The Maltese people stand to be persuaded and manipulated yet again. The deeply ingrained gregarious instinct and need to belong fomented by an accommodating and colluding media, does not permit the masses to have a mind of their own. Once again the Constitution of the land is going to be bypassed, dribbled around, by means of a hoax orchestrated and perpetrated by the polity, only this time around, in a seemingly tacit conspiracy with accommodating and complying Church leaders.

The Constitution of Malta has already been dribbled around at least twice within living memory by the polity: the suspension of the Constitutional Court by the Mintoff regime and the orchestrated slap-stick farce of the unanimous vote by Parliament approving the EU Constitution. On that occasion, all of those that were going to vote against were directed or convinced to keep away from the House. And the masses smiled like silly contented cows or Cheshire cats because the media, in collusion with the polity, had released the laughing gas of propaganda.

The Constitution is the most precious thing the individual possesses. It is the only shield that protects the individual and the community (a group of individuals and not an abstract reification) against the capricious intentions, aggressions, and arrogance of the polity.

Trust the polity to find a way of dribbling around it and wounding the citizen! It is to be expected from the prevaricating politicians who make up the local polity.

But when the Church leaders in Malta act as if in a tacit conspiracy with the polity in the perpetration of such action, I can say I have seen it all. John Paul II, in a ‘diplomatic’ yet accommodating and opportunistic way, refrained from visiting Cardinal Romero’s final resting place and is on his way to being canonised. But, the real, non-political hero of Christ and Christ’s Church remains unsung and forgotten.

Just to obfuscate matters more, a lawyer heads the ‘official’ anti-divorce movement.

Well, that would make people jump to the conclusion that everything is above board and carried out according to the law because a lawyer ‘knows these things’. Yes, and a lawyer also knows what ‘things’ are mentioned and which are better, opportunistically and accommodatingly perhaps, evaded.

I have to remind readers that the second article of the Constitution is the artefact of Archbishop Gonzi personally. His aim and vision was always to keep the state of Malta Catholic. This article came in the aftermath of the referendum for Integration. Had this latter been approved, then Malta would have had a head of state that was also head of a church, the Church of England. Just imagine Mgr Gonzi living with that! Integration would also have meant the introduction of divorce, co-education and all the other works of the devil. My memory is still fresh in this regard. I still remember well the rantings of the exponents of the Church on The Granaries at Floriana. That was why the MLP was finally slapped with the Interdict.

The second article of the Constitution, hence, was included to perpetuate Catholicism as Malta’s state religion. I also remember the trepidations of PN supporters during the negotiations for Independence. Their only preoccupation was that Mgr Gonzi would shoot it down. It was because of this that Borg Olivier accepted the inclusion of Mgr Gonzi’s article. Not only that, but the PN, very secretly of course, pledged that it would never be instrumental in removing that article. From the indiscretions of a priest, now a very high official in the local Church hierarchy, I also gathered, that when ‘peace’ was made between the Church and the MLP, the latter had to make the same pledge. One wonders whether that was written on the final document, which was never made public.

The Constitution does not only give the rights and privileges of freedom of expression, association, movement, etc. It does not just give me the right and privilege to attend a meeting in Żejtun. It also provides me with the right and privilege to live in a Catholic state − community of people governed by the same rules and enjoying the same rights − where the assertion itself of the religious status of the state guarantees to me, John citizen, the right and privilege that the legislator keeps within the bounds of the teachings of the Catholic Church when enacting laws. The only guarantor of this state of affairs is the leadership of the Catholic Church, the interpreters of the Catholic faith, not me, a member of the faithful.

The onus of the defence of this my right and privilege rests on the shoulders of the leadership of the guardian and propagator of the Catholic religion. So I consider most definitely Pharisaic, politically opportunistic and accommodating this shifting of the onus off the shoulders of the church leadership and onto the faithful even by obligating them morally to vote. The leadership of the Church is not only not fighting for the rights and privileges of the faithful but is evading this confrontation. Well, I might not have the right to be that audacious as to propose strategies to the Church leadership. But I do have the right to form my own judgement about them, even recalling Christ’s words about not copying priestly actions, like being condescending.

All considering, therefore, I shall abstain. I shall not participate in a farce. I shall not be instrumental in helping Church and polity dribble around my only shield of defence. I do wish and hope that the pro-divorce lobby gets a majority even though it would be a legally worthless poll. I do wish and hope that the pro-divorce lobby gets a majority in Parliament.

Then, if Church leadership is not the opportunistic, politically accommodating leadership that I hold it out to be at the moment and as I see things to be, they ought to resign from their posts. The defence of the rights of the Roman Catholic religion, as delineated by the Constitution of Malta, rests on their shoulders. If divorce laws, which would still be anti-constitutional, were enacted, then the inefficacy and ineptness of the Church leadership in upholding the rights and privileges of the Catholic faith and faithful in Malta through opportunistic compliance would become most manifest. The leadership certainly would not become another Romero.

But then, again, it would stand a great chance of being canonised, or at least given the red hat!

Frank Galea

ZEBBUG