Mario Grech has been vying for our attention since he first took over the news pages, on his elevation as Bishop of Gozo, with a public relations exercise, never seen before, by any member of the clergy of the Catholic Church in Malta.
We had large photos of him splashed in the daily papers, particularly The Times, and one would have thought, at the time, that he had become Pope rather than Bishop of Gozo.
His statements tend to shock progressive thinkers, but are made to ensure he does not lose the limelight. However, his latest incredible statement looks like he has lost it, as happens to all those who rely too heavily on the outrageous element.
Mgr Mario Grech’s latest astounding outpouring has linked abortion to divorce. "Where the family is united, pregnancy is likely to be accepted and celebrated, but where the family is broken, such as in the case of divorced parents, there is a higher probability that life is refused and threatened," Mgr Mario Grech was reported as saying on Monday (Feb 2010).
What utter nonsense, I mean the latter part of the statement because of course pregnancy is likely to be accepted and celebrated where there is love, respect and financial and emotional stability, in or out of marriage. But why on earth would a divorced couple or those in a “broken” relationship be getting involved in sexual relations, which might lead to pregnancy?
Had the Bishop thought this through at all? Was he misquoted? Or is he convinced that his followers are that dense not to realise the discrepancy in that statement?
Besides, we do not have divorce in this country. So was this statement delivered as a ‘warning’ to politicians and the faithful in favour of divorce? Another Babaw tactic?
Hopefully, our politicians are a bit more sophisticated and will ignore the baseless statement.
Although reading the Deputy Prime minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tonio Borg’s quote “Malta needs to fight the ‘culture of death’ prevalent in today's society” makes one wonder.
What culture of death was he referring to? Wars? Terrorism? The death penalty? People dying from starvation and disease because not enough people care?
No. Believe it or not, he was referring to abortion. And this man, ladies and gentleman, is our representative on Foreign Affairs and the deputy PM.
“The great majority of the Maltese opposed abortion”, he said. Phew, thank God for that, we do not form part of society’s “culture of death”. Talk about perspective!
Of course very few people favour abortion. Most of the women who have it suffer emotional trauma before and well after it. Despite what some people think it is almost never a decision taken lightly. Referring to it as a symptom of today’s society culture of death is way over the top.
Why are we seeing such melodrama from the Bishop of Gozo and a number of politicians? Are they trying to impress the Pope before his forthcoming visit?
Yet another one of our ‘sophisticated’ politicians, Social Affairs Committee chairman Edwin Vassallo is proposing a “care order for unborn children”.
What is needed to avoid women having abortions is support, not the Gestapo. What is, in fact, happening is that the women who have the courage to raise a child on their own are being treated like parasites.
The government was intent on safeguarding human life starting from conception, Mr Vassallo told a pro-life manifestation at the St John's Co-Cathedral Oratory, last Sunday "We must introduce legislation to protect unborn children, not just from abortion but even from behaviour such as drug abuse," he said.
This would not require the right to life of the unborn child to be entrenched into the Constitution, he said. There you have it. Having failed to ingrain the right to life of the unborn child into the Constitution, the fundamentalists are embarking on another tack.
"The mother would be put under observation to protect the child. She could be put in an institution or housed with another family," he said.
What other family? I thought that the government’s current philosophy was to keep ‘the nuclear family’ united. Or “she should be put in an institution”. Doesn’t this just smack of when women were spirited away to mental institutions if they did not tow the line?
Maria Vella, a doctor working with pregnant women with a drug addiction, hailed this as a step in the right direction. She believes that there should be a law, which make treatment compulsory for pregnant women who are dependent on drugs.
“With the care order, we will be taking care of mothers and their children, while giving a voice to the unborn child," she was quoted.
Am I missing something here? Is this woman doctor seeking compulsory treatment for drug addiction, or agreeing with a care order on an unborn child?
Now of course it is not right that babies born to mothers addicted to drugs such as cocaine and heroin are themselves born addicted to the drug, but surely what is being suggested is too extreme.
This also raises other questions: the doctor referred to amphetamines as well, so if an expectant mother is addicted to a legal drug such as Valium, for example, or any other drug prescribed by a doctor, is the foetus similarly affected?
Is a baby also born addicted to tobacco or alcohol?
Foundation for Social Welfare Services CEO Sina Bugeja said that issuing a care order on the unborn child could not be done, but pregnant drug abusers could be issued with a "court-sanctioned treatment order to protect the mother and her child".
However, she pointed out that from Sedqa's experience the absolute majority of drug users sought help and tried to behave in a responsible manner when they realised they were pregnant.
So the Social Affairs Committee chairman was over reacting to the risk of a child being born an addict when he says he was responding to the professional concerns expressed by Sedqa.
Though serious, according to the people who should know, the risk of a child being born an addict is negligible.
Therefore it is not the real reason behind this proposed care order, but it is being used as emotional leverage.
In a letter to The Times, yesterday, Ruth Farrugia, advocate and senior lecturer at the University’s Law Faculty points to other important factors, which demonstrate the short-sightedness and rapidity the concept of a care order for unborn children was formulated.
“Care orders are at present issued in dire situations mainly because of the lack of placements available. This means a number of children who require care and protection remain in undesirable and/or inappropriate placements... It might be advisable to pay more attention to the existing care order system before extending its remit.”
So all this concern about the unborn child does not extend to the children already born.
In an article in The Independent on Friday, mainly targeted at Americans, the US Ambassador, Douglas W. Kmiec hit the nail on the head: “Divorce, abortion, and same-sex marriage are of course illegal in Malta, yet all exist here de facto,” he said.
Being a diplomat he only comments that “the leaders of the PN and PL have interesting takes on these issues”, without going into detail. However, he is more forthcoming with his opinion on the issue.
“Let me just say that in America at least, turning too many of these intimate questions over to the government is unhealthy, unwarranted, and unworkable”, he said adding “a lot depends on the homiletic strength and empathy of the Church, so what needs to be said in public law varies by context even when universal teaching is at the core.”
Published, with the title "Fundamentalists using Babaw tactics" title, in the Malta Sunday Independent Feb 14, 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment