Should the Pope be arrested or forced to resign?

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 17th 2010, 15:55

@ Evarist Saliba:

"I leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusion on the relevant merits of our contributions".

Finally we agree on something.

Evarist Saliba

Apr 17th 2010, 13:21

@ Kenneth Cassar
I leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusion on the relevant merits of our contributions.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 17th 2010, 12:44

@ Evarist Saliba:

There was no need to repeat yourself. Please refer to what I said about footnotes having to be relevant to the main text.

To any reasonable person, just because I added my own footnote (if you like) saying that Flew was not a Christian, does not mean that you said he was. Making up such a conclusion does not reflect well on you.

His changed opinion on the existance of "God" has nothing to do with the "present campaign" against the grave mishandling of pedophilia by the Church.

As for criticizing Flew, I only criticized him on the not-too-humble title of his own book. Was he humble when he preached atheism, you ask me. I wouldn't know. You tell me. Have you actually read any of his books? I haven't.

Evarist Saliba

Apr 17th 2010, 12:23

@ Kenneth Cassar
My reference to Prof. Antony Flew was a clear and separate footnote to the subject under discussion. To any reasonable person, your claim that he did not become a Christian implied that I had said so. This difference does not reflect well on you.

I referred to his changed opinion on the existence of God, in the light of the present campaign in Malta by atheists to denigrate the Catholic Church. I suspected that some atheist would try to dismiss Prof. Flew for his changed view on the existence of God, and you proved me right. You even criticised him for not being very humble. Was he humble when he preached atheism? If I may borrow a phrase of yours, it is funny how some atheists react at times.

Prof. Flew's "conversion" is significant because it was a direct consequence of his deep involvement in the issue and, as a scienctist, because the scientific discoveries on the origin of life led him to believe in the existence of God. His admission that he may have caused "enormous damage" did not come as a result of any religious conversion.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 17th 2010, 12:19

@ Evarist Saliba:

P.s. Anthony Flew was just one ex-atheist. Why would I even wish to dismiss him when there are countless other atheist professors who present a much better case for atheism?

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 17th 2010, 12:15

@ Evarist Saliba:

Footnote or not footnote, its still irrelevant to the discussion. Footnotes are usually additional information that is relevant to the main text.

Therefore, since Flew is not even remotely connected to the topic, and since I have already addressed all your issues anyway, I shall end it here.

Evarist Saliba

Apr 17th 2010, 11:53

@ Kenneth Cassar
My reference to Prof. Antony Flew was a clear and separate footnote to the subject under discussion. To any reasonable person, your claim that he did not become a Christian implied that I had said so. There is a huge difference between the two instances.

I referred to his passing away, and his changed opinion on the existence of God in the light of the present campaign in Malta by atheists to propagate their views, and denigrate the Catholic Church in the process. I suspected that some atheist would try to dismiss Prof. Flew
once his deep study of thedecades-long campaign for atheism fell apart

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 17th 2010, 09:48

@ Evarist Saliba:

In a way it is funny how when some atheists mention the large number (majority, some would say) of the most highly distinguished scientists who are atheists, the religious say it does not matter, but when one atheist scientist converts to deism (which does not include a belief in a personal God who interferes in human lives, answers prayers...basically does nothing), then it suddenly matters.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 17th 2010, 09:34

@ Evarist Saliba:

"I do not see how this can be honestly described as "systematically shielding paedophiles"".

And how would you describe a policy that threatens excommunication to anyone (including the victims of child abuse) if he speaks out about the case to anyone?

"I never said that Professor Anthony Flew became a Christian. So, why raise the matter?"

I know, but since you found no problem in giving off-topic information, I chose to do likewise. Professor Anthony Flew has nothing to do with this article...so why raise the matter?

"Once you have taken the bait and mentioned the late gentleman"

Taken the bait? When someone says the expression "take the bait", it means that one is entrapped. How was I entrapped? What did I subsequently say that harmed my case? And wasn't it you who mentioned the late gentleman first?

"...may I add, for the benefit of readers who do not know, that A. Flew made public his belief in God".

You should look up "deism". Let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Evarist Saliba

Apr 16th 2010, 19:12

@ Kenneth CassarEven taking at face value your reference to the single case you mention involving Cardinal Ratzinger I do not see how this can be honestly described as "systematically shielding paedophiles" as claimed further down this blog (not by you).

Does it take too much intelligence to conclude that a person who wants to deal with a case of child abuse under a promise of confidentiality, something which s/he could do under your option (2), but not under option (1), will have no other way but to have recourse to option (3) if the church will no longer be able to provide the confidentiality he desires?

I never said that Professor Anthony Flew became a Christian. So, why raise the matter? Once you have taken the bait and mentioned the late gentleman may I add, for the benefit of readers who do not know, that A. Flew made public his belief in God (which is not a belief unique to Christianity) "as people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the damage that I may have done."

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 16th 2010, 10:14

@ Evarist Saliba:

On second thoughts, in the likely event that you had no ulterior motives of mentioning Anthony Flew, apologies for misunderstanding you. However, I'm sure that you will also find my previous contributions on Flew interesting, even if you will not be in perfect agreement.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 16th 2010, 10:08

@ Evarist Saliba:

P.s. Not very humble, was he (Anthony Flew), saying that he was "the world's most notorious atheist".

In any case, it might interest you to know (since you mention him) that Anthony Flew became a deist and not a theist (he even specifically said he was not a Christian), and only believed in God as simply a "first cause". Most atheists have no problem with that.

In the words of Flew himself:

"I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations." "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 16th 2010, 09:58

@ Evarist Saliba (part 2):

"Atheists migh wish to learn that the distinguished English atheist rationalist philosopher, who in 2007 admitted that he was wrong and published "There is a God. How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind", has passed away at the ageof 87".

Why exactly would we wish to learn that? Should I make a list of all the atheist philosophers and scientists who were formerly Christians? I'm afraid the 200 word limit would not permit me to do this. In any case, what would that prove?

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 16th 2010, 09:54

@ Evarist Saliba (part 1):

"We have been told by the judge directly involved that most persons who approach the Church authorities on such cases insist on confidentiality. What will happen now? The outcome may well be that cases will not be reported either to the church or the civil authorities. This will be a great victory for paedophiles".

I fail to see how you came to this conclusion. How does the fact that some persons who approach Church authorities insist on confidentiality make it likely that cases will not be reported to either church or civil authorities?

As things stand, the victims (or the people who discover the crime), have three options:

1. Report it to the police.
2. Report it to the church.
3. Do nothing.

In what way does the statement of the judge change any of this?

Secondly, it is not "cases where pressure was put on individuals by someone in the church not to go to the police" that constitute systematic cover-ups. It is (for instance) documents signed by Cardinal Ratzinger instructing that a child abuser is not defrocked "for the good of the Church" (against the insistence of his diocese) that make it so.

Evarist Saliba (2)

Apr 15th 2010, 20:28

Nothing that I have written implies that any aggrieved person is denied the right to report his/her case to the civil authorities.
Cases where pressure was put on individuals by someone in the church not to go to the police are to be condemned, but to portray such instances as a systematic policy of cover-ups is a perversity.
Similarly, it is a perversity for anyone to dismiss apologies from the church and demand justice, when what they really want is justice from the civil courts.
We have had comments complaining that Lou Bondi became involved in bringing the victims of child abuse in contact with the Archbishop. Are such persons genuinely interested in the welfare of the victims or do they want to use them as cudgels to beat the church? The same might also apply to those who demand recourse to the police, irrespective of the wishes of the victims or those responsible for them.
............
Atheists migh wish to learn that the distinguished English atheist rationalist philosopher, who in 2007 admitted that he was wrong and published "There is a God. How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind", has passed away at the ageof 87.

Evarist Saliba (1)

Apr 15th 2010, 19:45

@ Arthur SolerYou need not have bothered to tell me that the Pope has instructed bishops to cooperate with civil authorities in cases of child abuse. I knew it, and I also brought to the attention of the Maltese public the letter by Archbishop Vincent Nichols to "The Times" (of London). He had stated that since 2001, the agreed policy followed by the bishops in England and Wales has been  to report all allegations  of child abuse, no matter how  far in the past, to the police or social services.
He also said that the relationship between the administarion of church law and the criminal law in any  particularstate is a point of  the real difficulty and misunderstanding. Most  local comments on this subject prove this point.The policy being forced on the Church to report all cases known to it to the civil authorities will carry consequencies. We have been told by the judge directly involved that most persons who approach the Church authorities on such cases insist on confidentiality. What will happen now? The outcome may well be that cases will not be reported either to the church or thecivil authorities.
This will be a great victory for paedophiles.

Arthur Soler

Apr 15th 2010, 02:35

@ Evarist Saliba

Quote…"There can be no excuse for cover-ups which endanger the vulnerable……. but the reputation of any corporate body must always be a real consideration for the people who run it."

As Kenneth Cassar appropriately noted, we all can agree that there can be no excuse for cover-ups that endanger the vulnerable.

As for the second part of your quote, let me suggest that the Catholic Church is hardly an ordinary “corporate body”. It is, or should be, the pinnacle of morality, upholding and abiding by the teachings of Christ in every respect. It is incomprehensible how anyone with any sense of decency or morality, could believe that protecting the Church’s reputation (now in tatters anyway), could have been more important than arresting the horrors that were being inflicted on the most vulnerable in our society; or more important than bringing the pedophile priests to justice.

Interestingly, the Vatican has just released instructions (albeit a few decades too late) for Bishops to report abuse cases to police. And, to ensure that you do not accuse me of reading biased literature, the following link is from The Guardian, from which you yourself quoted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/12/vatican-guidance-abuse-police.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 14:33

@ Jessica DeBattista:

While some people would say this is not worth it (I am very much tempted), I am not one to overlook an honest concern, even if it is an irrational concern of an "adversary".

I cannot guarantee that some people (why do these have to be atheists?) might not take it upon themselves to create a disturbance.

However, what I can say with a certain degree of confidence, is that if there will be any protest at all, the police will definitely not allow it to take place within viewing distance from the pope.

I can also say within a certain degree of confidence that any possible spontaneous protest by individuals will be short-lived, as the police would presumably immediately remove the protestor (if not arrest him/her). Let's be realistic.

Now for a clarification. While the "pedophile cause" is not an "atheist cause", being an atheist does not preclude one from taking interest in, or being active in, other causes. For instance, an atheist may take part in an animal rights protest. This does not mean that animal rights protesters are likely to be atheists.

Enjoy your day, and stop worrying.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 14th 2010, 13:19

@ Kenneth Cassar: “The cause against the Church's handling of pedophile cases is not an "atheist cause". It neither proves nor disproves God. In any case, you might wish to note that the loudest protests (even at the Vatican) have come from Christians.”

I am not saying that the paedophile cause is an atheist cause. On the contrary I am weighing the possibility that some atheists would take it upon themselves to create disturbance by their presence using the paedophile cause when as you rightly say it is not an “atheist cause”.

We can only wait and see!

Joe Xuereb

Apr 14th 2010, 12:26

'when we run out of what to say, we revert to inane humour!'. Some like to think that they are partaking of a 'high-minded discussion'. Talk about self-aggrandisement! The same who constantly drag down the discussion to one more likely to be heard at Cafe` Premier. Instances of inanity are too numerous to quote. But one outshines the rest. Laughing off something one feels uncomfortable with, a prmitive survival strategy I believe.
I think the pontiff could be encouraged to prolong his stay on this 'chosen land'. A retreat that would not be shamed by Castel Gandolfo is surely available. The air would do him good. And for sure he would be among friends. After all, Malta still abounds in believers. The Cassars are a minority. Then come the thousands upon thousands of 'indifferents'. And lastly, the believers, the staunch, the diehards. They are a force to be reckoned with.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 12:20

@ Evarist Saliba:

"...nor in biased literature that can see nothing but evil in the CatholicChurch".

Keep repeating that, and you will start to believe it yourself.

"There can be no excuse for cover-ups which endanger the vulnerable" - your quote, which actually sums it all up perfectly.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 12:15

@ Jessica DeBattista:

Speaking of mobile phones and me supposedly being on the alert for calls on my mobile filling me in on the happenings at Floriana, it might interest you to know that I happen to have a general dislike of phones and hate answering telephone calls. The only reason I have a mobile phone is to use it on emergencies, and I seldom use the telephone at all at home.

Now please don't tell me that my email will be flooded instead.

Evarist Saliba

Apr 14th 2010, 12:11

@Arthur Soler
I answer to show that my head is not buried in the sand, nor in biased literature that can see nothing but evil in the CatholicChurch.

That members in the Church err is normal. It started with Judas, but unlike biased diehard critics of the Church I am also aware that there were 11other apostles.

As to the church systematically seeking self interest, may I quote this extract from an article by Charles Moore in 'The Spectator'. (I do read, and quite extensively, Mr Soler.)

"The reaction of most commentators shows an over-righteous refusal to think about what actually happens in any institution. The phrase 'cover-up' brooks no argument, but anyone who has ever worked in a school, college, office, regiment, charity, etc knows that there are -that there have to be - many occasions when a piece of misbehaviour, even of a serious kind, does not see the light of day. " (After a number of examples why this is so, he concludes....) "There can be no excuse for cover-ups which endanger the vulnerable, but the reputation of any corporate body must always be a real consideration for the people who run it."

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 11:48

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"When we run out of what to say, we revert to inane humour!".

Yes, when one is so paranoid that she seriously believes I will have my mobile phone ready for information from "fellow protesters" (as if I will have nothing better to do), reverting to humour is perhaps the appropriate response.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 11:45

@ Jessica DeBattista (part 2):

"But the atheist cause is uncalled for".

The cause against the Church's handling of pedophile cases is not an "atheist cause". It neither proves nor disproves God. In any case, you might wish to note that the loudest protests (even at the Vatican) have come from Christians.

"Obviously the atheists would protest under the guise of their support of abused children".

Do you actually know something that I don't? Do you actually know that atheists are planning a protest? I hope you understand that the AAARGH organisation is an invention of mine...a joke.

And pray tell me, how does saying that everyone has the right to protest imply an active encouragement to conduct any particular protest?

As for my mobile phone being very busy next weekend...what are you? A conspiracy theorist? You watch too much TV. But just so you know, only a dozen or so people know my mobile number, only three of whom (my brothers) are atheists, the others being Christian family and friends.

