He came. He saw. Did he conquer?

Joe Xuereb

Apr 29th 2010, 11:15

@ John Ebejer. You're not the same person who commented thus are you?

John Ebejer(14 hours, 59 minutes ago)
You are all missing the point - especially Denis Catania, as usual. He should stop jumping up and down the wall. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, practised by women in all spheres of life. Some do it for money; others do it for the sheer 'fun' of it; yet others do it for power, and others still, do it at their husbands' bidding. You can jump up and down the wall as much as you please, but you are not going to change anything. Prostitution is here to stay.
The point IS that we here have parents of a daughter who was encouraged, presumably, into prostitution. THAT is the problem: women being encouraged, or rather, forced, into the habit. THAT is what should be fought!

If it's you, and in spite of your plea to eradicate the disease that is prostitution, I must say you sound quite enamoured of the phenomenon and probably see it as somehow picturesque. I've been round the block a few times you know. When I smell a rat, there usually is.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100428/local/parents-accused-of-living-off-daughters-prostitution

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 29th 2010, 10:06

Some people never seem to grow up mentally. What a shame.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 29th 2010, 09:53

@ John Ebejer:

By the way, that someone finds bigotry a laughing matter says a lot about a person. But go ahead, laugh and have your fun. You evidently need that.

John Ebejer

Apr 29th 2010, 09:23

@ Kenneth Cassar: Ehmmm.... hehe .... you proved my point: you DO have a problem! To comment further is superfluous. Peace, brother.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 28th 2010, 17:56

@ John Ebejer:

Come to think of it, let me give you an analogy to what you wrote.

Imagine a white person saying: "Black people are genetically inferior to whites". A black person replies denouncing the racist claim. The white racist replies back: "I meant no insult. I never insulted you personally - I merely spoke generally about all black people".

See, Mr Ebejer? I have no problem at all. On the other hand, apparently you do, since I have shown you to be a very prejudiced person (by explanation and analogy). Not very Christian of you, is it?

In fact, far from having a problem, I'm having a field-day. People like you help me practice and improve my debating skills. Thanks for that. Very much appreciated.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 28th 2010, 17:40

@ John Ebejer:

Thanks for clarifying that you meant no insult when you implied that I am one of the most unintelligent persons because I don't believe in a personal God. I dread to think what you would write if you ever meant to insult me. But don't worry...its all in the spirit of debate...I never take things too personally, especially from someone who hardly knows me.

So no, I don't have a problem. Do you?

And you have to explain yourself better regarding your question on why I "trouble myself" trying to explain why I am an unbeliever. I do not understand your question, since I am neither troubling myself, nor trying to explain my unbelief. I just follow a discussion, and participate in the debate. Do you have a problem with that?

A word of advice: Don't try to act the "wise guy" with me. I can see through your change of tone (in a single post) - from friendly to sarcastic to inquisitive. If you're only interested in playing games, let me warn you that I'm used to much better competition.

John Ebejer

Apr 28th 2010, 11:31

@ Kenneth Cassar: I meant no insult. I never insulted you personally - I merely spoke generally about all those who do not believe in God. You seem to have taken it far too personally. Hmmm.... what can I say? You have a problem. (Btw, if you are such a nonbeliever, why trouble yourself trying to explain why you are so?)

Patrik Larsson

Apr 28th 2010, 07:06

Charles Caruana:
"...you failed to add the fact that Ake Green was acquitted twice by superior courts"
Uhm, which is why I said he was "arrested". I'm very aware of his acquittal. Being Swedish it was very hard to miss that story, so don't presume this was knowledge gained by Googling.

Besides, what is your problem here - you want me to say it was a good thing he was arrested? I believe in free speech. If he thought homosexuals was a cancer to society then he should be free to say that. Just like we are free to tell him what a moronic biggot he is.

"So calling a whole group of people a cancer is execrable, but vilifying both a spiritual leader AND his whole church embracing over a billion believers is not"
Have I in any way suppressed the statement of one but not the other? I'm being consistent in my views, you might want to try that yourself.

ftheuma

Apr 27th 2010, 22:32

@Orazio Cachia
By the way it is interesting that you consider the obligatory and church sanctioned museum lessons 'a jumble of information'. I wonder how the poor sods who misguidedly but generously dedicate their life to delivering that 'jumble of information' would feel about your comment.

ftheuma

Apr 27th 2010, 22:18

@Orazio Cachia
Since I am so pathetic and you so evolved in the art of argumentation I will have a final go at making myself understood. You brought your level of christianity into play by making the uncalled for racist analogy, when you can defend the pope on his own merits. I would never make such a fatuous comparison to defend what is dear to me. You see, the difference between you and me is that I criticised the level of belief that you might or might not have, whereas you feel entitled to attack me on a personal level. Very well. If your level of christianity is deeper than I perceived from your comment then good for you. A high level of christianity won't necessarily make you a more moral person, but that is another discussion. Furthermore what you consider 'insulting' I consider criticism, and whereas it is not a divine right it is certainly a right which I hold dear.

Orazio Cachia

Apr 27th 2010, 20:28

@ftheuma
It was clear as day that you brought into contention my level of Christainity. That was most uncalled for. That's because you utterly failed to see my argument. You do not need my or anyone's permission but you need to cultivate the way to argue. Without going into the personal dimension. I never felt hurt, believe me. I felt sorry for you. And now I still feel more. A person who asserts that in order to argue he has the divine right to insult others must surely rank high on the pathetic scale. I do not really understand what you mean by 'life student of the workings, beliefs etc of the Catholic Church.' Is it from within or from without? Can you amplify?

Joe Xuereb

Apr 27th 2010, 19:52

Elsewhere, many quote Matthew and Luke and, etc. to sustain their 'arguments'. To some this isn't good enough so they quote from what to me are obscure tomes. Very impressive, they think. Works like Habermas Who? An atheist who said that Christian values have not been surpassed. Really?! I could have said that. Does that make me a Maltese Habermas? A Have-More? Thanks, but no thanks. I am happy with my non-belief and live my life to the best of my ability. Not exactly a piece of cake without weighty tomes but I wouldn't have it otherwise. One thing I wouldn't have me as - a proselytizing, manipulator. Why would I be? To what end? I'm just a queer non-believer. A 'congregation' of one is something everybody should try at least once in OUR lives - a bit of a river of no return, mind! And I make no apologies for being less than elegant, less simpering this time round. Reality checks would not have it any other way.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 27th 2010, 19:43

@ John Ebejer (6hrs.38mins.), eloquently said, although not so sure about the use of 'albeit' - one mistake is bad enough but the same one twice?! oh dear! - without going over the rest with a fine-tooth comb, what can I say? It has denial written all over it albeit - admitting, albeit, despite, despite the fact, even if, even supposing, granting, granting all this, in spite of, much as, notwithstanding, still, supposing, though, when, whereas, while - you are unaware of this as a survival tactic. More's the pity! The first step to recovery is acknowledgement of a problem. Otherwise, denial, a very popular human reaction, works wonders. Albeit to the detriment of.......
It is a 'difficult' word because not used much in speech. Better to use any of a number of alternatives, not so elegant, less simpering - so there you are.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2010, 17:48

@ John Ebejer:

"I have very little time to engage in 'debates' with you...".

I suspected so. However you seemed to find the time for your feeble and futile attempt at ridiculing and misrepresenting atheists.

"I still believe that...the most foolish and the most unintelligent person is he or she who does not believe in the existence and goodness of God".

Believe that if you will. It will perhaps comfort you to learn that I do not hold the opposite to be true: That is, I don't believe that the person who believes in a personal God despite the evidence to the contrary, is necessarily the most unintelligent person.

But then again, unlike you, I'm not writing just to spite anyone. I am only writing to give my own honest and reasoned opinion...and because I have the time. If I didn't have anything of value to say, I wouldn't bother participating in debates, let alone indulge in petty prejudiced insults. And if I had "little time to engage in debates", I wouldn't spend the little time I had to make a fool of myself.

Richard Curmi

Apr 27th 2010, 15:18

John 18:38 says that Pilate asked Jesus" What is the truth?" this is rendered in the same way in many different translations. And the text continues that Pilate then went outside to tell the Jews that he found no guilt in the man.

I have been intrigued for a long time with Pilate's behaviour in this instance and also "angry'" because the question was left hanging in the air.

Intrigued because why ask the question if you do not wait for it to be answered-was he afraid that he would be somehow compromised? Was he really interested in knowing what is the truth?

"Angry" because I would have liked to know what would have been Jesus' reply. Some would, I suppose quote me a previous declaration by Jesus "I am the truth" still I would have liked had Pilate stayed inside and waited for a reply. What would have Jesus told him. Would his reply have been an elaboration of his previous declaration or a repetition of it.

Maybe Pilate was more comfortable as he was and regretted having asked the question? Would we have been even angrier had we had the reply?

Joseph A Borg

Apr 27th 2010, 13:47

@ Kenneth Cassar: tnx for the Andrew Sullivan link.

@ Charles Caruana: GG&S is a great book. I recommend you read it. I read it once a long time ago and gave me the impression that Diamond wanted to dismantle the idea that white man's race is innately superior thanks to their current achievements. A good example is his linking of geography and how agriculture developed in many regions around the world.

An interesting example he gives is why south americans didn't use the wheel: they knew of the wheel as there are children's toys still around with wheels. Their problem was the lack of beasts of burden.

Charles, you gave us a QUOTE from an eminent philosopher, Kenneth referred you to a WHOLE BOOK describing in detail Europe's ascent (not Christianity's).

I guess you'd agree that chemistry is superior to alchemy and astronomy is superior to astrology etc… I'm disdainful towards fields of study where preposterous assertions cannot be tempered by rigorous experimentation – but I'm saying anything new in this regard and you know it.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2010, 12:07

Now back on topic. "It is more comfortable to live the lie, but then men get angry about the truth", the Pope once said.

Well, I wonder...how many people will get angry about this truth: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-third-strike.html

John Ebejer

Apr 27th 2010, 12:06

@ Kenneth Cassar: I have very little time to engage in 'debates' with you - or with anyone else. However, I have been endowed with enough interior wisdom to know that, albeit all the lack of 'worldly-tangible' proof that we have of God's existence, and albeit all the bad examples that an established religion may 'bestow' on people,I still believe that, at the end of the day, the most foolish and the most unintelligent person is he or she who does not believe in the existence and goodness of God.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2010, 09:26

@ Charles Caruana:

By the way, Jared Diamond's book that I pointed to, does not even mention the claim that civilisation as we know it supposedly came through Christianity. It only deals at some length on the plausible or evidenced reasons that led to some parts of the world "progressing" (technologically and organisation-wise) more than others.

So if I wanted to "argue from authority" to dismiss the claim that civilization couldn't have been attained without Christianity, I would have to select another "authority". But of course, I'm not even remotely interested in doing that.

ftheuma

Apr 27th 2010, 08:47

@Orazio Cachia
I do not require any permission from you on how to discuss, thank you very much. I was also making a point: that in my experience die-hard Maltese catholics defend the church in one sentence and spout racist nonsense in the next.
By the way I do happen to believe that I can 'insult' your ideas and beliefs, as you can mine. I can also assure you that I am a life student of the workings, beliefs and ideas of the catholic church. I do not believe in criticising something that I know nothing of. So your sending me to do research is both patronising and fatuous. Next time you want to engage you might want to come up with more substance rather than hurt feelings and empty assumptions.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2010, 08:06

@ Charles Caruana:

"I’m sure you will find some syllogism or fallacy to explain this".

It is impossible to find a fallacy to explain "this". The only thing a fallacy can explain is the error of the one making it. And it is not the fallacy itself that explains. It is the fact that the person makes it.

Another instance of the communication problem we're having.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2010, 07:55

@ John Ebejer:

Laugh if you will. Sharing knowledge is not showing off. But if you want to believe otherwise, suit yourself and laugh to your heart's content. It doesn't take much skill to laugh. It does a little to understand. Some try to understand and learn...some laugh it off...do as you please.

If the "average" guy thinks we're mad, could this be because he/she's actually below average after all? I say this because I have a higher impression of the average guy. He would not laugh at anything he does not understand.

As for convincing anyone of our atheism, we're not trying to. We're only discussing and debating. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

As for "impressing (you) about why Dawkins should be given more import than any other British thinker", I don't believe any atheist here is doing that. It was Christians who brought Dawkins into the discussion (Fr Joe Borg the first), as an "object of ridicule". But your including "whoever he is" when referring to Dawkins, says a lot about you. Sometimes things backfire, so one has to be extra careful.

Dismiss this as nonsense or boasting, if you wish.

Dawn Cummings

Apr 27th 2010, 07:44

@TG Curmi
Version 1:God fashions a man from the dust (not mud...sorry) and blowing life into his nostrils
Version 2:God causes the man to sleep, and creates a woman from his rib.

I don't mean that you are taking the bible literally. My point was that I hardly can take a book seriously that is inconsistent in itself and give attention to it in any way. But I guess there is the philosophical element to it that makes it important.

I am a bit sad that I myself can't really understand what it means to believes in a creator God and a saviour Jesus. That's why (and please do not be offended cos I am just trying to explain by making an example) I see all religious followers of the catholic and other churches like someone who still believes in Santa Claus or Friday 13th. I mean what would you tell a grown up adult who still believes that Santa Claus comes down the chimney? I would shake my head and say "Open your eyes" and feel pity for that fella. Sorry again.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2010, 07:31

Just in case someone has not got it yet:

Suggesting a book for further reading is not arguing from authority. If that were so, everyone who reads would be "arguing from authority".

Quoting someone and referring to him as really intelligent and enlightened (as if that needed saying...maybe to "prove a point"?), quite clearly is.

Case closed.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2010, 07:19

@ Charles Caruana (part 2):

4. I couldn't have used the wikipedia article to "prove a point", since that would need assuming you would read the article for which I provided only a link. If I wanted to "argue from authority", I would have quoted Diamond. I never even did that.

5. If you think that you will effect me in any way by insulting Dawkins, think again. Atheists don't have holy men. I've had my disagreements with Dawkins on some of his claims in his books, but I won't waste any time going into that. You wouldn't understand. You'd have to read the books first. I'm confindent you've read none.

6. Pointing out serious errors in your English, errors that are making our communication difficult to say the least, does not mean I know it all.

7. Strident? I never am. Look it up in the dictionary, and see if it applies to me.

8. It's only fair that I have the last word, since you started it all...but if you wish to go on, please do. Nobody's stopping you.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2010, 07:17

@ Charles Caruana (part 1):

I am afraid we're having huge communication problems here.

1. Recommending a book is not arguing from authority. It is giving a source for further reading. Quoting from someone whom you specifically describe as "one really intelligent atheist and enlightened secularist" (as if anyone who disagrees with him must clearly be not intelligent and enlightened) IS arguing from authority.

2. I did not quote Jared Diamond. I simply gave a link to a description and information (including criticism) of his book. If I wanted to argue from authority, I would have directed you to a page that only praises Diamond's work. But I guess you did not even read the page.

3. I do not view Wikipedia as authoritative, but its an information source that is easy to find, most times accurate (including sources), and a good way for those who would not read a book to at least get a general idea. Alas, some people would not even do that (read a one-page summary).

Cont...

