Life Network Foundation Malta strongly objects to the proposed alterations on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, imposing on countries legislation that demeans the value and dignity of every human life. To read further please access the following links:
Life Network Malta’s submissions
It is customary, on religious occasions marking our national and historical events, that the leader of the Church in Malta takes the golden opportunity to draw the attention of the powers of the land to the moral challenges we face.
This year, on the occasion of the pontificial Mass on Independence Day, Archbishop Charles Scicluna addressed the topic of the common good. This message is underpinned by the rich contribution of the social doctrine of the Church that came to the fore with the landmark encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 which had condemned the negative impact unleashed by the Industrial Revolution while warning us of the flawed reaction of socialist ideology.
In his homily, the Archbishop explained the essential criteria of the common good, stressing that upholding and promoting this ideal is the raison d’être of civil authority. He stressed that the crucial principle of subsidiarity also entails the safeguarding of the family. He pointed out that social policy should above all target the needs of the weaker and poorer segments of society and questioned whether “the wealth being generated in our society is creating new forms of economic disparity”.
History should have made us aware that short-sighted policies have unintentional and unexpected adverse consequences. Goodwill is too often clouded by short-term political convenience and even outright greed. Despite economic growth and increased consumption, Malta is witnessing a dysfunctional result that is placing the vulnerable at risk and seriously damaging the environment.
Despite his subdued and diplomatic tone, the Archbishop is prodding the authorities and people of influence to take a critical look at what the real present and future consequences of current policies are. For instance, one does not need too much social awareness to notice that the unbridled construction boom is already having long-term negative environmental consequences and that the rewards are being enjoyed disproportionately.
Political incompetence and corruption can further contribute to flawed decisions, sapping our nation’s well-being.
After all, there is much more to welfare policies than the provision of social housing, health services and the dishing out of meaningless government jobs.
Distributive justice lies at the heart of Catholic social doctrine. It translates itself into a philosophy of empowerment through meaningful employment, sharing of rights and responsibility in economic endeavour. It is not a recipe for either uncontrolled capitalism or socialism.
It is distressing that these principles, which had fired the imagination and conversion of such people as G. K. Chesterton, E. F. Schumacher and Joseph Pearce, seem unfamiliar to, and are ignored by, our political class.
No doubt, there is room for debate in the application of such values according to the times and local situation of each country.
One hopes that the appeal of our Archbishop will not fall on deaf ears or be reduced to an opportunity for partisan mudslinging. If goodwill prevails, the choice and implementation of economic and social policies will have a more sustainable and positive outcome on our country’s future.
These principles are as relevant today as they ever were before, especially in the light of the financial, economic and environmental crises we face which will eventually have such a negative effect on so many families and society in general.
Klaus Vella Bardon is deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta.
In his article ‘Social, environmental justice’ (September 16) Edward Zammit Lewis, chairman of the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Foreign and European Affairs, wrote that at the core of the Labour government’s beliefs are social mobility and social justice based on equality and environmental justice.
Zammit Lewis said that in the introduction to the Labour Party’s 2017 election manifesto the Prime Minister stressed how the party’s guiding values and principles determined the character of the Labour government, and were driving it forward to achieve the well-being and unity of the Maltese nation.
In May this year Environment Minister José Herrera said the Maltese government had decided to apply the precautionary principle and Malta would vote, at European level, against the renewal of licences for the herbicide glyphosate with potential links to cancer. The minister added: “For the Maltese government, environmental issues are definitely a priority.”
This was a very good initiative by the government in favour of environmental justice.
Hopefully, again, the same guiding values and principles will drive the government to do environmental justice with the first environment to man, the womb or, with the latest development, the petri dish for in vitro fertilisation purposes.
The womb should continue to be protected from abortion. The petri dish should not be used to produce an indiscriminate number of human conceptions which will be discarded (killed) later on as surplus to requirements. Abortion by a collection of words.
In her book Environmental Justice and the Rights of Unborn and Future Generations, Laura Westra, president of the Global Ecological Integrity Group and professor of social science at York University, Canada deals with work on environmental jurisprudence and the link to social justice.