I don't need my mobile to know what's going on in Floriana. All I need is a TV. And yes, I got one. Not that I'll be watching.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 11:35

@ Jessica DeBattista (part 1):

"As an atheist you obviously would have an abhorrence to anything that has to do with the Church".

False.

"At an event where the distinct personality is the head of the Church, I would expect respect for authority".

Only Catholics have an automatic respect for the authority of the head of their Church. Others do not recognize the Pope's authority.

"Incidentally I would expect respect towards any high ranking personality who visits Malta"

Would you have shown respect towards Saddam Hussein if he had ever come to Malta. No, not any high ranking personality deserves respect.

"In our case, where the Pope will be performing a mission pertaining to His calling, I would allow the program set up for His visit, to proceed unhindered by any pseudo-apologists for the child-abuse issue".

The fact that you call them "pseudo-apologists" makes it amply clear that your opinion is blinded by prejudice.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 11:29

@ Jessica DeBattista:

Here’s some advice. When arguing against someone’s rationality, it would do you good to follow your own argument to its conclusion.

For instance, you wrote that it is not rationality that drives me. After reading that prejudiced claim, I was expecting you to suggest some other thing that actually drives me. You suggested none.

It would also do you good not to assume anything preposterous about others.

For instance, you wrote that for all my intelligence, I fail to curb my instinctive response to show where I am emotionally committed. And what makes you think that being outright and honest is a failure of mine to hide my true emotions? Of course, you might find pleasure in thinking, like someone else claimed, that I “took the bait”. If it makes you happy…

One final piece of advice. Never write in anger. When one writes in anger, one is bound to make some very bad mistakes.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 14th 2010, 11:24

@ some:

How predictable!

When we run out of what to say, we revert to inane humour!

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 14th 2010, 11:17

@ Kenneth Cassar:
Part 2.

The ‘abused-children’ cause is a just one, since it deals directly with issues that one time or another had to be tackled, and that is being dealt with in a responsible way. But the atheist cause is uncalled for. It is a protest which is out of place. Obviously the atheists would protest under the guise of their support of abused children but nobody with a speck of sense would swallow it. But to them it would be of no import. Their aim would have been achieved.

Now, to explain the need of the Maltese expression: “twaddab il-gebla u tahbi idek":

You, Kenneth, declare that “Public protests take place in all healthy democracies” thereby you are indirectly encouraging the atheist to carry on with their personal agenda, but, maybe true to character, you declare that you will be miles away from any papal activity. I believe you would be, if only not to be singled out as one of the protesters, for that might not be your style, but I bet your mobile phone will be very busy next weekend!

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 14th 2010, 11:15

@ Kenneth Cassar: “Why would you think "twaddab il-gebla u tahbi idek" applies to me or to a PUBLIC protest?
Part 1.

OK, let me explain:

As an atheist you obviously would have an abhorrence to anything that has to do with the Church and that is your prerogative just like I have the right to have mine. At an event where the distinct personality is the head of the Church, I would expect respect for authority. (Incidentally I would expect respect towards any high ranking personality who visits Malta.)

In our case, where the Pope will be performing a mission pertaining to His calling, I would allow the program set up for His visit, to proceed unhindered by any pseudo-apologists for the child-abuse issue.

Continued….

Joe Xuereb

Apr 14th 2010, 10:59

Wow Kev! How do you do it? That was a tour de force and a half (but she'll be back).
Malta has the opportunity to show the world, ie the Philippines, what it's worth. They do things even better there. That's the problem with far-flung converts. Like Christian Africans who were told by the Pope some months ago to desist practising withcraft. Oh well! as long as it's quantity over quality.
I love my country but there are times I have to see it for what it is. Not unlike mothers. To every son of every mother, they are the best in the world. But to the world a mother is just another woman. So at times I have to shut mine up by being rationally objective. She is only a woman at the end of the day. Ah rationality! So searingly honest!. So graced by god!
Love the commemorative medal. Cute boat with sails a-flapping out of control. Wouldn't it be funny if one day it were proven(?) that Melita was not the shipwreck location after all.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 10:18

@ Jessica DeBattista:

Could it possibly be that when I said I would be miles away from any papal activity (and you replied implying that I would be "hiding my hand"), you actually thought this means I would be protesting from miles away? Come to think of it, this is the only way your response could have a slight resemblance to making any sense.

Damn...you got me. I was actually planning to mastermind and direct the whole operation from the Atheist Alliance Against Ratzinger's Guilty Hands (AAARGH) head office in Comino.

Our plan was to have a large inflatable Pedobear dropped from a helicopter during the papal mass. Moreover, we were planning on having our secret agents dressed as priests so that they could have access to the main altar. Midway through mass, these would remove the priestly vestments to reveal a second costume - that of police officers - in which they will perform a "mock-arrest".

But now that you have discovered my intentions, I will have to stay at home.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 09:39

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"I can be as rational as the next Atheist whether I am a believer or not".

True. But one's rationality ends when one starts believing in the irrational.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 09:34

Never mind the spin, here's the facts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 07:38

@ Jessica DeBattista:

In reply to me writing that "I'll make sure I'm miles away from any papal activity", you say "I don’t know why an old Maltese saying comes to mind “twaddab il-gebla u tahbi idek".

Actually, another more mundane phrase comes to mind. It is "iddeciedi xbin!".

Do you, or do you not, wish me to protest during the papal events? I already said I won't be protesting (I thought that saying I'll be miles away would make that obvious)...but if it makes you happy, I might reconsider.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 07:29

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"But as I said in the previous blog, I care for the way we project my much-loved country to the world".

So do I. It is just that we see it from a different perspective. You want to project our country as one that unquestioningly loves any pope. I want to project it as one where people are rational and intelligent enough to dissent and protest (be it through writing or through physical public protest) whenever they believe it is appropriate and necessary.

A country to be proud of is one where public dissent is not only tolerated, but actively encouraged. I hope I live in one.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 14th 2010, 07:24

@ Jessica DeBattista:

Why would you think "twaddab il-gebla u tahbi idek" applies to me or to a PUBLIC protest?

For all your intelligence, I would think that you would desist from contradicting yourself by saying that I "fail to curb (my) instinctive response to show where (I am) emotionally committed (wherever you think that is)". Hardly hiding my hand, am I?

It is not I who make believers "appear as nincompoops". Apparently you do a fine job of that yourselves.

A rational human being who is not a Catholic would understand that an event such as we will be having next weekend would not interest all the Maltese. That's why I am not going. I would have far more productive or interesting things to do. But if others would wish to protest (peacefully), who am I (or you) to stop them?

And whoever told you that the protesters (if there is actually any protest) would be atheists? Oh, but I can imagine you thinking "only atheists strongly disagree with this pope". How about getting back to the real world.

J.M Buhagiar

Apr 14th 2010, 02:16

Father Joe, I read in The Times - Partners at Papal Mass: The Church-separated MPs were not given the option of bringing their partners as guests. Some comments said - Rules set up by man and Not Jesus.

So I decided to search. It seems that there was no papacy. The Papacy, was created with the support of the Roman emperors. Emperors lived in Rome. Constantine, and his successors, gave supreme support to the bishop of Rome to keep state imposed religion under their watchful-eyes. Christians resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme but the Roman bishop thrived to supremacy, due to power and influence of the Emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the Rome bishop took the title that previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus-Maximus

Also in the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, the ordinances of sacraments, infant-baptism, confession of sin to priest, purgatory, indulgences, etc.

So, if the origin of the Pope and the Church teaching is not in the teachings of Jesus, how is it that these were made facts and I believe them now.

I really do not know and will appreciate some of your time.

Arthur Soler

Apr 14th 2010, 00:47

@ Evarist Saliba

Quote..."Systematically" and "more than five decades". Such wide-sweeping claims can hardly be considered a fact".

You've got to be joking of course. Have you not been reading the newspapers? These pedophile priests have indulged in these criminal activities for several decades. I thought that I was actually being generous by saying "more than five decades". Most likely, the truth is much worse.

The pattern of the Church acting in its self-interest, at the expense of the welfare of the children in its care, is repeated over and over again in the cover-ups that are now coming to light all over the world. At least 25 countries have been affected by these horrors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

May I respectfully suggest that you have two choices. Either accept the reality for what it is....i.e a shameful cover-up of atrocious crimes committed over several decades by the Clergy. ..or...keep your head in the sand. Your choice.

K Camilleri

Apr 13th 2010, 22:35

@ Jessica DeBattista

May I ask you a simple question?
Who seems more rational to you, the believer or the scientific?
Can you please tell me how can I believe anything that the church says if there is no single proof of it?
Don't get me wrong. I can't say for sure that there is absolutely no god (as much as you can't tell for sure there is one) rather I weigh the probability and the result I came up with is that we don't need one.

CJohn Zammit

Apr 13th 2010, 22:04

Priest calls for pope's resignation
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/13/massachusetts.priest.pope/index.html?hpt=T2

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 13th 2010, 19:19

@ Kevin Cassar: “2) What would you know about what a rational human being would understand?????? A rational human being would be rational all the time and would not suspend his/her rationality for religious things. That sort of person we call believer.”

It seems you don’t know what the meaning of ‘rational’ is? I can be as rational as the next Atheist whether I am a believer or not. It seems you do not see sarcasm even if it is staring you in the face.



3) Considering that you brought a tear to my eyes with your emotional love for your country and its' projected image, I propose you for the "Gieh ir-Repubblika" honour for 2010.

4) See - I can be funny too”

Now wouldn’t that be funny if I actually got it?

Joe Xuereb

Apr 13th 2010, 18:43

Ms Debattista, your investment, like your confusion, is total. You could hold a one-woman demo to draw attention to what the Church has done to you. From where I stand, you have ended up with so many crossed wires. Why drag down people with an agenda (who may be doing YOU a liberating favour in the long run) when your own is so obvious. As for your fear that Malta could draw negative attention onto herself worldwide, maybe Malta should seize the opportunity to show the world that it has come of age. In this regard, ie about the world's view of Malta, you make it sound like the world and his dog revere the Pope. The whole world doesn't. Hence your confusion. It's a bit like a Maltese citizenship expecting a tourist to enthuse about Maltese churchy stuff. A foreigner sees all this as quaint, a pageant. But that is the insular mind for you.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 13th 2010, 17:57

@ Jessica DeBattista

1) If your beliefs and traditions have served you well for centuries, you are by all means free to keep them. I have no objection to you or anyone else believing anything as long as they don't expect me to believe it without any evidence.

2) What would you know about what a rational human being would understand?????? A rational human being would be rational all the time and would not suspend his/her rationality for religious things. That sort of person we call believer.

3) Considering that you brought a tear to my eyes with your emotional love for your country and its' projected image, I propose you for the "Gieh ir-Repubblika" honour for 2010.

4) See - I can be funny too

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 13th 2010, 12:35

@ Kenneth Cassar:
Part 2.

A rational human being would understand that an event such as we will be having next weekend is meant to reach out to all the Maltese. But if not all are ready to accept it, they do not have to attend simply to advertise the fact that they are atheists.

What are they going to gain from it except the disdain of all those who out of a genuine love for the Church, notwithstanding its blemishes, look forward to this event?

On the other hand such a demonstration might show the ateists up for what they are and the outcome might tip the scales in favour rather than against the Church.

But as I said in the previous blog, I care for the way we project my much-loved country to the world.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 13th 2010, 12:30

@ Kenneth Cassar: “Why would public protests worry you? Public protests take place in all healthy democracies. If you meant violent protests, I would understand your worry, but otherwise?
That said, you need not worry about me. I'll make sure I'm miles away from any papal activity.”

I don’t know why an old Maltese saying comes to mind “twaddab il-gebla u tahbi idek)?

For all your intelligence, you fail to curb your instinctive response to show where you are emotionally committed. It is not rationality that drives you (and probably many of your ilk) who boast of a superior intelligence simply because your views are based on scientific proof rather than blind faith. You make us, believers, appear as nincompoops for still adhering to beliefs and traditions that have served us well for centuries.

Continued….

Evarist Saliba

Apr 13th 2010, 12:26

@ A. Soler
1) "Systematically" and "more than five decades". Such wide-sweeping claims can hardly be considered a fact.
2) Has anyone denied this?
3) Although there might well have been occasions when this happened, are you being factual by implying that the interests of the victims were not given due consideration?
4) Does the confidentiality surrounding such cases, (to some extent even in the civil courts), count for nothing?
@ Kenneth Cassar
Your claim that my question is based on a false assumption is ridiculous. No intelligent person without a hidden agenda would interpret my question as implying that there have been no cases of child abuse by members of the church reported to the police. If I may rephrase the question for your benefit, "Why is it that there are so many cases where victims chose to submit their complaint to the church rather than the civil authorities?"
I do not challenge any of your answers, but I would add that another reason could well be that the victim (or his/her guadian) wanted to avoid the added trauma of publicity.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 13th 2010, 11:39

@ E.Saliba. With all due respect (and all that nonsense), to compare the Church as an institution to an organisation, or family, or extended family - re: where abuse has happened -is rather shallow. These last are only accountable to themselves. The Church, on the other hand, is an Institution that the whole world looks up to for spiritual guidance, setting good examples, issues that are literally a matter of spiritual life or death to the billions of believers. So please everyone/anyone, none of this nonsense 'if one is to criticise the Church, one may as well criticise sexually abusive relatives and their dog'. The two entities could not be further apart from each other. The cassocked perpetrators should be judged like anyone else for the abuse plus, for those who can stomach it, also for the very serious scandal caused and the mind-boggling failure to deal with the issue humanely rather than having it swept under the carpet (I know the reason for this last bit). Nothing else will do. Sugaring the pill and convenient and entirely transparent detractions won't work. Not this time.
Note. The delayed response was because my previous comment took so long to appear.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 13th 2010, 10:11

@ Jessica DeBattista:

Why would public protests worry you? Public protests take place in all healthy democracies. If you meant violent protests, I would understand your worry, but otherwise?

That said, you need not worry about me. I'll make sure I'm miles away from any papal activity.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 13th 2010, 09:36

Part 2.

Their statement obviously does not rule out other individuals, who could have suffered humiliation at the hands of some priests, to feel impelled to commit these objectionable acts of vandalism but after yesterday’s statement, we, peace-loving people can have our minds at rest that we will not be witnessing public protests at least from that direction.

