‘Whoever doesn’t want God in their life, needs to...’

… leave the Catholic Church, basically. That, at any rate, was about the only message I received from that provost’s sermon at the Santa Liena festa in Birkirkara this week; and it is no different from the message I got from around 20 years’ worth of regular Sunday Mass attendance – in what now feels like another lifetime, long ago – not to mention in the course of over 10 years at a Catholic school.

In fact, I am still a little puzzled by all the outrage caused by that one sermon… considering that it merely outlined the Catholic Church’s fundamental teachings on marriage and sexuality, which have not changed one iota in almost 2,000 years.

I mean… it’s not as though we even needed the provost of Birkirkara to remind us that ‘God created humanity as man and woman’; and that any marriage or union that falls outside that binary arrangement is, by definition, ‘sinful’ or ‘unholy’.

Priests and provosts have been telling us the same thing all our lives. And so has the Church itself, all the way up to the Pontifex Maximus: ‘Homosexuality is an aberration’? That’s a quote by Pope Benedict. And even if his successor now speaks in slightly more moderate terms… the Catholic Church has never really updated its own views on the matter of sex and marriage: and not just when it comes to gays, either.

Going strictly by the tenets of Catholic doctrine, any sexual act at all is sinful… if it is not performed between married (male and female, obviously) partners, with the intention – or, at least, the possibility – of having children.

This explains why oral and anal sex are also off-limits, even to a married couple consisting of a man and a woman (as God intended). Only penetrative, vaginal sex is acceptable to the Lord, it seems… because – in the days before assisted fertility therapy, anyway – only penetrative, vaginal sex could conceivably (ahem) bring babies into the world.

Oh, and in case you thought you were being ‘a good Catholic’ by pulling it out at the critical moment, instead of using a condom… sorry, folks, but thanks to Onan of the Old Testament (not to be confused with ‘Onan the Barbarian’… by Krom!), ‘spilling your seed’ is not an option either.

Like the condom, the diaphragm, the pill, etc., the oldest form of contraception known to man (and, even more so, to woman) is also ‘verboten’.

How many Catholics actually stick to all that in their own sex lives, I wonder? All those couples I know who got married in Church, and who today have two or three children… does it mean they only had sex two or three times in their lives? I somehow doubt it… just as I somehow doubt all those other restrictions concerning oral or anal sex are ever taken seriously, either.

Assuming, of course, that they were all virgins when they got married. Because that’s another facet of Catholic teaching that is routinely ignored by all practising Catholics I know (not including older generations, perhaps… but then, those tended to marry much younger).

Those rules and regulations only ever apply to other people’s sex lives. It is only other people – gays, lesbians, transsexuals, etc. – who have to somehow regulate their sexual activities to conform with the Church’s archaic notions of sex… and never they themselves

Which brings me back to that sermon. Why all the outrage? Nobody ever gives a toss about what the Church teaches when it comes to heterosexual sex, as far as I can see. Most heterosexual Catholics I know just go about their lives precisely as they deem fit, without ever pausing to ask themselves whether the Church would ‘approve’ or not.

At most, some of them might go to confession afterwards. But I know of no Catholic under the age of 50 who actually observes all the Church’s teachings on sex to the letter… not, at least, when it comes to how often they themselves get laid, or what they themselves actually get up to in the bedroom.

No, indeed: those rules and regulations only ever apply to other people’s sex lives. It is only other people – gays, lesbians, transsexuals, etc. – who have to somehow regulate their sexual activities to conform with the Church’s archaic notions of sex… and never they themselves.

Well, what can I say? No wonder Catholicism has always been so popular here. Must be fantastic to be part of a club where the ‘rules’ only ever apply to the people you don’t like… while you yourself are left free to just carry on being as ‘sinful’ and ‘unholy’ as you please.

But it still doesn’t explain the reaction to that homily. If the provost of Birkirkara came out with a hellfire sermon against the introduction of same-sex marriage – among other things: he said a whole lot of stuff in those 48 minutes, you know – I would have thought the obvious, natural reaction by any practising Catholic would be to simply ignore him… like most Catholics ignore their Church on
practically everything else anyway.

