Fr Joe Borg
Pumpkins yes, crucifixes no?
How can the victim of intolerance be considered the source of intolerance? Photo: Matthew Mirabelli.
Last Tuesday, I was asked on TVM to comment on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy. The court was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member states in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
I described the decision as shameful. How anyone could consider the crucifix as a symbol of intolerance or imposition is beyond me. Christ was the victim of intolerance and imposition. He did not impose His teachings on anyone; he was killed because of his teaching.
How can the victim of intolerance be considered the source of intolerance?
A lot has been written and said since then. Some things I do not understand.
Why do religious people feel threatened by the religious beliefs and symbols of other people? In this day and age, people of different religions should find comfort in each other instead of fighting each other. Unfortunately this is not always so.
I had written about the disgusting comments posted last summer under the story in timesofmalta.com reporting about Muslims praying on the Sliema front. The intolerance shown was very worrying. I am neither threatened not insulted by the symbols and liturgies of another religion, whether it is Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Hinduism. I respect them all, as they are all evidence of the yearning of the human spirit for the transcendent.
However, the current issue is not one between different religions. This decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the result of the liberal tendency which is doing its very best to banish religion from the public sphere.
The decision is not just a decision against Christianity. It is one against all religions. The decision is part of a process which manifested itself in France with the banning of the veil used by Muslims and the use of large crucifixes in schools. There were similar attempts in some German states, and currently, in Switzerland, there is a move against minarets.
It is weird that a culture that finds nothing wrong in scantily-clad men and women in public places is offended by the Muslim veil. Isn't it offensive that a culture that lets an artist desecrate a crucifix by placing it in a jar of urine (claiming freedom of expression) will now object to a crucifix fixed on a classroom wall, thus denying freedom of religion?
Cardinal Meisner's warning that religious faith was needed to "save humanity from tyranny", and should be publicly expressed, is a very valid warning. "Where God is no longer present, human beings take His place and become absolutes for themselves," the cardinal said. He continued: "Christianity isn't a private affair - it's the most public thing in the world. Twentieth-century history shows what tragic consequences threaten the world when God becomes a private matter."
Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone's cutting remark was right on target: "This Europe of the third millennium has left us only the pumpkins of the recent holiday and has taken away our most precious symbols."
It is the court's decision that is an affront to tolerance and human dignity, rather than the presence of crucifixes in schools.
An apology
I am told that during a recent televised discussion, a priest said that people who live together without being married do not love each other. He also said, I was told, that a child born of such a union is not the fruit of love.
I would like to apologise to all those couples who understandably felt insulted by these inconsiderate words. Let it be clear that not all priests share these views.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
13 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Zak Portelli
Nov 15th 2009, 19:41
@ Kenneth Cassar
You need to get real yourself because you misunderstood the comment, I stated specifically that Fr.Joe Shouldn't have apologized for what another priest said, because that other priest was simply following the Church's moral teachings, Fr.Joe probably felt that the rules where too staunch thus felt some one needs to be slightly warmer to these couples maybe... I don't know, but the other priest (not to mention names) was right all the way in following Church teaching.
"a priest said that people who live together without being married do not love each other"
That priest was right, because if a couple loved each other they would wish that they both make it to heaven, not dump each other into Hell for doing only God knows what by living together, that is not real love!
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 10th 2009, 17:28
@ Zak Portelli:
In all fairness, all the things you wrote have nothing to do with what Fr Joe Borg apologised for.
Whether or not unmarried couples are "following Christ's teaching" has nothing to do with whether they love each other or not. Do you mean to say that people of other religions or none cannot love each other? Get real.
Zak Portelli
Nov 9th 2009, 22:34
"An apology"
What kind of an apology is this Fr.Joe? You stated that not all priests share the same view. That’s the problem, you are all going in different directions! The Church's teaching is clear! Christ’s teaching is clear, any one who delves into sexual actions prior to marriage is committing "Fornication" and you know that Fornication is a mortal sin, Christ said "No man guilty of Adultery, Homosexuality or Fornication will inherit the kingdom of heaven" You want to "apologize to all those couples who understandably felt insulted" If they felt insulted good for them, the Church can’t change Christ’s teaching, never did and never will, The Church is only trying to Open their eyes to repent and come back, if they don’t want to then leave them not apologize to them! In the Gospel when St.Peter turned to Christ and told him "master the people are leaving" Christ didn't apologise! he said "why don’t you to leave with them?" and St.Peter replied "but master to whom shall we go, you alone are the truth" And Christ said, "they who want to listen will listen"
Joe Xuereb
Nov 9th 2009, 17:41
1) We are made to believe that Christ died for our sins. A different view is that he angered his elders by telling them he was the long-awaited Messiah. They became very angry and punished him. We should be grateful for their extreme ire as, without this, Christ would not have died and we would not have been saved. Thank you Jews. And thank you Jesus for being a Jew above all others. Religion is strong ID. The Catholic believes only he will inherit Heaven. Certainly not the followers of Allah. The Muslim thinks likewise. HE will go to Heaven, the Catholic is an infidel. Daggers drawn. What do you want? Proof? continued
Kurt Mifsud
Nov 8th 2009, 23:05
What's wrong with neutrality in public places? No one is imposing the removal of crucifixes in churches. But since I am Maltese like you but with a different religious opinion, why should I for example die in a bed in hospital facing a crucifix pending on a wall? We're not talking establishing a new religious symbol here, just NEUTRALITY. What could be better than that?