Let us hope that there will not be misguided individuals who are avidly exploiting the unfortunate situation and using it for their personal agenda.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 13th 2010, 09:34

Part 1.
The eyes of the world will be on us next weekend. How are we going to project ourselves to the world out there?
If we besmirch the image of the Pope, we will be besmirching our country!

I watched the news yesterday and I sympathized with the victims of priestly abuse and understood the fact that, though they wanted their message to get through, and they felt that the Church owed them an apology (rightly so), they chose to preserve their anonymity by having their faces blurred for the camera.

“Mr Grech (spokesperson of the group) said the members of the group did not intend to protest during the Pope's visit to Malta and they condemned the vandalism made on the billboards of the Papal visit.” By this statement they have sent out a message to other victims in their predicament to support them in their decision. They themselves stressed that though there are priests who should be condemned yet they had found all the others to be very helpful in their regard when they formed part of the family at St Joseph’s Institute
Continued….

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 13th 2010, 07:32

@ Evarist Saliba:

I won't be commenting on your whole post, since, considering the rest of the discussion, this would obviously be futile. I would only like to comment on the following line:

"An important question which is conveniently ignored by church critics is why complainants choose to refer their case to the church rather than the civil authorities".

First of all, the question is based on a false assumption. There are many documented cases where victims report the crime to civil authorities (if not in Malta, elsewhere).

Secondly, has the question actually been asked?

There are many possible reasons why "complainants" (a sanitised description of victims of child abuse) might not refer the case to the civil authorities. Here are some:

1. Victim would in all honesty not wish to harm the Church.

2. Victim fears public disapproval in a predominantly "Catholic" country.

3. Victim (particularly if a minor) fears that he would not be believed.

4. Victim (if still a resident in the Church institute) would fear that he would be made to pay if he told an outsider about his abuse.

5. Victim does not trust the civil authorities.

6. Victim is understandably confused.

Arthur Soler

Apr 12th 2010, 20:42

@ Evarist Saliba

Let's face the facts.

1) The Cathotic Church has been systematicllly shielding pedophiles within its own ranks for more than five decades.
2) The victims have suffered untold pain, suffering and many ruined lives.
3) Evidence points to the Vatican being well aware of these crimes and yet not acting in the best interests of the victims, only in the interests of its priests and the "good of the Church"
4) To date, the Vatican has not opened its records to public inquiry.

And yet, you state, "But for this to lead to an all-out attack against the church and its leaders is as unreasonable..........." Why is it unreasonable? Certainly the vast majority of priests are very good decent people, who serve society well. But don't you see that the rot is at the top? The leadership of the Church is ultimately responsible for these crimes as they knew about them, and did nothing substantial to ensure that the criminals are brought to justice.

How could anybody have any respect for an organization like that. When Christ said " suffer little children to come to me" he meant "allow them".....not cause them to to suffer.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 12th 2010, 18:13

Time spent at my laptop. Helps my knuckle joints if nought else.
I'm a gentleman of leisure. No, erase that. I am a homosexual who worked all his life and is now retired. Getting doddery but the mind is sharp.
Commenting is a piece of case, touch-typing apart. So, because what I write is how I think, what I am. Entirely spontaneous, entirely. Nothing convoluted and no neurosis about saving face, scoring points (slowing factors, both). So it is easy. Crucially because some of the people I am having a, quote: 'very mind-stimulating discussion' like to think they know where I'm coming from. They don't. But I know their source, I've been there and I found it wanting so I moved on. Now I think I'll have another slice of the fruit-cake. Very fruity. Very yummy!! The one who nearly chocked on his/her portion can have the cherryt on top as just reward. There's a good girl/boy!
Leave the pope alone. Can't you see he is behaving older than his years, can barely talk (never mind make strong apologies). A life of hardship, both spiritual and physical, has taken its toll. He behaves very, very old.

Evarist Saliba

Apr 12th 2010, 16:50

This debate, important as it definitely is, has lost all sense of direction, the truth being lost in a fog of half-truths, and unleashed diatribe.

The sad truth is that some members of the clergy and religious orders, have sexually molested those under their care. This is reprehensible. But for this to lead to an all-out attack against the church and its leaders is as unreasonable as similar attacks against all relatives, guardians and youth leaders, would be.

That the church examines cases of abuse by its membrs internally, is a responsible measure, as long as appropriate steps are taken against those found guilty to protect actual and potential victims, especially within its fold.

The law that states that criminal charges against such abusers may only be taken following a formal complaint by the abused or his/her guardian is a civil one which applies to all transgressors. In this respect, one must not forget that this Pope, stands out as advocating that church authorities should cooperate with the civil ones.

An important question which is conveniently ignored by church critics is why complainants choose to refer their case to the church rather than the civil authorities.

Joseph A Borg

Apr 12th 2010, 16:39

What Richard Dawkins had to say on this:

>> Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper…


>> What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain…

>> …Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson.

>> Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

Richard Curmi

Apr 12th 2010, 13:03

Now we have it from official sources that the police cannot institute criminila proceedings 'ex officio' against child abusers. It is good to learn that the Government is open to talks and scientific discussions which hopefully won't take another fifty years and in the meantime children will remain open to abuse. It is hightime that the Government would be open to action.

It is also hoped that some action will be taken to expedite such cases at court to prevent such monsters from ruining more lives and to make them get what they legally deserve.

Most importantly parents, guardians, teachers and any other persons responsible for children should take very seriously any hint from these children that they are being abused. They should be alert all the time for any changes in the child's behaviour that may indicate that they are being abused. Never rubbish any story that the child tries hesitatingly to tell you.

A note to those people who are privy to such cases: It is of no use to accuse the church of omerta when you say that you have first hand knowledge of a case and you never went to the police.

sciortino m

Apr 11th 2010, 19:16

part 2

Fr. Maciel was a savvy operator who knew that envelopes full of hard cash could open many doors at the Vatican and provide powerful protections. His biggest supporters were Cardinals Sodano, Martínez Somalo and Dziwisz. The former was the Vatican’s Secretary of State while Dziwisz was the Secretary to Pope John Paul II. In 1999 a procedure against Maciel was apparently blocked by Sodano against Ratzinger’s wishes. Fr. Maciel enjoyed the full support of Pope John Paul II. Fr. Maciel was finally removed from office only when Ratzinger became Pope. Mgr Scicluna knows more than any one else about Maciel’s crimes because he was sent by Ratzinger to obtain evidence from tens of witnesses in the USA, Mexico and Spain.

While this sordid story puts Pope Benedict in a good light, the same cannot be said of many others and of the Vatican in general. Far from playing the victim the Church needs to apologise to the victims of the monsters inside the Church and to the ordinary faithful for straying from the teachings of Christ.

Sciortino M

Apr 11th 2010, 19:15

@Fr. Borg. “The culture of omerta has an enemy and not a friend in Pope Benedict.”
I tend to accept this statement about Pope Bendict but this same statement cannot be said of many and many other high ranking Vatican and Church officials. I take it that you accept that the culture of omerta exists within the Vatican and the Church.

The article appearing in the National Catholic Register regarding Fr. Maciel the founder of the Legionaries of Christ and the lay Regnum Christi shows a fractured ‘byzantine’ Vatican administration complete with factional fighting for promotion, prestige, money and power. http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/money-paved-way-maciels-influence-vatican It shows some of the intrigue and power play behind the throne complete with the jostling for promotion, the jealousy and back stabbing which one finds in any secular government or commercial organisation.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 10th 2010, 20:09

@ Jessica DeBattista:

By the way, IQ has no connection to whether one would be susceptible to performing acts of vandalism.

In any case, the vandals could have been anyone (remember the "prank" at a cemetery recently, when everyone was blaming satanists and atheists, and it turned out to be children?).

For all we know, it could have been a priestly rape victim, acting out of anger (in which case, though never condoning his action, I would certainly understand). But I wouldn't rush to conclusions.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 10th 2010, 17:13

@ Charles Caruana:

And I thought that the "winking smiley" at the end of my sentence made it obvious that I was only joking!

In any case, what has knowing that one has greater-than-average IQ have to do with being right or wrong?

I think it is more foolish to keep on arguing with people making logical fallacies, advancing non sequiteurs, and moving the goal post every time the adversary scores.

Perhaps it is me who should end it here. What a waste of time!

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 10th 2010, 14:50

A news item, ‘Papal billboards vandalism’ on today’s newspaper shows the level of IQ a few individuals can boast of.

When I was a little girl I used to while away the time during a boring lesson by going through the pages of my text book looking for faces that could take a makeover. Boredom was the motive behind this exercise - or worse - a dislike for the subject.

I must have been about ten years old then, and that is the level of Intelligence Quotient these vandals ostensibly possess.

charles caruana

Apr 10th 2010, 10:24

Thank you all for showing your true colours. The bait has been swallowed. It is foolish to argue with people who are convinced of their superior IQ.I will end by quoting an Arab saying: ' While the rabid dogs bark, the caravan proceeds on its journey.'

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 10th 2010, 08:23

@ Charles Caruana:

And may I point out that by your logic, Judaism must be truer (and by implication, Christianity false because no two religions can be both true), because it predates Christianity and still persists today?

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 10th 2010, 08:21

@ Charles Caruana:

"The fact that Buddhism, along with Christianity and the other major religions have persisted for thousands of years is further proof of their truth and superiority to atheist creeds..."

Again, "might is right". But even if we ignore this, your claim is blatantly false. Belief came very late in human history (study some evolution). But consider this. Belief in the literal story of Adam and Eve predated knowledge about evolution by thousands of years, and still persists today. Does that mean it must be true. That's a blatant logical fallacy.

And no, iit not Darwinians who subscribe to the philosophy of the ‘struggle for existence’ and the ‘survival of the fittest’. These are not philosophies, but how amoral natural selection works. You have much to learn.

And no, just for clarification, Christopher Hitchens was not "subscribing" to the "might is right philosophy" when he wrote a book alleging that Mother Theresa a fraud and a hypocrite. What has "might is right" got to do with writing a book?

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 10th 2010, 08:09

@ K Camilleri:

"...by sophisticated I meant "with higher IQ levels" and "with a sense of rational thinking not blindly accepting everything thought as an 8 year old child would" and more "questioning what most of this country's citizens fear to question"".

I know exactly what you mean. That's why I wrote that your claim seemed silly only due to lack of communication skills and not error of judgement. Now that you have clarified, I can say that I definitely agree with you.

"And to further support these statements and marking them 'not silly' I would like to ask you how 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists?".

Yes, I know. Perhaps that's why I'm an atheist. It might have something to do with my IQ ;)

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 10th 2010, 08:03

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"It is not weird at all for an artist who works from the home who often makes time to participate in a very mind-stimulating discussion such as this blog affords (thank you Fr. Joe). But it is rather weird for a 40 year old to spend so much time at his computer unless he makes it his livelihood!"

It is not weird at all for a 40 year old who has access to several computers both at work and at home, to make time to post an online message, especially when usually, all it takes to answer your posts (and those of several others) is a few seconds.

So don't worry, we're both not weird at all. And if you'r interested in statistics, this message took me about 40 seconds (I can touch-type, and quite fast).

P.s. Now can we please get back on topic, and desist from trying to discourage anyone else posting. A few days ago you seemed unhappy with my "hibernation".

Arthur Soler

Apr 10th 2010, 03:51

@ Charles Caruana

Quote..."The fact that Buddhism, along with Christianity and the other major religions have persisted for thousands of years is further proof of their truth and superiority to atheist creeds like Communism, Nazism and other so called secular humanistic beliefs."

I don't quite understand how you reach this naive conclusion. I could just as easily conclude that the reason that these religions have persisted for thousands of years is because of superstition, or extreme ignorance, or brainwashing, or complete denial of scientific facts, or a combination of all the above. As a case in point, 40% of Americans still believe in Adam and Eve and that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. This is because it is so written in the Bible. Go figure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then there are those who also believe in eternal life in Heaven or eternal torture in Hell; in Angels and Demons; in Virgin Births, and in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. And they believe all these extraordinary claims despite no evidence whatsoever. Go figure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CJohn Zammit

Apr 10th 2010, 03:05

The latest headine news (Friday, April 9th 2010):
AP EXCLUSIVE: Letter shows future Pope Benedict resisted defrocking molester priest
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory?id=10332336&page=1

Richard Curmi

Apr 10th 2010, 00:31

@ Kenneth Cassar: "I believe that rape is a criminal act, and not a matter of common civil dispute. I am also confident that the police are empowered to investigate cases of serious crime, even on anonymous reports.
Re the first sentence I believe that at law not all paedophile acts are classified as rape but they are subject to both criminal and civil law. Rape would be an added aggravation of the act and entails added charges.
Re your second sentence I think we need clarification from someone who is an expert in this area of the Maltese legislation.

However, I reitaterate that if the law stands as it has been reported there is a crying need to be amended/altered to close any loopholes through which these monsters can escape mainly on technical that prove nothing but can override all evidence.

Rule of thumb (if you like) The bishops should give strict instructions to rectors, directors and all kinds of superiors of all ecclesiastical institutions not to administer the sacrament of recociliation to any of their subordinates. Thus if there is an in-house case of child abuse they would not their hands tied by sacramental secrecy.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 23:34

@ Charles Caruana

/cont

You probably also don't consider abuse the fact that if very young children did not believe everything that they were told or defected in some way from the religion, they were beaten up to about half a century ago. You don't find it at all at least suspicious that in a Catholic country, most people are catholic while in a Muslim country, most (if not all) people are muslim.

You go even as far as saying things like - Atheist creeds like Communism and Nazism. Atheist creeds??????? What the dickens are you on about???? If Atheism was a creed, like you deceitfully want to imply, would it not at least be consistent? Can you tell me if I'm communist or nazi?

Kevin Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 23:26

@ Charles Caruana

"The fact that Buddhism, along with Christianity and the other major religions have persisted for thousands of years is further proof of their truth and superiority to atheist creeds like Communism, Nazism and other so called secular humanistic beliefs."

