The mullahs from Malta
In a pre-election interview, Nationalist candidate Pippo Psaila said words to the effect that Malta must follow the laws of the Catholic Church because Malta is Catholic, and that we shouldn’t have divorce for this reason.
In a post-election interview, Labour MP Marlene Pullicino, who is married to Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (separated, yes, but not divorced so still married) but who has made another life with another man, said – somehow keeping her face straight and seeming to believe this in all seriousness – that she is against divorce and will vote against it in parliament because she is a Catholic. The Catholic Church says that you can’t have divorce (if you’re Catholic; if you’re not, then it’s up to you), and Dr Pullicino misinterprets its diktat and seeks to apply it even to non-Catholics who live here.
Ah yes, but the Catholic Church also has a far more fundamental diktat – thou shalt not commit adultery, for it is a mortal sin – and Dr Pullicino hasn’t been so keen to rush to obey that one, or to help the government make it illegal. Stoning in a public square, anyone? Oh yes, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Now we have Nationalist MP Robert Arrigo, who said a few days ago, about the Council of Europe’s approval of an-equal-access-to-abortion resolution: “The Council of Europe tried to play God….Who are we to decide to terminate a life?”
Excuse me, but what does God have to do with it? Terminating a life is either wrong or it is not wrong, of itself. It is wrong, if you see it that way, not because it is playing God, or because we believe that God said so. It is wrong, again if you see it that way, because it is the ending of a life, and the ending of a life is wrong whether you believe in God or not.
God, as I understand it, never got into the matter of abortion. There isn’t a single word about it in the Bible – and believe me, there has been abortion since there has been pregnancy. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who also made that trip to the Council of Europe, at least didn’t stuff God or the Catholic Church into the equation, though he did help a lot to build up the legend of the Maltese mullahs who have never heard of the Age of Enlightenment. To make matters worse in terms of international public relations, these mullah-delegates are inevitably men.
Sending a delegation of four men to bang on about God and the horror of abortion in an international forum has strong anti-women overtones. It smacks of something being imposed by repressive men on repressed Maltese women. It would have made much more sense to send four women, but there weren’t four women to send. There wasn’t even one woman to send. And that in itself speaks volumes.
Over in the comments section of the on-line newspapers, there are individuals who are actually declaring that the laws of Malta should reflect the laws of the Catholic Church, because ‘Malta is Catholic’. In 2008, this is astonishing. It means that these people have horrendous gaps in their education – the gap between the Age of Enlightenment and the present day, most specifically.
As I explained it to one of them, who bossily colonises the comment sections to preach the righteousness of God (a Catholic God, take note): I am not a Catholic. You are a Catholic. We are both Maltese citizens. I am not a second-class Maltese citizen and you are not a first-class Maltese citizen. How, then, do you get to set the religious rules by which I have to live, whether I want to or not? Her come-back, such as it was, was that the rules of the church are an excellent basis for the ordering of society, and it has nothing to do with religion. Yes, I agree that the laws of Moses (not the laws of Catholicism) are inordinately useful in helping edgy tribes to rub along relatively peacefully in the desert while foraging for food and without killing each other over a coveted neighbour’s wife, but I think even Marlene Pullicino will agree that it’s a damn good thing that adultery was decriminalised.
If Catholic Malta has Catholic laws, then this makes us a theocracy and not a democracy. Islamic shariah states are theocracies, and we regard them with contempt for being unable to differentiate between the laws of God and the laws of the secular state. And here we are, insisting that Malta does the same. Oh, but the religion is different, so that’s OK then.
The people who think like this have no imagination. But if they had imagination, would they be such Bible-bashers? The real reason that the Catholic Church opposes divorce is not because of the ending of the marriage per se – after all, it has no objection to separation, which has precisely the same effect of parting the married couple. No, the Catholic Church objects because if you divorce, then you are likely to remarry, and in the eyes of the church, that constitutes adultery. So the reason the Catholic Church fights against divorce is because of the ‘sin’ Marlene Pullicino is committing in the first place. Whether she divorces or not, the religion she claims to fervently believe in and practise deems her to be living in a state of mortal sin, unable to receive the sacraments. So I think we can take any ‘I am a Catholic’ statements from that quarter with a jar full of salt.
129 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
It is fascinating how the holier-than-thou cross the Maltese political spectrum. The most powerful “political party” in a country where corruption permeates all levels of society seems to be that of religion. One is tempted to come to the conclusion that the two (corruption and the belief in a god) are connected.
DCG – you’ve picked up, and vastly improved on, many points I’ve made in my own blog and my (I.M. Beck … is using that name a mortal sin?) column. Prepare to receive skip-loads of insult and invective from the fundamentalists, you’ve dared to shake their comfy self-delusion.
Daphne – I also invented the wheel (just like Beck!) :-)
Here’s my take on things:
http://lanzarotemaltabrux.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html
Oh, but Daphne, you’ll receive skip-loads of insult not just from the fundamentalists, but from our hypocritical anti-abortion “yoofs” who lap up some pop-priests’ words and then, once safely outside the church, proceed to live like atheists.
”Are there many articles which leave us with the impression that the author, before ever beginning to write, asked himself with any real concern: ‘Am I in line with truth?’ Are there many readers who ask themselves with any real concern: ‘Am I going to find the truth in here?’ ” Simone Weil
The issue of divorce is so clear that there is absolutely no need for an argument. Foreigners must think we’re a country of staunch Roman Catholics, when in fact Malta is rife with “sinners”. We’re just a bunch of closed-minded, antiquated hypocrites. The majority wouldn’t survive a year in a big foreign city such as London or New York. How in heck can you oppose divorce or even argue about it? We’re in 2008! Divorce was a (semi-)issue in the 1920s!
The government doesn’t give a sock about religion. Politicians are hardly thought of as saintly people, are they? The only reason divorce isn’t introduced is that we have a “gvern bazwi”.
I can’t stand the stupid, ignorant bigots who preach that they’re “against divorce”. Don’t they understand that many people had a horrible marriage and want a chance to start over officially, i.e. through a new marriage? What do they say to the wife who was beaten by her husband and seperated from him? Do you tell her “Heq, tort tieghek hux. Issa ma tistax terga tizzeweg. Oqghod hemm ja porka.”?
Sometimes I think I’m living on an island of people with the IQ of a particularly dumb cockroach. Thankfully I know that many people share my thoughts that divorce legislation is not an issue and should have been introduced in Malta eons ago. If you don’t approve of divorce, then don’t divorce. Instead, shut your darn mouths, all your arguments are puerile and invalid.
in all honesty, do we expect any better from a nation where the majority beleive in the magical powers of shoe laces?
I quote a great man: “What is the truth ?”
Dear all,
now that you have embarked on Church-bashing, here is one of main principles of the PN, the party you gave all your energy to see elected to government:
3. F’kollox il-Partit Nazzjonalista jitnebbaħ mill-ideal nisrani tad-dinjita’ tal-bniedem, mibnija fuq ir-rabtiet tiegħu ma’ Alla u ma’ ħutu l-bnedmin l-oħra, fil-familja u f’għaqdiet volontarji oħra li l-Istat għandu jgħinhom u jseddaqhom.
Now one little thing…about marriage. Guess when the monopoly of Church marriages was terminated. It was in the ghastly 70s! And by whom? By the DOM-inosaur!In fact, some of those you were waving flags with on the 9th of March think that the 70s were ghastly BECAUSE of that fact!
Albert Farrugia – you have a point, of course. In the midst of all the mayhem it created, the MLP did a couple of decent things. Pity that it then decided to let sleeping dogs lie and gave up the fight completely for 25-odd years. But the tide will change again, in fact there are signs that it has started to change as we speak. Let’s see what interesting battles lie ahead…
@Albert Farrugia – please don’t politicise this issue. The country is stuck in a double-bind because neither the government nor the opposition will dip its toe into the water on this one. All it takes is for them to get together and decide – either for, or definitely against (so that people know where they stand for sure and can look at alternative ways).
zapping on maltese TV, sometimes I come across talk shows (if they can be classified as such) where the topic of discussion is something on the lines of ‘inti taqbel li l-mara ghandha tohrog tahdem?’ 2008 and we are still discussing issues such as divorce and should women enter the workforce!!!!
bring back the inquisition!!!
[Moderator – Apart from the fact that the point is moot because whether one adult decides to work or not is their own business.]
@DF
I am going to claim a little victory here. So the MLP did “a couple of decent things” Deo gratias. We have budged! I am not sure what the rest of your comments mean. Do you mean that the MLP should have gone further with social reforms back them? I tend to agree with you. Indeed I think that the introduction of civil marriage was intended to be the first step towards introducing divorce. But history is history, and anyway, I am happy that someone finally admits that all was not doom and gloom in that important period in which the country was “growing up”, so to say.
As regard the comment that one should not “politicise” the issue, well, really, I ask the question, exactly what are politics and political parties FOR? It seems that people deep down really believe that politics is just a ejja-ha-mmorru-l-meeting tan-nazzjonalisti-u-gibu-l-imkatar thing. But politics is abour changing society. And change is brought about by polticians. Regarding the divorce issue, it is clear as crystal that the PN, considering its statue, will never itself introduce divorce legislation. The much maligned Alfred Sant, true to MLP tradition of social reform, had appointed a committee to “look at alternative ways”, after taking a stock-take of the situation.
My message is: dont look at the PN for social reform. The PN is Malta’s Conservative Party, and in the restricted sense.
…..that should have been “HAD (past tense) appointed a committee” and that was during his time as prime minister
[Moderator – Corrected.]
In an ideal world, the issue would not be politicised. However I have to agree with Albert here; if the issue needs political will to be decided, then it cannot not be politicised.
Daphne
Enjoy the Mullahs. You and Bocca voted for them!