Joe Xuereb

Apr 27th 2010, 00:55

'Come to think of it, we believers in God owe you atheists a world of gratitude for being true believers in His non-existence. You are obsessed with God, you constantly think and write against Him with a religious fervour'. So wrote one Caruana, Charles who used an age-old ploy, a ruse that only works with some, not all, infants. And here is where the spoon-feeding comes in. This is how it works. A (a believer) believes in X. B (an atheist) does not believe in X and 'obsessively goes on about it. So A, craftily (he thinks) tells B that his obsession only serves to reinforce his (A's) believe. Thinking and hoping that B will shut up and he (A) can sleep easy at night. Problem is - B is not only cute, s/he is also astute and just laughs at the pathetic little trap that sprang back on the setter (of the trap). Set another, cleverer one A. But remember. One mistake is bad enough but I'll forgive you (after all your gullibility is well proven). But the same mistake twice - that's a different 'kitla hut' (pronounced kIT-lah-hoot accented on KIT). Meaning 'kettle of fish'.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 27th 2010, 00:49

@John Ebejer. You sound like a tepid, indifferent believer at best. You will also have noted that nobody here 'sits on the fence' which is where you're at. Be that as it may, it is good for you to stick by what you believe. Malta has to have some representatives if it is to continue to being called catholic.
I find these exchanges very interesting because they afford me further insights into 'Why Religion?' Of course religion is felt to be necessary wherever it happens but, like everything else Maltese, the need for religion in Malta feels out of synch with that in the rest of the world (yes, out of synch even with the Philippines). As an outsider looking in, I can afford to ask this question. Maybe the Maltese should take a little big risk and ask it of themselves too. One would be amazed how much one can learn, no, not from books, but from a little soul-searching. Maybe this little big exercise is a little painful (read frightening), but, as we say - no pain, no gain.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 27th 2010, 00:18

I guess I've been away so long I have become, like some, terrifyingly scary without lifting a finger. But you're not altogether lost. You have 'clever mystique', an ability to intellectualise which would appear quite disarming to some - and an ability to believe in talking snakes because, or in spite of, all this? Interesting too that you failed to respond adequately to the points made and instead came across as a strident fishwife.
I presume, if I may, that you are a 'happy' practising catholic (good luck to you and all that). At least as much as I happily shun gullibility and intellectualising my life away.
Whether you enjoy this or not is up to you and certainly not my business like your response to me, such as it was, is not my business. You might however, ponder the incongruity of how you present and what you believe in.
Thanks for the Loser link. I don't live through obsessive readings. For me intuitive common sense suffices. So you can keep the Loser as yet another prop.

charles caruana

Apr 26th 2010, 19:28

@Joe Xuereb

Oh Dear! Your snapshot monographs about the religious and anthropological history of mankind are becoming, if nothing else, more amusing, so full of dainty, simpering humour! Gifted with such a subtle sense of humour, I am sure you would appreciate this satirical send-up of the New Atheism, written by a woman with a robust, virile sense of humour herself:
The Loser Letters by Mary Eberstadt

Enjoy!

charles caruana

Apr 26th 2010, 19:04

@Kenneth Cassar
When we get hot under the collar, our memory plays funny tricks. Let me refresh yours then.

Your words: ‘Certainly not BECAUSE of Christianity’I would recommend a good book that answers this question: Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel ).’

I suppose you were not referring me to Diamond’s work, quoted in your beloved and authoritative Wikipedia, to prove the point you were making, namely, ‘Certainly not BECAUSE of Christianity’? And this is not ‘arguing from authority’ is it? Cos, forgive me, I don’t see any arguments of yours to prove your point! I’m sure you will find some syllogism or fallacy to explain this.

I suggest you take a leaf from your mentor’s book, Richard Dawkins the Chosen One : when he became too ‘strident’, he lost his scientific cool, as well as his intellectual authority.

Thanks for the advice about working on my English, I will treasure it. I suppose you know best,you know all!
Have you heard of mimetic rivalry? So I will leave you the honour of having the last word, you seem to need it.But please try not to make it too 'strident'?
Cheers!

John Ebejer

Apr 26th 2010, 18:51

I really can't refrain from laughing at the antics of many people writing below - most of you are trying to outdo each other in showing off how learned and how 'deep' you are. Believe me: the average guy listening to you will most certainly dismiss you all, and thinks that you are all stark raving mad! Cut off from reality, unaware of what is going on around you. You must certainly be quiet silly if you think that by resorting to such tactics, you can win some old argument. Please, stop impressing people and trying to convince them of your atheism, sir, and you, sir, refrain from trying to impress us even further about why Dawkins, whoever he is, should be given more import than any other British thinker.
I say this for Fr Borg - I pity him, the way his blog gets frequently hijacked by people who think that they know better. Well.

Orazio Cachia

Apr 26th 2010, 17:25

@ftheuma.
If you want to disuss please do so without insulting anyone. My referring to racist jokes was to prove a point only. I never said i condone them. This has nothing to do with my level of Christianity. I am not surprised that you tried to hit below the belt, however. Those who lose the argument always do so.
I wholeheartedly join all those who are clamouring for justice in the issue of sexual abuse, and I hope that justice will eventually prevail.
However, this does not make me assert that the Catholic Church should be eradicated. This does not force me to leave the Catholic Church or lose my faith. Far from it. Those who belittle Her do not know Her. Those, whose agenda is to bring the Catholic Church down, do not understand what She is. One said (in this blog) that the Catholic Church is a cult. (Which is not.) You see? Please, before writing on the Catholic Church, do some research.
You'll be amazed how many misconceptions people have. And, for heaven's sake, don't call me an apologist. Unfortunately, I'm not.