Do you embarrass yourself in public on prurpose? First of all you ignore the fact that up to about 200 years ago, the whole population was illiterate, ignorant and did not have any means to learn the facts but accepted what they were told. The fact that Christianity is still alive and strong might have something to do with the fact that whoever came up with an idea that was different from the catholic dogma was tortured and burnt at the stake. Hardly surprising is the fact that Atheism started to grow in parallel with the increase in numbers of literate people and took a great boost with the internet. You obviously see nothing wrong with the FACT that people used to go to mass (which was in latin) every day of theri lives without ever understanding ONE WORD of what they were hearing do you? /cont

Joe Xuereb

Apr 9th 2010, 22:18

2) I've not listened to or read Mr.Hitchens. I understand he goes along with the evolution of life form and he wouldn't be the type to hanker after life everlasting. Now in my book, that is meek enough.
Empires come and go. They evolve and initially, they go from strength to strength, often with much blood-shed. But nothing in life can continue on the up and up. As we say, what goes up must come down. Religion seems constant, unchanging. Empires feed off belligerence, domination. Vulnerable to the next stronger cohort. Religion feeds off the poor, the frightened, the insecure. They're always with us. It's built on the unsubstantiated. It does not change on principle so as not to appear weak (an apologetic Institution is in real hot water). So it does everything to maintain the status quo. To keep the 'poor' cosy. But this un-change is most unhealthy. It will eventually implode and go the way of the great empires that are now only scattered stones.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 9th 2010, 22:01

1) @Kevin Cassar. Thanks for the video clip. Authentic or not, it matters not. Either way, I can understand the anonimity. I don't want lynchings. I want justice. I left my tuppenny worth comment under 'hamrunizspar'. Sure my Italian will raise a snigger in some quarters.
I can never understand this all-powerful praying thingy. I would even suggest that constantly asking the lord for forgiveness is an insult to him (lowercase 'l' and 'h' very much intentional. If I feel I've done something untoward, I examine my conscience, my motivation/s, the knock-on effect of whatever it is I think I've done wrong. No need for confession. Confession is like telling a child of two and a bit not to do something. The distress in its mother's face registers but - nine seconds later, s/he does the same thing again. He is too young to understand his/her actions. Similarly, grown-ups are not allowed deep insights into their behaviour, good or bad, but are merely told 'not to, or else!'. And of course, confession keep the boat afloat for 2000 years. Keep them chained. Keep them childlike.
cont./

TG CURMI

Apr 9th 2010, 21:33

The following link might interest some readers (whether faithful and indoctrinated or not):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html

K Camilleri

Apr 9th 2010, 19:21

@charles caruana
By this post you showed us all how uninformed you are about different religions

"The fact that Buddhism, along with Christianity and the other major religions have persisted for thousands of years is further proof of their truth..."

This is total contradiction because First buddhism is a form of Atheism (check it on google) because they are not forced to believe in a deity and most of them don't. 2nd the teaching of both religions differ totally one is a type of philosophy and the other is an Abrahamic religion. One teaches of jesus the son of god and the other teaches a philosophical way of life. If one is true the other should be false. It's a mutually exclusive situation. If they both survived it could be for any reason but surely not for the one you pointed out :)

charles caruana

Apr 9th 2010, 17:34

The fact that Buddhism, along with Christianity and the other major religions have persisted for thousands of years is further proof of their truth and superiority to atheist creeds like Communism, Nazism and other so called secular humanistic beliefs. Materialist and naturalistic explanations of human life are as changing and ephemeral as the theories and men that inspired them. A glance at any elementary book of sociology will show that the secularization theory of modern society has been blown sky high.
Putting aside any jejune effort at irony, it is truly unbecoming to attribute to a believer in a crucified redeemer the ‘philosophy’ of might is right. I stand to be corrected, but is it not Darwinians, and their atheist and secular fellow travellers who subscribe to the philosophy of the ‘struggle for existence’ and the ‘survival of the fittest’ i.e. the law of the jungle?
Take for instance that crusader hero Christopher Hitchens , a real ‘darling’ to some here, who wrote a book trying to prove Mother Theresa a fraud and a hypocrite, was he subscribing to the ‘might is right philosophy’ or to the ‘blessed be the meek’ one?

Daniel Vella

Apr 9th 2010, 16:32

@Kevin Cassar

That... is a shocking video...

Kevin Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 15:46

The biggest problem in these cases of abuse is the deluded mentality that praying for forgiveness and confession makes it all go away. Apologists can accuse me of "hating" the church (even though they can't provide any evidence to this when challenged) but even if this claim were true, it would not change the fact that what I am saying is THE TRUTH. Before any of you faithful, indoctrinated people reply to this comment you should take 10 minutes of your time to check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GRv4qcV_H0

Not only was this priest sexually abusing several minors, which would already be unacceptable, but he's so deluded (brainwashed) that he says that he's prayed for forgiveness and so he's done his part and there's nothing else to do!!!!!

K Camilleri

Apr 9th 2010, 14:40

@charles caruana

You are right when stating that the church still survives after 2000 years of falling empires, but I would like to point out for you that the church is not the only religion/institution that survived this far. Take for example buddhism ... it originated around 2600 years ago... those that mean buddhism is guided by Someone???

Chris Reiff

Apr 9th 2010, 14:32

Wow, the Pope taking it up against child abusers? He covered the stories up. Does that ring a bell? He helped introduce the law that all cases of abuse are to be kept under strict papal secrecy, he stopped the proceedings against another priest, he transferred a priest over to another school where he once again committed these horrific acts, and you DARE say he fought more than anyone else against child abuse? He fought more than anyone else FOR child abuse.

K. Camilleri

Apr 9th 2010, 14:28

@Jessica DeBattista

K. Camilleri: “Hey guys, why worry on this church anymore?? it is dieing out... finally more and more sophisticated human beings are being born. If you don't believe me ... check out Atheism Demographics on google ... you'll be astonished at how very little still support the once almighty church.”

"Yet another non-hating atheist, I suppose!"

I'm surely not provoking any hate among the atheist community nor against any other group. Probably the hatred is from religious fanatics and religious authorities towards atheists who think with their minds in a logical manner rather then dragged by society's major religion.

@Kenneth Cassar

by sophisticated I meant "with higher IQ levels" and "with a sense of rational thinking not blindly accepting everything thought as an 8 year old child would" and more "questioning what most of this country's citizens fear to question". And to further support these statements and marking them 'not silly' I would like to ask you how 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists?

Richard Curmi

Apr 9th 2010, 14:05

@ Kenneth Cassar:
"You say that it was reported that "Sex abusers can only be prosecuted if a report is filed by the victim or the parents of a minor as the law stands now. I'm sorry but I don't believe that at all."

It was reported here: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100409/local/law-should-protect-children-commissioner.

Carmen Zammit, the Childrens' Commissioner seems to say that that is the law in Malta and although she did not go as far as to say that it should be changed she said that the law should always protect the children.

Kristina Chetcuti

Apr 9th 2010, 13:39

Please note that Irish singer Sinead O'Connor is a woman.

Daniel Vella

Apr 9th 2010, 13:20

These kind of debates are futile. We have all decided on our belief (or lack thereof), and (most often than not), we will never be swayed to the other side, no matter how much the "others" try to disprove us. What we think we know is always the best choice, no?

Not discrediting anyone of course - just pointing out our flawed human nature. So excuse my stating the obvious. On with the show.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 9th 2010, 12:47

@ Kenneth Cassar: " I only choose to comment when I feel like it, and when people reply to my comments, I reply back. I think you are doing this too, so it must not be so weird a practice.”

It is not weird at all for an artist who works from the home who often makes time to participate in a very mind-stimulating discussion such as this blog affords (thank you Fr. Joe). But it is rather weird for a 40 year old to spend so much time at his computer unless he makes it his livelihood!

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 12:27

@ Charles Caruana:

"The Church is the only intstitution that has survived for over two thousand years".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to subscribe to the might-is-right "philosophy". Very unbecoming of a sincere, doubting, mature and hard-thinking Christian of yore, a rare bird these days.

L. Dimech

Apr 9th 2010, 12:23

2

This priest said he had also discussed it with his colleagues !!! What does this mean? Does it mean that he's one of a bunch of hardened paedophile who knows he'll find shelter from his crimes dressed as a priest?

I am not saying - by no stretch of the imagination - that all priests are paedophiles. But it does start to look like the majority of paedophiles are in the religious orders !!!

Please let me make myself clear - I have always disliked people who criticise the church and the clergy at the drop of a hat for whatever reason. I am deeply religious and all this dirt hurts me a lot. The same way this is hurting Jesus.

The church must do something, quickly and be seen doing it, if for nothing else to retain the respect and loyalty of its faithful. The least it can do is some sort of Internal Tribunal and try to flush out these obnoxious monsters who ruin children for life with impunity and with their Superiors' silence.

Forget the apologies, clean out your cupboards - better fewer but good, pious priests that we can really trust.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 12:12

@ Charles Caruana:

Quoting K Camilleri: "finally more and more sophisticated human beings are being born."

Yes, I would agree that that claim was a bit silly, probably more due to lack of communication skills than error of judgement.

I will of course not comment on the rest of your post, since there is no way I can do that without my comment being perceived as "offensive". Or else, someone might really think I'm on a crusade.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 12:05

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"Excuse my impertinent question, but judging by the rate you keep churning out comments, I cannot but help wondering whether you make this your life mission".

The question is not impertinent at all. But no, this is not my life's mission. I only choose to comment when I feel like it, and when people reply to my comments, I reply back. I think you are doing this too, so it must not be so weird a practice.

"You must be at the computer all day! Is seminating propaganda against the Church your livelihood?".

I've been told the same thing by a pro-hunting woman elsewhere in The Times online. The irony is that this woman (and you too) is basically doing the same thing (posting as much, or maybe just a little less comments). Unfortunately I don't think she sensed the irony.

But no, I don't do propaganda, and I don't get paid for posting comments. I did not even get paid (out of personal choice) when I acted as a public relations officer of an animal rights organisation for over ten years (in my free time, when other people were watching TV or swimming or praying).

charles caruana

Apr 9th 2010, 11:56

The Church 'is dieing out... finally more and more sophisticated human beings are being born.' Unfortuntately, this is the kind of village atheism that makes it difficult for me to restrain a wicked smile, simply because I have too much respect for the sincere, doubting, mature and hard-thinking atheist of yore, a rare bird these days. The Church is the only intstitution that has survived for over two thousand years while powerful empires were and are crumbling around it. When all our names writing on this blog are fading scratches on fractured tombstones, the Church will still be going strong with all its sinners and saints, its humiliations and triumphs, because the source of its strenght is Someone who is beyond the praise or blame, the admiration or denigrations of both believers and atheists, someone who loves both infinitely and impartially , leaving to each single human being the absolute freedom of choice to reciprocate or reject His love.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 9th 2010, 11:53

I read a while back that Leonardo (not di Caprio, the other one, the da Vinci one) knew all that was known at the time he was living in. A Leonardo with similar ability in 2010 would be impossible. We know too much. So, a know-it-all is inaccurate. What is so, though, is that many choose freely to explore and learn. And then learn some more. The rest of course are stuck. They live in the grip of fear and eternal damnation. This means they cannot move whichever way. What wasted opportunities, what wasted lives. And it's not like they care that much about the reward (Heaven, an insipid delusion if ever there was one). No, it is more that they fear the punishment.
And please leave the pope alone. He is a dying man (we're all dying of course but some more than others).

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 9th 2010, 11:39

@ Kenneth Cassar:

Excuse my impertinent question, but judging by the rate you keep churning out comments, I cannot but help wondering whether you make this your life mission. You must be at the computer all day! Is seminating propaganda against the Church your livelihood?

L. Dimech

Apr 9th 2010, 11:36

MAYBE THE EASIEST OF APOLOGIES IS THAT DONE ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE ELSE.

The church cannot be taken seriously when it harbours the most heinous of criminals - a paedophile. I am not saying it shouldn't show mercy and understanding with them, but this is a crime that even the most hardened of criminals in prison do not accept and many times a condemned child molester finds out very quickly in prison what it means to be in a position of weakness.

It is also terribly alarming that although we've been hearing of such crimes committed years back, these do not seem to be scaring current perpetrators any.

Watching "Le Iene" this week on TV, a young boy reported being molested by his Confessor. The troupe took a camera and sent in a 16-year old actor who confessed he was a bit confused about his sexuality and wanted some advice. Not only did the priest not advise him but ended up kissing him and groping him. When confronted with the journalist he didn't even have the brains to deny, but said he might have gone a bit too far and there's nothing he needs doing as he's already confessed !!

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 11:34

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"No “darling” I’d rather leave it to know-it alls".

It doesn't require much intelligence to have an opinion on whether one finds calling Christopher Hitchens a "confused darling" is funny or not. However, it does require some honesty to say that calling him a "confused darling" was very untactful and a huge mistake. Or do you think this wasn't the case?

"Yet another non-hating atheist, I suppose!"

Can you please indicate the hatred in the excerpt you quote from K Camilleri's post. Or do you happen to have a different definition of hatred?

Joe Xuereb

Apr 9th 2010, 11:17

Talk about damage-limitation. The Church investigating provided that the victim comes forward blah blah blab. Throwing a spanner in the works comes to mind. Bsaten fir-roti. But the wolf cannot be kept at bay forever and ever. Because the truth will always out, evil is its own punishment. Automatic justice is guaranteed. Not unlike hatred which does more damage to the hater than to the hated. Of course many never experience experience the awfulness of anger and hatred, etc. Those visceral passions are mitigated or unnulled through recourse in the Lord. But of course this is nothing other than opium at its most effective.
If something needs to be expressed in a thousand words when fifty might do - well, that is up to the writer to decide. The reader who complains of wordy comments can either skip these altogether or question whether a deficient attention-span is more likely the reason for the twisting of Y-fronts. Snigger! Snigger! Tee-he!

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 11:05

@ Richard Curmi:

I never demanded an apology, and never will. The apology was not owed to me, but to those who were abused and raped.

What I do demand, in the name of decency and respect for the law (not to mention the victims themselves), are clear and unequivocal orders from the Pope to all the clergy, instructing them that any known cases of paedophilia in church institutions should immediately be reported to the police.

You say that it was reported that "Sex abusers can only be prosecuted if a report is filed by the victim or the parents of a minor as the law stands now."

I'm sorry but I don't believe that at all. I believe that rape is a criminal act, and not a matter of common civil dispute. I am also confident that the police are empowered to investigate cases of serious crime, even on anonymous reports.

The suggestion that the police would require a report by the abused and terrorised child, or his parents (even when he would not even know who his parents are, being a resident in a church institute), is frankly absurd.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 9th 2010, 10:53

@ Joe Xuereb; “So you see, yet again you assume you know who you're talking to and you haven't a clue.”

I suppose that goes both ways.

