Fr Mark Montebello OP
The Crucifix and its removal
The most holy cross and, more specifically, the Crucifix, are a Christian's most beautiful and noble symbol of the faith. They depict, in graphic terms, the most perfect word of God to us, who expresses Himself best in silence, and accomplishes best when immobile. I believe that the cross or, better, the crucifix, is the best school of faith.
There was a time when the most Holy Cross/Crucifix was shown everywhere. And, yet, the world was still a depressing and highly dangerous place, as some maintain it is today. We had, and still have, the cross flaunted in our courtrooms and, yet, a judge can still be bribed and people still bear false witness.
We had, and still have, the cross flaunted in our homes and, yet, people still commit adultery, swear, mistreat their wives, husbands and children. We had, and still have, the cross flaunted in our streets and, yet, people still abuse each other. So on and so forth.
My point is that it is not flaunting the cross that is a true sign of faith but gratitude to God's love expressed in charity.
Very often, in the past, the most Holy Cross was used not as a sign of spirituality but as a foretoken of a religious institution; not as witness to faith but as a sign of power and domination; not as assurance of service and love but as an imposition of authority and compliance. People have murdered in the name of the most Holy Cross. Unfortunately, that is how some people still see it today: a political emblem.
Of course, the most Holy Cross is still used as an institutional badge by Christians who do not consider spirituality to be good enough on its own but who also insist that it should be translated into a religion. They transmute an intimate relationship into an institutional tool and, thus, confuse one with the other, even in social and political terms.
The most Holy Cross testifies God's universal and uncompromising love and respect. I understand "uncompromising" to mean 100 per cent in each case and "universal" stands for unlimited by human conventions, distinctions, designations, frontiers or any other separation of any kind, be it religious, political, economical, etc. I understand this to mean that the cross itself does not allow disrespect or separations and, as such, must not be used in any public place where its presence can suggest as much.
Therefore, its unnecessary presence is implied in itself. If a teacher in a public school or a judge in a public courtroom holds the cross to signify his or her personal spirituality (and that is surely good and noble), it does not follow that the cross needs to be flaunted for all, irrespective of their beliefs or convictions. The spirituality of the cross can (and, I think, should) be expressed in the values that it represents, and this on a personal level, but not necessarily as an imposition (which the very concept of the cross refutes). My whole point is that who really believes in the most Holy Cross (not as a political tool but as a sign of a personal relationship) does not fear its being removed from public places. On the contrary, so that its personal and intimate significance will be better appreciated, and its abuse as an institutional weapon will be the more evaded and desisted, such a person should be pleased by the removal. To put it in other (perhaps more polemical) words, all Christians should be more - though, of course, not only - content with the spread of Jesus's spirituality and values than by the consolidation of its institutionalisation, which always tends to obliterate the former.
This may indeed be a depressing and highly dangerous world but not because the most Holy Cross is being removed from public places but because it has been long removed from people's hearts, Christians or Catholics nonetheless, as a personal and intimate relationship and replaced with a meaning that retains solely political and institutional significance.
45 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Steve Pace
Dec 7th 2009, 10:01
@ Saliba - "May I ask? Will the removal of the crucifix from public places in any way promote the return of Christian values to people’s hearts or will it only serve to accelerate and to reinforce Christ’s exclusion from those people’s hearts?"
Fr Mark's own reply more than sufficient "The spirituality of the cross can (and, I think, should) be expressed in the values that it represents, and this on a personal level, but not necessarily as an imposition (which the very concept of the cross refutes). "
Any other interpretation to this article is simply misleading and diversionary at its best.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 28th 2009, 17:23
“This may indeed be a depressing and highly dangerous world but not because the most Holy Cross is being removed from public places but because it has been long removed from people's hearts” (Fr Mark Montebello)
May I ask? Will the removal of the crucifix from public places in any way promote the return of Christian values to people’s hearts or will it only serve to accelerate and to reinforce Christ’s exclusion from those people’s hearts?
What is the objection to our following our bishops' lead and oppose the removal of the crucifix from our classroom walls on the grounds that such removal of the crucifix would imply one more indication of the removal of Christ from our hearts?