She says: “In many countries a three-month-old foetus can be aborted – so what does the law say about the poisoning of an unborn child by a toxic spill, HIV infection or the future damage of climate change?”
Westra cites conclusive evidence from the World Health Organisation “that children, including unborn children, are particularly vulnerable to environmental threats and suffer consequences such as asthma, neurological developmental disorders, cancers, and birth defects such as children born with flippers rather than feet due to thalidomide exposure”.
Many of these disorders, she notes, are on the rise in developed nations where chemicals and pesticides are a part of daily life.
Westra adds: “Such activities disastrously and irreversibly impact future generations. To deny protection of their most basic rights would be to place our own autonomy over the rights of the defenceless. Many of these harms stretch beyond parental control, and without governmental intervention these harms will continue to plague those unable to speak in their own defence.
“The global community needs to re-evaluate its concept of justice to include a ‘principle of integrity’ that would prohibit any activity that would harm those most vulnerable – the unborn as well as the poor and future generations.”
Reviewers of Westra’s book say that it examines the right of the unborn to health and sends shockwaves through governments, polluting industries, NGOs and legal departments dealing with pollution, human health and the rights of the unborn.
The book contains arguments on environmental harm, justice and the rights of future generations to health, while the traditional concept of social justice is challenged by the notion of a humankind which spans current and future generations.
Ironically, Carmel Cacopardo, the new leader of Alternattiva Demokratika, the environment party, in his maiden speech lately called for a debate on abortion, because a number of Maltese women are having abortion overseas. He seems to be calling for the introduction of abortion in Malta because of the expenses involved in going abroad for an abortion.
Is he suggesting abortion on demand be included in our free health services? What is the “ethical relativism” to which Cacopardo refers when we are talking about the rights and dignity of human life from conception already protected by so many laws of Malta? What exactly he has in mind is not clear at all.
The Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) in an article in this newspaper ‘Abortions overseas’ (October 7, 2007) had suggested that a strategy, a scheme, or a plan should be devised to halt the flight of unborn children out of Malta for the purpose of abortion by creating the necessary compassionate, advisory and therapeutic services for pregnant women, and their partners, who would be considering solving their problems through abortion.
MUCM had argued that if the Gift of Life Foundation, an organisation within MUCM, had found the means to create these services, why not the government, which has much greater human and financial resources at its disposal. MUCM had also suggested a joint venture, a public-private partnership on this subject.
In fact for many years we have had the State’s counselling and supportive services Għożża and Benniena run by the Foundation for Social Welfare Services, similar services by the Church Cana Movement, and the service HOPE run the Gift of Life Foundation for cases of this kind.
The men and women who opt to go abroad to carry out an abortion do so for their own convenience and because the dignity of human life from conception is not a priority to them.
As an environment political party, AD has been promoting environmental justice for unborn children from its very beginning. In fact the Greens of Malta have been making pro-life speeches every year over the last 10 years on the Pro-Life Days organised by MUCM. Their last pro-life speech was on February 5.
Something has changed radically in AD about the beginning of human life. What is it really? Or is Cacopardo’s initiative on this subject a follow-up to Arnold Cassola, his predecessor, who in 2016 accompanied a young woman before the Maltese Parliamentary Committee on the morning-after pill to make a case for the introduction of the pill in Malta which, in many quarters, pharmaceutical and medical, locally and overseas, is considered abortifacient?
Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.
In his over enthusiasm to defend liberty and liberalism, Martin Scicluna applauds the direction Malta is taking, intoxicating us with high-sounding catchwords and decrying what he portrays as the bigoted views of others.
For good measure, he slurs the outstandingly positive contribution of Christianity by making sweeping derogatory and indiscriminating references to religion.
He can fill acres of newsprint with slogans and adjectives but, in the end, he has to convince us that our concerns are misplaced. Words such as tolerance, democracy, choice etc. can be bandied about but in themselves are no guarantee of genuine improvement unless anchored to a sound ethical framework.
It is being increasingly realised that the ideals of liberty and personal responsibility have increasingly drifted apart. Although personal responsibility cannot exist without liberty, liberty will not endure without responsibility and will eventually lead to decadence and moral decay.
