Yes movement. It is apologising to its sheep whom it has manipulated and scared with dire consequences if they dared to think for themselves and form an unacceptable opinion.
Now that the church got what it wanted, many of the sheep are angry and feel misled and the shepherds are crying to get them back.
Someone once called this type of people “whitewashed tombs”.
A message to those church-goers who have an ounce of self-respect. If you REALLY DO respect yourself, there is ONLY ONE THING you can do today: the minute the priest starts talking about apology and forgiveness for the church’s foul play during the No campaign, STAND UP and LEAVE.
For the umpteenth time, the church has shown that it has no respect for YOU.
Irrespective of the referendum result, there is one clear loser: the Catholic Church. The self-inflicted damage during these past months is incredible.
It would have taken decades to create the schism between the church and so many of its followers. To borrow Mgr Grech’s boring cliche` many peoply could see the wolf beneath the sheep’s ‘skin’ thanks to its dirty and scaremongering tactics.
You are in no position to advise me, or anybody else, what we should do when we are praying in our church as our reaction to the Bishops fulfilling their duty to teach what is right and what is wrong, after they apologised for any hurt that MAY have been inflicted on their flock, (pro-divorce or anti-divorce) by some priest.
It is you who have no respect.
Thanks for stressing the word MAY. It gives away the fact that the “apology” a false one, done only as a sort of damage-limitation for the Church.
The Bishops need to get to grips with the basics regarding right and wrong. They are very simple and that is the problem.
Daphne. I agree with every single word you wrote. However, what worries me tremendously is that somebody sent something embargoed to the media. If a section of the media does not agree with what is being said, the statement is published upon receipt. This is grave for me. When is something said agreed by all on this rock?
[Daphne – Embargoes are a unilateral decision: the sender’s. If you wish them to be bilateral, phone ahead and get the editor’s agreement. It is arrogant to assume that you can just send out something newsworthy and that editors will do your bidding and refrain from publishing it just because you said so. When editors respect an embargo it is not because they want to respect the embargo as such, but because they want to ensure future good relations with the sender, to stay on the list for further communications.]
Whilst I agree that the apology is, to put it very mildy, STUPID and counter productive in a PR sense, it has concurrently blown to full bloom the danger that are ONE and Salvu.
[Daphne – I don’t agree at all. We didn’t need this incident to see that.]
I would be more worried with all other media who decided to remain mum in front of such hypocrisy, ONE TV included who did not speak up before Maltatoday made it public.
“To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice” [Confucius]
At Malta Today, they have a personal agenda.
The Catholic Church should have started by forgiving Malta Today for breaking the embargo (or at least stay silent), and not report them to the commission. So much for practising what is preached.
Early indications suggest a Yes majority.
Daphne, I expected more insight from someone of your intelligence. The bishops have scared and manipulated their flock of aptly-called sheep and now that they got what they wanted, they are in damage-control mode, trying to limit the fallout from their tactics. Is it so hard to see?
If there was any sincerity in this ‘apology’, it would have been given by last Thursday night, not the minute the rederendum was over.
[Daphne – It’s the embargo that concerns me, not how and when the apology was made. Make it before the days of reflection, make it after the vote, but don’t embargo it.]
How and when are also important, Daphne, because the timing clearly shows that this apology was not the result of level-headed reflection and soul-searching once the smoke has cleared.
It was cold and calculated, and part of the game-plan. It was intended to get maximum press coverage on Sunday and contain the damage the church has done to itself as soon as possible, without being in time to affect the outcome of the vote in any way. Basically, the Curia planned the apology while still continuing with its misdeeds but withheld it until it deemed convenient.
[Daphne – That’s exactly what I said. We agree. But I found the embargo more interesting than the apology, and chose to focus on that. People think that embargoes are mandatory, hence the hysterical reaction to Malta Today’s decision to publish. But embargoes are nothing of the sort: you have to secure the editor’s agreement. You can’t just send him/her a piece of news and assume that s/he won’t publish.]
What a spectacle to watch this one blow up in their faces like a ‘murtal tal-festa’!
The church takes time to adjust to new realities and cultural changes, but this is understandable in any religious institution that has been here for so long.
History shows however that over the centuries it was capable to embrace change .
It remains masculine where dogmas are concerned but increasingly modern and lenient when compared to some other religions.
The passionate reproach is coming from well meaning faithful who still embrace the church and all the good it is doing in this country and want to see it adjust with progress.
The Church is a corporation.
Ray is saying that God should ask forgiveness from Satan.
“They were right in not making it public before 10pm, because that would have been in breach of the electoral law. But they shouldn’t have released it to the media with an embargo tonight. They should have spoken out tomorrow morning.”
I think the substance of it all is captured in this paragraph.
I think it was a stupid mistake for the Church to release an embargoed statement to the media, especially those which have taken a clear position against that of the Church in the divorce campaign.
I would have released it a couple of days after the result.
On a different but related note, I was watching One last night, soon after 10.00pm, and I couldn’t stop noticing a continuous attack on the position taken by the Church during this referendum.
But did they really expect otherwise? I do not understand why in this case Labour cannot focus on its message and permit the freedom to others to express their message.
I got the feeling that Labour was in this to show spite toward the Church, as part of an eternal Mintoff project which had been suspended for some time under Alfred Sant.
Labour cannot be progressive and moderate by campaigning for divorce on one hand and suppressing the freedom of others on the other hand.
The will of God has prevailed.
It looks as if the bishops backed the wrong god.
It’s the same God that the French made fun of during the French revolution, tying the crucifix to a donkey’s tail and making it to go round the strrets of Paris. We all know the history of France from then on: a country that was invaded and vanquished and no false god of theirs ever interceded on their behalf.
The God the bishops backed gave the Maltese the freedom to deny Him today. History will be the judge of today’s catastrophic choice. What’s next? Same-sex marriages?
France has been invaded three times since the revolution and only really once successfully, by the Germans. So the God the French abandoned didn’t save them, just as he didn’t save the Poles that followed him. What does that tell you?
And sure, why not same-sex marriage next.
[toni cachia – What’s next? Same-sex marriages?]
Why not?
Some commentators here didn’t even read what the message was:
http://maltadiocese.org/lang/mt/news/message-from-the-bishops-after-the-referendum-on-divorcemessagg-mill-isqfijiet-wara-r-referendum-dwar-id-divorzju/
I read it and still stand by what I wrote. A non-specific “apology” (what exactly are they apologizing for? They didn’t say), is no apology at all.