Lydia Pullicino
Nov 28th 2009, 17:11
Fr. Montebello's arguments are correct, however I still do not agree that removilng the cross is going to help us grow in our spirituality. The cross is always a reminder of Christ's love for us though I would prefer to have the statue of the Risen Christ instead.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 28th 2009, 17:06
@MaryleeCauchi
From the time of the Roman Emperors down to the atheist Communist dictators of our day history is bespattered with unfulfilled prophecies about the imminent demise of Christianity. No harm in adding your prediction to that list. The prophecy that has actually been fulfilled so far is that Christ will be with the Apostolic Church till the end of time.
I presume that the Church is the author of your catechism. Please explain how you can say that you derive your wisdom from the catechism but not from the Church.
Gervais Marcel Cishahayo
Nov 28th 2009, 13:42
I have not read much about your writings, but I sought to read this one and understand the reasons why it has become controversial...This is straight to the point Fr mark Montebello. Our daily life actions are the best exprassion of our faith, not our declarations of intents...
Well done Fr Mark Montebello
marylee cauchi
Nov 28th 2009, 10:42
the fact that the church has disassociated itself from these words,clearly shows the problems that lie within the same church..What I mean is that,you can't be a thinker,or a philosopher,and form part of the church..The church is for laymen(fidili),and has always been like that..The only good think about the church today is that it no longer has the power to burn people at stake...Fr Mark is brilliant here in his interpretation..I can somehow imagine the disciples asking Jesus 'What if they take away crosses from public places?' ..What do you think he would answer 'Make holy war against them?' or 'The cross is just a wooden ornament,and what's important is that you bear the cross in your life?'
I have a prediction to make..Once the older generation dies out in Malta,in 10 to 20 years time,there will no longer be a place for the catholic church,unless,of course,if people like fr Mark,still make part of it,and let others think with their minds'
As for me personally,I can say that I have learned more from catechism than from the church.
Neville Debattista
Nov 27th 2009, 14:18
Could somebody please tell me why all this fuss about this piece ? I have read the article a hundred times and I can see nothing wrong or misleading in it at all?. Is Fr.Montebello lying when he says that in the past there were people who used and misused the Holy Cross to reach their earthly aims and inflict pain on their neighbour ? ( Think about the premeditated invasion of Protestant Engalnd orchestrated by the seemingly pious King Philip of Spain? Was it merely a religous war or where there other ulterior sinister motives behind it? The thousands of scandalous indulgencies given in return of earthly riches. The inquisition and all the atrocities it brought around about it.) Fr.Mark never ever hinted that he was in favour of the removal of the Cross from our chests. He insists though that in additional to that it is much more important to express the Way of the Cross through our deeds. Which is something which unfortunately for some earthly reason is hard for us to do I beleive. What sense does it make for a gladiator to wear his armour then to abscond when it comes to matter most?
John Portelli
Nov 27th 2009, 11:22
Fr Montebello YOU ARE RIGHT!!.Because I no longer practise Catholism or believe in any Jewish God because Religon has become a political intrument of mind controlling the masses.I will not revert to what I believed and practised because I'm happy how I am.I believe in a Master God.Not in a God who kills his son for us to belive in him and if we don't we go to hell,but yet he loves us...?? Religion is FLAWED because it's written by smart people for stupid people to follow
Frank Bonello
Nov 27th 2009, 02:20
When I see a cross, whether it is hanging in a classroom, at Courts, Offices etc., I absolutely dont and shouldn't ever think about all the sins mentioned in the second and third para by Fr M.M. My friend we are all sinners! and no one sins because crosses are flaunted in our homes and streets.To the contrary, on the sight of the CROSS the first impression that always comes to my mind - (and to the minds of all those who believe), - is that GOD LOVES US ALL! The Bible says God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM" shall not perish but have eternal life. If the cross were to be removed from public places, we may stop thanking our Lord and Saviour so often for dying on the CROSS for our sins! and asking His forgiveness. Lets not remove the cross from anywhere including from our hearts but even carry it all the time on our chest.
J Borg
Nov 26th 2009, 15:42
I think that a central point in his argument is being totally missed.
There is a difference between the Cross/Crucifix as a spiritual symbol and the Cross/Cricifix as a Political symbol.
The former is an icon, representing a way of life that should be followed (Christ's); the latter is an icon representing an Institution, present in the social and political structure of a Catholic nation such as Malta.
If I am allowed an interpretation of Fr MM's words, I think he is pointing out the difference between the two and indicating that the former is way more important than the latter, political symbol. The Church as an Institution with Political weight and baggage is to be differentiated from the Church as a spiritual congregation of individuals. This is why a Crucifix, in a multicultural environment has no place outside of places of worship. But then again, is Malta a multicultural country? That is the Question.
D. Galea
Nov 26th 2009, 14:52
Biex tkun tolleranti ma jfissirx li tneħħi s-salib - għamel Simboli ta' religjonijiet inkella tkun qed teqred t-tolleranza. Qisek qiegħed tgħid naqblu mal-kuluri kollha imma kulhadd jilbes l-iswed. Ma tagħmilx sens u kontradittorja.
Emerson Farrugia
Nov 26th 2009, 13:54
Joseph Cauchi said "I regret to inform you that I do feel sad when people of the cloth express such views in not the correct fora."
@Joseph Cauchi: How is the national newspaper not the correct forum for an opinion piece on a topic of national interest? Where would you have preferred that Fr Montebello express his views, exactly? To clergymen who would accuse him of sophism and blasphemy?
@Fr Montebello: Your argument is a refreshing change from the monotone and uninspired broken record that the Curia has become. Issues like crucifixes in classrooms gain controversy because they are easier targets than the real issues the institution must face; its dwindling numbers. (Although the conviction that fewer members in the Catholic institution implies fewer people living in accordance with the teachings of Christ is a non sequitur). Then again, I may be one of the "dark forces" hell bent on the destruction of the Catholic faith. Or I may be a rational, analytical human being. Assuming this audience can tell the difference.
L Falzon
Nov 26th 2009, 13:15
As someone who considers herself more spiritual than religious, I totally agree with Fr. Mark. It is not the cover of a book that, in the end, grabs the heart and mind, but what's written in it. It doesn't matter to me if the crucifix is there or not. I won't stop believing in Christ, and try to make Him proud of me. Any more than I'm going to pop out for a divorce just because it's legal where I live.
Will the crucifix, even if it was always on their person, absolve the sins of the many nuns and priests who betrayed Christ in abusing the children, either by belting or much, much worse? Will the crucifix absolve the macho-man who cannot say a sentence without using God's name in vain?In conversation, someone said to me even such a man would would never stand for the crucifix to be taken down. The image warms the cockles of the heart. Such devotion!
Christian Sciberras
Nov 26th 2009, 12:32
I agree with Fr Montebello and his cause.
It is of utmost stupidity of the Curia to dissasociate with such a brilliant person.
The Bible is all about truth. It speaks of it every couple of pages.
You want the truth? Read Fr Mark's text. How harsh it may sound, HE IS TRUTHFUL MORE THEN THE CURIA.
People have been fed things like "we're all holy, catholics, etc" and "we must safeguard christianity". How? By building a huge over Malta cross? Going back to into crusades against Muslims? Where the heck is your belief?
As I've said countless times (Dr Saliba) the problem is not having crosses around.
You could get a Muslim, Budhist, Hindu...to carry a cross. That doesn't make them Catholic.
Want to be the Catholics you all boast about? Start NOW. Think my words over.
Joseph A Borg
Nov 26th 2009, 11:53
the cross is a symbol. For many it means all the good things that christianity has to offer. For true christians, the cross is a symbol of self-sacrifice, of humility, of the son of God reduced to suffer the same lot as all those who crossed the Roman state, flogged and hung to die as a warning.
I think that christianity began to suffer morally, when Constantine found it expedient to cosy up with the rising cult and turned it into a state religion. It went further downhill when the pope saw it his privilege to meddle in state affairs across Europe, resulting in the northern states of Europe declaring their own personal state churches with the cross as a nominal symbol.
