Gay marriage -- Iż-żwieġ bejn l-omosesswali

- no title specified

A vote in Malta's parliament on legalising gay marriage has just been taken. This is another step after the law passed 3 years ago giving homosexuals the right of civil unions, with rights, responsibilities and obligations equal to those in marriage.

The two major parties in Malta both had this step in their election manifestos, and did not permit a conscience vote for their elected members of parliament. Therefore, as expected, the measure passed, although not unanimously, as one member of the Nationalist Party voted against.

This is one other step (after that of divorce) that I never expected Catholic Malta to take in my lifetime, and I was mistaken. With support by the Maltese people reportedly being 77% in favour for such a step,1 even higher than the 70% support by the Australian people,2 it seems that the Maltese have opted to hear the anguish of another minority that had been emarginated and ridiculed for so many years, or rather for so many centuries.

This preference by the Maltese is despite the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, which not only disagrees with marriage between homosexuals, but says that these 'are called to chastity'.3 This new law goes decidedly against this teaching, but on the other hand is consistent with the Catechism's teaching in the previous paragraph, which says that 'every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided'.4

In major moral questions such as this, I often hear complaints by members of the church, especially those that are strong believers as well as those who feel they have the role of being guardians of the perfect faith that they learnt and passing it on without blemish to future generations, that say they are not being provided space to make their voices heard, or that their opinions no longer count or are worthless.

This argument is also made in Australia. For example, the Australian bishops published a leaflet, called Don't Mess with Marriage, which concludes that “a view of marriage as between a man and a woman .... is increasingly becoming a truth with cannot be spoken”.5

I think that this sentiment has merit - as time passes, the traditional view of marriage will be in a minority, especially in the democratic countries of the West, despite the long history of Christian influence.

The question I ask myself is this - should I feel sympathy that the views of the Christian churches, the majority of which maintain the traditional role only of marriage, are being ignored and in turn emarginated?

I would answer with another question. Is the church interested that her solution to those who are homosexual, is denying them the very act that defines their own sexual orientation, for life?

Is the church interested that when people in these countries were predominantly Christian, a social atmosphere developed, inspired by this teaching, so hostile to many homosexuals that they spent their entire life hiding their orientation? That some ended up marrying someone from the opposite sex just to relieve the pressure on them, leading them to mental health problems and sometimes even suicide? That they were ostracised by their families?

Is the church interested that many countries where the distinction of church and state was not what it is today had laws criminalising homosexuals? That people ended up being arrested, losing all they had? Were they defended by the church then? Or was it complicit?

To be fair, attitudes against homosexuals were not made up by the church - these existed before the time of Jesus and still does in places that were never touched significantly by Christianity. These attitudes made their way into the Bible, and so interpreted that they came from God. The fact that Jesus never spoke directly about this subject was not taken as an opportunity for moderation to the strong homophobic forces in the world.

On the contrary, when the church had a big influence in the social and legal structure of the country, it was intransigent to the extreme, and felt, and still does, justified that homosexuals should not have their place in society equal to the ones who aren't. Those who were homosexual had neither voice nor influence.

The only concession made by the Catholic Church was to declare that homosexuals “did not choose their homosexual state” in the Maltese version of the Catechism6, and call it an “inclination” rather than a choice in the English version7.

When one complains that today the Christian voice is being set aside, I say, what do you expect after all this? After all the continuous discrimination against gays, lack of rights and respect, for years, centuries even, do you think those forming part of the reason why this discrimination exists, will get a look in to perpetuate this discrimination?

Of course not. The more the pendulum swung one way before, the more today it will swing the other, and if not today, tomorrow.

To those Christians complaining about lack of influence in society today, in this post-Christian world, it would be appropriate to say, on behalf of the church, “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea massima culpa”.

------------------

Għadu kemm ittieħed vot fil-parlament ta' Malta fuq iż-żwieġ bejn l-omosesswali. Dan hu pass ieħor wara l-liġi ta' tliet snin ilu li tat lill-omosesswali d-dritt li jkollhom għaqda ċivili bi drittijiet, responsibbiltajiet u obbligi ugwali daqs iż-żwieġ.

Iż-żewġ partiti l-kbar ta' Malta it-tnejn kellhom dan il-pass fil-manifest elettorali tagħhom, u ma ppermettewx vot ta' kuxjenza għall-membri eletti tal-parlament. Għalhekk kif kien mistenni il-miżura għaddiet, iżda mhux unanimament għax membru wieħed tal-Partit Nazzjonalista vvota kontra.

Hu pass ieħor (wara dak tad-divorzju) li f'Malta Kattoliċissima qatt ma ħsibt li se nara f'ħajti, u kelli żball. Bl-appoġġ mill-poplu Malti rrappurtat li hu ta' 77% favur pass bħal dan,1 anke iktar għoli mill-appoġġ ta' 70% tal-poplu Awstraljan,2 jidher li l-Maltin għażlu li jisimgħu l-karba ta' minoranza oħra li kienet emarġinata u mżebilħa għal tant snin, jew aħjar għal sekli sħaħ.

Din il-preferenza tal-Maltin hija minkejja l-Katekiżmu tal-Knisja Kattolika Rumana, li mhux biss ma taqbilx maż-żwieġ bejn l-omosesswali, imma tgħid li 'huma msejħin biex iħarsu l-kastità'.3 Din il-liġi l-ġdida tmur deċiżament kontra dan it-tagħlim, imma mill-banda l-oħra hija konsistenti mat-tagħlim tal-Katekiżmu fil-paragrafu ta' qabel, fejn dan jgħid li 'ma għandux ikun hemm għalihom ebda sinjal ta' diskriminazzjoni mhux ġusta'.4

Fi kwestjonijiet kbar morali bħal din, spiss nisma ilmenti minn membri tal-knisja, l-iktar dawk li jħossuhom devoti kbar kif ukoll dawk li jħossu l-obbligu li jkun l-gwardjani li jwasslu l-fidi perfetta li tgħallmu huma tale quale lill-ġenerazzjoni futura, li jgħidu li mhumiex qed jingħataw l-ispazju li jsemmgħu leħinhom, jew li l-opinjoni tagħhom titqies li m'għadhiex tgħodd jew ma tiswa xejn.

Dan l-argument isir ukoll fl-Awstralja. Per eżempju, l-isqfijiet Awstraljani ħarġu fuljett, imsejjaħ Tmissux liż-Żwieġ (Don't Mess with Marriage), li jispiċċa bil-konklużjoni li “il-veduta li żwieġ huwa bejn raġel u mara ..... qiegħda ssir verità li ma tistax tiġi mitkellma.”5

Jien naħseb li dan is-sentiment huwa minnu - iktar ma jgħaddi ż-żmien il-veduta tradizzjonali taż-żwieġ sejra tkun il-minoranza, speċjalment fil-pajjiżi demokratiċi tad-dinja tal-Punent, minkejja storja twila ta' influenza Kristjana.

Il-mistoqsija li nistaqsi lili nnifsi hija din - suppost li inħoss simpatija li l-veduti tal-knejjes insara, li l-biċċa l-kbira tagħhom li jsostnu r-rwol tradizzjonali biss taż-żwieġ, qegħdin jiġu injorati u anke emarġinati?

Jien inwieġeb b'mistoqsija oħra. Il-knisja jinteressaha li s-soluzzjoni tagħha għal min huwa omosesswali hi ċ-ċaħda, għal għomru, ta' dak l-att li jiddefinixxi l-orjentazzjoni sesswali tiegħu?

Jinteressaha l-knisja li meta l-poplu f'dawn il-pajjiżi kien predominantement Nisrani, inħolqot atmosfera soċjali, ispirata minn dan it-tagħlim, tant ostili li ħafna omosesswali kienu jagħmlu għomorhom jostru l-orjentazzjoni tagħhom? Li wħud spiċċaw jiżżewġu lil xi ħadd tas-sess oppost minħabba l-pressjoni fuqhom, li wasslithom għal problemi ta' saħħa mentali u kultant anke għal suwiċidju? Li spiċċaw ostraċizzati mill-familji tagħhom?

Jinteressaha l-knisja li f'ħafna pajjiżi fejn id-distinzjoni bejn knisja u stat mhix dik li hi llum, kellhom liġijiet li kkriminalizzaw l-omosesswalità? Li nies spiċċaw arrestati jew tilfu kull ma kellhom? Qabżet għalihom il-knisja dakinhar? Jew kienet parteċipi?

Ngħiduha kif inhi, l-attitudni kontra l-omosesswali ma vvintathixx il-knisja - kien jeżisti qabel żmien Ġesù u għadu jeżisti f'postijiet li qatt ma ntmessu b'mod sinjifikanti mill-Kristjaneżmu. Dawn l-attitudnijiet sabu ruħhom fil-Bibbja, u għalhekk interpretati li ġejjin minn Alla. Il-fatt li Ġesù ma tkellimx direttament fuq dan is-suġġett ma tteħidx bħala opportunità ta' moderazzjoni għall-forzi qawwija omofobiċi fid-dinja.

Għall-kuntrarju, meta l-knisja kellha influenza kbira fil-qafas soċjali u legali tal-pajjiż, kienet intransiġenti għall-aħħar, u ħassitha, u għadha tħossha, iġġustifikata li l-omosesswali ma għandux ikollhomx post fis-soċjetà f'kollox bħal ma għandhom dawk li mhumiex. Min kien omosesswali, la vuċi u lanqas influenza ma kellu.

L-unika konċessjoni li tagħmel il-knisja Kattolika hija li tistqarr li “ma għażluhiex huma l-qagħda omosesswali tagħhom”6 fil-verżjoni Maltija tal-Katekiżmu, u ssejħilha “inklinazzjoni” u mhux għażla fil-verżjoni Ingliża7.

Meta wieħed jilmenta illum li l-vuċi nisranija qed tingħata fil-ġenb, jien ngħid, x'tistenna wara dan kollu? Wara dik id-diskriminazzjoni kontinwa kontra l-gays, in-nuqqas ta' drittijiet u ta' rispett, għal snin, sekli sħaħ, taħseb li dawk li jiffurmaw parti mir-raġuni għalfejn id-diskriminazzjoni teżisti, se jingħataw xi ċans biex jipperpetwaw id-diskriminazzjoni?

Dażgur li le. Iktar ma l-pendlu kien imxengel naħa waħda, iktar illum se jixxengel in-naħa l-oħra, u jekk mhux illum, għada.

Lil dawk li l-insara li qed jilmentaw min-nuqqas ta' influwenza fis-soċjetà tal-lum, f'din id-dinja post-Kristjana, ikun f'postu li jgħidu, f'isem il-knisja, “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea massima culpa”.

1http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/62293/notable_shift_in_maltese_mentality_in_favour_of_lgbti_people?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#.WWL5TSdLfQr, retrieved 10/7/2017

2http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 10/7/2017

3Cathechism of the Catholic Church, para 2359

4Ibid., para 2358

5Don't Mess With Marriage; Australian Catholic Bishops Conference; 2015

6Il-Katekiżmu tal-Knisja Kattolika; Arċidjoċesi ta' Malta; 1992; para 2358

7http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm, para 2358, retrieved 17/7/2017

1http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/62293/notable_shift_in_maltese_mentality_in_favour_of_lgbti_people?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#.WWL5TSdLfQr, retrieved 10/7/2017

2http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 10/7/2017

3Il-Katekiżmu tal-Knisja Kattolika; Arċidjoċesi ta' Malta; 1992; para 2359

4Ibid., para 2358

5Don't Mess With Marriage; Australian Catholic Bishops Conference; 2015