Progress is a very positive sounding concept but we should also be very concerned about the direction in which it is taking us. For example, what is so liberating about divorce? The very concept of loyalty to one’s vows freely taken is made legally worthless. Rather than making it convenient for couples to take the ‘easy way out’, governments should be supporting the common good by finding solutions to support and strengthen their marriages.
Society esteems those who stick to their commitments. For instance, we admire soldiers on the parade ground but we admire them even more when placed in mortal danger to defend their friends, families and country, their honour, their colours. One does not condone desertion.
The ideals of liberty and personal responsibility have increasingly drifted apart
The same applies to families. Despite the best intentions and hopes, life is unpredictable and a continual challenge and we admire families most when they face with fortitude and dignity untimely bereavement, illness, financial setbacks and other misfortunes.
A country that wants the best for its people promotes the common good by fostering citizens who are responsible, who value self-control and self-discipline and have the readiness to sacrifice their egoism in the interests of their family and society.
Meanwhile, I fail to see how irresponsible sexual activity fuelled by contraception, abortive pills, drugs and prostitution are welcome developments. On the contrary, the acceptance and promotion of reckless behaviour harms people, impacts on the wider community and even leads to the destruction of the most vulnerable.
And here lies the singular let-down of the Catholic politician which I mentioned in the article Scicluna chose to refer to.
The Nationalist Party, in particular, betrayed its core values that are at the centre of human flourishing. It abstained when adoption was dishonestly linked to civil union between homosexuals. It failed again over the issue of vilification, on the morning after pill and the recent insidious ‘Equality Bill’.
Catholic politicians, especially those in a political party that claims to have a Christian ethos, have shirked their responsibilities by showing that they lack the courage and consistency to live up to their professed ideals.
Thankfully, Edwin Vassallo was the notable exception. He had the resolve and integrity to be true to his beliefs and principles that, after all, are shared by many of the Maltese.
Sadly, unfolding consequences of the current trends will soon show how misplaced Scicluna’s optimistic confidence in liberalism will prove to be.
I conclude with the wise words of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger: “The history of liberation can never occur except as a history of growth in responsibility. Increase of freedom can no longer lie simply in giving more and more latitude to individual rights, which leads to absurdity and to the destruction of those very individual freedoms themselves.”
Dr. Klaus Vella Bardon is deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta
Nixtieq minn qalbi ngħid prosit lit-tim kollu li ppreżenta d-diska Iffriżajt.
Dan għaliex irnexxielu jerġa’ jqajjem id-diskussjoni dwar l-embrijun uman. Hemm min ħadha qatta’ bla ħabel kontra dan it-tim żaghżugħ u attakkhom bħala insensittivi, jew inkella li dawn qegħdin jattakkaw lill min ma jistax ikollu tfal. Hemm min ikkritika l-vidjow li juri fetu u mhux l-istampa tal-embrijun li huwa ferm aktar żgħir. Jibqa’ l-fatt li żgħir kemm hu żgħir huwa wieħed minna.
George Cassar, Aleandro u Marco Debono qegħdin jagħtu vuċi lill-embrijun vulnerabbli. Ħadd ma jista’ jinnega li l-embrijun huwa wieħed minna, kreatura umana ġdida, bid-DNA u l-karatteristiċi distinti li jagħmlu bniedem uman ġdid.Sa mill-konċepiment għandu d-dritt tal-ħajja protett speċjalment f’Malta. Il-protezzjoni tal-ħajja umana għandha tkun punt li jgħaqqadna lkoll bħala poplu.
Il-protezzjoni tal-ħajja umana ma tistax tkun punt li nilagħbu biha emozzjonalment, jiġifieri li niddefendu l-ħajja meta jaqbel jew ma jaqbilx lilna. L-iffriżar tal-embrijun uman imur kontra d-dritt tal-ħajja ta’ dak l-embrijun involut. Ma jħallihx ikompli ħajtu u ma jagħtihx ċans jitwieled. L-iffriżar tal-embrijuni jagħmel inġustizzja bejn l-aħwa – min jintgħażel biex ikompli ħajtu … u min biex jiġi ffriżat bil-konsegwenzi kollha assoċjati mal-iffriżar.