The Enlightenment was an important milestone that started a movement towards the separation of church and state to the benefit of both. This is almost 300 years ago! We are moving slowly! It would be easier for the church to have its say if it didn't hang on to past dreams of some Holy Roman Empire…
Priests like Fr Montebello are inspiring and proof that the church can redeem itself, but I digress…
James Formosa
Nov 26th 2009, 11:29
The crucifix is a reminder to Christians that Jesus has humbled Himself and died for our sins NOT as a symbol only!! Just like a ONE WAY sign reminds us not to enter that road, the cross points or reminds a Christian to go in the right direction. Just because ppl keep sinning doesn't favour the argument to remove the 'Symbol'. There are ppl of the church who wear the cross on their chest and sin anyway (one may argue that the cross should be stripped off their chest) but they also are humans. Now in a predominantly Christian country where we all need to be reminded constantly, we need the cross. Your argument to remove the cross just because you think that most ignore it hanging on the wall may only result in making sinners (and secularists) a bit more comfortable.... that's all. The cross is the symbol of the most defining moment of christianity - as a christian and a priest I would have expected you to be more a crusader - not a buddhist!
Francis Saliba
Nov 21st 2009, 21:54
@WilliamPFlynn
Did I associate the crucifix with Christianity of the catacombs? NO
Does the absence of archeological evidence mean that Christianity did not adopt the cross as a religious symbol until “hundreds of years” after the 5th century? The answer is again NO. St Paulinus of Nola was already mentioning it in the 4th Century A.D. and it is safe to presume that its devotion had existed previously.
Is it true that the crucifix was introduced as a “cruci-fiction” for the creation of abuses of power? NO. It was a symbol of devotion (although there were occasions when it was abused as everything else in life has been abused).
William P Flynn
Nov 21st 2009, 09:25
Such a pity English people inviting themselves to get involved in Maltese affairs cannot speak Maltese. I have just watched and heard Mark Montebello on Xarabank "clarifying" his position quite eloquently; although to me this letter is quite clear enough.
More power to him and people like him.
Frances Xuereb
Nov 21st 2009, 08:28
The holy cross was even removed from the hearts of religous people because if they remember that they are carrying a Crucifix on their chest they would not do what they did ........
Ruining a fertility agriculture land and thousands of gallons of purified water with the New Nadur cemetery….
I am sure that they did not even thought of the beautiful landscape of Nadur Ghajn Qasab Valley “ you can imagine how much they thought of the holycross”……
William P Flynn
Nov 20th 2009, 23:01
@FrancisSaliba
The Christians in the catacombs never saw a crucifix and the cross was not their symbol.
No archaeological evidence exists of any relationship between the cross and Christianity until the 5th century.
The crucifix came hundreds of years later still as "cruci-fiction" - the creation of the abuses of power and domination to which Mark Montebello alludes - took hold and became rampant in Christianity.
The attitudes in your comments are good examples of abuse of power, forced compliance and domination.
The EU will have none of it and you and your ilk should try to get used to the attitudes Mark Montebello is espousing. Realistically, nothing else will work.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 20th 2009, 21:59
@GerryCowie
No intelligent person would have been surprised that the usual consortium of local “secularists” would clutch at any straw - let alone the latest Opinion column by Fr Montebello - and grasp any opportunity to mount a concerted attack against any aspect of Catholicism. I am absolutely convinced that Fr Montebello deeply regrets the abuse of his column by these people – but he should have foreseen this obvious danger!
It is quite a novel suggestion that Fr Montebello does not resist the removal of the crucifix from public display in schoolrooms because “its presence might well be misused”. Quite frankly I do not believe for one single moment that an atheist lady from Finland took her case to the ECHR to remove the Crucifix from Italian schoolrooms to protect the Holy Crucifix from any possible abuse by the Italians. That would be stretching my credulity well beyond its breaking point!
William P Flynn
Nov 20th 2009, 21:37
How Mark Montebello with this beautiful, thought provoking letter and our English meddler with his abysmal waste of space can be on the same team beggars belief.
Where was the cross on the Sermon on the Mount? Jesus never saw a crucifix let alone wore one. Which apostle wore their master's symbol of torture?
It isn't hard to find those Mark Montebello describes who would use the crucifix as "a sign of power and domination...an imposition of authority and compliance".