@Ronnie – it shouldn’t be subject to PARTSIAN politics. Partisan politics has created the situation we have now, which runs on the same principles as nuclear disarmament in the Cold War. I will if you will. But if you will, then I won’t. Instead, I’ll take advantage of the situation. Neither party dares do anything about divorce unilaterally, because of the fear that the other party will stoke up a riot to its advantage.
Albert, you must be about 80 years old, but you still fail to understand that not all those who voted PN are “Nazzjonalisti”.
@HP Baxxter
When does a “Nazzjonalist” become a “Nazzjonalist”? Or a “Laburist” a “Laburist”? Only at the moment a citizen casts his ballot for either party does he or she become a “Nazzjonalist” or a “Laburist”. So one who casts his ballot for the PN is a “Nazzjonalist”, whether he likes it or not, as he would be giving that party the power to govern, and so to make laws, and to give society its direction. The same goes of course for the “Laburist”. So, when someone casts his vote for the PN, or MLP, he cannot make a disclaimer later, saying he did it “because there is no alternative”. If the majority of voters who voted PN, since it forms the government, do not believe in the party’s principles, as you are implying, no wonder that politics in Malta is totally detached from reality. No wonder that politics has been reduced to a 5-yearly jambouree cosisting of street-parties, thumping music, millions of litres of beer, flag-waving, streets illegally blocked, with the people doing this not knowing what they are really doing.
And no wonder that “partisan politics” has taken a negative meaning in Malta. The only countries without partisan politics are dictatorships.
This has very little to do with politics…if the public as a majority demand it, politians can do very little to oppose it.
The problem lies within the nation’s conservative, religious-tied mentality.
That being said; it is getting better per se, with every new generation of maltese.
@Edward, whoever you are, I didn’t vote for the “Mullahs”, I voted for the party that, overall, I believed (and still believe)was better for the country. When you look at the alternative, that wasn’t such an impossible choice to make and getting a few “mullahs” as part of the deal was just that, part of the deal.
@andrew borg-cardona
…exactly…part of the deal, and it was known beforehand. One cannot now spend the next 5 years complaining about part of the deal which was so wholeheartedly accepted by you and others.
Ernest Hemingway was married 4 times. He loved his first wife but quarrelled incessantly with her and eventually divorced her as he couldn`t take the stormy relationship any longer. His second wife was demure and accomodating – the exact opposite of his first wife – but he found married life with her boring and predictable; his third wife was a journalist and similar to him in many ways and when he divorced her he claimed that in marrying her he had made the biggest mistake of his life. He eventually married his fourth wife and seemed relatively settled with her – but sadly committed suicide …. My point ? How wise and deeply knowledgeable of human nature the Catholic Church Church is in prohibiting divorce.
[Moderator – The moral of the story? Get a divorce and God will blow off your head with a shotgun.]
@Albert Farrugia. The M.L.P. did many good things for Malta. Proper decent social services. Social housing and improved health service. Improved standard of living for the working class. Introduced social legislation such as civil marriage. Abolished adultery and homosexuality as an offense. Protected the rights of illegitimate children. Reined in the hierarchy of the Catholic church and gave it a good kick in the pants which it deserved. Unfortunately it also did a tremendous amount of harm to democracy and human rights that scarred many people including the host of this website. As Vanni said on another blog – an unequivocal apology for this is in order. Once that happens it is no longer an issue because all that needed to be done and that could be done to make amends will have been done. Hopefully the MLP can be re-elected to power and undertake some progressive social reforms that are so sorely needed in this country. The P.N. is obviously incapable of delivering anything worth talking about in this area.
@Albert Farrugia – you don’t seem to grasp the basic difference between when the Nationalists are in Government and when the MLP are, do you? Those of us who prefer PN to MLP are perfectly at ease criticising the Government and/or the party, because we know we have nothing to lose and are not in physical danger. You might recall those halcyon days when your heroes were in power, on the other hand, and what used to happen when anyone dared raise his voice in dissent.
Bocca, you and DCG chose the best of the two sets of Mullahs. Enjoy them. You both want to play the liberals for 5 years and then become the guardians of the conservatives for the last 42 days before polling. You have the country run by the Catholic Action, Cana Movement and the MUSEUM!!
Enjoy the ride..it’s five years long!
Edward Fenech.
All this talk about divorce!!!!
I tell you one thing,the church is as guilty as anyone for all this turmoil the country is in!
It encourages everyone to live as they please…………I know you might be thinking what the hell is she on about? Well let us start with single parents…..their children are the first to go into a church school,just because they are special cases? Special cases I ask, why? Does not the government give free schooling so why the special treatment?
Is it because the mother was ignorant enough to become pregnant when she should have been thinking of going to school?
This really makes me mad …..so the church in all its glory preaches about the nuclear family, than they go and sign up a percentage to children coming from single parents.
Now about divorce,what authorizes the church to dictate what I should do if my marriage is a disaster, the wife beaten,the husband made a fool of, and so on.
SO it is fine to leave your other half and have an adulterous affair, since that is what happens when one is still married and living with someone else and what becomes of the children conceived in this relationship? Do they get special treatment?
How can the church in its crumbling state tell me what is wrong and what is right!!!
The government and the opposition should take a stand and reflect on this issue, since half of them are in the broken marriage situation.
@Uncle Fester
Great, great, great! Finally we are getting closer to a REAL assessment of the 70s and 80s. This is the first time that I am seeing such posts here. I would also add to that list of achievements gender equality, or at least putting that on the national agenda: votes for women (though in 1945 the Labour Party was only able to suggest it, it was then implented by those in power in Malta, that is the British), and then equal pay for equal work, and the repeal of the rule which forced women in government service to resign on marriage.
In order to revive itself, the MLP needs only to return to be the progressive party it once was.
[Moderator – Your view of the Malta Labour Party of 60 years ago is slightly romantic. Socialist governments at the time did not try to get women to work because they believed that they were equal to men, but because the welfare state could not be sustained when half the adult population did not work. I suppose that this is the difference between organic solidarity and mechanical solidarity.]
Edward Fenech, I’d agree with you if MLP were in favour of introducing divorce, which it wasn’t.
I think that most of the Maltese conservatives, deep inside, believe that one day the Vatican will be transfered in Malta (or comino?).
We only need to built 50 more churches to be eligible for it.
Dear Albert Farrugia
You seem to keep missing this, so I am asking you again.
Do you, as a Mr. Ordinary Citizen, approve of the fact that the hunters may not hunt in Spring? And what does the party that you hold close to your heart have to say about the ban? Are they in favour of spring hunting or not?
Dearest Daphne,
Just because I am living in an adulterous relationship does not mean that I have ceased to be Catholic. I am personally so ardently against divorce because I have experienced the suffering that marriage breakdowns bring upon adults and their children, no matter the circumstances. I really believe that, instead of focusing on how to dissolve marriages with the least possible difficulty, we should concentrate on preparing our potential family makers for more lasting relationships through helping couples in difficulty to try and resolve their problems without sacrificing their family life. I am not proud of my way of life and if you haven’t committed adultery yet, dear Daphne, I strongly suggest you do without it because the pain far outweighs the pleasure especially if it ends up in the total dissolution of an entire family. I am personally against divorce because my religion does not allow it as I have already said, however, such a national matter should not be decided by a few parliamentarians but through a national referendum. In the meantime, Catholic sinners like myself must revert to annulment, if they have a viable case, or refrain from receiving the Holy Sacrament as punishment for not concealing their adulterous relationships…even if their relationships have lasted longer and are actually stronger than the marriage that is in the process of being nullified. With regards abortion, I am even more vociferously against it…It is murder and has absolutely nothing to do with this repression of women in this country or anywhere else, contrary to what you believe. Whether you are Catholic or not does not mean you should condone such acts Daphne…
Marlene
@ Albert Farrugia. Are you are willing to accept that Labour committed gross violations of human rights and trampled on democracy in the late 70s and 80s and that the new leader of the Labour Party should publicly repudiate that period in Labour’s history and publicly apologize to the victims of that injustice? If that happens we will be able to label the period of history through about 2004 as the “immediate post colonial period” of Maltese history and recognize that we are living in a new era – that of mature nationhood. The major battles are over, the future is one of alternating governments and arguments in a civilized manner and not in a until death we will fight mode that we have been traumatized by for the last 50 something years.
I know it is not in keeping with the subject, but whilst on the subject of religious fundamentalism, what about the lack of proper sex education in our schools, in particular church schools. If the schools are being funded by tax-payers money, our children are owed proper sex education.
It is outright irresponsible!
was she for real marlene pullicino?
pls … get out these pseudo-catholic freaks out of the MLP. Her place is into AN or other far-right movements.
[Moderator – Yes – and please address one another directly.]
Yes… The real Marlene Pullicino
@Albert Farrugia
Since we’re suddenly all having a pro-labour love-fest, I’ll join in too. The two biggest and most far-reaching social reforms enacted by Labour were income tax and social security, and thats because they are the basis for everything else. Social benefits do not come from heaven.
Of course if you’re taxing production at 65% and running the economy into the ground at the same time it doesn’t make it easy to finance anything does it? If on the other hand the tax rate is down to 35% (and sinking) and the economy is doing well, its another kettle of fish.
But the thing is that all the other reforms by both parties since then are just tweaks to the first two reforms, or reforms made possible by the first two.
But you know what? Those two reforms were made by the Labour party before Mintoff was its leader, when it was run by Boffa and the MLP was also the party of the mullahs (Archbishop Gonzi – formerly senator gonzi representing the MLP – being one of them)
But as soon as Mintoff took over, it was a long slide downhill which lasted 40 years, made a modest blip upwards 15 years ago and has stayed there for 15 years. Lets hope it CAN become a party people like me can vote for.