@ K. Camilleri: “Hey guys, why worry on this church anymore?? it is dieing out... finally more and more sophisticated human beings are being born. If you don't believe me ... check out Atheism Demographics on google ... you'll be astonished at how very little still support the once almighty church.”

Yet another non-hating atheist, I suppose!

@ Kenneth Cassar: “To be honest, I did snigger at the suggestion too. For think about it...a common relatively unknown blogger who can't answer simple questions pertaining to his own field of supposed expertise, calling an internationally renowned author a "confused darling". Hilarious. Would you like to comment on this as well?

No “darling” I’d rather leave it to know-it alls.

Rischard Curmi

Apr 9th 2010, 10:30

Those who were demanding an apology from the Church in Malta finally got one but as was expected most of them are not satisfied. They wanted it now. They got but it is too late. The Bishops humbled themselves, admitted the fault, asked for pardon etc but that is too little. I suggest the Bishops should ask these people to write their apology and then just read it to the people.

Now having said all that I know that there are things that have to be done to build on that apology.

It was reported that "Sex abusers can only be prosecuted if a report is filed by the victim or the parents of a minor as the law stands now." The Children's Commissioner in Malta unlike other countries she is not allowed to help minors fill in judicial applications.
If this is correct the law should be changed and quickly.

Any one knowing of abuses that would be happening should report to the police and they should have the power to investigate the report.
The Law Courts should be empowered to treat such cases immediately and not drag them for God knows how many years.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 10:17

@ Franco Farrugia:

True, some contributors "speak" too much. But I would add that others write too little, thus failing to put their point across.

So, since you mentioned "justice" as a generally misunderstood concept, can you please tell us whether justice requires any and all known paedophiles to be investigated and prosecuted by the police? And if not, why not?

And what do you mean by "when it comes to US practising what we preach, it is a totally different matter"?. Do you have anyone in particular in mind? If so, can you please substantiate your allegation?

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 9th 2010, 06:38

@ Jessica DeBattista:

You told Joe Xuereb: "How could anything that tries to denigrate traditions and beliefs pertaining to my religion be funny to me? But it could have made somebody on the other side snigger".

Probably true, as it is also probably true that calling a distinguished author and journalist a "confused darling" might also make someone snigger.

To be honest, I did snigger at the suggestion too. For think about it...a common relatively unknown blogger who can't answer simple questions pertaining to his own field of supposed expertise, calling an internationally renowned author a "confused darling". Hilarious. Would you like to comment on this as well?

K. Camilleri

Apr 9th 2010, 01:06

Hey guys, why worry on this church anymore?? it is dieing out... finally more and more sophisticated human beings are being born. If you don't believe me ... check out Atheism Demographics on google ... you'll be astonished at how very little still support the once almighty church.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 8th 2010, 23:45

2) Ms.D. You sound rather angry. It is not my intention to make you angry and therefore, I make no apologies. For the simple reason that all comments start with the commentators name. If a commentator gets our goat, all we have to do is skip the comment. Skipping is good for you. And hatred, and anger - goodness, they do so much damage to the perpetrator. If only believers (and some pseudo-atheists no doubt) could understand that.
At the end of all this the question one could ask is, 'am I happy with the way my life is going, what I am'. As an atheist, my answer is a resounding yes. I am not answerable to any fictitious character and my mother is long gone (she was conceived, she was born, she lived and finally she died. That was good enough for her and for good enough for me. Beyond this, I do not delude myself. I am a happy man - horrible word 'happy', so meaningless when one thinks about it).

Franco Farrugia

Apr 8th 2010, 23:34

Wise men never write volumes - they generally read or listen much more than write or speak. Some contributors underneath speak too much and this shows how unwise they are. 'Justice' is a concept generally misunderstood and misused and everyone clamours that justice be done; but when it comes to US practising what we preach, it is a totally different matter.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 8th 2010, 23:34

@ Kevin Cassar: “Now let's see how long it takes you to acknowledge your mistake!!

What’s this? A childish game? OK! I’ll play!

This is what started it all: “Finally, you say that Atheists hate the Church and are using this to vent their hatred against it. I can only speak for myself but I think many will agree with me in saying -

We do not hate the church. Matter of fact we don't hate. We only want the church to be treated as the rest of us, responsible for its' actions and subject to law……”

Now, you want to know how long it will take me to acknowledge my mistake. Well, to be sure I do not think I need to. In fact, I see it as pretentious to declare, rather categorically, that atheists (you including) “do not hate …”

Joe Xuereb

Apr 8th 2010, 23:31

Ms.D. 'I suppose you think you are funny and amusing us readers by your anecdotes'.
So you did not find it funny. Good on you. How can something seen by some as sheer cannibalism be funny?
So you reckon that my belated response was because of a biting comment from you? I think I explained that I had some comments to appear and the latest had to wait until they did. Hence the delay. That aside, and for your own sake (for all it's worth), please be careful before you insinuate that people hate. Hatred is the prerogative of believers who have no insight into the implications of sinning - envy, anger, etc. - because they are not allowed to delve into the psychology of sinning (thereby remaining infantile and malleable). I don't know you so I cannot say you let off steam by bouts of hatred, anger, etc. But in insinutating that commentators here do, you are projecting your position as a believer, ie one who sins and confesses and sins again. The atheist is a bit deeper than that. So you see, yet again you assume you know who you're talking to and you haven't a clue.
cont./

B Galea

Apr 8th 2010, 22:46

@ Charles Caruana

Do you seriously believe that Jesus Christ would have been content "encouraging" bishops to contact victims, or "encouraging" victims to come forward and name their abusers? Is this the sum total of this supposedly spiritual institution?

Protect the sheep, not the shepherd.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 19:15

@ Charles Caruana:

Thanks for the information. I still hold that "we do not force bishops to denounce their own priests, but encourage them to contact the victims and invite them to denounce the priests by whom they have been abused" is not acceptable.

In any case, this obviously refers to the cases where the abuse happened a long time ago, and the victims are now adults. I say this because it would be beyond ridiculous to suggest that the priests who discover the abuse to "contact" (the child would be under their care, no need to "contact") the child and invite him/her to denounce the priest!

We're obviously speaking of different cases. I'm referring to the discovery of child abuse while the child is still in the clerical institution.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 18:53

@ Jessica DeBattista

"@ Kevin Cassar:“By the way, you might wanna go a little easier on Sinead O'Connor's mental state,…”
Sorry Kevin to disappoint you but I was not the one who mentioned anything about her mental state. I hardly know anything about her except that she is a singer and, if I remember correctly, that she had once shaved all her hair off. So please check before you go on the attack. I only mentioned Sinead regarding the pronunciation in Maltese. "

I apologize for my mistake/accusation since the comment on her sanity was not made by you. My suggestion to watch the cited film is still valid though.

"How banal can you get to speak collectively about atheists and declare that they do not hate? YOU should substantiate that rather. You did say “we”. "

You chose to ignore the previous sentence where I said - quote

"I can only speak for myself but I think many will agree with me in saying " the "we" that follows includes as indcated - myself and those who agree with me.

Now let's see how long it takes you to acknowledge your mistake!!

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 8th 2010, 18:37

@ Joe Xuereb: “As a reminder before I continue, my first anecdote was about 'shutting up my mother' and 'receiving communion, presumably in a state of mortal sin, and not dropping dead'. Hardly stand-up comdenian stuff.”

Mr. Xuereb, you know exactly what I meant by my comment. It wasn’t funny or amusing to me. How could anything that tries to denigrate traditions and beliefs pertaining to my religion be funny to me? But it could have made somebody on the other side snigger.

I wonder why you had to bring it up again after two days. It has gone stale and now it stinks. But maybe my comment regarding the “shutting her up” bit still bites and you just had to get it off your chest.

charles caruana

Apr 8th 2010, 18:08

cont...

And what about countries where bishops do not have this legal obligation?

In these cases we do not force bishops to denounce their own priests, but encourage them to contact the victims and invite them to denounce the priests by whom they have been abused. Furthermore, we invite the bishops to give all spiritual - and not only spiritual - assistance to those victims. In a recent case concerning a priest condemned by a civil tribunal in Italy, it was precisely this Congregation that suggested to the plaintiffs, who had turned to us for a canonical trial, that they involve the civil authorities in the interests of victims and to avoid other crimes.

If you are interested in reading the whole interview, find it at :
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_mons-scicluna-2010_en.html

charles caruana

Apr 8th 2010, 18:00

@Kenneth Cassar

Allow me to bring to your attention these words of Msgr. Charles Scicluna,the "promoter of justice" of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, practically the man who investigates and prosecutes cases of child abuse, part of a recent interview:

A recurring accusation made against the ecclesiastical hierarchy is that of not reporting to the civil authorities when crimes of paedophilia come to their attention.

In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. This is an onerous duty because the bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a father denouncing his own son. Nonetheless, our guidance in these cases is to respect the law.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 8th 2010, 17:57

@ Kevin Cassar:“By the way, you might wanna go a little easier on Sinead O'Connor's mental state,…”
Sorry Kevin to disappoint you but I was not the one who mentioned anything about her mental state. I hardly know anything about her except that she is a singer and, if I remember correctly, that she had once shaved all her hair off. So please check before you go on the attack. I only mentioned Sinead regarding the pronunciation in Maltese.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 8th 2010, 17:54

@ Kevin Cassar: ““We do not hate the church. Matter of fact we don't hate.”

Your quote: “I shall ask you politely to substantiate any evidence that you may have to suggest that I hate the church or anyone else, as I indicated.”

How banal can you get to speak collectively about atheists and declare that they do not hate? YOU should substantiate that rather. You did say “we”.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 8th 2010, 17:51

@ Kenneth Cassar:

Why do you have to answer for Mr. Xuereb? I would be annoyed at such practice if I were him. But I suppose he does not mind, otherwise he would have remarked.

I asked: "Mr. Xuereb, why do you copy and paste your very same comments featured further down. Or have you forgotten that you had? I don’t suppose you’re a doddering old man! - Hardly!".

You answered: “Probably it is because the original comment sometimes takes such a long time to appear, that one might miss it when it does, and re-post it. In all probability, Joe Xuereb would not have copied (and pasted it) from this same page, but would have copied it from a file he would have saved on his computer.”

Either I did not make myself clear or else you misunderstood, but that is exactly what I meant. It would have been even stranger if he were to copy and paste from this same page!

Regarding your first sentence: The comments I referred to are almost two days old now. I suppose Mr.Xuereb would have scanned the comments to check before re-posting the same ones. I would let Mr. Xuereb explain!

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 8th 2010, 17:45

@ Kenneth Cassar: “(I still don't understand why the capital "h" in "her", when referring to the Church),

Out of respect for Her, of course.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 8th 2010, 17:15

2) As a reminder before I continue, my first anecdote was about 'shutting up my mother' and 'receiving communion, presumably in a state of mortal sin, and not dropping dead'. Hardly stand-up comdenian stuff. I'll explain.
I was watching Ibsen's 'Hedda Gabler' in a London theatre some while back. This woman in front of me and 'im, indoors, annoyingly, was in fits of laughter whenever she heard/saw something serious on the stage that she couldn't handle. So she laughed it off. She was told to desist but resisted. So she was ejected, with a refund of the cost of her seat. A friend of mine told me that she was seen a couple of days later, on the pavement outside said theatre, waving a placard, and, bare-breasts a-flopping in the wind, she was burning her bra. Thirty years too late for anyone abreast - pun intended - with feminism and Camille Paglia and Kate Millet. And not foregetting that Ozzie woman Germaine Greer, getting doddery but still as sharp as ever (cannot see HER going to Sunday Mass) . Now THAT is what I call a funny anecdote.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 8th 2010, 17:04

1) Ms. Debattista, elsewhere I have been accused of alarmist racism. Wrong. I just choose to mix with people, whatever their colour, who have something to offer me. We all do this I've noticed. And yes, YOU offer me a lot. Responses to you come very fast. So they overlap. But they keep my doddery mind this side of functional (nothing wrong with dod incidentally. As long as he doesn't live a lie). Case in point, I sometimes have a response to post but have to wait for the previous ones to appear otherwise the whole thing becomes unmanageable. So, a few days ago you said something about my and a Ms.Cummings' 'anecdotes' being funny.
So here is anecdote-take-2-in-waiting.
cont./

Kevin Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 16:44

@ Jessica DeBattista

By the way, you might wanna go a little easier on Sinead O'Connor's mental state, considering that she was ordained as an Orthodox Catholic Priest. Her mental state may also be the result of Catholic upbringing, the abuse she received from her mother and most of all the abuse she experienced at a young age at the Magdalene Asylum. If you have no idea of what these asylums were like, may I suggest you watch the film "the Magdalene Sisters". Typically you choose to ignore even your own religious teaching which say "do not judge" and "hate the sin, love the sinner". Instead your comment was an ad hominem attack meant to discredit the author instead of disproving the claim itself.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 16:33

@ Jessica DeBattista

..... cont

and sort of forgot what it's actual scope was. You can check out the story of St. Francis of Assisi, which I'm sure you've heard, as a clear indication of how much off track the Catholic church had strayed. While I do not share his faith, St Francis of Assisi really practiced what he preached and lived the life according to his belief while the pope and bishops of the time lived like royalty (as they still do). Power corrupts and infinite power corrupts infinitely.

We're not saying that if the church were to make a complete change and return to its' roots, we would then convert back to catholicism, because our disbelief is based on the refusal of the teachings not the teachers. But if that happened, we would not have any reason to "attack" the church of hypocrisy or special protection. Of course I don't expect you to believe any word I say, but please note that I never made any claim about you or any other believer, that I could not substantiate with some evidence. So again I ask you to present your case for your claim that I hate anyone.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 16:17

@ Jessica DeBattista

"@ Kevin Cassar: “We do not hate the church. Matter of fact we don't hate.”
Water please!!! Something got stuck in my throat! "

I shall ask you politely to substantiate any evidence that you may have to suggest that I hate the church or anyone else, as I indicated. Trying to riddicule other people's comments without any shred of evidence or argument is not acceptable, even though this is not the first time that you have done this. You claim to know what we think, what we believe, who we love and hate.

The truth is that we don't hate the church, we hate the undeserved and illogical position of political power it holds, which is also the reason why these abuses that we are arguing about were made possible. If and when, the church returns to it's rightful position of teaching and guiding believers in matters of the spirit (As even most catholics would admit it was set out to do), we would have no problems with it. Somewhere along the line (a very long time ago) the church which was growing in numbers and believers, fell victim to its' own accumulated power..... cont

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 15:20

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"Mr. Xuereb, why do you copy and paste your very same comments featured further down. Or have you forgotten that you had? I don’t suppose you’re a doddering old man! - Hardly!".