Abraham Lincoln, a humanist, and Ghandi, a Hindu, left wonderful examples of goodness for all to see and try to emulate.
Gerry Cowie
Nov 20th 2009, 20:35
It would be a good idea if Fr Montebello were given the opportunity to clarify his words. Certainly he points to abuses of the Cross, which even secularists would support, since any abuses attempt to undermine what the Cross stands for. It is the intentions in the heart of the person who misuses the Cross for his or her own ends which he does not like to see. I do not think that Fr Montebello would take part in demonstrations or votes to remove the Cross from public view. He seems to be reminding us to ensure that we do not misuse the cross for own selfish ends, or indeed allow secularists to do so. Hence he seems to support its removal from public places where its presence might well be misused. Naturally secularists would support this apparent suppression of the Cross and shower the writer with praises. Fr Mark does not wish to see the Cross flaunted and disrespected, misused and abused. He fears that putting in in public places may enable this to happen. In doing so he seems to be appeasing secularists. So I do hope that he will respond in these blogs and clarify his position.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 20th 2009, 20:24
@FrancoFarrugia I agree that that the crucifix on a schoolroom wall is not essential in a Catholic country but it is highly desirable. The early Christians hiding in their catacombs managed magnificently in spite of being persecuted and martyred for their faith. There are people today who would be very glad to see Christianity being driven underground again. They have unexpected allies. My contention is that the willful removal of existing traditional crucifixes from our public life would be a definite act of reninciation of our Christian religious and cultural heritage. It is unwarranted when it is being made to appease an alien atheist. If we do not resist it, as recommended by our bishops, it would be a scandalous indication of our diminished willingness to recognize Christ in our daily public life.
Gerry Cowie
Nov 20th 2009, 20:12
Having taken another look at what Fr Mark has said, I do not feel that he is necessarily supporting the removal of the Cross from public places, but rather he is saddened by the removal of the Cross from people's hearts. He appears to be playing into the hands of secularists here - as witnessed by the contribution of William P Flynn below. The fact that they are praising him, however, is ill-judged! It is true that those who believe in Jesus shouldn't fear the removal of the cross from walls but moreso they should fear the removal of Jesus from their hearts. He maintains that one can live without the visibility of the Cross. Terry Waite, when in captivity in the Middle East, had no cross, but made one out of paper as a reminder of what Jesus meant to him, finding in it a great solace. Whilst Fr Montabello speaks as a committed Christian who believes in Jesus, I think he may have been taken out of context. I rather think he clearly refers to the cancerous spread of secularism! Being a Dominican, his habit includes a rosary and crucifix which is for all the world to see.
GiovDeMartino
Nov 20th 2009, 20:01
With priests like these who wants any unticlericals.
Gerry Cowie
Nov 20th 2009, 19:57
Fr Mark has indeed written what is the epitome of Catholicism in relation to the crucifix. See below how William P Flynn of Australia has even tried to turn what the writer has said into what he calls "the epitome of secularism"! How desperate he is to try to convert Malta into what it will never become, namely a totally secularist state! When is he going to accept that his desire to see Malta change into the sort of society he wishes it to become, from all those miles away, is not on the agenda? But, hold on...which side of the fence is he on? He refers to being "in a state of perfect grace." Is this a sign that he accepts Catholicism in Malta? He even seems to support the idea of the inclusion of Catholicism in the Constitution! But hold on...What's this about Jesus "shunning" religious symbols. He would hardly see people shun His Cross and how it reminds people of what He did for the whole world for all time! He certainly did not approve of people abusing their power and so on. He first appears to praise, then spoils it with his usual secularist apologist approach!
jneville ebejer
Nov 20th 2009, 19:49
Fr Mark's comments are much appreciated and invite one to refelct. A question then arises after doing that. In a society which wishes to have it's more popular belief and convictions lived as not just a personal affair but a communial one, has it got that right to do so? - if it is part of it's identity and a majority(if proven to want) to live such convictions even in such a way as to have it's symbol in public places, who are we to impose secularism? Should a society which has it's majority of members believe in the presence of God be subdued to atheism/secularism by a court ruling in some other part of the world? What are we actually talking about? Is it the spirituality of an individual, of a community or democratic right ? is it identity which defines a society or an identity fitted onto a society which we want to have in this emerging Europe? I think a religion is comminity's way of life and not just a personal thing of the individual in a community and since we have a strong religious feeling we cannot have it ignored.