L-iffriżar tal-embrijuni ħafna drabi jsir ukoll punt li joħloq ħafna tensjoni fil-ġenituri li jkollhom ulied imwielda u oħrajn iffriżati. Ħafna drabi dawn il-ġenituri jkunu jixtiequ jagħtu ċans lil ulied iffriżati li jitwieldu, iżda minħabba li jinbidlu ċ-ċirkostanzi jista’ jkun li dan ma jibqax possibli. Il-karba tal-kantant f’isem l-embrijun hija kommoventi, tant li tmiss il-qalb u nista’ nifhem li min għandu embrijuni umani ffriżati jħoss għalihom. F’din is-sitwazzjoni hemm modi differenti kif wieħed jirreaġixxi – jew jagħmel kuraġġ u jitkellem, jgħid lil ħaddieħor biex ma jagħżilx din it-triq, jew, kif sfortunatament qed jiġri jattakka lill-kantant minflok.
L-aħjar li ma mmorrux għall-għażla tal-iffriżar tal-embrijuni umani kif fil-fatt tesiġi l-liġi f’pajjiżna bħalissa. Filwaqt li l-pjaga tal-infertilità ma tistax tiġi injorata, daqstant ieħor ma nistgħux nagħlqu għajnejna lejn ir-realtà ta’ x’jiġri mill-embrijun uman li jiġi magħżul, skartat, minsi jew jitlef ħajtu minħabba din il-proċedura.
George Cassar jgħid, “Il-kanzunetta “Iffriżajt” iddewweb l-embrijun li tħalla skartat u tagħtih vuċi biex jesprimi x-xewqa li jgħix. It-tama hi li din il-karba innoċenti, imma sinċiera, iddewweb ukoll dik il-qalb li bbieset għal ħajjet ħaddieħor u dak l-ilsien li qagħad pass lura u ma tkellimx favur id-dritt tal-ħajja sa mill-bidu nett”. Dan huwa messaġġ validu speċjalment illum il-ġurnata fejn hemm min jixtieq jiġġustifika kollox u jagħmel oġġett minn ħajja umana ġdida.
Prosit George, Aleandro u Marco Debono. Prosit tal-messaġġ kuraġġuż favur il-protezzjoni tal-ħajja ta’ kull embrijun uman.
Biex tisma’ d-diska agħfas hawn.
Dr Miriam Sciberras BChD (Hons) MA Bioethics
Chairman Life Network Foundation Malta
SHABBY POLITICS
I am sure that I voice the feelings of many when I say that this election was a distressing experience with both parties trying to outbid each other to win votes. The shameful record of blatant corruption by the outgoing administration was a sad reality. Yet, the Opposition had only been out of power for less than five years and their track record, when in government, was not enviable either. It was just a question of degree.
The level of political decadence is reflected in the hideous concrete buildings that sprout like mushrooms defacing even small hamlets like Manikata. The goings-on in the area of Sliema, which has been converted into a concrete jungle and the ghastly tower of Babel in front of the Addolorata cemetery are other obvious examples.
Nothing is sacred. Old buildings are gutted and torn down irrespective of their history and beauty, gardens are ripped up and the little remaining farmland and open spaces are earmarked for so-called new development.
After the election of 2013, Simon Busuttil had an uphill struggle convincing us that there would be zero tolerance for corruption and that good governance would be the cornerstone of his future government. Sadly, as the unexpected snap election campaign unfolded, he started to scrape the barrel to appeal to one and all. Now we are saddled with the mess.
If the physical environment is being bashed, this pales in comparison to the onslaught on our traditional values and the institution of the family. As predicted, divorce legislation paved the way for further legislation that hollows out any concept of what is right and sound. Joseph Muscat is a shrewd, unscrupulous politician and he knows that the promotion of so-called ‘gay rights’ is the perfect wedge to cause division in the PN.
Here again, Simon Busuttil opted for the undemocratic option of placing ‘gay marriage’ in the PN’s electoral manifesto. This was profoundly dishonest. The shameful claim that the manifesto was unanimously approved ignores the basic fact that such a core value should be decided by national referenda and not by a party cabal.