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 8th 2009, 22:26
@ Marylu Aloysia d'Agostino:
I don’t suppose Sister Wendy had the dubious pleasure of interviewing Andres Serrano to get information, straight from the horse’s mouth, about his work “Piss Christ”.
Any work of art is open to interpretation and Sister Wendy, as befits her calling, chose to give a charitable interpretation. I wonder if Serrano relished it, however.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 8th 2009, 20:24
Lots of inaccuracies and straw-man arguments.
1. Judgement was not against crucifixes in classrooms but only those in state schools.
2. Nobody is saying Christ imposes anything. It is his followers who do.
3. This is not about feeling threathened. It is about state schools not being free of religious partiality.
4. This is not about eliminating religion from the public sphere. It is about separating church and state.
5. The banning of the veil in France was done for security reasons. People have to take off crash-helmets to enter banks (for instance). Why not veils or burkas?
6. I think I am in a better position to state that most atheists who would ban crucifixes from government secular schools find the crucifix-in-urine "art" at best tasteless, at worst a provocation. I wouldn't have permitted it.
7. Cardinal Meisner's warning that religious faith was needed to "save humanity from tyranny" is at best naive. It could easily be claimed that religious faith is needed to fly two aeroplanes into the twin towers.
Fr Mario Attard OFM Cap
Nov 8th 2009, 17:26
Fr Joe's blog article made me endorse the position expressed by the Austrian historian and expert for the human rights network Christianophobia.eu in Vienna, Martin Kugler who said: "Anti-religious fundamentalism makes itself an accomplice of religious fundamentalism when it provokes through intolerance." Does not the question of the banning Crucifixes from public places bring forth this incredible anomaly?
C.Busuttil
Nov 8th 2009, 17:04
Fr. Joe
I agree 100% with you on the crucifix issue, I also hope that you and the church will open your eyes when taking in consideration certain issues that rise from time to time by people that have a hidden agenda. They resort to whatever justification to promote their issues some even hide behind that they are catholics but wish this or that reform from the church. They attack the church in a subtle manner, they are trying to erode piece by piece anything that has a connection with the catholic faith. Take abortion, they justify it as a choice but hell breaks out if somethink of their likening is touched because they have rights conveniently forgetting that the unborn has rights too. These people are the worst hypocrites one can come across they are ready to resort to anything to reach their objectives therefore the church should be careful not to give them importance and should study the character of these people and what they stand for before giving any weight to what they say. Fortunately they are confined to this website because outside they behave in a different manner... typical
Joe Xuereb
Nov 8th 2009, 16:33
3) Children have a right to be engaged in character-forming activities without fear, or shame, or guilt. Telling a child, cringing away from the bloodied efficy of a man who, he is told, died for him and dies again every time, he, the child, refuses to finish his brussels sprouts which is wasteful blah, blah, blah because there are children the world over who would give anything for a single sprout.......this is not the way forward. This is not the way to bring up a child. I know because I have been there. And I bear the scars. Now faded.
Marylu Alosia d'Agostino
Nov 8th 2009, 13:53
The reaction of art critic Sister Wendy Beckett (someone who actually understands ART, not Fr Joe Borg) to Andres Serrano's Piss Christ came to me like a Good Samaritan in my interpretive ditch. During an interview with Bill Moyers she said Serrano's photograph wasn't blasphemous, instead it was a commentary on "what we have done to Christ." You know, like these people who use Christ for their specific political agendas.
The offending photo can be viewed here: http://www.theotherjournal.com/blog.php?id=8&articleID=367
Peter Camilleri
Nov 8th 2009, 12:50
The difference, or in this case the crucial difference (pun intended), is that nobody is forcing anyone to view an artistic installation of a crucifix in a jar of urine. If you, Fr Borg, ever go to an exhibition, or a play, or a poetry reading where you don't like or don't agree with the fare on show, it is your ultimate prerogative to walk out (or not go in the first place). Not so with crucifixes in classrooms in state schools.
There is a significant difference between state schools and church schools, and the church is perfectly justified in placing as many crucifixes as it likes in its own classrooms. If as a parent I want to give my children a completely secular education, then I should have the choice not to send my children to church schools, but to send them some place else where my choice to raise them secularly can be respected.
Franco Farrugia
Nov 8th 2009, 09:07
While I am all out in favour of Fr Borg defending the presence of the Crucifix, I don't agree with the title of his piece. 'Pumpkin' does not represent any established religion while the Cross, in a way, does.
With reference to the last paragraph, does the priest in question also believe that all couples who are married love each other? Shows what pastoral experience he has gained throughout the years. brrrr!