Steve Pace

Apr 26th 2010, 16:37

@Orazio Cachia - Part 2 - "Just a piece of advice to all: read Matthew 16, v.18. You'll understand why the Catholic Church will still be standing after all. "

Which church are you referring to? The Anglican Christian church, The Protestant, Greek Orthodox or any one of the other denominations claiming to be in the right.

The verse has been interpreted so differently by protestants and Greek Orthodox , and no one is really sure of the correct interpretation .

As Catholics we have no proof of what the truth is. It’s a matter of faith .

Truth is not necessarily on our side of the coin!

Steve Pace

Apr 26th 2010, 16:26

@Orazio Cachia - " said in my previous comment that before one picks up the pen (or the keyboard?) to write about the Catholic Church one should at least educate himself in such a matter. When I say educate I do not mean a jumble of information that was picked up at Museum lessons when one was a little kid.

Thanks for appreciating our concern . The church teaches us jumble of information when we are kids. Right when the right formation is needed. When we grow up we will hear that all we learnt when we were young was a 'jumble of information' and we need to re-learn everything from scratch . Than we are expected to filter out the truth from the lies . As a practicing catholic i always find somewhat difficult to identify what is true and what is not , especially as the church i belong to emabarrases itself on many occasions .

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 26th 2010, 15:52

@ Richard Curmi:

I wonder what's worse...writing a clearly angry letter, or signing a document instructing the cover-up of pedophilia.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 26th 2010, 12:59

Typically, this blog goes all over the place. Allow me to shore it up and get things tidy Oh well! nothing's fair in love and war as they say).
This Habermas guy. So Christian values have never been superceded and nor will they (unless we resort to the laws of the jungle). Christ taught us to love each other and 'to not do unto others what we wouldn't want done to r.selves' (or words to that effect). Up till then, the laws of the jungle were commonplace, life was cheap. Of course what Jesus was doing was pointing out a truism, if ever there was one. It is not difficult to choose the better of two options open to humans with an evolved consciousness. One option is to kill indiscriminately, to survive or for fun. This still happens even among Christians. The only other option is to 'love as you would be loved'. That was fact even before the universe came into being. To claim that an institution created Christian values is dishonest and a serious case of plagiarism.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 26th 2010, 12:56

Oh dear! another one who pleads attention-span deficiency. I was vilified and raised concern because my expplanation of pubertal sexuality was too elaborate. Whatever next?
'John Jones(1 week, 1 day ago)
Joe Xuereb, your views concern me - it is as if you almost want to make excuses for this disgusting crime with your over elaboration' (from: Man accused of raping boy, 11 - 13thApril 2010). If some cannot understand spoon-feeding, often necessary, they are unlikely to understand complex matters expressed in seven words. If their attention span is wanting, that is hardly my problem. In any case, as with censorship, why would the majority suffer just because one's failing is loss of interest?
The problem with religion - having understood its reason for being - is that, invariably it becomes one's identity. With some religions more than others. Especially the Judaeo/Christian tradition. As such, the id easily feels threatened, often with horrendous results. The trick is to understand 'why religion?'. That done - and I'm not suggesting it's an easy-peasy hurdle - one is surprised how things start to fall into place. With no such place as afterlife of course. That's the toughest bit to negotiate I'm afraid.

Richard Curmi

Apr 26th 2010, 12:46

Professor Richard Dawkins is letting his strident, theatrical and hysterical vulgar name calling of the Pope run away with him to a point that does not befit a scientist of his stature.

No one in their right mind would ever deny the monstrosity of child abuse especially when perpetrated by religious people. And no one in their right mind would ever deny the evil act of those who intentionally and for whatever purpose tried to cover up for these criminals.

However using such vulgarity as shown by some opponents of christianity, not necessarily here, indicates ulterior motives beyond the exposition of scientific evidence against what they perceive as fairy tales.

I wonder whether such a successful papal visit to Malta fuelled more antagonism on one side because when the pope met the victims of paedophile priests, he did what they never expected that he would do.

Of course everyone now expects that this gesture will be followed by concrete action in doing justice with the victims and by putting a policy in place that helps as much as is humanly possible to prevent any further child abuse.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 26th 2010, 12:28

@ Charles Caruana:

The nth blooper: "And your respect for the ‘strident’ authority of Richard Dawkins".

Please note that there is no such thing as "strident authority". You should work on your English before trying to impress anyone with "your" latin.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 26th 2010, 12:18

@ Charles Caruana:

Please tell me that you weren't serious when you told me I was arguing from authority when I pointed you to the definition of "arguing from authority".

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 26th 2010, 12:13

@ Charles Caruana:

Person A: Define "arguing from authority".

Person B: (gives wikipedia's definition of "arguing from authority").

Person A: You're arguing from wikipedia's authority.

Person B thinks to himself: (Person A hasn't got a clue).

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 26th 2010, 12:08

@ Charles Caruana:

Are you serious? If you read the definition of "arguing from authority" (my wikipedia link), you will know that pointing out a definition is not "arguing from authority". Quoting someone just to "prove a point", however, is.

As for my "respect" for the "authority of Dawkins" (in his specialised field - science), I can't see from where you got the impression that it borders on worship. So yes, you are terribly mistaken. And no, I have never "argued from authority" in this blog. If you think I did, please point them out.