But the signs are not encouraging. Prior to Mintoff’s appearance last Sunday, although I wouldn’t see myself voting for labour with GA at the helm, I could see him creating the conditions for a truly viable (in MY perspective) labour party at least in the following generation of leadership. As for the rest of the contenders, forget about it!
But I’m not so sure anymore. Its all very depressing. In 1987 I said to myself that I would have to wait 20 years to take stock and see if I could consider voting MLP. The twenty years have gone by in a flash (also depressing!), but I find myself in the uncomfortable situation of having to give myself the same advice again :(
Albert, my dear boy, have you ever heard of the Least Worst Option?
When the 1964 constitution was being drafted, the PN had proposed a clause which said that human rights could be broken in order to “protect” the RC Church. If it wasn’t for the MLP, and for evil Dom, who made pressure on British authorities not to let this clause enter into our constitution, today we would be some kind of RC Iran (not that we’re too far from that anyway). It’s a pity that people who support secularism vote for a Party which promotes a confessional state. As a non-RC myself, I find the “Malta Kattolika” phrase offensive. Malta has to be “Malta sekulari”. Period.
Marlene, thank you for putting forward your side of the story, which I appreciate. The point is that there is no difference – socially, religiously or in terms of personal trauma, as you so very aptly describe it – between the break-up of a marriage resulting in divorce and remarriage and the break-up of a marriage resulting in your own situation (setting up home without the ‘certificate’). The only difference is one of legal status. Incidentally, I don’t think or even talk in terms of adultery; I used that word only to illustrate the point that if religious sentiment doesn’t stop you from living with somebody when you are married to somebody else, then you might as well divorce and marry. I don’t think Catholicism sees that as ‘compounding the crime’. It’s not burning in hell that we should be worried about, but discovering much too late and when it’s all over that we worried about the wrong things.
”It’s not burning in hell that we should be worried about, but discovering much too late and when it’s all over that we worried about the wrong things.” (Daphne)
Daph, it’s burning in hell that we should be worried about; discovering much too late that hell exists for those who welcome it with arms open wide.
Listen to Pascal’s advice to his old friend, it may seem foolish to those who don’t believe but Pascal was no fool: ”Begin with the folly of faith, and you will attain knowledge. This folly is wisdom; this folly is the path of truth.”
God bless your soul.
[Moderator – You know, some people believe that humans are capable of doing good out of conviction, not out of a fear of eternal damnation.]
Marlene, to be consistent then you should also lobby they Government to enact laws prohibiting couples to live in (as you put it) adulterous relationships. Why do you want to apply Catholic teaching to divorce and not adultery?
This is indeed a very interesting article.
Divorce has absolutely nothing to do with dissolving a catholic marriage but represents the dissolution of a civil marriage. The above is perhaps an obvious statement, but nevertheless, it is important to consider the distinction between church and state in all arguments about divorce.
It is unfortunate that in 2008, in Malta, we are still discussing divorce and catholicism. They are not related.
My greatest fear is that if ever a political party wanted to be seen as tackling the divorce issue, they would use the Referendum scapegoat. A referendum on divorce would be insane and just plain wrong as it is not a matter of national opinion. Divorce would mainly affect a minority of people who really need it in order to get on with their lives. Mr. and Mrs. Smug-Married should not have the right to impose their beliefs on those in society who for one reason or another need or want a divorce. The majority should not impose on the minority in this case. I think that many who oppose divorce use religion and the Catholic church as a convenient excuse, when in reality they feel threatened by the fact that their spouse would have an escape route (but fail to reason that with the present state of affairs, their partner could leave anyway, and moreover leaving them without a leg to stand on.)If you feel so strongly about divorce, then just refuse to resort to it, and stop imposing your so-called morality on everyone else.
And for all those who fear that the introduction of divorce will lead to more marriage breakups, I have a different theory… I actually think that knowing how easy it would be to dissolve the marriage, people might actually work harder on the relationship and keep more “on their toes” so to speak, as it should be, if they want to stay together; rather than sink into the complacent mentality of “u iva now we’re married and he/she is stuck to me for life and can’t get away”. Then again, that’s probably why people who co-habit sometimes have better relationships than people who are married.. but that’s a whole other argument.
Please allow me to share a case I know:
A couple I know had their marriage annulled by the courts because one of the partners was unfaithful. The church authorities did not annul the marriage. The good person in this marriage found a new partner and wanted to remarry. Although a civil marriage was contracted the church authorities refused, with the ‘threat’ that the new couple will be living in sin and they will not be allowed to receive ‘any’ of the sacraments in the future. The couple talked this over with their personal confessor who advised them, knowing both of them to be in good faith and exemplary citizens, to continue receiving communion but in the meantime in another town.
A long time has since gone by and the couple have had children and had them baptised, made their first holy communion and confirmation in the original town where they were threatened with sin and eternal damnation.
Can anybody enlighten me how a good god will ever send a couple to eternal damnation (please note and contemplate the meaning of ‘eternal’ and more so ‘damnation’) for trying to find happiness in life and bringing up a family.
@ A Farrugia, Pullicino,Daphne and to all of those who referred in one way or other to the 70s and 80s.
May I first of all say that I done 5 years of research on those years whom I called “The revolutionary Years”. Maltese Social, Political and Religious History is the subject my special field.In the course of my research I met many protogonists of the period above mentioned. Met all except one Major Political Personalities of that period. The one I did not have the opportunity to meet, had passed away.
So I do have a whole library documented and recorded coversation of that period.I dare say that the political History of the period in question must be re-written because there are a lot of untold events and half truths.
I know that many history writers are serious and tell events supported by facts. on the other hand we have some who play historians are too biased to be credible.
May I say with all responsability that the threat to Democracy came from both sides of the political scenario of those times.It takes two for tango and it is undisputable that many actions from both political sides were not only undemocratic but on on various occasions illegal and criminal.
In those times ‘a heavy action ‘ was challenged and blocked with a “much heavier action”.
Logic and common sense teaches us that any administration would prefer and do its utmost to run the country smoothly and effectively. The less hustle it has to face the better.
So I always wondered why many biased writers point their fingers at the MLP Administrations then, and at same time ‘cover up’ all that came up from the opposite side, the PN!No disguise the PN writers use, can ever hide their part during the 70s and 80s.
Just to mention a particular event that for reason/s uknown was never mentioned.
Two persons,both well known, tried to ‘contract’ an IRA marksmen to have a go at Mintoff, while in office. The attempt didn’t materialise simply because when the marksman contracted knew who the target was to be, refused to honour the contract. This plot was hatched in London, UK.I know that the Administration then, was alerted about this attempt on Mintoff’s life.
Was the MLP behind this attempt?
The climax of those turbulent years were two POLITICA DEATHS!
Karen Grech and Raymond Caruana are indeed political martyrs.The death of Raymond Caruana was most used as a political bait to win POWER by the PN. The leader of the PN then in numerous occasions promised that he will bring to justice the perpetrator/s of Raymond’s murder. Karen Grech’s murder for one reason or other did not enjoy such exposure by the PN.I honestly always wondered why.
Of course the PN then accused openly MLP supporter/s for such murder.Twenty years after and after 20 years of PN Administrations justice hasn’t yet been done.
I dare say that behind both these herendous murders there is a ‘political brain and arm’. There is no doubt about this.The billion Euro question is who was really this ‘political brain and arm?
@me: thats because it wasn’t “a good god” , it was just a mere mortal who cast judgement. This mortal has willingly denied himself of marraige to another mortal, so he would only hold a biased “Ideal” perspective of marraige-not having lived through it himself.
The real question is: Why do people, in our day and age, still need to seek permission from the Church when things can be done legally and on good moral/spiritual grounds anyway?
A failed marraige is what it is, there’s absolutely no reason why Law or the church shouldn’t give the individuals involved another chance to love and marry again with no ‘spiritual’ guilt attached and hence,possibly, be happier.
M@
Exactly my line of thought, church marriage is a ‘recent’ invention of the early middle ages where the church stepped in after the collapse of civil authority. After all there is no place in the bible where Christ ordered that marriage be a celebrated under church authority like he did for communion and baptism.
Many still remember that not very long ago church marriage wasn’t even celebrated during a mass and was something of a touch and go with the couple kneeling in front of a priest, the vows taken and that was that.
It’s an hour and a half Peter Muscat put in his entry and no-one has yet answered him.
What is everyone waiting for?
There’s another point: those of us who married before the reform of the marriage laws in the mid-1990s were actually married twice over in two separate and distinct ceremonies – church and civil. First we got married in front of the altar, then we went into the sacristy where a public officer was waiting to perform the civil rite. The reforms of the mid-1990s, which were part of the deal in which church-owned land was transferred to joint ownership with the state, did away with the need to marry civilly if you marry by the Catholic rite. Since then, Maltese couples married in church do not also go through the civil rite as we did, and this means they are held hostage when the marriage breaks up and one of the parties decides that he/she doesn’t want a civil annulment. Where there is no civil rite, but only the Catholic rite, the court is prevented from proceeding without the consent of both parties. This is gross, but when you marry you do so in good faith, and nobody says, ‘Oh let’s have a civil rite as well to be on the safe side.’ Nobody noticed those reforms when they were going through, and I think I was the only one objecting in the newspapers.
I agree Daphne, but I still sustain the whole prevention is better than cure argument, where we have to work harder to help couples before and during the marriage, because only that will prevent the pain and suffering they can inflict on each other and their family. Divorce will only serve as an easy way out in my opinion.
When are you free for a coffee dear?
Best Regards
Marlene
True. You either have a (true) separation between State and Church or not.
My digital calendar says 2008.
The only problem with divorce is that it always starts with marriage. Those who should know better should stand up and legislate in favour of all those married human beings who married in good faith and found themselves living in hell.
It is of no consolation being told that they should have been more careful before making the step, they are living in hell. I remember grandma saying that ‘it is wine that turns to vinegar and not vinegar that turns to wine’.