The proposed bill on ‘gay marriage’ is anything but an innocuous and positive development. It has very far-reaching negative consequences.
Amongst other things, it aims to redesign the concept of family, eliminating reference to fatherhood and motherhood and introducing the promotion of ‘fertility’ for gay couples. This crass aberration of Natural Law involves the scrapping of the Embryo Protection Act and the introduction by stealth of gamete donation and surrogacy thus reducing children to a commodity.
Politically, it costs the government nothing and is an excellent ruse to deviate public opinion from its corruption and the breath-taking last minute abuse of public funds on the eve of the election as it dished out jobs, promotions, favours, not to mention the building permits and regularisation of neglected long standing employment issues.
The PN now has a fresh opportunity to take stock and learn from its flawed and undemocratic decisions. Integrity and honesty demand that the unjust stand on ‘gay marriage’ be withdrawn. People of principle make U-turns when they realise they are in the wrong.
Promises of fine- tuning the prospective corrosive legislation is farcical and unacceptable. Any offer to MPs to be allowed to vote according to their conscience is insulting, to say the least. It is like conceding that we are allowed to breathe.
For the record, before the last General Election, Life Network phoned and emailed all prospective candidates about their stand on core values. Shamefully, with the exception of a handful candidates, the majority were not prepared to declare themselves. This is a miserable reflection on the character of people who expect our vote.
Hoping for our MPs to stand up and be counted may be wishful thinking, as financial and career interests seem to trump any other consideration. Yet, I still feel there are politicians of integrity who will not kowtow to the imposed party line and will stand up to try and put a stop to this rot.
Meanwhile, as never before, the grass roots of both parties have to wake up and tell our so-called representatives that our vote does not give them a blank cheque to pass laws that defy our values and are an unjust imposition by a well-organised, amoral clique.
Dr. Klaus Vella Bardon is deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta
Life Network Foundation Malta is a Maltese Pro-Life registered foundation which means that we seek to motivate and equip pro-life people all over the country to support the pro-life cause, get involved in our campaigns, and hold lawmakers and others to account. However, we cannot do this on our own and so we are looking for volunteers to help us in our work.
Would you like to volunteer? If so, there is a new volunteer opportunity waiting for you! And if you’re not keen on volunteering yourself, consider nominating someone who would be great at it.
To become a Life Network volunteer please click here to download the Volunteer application form, fill it in and email it back to sara.portelli@lifenetwork.eu
Thank you for considering this opportunity to help us!
In the run-up to the elections, amid the confusion of pledges by both political parties to make Malta the new heaven for all, we were also promised “marriage equality”.
The political tension was high. No one asked what this meant and we were assured that since we already had civil unions, all this would entail would be just a change of name.
Today, as we attempt to go back to ‘normality’, the promised Bill is being rushed speedily through Parliament.
A mock debate is presently underway. Any serious discussion or point of dissent is readily quenched and declared null and void as the decision has already been taken. All the speeches prepared will fall on deaf ears as will any attempt to present a serious analysis.
There are, at least, six clear points of contention in this Bill.
The Marriage Act and other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 is not just about changing the name of the Civil Unions Act. If it was just a name change, it would not be 37 pages long.
The title is a misnomer, no longer the originally proposed Marriage Equality Act but the Marriage Act and other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017.
Unlike most foreign marriage equality laws – the notion of equality was specifically removed from the title. In fact, a thorough study of this Bill shows clearly that it is not about bringing gay marriage at par with heterosexual marriage, but introducing the former while eliminating inherent concepts of the latter.
In the section relating to conscientious objection, the Bill does not give enough protection but limits itself to merely religious protection.
This is very dangerous if we want to remain free to live our values as individuals both in the private as well as in the public sphere.
We are all equal in human dignity but we are not the same
The Bill should guarantee the protection of conscientious objection to all individuals. One should be free to choose to live out his beliefs and values without conflict.
Allowing a vote of conscientious objection in such matters, starting with Parliament as an institution, could be the trendsetter.