Have fun.

Fr Joe Borg

Apr 26th 2010, 11:54

@ Ch Caruana. Thanks.

charles caruana

Apr 26th 2010, 11:43

@Kenneth Cassar

Thanks for pointing out my major fallacy, especially since you did so by arguing from the authority of Wikipedia!
And your respect for the ‘strident’ authority of Richard Dawkins does seem to border on worship, or am I mistaken? Perhaps you have never argued from any authorities in this blog – go over them to check it out.
If not, is it perhaps because you consider yourself the one and only authority?

Have fun!

charles caruana

Apr 26th 2010, 11:22

@Patrik Larsson
Your words: ‘...he was arrested for saying they are a “cancer to society”’.
Again you failed to add the fact that Ake Green was acquitted twice by superior courts, for the charges were as spurious and absurd as the difference you make between ‘calling a whole group of people "a cancer" , which you found so abhorrent, and that ‘single man’ canard you came out with, which you found so excusable. Apparently your minute of Googling was less than a second.
Your capacity to nitpick and select convenient facts, suppressing those that are uncongenial or embarrassing is truly stunning; it would have put to shame Protagoras himself.
Your words; ‘The pope has been insulted, not for simply being the pope, but based on his actions.’ That ‘simply’ shows your gift for understatement to wonderful effect. Does that mean he was also insulted for being a pope, and therefore your whole syllogism is a lamentable ‘faux pas’?
To such tendentiousness I can only answer,and definitely conclude, with Dante’s immortal words:
"Fama di loro il mondo esser non lassa;
misericordia e giustizia li sdegna:
non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa."

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 26th 2010, 08:29

@ Charles Caruana:

By the way, that Professor Richard Dawkins is a world renowned scientist is beyond dispute. It is a fact that every person whose reading materials are not limited to comics has known for decades.

However, I wouldn't be surprised that some people have only discovered Dawkins from his recent contributions on the child abuse scandal. After all, some people still believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, since it says so in the bible.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 26th 2010, 07:42

@ Charles Caruana:

Regarding Habermas, let's say you are not quoting him out of context. However, I hope you understand that you are committing a major fallacy: Arguing from authority.

Here's another wikipedia page for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Enjoy.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 26th 2010, 07:38

@ Orazio Cachia:

"This is really a strange world. Everyone has the right to ridicule the Vicar of Christ. Yet if I try to ridicule a black man ( which , of course, I don't have in mind to do so) I am called a racist and thrown, perhaps, into prison".

Let's ignore the fact that no one has ridiculed the Pope here. It should be pointed out to you that if you ridicule a black man just because he's black, then yes, you would be a racist. If however, you ridicule anyone irrespective of the colour of his skin, that would be a totally different question.

One chooses one's religion. One does not choose one's skin colour. Religion can be a source of good or evil. Skin colour cannot in and of itself be a source of either. Skin colour is neutral.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 26th 2010, 07:33

@ Charles Caruana:

"...check out this statement of that acclaimed Pope of the New Atheism, his holiness Richard Dawkins, the ‘world –renowned scientist’".

And your point is...? That atheist scientists can be strident? Of course they can. Now how about saying something useful for a change.

charles caruana

Apr 25th 2010, 22:03

@ Patrik Larrson
You were quite aware of the proper quote, yet for some strange reason you failed to reproduce it – I wonder why? Is it because it confirms the basic concept?

Your words:‘no doubt that Habermas recognised the incredibly influence Chrisitianity and Judaism has had on Western Civilization…The two quotes while having similarities, have substantial differences and are only correct when quoted appropriately.’

Your capacity for sophistry and quibbling borders on the mendacious. Did Habermas say and mean that Secular values are the ‘direct legacy …substantially unchanged’ of Judeo-Christianity and ‘there is no alternative to it… we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage’ or not? Just answer this question please, without pseudo logic-chopping.

Why don’t you agree with the Swedish sentence? Too politically correct even for you? So calling a whole group of people a cancer is execrable, but vilifying both a spiritual leader AND his whole church embracing over a billion believers is not? ‘the evil, corrupt organization …whole rotten edifice – the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution’ Dawkins.

Where is the difference pray? ‘single man?’ – who is manipulating quotations now?

YOU try again

TG CURMI

Apr 25th 2010, 21:03

@ Dawn Cummings

"And I don't mind criticising the Catholics...it's a kind of mission where one catholic at a time will look up from their (one) book, in which it first says that God created Adam and Eve from mud, but then that Eve was made from Adam's rib and many other contradictions and ask themselves if the rest could just be made up too."

Two points:
(1) The creation stories do not say that God created Adam and Eve from mud.
(2) Do you sincerely think that the Catholic Church teaches that the creation narratives should be interpreted literally?

ftheuma

Apr 25th 2010, 20:25

@ Orazio Cachia:
'Yet if I try to ridicule a black man ( which , of course, I don't have in mind to do so) I am called a racist and thrown, perhaps, into prison' The fact that you feel entitled to express contempt of Jews, Mexicans, and Black people does not say much for your level of christianity. I am always astounded by the unabashedly immoral statements made by church apologists without realising that they are in fact contradicting what they are supposed to be defending. As to ridiculing the pope, again confusion and unwarranted assumptions reign supreme. If you are an unbeliever then he is nobody's vicar but simply the head of a mini state and the head of a huge cult. What you hasten to call ridicule is often criticism. No one should be immune from criticism not even the pope. To remark that the pope should put his house in order is criticism not ridicule. Of course the church has been around for 2000 years and will be around for more, but so has the jewish faith, hinduism, and islam to name a few. Does that make any of them true?

