The mysteries of glory

I retain very hazy impressions of the catechism lessons that preceded my Holy Communion.  However, I clearly remember the room in which they were held. In her plain black dress and Verbum Dei badge, Nina tal-Muzew sat on a chair facing us. We perched on long wooden benches opposite her. Glossy posters were pinned to thin wooden strips on the walls. They revealed the Misteri tal-Ferh, Misteri tat-Tbatija and Misteri tal-Glorja. I preferred the Mysteries of Joy, which we memorized for the recital of the Rosary.

The walls also displayed pictures that instilled fear: Sinful men and women as they lay on their deathbed engulfed by the fires of Hell. Equipped with a pitchfork, scary horny red devils readily waited to clinch their souls.  

From time to time superjura gave us treats. She used to take out her precious projector, position it on a wobbly table and switch off the lights. Her favourite slide show was the story of a young Christian boy who fled Communist soldiers. Eventually the Communists arrested him and the little boy faced formidable torture and ultimately he died in defence of his faith. We were vulnerable 5 or 6-year-old children and I often returned home frightened. But that was a long long time ago!

Reverendu Iva, Reverendu Le

It is now confirmed there will be no fire and brimstone. The methods of the past merely led to convention and convenience and even the Maltese church has finally acknowledged the mission to encourage people to follow its teaching with conviction. Under Archbishop Cremona, it asserted it did not want a krucjata and succeeded to keep the peace in spite of some fervent crusaders within it. Initially these warned politicians, members of the judiciary and lawyers they would be committing mortal sin if they lent support to divorce. Others openly disagreed. This exposed a Church that is no longer the monolithic institution of the past.

While the debate that ensued was healthy, various exponents were contradicting each other and people who sought guidance from their Church were becoming confused. The declaration about conscience and divorce was drawn by seven members of the clergy who enjoy a high public profile. Their opening statement asserts: “All citizens, Catholic or not, if asked to give their judgment whether they wish or not the introduction of such a law in favour of divorce have the right and duty to follow their own conscience which needs, however, to be well informed and well formed, keeping in mind the common good.” Hurray! Now we know that Catholics can vote according to their conscience, while they strive to observe Catholic doctrine in their own lives!

This move was wise and commendable. Whichever, way one reads the whole position paper, one finds it hard to oppose it. The Church soon moved in to endorse it. As a result, this institution appeared incredibly proactive and explicit in stark contrast with the positions of a good number of political exponents on both sides of Parliament.

But then the Church does not have to face constituents and ballot papers.

Referendu Iva, Referendu Le

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando announced that this time his Private Members Bill will not follow the destiny of the one presented by former MP Joe Brincat. He asserted that it will see the light of the dayas Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi promised him a Parliamentary debate, followed by a referendum, in 2011.

Most of us are wondering what the wording of the referendum question will sound like. We are also wondering about the position of the political parties. Will people be split along party lines, possibly because of the choice of words in the referendum question? Will the popular vote shelve the legislation for a few more decades?

The majority of the Maltese public feels reassured that a “referendum” will yield a fair result after adequate campaigning. Yet, those who may need to divorce are only a minority.  From their perspective, a referendum amounts to a tyranny of the majority. Referenda are also employed as delaying tactics. In an earlier blog, I discussed how Swiss women can only blame referenda for their delayed suffrage that was only approved by electors in 1971.

In 1882, the Norwegian playwright Henrick Ibsen produced an intelligent and perceptive examination of how the tyranny of the majority works. I had read the script of “An Enemy of the People” many years ago but had never seen it staged before last weekend, when the PL included it among the celebrations that mark its 90th anniversary. The play provided us with ample food for thought and is highly relevant for the current divorce debate.

Ibsen portrays politicians who are afraid to do what is right because they are at the mercy of voters. Majority opinions are the basis for their action, even when the majority is wrong. Nonetheless, he points out that political leaders can apply tactics, such as media strategies and the backing of civil society, to garner the support of the majority.

On divorce the Church has a clear position. Now let us wait and see which moves will be played by political actors in their endless effort to woo the majority.