c. camilleri
Nov 20th 2009, 19:14
As expected. Well done Mark Montebello. You gave a big boost to all unbelievers. What next the Archbishop agreeing to the removal the crucifix from public places to complete the picture.
albert muscat
Nov 20th 2009, 18:53
@ Fr. Mark Montebello I totally agree with every single word you say. With the growing numbers of cohabitation (adultery) in today ‘modern’ life-style, coupled with the choking numbers of fathers-less or out of wedlock born babies sock may I ask, how long would it take until a state MUST abide with the 10 Biblical commandments (which glove-fits with Islamic Shraia laws) to survive and remedy the steadily and widely growing many social illness? May God bless you.
Franco Farrugia
Nov 20th 2009, 18:34
@ Giov. Demartino: 'Miskina knisja' indeed, Giovann ... but not for some pseudo-removal of the Crucifix, as you probably are thinking. And neither is it because there are priests like MM, as I suspect you are thinking as well. If you took a look at the mayhem of last week's Xarabank, regarding how the 'fidili' are reacting to the Church's wishes to reorganise outside celebrations in honour of patron saints, you would know why your Church is indeed 'miskina'. Point made, I hope.
Franco Farrugia
Nov 20th 2009, 18:32
@ Andrew Pisani; @ Francis Saliba; School is NOT only where one goes to learn facts; school is an educational community. And even if it were a question of facts, to me, the Crucifix is FACT IN PERSONA because when I look at it, I see the explanation of my personal religion, of my hope in eternal life, and of the only answer there is for suffering in this world. So, it is worth familiarising oneself with what a school means. Nobody, neither myself nor the letter in question, signifies that anyone is 'readily acquiescing to the removal of the Holy Crucifix'; nowhere did I ever say that - quite the contrary, in fact. And nowhere is MM saying that! But if it were to be so, the removal, in itself, is certainly not 'a form of abnegation of Christ in our public life'! What MM is saying and with which I agree, is that a true and strong Christian will not have his faith affected by such a 'removal'.
GiovDeMartino
Nov 20th 2009, 17:51
POVRA KNISJA!
v zammit
Nov 20th 2009, 16:22
Yes Fr Mark, how very true and to the point. But respectfully one has to distinguish (but perhaps without putting too much of a fine point to it) between ‘cross’ and ‘crucifix’. Interesting where you say “... its unnecessary presence is implied in itself..... it does not follow that the cross needs to be flaunted for all, irrespective of their beliefs or convictions”. Which prompts me to add that if I were an aetheist, I would have no quarrel with the christian cross as a symbol in history of a nation, continent.... On the other hand, as a believer I would be careful how to display the crucifix out of respect and the sense of the holy.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 20th 2009, 15:47
@FrancoFarrugia
This is not a question of keeping Christ EITHER inside our heart OR exposed on our chest. The hallmark of the practicing Christian should be that he does BOTH. Readily acquiescing to the removal of the Holy Crucifix from the walls of our schoolrooms is a form of abnegation of Christ in our public life. It shows a reluctance to acknowledge Christ publicly before the men of this earth. It risks bringing down on our heads Christ’s warning that in his turn He would not recognize us before his Father! Frankly I am shocked that any Catholic priest should quibble that he does not see it that way at all.
Joseph Seisun
Nov 20th 2009, 15:26
@ Fr. Mark Montebello
Spiritually speaking, yes, I agree with you. Christians should base their lives on Grace and Faith and not on symbols and laws. That is why we got the New Covenant from God.
On the other hand we must be careful when we say that it is OK to remove the Crucifix. We know that there are many who wish to eradicate all that is Christian. They have been doing this in the USA. They start with one thing, then another and another and so forth. They will not stop until they annihilate all that is Christian, unless of course, we do something stop them. There are dark forces out there that will do anything to undo the work of Jesus in this world! They will use any thing like political correctness and all types of media. There is a spiritual war going on. I am sure you know this.
