Tomorrow, our MPs vote on Prime Minister Robert Abela’s abortion proposal. I strongly urge and support a ‘no’ vote. But I also respect a ‘yes’ vote based on a sincere and conscience-based position.
But those who vote for abortion only because they know that breaking ranks with the government will damage their political career, vote in a shameless way. Hiding behind the mantra that this vote is not a vote for abortion gives their conscience less cover than Neptune’s proverbials got from a fig leaf.
But enough said.
Prudence dictates that I should shut up. Perhaps I should even apologise for having the temerity to speak on the subject. I am a male, over 70 years of age and – horrors of horrors – a priest.
According to the mainstream position of our self-styled lobby of liberals, I am triply incompetent to have and, worse still, to publicly express an opinion on Abela’s abortion motion. Like an extinct dinosaur genetically brought to life as an exhibit in iron cages, I am only allowed a non-speaking part in Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World.
Abortion is only women’s responsibility, they say. I thought, stupid me, that fathers – biological ones, not ecclesiastical ones – had an interest in and responsibility for their offspring. If I personally am disqualified because of my life choice, why cancel the responsibility of biological fathers? What arrogance is this that the pro-choice movement tries to cancel even pro-life mothers?
They conveniently ignore the female signatories of the pro-life petition, female speakers and participants in the pro-life rally, female academics, female doctors, etc. Their narrative is that women are pro-abortion while just conservative males are against.
Foolish me was under the impression that in the liberal utopia, there was no place for ageism, defined by WHO as prejudice and discrimination towards others or oneself based on age. When former Labour minister and deputy leader Joe Brincat, to mention just one example, dared to say that Abela’s motion is a motion for abortion, he was blown out of the waters just because of his age.
Perhaps I judge the liberal lobby too harshly. There is a place for the over-70, they are only to be seen, not heard. That’s only fair, they say, since “darbtejn insiru tfal”.
My worst disqualification criterium is that I am a priest. This disqualification is shared by the rest of the Catholic population. We live in a culture where, in the name of freedom and pluralism, one can lampoon God Almighty, ridicule the pope and rake in the mud against the Church.
But woe to you if you dare to criticise one of the sacred cows and dogmas of the pseudo-liberals! If, on the other hand, one dares to take a Catholic position on the economy, life issues, gender, family life, etc. one is dragged over the coals by the cancel culture movement, which is alive and kicking in Malta.
The pseudo-liberal lobby should learn from the past mistakes of the Church, not repeat them- Fr Joe Borg
In January 2022, Pope Francis warned diplomats against the ideology “that leaves no room for freedom of expression and is now taking the form of the ‘cancel culture’ invading many circles and public institutions”.
During a November 2017 homily at Santa Marta, Francis said that the proponents of this culture speak of equality but, in reality, in this culture “there is no place for differences, there is no place for others, there is no place for God”. The pope spoke of a cultural persecution which occurs when “a new culture that wants to make everything new” imposes itself, cleaning away the traditions, history and religion of a people.
In 2015, he told families in the Philippines that our defence from this ideology has “to be very wise, very shrewd, very strong”. In Santa Marta, he added “I dialogue with those who think differently but my witness” is “according to the laws of God”.
Dialogue and respect more than simple tolerance should be the modus operandi adopted with the proponents of the cancel culture. Such a strategy is the only truly Christian and eminently humane strategy.
I understand those who react by saying that it is rich for the Church to speak against imposition and cancelling. Truth be told, the Church was guilty of such attitudes in the past and sometimes in the present. Today, however, the official position is different. The Church realised that imposition and cancelling are neither Christian nor effective. The pseudo-liberal lobby should learn from the past mistakes of the Church, not repeat them.
While our mainstream pro-life lobby under leadership of the indomitable Miriam Sciberras does sterling work, some on the fringes are intolerant and close to hysterical in their approach.
Several Facebook comments make me cringe. Their writers do not realise that while all democratic means should be used to fight the legalisation of abortion, women who undergo an abortion are to be fully respected and, where need be, helped. This is, for example, being done by Life Network and by other initiatives within the Church in Malta.
There are those in the pro-life movement who are naïve, not wise or shrewd. The present lobbying for an abrogative referendum is naïve, premature, self-defeating and – long-term – could be harmful for the pro-life cause.
A wise strategy is built on the premise that the pro-life agenda is not a pick-and-choose one.
It goes beyond the fight against abortion and euthanasia. It militates for a dignified way of living each and every moment of our lives. It fights to give a voice to all those who need it, independently of colour, gender or religion.
Male, old and a priest. Proud not to be silenced.