Patrik Larsson

Apr 25th 2010, 18:45

Orazio Cachia:
Even you perform that faux pas. You can ridicule a black man, but not for being black, just as you can ridicule a jewish man, but not for being jewish. The pope has been insulted, not for simply being the pope, but based on his actions.

Quite embarrasing that it has to be pointed out so often.

Patrik Larsson

Apr 25th 2010, 18:41

Charles Caruana:
I'm very aware of the proper quote, even a minute of Googling shows the correction. The two quotes, while having similarities, have substantial differences and are only correct when quoted appropriately.

Further, Åke Green, who is the paster you spoke about was not sentenced for calling homosexuallity sinful, he was arrested for saying they are a "cancer to society". I don't agree with the sentence, but you are playing loose and fast with the facts here.

I think you can see the difference between calling a whole group of people "a cancer" and calling a single man - who happen to be the head of a state (presumably) and should be able to take the criticism - "a leering old villan".

Try again.

charles caruana

Apr 25th 2010, 17:48

@Dawn Cummings

You leave me speechless... but please go on with your 'mission', who knows you might 'convert' me to stop looking into my (one) book and to delve deeper into wikipedia in search of that 'evolution thinky.'

@ Orazio Cachia

Not strange at all, just the latest fashionable religion of political correctness. If I dare say publicly that homosexual acts (not persons mind) are sinful, I become a homophobic spewing hate speech, and hauled into prison for a month. This really happened to a Swedish Pastor. If someone calls his Holiness Pope Benedict 'A leering old villain in a frock,' and goes into a paroxysm of even more insulting accusations, he is exercising his right to free speech, and admired as a 'world renowned scientist'. That, my friend, is what we are heading for, and it is called secularist tolerance!

charles caruana

Apr 25th 2010, 15:15

cont./
The exact published quotation from the book "A Time of Transition," is as follows:

"Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." (Jürgen Habermas - "Time of Transitions", Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999).

Secular values are the ‘direct legacy …substantially unchanged’ of Judeo-Christianity and ‘there is no alternative to it… we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage.’

Gainsay that Mr. Larsson!

charles caruana

Apr 25th 2010, 15:07

@ Father Joe Borg
The version I quoted was put as a question to Habermas himself , where, without gainsaying it or calling it a misquote, he clarified that it was based on an interview he had given earlier. This can be confirmed here:

http://sciencestage.com/v/958/jrgen-habermas-christianity-and-liberalism.html

The quote I gave is apparently a substantially correct paraphrase and part quote by the Italian religious commentator Sandro Magister of a quotation from one of Habermas’ books, which runs as follows:

‘But to read his most recent essay translated in Italy, "A Time of Transition," published by Feltrinelli and available in bookstores since mid-November, Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization:
"To this day, we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Cont./

Orazio Cachia

Apr 25th 2010, 15:00

This is really a strange world. Everyone has the right to ridicule the Vicar of Christ. Yet if I try to ridicule a black man ( which , of course, I don't have in mind to do so) I am called a racist and thrown, perhaps, into prison. I am not even allowed to crack a joke in public about the Jews, the Mexicans etc as I will be labelled a racist as well. Yet no one blinks an eye when someone writes in a newspaper and advises the Pope to wash his muck before even thinking about coming to Malta.
I said in my previous comment that before one picks up the pen (or the keyboard?) to write about the Catholic Church one should at least educate himself in such a matter. When I say educate I do not mean a jumble of information that was picked up at Museum lessons when one was a little kid.
Just a piece of advice to all: read Matthew 16, v.18. You'll understand why the Catholic Church will still be standing after all.

Steve Pace

Apr 25th 2010, 10:39

@Jessica Debattista... ."I feel that your insinuation was aimed to question his mental alertness and you put it down to the fact that he had to read his pre-written speeches because he was not in a position to deliver an impromptu speech. That was the ulterior motive I sensed – not that it needed too much clarification, as you can see!

There is no ulterior motive in stating what was so obvious to so many .

@Dawn Cummings .

"It would be incorrect to measure how catholic and truly religious a nation is by the quantity of visitors who were present outside to see the pope. Don't rush into conclusions"

I totally agree with you on this one. What i see around me everyday is a long way away from what i percieve and learnt to be catholic

charles caruana

Apr 25th 2010, 10:15

For the delectation all contributors to this blog, check out this statement of that acclaimed Pope of the New Atheism, his holiness Richard Dawkins, the ‘world –renowned scientist’ . Note in particular his cool rational explication, his detached objective manner, inspired by a strict, disinterested, scientific spirit, without any trace of hate, diatribe or intolerance. Note also very carefully the two sentence comment on it by Damian Thompson – it’s a work of art!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100031796/richard-dawkins

Enjoy!

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2010, 09:56

@ Jessica DeBattista:

When one has much to say, one cannot reasonably be expected to say it in a couple of sentences. I'm not interested in one-liner claims. I'm only interested in building up an argument and following it through to its rational conclusion, even saying the obvious (which may not be so obvious to some) if necessary.

