MALTA

Otaki Mail, 25 August 1930, Page 4

MALTA

A correspondent, writes:-; —As you have published one version of the question in Malta, will you be so good as to let your readers have the other side which is' taken from that well-informed journal “The Month," for June: — The Cause of the Present Trouble.

In IS 14, the Maltese offered to place their island under the protection of Great Britain, on the distinct understanding that their religion aDd institution would be fully respected for all time. Under those conditions, British sovereignty was confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in the same year. Over ninety-nine per cent, of the population are Catholics, who are proud that they have maintained an unbroken tradition from the time of St. Paul who established the Church there. Canon law prevails as the law of the laud, and the Archbishop of Malta is a permanent member of the Governor's Executive Council. The present Primier, Lord Strickland, is a Catholic.

As often happens among large populations within restricted areas, politics is the chief civil pre-occupation of the Maltese. At times; feeling Tims very high among various parties. So it has been for centuries. The Church stands aloof, except where religious freedom is attacked in the political sphere; and. even then, she takes no sides and supports no particular party.

Every Catholic knows that every member of a Religious Order, on entering it, voluntarily makes a vow ot obedience to his lawful religious .superior, thereby binding himself to obey all lawful commands as to change of residence to another House of his Order, and so on. This is elementary knowledge for Catholics, and for all educated persons outside the Church. Some Deductions! Last year, we are informed by the cables in the local secular press, Lord Strickland refused to grant a passport to a Father Mieallef, a member of the Franciscan order. The Premier’s reason for such refusal was his resentment at “a command for deportation’’ being issued to a British subject by a foreigner. This, as far as our present, information tells us, has be'en the sole cause oi friction between Church ami State in Malta. The deductions made by the cubic! correspondent from the British White Paper are as follows: — (1) Lord Strickland refused a passport to a Maltese priest; (2) This refusal was based on grounds that a foreign subject was usurping authority in the purely domestic politics of a British dependency; and .

(3). Because tile Premier refused tlie passport in question, he is a persona non grata, a person not regarded favourably by the Vatican. From those three gratuitous deductions, a whole lot of theorising about, liie Church’s attitude to the British Empire in general and to its official representatives in Malta in particular, has been built up. Anyone who examines these allegations in detail will at once realise the falseness of tlie conclusions served up for public excitement. We will analyse them cold-bloodedly. Some Real Pacts. As already indicated, Father Mieallef, as a member of the Franciscan Order, was bouud by his vow of obedience to his Superior, who during the present term of the Superior-General’s office, happens to be an Italian. Englishmen have held this elective. office during other terms. Because of Father MicaiJef’s political activities in Malta—which is contrary to Church discipline —the Superior-General deemed it wise ior the welfare of liis Order and the .Maltese people that this partisan 1 monk should be removed to another sphere of activity. He was accordingly ordered to report at the monastery of his Order at Venice.

It was necessary for the monk to have a passport. Lord Strickland, for reasons best known to himself, refused to issue it.

Apart from the grounds alleged for this refusal, it is a well-known fact -hut this party-poJiticaii monk was a very active supporter of Lord Strickland s party, now in power. It was to the 1 rentier's interest to keep this .ic ive and enthusiastic supporter beside him, especially as the latter is a member of an influential Maltese patriarchal family. Hence, the real reason lor refusal of the.-passport- was the pending loss of influential political support. *

lo come back to Father Michallef’s personal position. He was bound by si coin vow to obey his superior’s eonideffiin , S ° \° Ve “ icc - could not l iwt | L - Y ‘’“knowledge l lis Superior’s law tul authority in the matter. But. he Whh it 1 P T' V r' Qd froUl * h , e Government refusing to „tant him the necessary facility- foleaving the island. So he staved! But—lather Mieallef could "have obtained bis passport, if he so desired “ 'ttUingness to fullfil-his •Mipeuoi ’s coiumamJ. Lon] Strir'kiiT, t had no to port; we know his motive, but h is authority would not bear investigation ft mi h °i'; C, r r a]O " C CoU] ' l 'c-' bu h ; ' va ,' asked; no appeal , ' lua,,L “ b y lJl< > person concerned i„ He passport to the Colonial Office. The uhole matter went by default. The >nps of obtaining an explanation for s detention in Malta rested on the monk; but. he did nothing. H,. iia r siv ° dfcpbwlicucc'to hi.-' te’ j oo ’ la - v tb * onus of relieving bimTh .s e ? use - He .did. not . do so ’ “* h passive disobedience beenm-praeticebe«lf-on' Accordin S usual prac ce of monastic discipline, which Ms bum continuous for centuries the sU ’ ps "’ ere taken to M™Orfw hl ,V ;i f :,Vn eonn< ?etion with • " Order. Witu refusal to obev hi= immediate Superior, he thereby ineurVat£ aeral ccclcsiaati «a3 censure by- the Vatican, consequent upon his own dispraetiee 1 tZ th ?. Chureh ’ bo, law and Mieallef i 1S a ,‘“ far as Father - i.allcx is concerned with the matteGreat Britain and. The

iy Pledged. _Mir we come to the so-called interl politic-- Ui n tb \ Y atiean in domestic ■the lew At® ,Y atlca7l maintain [ .the lau of the Church. That law speed. 1 m-P. Jo enun 5 iatcs - the principle that nolirif r '°‘ P ar( icipate in party a M th!S necessary provision f, . ; ? 5 Kt £ - nr:e - st migUt by his political activities cause disseution his people contrary to the common peace and national .welfare. There is no doubt that Father Mic-ailex’s. partisanship was contrary to the harmony of monastic fraternity. On these two counts, he was in eonMct with Canon Law, which, by the Treatv of Pari. Great Britain—as well as the Vatican " solemnly bound to maintain , r ,: e Va ;. if:rm appealed to bv the Maltese, Government. In accordance i witu its invarlablr careful nr ,,, t - a i Archbishop Pascal‘Robinson, a member of tne Franciscan Order and a British -subject, was serif as Apostolic vb h,*\ to investigate the matter on Malta U juridical capacity. Before he made hi 1 ferns p-irti-an Jh,, re bv rcu.J.rj, l self a person no longer garded by the Vatican" n Z f' jnaiip fpnn ■on,,, 1 - T l!t S (lipjo- . SSISSI ““ ?»“ Jill ™t OttJyeL J

press disapproval but demanded bis removal from office. This is, of course, sliecr nonsense.

A Question. If a priest or monk were so antagonistic to the Government of a British Dominion as to cause public dissention, would it be considered an intrusion, -of the State into Church matters if the Prime Minister asked, fox. his removal"?