It is a biological fact that gay couples cannot conceive or give birth to children naturally. Yet, we find the phrase “conceived and born to the parties” connoted to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
This Bill presupposes illegal mechanisms such as surrogacy and gamete donation although we were verbally assured by the Minister of Civil Liberties that this assumed no such facts.
Let us hope so, because the presuppositions of surrogacy and gamete donation entail the undermining of the Embryo Protection Act.
The paramount interest of the child is no longer guaranteed. As regards to the mechanism of repudiation, child protection is done away with, leaving repudiation open to any circumstance upon the presentation of a genetic test, while before it was limited to four circumstances.
Now, the child would be further exposed to repudiation since s/he could never be genetically the result of both partners in a gay relationship.
Without acknowledgment there is no obligation of the spouse to provide maintenance to the child.
In the switch to gender neutral vocabulary, all references to man and woman are deleted.
One of the amendments to the Interpretation Act will be: words importing the feminine gender shall include males.
The word mother shall include father and vice versa. While this amendment says ‘includes’ in reality these words have been eliminated from the other amended laws.
This is an assault to heterosexual couples. The words mother, father, husband, wife, motherhood, fatherhood, maternity and paternity will no longer form part of our vocabulary.
This does not reflect equality, inclusion, or respect towards others who profoundly cherish the meaning of these words.
It seems clear that this Bill is anything but just a change in name.
This act is not about equality but elimination. If the word marriage was all that was promised, why seek to remove other words that are imbued with meaning?
Marriage includes distinct terms like paternal, maternal, fraternal, filial and spousal love.
We are all equal in human dignity but we are not the same. We celebrate diversity and the complementarity of men and women – which also have deep anthropological connotations.
Motherhood and fatherhood have loaded meanings which have been proven to play an essential role in the pedagogical formation and the development of children. No imposed law can eliminate these facts.
Dr. Miriam Sciberras is chairwoman, Life Network Foundation Malta.
One of the best known stories about the Holy Trinity is that of St Augustine. He was walking along the seashore in North Africa, in the early fifth century, trying to understand the Trinity. He saw a little boy who had dug a hole in the sand and was running back and forward to the sea with a bucket, filling the hole with water. When St Augustine asked what he was doing, he said he was emptying the sea into his hole. When St Augustine told him that this was impossible as the sea was too big, the boy replied that it was easier to put the sea into the hole than for St Augustine to understand the Trinity and he promptly vanished. The message that St Augustine took was that our human brains are too simple to fully understand the Trinity.
Evidence that our single God is made of three distinct persons can be found in both the Old and New Testament: The Father – the Creator, the Son – who became a human to save us from Hell and the Spirit – the Giver of Life. The complexity of the Trinity did not stop Augustine, who was intellectually brilliant, from writing De Trinitate, one of the most referenced books on the subject to this day. St Augustine was particularly struck by analogies of the make-up of the Trinity in our daily lives. He put forward the analogy of Lover, Beloved and Love to understand the three persons of the Trinity. The Father: the Lover, the Son: the Beloved and the Spirit: Love. The love between the Lover and Beloved results in a third person, the Spirit.
This analogy of St Augustine shows how the intimate relationship of the Trinity is reproduced in traditional marriage: the father and mother are lover and beloved, and the love between them results in a third person, a child. That traditional marriage reflects the fundamental make-up of the God who made the universe is not often considered. It is not however surprising that God who is so personable and loving would want to use the Trinity structure as a building block for our society.
At the centre of newly created life is sexual reproduction. We are so used to this concept in biology and zoology that we accept it as part of life and the basis for evolution, without thinking where it comes from. We can see however all around us, the profusion of life that is its result. Consider the hundreds of seeds in a single pumpkin or the schools of hundreds of tiny fish that you see in shallow waters off Malta. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life.
When we recognize the link between new life and the Trinity we start to understand how sacred the institution of marriage really is. The life giving element of marriage is essential for marriage to be based on the structure of the Trinity. Husband and wife must be male and female to be able to produce new life, as Archbishop Scicluna has stated. Gay “marriage” unable to produce new life, is at odds with this.