@ Peter Muscat. Tell us more about what your studies show on the P.N.’s responsibility for the political climate in the 70s and 80s. The IRA incident you mention is interesting but tell us about the overall context. Was this a one off alleged assassination attempt by a far right nut working on the fringes or did it form part of an overall strategy. If so elaborate on that strategy in English or Maltese.
For goodness sake!! Yes prevention is better than cure, what a cliche’! But does this mean that we now don’t want to help provide the cure. So what happens when prevention is not possible? Let the patient die, claiming there is no cure?
Enough patronising…PLEASE!
”You know, some people believe that humans are capable of doing good out of conviction, not out of a fear of eternal damnation.” (Moderator)
What some people believe is not important at all. What really matters are these two big questions: ”Are we in line with truth?” and ”Are we going to save our souls?” Whoever goes to hell has no second chances – no matter what some people believe.
[Moderator – The point is that there are people who do good not out of a sense of guilt or fear of eternal damnation, but out of a sense of altruism. I’m sure that your church does not condemn these people to hell, whether they believe in its god or not. I would go further to say that the Catholic church discourages altruistic behaviour and spontaneous acts of kindness, and instead encourages people to follow an arbitrary set of rules. That is why you end with people living by the letter of the law but not by its spirit: divorce is bad because the Pope says so. Annulments and legal separation are alright but divorce is bad, even though the effect is the same. Running off to Outer Mongolia to spend the rest of your life alone in a tent is alright, but to give legal recognition to that separation is bad.]
Carmel, I’ll surely go to heaven, because hell is right here on earth. Just sayin’.
The 1990s reform of the marriage laws in Malta are anomalous, although a compromise “solution.” Personally, I am in the peculiar position of (1) obtaining a civil divorce for a first marriage; (2) having obtained a church annulment for that same “non-existent” marriage, some twenty-plus years after that first marriage; and (3) am now married in a civil-marriage from Malta under those revised marriage laws. Prior to those legal revisions, my present-wife’s first marriage was annulled by the State, which consequently enabled the possibility of our second legal marriage.
Some persons in the anti-divorce debate fail to distinguish the existence of a civil-status for marriage, independent of its church-status. I believe in the separation of church and state, which is not what we have, but should have, in Malta. I don’t know if this should be the result of confounding the status of “Catholicism” as the State Religion of Malta, with its special protections. But, it certainly is confounded with the present state of marriage laws in Malta.
It is not required for both parties in a failed “church marriage” to consent to file an appeal for a church annulment. Yet, that condition is required for a civil annulment for a church marriage in Malta. This is certainly a double standard. I would imagine that in all western societies (I am not sure about the Phillipines)that no one is prevented from obtaining a civil divorce by the church. It seems that, in Malta at least, the church sought to prevent the anomalous prospect of a civil annulment being provided, but no annulment declared for the case from the church. Since when should the State’s rights over marriages be ceded to a religious authority? Well, we have done that in Malta.
I believe that this non-separation of church and State is a violation of the State’s autonomous civil rights, as recognized by the Enlightenment. If the Inquisition was last to go in Malta, I suppose it also will be last, if ever, to re-establish its civil autonomy regarding divorce. Is Malta a theocracy, or a secular State? If the constitution does not render Malta a theocracy, then we all should be defending Malta as a secular State. I am against all forms of violence by imposition of religion. I am not opposed to religious instruction for children (another imposition in Malta), but as adults, everyone should be allowed to freely make their own choices, which may also include remarriage.
@Peter Muscat – yes, please elaborate. I love fiction.
Ms. Pullicino,
when you say in ‘my opinion’ and you have the power to impose that will of yours on others, like myself and others who are not catholics (or care very little about it) then that is ‘fascism’.
I would have expected that talk from a far-right member and not from a MLP MP. You have certain responsibilities towards the community and when you go to parliament you have to leave your beliefs out of the door and be objective.
Carmel Scicluna wrote:
“What some people believe is not important at all. What really matters are these two big questions: ”Are we in line with truth?” and ”Are we going to save our souls?” Whoever goes to hell has no second chances – no matter what some people believe.”
You’re wrong and you’re a hypocrite. Is your truth the only truth? My beliefs are not important because they’re different to yours?Do you seriously think you’re in line with the truth?I’ll take my chances with hell thanks, if it means not spending an eternity with people like you.
In the meantime, mind your own business. If some people want the option of divorce, abortion, gay marraige and anything not condoned by YOUR beliefs, it doesnt mean that you have to opt to go through them yourself.
Why do people stay worrying about other peoples faith when they have their own to worry about?
@Carmel Scicluna
I refer to my previous entry: “What is the truth ?”
Who is the keeper of the truth?
A church that most of what it teaches is tradition and its own interpretation of it is the truth?
Traditions are traditions, not belief or truth.
As for souls; in this day and age where we are sure to be descendants of an evolutionary process, from which point in the evolutionary tree are we to endow the ancestor with a soul ?
It is obvious that the ‘soul’ and the concept of the soul is very different to what we think it is. And even then it is very hard to comprehend how God in his immense infinity of attributes should in this immensity of a universe that was created with his word, judge our petty faults with eternal damnation.
I repeat ‘eternal damnation’.
Hogwash.
I can’t see why we keep mixing political arguments with religious ones. To me if it is “for the common good” that divorce is legalised then we should do it. If it is not that we don’t, religion has nothing to do with it. If divorce was legalised and you are a true catholic, you would stick to your faith and not leave your partner or remarry, even if your partner left you. You do not need the law to decide for you.
[…] Marlene Pullicino comments on DCG’s blog: http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/?p=386#comment-8618 […]
@Adrian Borg:
” I can’t see why we keep mixing political arguments with religious ones.”
Well, apparently god doesnt like divorce and would condemn us to the firey place if we accept it so it’s a good thing we have all these nice people who take it upon themselves to try nd save us from it.
Btw;Unfortunately religious arguments get mixed up with any and all other arguments even when they’re logical ‘common sense’ ones.
[Moderator – The thing is that this sticking to the letter of its laws puts the Catholic church in the awkward position of implying that all the people who have ever divorced are now in hell.]
@ Rene and the likes.
Just before the end of 1980, ‘someone'( whom I managed to interview personally ) informed the local authorities that a plot was being hatched to hire a ‘sharpshooter ‘ to kill the then Prime Minister Mr D. Mintoff.
A recorded telephone coversation between one of the Maltese plotters ( three Maltese nationals were actually mentioned in this recording .. one well known individual from Floriana ) and a hired killer fell in the hands of a Maltese national who lived in London and had businesses in Central London.
When ‘Castille’ was alerted on this attempt a ‘local’ ( whom I interviewed personally ) was sent to London with a number of instructions what to do and not to do.One chilling instruction was that he had to find ways and means to protect himself, since his mission was too dangerous.
As he was instructed, when the envoy send from Malta, got hold of the said tape, he rushed to Heathrow Airport and boarded the first AirMalta plane to Malta. The plane arrived in Malta at the early hours of morning, where two persons ( a Member of Parliament, who later became a Minister, and another trusted person)met the ‘Castille envoy’ as soon as he stepped down from the stairs of the plane.The incriminating tape was handed to this MLP MP, who in turn rushed rushed out of the airport.
Anyway, I just phoned the person whom I interviewed about this attempt, if he is ready to relate once more his part in this black episode of our history. He initially and flatly refused. Knowing him personally and knowing his ‘soft spot’ for Daphne, I suggested that the person that likes to hear his version is Daphne.It worked.
Dear Daphne the person is ready to answer all your questions and if you want to hear the version I am here making public, please contact me privately and I arrange all.I make no conditions but the person might make his.I don’t know that you have to find out yourself.
Yes Daphne have a go.
@Mod
along with the jews, muslims,buddhists,hindus,aethists, ancient greeks,ancient romans, ancient egyptians, our anscestors built us our temples etc etc. the list is practically endless.
I’m sure hell is quite full enough already, with the whole eternal damnation thing(and because there’s no room in purgatory since it doesnt exist anymore). Maybe hell is an eternal hallway with an infinite number of rooms.
I wonder..could souls get burnt?
@ Guzeppi Grech .. The political climate of the 70s and the 80s was a result of a number of actions from one side and the re-actions from the opposite side.
I mention the infamous political murders of Karen Grech and Raymond Caruana.Of course these were political murders. I do not have the least doubt.The murder of the latter was intensely and openly used by the PN to win the 1987 General elections.The leader of the then oppostion, Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami publicly promised that he’ll bring to justice those who committed this horrible crime.Fingers were pointed at certain MLP supporters.All Malta believed EFA and shot him to office.
Twenty years has now elapsed and the person who promised he’ll bring to justice those who commitd this terrible crime is now President of the Republic.
Why after 20 years of PN administrations both victims in particular and the Nation in general are still crying for justice?
I now ask, who really was the political brain behind these political murders. Not just one but both murders.
@Peter Muscat
And why did you address your post to me? I commented on Marlene Pullicino’s statement that “prevention is better than cure”.
@Peter Muscat:
Sounds like a great novel, would like to read it sometime, could be as good as the Da Vinci Code!
In all honesty, I wasnt born at the time, and so I dont know much about it (except for the stories my parents n nanniet used to tell me, nd the stuff I pick up from sites like this). But, that being said, I find it funny that, after a whole 20 years, you’re the first to research on the subject and to reach these conclusions.
Maybe you should report it to the police. Or maybe you shouldn’t, cos the people in ‘power’ would come and get you too—“you know to much” lol
@rene The people who voted me in knew exactly who they were voting for and what i stand for dear rene.if prevention is indeed impossible than we should saveguard the rights of the parties concerned in the arduous and painful runup to the actual separation during which many parents and children find themselves destitute either due the lack of existing legislation or the lack of its proper and fair application or due to the procastination of the law courts.easing this sufferring should be our top priority.the decision for or against divorce should be the prerogrative of the nation.this is my personal opinion.
