Monday marked the feast of the Birth of Our Lady, which has taken on enormous local significance on account of two historical coincidences: the victory of the Order of St John over the Ottoman Turks in 1565, and the surrender of the Italian navy in the Grand Harbour in 1943, signifying the end of Malta’s active involvement in World War Two.
For these reasons, 8 September has for centuries been observed as a national holiday: a fitting occasion for the Archbishop of the Malta Diocese to deliver his traditional homily from the pulpit of the Conventual Church of St John in Valletta.
This year was no exception, and given the current flavour of the times it was not at all surprising that His Eminence Paul Cremona would seize the opportunity to defend the Catholic faith from what he clearly deems to be an inherent threat to its once-universal hegemony.
But while few would deny that the Archbishop has every right to warn the faithful against the introduction of divorce, Mgr Paul Cremona’s homily on Monday is bound to reverberate through the nation’s consciousness for a while to come... and not necessarily for the reasons intended.
Addressing a congregation composed (among others) of the President of the Republic and some 16 members of Parliament, Mgr Cremona unleashed strong words of criticism directed at the “ideology of secularism” – which he defined as a subtle and powerful influence, capable of dictating legislation and thereby negatively impacting the social fabric of our country.
“The stronger this ideology becomes, the harder it will be for a person to live according to his personal values, for instance those of marriage and the family,” he said.
Mgr Cremona is naturally entitled to such views, but his choice of words and the framing of his argument – while no doubt well-intentioned – is likely to raise eyebrows for a number of reasons.
For one thing, with its enumeration of historical events leading to the present day, the Archbishop’s homily can easily be interpreted as an attempt to forge a subtle link between the “threat of secularism”, and the joint ideologies of Fascism and Nazism, defeated exactly 65 years earlier to the day. Cremona himself may not have made the association in as many words; but by calling to mind our ancestors’ struggle against Fascism in the context of an argument against secularism, it is difficult not to draw the mistaken conclusion that the latter ideology somehow sprang from the former.
This impression was further reinforced by a discernable militancy in the choice of imagery used. Turns of phrase such as: “We cannot remain passive (before this threat)...” and; “We cannot hold back. Silence, acquiescence... is not neutrality, but an opportunity to strengthen secularism” are all disquietingly reminiscent of the antagonistic and confrontational language employed so often, and to great effect, by local political parties. This assumes greater significance when one assesses the sermon in its proper context: i.e., a direct address to members of the political class at a time when secularist issues such as divorce are clearly on the national agenda.
From this perspective, Archbishop Cremona’s message comes across as a call to arms, at a time when most would agree that the age of great political confrontations is behind us. This in turn appears to contradict Mgr Cremona’s earlier, soft-spoken stance on similar issues: for instance, when he surprised many, this newspaper included, by registering a willingness to discuss issues such as cohabitation during a live television interview with Georg Sapiano in February 2007.
On another level, Monday’s homily also invites us to consider vastly different phenomena – not all of which are necessarily related to secularism – in one and the same breath.
“Divorce, abortion and euthanasia” are among the dangers Cremona associates with the separation of church and State. But there is also a danger in this very line of reasoning: for while divorce is currently being debated on a national level, there are no tangible movements calling for the introduction of either abortion or euthanasia. Indeed, such is the strength of the pro-life lobby in Malta that it is extremely unlikely that either abortion or euthanasia will be seriously debated in the near future.
By insisting on a correlation between these three, largely unrelated issues, the Archbishop also risks alienating liberal Catholics with secularist leanings: those who may favour divorce legislation on the basis of “giving unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”, while also sharing the Catholic Church’s entirely justified concerns with the right to life and the sanctity of the human person.
Unfortunately, it seems the country is once again being urged to choose between two extremes, to the exclusion of a more middle-of-the-road approach. One sincerely hopes the issue does not spiral into the kind of national trauma we last saw in the 1960s, with consequences that are still being felt to this day.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