Alternatively, if it upsets you too much… you can always do what I did 30 years ago, and simply walk out of the door. And hey presto! Just like that, anything that provost says – or anyone else representing the same institution, for that matter – no longer applies to you.

Catholics have all those rules and regulations to follow? That’s their problem, not yours. The Catholic Church is intrinsically homophobic?

Doesn’t mean you have to be a homophobe, too. It really is that simple…

And if you’ve already walked through that door – if, like me, you regard Catholicism as a ‘phase you once went through’… – then what is there to even get upset about? Let that provost spout as much crap as he likes. He is, after all, a priest preaching in his own Church. And it’s not like those views are still being rammed down our collective throats, like they used to be until fairly recently.

Ah, but herein lies the rub. It’s when the apparatus of the State starts chiming in with the same message, that you should really start worrying. Because unlike the Catholic Church… there is no ‘door’ you can walk out of, to free yourself from the shackles of the law.

From this perspective, there is only one thing I found disturbing about that homily… and it is the fact that at least three representatives of the State – the Speaker of the House of Parliament, a Cabinet minister, and an Opposition frontbencher – not only sat through those 48 minutes without walking out in disgust… but actually applauded heartily at the end.

Now: in case I didn’t make it clear enough already… as far as I’m concerned, the provost of Birkirkara can think or say whatever the heck he likes. He has no jurisdiction over me, or over any other non-Catholic in Malta, or anywhere else in the world (note: and for all the reasons outlined above, he probably has no real jurisdiction even over members of his own Church. Everyone – Catholic or otherwise – remains perfectly free to disregard his opinions).

But the Government? Opposition? The House of Parliament itself? That’s a whole different ballgame.

Let’s take another look at that sermon those State representatives applauded, shall we?

“And what can we say about laws that go against the holiness of the marriage between a man and a woman? Whoever doesn’t want God in their life as a creation made by God, needs to change…”

Hmm… which ‘laws’ was he referring to there, I wonder? Could it be the Civil Unions Act of 2014? You know, the law which permitted same-sex unions in Malta for the first time… and which was unanimously approved by both sides of the House? Or maybe the ‘Marriage Equality Act’ of 2017, which updated those same-sex unions to bring them on par with marriage. Or was it the more recent Identity Act, which filtered out gender distinctions in legal documents (among many other things, including allowing people to self-identify as their own preferred gender)?

I’d say it was a combination of all three. That sermon was, in fact, directly targeted at all the landmark legislation Malta has introduced to end discrimination against gays – but not only – over the last 10 years.

And some of the people who pioneered those legislative changes – Jose Herrera, part of the government which introduced them; Beppe Fenech Adami, representing the Opposition that (however reluctantly) voted in favour; and Anglu Farrugia, who was Speaker when all those laws were enacted – actually clapped, when their own handiwork was criticised from the pulpit.

What does this imply? Does Jose Herrera agree with the provost’s central argument: i.e, that the laws enacted by his own government are ‘sinful’ and ‘unholy’, and ‘need to change’? His applause suggests that he does. So… will he use his influence as a Cabinet minister to get Malta’s equality legislation repealed?

Same goes for Beppe Fenech Adami. Are we to understand that a future Nationalist government will roll back the legislative changes that made Malta the first European country to achieve full marriage equality? As voters, I think we’re entitled to know.

And as for Anglu Farrugia… seeing as he disagrees with those laws so much, why did he not resign his post as Speaker, instead of allowing them to be enacted on his watch? He had that option, you know… just like I had the option to leave the Church, when I found that I disagreed with almost all its tenets and teachings.

But no: like the good practising Catholics they are, all three felt perfectly comfortable disregarding the Church’s objections when it came to legislating as they themselves deemed fit; only to then join in the chorus of pious disapproval, when their own actions were blasted as ‘sinful’ by a priest at the pulpit.

And it makes perfect sense, too. After all, the ‘rules’ and ‘regulations’ of this Church they claim to be part of… they don’t apply specifically to Jose Herrera, Beppe Fenech Adami, and Anglu Farrugia, do they?

No, of course not. They’re Catholic rules: which means they only ever apply to other people… and even then, only to the people we don’t like.