@anyone who would know:
Weren’t the MLP making up stuff like this all the time? LIke the time the police force found guns or something at PN HQ?
@ Marlene Pullicino
Are you the real one, I mean the MP? If so I would certainly relate to you personally one day all you need to ask me. I hope very soon.
Remember as always .. IT TAKES TWO FOR TANGO!!!So it did in the 70s and 80s.
The following is a true example of what I consider to be the hypocrisy of the church and the lousy application of its man (or should I say male) made regulations.
A person who was married in a civil ceremony abroad, obtained a divorce in a foreign country and came to live in Malta. This person eventually was allowed to remarry again in Malta and this time, this person chose to get married in church, with all the blessings of the priest who celebrateed the holy sacrament.
Any comments?
Marlene, your argument of ‘prevention is better than cure’ really does not make sense. What are you going to suggest next, stop offering treatment to drug addicts and concentrate solely on prevention! Stop treating people involved in reckless car accidents because they should have never crashed in the first place.
@ Marlene …
Ask whover you want even our dear Daphne how many times and at various occasions EFA gave the impression that he knew who committed R. Caruana’s murder and how many times he promised he’ll bring to justice all responsible for such a cruel murder.
It WAS A POLITICAL MURDER.
Why after 20 years of PN Administrations the political murders I mentioned are still unsolved??
Indeed it is food for thought.Of course, I will never jump to any conclusions as EFA did. But someone knows very well who was the brain and the arm behind these herendous crimes.
Do not worry for me Marlene. I personally met most of those who hold powers.I know how it works too.
I keep records of all I do and what I scribble. If you are the real Marlene whom know ,I congratulate you for your tenacy and honesty. Some of those who are responding to your post and hitting you below the belt are just puerile and should look at their mirrors at home.
I cannot ever accept the fact that so many around are still priest ridden and are completely controlled by their christian masters.Though I do not want to accept this fact it is evident that it still exist and even in this forum is being used for ends I can never understand.
@Peter Muscat. Well let’s have the full story on the Mintoff assassination attempt. Daphne go speak to the man -it may be a journalistic coup either for you or Saviour Balzan. However, Mr. Muscat, was this attempt a crazy project hatched by some nuts on the fringes or was it hatched by the then opposition. If the latter let’s hear your evidence and let’s name names.
Finally I agree that there is a lot that remains to be answered about Karen Grech and Raymond Caruana. However don’t forget that with Karen Grech the matter was investigated first by the police when the MLP was in office and then presumably by the police when power shifted to the PN. Do you have anything to add to what is publicly known about these fruitless investigations. Are you alleging that information is being deliberately withheld.
More importantly, I for one, am interested in hearing more about any evidence of an overall strategy as opposed to one off incidents that appear unrelated. The IRA assasination is not related to Karen Grech which in turn are not related to Raymond Caruana. Are you saying that they are? If so why not spill the beans or at least some of them so we know that there is something concrete to what you are saying.
@Vanni (I need to answer a question he has asked many times, though this does not strictly belong to the arguments being raised here)
Regarding the MLP’s position regarding spring hunting, does it really matter now, immediately after the elections? In any case, we have a PN government now, so it is THEIR responsibility which matters. I honestly can’t answer about the MLP. What I CAN see, however, is what the PN Government’s position is. And, it is in FAVOUR of spring hunting. Maybe most people missed this, but the government lawyer at the EU Court pleaded in FAVOUR of spring hunting being practised in Malta. He was raising the argument that the Malta Government was correctly interpreting the Birds’ Directive in allowing hunting in spring. The Court decided not against the hunters, but against the GOVERNMENT. But, in true PN fashion, once again the PN tried to fool both sides at once. As aptly explained by the San Hubertus Hunting Association today, the government did not open the spring season this year (while the electoral campaign was on), and abdicated its responsibility in favour of the EU Court. Thus it successfully gave the illusion to the anti-hunting lobby that it was against spring hunting. Funnily enough, the EU Court procedure was held behind closed doors, an extreme rarity in EU procedures. To those who believe that in politics nothing is coincidental, this is suspicious. In whose interest were procedures kept secret? Was it because, maybe, the Malta Government did not want it all over the place – during an electoral campaign – that its lawyer was arguing FOR spring hunting? That would have looked bad among the anti-hunting lobby, right?
Now, please remember that the Court’s decision is only about this year’s season. Have you heard anything from the Government or from the PN regarding next year? No, sir! In any case, the government now has an easy way out and is now effectively telling the hunters “blame it on Brussels”.
So, you see Vanni, things are not what they seem. You need to dig deeper, much much deeper.
@ Albert Farrugia. Do you think an apology is in order from the new MLP leader to victims of political thuggery and violence in the 1970s and 80s?
Dear Albert
It is quite amusing to see you having to apologize because you are answering an out of subject question, seeing I ‘hound’ you solely when you go out of point and drag politics into everything. When you mix the hass, so to speak, I’ll join in. When you forbear, so will I.
Now, although you have answered with a very long winded diatribe, I am not much the wiser. So the question is, how can you garner support for a party when you don’t know what they stand for?
It seems that we are in the presence of a Jack Higgins here folks.
IRA assasins that refuse to do the job, Secret agents flying in the night, with a licence to protect themselves at all cost, junior (or was it would be?) ministers hanging about in airports…
I wonder what comes next? Terrorists parachuting on Castille?
@Uncle Fester
As part of an overall, carefully, well thought out and agreed national reconciliation policy, yes.
Peter Muscat, seems you have story to tell. But why hijack this thread on divorce to do so?
@Hilary: I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what your Church thinks about divorce but I care very much what political parties do especially when they’re in power. I vote for political parties not for the Church. And I must say, both major parties do not give a penny about the citizens they govern: they only care about achieving power or maintaining it once they have it. And if this means that they do not enact a divorce law when in government, so be it. This is the kind of governments Malta has had throughout its constitutional history, whether Labour or Nationalist. I must say, however, that Labour governments have been much more progressive even if only in this respect – it was a Labour government which decriminalized adultery and homosexuality and reformed film censorship which had previously been in the hands of a censorhsip board made up of priests and tal-Muzew. And NO, I am not a Labour supporter, in case you’re wondering. Finally, I am totally convinced that no divorce law will be passed during this legislature. The Nationalists cannot afford to alienate even a single Catholic-fundamentalist and Nationalist voter when their majority is so paper-thin. We’re stuck for ever in this time-warp country which heroically stays put in the dark ages fettered hand and foot by Canon Law just as Muslim fundamentalist countries are under the yoke of Sharia law.
Hilary, are you aware that Pope Benedict XVI, when still Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the direct successor of the Holy Inquisition? Is this the Church whose precepts you want our country to follow? I will not mention the smiling dominican who tarries all around the country, including the monti, showing us his teeth. The Dominicans, Order of Preachers, were set up in the 13th century by St. Dominic to combat heresy in France, especially Albigensians and Cathars, and we all know what the instruments to combat heresy consisted in – the rack, the strappado and eventually handing over to the lay power for an auto da fe’. But maybe the smiles are intended for us to forget the history of the Ordo Praedicatorum.
Marlene Pullicino wrote: “the decision for or against divorce should be the prerogative of the nation, this is my personal opinion.” What does this mean? Does it mean there should be some kind of referendum? Civil rights are not subject to referenda. Is it the prerogative of the nation to send red-haired girls to the gas chambers if the nation so decides? No, civil rights are above discussion, these truths are held to be self-evident (to borrow Jefferson’s famous phrase in the American Declaration of Independence)and, if denied, there is a breach of the rights of Man whether this be enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or not. Our nation deserves that our Representatives understand this simple concept.
You guys are all missing the point. Jesus did NOT ban divorce – the Church did. Jesus said (Matt. 19.9): “I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for unfaithfulness, and marries another, commits adultery”. The meaning is clear: in cases of unfaithfulness divorce is permitted, according to Jesus Christ. But not for the Church – they would lose a bit of their control over people, which is all their ‘no divorce’ policy is.
And @ Marlene – have you ever heard of minority rights?
@ Daphne. Are you an apostate? (So am I).
@freethinker
Well I do not subscribe to your extreme views. A “freethinker” needs to have also the ability to see what is positive as regards religion and the Church. Otherwise your ideas and words would be little different from that of the Inquisition. A secular state is really also in the interest of Catholics. May I just remind everyone that the MLP’s efforts at secularisation in the 60s and 70s also had the support of some high-profile members of the clergy. One of them, Dun Ang Seychell of Zejtun, still openly writes and comments on this subject. Not to mention of course Fr Mark Montebello, a true leftist if ever there was one! Incidentally, Fr Mark is also a Dominican!
[Moderator – If you think those views are extreme then, as Daphne said, you have a gap in your thinking that should have been filled by the Age of Enlightenment. Get this idea out of your head that divorce legislation will somehow infringe on the rights of others. Universal rights are not negative rights – they do not oblige you to do anything – they are a recognition of absolute, self-evident truths.]
@Moderator
I think there was some mix-up here. I was reacting to the previous freethinker post. As it turned out, until I posted freethinker had already entered another post. On the contrary, I agree with freethinker totally regarding his second post.
[Moderator – That’s a relief – I thought this was going to be another battle.]
@ Albert Farrugia. That was a well thought out response – re reconciliation. I think that we may well be turning a page here and would have turned it already had Sant not held on to his job in 2003. According to Varist, or Ev for many of the readers of this page :), he told Sant in private that he needed to call it a day after he lost that double whammy. What a pity he didn’t take the advice.
