Times: The theocracy of Malta

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081020/letters/the-theocracy-of-malta
Monday, 20th October 2008
by John Guillaumier, St Julians

In a sermon at the cathedral, Archbishop Paul Cremona declared that "a democratic society would be missing out if only one belief or ideology were heard". He is absolutely right! A democratic society would be missing out if only Catholic belief or ideology were heard - as is the actual case in Malta!

The pressure on Malta's MPs to conform to "one belief or ideology" is very much evident when they gather at the cathedral on Malta's supposedly secular state holidays to be lectured every year by Malta's bishops on Catholic belief and ideology. The bishops' subtle pressure on Malta's MPs makes sure that there is no separation of Church and state in Malta. To make it worse, there is no separation of Church and press either! Sermons by Malta's bishops, supposedly addressed to a congregation but actually serving to put pressure on Malta's MPs, are given prominent coverage in The Times - as if The Times were a Church newspaper. Malta's power-hungry bishops have got it made! With Nationalist MPs and The Times on their side, the bishops can rest assured that Malta will remain a Catholic theocracy for some time to come - until a Maltese "Zapatero" comes along!

Comments
William P Flynn (10 hours, 32 minutes ago)
Nowhere is the selfishness and unassuageable hunger for power of the catholic church more evident than in the divorce debate. Divorce doesn't affect the clergy, for they don't marry; it doesn't affect catholics, for it is forbidden for them to divorce. Yet, it wants to tell everyone how to live and bully Maltese parliamentarians. Clergy bend the arms of individual elected representatives and try to choke the passage of laws through parliament.

If Maltese catholic parliamentarians want a precedent they should look at the New South Wales parliament last year passing legislation legalizing therapeutic cloning. The then premier and his deputy (both catholic) openly chastised and defied cardinal Pell for his muscling in on catholic mp's and threatening them with refusal of communion. Even catholic parliamentarians who voted against on conscience were critical of him.
Parliamentarians are sworn to act for the benefit of all their constituents not just the catholics, and certainly not the catholic church. (JN Ebejer this is what "in service of all" means.)

The church trying to stop divorce is like the government forcing the church to change canon law to allow it. The government would have no business doing that and vice versa.


j n ebejer (13 hours, 17 minutes ago)
could someone be barking up at the wrong tree?
Is it not the politicians from both parties, for the matter, who choose to attend religious ceremonies? (some of them preferably in the front row to be positively identified!)
is it not up to them to play fair on their constituents and be honest on their beliefs, convictions or ideas?
And, after all, have they not all right to conduct their life - be it, public, private ,official according to what they belief to be the right for themselves and in service of all?
What do you expect of a representative like the Bishop, preach other than his beliefs?
Could it be that some sort of critics are vehemently anti clerical, anti religion, anti belief that they cannot see otherwise?