Probably it is because the original comment sometimes takes such a long time to appear, that one might miss it when it does, and re-post it. In all probability, Joe Xuereb would not have copied (and pasted it) from this same page, but would have copied it from a file he would have saved on his computer.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 15:17

@ Jessica DeBattista:

I hope you have cleared your throat. I wouldn't wish a death-by-choking to anyone.

I already know that some of the things I say are not dissenting...I would end up paranoid if I found myself to disagree with anything anyone else says. If you want to think that I think they are (dissenting opinions), when they actually are not, suit yourself. After all, you already believe a lot of things I don't...this would be just another.

And if my posts make this blog "successful", well, let the blogger enjoy his few minutes of "fame". His message gets through, my message gets through, win-win (or actually, may the best argument win).

As for the Church emerging strengthened from her ordeal (I still don't understand why the capital "h" in "her", when referring to the Church), good luck to her. What matters to me is that "she" does the right thing (like giving orders to the whole clergy that paedophiles should immediately be reported to the police - no response team excuse). If that happens, I will simply concede that all big organisations have their bad apples, but what matters is that criminal action is treated as such.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 15:03

@ Charles Caruana:

I'm not interested in a "mea culpa". We knew that already. A change in direction is all I'm interested in. You say that three priests are undergoing legal proceedings for paedophilia in our courts. If that is the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), then that's an improvement. However, I still insist that all paedophiles should be immediately reported to the police, and not to any response team.

Regarding the Papal instructions you mention, where the consent of victims is necessary, this obviously refers to cases discovered long after the event (where the abused are now adults), and not in the case of abuse discovered while the victims are still children.

What the Pope is doing is damage limitation. What the Pope shoud be expected to do, is to issue unequivocal orders to all the priesthood that any child abuse that is discovered (while the abused is still a child) within their institutions, should immediately be reported to the police. Only then will I be convinced.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 8th 2010, 14:31

@ Joe Xuereb:

Mr. Xuereb, why do you copy and paste your very same comments featured further down. Or have you forgotten that you had? I don’t suppose you’re a doddering old man! - Hardly!

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 8th 2010, 14:12

@ Kennetht Cassar:

Part 2.
Mostly there is agreement that the Church should take steps to clean up Her house. She had prevaricated much too long giving perpetrators a false security. In the end it had to give, and the Church is reaping a bitter harvest.

But the Church will emerge strengthened from Her ordeal because that is the way of logic. At the moment the Church is at a depressed point but She is at the same time amassing energy to propel Herself forward. The Church is bound to go through changes -maybe even drastic ones – time will tell.

During these 2000 years the Church had weathered many currents and many storms – this is yet another one. She’ll survive!

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 8th 2010, 14:11

@ Some:
Part 1.

Sinead as in “Xi nghid?” as pronounced by most Maltese. “What do I say” - translated to English

Whenever I hear that name I am tempted to say “Tghid xejn!”.

And that is exactly the answer some wise guys here deserve.

.@ Kevin Cassar: “We do not hate the church. Matter of fact we don't hate.”
Water please!!! Something got stuck in my throat!

@ Kenneth Cassar:

Kenneth, it is dissenting voices that make this blog so successful. So please don’t stop!
As a matter of fact some things that you say are not really dissenting at all, but you like to think they are.

Continued….

charles caruana

Apr 8th 2010, 14:04

@Kenneth Cassar
Further to your comment, I say that both a mea culpa and ‘a change in direction’ are needed, and apparently it is only the Catholic church that is making them. Don’t you know that three priests are right now undergoing legal proceedings for paedophilia in our local courts, and this not accidentally is happening under the watch of Pope Benedict? Don’t you know that this Pope has issued strict instructions to bishops that any proven case of priest paedophiles should , with the legally necessary consent of the abused victims, be reported to the civil authorities? Don’t you know that last year in America less than ten confirmed cases of child abuse by catholic priests were reported, in contrast to hundreds of cases that occurred in previous years. And yet like the ‘free-thinking’ New York Times you ask what Pope Benedict has done to stop the paedophile scandal in the church. Please inform yourself better by at least visiting, if not the Vatican website, some of the more balanced and objective sources, rather than expect me to substantiate a serious claim in a 200 word comment

Vincent Scerri

Apr 8th 2010, 13:28

Fr. Joe Borg. Good article. By the way Sinead O'Connor is a she not a he.

Christian Mizzi

Apr 8th 2010, 12:55

I just hope Fr. Joe Borg saw Le Iene yesterday. If not, please check their site and look for yesterday's episode.

Under age abusing with the blessing of the superiors from a priest in his 50s. Lovely!

Too much power screws people's heads I guess...

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 11:45

Fr Joe Borg wrote: "@ all. I suggest readers to browse through the statement of the Maltese bishops just released today. confer http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100408/local/abuse-cases-are-a-source-of-humiliation-for-the-church-maltese-bishops ".

Yes, please do. And then please read the first comment posted beneath the article.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 8th 2010, 11:41

Quote: 'child abuse has been put among serious crimes like the profanation of the Eucharist'. In fact, I would go one further. I would suggest that child-abuse stands on its own as a particularly vile crime. Comparing this crime to the profanation of the Eucharist only makes sense to those who believe that such profanation warrants the 'lacking-in-respect-so-and-so' to drop death on the spot. To many others it is just a piece of religious folklore, cannibalism even.
Years ago, my mother insisted I changed my 'buluttin' (a small card that, on receiving holy communion, one handed in and was given a fresh one. All this to prove that the faithful received communition at least once a year). Anyhow, to shut her up, I received communion without confessing my sins. As I walked away from the altar, my head reeling, I expected to drop dead any second. To cut it short, I am still here. And look how I've turned out. Full of christian values but these attained via The Road Less Travelled. And Oscar Wilde for bedtime reading.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 8th 2010, 11:37

Ms. Debattista. And your agenda is......
You equate Atheism with religion and no doubt you reach this conclusion by your way of thinking.
You try to put Kenneth Cassar by telling him, 'if you're so concerned about priestly paedolphiles why don't you concern yourself with the un-priestly ones.
Ms. Debattista, coming from a religious woman who knows, this is indeed astounding. When I was a boy people went on about the seriousness of setting a bad example, 'l-iskandlu'. Is this not so anymore? A bit like Limbo?
The wayward priest - this is going to sound like spoon-feeding but needs must - represents his Institution. He is very accountable. And the Institution hushes things up. Stands to reason.
The 'ordinary-man-in-the-street' paedophile represents only his sad self. His disgraceful acts are dealt with by the legal process. If Kenneth is going to clamour against 'ordinary' child-molesters then he may as well clamour against shopkeepers who deliberately short-change.
The pope could be left alone. He is infirm and doddery. Most of what he says and does is 'done' for him. He is just a figure-head. And he is very, very old and infirm.

Fr Joe Borg

Apr 8th 2010, 11:36

@ all. I suggest readers to browse through the statement of the Maltese bishops just released today. confer http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100408/local/abuse-cases-are-a-source-of-humiliation-for-the-church-maltese-bishops

Joe Xuereb

Apr 8th 2010, 11:33

Temptation. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oscarwilde108207.html
Elsewhere, Ms. Debattista insisted that atheism is a religion. I explained, with quite a degree of conviction, even-though-I-say-it-myself blah blah blah, that it is not. I am tempted not to say this but I will (thanks Oscar). If, hypothetically the pope, in a nano second flash of lightning illumination were to come out onto the balcony and tell us, it was all a joke. I, an atheist, would say, I told you so and I'd munch on another potato crisp. The believer, on the otherhand, would see his/her world crumble. Another reason disclaiming that atheism is a religion. There I've said it. My fingers are fairly arthritic but they have been so for years. I wonder what the next temptation is going to be? And indulgent second packet of these lethal crisps maybe?

Richard Curmi

Apr 8th 2010, 11:01

Re your last paragraph, Fr. Joe maybe the persons that matter, like Cardinal Levada, get too cosy and complacent because Jesus promised the church that against it "Hell shall not prevail". Watching their leaders retreating into this fortress mentality and committing one PR gaffe after another it's no wonder that many are loosing trust in their leaders and also their faith.
These leaders should be courageous enough to demonstrate that they really believe that truth will free them and the church of all this mess. Solidarity at the highest level of the hierarchy will be good to see when it is shown as a strong concerted action to eradicate these abuses and to help the victims regain their dignity, shed any unfair sense of guilt and pay any deserved compesation.
When Napoleon threatened to crush the church, the then Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Ercole Consalvi told him;"If in 1800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the church, do you really think you'll be able to do it?" 200 years later paedophile insiders seem to be doing their best. It's up to the leaders to thwart their action and lead the Church to recovery in TRUTH.

B Galea

Apr 8th 2010, 10:41

Far from "brainless chicks" or "confused darlings" Fr Borg, you can trust us on that score. Of course, it would serve you and your institution ever-so-well if we all were the poor, misguided fools of yesteryear.

As others have pointed out, Sinead (pronounced Shin-aid, for future reference) is a girls' name. And as for Christopher Hitchens - although I disagree with some of the man's views, his intellect is unparalleled. Hitchens' polemic regarding an international arrest warrant serves to illustrate the wider point - that individuals who fall foul of the law fall upon their swords, while those in the halls of power live with impunity.

You assure us that "nobody" has fought omerta' and child abuse more than Ratzinger. My apologies for not taking your word for it. You are hardly super partes, Father.

Read the Murphy and Ryan reports that came out of Ireland, Father. Find out just how divinely inspired your church was in the Emerald Isle. See just how tenacious your church was to hide abuse and discredit victims.

The chickens are coming home to roost, Father. And about time.

g.portelli

Apr 8th 2010, 10:31

@ Richard Curmi
"People should also stop drawing universal conclusions from particular premiss; because a number of priests are peadophiles one cannot conclude that the church is some kind of a pedophile club".

No one is suggesting that, however the unfortunate practices of omerta and obfuscation within Church organisations merely perpetuate the vilification of all priests and the Catholic Faith. It does nothing to alleviate the uncertainties and anguish of the faithful and denies social justice to the abused. It also renders invisible the spiritual and pastoral ministry of countless priests who help realise the Church's mission. That should be unacceptable in a Church that claims universality and social justice as basic tenets.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 09:48

@ Andreana Attard:

So Sinead o'Connor is bipolar. Congratulations on your research. Found anything on Christopher Hitchens yet? Let me help you...he's a heavy drinker.

That says nothing on the veracity of what they say or write, although it is certainly tempting to try to discredit the writer when one cannot refute what he/she writes.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 09:01

@ Charles Caruana:

In my previous reply to you, I wrote that if the topic was "capital punishment", for instance, my comments would one-sidedly be pro-church. It has just occurred to me that I have a better example.

If, for instance, the topic chosen by Fr Joe Borg was "the Iraq war", I would not only be pro-church and particularly pro-Pope (John Paul II, in this case), but I would also be "anti-" Christopher Hitchens who was all out in support of the war in Iraq.

That's the best thing about free-thinkers. We are free to criticise each other, too.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 08:32

@ Richard Curmi:

"People should also stop drawing universal conclusions from particular premiss; because a number of priests are peadophiles one cannot conclude that the church is some kind of a pedophile club".

I don't believe anyone here suggested that.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 08:27

@ Jessica DeBattista (cont):

You'll probably take this the wrong way, but I hope you'll realize how ridiculous this is becoming.

You tell me that it is only with hindsight that we can say how the Church should have acted. I tell you that it is not with hindsight that we can say that, but we say it because we are decent humans who believe that covering-up for peadophiles is a definite no-go (no hindsight necessary). And your reply is..."I don't know why you keep flogging a dead horse".

So basically, just because I give an explanation (which incidentally you agree on) to show that you are wrong to say that we can say the Church acted (and is still acting in some places, including Malta) wrongly only "in hindsight", I am flogging a dead horse? Amazing!

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 08:00

@ Jessica DeBattista:

I hate to have to repeat myself, but again, I did not choose the topic. I am not "flogging a dead horse". I am commenting, and being criticized for it.

As for you not thinking that the "virulent attack" against the Pope does not rise from a genuine angst for the sad plight of paedophile victims, that doesn't concern me, unless you are referring to me (and I trust you aren't). What concerns me is not the intent of the "attackers", but whether what they say is true.

As for your concluding question, no, I do not intend to go on a campaign against neither all paedophiles, nor just the Church. I am only commenting on an article, the topic of which was chosen by the blogger himself. Please let me know when my comments are not welcome any more. Or better still, ask Fr Joe to put a notice saying that dissenting voices are not welcome. Then you might perhaps enjoy your homilies in peace, and nod to your heart's content.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 8th 2010, 07:52

@ Charles Caruana:

1. Yes, I chose to comment on a topic chosen by Fr Joe Borg. What's the big deal? I commented in a "one-sided" and "anti-church" vein only because I strongly disagree on how the church is handling this particular issue. If the topic was "capital punishment", for instance, my comments would one-sidedly be pro-church.

But how were my comments not objective or rational? Is it just because I disagree with the church, that "must be right"? Please explain.

2. Yes, I chose not to comment on internet paedophile rings etc, because that is not the topic Fr Joe (not me) chose. But I think I made it clear that I am obviously against any form of paedophilia.

3. What is needed is not a "mea culpa", but a change in direction, where paedophiles within the church are immediately reported to the police for investigation. Your challenge to "secular institutions" is just hot air. No current legal secular institution is known to have a policy of covering-up for paedophiles.

4. It is you who are claiming that the Pope did much to stop paedophilia. It is those who make claims who should substantiate.

Marie Attard

Apr 8th 2010, 05:14

As I commented in another article, Elizabeth Lev got it right in her commentary :
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/edmund-burke-clerical-scandal-and-the-reign-of-terror/

There is more to the whole unhappy affair than meets the eye. The church needs to clean up, not to fold up.