The voters who didn’t trust the MLP enough because of Sant and either stayed at home or voted for AD/AN or just held their noses and voted PN again will soon switch their sympathies to Labour if Labour gets its act together after electing a new leader. Gonzi will then be in for a rocky five years especially if the PN continues to govern as if it had a solid majority instead of governing by consensus in view of its razor thin very relative and diminishing majority.
@Peter Muscat
You are in need of a truckload of salt :)
Whoever is telling you these stories is having a good time with you…. :)
Seriously, if you are REALLY resarching then you would have read the court documents with regard to the murder of Raymond Caruana such as the compilation of evidence. The fact that you write the way you do seems to suggest that you are writing the fairy tale you want to hear rather than the truth.
There is so much more to it than the comments you pass. I find it very difficult to beleive that you are in good faith and doing any serious research. Anyone who HAS read at least a synopsis of the relevant documentation and various testimony in the various compilations would not write the way you do and hope to retain any credibility as a researcher.
On that basis, one must assume that your so called research on other stories is of the same level of competence and your credibility must therefore be very close to zero.
@Uncle Fester
What I beg to differ on, however, is about Alfred Sant’s record as regards national reconciliation. He was the one to banish, one hopes once and for all, certain elements within the party. No wonder that Sant made enemies within he MLP. Because he took hard decisions. It’s such a pity that, instead of signalling their support towards Alfred Sant in his successful efforts to rid the party of those harmful elements, the PN embarked on a massive character assasination campagin against Sant. Any national reconciliation process MUST acknowledge Sant’s important role. And while I think George Abela is the man best suited at this stage to lead the party, the events of the last days are almost leading one to think that the downfall of Sant’s New Labour is going to mean simply the return of Very Old Labour. If George Abela’s campaign becomes sinply a focal rallying point for all those disgruntled anti-Santians in the MLP there is no way the party can move forward.
Vanni, of course there are hidden truths. Ghaddafi was in Verdala Palace during OPERATION EL DORADO CANYON. I know this from a DGSE HC.
@Peter Muscat
W/o repeating and after reading what other bloggers had to say about your revelations, I feel I must add some comments.
1. I am not saying you’re fabricating all you say, but your entries smack too much of an American novel for my liking. I’m not sure if I have heard or read this Mintoff/IRA story before, all I know is that such a story, fact or fiction would have been resonated to greater distances if it were true.
2. I’m not sure I understood the reason behind your research, if it were only for fun or some kind of degree thesis, or you are thinking of writing a book. Can you please enlighten us?
3. Karen Grech was only a child when she was murdered; if she were alive I would think she would be around Daphne’s age now. Her murder has saddened and still saddens all of the Maltese nation. I believe her murder was for sure related to the doctor’s strike issue which was raging at the time. Her murderer could have been someone who had a grudge against her father as a strike-breaker (he had every right to do this of course). For all I know, her murderer must have had Nationalist leanings, but even if it were so, it doesn’t make her murderer a killer enlisted by the Nationalist party, as you seem to be implying.
4. It is a known fact that during that period, certain Nationalist party factions wanted PN to take up arms. It is also a fact that these factions/people were silently disowned and kicked out of the PN administrative hierarchy.
5. You have written many times the innuendo that PN have armed the hand that killed Raymond Caruana. You are implying this when you said Eddie knew who killed him. Again this innuendo has already been repeated in the past. There are many unknowns in this story; what is known for sure is that the bullet that killed Raymond was coming from the same firearm that sprayed the Tarxien PN party club a few days back. It is also a known fact that the Tarxien club was attacked by Wistin Abela thugs / supporters from Zejtun. I cannot fathom how anyone can come to the conclusion that PN had anything to do with all this.
6. Lastly, and I have already said this in previous entries to this blog, in my opinion, it is an utter shame that after all it’s promises, a PN government and the Police force during a PN government, for whatever reason, only brought to justice a merely small proportion of the ‘marmalja’ that was well-known in those black days, and which were well-known to everyone.
Regarding the murder attempt which has been mentioned here…once I found a magazine published by some Libyan cultural centre in Malta (if I remember well the magazine was called Is-Sejha). This magazine carried out a story about an assasination attempt on Mintoff in which a Salesian and some Italian fascist cell were involved. I guess this was reported also in newspapers at the time, but I never checked. I’ll try to find this magazine and check for dates etc.
@ amrio
I must say ,you seem well informed.
One important fact you DID NOT MENTION, in Raymond Caruana’s political murder.
Someone did ‘touch’ Raymond’s body before the investigating police arrived. This is a fact. We all know that Nothing MUST be touched on any scene where a crime is committed.
You are wrong too in saying I am insinuating something.there is SOME ONE somewhere who is hiding the TRUTH for whatever reason.
You must know very well that during those times a good number of what you and your masters call ” marmalja” on the MLP side and the the others you and your masters call ” imqarbin” on the PN were certainly carrying all types of guns and weapons. Such was the situation after the perverse result of the 1982 General elections.I have managed to interview many such protogists from both camps.TOLD YOU MANY TIMES NOW … It TAKES TWO FOR TANGO!
Now, I will come to my personal conclusions about Raymond’s “political murder”.Under such hot atmosphere described above for obvious political gains the murder was thrown out of proportion and real contest.I strongly believe that the bullet/s that hit Raymond were not fired from a 2 or 3 feet distance. Evidence and phots of scene back my beliefs. I STRONGLY believe it was simply an accident .. in short an ‘inside accident’.I confess too, that interviewing the other persons who were with Raymond I falied too. I tried many many times but it is a concrete barrier I cannot find ways to overcome.
I confess here too, that I refrained from presenting all my findings and did not mention in my thesis I presented at tal-Qroqq, for the simple reason that it might ‘hurt’ a number of persons still alive and also might jeopardise any sort of investigations.
Got a very good distinction on my thesis and many times I was asked to make public. Was promised heaven to make public my thesis but I refrained becuse I gave my word of honour to many protogists that I won’t do that.Imagine what I would be offered if I put ALL my findings in my thesis.
Something else, which goes even back to the times in question, exactly during the political/ religious struggle of the early 60s.
Much has been written by our historians about the famous Mintoff’s Mass meeting at Victoria , Gozo .. the bell ringing Mass meeting.
Historians say that the PN had nothing to do with such a violent demonstration. I say what a FALLACY. I have ample prove to convince all that TWO ENVOYS from Malta who had direct links with the PN then, took a major part in organising such a violent demonstration.Of course , I have names and all information, plus the evidence of some one who took participated. The person who narrated all to me is still alive and kicking.
My friend I have no other intentions except to tell facts and to make people like you think hard and digg deep before you jump to silly conclusions.
As you well said that very small portion of the ‘marmalja’ and I add, ‘Imqarbin” toooo, were accused of anything.It does not amaze me, at all. Have you ever thought about the possibility of any sort of link/s between the two notorious factions? How come that some ‘marmalja’ and some ‘imqarbin’ crossed their allegiances? These facts are there for all to know and digest.And for reasons unknown to many we are deprived of such information.
Being biased certainly will never help any one to come to the right conclusions. Actually it never does. I try to go for facts. Nothing else is important.
[Moderator – Peter, when you submit your thesis for classification it automatically becomes the property of the University, and you have absolutely no say in whether it is published or not. I’ve searched the library’s index of theses and yours is not there. But perhaps you submitted it recently and it has not yet been indexed. What is the title? Is Peter Muscat your real name?]
@ Those who are trying hard to discredit me and even call me names.
I have copies of most ducments on R.C’s case.I do not have copies of documents that , as I was told, were lost or misplaced.Also, I will never relate anything about the fire arm much advertised by the media and story tellers,because there is too much manipulations of real facts, and ‘sayings’ which cannot be collaborated by facts, about that particular fire arm.
To all who wants to understand. I repeat that during those torbulent years, especially after the perverse result of the 1982 G.E., violent actions were responded too by violent re-actions.Such behaviour from both political sides I openely condemn. I believe too that there were political reasons for such behaviour from both camps.
Of course each side blame the other side.Their clones behave so too, even to the present day.Such behaviour is unacceptable in modern times and does more harm then good.
A biased person can never be a reflection of reality. That I always try not to be.In my writings I try to be pro facts as much as possible.
If I sounded different then I apologise because it was and never is my intention.
[Moderator – Why won’t you make these documents public? You can very easily upload them to Google Docs or YouSendIt and paste the link here.]
This is Gavin Gulia’s view on divorce in an interview on Maltatoday last Sunday:
“Let me start by saying that I consider divorce to be a ‘facultative’ right. This means that (once legalised) the right will be there and can be applied, but only if it is needed. There seems to be a perception that the introduction of divorce will somehow ‘force’ people to go down that road even if they don’t want to. But it doesn’t work that way. Even so, however, let us assume for a minute that I myself am against divorce in principle. Well, who am I to deny others that right?”
Gulia makes no secret of the fact that he thinks the MLP should be the party to effect this social change.
“In the 1970s it was the Malta Labour Party which had the courage to introduce a number of necessary social reforms: for instance, civil annulment, as well as the decriminalisation of homosexuality and adultery. Labour had the vision and foresight to do this 30 years ago. Today, however, the issue seems to have been taken up by Alternattiva Demokratika. So why was AD so unsuccessful? If you ask me, it’s not because the issues themselves are wrong, but because of the perception that AD is not powerful enough a political force to actually bring those issues to fruition…”
MLP Deputy Leader candidate Gavin Gulia looks at divorce from an altruistic viewpoint. His opinion makes sense. I think he fits in the progressive faction of the MLP. He surely doesn’t look conservative.
@Progressive – I agree with Gavin Gulia 100% on this one. Too bad that, as far as I am concerned, he’s in the wrong party. And let’s not forget that the Labour Party’s supporters are far more conservative than the Nationalist Party’s – a very strange situation, given the historical perspective.