Josanne Cassar
Nov 20th 2009, 13:55
".This may indeed be a depressing and highly dangerous world not because the most Holy Cross is being removed from public places but because it has been long removed from people's hearts"
Well said Fr Mark - you have captured the essence of the argument in this one sentence...
J.Tonna
Nov 20th 2009, 13:43
@ Fr Mark Montebello and others: The Maltese saying goes 'Boghod mill ghajn boghod mil-qalb'. Mistakes were made even though there was the presence of the crucifix 'everywhere', if we remove it will the mistakes stop?? I doubt it very much.
William P Flynn
Nov 20th 2009, 13:37
Sir, your words are worth ten Articles in the Constitution favouring Catholicism; and a dozen appeals to the ruling.
You have clearly arrived in a state of pure and unafraid nobleness of thought and spirit where the crucifix as a symbol becomes superfluous and where a "non believer" can accommodate the wisdom of respecting a symbol of a noble principle that forgiveness is a belief worth dying for. This is a win/win state of understanding.
That to me is the epitome of secularism; everybody’s freedom to strive for a personal state of perfect grace – through their own private god or through a system of scientific thought that is based on the values, characteristics, dignity and behaviour that are proven to be within the capacity of the best of us to achieve as ordinary living, breathing human beings.
To do good by whatever lawful means possible is the mission of all good people.
In this scenario, placing a religious symbol in a court, a police station or a classroom becomes incorrect, divisive, and superfluous; and fosters suspicion that the government agencies pass the business of government through a religious filter.
Didn't even Jesus shun that?
Mary Mills
Nov 20th 2009, 12:22
Fr Montebello: very apt, authentic what you say.
I have not grown up with the ubiquitous crucifix hanging on the wall.None in the government primary school attended that I can recall. Or maybe there was one that may have, through familiarity,so blended into the wall that we ceased to see it.
As for secondary school, there definitely were no crucifixes as we were moved about first from St Frederick Street to the old lyceum in Merchants' Street and finally to Blata l-Bajda even whilst latter was still being built.
It made no difference. Speaking personally. For, in fact, I was taught early in life that the crucifix as a metaphor was all around me: the woman dressed in black who stood every morning by the old entrance gate to Valletta, begging for the children in the orphanage, maimed people....the sadness when someone's mother died...
Still, if a crucifix happens to be hanging there in a classroom, no need to suddenly go whipping it off the wall. Better, perhaps placed in a quiet inobtrusive corner.... to be visited, to learn to see its image in the world.
Joseph Cauchi
Nov 20th 2009, 11:31
@ Fr. Mark Montebello,
I regret to inform you that I do feel sad when people of the cloth express such views in not the correct fora.
However, I understand that you may be correct on a philosophical argument but unfortunately not correct on a CULTURAL argument.
The Crucifix is a demonstration of LOVE to all mankind and therefore its presence must be always promoted, especially in our country.
Why should we be ashamed to show our Christian belief in public places?
JC.
Andrew Pisani
Nov 20th 2009, 11:22
I totally agree with Fr Mark. The Crucifix and religion are a matter of personal belief and it is up to us to live the life of true christians. A crucifix in a classroom is simply a symbol which may not always represent everyone in that room. School is where we go to learn facts.
Everyone has the right to their own beleifs and so far, as far as I know ,there have been no proven facts that Christianity is the 'right' religion. It's up to everyone to choose for themselves.
I think we should focus more on actually living the Christian life not showing it.
Ivan Ellul
Nov 20th 2009, 11:01
Well said Fr. Mark!
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 20th 2009, 10:36
@Fr Montebello.
Unfortunately, there will always be people who will not behave according to the teaching of Christ whether in the presence of the crucifix or in its absence. That is not a sufficient reason to approve its removal from classroom walls, court rooms etc. or anywhere else, because you consider it “unnecessary”. I agree that It may not be essential. But, apart from you, there would be a host of others who would consider the crucifix as both necessary and desirable.
Franco Farrugia
Nov 20th 2009, 10:35
@ Mark Montebello - I rarely agree with what you write, but on this one, you have my congratulations. I have been saying your concluding remarks over and over again. Is-salib, wahhlu GO sidrek u mhux FUQ sidres biss!