Setting up new structures of long term partnership like Gay “marriage” is extremely problematic on a spiritual level. It is a conscious exclusion of the major role of the Holy Spirit in the world, that of giving life. Since the Holy Spirit is God, this is denying God his role in the building block of society that the traditional family is. In simple terms it says to God that we do not want his very intimate loving structure to be what we base our society on. Society depends so much on the traditional family for its structure and function that without it, society is damaged, as are its members. The worst however is the major insult to God himself.
We need to reflect on how it is that an island like Malta that has had a deep commitment to God and his laws, dating back hundreds of years, is now wanting to reverse this. It is a cataclysmic change for an island with such strong Catholic roots and it will have major negative effects. The politicians who sign in this change bear the major responsibility before God, particularly the leaders. However, all of society is tainted by this and we all have to see what we can do to stop it happening or if it goes ahead to reverse it as quickly as possible and atone to God for this gratuitous attempt to distort his wonderful plan of life.
The campaign to abolish marriage on this tiny island of Malta is now close to succeeding. It is amazing how quickly it has happened and how a small, yet determined, group of extremists has found its way to smash a centuries-old institution in just a matter of a few years.
The latest blow – civil marriage for gay couples – is indeed cunning.
Politicians love to pretend they are giving when they are, in fact, taking away. It also suits them to portray the defenders of traditional marriage as intolerant bigots. This new plan of theirs achieves both these things at once.
The government had already dented the meaning and significance of marriage when it gave almost equal privileges to two people who choose to set up house together on far less stringent conditions than those demanded of married couples.
The current phenomenon of the increasing prevalence of cohabitation is a reflection of a culture that has lost its faith in permanence, in loyalty, no matter what challenges life brings. Today, more than ever before, the ultimate physical bond through sexual union has lost its full meaning. It does not imply total commitment any more. It has been trivialised and devalued.
Even without moralising, statistics bear this out.
Relationships in marriage, despite the availability of divorce, tend to last longer than those in cohabitation.
Yet, our Western culture presents us a distorted concept of freedom which is reflected now in every dimension of social life. Gone are the days where one took pride in giving loyal service to one’s calling for a lifetime.
Today, we live in a culture of disposables.
Even in human relationships, when faced with difficulties we consider it a great achievement that we can walk out of a relationship. The concept of making a vow, a covenant has been shattered.
I sometimes wonder what St Paul would think about our culture if he were shipwrecked on our shores today.
This life-long commitment of a man and a woman in marriage and open to life gave stability to society
Marriage has been gutted of its significance by a ruling class that has nothing but contempt for an institution that has been the bedrock of our people through the ages.
The final blow is now being dealt as the privileges of marriage are about to be bestowed on homosexual couples. Very conveniently, anyone who objects is branded as ‘homophobic’ when, in fact, the argument is about something else altogether.
In the past, marriage between a man and woman was granted privileges because it is crucial to a healthy society.
Married couples were given respectability, security, legal protection and tax breaks in return for making a binding public commitment to do something brave, difficult and immensely valuable for society.
This life-long commitment of a man and a woman in marriage and open to life gave stability to society and to their country and guaranteed its future.
In a way, marriage also provided independent sanctuaries where decisions could be made in a safe and secure environment without government interference.
This was best put by, of all people, D.H. Lawrence, author of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, who said: “It is marriage which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big kingdom of the State; given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust State.”
And he warned: “Break it and you will have to go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era.”
We live in an age of ever-increasing State interference in our lives. The law pokes its nose into our homes in ways undreamed of 40-50 years ago, and is taking a growing interest in what we say and think as well as what we do.
Global big business regards us as fodder, scorning our private needs and turning every day into a working day, something which even Stalin did not succeed in doing.
These forces see the married family as a stumbling block.
The State wants to take over the roles of husband and father, making more and more people dependant upon it.
Both business and the State want mothers out at work, encouraging them to leave children with carers, and if they don’t want them, the very soon available option of having an abortion (is it in the pipeline?)
With such giant allies, the Ultra Feminists are in sight of achieving what they think they have always wanted, a life without any ties or commitments – a country without marriage and without family life, fathers or husbands.
I wonder if they will like it when they get it.
Herbert Messina-Ferrante is a dental surgeon, educator and sports administrator.