@ Albert Farrugia. Alfred Sant’s difficult reforms of the M.L.P. have always been acknowledged by the P.N. and will be acknowledged by history I am sure. When I look at Sant I shake my head in disbelief – here is a man who offered so much potential that he was never able to translate into practice.
In my opinion the problem with Alfred Sant was that he was first and foremost undermined by Mintoff for whatever reason. Who knows with Mintoff? Was it ideology? Was it personal? Was it just plain jealousy? Was it a combination of all three and other things joe public does not know about.
Furthermore Sant’s anti-EU stance cost the M.L.P the 2003 election and maybe even the 1998 election. He had an opportunity to change track or modify the M.L.P’s total anti EU stance in 1997 and did not. Furthermore he should have resigned in 2003. He cost the MLP the 2008 election by not doing the right thing in 2003.
The P.N. persoanl attacks on Sant are deplorable and certainly backfired with people in the center. For example Daphne’s personal attacks on him and mockery don’t reflect well on her, in my opinion. They always seemed very personal and spiteful. The attacks may have had the desired effect as part of the general overall PN strategy of personal attacks on Sant but that certainly did not make them right.
@ Peter Muscat and others. Maybe someone knows this – were ballistic tests carried out on the bullets used to kill Caruana? I assume so because they were traced to a gun used in the other incident in Tarxien. Was it possible to trace a particular bullet to a particular gun and if so can the sale of the gun be traced to a particular individual or at least the manufacturer’s batch and so forth. Just curious. Any information on this part of the investigation?
When God gave man the commandment” Though Shalt Not Kill”, He made a big mistake. He did not consult DCG first and get her ok. Killing includes the murder of the defenceless like unborn children, the very old, the handicapped and termially ill who are unable to fend for themselves and voi8eless and depend on others to provide a voice for them. It also refers to the killing of one’s good name , reputation and character for less then altruistic reasons. Thank you for letting me express an opinion here.
[Moderator – What does the sixth commandment have to do with divorce?]
@ uncle foster … the files you are referring to,are misplaced while others dissapeared..
@ moderator .. one day I will surely make public all my findings and research and our polical history would have to be re-written. As I already said, I gave my word of honour to 3 persons , who are prime witesses, that I won’t make public their testimony..They really fear for their lives.I have recorded and signed testimony from these individuals.But one day, I will surely make public all.
I may add too, that I was assured by ONE person that if there some kind of WhistleBloweers Act, he is ready to come forward and say his story of events.
Of course I cannot really make public all my findings and conclusions unless I am assured and guaranteed the safety of those who trusted me with their testimony.
But any one who can read betwen the lines can understand that certain information I made public here and in other forums were never released eg. R.C’s case .. the victim’s body was ‘turned and touched’ before the investigators arrived.
@ moderator .. Would you believe me if I tell you that some one ‘misplaced’ my thesis. I have a feeling who “borrowed it”, just to be nice.
I can add too, that really ‘hot testimony’ was mildly expressed in the thesis I presented. The original one is safe and sound at my home.It is safe for posterity.
[Moderator – I believe you as this sort of thing happens all the time. For that reason, some material like Is Malta burning can’t be removed from the Melitensia section. But since your thesis material is not as ‘hot’, would you like to publish it on the Web? This has the ring of smoke and mirrors, and it would help if we could just see some well-researched facts.]
@ Uncle Fester
No one knows why AS was undermined by Mintoff. However, I do believe that after leading the party for 43 years (he was still in control with KMB at the helm), he lost his control with AS as a leader. The latter did his best to re-brand the party both when it comes to ideals and image. In my opinion, moving out of the Macina being one of the most successful (symbolic but not only) tasks.
@Peter Muscat
If it is true that you own such information, I would be the first to buy your book, provided that you decide to go public! AND oh! I was so neutral about the whistleblower’s act, but now…
@PiNo – everyone can express their opinion here. This is not the Labour Party of the local branch of the Catholic Church, and I practise what I preach about freedom of expression.
@Uncle Fester – you fall into the trap of describing as ‘personal attacks’ accurate assessment of a prime minister’s and a potential prime minister’s personality, character, life and attitudes, all of which are relevant to electors.
@Malcolm Buttigieg
“a true example of what I consider to be the hypocrisy of the church…” “Any comments”
The example you cite is surely one of consistency, which of itself is not hypocrisy. Inconsistency, potentially, would be hypocrisy.
The distinction between civil marriage and the “sacrament” of marriage is maintained by the church in the case you cite. And in that case you cite, there is no conflict.
Also, your example also shows that it is legitimate for the church to maintain its authority regarding its evaluation of the “sacrament” of marriage, which led to the particular church-state agreement of marriage laws in Malta in the 1990s. I don’t agree with that particular cmpromise solution, however.
What is anomalous in my view is that the State of Malta recognizes the civil status of marriage by also recognizing divorce issued in a foreign State, but does not maintain a civil divorce for its own citizens, unless that divorce is obtained from abroad, because Malta regards marriage as indissoluable. However, the State agrees to the concept of a civil annulment, much like the concept of a church annulment, if an impediment to entering into marriage is found to have pre-existed the invalid marriage.
@ Daphne .. May I ask why you said “This is not the Labour Party of the local branch of the Catholic Church”.
I agree maybe more then you with freedom of expression. But freedom of expression should never be used as you did there.
From a mature and well experienced lady you are, I never imagined fall to that level.
If you are tired and that remark was a slip of the pen, it is understood. Otherwise just learn when you should hold your breaks.
@Daphne. Come on Daphne, how is whether or not a man wears a hairpiece indicative of anything psychological? Aren’t you using this psychobabble stuff as a respectable reason for taking a catty swipe at the man because you don’t like him?
Most bald men don’t like it but get used to it. Others have a hair transplant and others prefer to wear a hairpiece. Same thing with people dyeing their hair. Some are happy to let it go gray, others dye it. Some are happy to get wrinkles, others have a facelift. And some like AS just have some work done on their eyes.
@Peter Muscat
Having lived in Zejtun during those eventful years I would like to point out that during those days it was common knowledge who could have been involved in the Gudja Names were named immediately after the Tarxien incident. It was heard more then once that the weapon was seen in the hands of a particular person even in the village main square. It was also said at the time that the weapon as not original but was manufactured at the Malta Drydocks. What was for sure that came out of the inquiry is that the bullets found on the façade of the Tarxien club came out of the same weapon that killed Raymond Caruana and if you go deeper in your research you will also find that a couple of bullets were also recovered from the façade of the Gudja club. So it couldn’t have been an ‘inside’ job. As for the fact that the body of Raymond Caruana was turned over, yes that is a fact and it is nothing new. It was well documented in the daily newspapers of the time especially L-orrizont, where it was claimed that it was done to get political mileage. Maybe, but still it is nothing new and one has only to do some research at the national library. As for the weapon and other sworn affidavits, it is obvious that those who are writing about the incident have forgot that some days after the PN 1987 victory the law courts were attacked during a demonstration by MLP supporters in Valletta. The private chambers of the inquiring magistrate were ransacked and the weapon and many documents relating to the case were never found. This was all documented in the newspapers of those days. By the way, it is from that time that the heavy iron gates were installed at the law courts.
@Uncle Fester, if you can’t see that maintaining an entire wardrobe of (bad) wigs says a lot about the weaknesses and insecurities of a man, then please don’t consult me but ask a qualified psychologist.
@Albert Farrugia: no one asked you to subscribe to my views — in fact, there are not even any views in what I wrote but only historical facts which do not beg for subscription. As to looking at the positive in religion, I would appreciate anyone telling me where the positive lies. What is usually pointed out as “positive” such as charitable institutions has nothing to do with religion. Religion, especially institutionalized religion, has been the instrument of oppression and hate for centuries and continues to be so today. People have been tortured and slain throughout history and religion has been claimed as the divine justification. Maltese society today continues to remain backward in civil liberties because Catholics will not get it into their heads that many of us do not want to save their souls according to the Catholic formula. And, of course, Catholics cannot err, only they know what’s best for us all, only they know what’s in God’s mind. Jorqdu u jqumu mieghu, huma biss jafu xi jrid.
@Daphne Well I’m asking you because you’re the one claiming that your comments about Alfred Sant’s hairpiece were made only for the best of intentions – i.e. because it was indicative of a deep seated psychological problem that was relevant in assessing this public figure. And by the way, how do you know the man has a wardrobe full of wigs? Have you peeked inside? I would expect him to have a few – don’t these things have to be cleaned and trimmed professionally? What’s he meant to do while his hairpiece is at the cleaners, go around bald as a billiard ball until the wig is ready for use again?
@Edward Clemmer: there is a small offence aginst logic in your contribution: “What is anomalous in my view is that the State of Malta recognizes the civil status of marriage by also recognizing divorce issued in a foreign State, but does not maintain a civil divorce for its own citizens, unless that divorce is obtained from abroad, because Malta regards marriage as indissoluable.” If Malta (by which read Maltese governments) considers marriage as indissoluble, then it would not accept foreign divorces if it wants to be consistent. The fact is that the Maltese state accepts anything as long as the nefarious deed is done outside our hallowed shores – this includes divorce and, to some extent (as argued by DCG) abortion, albeit the latter tacitly.
All should keep in mind that while Maltese tribunals are powerless to dissolve marriage because the Maltese State is still mesmerized by the Catholic Church, the same Church believes that marriage is NOT indissoluble and cheerfully dissolves perfectly valid marriages through the Petrine and Pauline privileges, the dissolution “in favour of the faith” as it is called. In these cases, no pious Catholic busybodies bring up the usual arguments about children being separated from their parents, social disorder and so on.
@moderator, me, amrio, uncle fester: Are you guys really taking this peter muscat (and his Miss Marple alter ego) seriously? Or are you just engaging him for comedy value?