Richard Curmi

Apr 8th 2010, 04:19

Cover ups there were and should be condemned by everyone. Those responsible for cover-ups should be answerable for their lack of proper action against abusers. That having been said I repeat what I said elsewhere i.e. some 40-50 years ago it was the accepted policy of transferring pedophiles not only by churches, but also by institutions, education Departments etc. believing that they won't commit the same crime in the new environment. They were mistaken but they did not know as much as we do now. Now we know that most pedophiles if not all are beyond rehabilitation. Am I defending cover-ups? Not at all but when judging in retrospect we have to take into consideration all circumstances.
The abuser stands always condemned.
People should also stop drawing universal conclusions from particular premiss; because a number of priests are peadophiles one cannot conclude that the church is some kind of a pedophile club.
In the same way it is wrong to state that homosexuals are pedophiles. yes there are homosexuals who are pedophiles but not all homosexuals have that inclination. I am saying all this beacuse this mistake has been made repeatedly.

Martin Schranz

Apr 8th 2010, 00:56

@ Joe Borg

Calling people "brainless chicks" and "confused darlings" will get you nowhere. Try using logical arguments instead. Works a treat most times.
Some basic research wouldn't do you harm either. For example a quick google search would have revealed to you that Sinead O'Connor is a woman, and not a man as you said, as are also all people called Sinead.
In any case Joe, why is this criticism getting you hot under the collar? Wasn't it your own boss who dismissed such claims as "petty gossip" ? Why would you be so concerned about such "idle chatter"?
Even if that certain leader with the surname of Ratzinger were to stand trial would he not be acquitted with ease? Or have you no faith in our courts?
And finally with regards your question "Should the Pope be arrested or forced to resign?" pray, why are you forcing us to choose between one of these two options?
Perhaps you may want to rephrase this question , otherwise I may be tempted to call you a "cheeky brainless chick". But of course, I too will stoically resist this temptation and call you a confused darling instead.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 23:25

Dear Jessica,

You don't know my brother Kenneth at all. If you knew him, you would know that he participates in a lot of campaigns and protests wherever the rights of people and also animals are not respected, and most of the time the church is not involved. So please refrain from trying to cling to the deluded perception that this is just an attack on the Catholic Church.

You also say that we do not campaign against non clerical paedophiles. Non clerical paedophiles are investigated by the police and criminal charges are brought against them and they are sent to prison. Can you see the difference or do we have to spell it out for you??? Besides, even if the crime is the same, the gravity is not. Non clerical paedophiles do not have the privilaged position of trust based on the premise of belonging to the church. This makes the crime much worse. In this pivileged trust position I'd also include family and teachers. And yes, if a teacher for example, abused children and the state did nothing, we'd be on the front in any campaign because we care for others, especially children.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 7th 2010, 19:55

@ Kenneth Cassar: “It is because most of us are decent human beings that we can say that protecting and covering up paedophiles for a "greater good" (the name of the Church) is a definite NO-GO”

I do not know why you keep flogging a dead horse when I have said time and time again how I view the deplorable situation of child-abuse within the Church.

Of course I agree with the above quote, but I think that the virulent attack against the Pope does not rise from a genuine angst for the sad plight of paedophile victims but rather from a personal agenda which has the fall of the Roman Catholic Church as its impetus.

Do you intend to go on a campaign against all paedophiles who are around us or are you limiting it solely to the Church?

charles caruana

Apr 7th 2010, 19:04

@Kenneth Cassar
1. True you may not have chosen the topic, but you did choose to comment on it in a systematically one-sided and anti-church vein, not exactly an objective rational approach.
2. ‘just individual paedophiles abusing children’ is, to put it mildly an understatement, when thousands of them infest dysfunctional families all over the world, pullulate in educational institutions, and form international rings across borders and the internet. Yet not a single church basher in this blog felt obliged to refer to them. Why?
3. I already mentioned the need for a mea culpa of the church for past cover ups and that is precisely what Pope Benedict has done in his letter to the Irish Church. I challenge any one to point out any secular institution ( the media, educational institutions, civil authorities etc)that has had the courage and the humility to do this.
4. If you want to know what the Pope has done to stop paedophilia in the church do a bit of homework on the internet and you will see.

andreana attard

Apr 7th 2010, 18:05

Re Sinead O'Connor.
Apart from being anti-Catholic Sinead is feisty and a rebel. She also happens to be bipolar and although i have empathy for people with mental illness, i find it hard to distinguish between their core beliefs and their mental condition.

As for the people expressing their view that the pope should be put in prison, well, this is the price we have to pay for pluralism - everyone gets to say what they think, no matter how unorthodox.

Should the pope be arrested? I think that if he had to be put in prison, more and more people would rally behind him and the church would actually become stronger - this would be a strategic move and not one where Truth and Integrity win. Having said this, i think the pope should not be arrested or imprisoned simply because i believe him to be a good man but it is very important that he cleans the church from child-abusers...he must do his job well.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 18:05

@ Daniel Vella and others:

The Pope cannot resign, just like the Queen of England cannot resign. So you can forget about that. The Pope, like the Queen of England, is not elected by the people, and so is not accountable to the people. Moreover, the Pope is supposedly chosen by God, and that would make matters much more complicated.

As for being arrested, I wouldn't be so rash. A police investigation? Certainly. All suspects should be investigated by the police. Only this could unquestionably determine innocence or guilt if the law (local or international) was broken.

However, I wouldn't bet on the Pope being investigated. He is still too powerful for that to happen.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 17:09

@ Jessica DeBattista

cont..... Finally, you say that Atheists hate the Church and are using this to vent their hatred against it. I can only speak for myself but I think many will agree with me in saying -

We do not hate the church. Matter of fact we don't hate. We only want the church to be treated as the rest of us, responsible for its' actions and subject to law. As things stand not only is it not subject to law but some laws are subject to it. We call a spade a spade. Special pleading is not justifyable.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 17:04

@ Jessica DeBattista

I'm completely dumbfounded by the concept that you are so hurt by the way the church has fallen victim to this dejection. HELLO!!!?!? What about the children!!! You know, the real VICTIMS!!!! The Church can always do the RIGHT thing and admit its' wrongs, apologize and take measures to ensure that this does not happen again. In time the "wounds" of the church will heal and we'll all have forgotten about the issue. But the children are another matter. Do you have any idea how it feels to be a young child abused by someone who you trust???? I know I don't because it's beyond immagination. To make things worse, after suffering the hurt, humiliation and abuse, the child (most if not all) would be then subjected to another pain of similar magnitude - that of not being believed by their family. Now that's painful in itself and that I can relate to. They say don't lie or make things up, maybe even beat you (a small child) because you're telling the truth!!!! That's almost worse than the orignial abuse.

cont.....

Daniel Vella

Apr 7th 2010, 16:11

I don't think the Pope should be arrested (after all, he was not the one abusing children). However, I do think he should resign. For one thing, it was his JOB to prevent such things from happening, and not only did he fail to do so, but he swept everything under the carpet. Secondly, he is now in the highest position within the church hierarchy, and as such, he is seen as an example to many Christians.
When a Magistrate (who has a high position in the judicial hierarchy) fails to carry out his/her duties, they are forced into resignation. The same should happen with the pope.

This is a serious scandal that has been going on for way too long and has come back to bite Ratzinger in the backside. Of course, with the Christian mentality that we have here, we will still find people who manage to defend the church.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 15:43

@ Jessica DeBattista (Part 2):

Give a person a sense of infallibility, and you can only expect arrogance. The Church as an institution, by giving its leader a sense of unbounded and exaggerated reverence, ensures that mistakes by the head of Church (the Pope) are seldom checked. Who within the Church, after all, would dare to contradict "His Holiness"?

My anger is not directed at the church (with a small c), which includes everyone who calls him/herself Catholic. My anger is directed at The Church as an institution which is by its very nature corrupt (the natural course of all totalitarian institutions).

It is not with hindsight that we can say how the Church should have acted. It is because most of us are decent human beings that we can say that protecting and covering up paedophiles for a "greater good" (the name of the Church) is a definite NO-GO. What wasn't good for Stalin (human rights abuses for a perceived "higher good") is not good for the Pope.

I'd rather reserve my compassion to the real victims.

Charles Abela

Apr 7th 2010, 15:43

We are sitting on a sunny Maundy Thursday in twin armchairs in the window of his office as he attempts to articulate that broader view. "I worked for 25 years as a teacher before I was an abbot. When the 1989 Children Act came in, like everyone else in the profession I had to learn new approaches to children making allegations: that you had to believe that allegation until proved to the contrary. Now, as a shift for teachers, that was incredible. I sat in meetings with very good teachers from all sorts of schools who were pretty upset by this, but they have made the shift. In the process, some very unpleasant things came out into the open. The whole Catholic Church is now going through the same thing, and it is just as traumatic."

Charles Abela

Apr 7th 2010, 15:42

http://www.independent.co.uk/ Sun 4th April

The Vatican may be mired in scandal, but, in Sussex this Easter, TV’s favorite monk is a model of faith and hope. Peter Stanford meets Christopher Jamison

Terrible mistakes have been made," he says, his voice full of regret, "and we are paying a high price. The abuse of children is one of the most terrible sins and crimes, but it is part of what human beings do to each other. The church should have been part of the solution but it became part of the problem. Those who dislike the church have been given a great deal of ammunition." He pauses, and then adds, "But I hope those who don't dislike it may want to take a broader view."....

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 15:33

@ Jessica DeBattista (Part 1):

Putting aside the question of whether the Church is a noble institution or not, please note that this is not a case of a minority "tarnishing her image" (why the capital H?). This is about a Church policy of covering-up paedophilia, demanding silence from priests who learn of paedophilia, the attempt (sometimes successful) to silence the victims themselves, and worst of all, failing to report known paedophiles to the police. It is the head of the Church himself who seems to believe that his institution is above the law. Little wonder, when Catholics, in what I would term as blasphemy, call him "His Holiness". And this, I believe, is what paved the way for this sorry state of affairs.

Cont...

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 15:22

@ Charles Caruana:

Please think twice before writing things such as "The Church, collectively, not just Pope Benedict (which incidentally means including Pope Benedict), was for a long time responsible for cover ups of priest paedophilia, following a misguided policy of protecting its reputation at the expense of child victims all over the world". Someone might say that you have the cheek of a brainless chick, or will call you a confused darling.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 15:16

@ Charles Caruana:

1. We did not choose the topic.

2. You will appreciate the difference between just individual paedophiles abusing children (which is bad enough) and having an institution incidentally calling itself "holy" covering-up for paedophiles, attempting to silence the victims of paedophilia, and refusing to report known paedophiles to the police.

3. There is no such thing as a "secular child molester". A paedophile is a paedophile is a paedophile.

4. What exactly has the Pope done to stop paedophila or paedophiles?

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 7th 2010, 15:03

@ Kenneth Cassar:
Pat 3.
It is truly sad Kenneth, for all those believers to witness the dejection into which the Church has fallen. It touches us, believers, deeply and it hurts to have atheists using this crime as an opportunity to vent their hatred against the Church.

It is so easy with hindsight to say how the Church should have acted, and everyone seems to have the answers ready, but we persist in ignoring our human frailty. We are frail in so many ways: We fail to curb our passions so we abuse; we fail to refrain from being judgmental so we accuse: we fail to have compassion so we condemn; we fail to forgive so we punish; we fail ….. because we’re human – bar none!

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 7th 2010, 15:01

@ Kenneth Cassar:
Part 2
In a previous blog I had said: “Crimes have been hushed up inadvertently allowing them to be further perpetrated unchecked. How sad for the Church to be the butt of so much criticism when She should have saved Herself so much humiliation if only She had acted immediately such a crime came to Her knowledge! …….It is so sad that young victims had to suffer such humiliation at the hands of people entrusted with their care. So sad that most never recovered and so sad that the repercussions will never die out.” (Now that winter is approaching – March 17)
Continued.....

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 7th 2010, 14:58

@ Kenneth Cassar: “Perhaps you think that I am elated by the "discovery" of child abuse and the rape of children under the care of those whose duty it is to protect them. Perhaps you believe this is so because it gives me a "weapon" with which to "attack the Church".
Part 1.
No Kenneth. Definitely not! Only a despicable character would feel elated by the discovery of child abuse by the clergy and use is as a weapon to attack the Church.

The Church is a noble institution founded by Christ Himself. If periodically there surfaces elements within Her that tarnish Her image, it is not the Church who should be attacked but the ones who abuse of Her power in their smug belief that such an institution is above the law.
Continued….

Dawn Cummings

Apr 7th 2010, 14:19

Calling Atheism a religion is like saying bold is a haircolour.

Misfortune? I totally agree with Kenneth here. The church is digging it's own grave and the situation it is in now is a result not of the recent years but of hundreds of years. Preaching one thing and do another...and saying "we do God's work"?? Yeah right. But I am repeating myself here. Sorry.

I am not sure if the Pope should resign and if this can be compared with Saddam Hussein. All I know is there were popes who held young (married) mistresses and children born out of these relationships (not sure if molested too but some of which became popes aswell). So if we were talking about Pope Alexander VI then I would say yes...he should resign...but we are not talking about him...fair enough.

Let todays Pope fix the problems. Maybe they get their slate clean again. Fingers crossed.

charles caruana

Apr 7th 2010, 13:33

This blog entry seemed to have attracted many knights in shining armour riding bravely their moral high horse in a heroic effort to teach the church a lesson or two! let me put my cards on the table. The Church, collectively, not just Pope Benedict, was for a long time responsible for cover ups of priest paedophilia, following a misguided policy of protecting its reputation at the expense of child victims all over the world. As evidence of this ask how many priest endee up in prison for child abuse here in Malta. Here a mea culpa is in order. Having said that, however, what stands a mile out is the unbalanced and dispropotionate focus on Catholic priest's abuses and the responsibility of Pope Benedict, conveniently ignoring the objective fact that such abuses were an infinitesimal minority when compared to overwhelming numbers of child abuses committed by laymen sucfh as fathers and other family members, teachers and sundry secular child molesters. This smacks of a secular hate campaign, ironically directed at the Pope who has to date done more than any of his predesessors to stop and eradicate this filth from the Church! Secular doctors, heal yourselves!

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 12:42

Here's some more "confused darling" journalism: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100407/world-news/predator-priest-cases-in-italy-only-tip-of-iceberg

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 12:28

@ Joseph A Borg:

Thanks for the link to the NCR article. I wonder...does Fr Joe Borg perhaps think they are "confused darlings", or perhaps even "brainless chicks" too?

