We have been through this scenario before. One side claiming “the media was against us”; stamping its feet, throwing tantrums, going on the defensive and wailing that “our message was manipulated”. It all sounds depressingly familiar.
The people have spoken but on one side of the spectrum, they are still not listening. They don’t want to listen, and with every day that passes, I thank God (yes, Him) that the Yes vote won. I cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like to live in this country if the people trying to dictate how we live our lives had won the day. Why, they are still trying to control everything despite the fact that a clear majority wants divorce legislation. What they don’t realise is that many of those who stayed at home because they genuinely could not decide, are watching all this and wishing that they had gone out to vote Yes as well. Of course, according to the No lobby, the abstentions were No votes as well (can it get any more déjà vu than this?).
The Nationalist Party-Church alliance has been revealed for what it truly is, and now that the masks have truly come off, I hope that those who might have been indifferent to the significance of this referendum appreciate why it was so crucial for the Yes vote to win.
It must have been nice to hold such considerable power in your two tight fists; it must have felt heady to feel that you can pull strings, manipulate people with a phone call, and intimidate those who don’t want to risk losing their job or future prospects. These are the backroom realities of the heavy artillery used to secure the No vote.
What is more galling for us journalists is the flippant accusation that during the campaign, the media launched a full-scale attack against the Church. Let me break it to you gently my dear gentlemen of the cloth: we didn’t need to do anything of the sort because the Church did an excellent job of crucifying itself. All we did was accurately convey the growing wave of anger and resentment in the country as the Church (and several lay people speaking in the name of Jesus no less) tried in vain to fan the dying embers of religious fervour while using the outdated ruse of eternal damnation.
What the Church could not, and still does not, understand is that you cannot whip up blind devotion for an institution when over the years this devotion has dissolved into something best described as lukewarm. It also cannot expect to badger people into obeying its teachings when it has spent the last 20 – 30 years seemingly oblivious to the changes in the very social fabric of the country. It has not adapted, it has not reached out to those who have stopped going to Church, who feel unaccepted and cast aside. It thinks that because people still get married in Church, still baptize their children, and still send their children to Church schools, then that means Malta is still “a staunchly Roman Catholic country” to quote one of the many international reports I have read.
Like the PN, the Church prefers to believe the 98 per cent Catholic myth while completely ignoring the fact that there is a growing liberal voice in the country which not only doesn’t give two hoots what the Church says, but is perfectly capable of separating Church and State when it comes to civil liberties. The liberal faction does not quake in its boots just because a fire and brimstone Gozitan bishop roars from the pulpit – we just shake our heads and really, cannot take any of it seriously. But those who are still believers are immensely hurt and feel betrayed by this type of talk. Is it any wonder that people are deserting the Church in droves?
I compare it to a husband who has taken his wife for granted for decades, never caring what she thinks, never asking her how she feels, only to wake up one morning and find − to his astonishment − that she has split. And (to continue the analogy) now that he has finally realised that she’s not coming back, he refuses to accept it, but instead of admitting that it’s his fault, he launches into a tirade of abuse.
I heard Dun Anton Gouder saying on RTK that those who did not vote were “irresponsible.” Well, Sir, I happen to know for a fact that among those non-voters were people who were thrown into a genuine moral crisis because either way they voted they would be hurting someone. They decided to abstain rather than feel guilty that they were the cause of someone’s unhappiness. Others were torn by conflicting emotions – on the one hand they do not agree with divorce because of their faith but they could not bring themselves to vote No and deny their separated friends a second chance.
Do you call that irresponsibility? I call it true empathy, something I found completely lacking in the No lobby.
The Church is trying to take the stance that it has been unfairly attacked throughout this whole ordeal, when if it had just controlled its members better all of this could have been avoided. Instead, it is now defending the words of Bishop Grech and saying they were simply part of the normal Sunday gospel and were taken out of context. When the media reported cases of priests who were loose cannons and who used every opportunity to preach against divorce and intimidate parishioners, we were accused of sensationalism. The truth is that this newspaper was very cautious in its approach, and refrained from reporting the many other stories which were reaching our newsroom unless we could confirm them without a shadow of a doubt. I personally know of several people who were afraid to speak out in favour of divorce because they had been subtly threatened with their livelihood. But obviously, if I am asked to give names I will not do so, as I am not about to jeopardize anyone’s job. This is the insidious way the No campaign was run; this is the element of fear that was being instilled in people in ugly reminiscence of other eras throughout history which we would prefer to forget.
If the Church continues to refuse to acknowledge that it made grave mistakes, it will simply isolate itself further, until it becomes an archaic institution which no one pays attention to any more. It is already showing signs that it is cut off from reality as it sulks and points a blaming finger at the media rather than asking why its own PR was so ineffective.
Many people have indignantly insisted that the Church had a right to have its say in the divorce issue – yes, obviously it did. But sometimes in life, it is best to speak sparingly and judiciously rather than use the tactic of overkill. What I feel the Church should have done is made it clear to all the clergy, as well as the lay people waving the Bible, that they were doing more harm than good, and that everyone should just stop talking. This kind of leadership may not have won it the No vote, but it would have surely won a lot of respect. Right now, the Church’s self-respect lies in tatters, exacerbated by a belated apology and a ‘let us all forgive one another’ spiel which was the final slap in the face because of its calculated timing.
An attempt at reconciliation is a wonderful thing, but only when it’s sincere and not a cold-blooded attempt at damage limitation after you realise that you did not get your own way after all.
[email protected]