@Peter Muscat: Get help. Are you seriously so delusional that you think the PN was behind an assassination plot against Mintoff and the murders of Karen Grech and Raymond Caruana? And if so, why is it that in close to twenty years of rule by the PN (a party which, according to you, is capable of masterminding these despicable acts) have we seen nothing of the thuggery that was so prevalent in the 70s and 80s? What I know for a fact is that during those years my parents were amongst the crowd that was shot at in Rabat, my grandparents were showered with tear gas whilst attending a political gathering in Floriana and my aunt was so badly beaten by one infamous Labourite savage that she was bed-ridden for weeks. I thankfully didn’t have to experience those times but I’ll take their word over your far-fetched conspiracy theories and non-sensical drivel any day of the week.
@Peter Muscat
From what you have written I gather that you have either not collected all the evidence related to the facts or as you have stated previously there are many who refused to give you information. It is obvious that you are not well informed and I humbly suggest that you rewrite your ‘thesis’. Stop trying to blame people who it is very obvious are out of the equation.
You wrote many a time ‘it takes two to tango’, yes, and the main protagonists in that devilish dance were the MLP government and the GWU aided by a ‘band’ composed of political criminals who through either commission or omission, the Maltese worker was driven to the deepest mud of socialist terror and arrogance.
If a fraction of what you claim has some truth in it, you should know that even if you promised your informants, you are withholding evidence which is a criminal offence even for the fact that it clears the innocent. Do you duty as a Maltese citizen and inform the competent authorities of ‘your facts’.
Throw that ‘Mintoff attempt’ story out of the window and concentrate on rewriting ‘goldilocks’, it would make better reading.
@Mv … why don’t you make your home work before you utter such puerile thoughts!I am sorry to say that when someone is so biased and never tries to see a picture from a different angle, one can never find the truth of events.
The Rabat incident you referred too was masterminded by someone who certainly did not hail from the MLP camp. It started when a large number of NP Supporters purposely attacked the MLP Club. For that action there was a re-action.
I made it clear that I Go for FACTS!
I ask you Mv…. about the murders you mentioned.Even logic and common sense itself tells anyone that if there was a Political party to gain any sort of davantages from such herendous acts it certainly wasn’t the MLP!
Facts gives us a much different picture then that which the PN always preached.I ask again why after 20 years NO ONE was ever accused of such crimes?As regards the attempt on Mintoff’s life what I can reveal for the time being is that one GREAT BENEFACTOR of the PN was the person mentioned in that ‘famous tape’ who was to finance this attempt.
Maltse Political History ( which is my primary field ) gives a number of occasions when the PN used many illegal means ( many autorcious ) and blatant deciet to gain power.
Good example is the ‘Terrinu story”. But apart all this, I said many times that BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES share responsabilty for terrible situation Malta lived after the 1982 G. E. perverse result.
The illegal attempt by the PN to run the country from its Headquarters was the PRIMARY cause of the terrible situation Malta experienced after the 1982 G.E. I know very well what I just revealed. So the minds( most are still alive) who masterminded this PN strategy then.In the end this illegal strategy did give the PN the power it craved for so long.
I always said that BOTH PARTIES were to blame for such a terrible situation.The response of an HOT ACTION was always a Hotter Re-ACTION.
Finally I assure you that I got all the ‘help’ I needed to come to such conclusions.If you told to get help in an offensive way then I just pity you and feel sorry for you.
Calling you or any one names is not in my nature.
[Moderator – Peter, please stop swooping in here, talking about what might as well be the kraken, and then swooping back out again. Unless you’d like to talk about something directly related to the post, this the end of the discussion.]
I do not have to interview anybody about Rabat, Floriana, tal-Barrani etc. I was there. Stop writing drivel.
@Peter Muscat. You say you “Go for FACTS!” but in post after post you get the year the infamous 1981 election wrong. It’s hard to take you seriously.
It is people like Peter Muscat who, unfairly, give university graduates and MLP supporters a bad name.
Is it so hard to type in correctly spelled words?
To make a typo now and then is normal. To consistently spell simpe words wrong and use horrible grammar is what’s atrocious (and that is how to spell the damn word).
Peter Muscat
Put up, or shut it. You are beginning to sound like those old women who hang around in street corners, each saying to each other “Allahares nitkellem jien, ghax aqta x’jigri kieku.” If you have something to say, say it, if not silly innuendos, hot tangos, etc etc have no place here. You may have your views about what happened in the past, and you are welcome to them, but unless you bare all, don’t bother. This is not a striptease club, where you titillate the patrons.
@freethinker
“a small offence against logic”
Actually, I think there is an agreement on our logic; the offensive logic rests with the State.
Yes, divorce is recognized from abroad by the State of Malta; but the offense is that it does not recognize divorce for its own citizens in Malta (nor does it grant divorce to foreign citizens who would like to seek a divorce through Malta’s courts, although the foreign citizen may seek such a divorce from his/her own ex-patriate country).
It seems that Malta regards marriage as indissoluable FROM MALTA. In this way, the government mimics the church. The hypocrisy is that Malta recognizes that marriage is dissoluable, but is not disolved from its courts.
Malta, however, does regard the possibility of marriages being invalid, and it does grant civil annulments. One cannot dissolve an invalid marriage, just recognize that it was not a valid marriage. In this concept, the Malta State and the church are in agreement, although their criteria may differ, and jurisdiction is separate.
The Pauline privlege is an interesting case where legitimate marriages are invalidated by the church. There seems to be a theological logic (of mercy) behind the privlege.
Apologies mates and thanks @ Moderator.
I’ll keep to the subject as much as possible, as moderator rightly asked me to.
Anyone who can afford the expenses involved can have a marriage dissolved by the church.And the more you have contacts at the ‘church court’ the easier it is.
Though I hate writing on the subject of ‘divorce in Malta’,I simple say that a referendum should be held on the subject and let the majority decide.But even such a democratic step will never be taken by any administration which is terrified of the power of the church.
Once again any person who can afford, can get divorced abroad. That in return is legally accepted in Malta.
It is a question of bucks isn’t it?
@ Peter Muscat
Referenda are the most democratic of tools, in a normal environment. The problem is that this is not a normal environment here. Why? Simple, the majority would impose their fears and hypocrisy on others. The Maltese are unfortunately not sophisticated enough to see beyond their parochial noses. They do not reason out that whilst their marriage may (or at least appear to be) safe, but there may be others who are not so lucky. The reasoning would be more along the lines “The Church says NO”, Or “Le ta, ma jmurx jahrabli r-ragel jew il-mara”
@Peter Muscat
“Anyone who can afford the expenses involved can have a marriage dissolved by the church….Once again any person who can afford, can get divorced abroad….It is a question of bucks isn’t it?”
Not exactly: You’ve mixed apples and oranges here. Financially, I could afford neither, but the payout was made the same. The divorce from abroad was expensive, along with its unimaginably huge child support. I have a divorce, but no money. The monies pertaining to the church annulment were practically nothing. And, yes, my annulment case was determined outside of Malta, too, where the rules of church jurisdiction applied. The annulment was granted, too.
Money has nothing to do with it, especially if you can resign yourself to not having any left after a divorce.
But, there are certain potential advantages regarding making a case for a church annulment. The marriage tribunal in Malta was very, very helpful in my case; and I was very knowledgeable of the process, both because of my personal knowledge of others going through the process and because of my professional knowledge (in social work and in psychology) regarding the function and procedures of marriage tribunals. Knowing this, and with my own personal analytical insights, I also kept a clear focus on the requirements for a case to be successful. The basis for a church annulment is amply clear. And the judgement of the Church was consistent with my arguments, evidently.
There may be disadvantages for the processes of church annulments for Maltese, for marriages made in Malta. First of all, not everyone is blessed with the skills and insights to present their case properly. It is also possible that persons may not well understand what the valid criteria are and what that means in relationship to their personal case. And, there is not likely the option to file for annulment outside of Malta, where tribunals are more experienced and where they have access to sufficient and quality professional resources. This is not to say that the Malta tribunals are not good; my experience with them suggests a very high quality. But it may be hard to provide and find sufficient resources for individuals to present appropriate cases.
The rates for church annulments in Malta seem to be lower than in the US experience. The lower rates, perhaps twice lower [I no longer have the relevant data] suggest two possibilities: (1) harsher criteria or more critical judgements, or (2) cases prepared and submitted on an inappropriate or unsubstantiated basis. However, since the criteria are universal and the evalutions of the tribunal are likely up to standard in Malta, I would argue that the second possibility is the more likely situation.
There may be various cultural factors operating in Malta that render annulment cases relatively unsuccessful. I am not going to try to argue those possibilities here. I do believe that the culture of marriage preparation in Malta is insufficient. And there seems to be a much too early pairing of couples before they have had an opportunity to understand themselves, let alone explore a wider range of relationships, leading to a more mature commitment. Far too many people enter into marriage, immaturely, without understanding the true nature of its commitments–but that happens the world over, not just in Malta. But Malta may have its special difficulties, especially when marriages are defined by social status and financial factors, and by cultural expectations putting pressure on persons to marry.
People may marry for the bucks; and some divorce for the bucks; but a church annulment is not obtained by money. More professionals to assist tribunal cases may help.
Peter Muscat: Why hold a referendum at all? There really is no justification for holding off divorce legislation. The reasoning that it would destroy families is nonsense when you see what families are doing and have done to themselves. Making divorce available doesn’t break down families. Irresponsible and self-centred behaviour does.
I read some valid pro and con points. I suggested a referendum for the simple reason that I believe it is the best democratic action on a subject that has been in discussion nearly half a century.
I strongly believe that legalising divorce gives any individual a democratic and legal option to end a marriage that went wrong.
But the political forces in Malta are terrified in granting such an option.
The less I say the better because I might be accused now of being anti-clerical and non-catholic.
[Moderator – Peter, learn the difference between a positive right and a negative right. Divorce is the former, and therefore beyond question.]