Joseph A Borg

Apr 7th 2010, 11:37

The National Catholic Reporter, a liberal catholic 'news source' that is independent of the church's structure has some interesting insights for the catholics who still favour accountability and good governance.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/credibility-gap-pope-needs-answer-questions

joe gatt

Apr 7th 2010, 11:16

Saddam Hussein, the Dictator, did not personally commit the crimes he was accused of, that occured in Iraq under his rule. His henchmen did. He was brought to justice (due to the U.S. intervention which brought down his regime, other wise being a Dictator he would not have brought himself to trial - it`s a matter of Might is Right) he was found guilty and hanged. In a Dictatorship, the leader is always responsible for his subordinates action, especially if it involves cover ups, lack of punishment, lack of prevention by letting the perpetrators/predators free to commit further crimes. Fr Joe Borg, I am glad for you, as you have nothing to worry about, being unmarried of course, and hopefully, without children of your own.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 10:45

@ Richard Curmi:

If that is the case, then the Queen's actions (or inactions) are equally condemnable.

Incidentally, I am no fan of any monarchy (to put it mildly), be it Britain's, the Vatican's or anywhere else's, so let it be clear that I was not trying to "defend" her ;)

Also glad that we agree on your final paragraph.

Richard Curmi

Apr 7th 2010, 10:23

@Kenneth Cassar: I do not know whether the Queen was au courant when the cases occured. But she was kept informed when they were raised at the time of his appointment and she never asked for his removal or resifnation. He resigned of his own volition. I wonder what is the position of the ex PM in ralation to this case as the Queen acted on his advice as is usual.

By the way I agree with you that our first and main concern should be the welfare of the victims and to see that justice is done and seen to be done with all those who are proven without any doubt of being the perpatrators of such a heinous crime. We should also insist that the civil authorities should not drag their feet when treating with such cases.

Joseph A Borg

Apr 7th 2010, 10:13

Fr Joe the number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations in your opinion piece are astounding. Hitchens used the arrest warrant to get exposure on the media and you flattered him. I'd recommend readers read more of what Hitchens has to say…

I see you relish your role as bulwark of the church's failures. Are you the head or voice of its Ministry of Misinformation?

There's a credibility disconnect Fr Joe that's growing by the minute. You are all doing a disservice to the church faithful who believe in justice and the rule of law. Don't complain in a year's time that church attendance is getting smaller and society is getting ever more "secular".

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 08:32

@ Richard Curmi:

"As Governor his appointment was approved by the Queen of England who happens to be the Head of the Church. He stood down in 2003. Should the Queen be arrested or forced to resign?".

The question is, did the Queen know of the abuse and did nothing to prevent or stop it?

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 07:55

@ Jessica Debattista (in reply to Joe Xuereb and Dawn Cummings):

"...maybe you are causing some sniggering in the atheist field".

And wasn't calling Christopher Hitchens a "confused darling", not to mention hinting at him being a "brainless chick", hilarious? I'm sure it would bring the church roof down with laughter.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 07:49

@ Jessica DeBattista:

Perhaps you think that I am elated by the "discovery" of child abuse and the rape of children under the care of those whose duty it is to protect them. Perhaps you believe this is so because it gives me a "weapon" with which to "attack the Church". I don't work that way. I leave that to clerical "journalists".

Perhaps you should be reminded of who brought the topic up, and perhaps you should similarly ask yourself why he did. Some would perhaps think that he used the tragedy (for the child victims - the real victims in all this - not the Church) and its condemnation as a "weapon" to attack a distinguished atheist journalist whom he calls a "confused darling"? You know how it works...if you're under attack, try to crush the credibility of your attacker...instill some doubt...include a touch of ridicule....and hopefully you will shift the spotlight away from you and towards your opponent.

Those who are deeply saddened and wounded by the behaviour of certain members of the clergy (including those who could take preventive and/or remedial action, and didn't), should expect justice, and not cheap apologies.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 7th 2010, 07:30

@ Jessica DeBattista:

Come to think of it, perhaps I should at least make a short comment on this issue. You assume (you know the saying...to assume makes an ass...you know the rest) that I am gloating over the "misfortune" of the church.

Now here's some major differences between us.

1. To me, misfortune comes to those who are not responsible for the consequences. If one is responsible for the consequences, then the bad consequences are not a misfortune. Cause and effect...action (or failure to take action) and consequence...that's a law of nature (created by God, if you believe in God). So no, the Church is not going through a period of "misfortune". You reap what you sow. Some would say "just deserts".

2. In this whole issue, and what primarily concerns me, it is the child abuse (and sometimes rape) victims who are the misfortuned ones. They are my main concern. Of course, others might believe that for the "higher good", damage limitation and cover-up (where possible) is the primary concern. Justice, if at all, comes second.

CJohn Zammit

Apr 7th 2010, 05:08

A few weeks ago, I read an opinion-piece by a prominent theologian who felt that the media were silent on issues dealing with public persons. He concluded by saying that, "Silence in such issues is certainly not golden."

Now, Fr. Borg is chastising the New York Times for focusing on the Pope's role in the cover-up of priestly pedophilia, accusing the publication of abandoning truth and accuracy ... because, as Fr. Borg asserts, Benedict (is) an enemy of omerta.

Well, let's see who is in breach of journalistic ethics.

Back in May 18th, 2001, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his capacity of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a letter to all the Bishops of the world, binding them to Silence in the matter of priestly wrongdoing committed against young persons under the age of 18. (See http://www.sarabite.info/vatletter.pdf and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection )

It seems that Fr. Borg is joining his peers in a song-and-dance while the Vatican burns.

To answer the lead question: Based on the evidence, the Pope should be be arrested. (Resign? That's a church business and not for us to decide.)

Richard Curmi

Apr 7th 2010, 04:10

Should the Pope be arrested or forced to resign?

The same kind of peadophile abusers who are ministers have been abusing children for a long time in the Anglican Church. There were also cases of deemed cover ups by persons high up in the Church's Hierarchy.

To give just one example that includes both criminal activities, I mention the case of Anglican Archbisop of Brisbane, Peter Hollingworth. When the then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, appointed him Governor General of Australia in 2001 all hell broke loose first because most of the people in Australia held that by this appointment the demarcation line betwwen state and church is going to get more blurred and then because it came to the notice of the public that he allegedly had covered for a retired Bishop and a priest of his church who were accused of peadophile activity in his diocese. As Governor his appointment was approved by the Queen of England who happens to be the Head of the Church. He stood down in 2003.

Should the Queen be arrested or forced to resign?
If yes, why attack only the Pope?
If no, why the two measures?

Arthur Soler

Apr 6th 2010, 23:40

Getting back to the topic of this blog, i.e." Should the Pope be arrested or forced to resign?", the answer is "no" to both. In our society , one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the Pope should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. Having said that, the Vatican has made a real hash of this huge and very serious problem. The crimes committed by the Catholic clergy over the past decades are horrific. The real issue therefore is whether or not the Vatican actually knew about these crimes and simply tried to cover them up. Nobody knows the answer to this critical question, save for the Vatican itself.

If the Vatican is serious about clearing its name, the Pope should have the guts to open the books and records of the Vatican for a full and public enquiry. This is however unlikely to happen, which will only further fuel the belief that since there is so much "smoke" coming out of the Vatican, there surely must be "a lot of fire" too.

David Friggieri

Apr 6th 2010, 23:25

And may I join my old friend Malcolm Tortell in this quest for journalistic accuracy by pointing out that 'a certain journalist with the surname of Hitchens' as the Rev. Borg puts it is not what you'd call your common political pundit, tabloid columnist or cut-and-paste hack. He goes by the name of Christopher and is a respected and influential author and film-maker. PS: Nothing Compares To You isn't a bad song. Sinead, not Christopher, sung it.

sciortino m

Apr 6th 2010, 22:14

@Fr. Joe Borg. The Church still does not get it. All this prevarication is causing harm to genuine Catholics who belive in truth and justice. The Church should come clean and turn over such abusers to the criminal courts. It is painful to read of abusive priests but for me it is even more painful to see the cover-ups by the Church hierarchy.

The prevarication by the Church is leading the media to dig deeper which leading to more and more horrible revelations of abuse and cover-ups. If Pope Benedict did no wrong then his predecessors were not so correct. Either way the Church loses. How about the story of Fr. Maciel of the Legionaries of Christ and how he was protected by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Sodano. The same Sodano who last Sunday called the coverage by the media as 'idle chatter'.

The Church as a whole needs to clean itself and make a very visible gesture of humility and penitence. Many of us still retain faith in God but not in the Church Hierarchy.

Andrew Camilleri

Apr 6th 2010, 21:56

@K Cassar

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8360/

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/03/scoundrel-times

Joe Xuereb

Apr 6th 2010, 20:17

Temptation. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oscarwilde108207.html
Elsewhere, Ms. Debattista insisted that atheism is a religion. I explained, with quite a degree of conviction, even-though-I-say-it-myself blah blah blah, that it is not. I am tempted not to say this but I will (thanks Oscar). If, hypothetically the pope, in a nano second flash of lightning illumination were to come out onto the balcony and tell us, it was all a joke. I, an atheist, would say, I told you so and I'd munch on another potato crisp. The believer, on the otherhand, would see his/her world crumble. Another reason disclaiming that atheism is a religion. There I've said it. My fingers are fairly arthritic but they have been so for years. I wonder what the next temptation is going to be? And indulgent second packet of these lethal crisps maybe?

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 6th 2010, 20:16

. @ Joe Xuereb: “Anyhow, to shut her up, I received communion without confessing my sins. “

“to shut her up” - sounds rather disrespectful to say it in those terms!

@ Joe Xuereb and Dawn Cummings:

I suppose you think you are funny and amusing us readers by your anecdotes. Hardly!

On second thoughts, maybe you are causing some sniggering in the atheist field. So maybe your comments are not lost after all! Well???

Dawn Cummings

Apr 6th 2010, 18:30

@Joe:
Reminds me of my past. Did the holy communion too when I was small but then decided to excommunicate myself from the church when I grew up. I did that because I didn't see my beliefs reflected by the catholic church. Years later I married in church...no one noticed I am not part of it anymore but here I am...no lightening struck me whatsoever and I didn't drop dead either.
If the church resurrects itself on Easter Sunday...I hope it will be one I can identify myself with and rejoin. Good luck!

Joe Xuereb

Apr 6th 2010, 17:45

Quote: 'child abuse has been put among serious crimes like the profanation of the Eucharist'. In fact, I would go one further. I would suggest that child-abuse stands on its own as a particularly vile crime. Comparing this crime to the profanation of the Eucharist only makes sense to those who believe that such profanation warrants the 'lacking-in-respect-so-and-so' to drop death on the spot. To many others it is just a piece of religious folklore, cannibalism even.
Years ago, my mother insisted I changed my 'buluttin' (a small card that, on receiving holy communion, one handed in and was given a fresh one. All this to prove that the faithful received communition at least once a year). Anyhow, to shut her up, I received communion without confessing my sins. As I walked away from the altar, my head reeling, I expected to drop dead any second. To cut it short, I am still here. And look how I've turned out. Full of christian values but these attained via The Road Less Travelled. And Oscar Wilde for bedtime reading.

Ms g Hoare

Apr 6th 2010, 17:17

@ malcolm tortell,, and you are so perfect ,and you never make mistakes it is only an (S) missing no big deal .
All the men and women under the sun are not perfect either Through the studies paedofile join Religous, schools, Boys/ Girls scouts and anything which involve them to be close to youngsters even scocial workers people that are suppose to protect them but some are the preditors too .I belive that all should be punished the same, but to read that the Pope Have to resign , The Pope is head of the RCC like a MoTHER is to her Children and somtimes abuses in Families is never Reported and the mother keeps her mouth shut , it is wrong but it happens .I as a parent lived in Uk I never allowed my children to join any clubs not even an Abbati as I was allways in fear for MY kids ,and i allways thought them from a young age that thier is BAD and GOOD people out there,I belonged to Church club in Hamrun but i never had Bad experience maybe i was lucky . God bless .

Kevin Cassar

Apr 6th 2010, 17:16

You wish that we were all stupid don't you. That way the church could continue to have its' way and accumulate riches and political power with the premise of an immaginary being. I was tempted to say that the pope is a gay-hating, paedophile-protecting, blatantly-lying, controller of headless chickens but I resisted the temptation too.......hang on........I did not in fact resist anything because I wrote it down using this cheap, well known tactic (nice one Joe but we're no fools). You seem to forget who you're addressing here, it's not the 1700's anymore!

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 6th 2010, 15:49

@ Kenneth Cassar;
How you’re gloating over the misfortune of the Church, Kenneth - hoping for its downfall!!

It is truly a dark period, regrettable by all, but save some compassion for those who are deeply saddened and wounded by the behaviour of certain members of the clergy. Do you have to rub a sore wound, you, who often profess would not hurt a fly? Words are cheap!

Dawn Cummings

Apr 6th 2010, 14:55

@Malcom: Thanks...I was thinking about pointing out this stupid mistake too.

Why all these articles about the church lately? I don't think a lot of PR is helping here.

I think it would be better for the church's sake to stay quiet in all means...better to gather and re-think your way of thinking instead of shutting the mouths of some really 'down-to-earth' personalities because you (the church) don't want to hear the reality.

Does the church want to gather more supporters by this? Should we feel sorry for the church going through a tough time at the moment? Oh poor priests...let's keep your pedophile interests out of the public sight and pray for forgiveness because you (priests) are doing God's work and don't deserve a secular penalty...oh..and remember the inquisition? Forgiven...I know you didn't mean it!

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 6th 2010, 14:21

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html

malcolm tortell

Apr 6th 2010, 14:12

In the interests of journalistic accuracy may I point out that Sinead O'Connor is a "she" and not a "he" :)

Dawn Cummings

Apr 6th 2010, 14:11

"[...] only that way, indeed, will the Church be led from its long Good Friday to an Easter Resurrection."

Besides that I still wonder where the name "good" in Good Friday comes, I think the church has lost control many sheep over the divorce and cohabitation issue and now with those pedophile priests cases too.

Also I wonder why more and more youngsters stay away from the church and priests...hmmm...

This looooong Good Friday will not lead to a Happy Easter...those miracles happen only once...if it had happened in the first place which I still not convinced of...

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 6th 2010, 13:27

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/TheLaw/pope-defrock-priest-admitted-molesting-deaf-boys/story?id=10200159

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 6th 2010, 13:17

I too am tempted to write that some people have the cheek of brainless chicks, but I will also stoically resist the temptation.