In any case, no one is duty bound to read any of my posts, so anyone who thinks my long winded posts are a bad idea, may always skip them. I know that debate is not everyone's hobby.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2010, 09:34

@ Charles Caruana:

It's funny how you assume that some people get their culture from wikipedia, when you yourself obviously quote-mine from other websites. I hope you don't expect us to take a book off our bookshelves, scan the page, create a website of our own, and post a link to it.

I expect better from people like you...like for instance, reading whole books from distinguished atheist philosophers and scientists before criticizing atheism. But I guess that would be too daunting a task.

Dawn Cummings

Apr 24th 2010, 19:39

I don't mind getting my culture from blogs and wikipedia. I think I am in good hands with wikipedia, in which it says that the world is round, planets and the earth revolve around the sun and the evolution thinky.

And I don't mind critisizing the catholics...it's a kind of mission where one catholic at a time will look up from their (one) book in which it first says that God created Adam and Eve from mud, but then that Eve was made from Adam's rib and many other contradictions and ask themselves if the rest could be just made up too.

I cross my fingers and wish for the catholics good luck for the true enlightenment which would be to google their answers rather then to ask their bible.

Fr Joe Borg

Apr 24th 2010, 19:32

@ Charles Caruana. Can you please give the source of your quote from Habermas?

Patrik Larsson

Apr 24th 2010, 16:53

Charles Caruana:
you completely misquoted Habermas. There is no doubt that Habermas recognised the incredibly influence Chrisitianity and Judaism has had on Western Civilization, but that has nothing to do with the truth value of the claims.

You may claim that vocal opposition to your theism helps strengthen it and I will relish in you thinking so. Ask yourself the question whether Christianity had its strongest influence and hold on people when it was unchallenged, or today when it is being strongly challenged, from so many directions. Your polemics are harshly cut down with solid facts.

So no, I have no problem in openly criticising bad ideas, rather than staying silent about them in hope they will go away. Especially when the proponents can't even accurately quote people.

charles caruana

Apr 23rd 2010, 21:55

For those atheists who get their culture mostly from blogs and wikipedia, here is a quote from one really intelligent atheist and enlightened secularist:

“Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.”

Jurgen Habermas

Enjoy!

charles caruana

Apr 23rd 2010, 21:31

cont./

Only one secret escaped them – the Cross was a Hook!

charles caruana

Apr 23rd 2010, 21:28

Come to think of it, we believers in God owe you atheists a world of gratitude for being true believers in His non- existence. You are obsessed with God, you constantly think and write against Him with a religious fervour, spreading the good news of His impending ‘demise’, as well as that of his Church. Thank you indeed, for you keep the God question permanently open with your passionate zeal. Your missionary struggles to attack and eradicate the idea of God amongst men is helping immensely to keep it alive. The real enemies of God are the indifference of tepid Christians and and the silence of pagan hedonists. Not you, you atheists are single-minded and dedicated workers in the vineyard of the Lord, and your constant railing, mockery and cynical criticism of the Church are wonderful tools for her purification! Faith and history have repeatedly shown that the Church thrived best under persecution, and never was as strong as when her weakness was revealed. Remember those jeerers and scoffers at the foot of the cross challenging a battered defeated God-man to save himself? They also played their part in the unique drama of salvation.
cont./

Dawn Cummings

Apr 23rd 2010, 19:39

It would be incorrect to measure how catholic and truly religious a nation is by the quantity of visitors who were present outside to see the pope. Don't rush into conclusions.

You think those thousands of kids and youngsters were standing next to the road because they are truly catholic? Come on...I bet the majority of them don't attend church service. Same could be said for adults...I don't want to pick on the young generation only...don't get me wrong.

It was a sunny day and a nice occasion to see the pope in person. I as an atheist watched too, my catholic friend instead staid home with her little kids. So I am religious and she a non-believer?

If President Obama came to Malta and had the same welcoming like the pope had...would you say the maltese are american?

I don't think so...

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 23rd 2010, 19:08

@ Steve Pace: “"I sense an ulterior motive behind the content of your comments"

Can you please clarify without putting your words or thoughts in my comments ?”

I think I was clear enough when I asked the question: “Are you trying to make the Pope out to be a doddering old man like somebody hinted in another blog?”

I feel that your insinuation was aimed to question his mental alertness and you put it down to the fact that he had to read his pre-written speeches because he was not in a position to deliver an impromptu speech. That was the ulterior motive I sensed – not that it needed too much clarification, as you can see!

@ Kenneth Cassar:
Kenneth, you do get “long-winded” sometimes. I don’t think it is a good idea! I tend to lose interest very quickly – one of my failings I suppose! However, I did read it all and I agree with some points, but there are others which are so obvious that they become irrelevant.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 18:30

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

Karl Marx - Introduction to "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right".

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 18:22

@ Joe Xuereb:

"This (these?) blog/s end up all over the place. Primarily because half the camp ONLY respond to those parts of their 'opponents' comment that they can use as ammunition. So one could be here forever and a day and still not make headway".

My thoughts exactly.

Joe Xuereb

Apr 23rd 2010, 18:02

@ Cassar, Kenneth. I knew you had 'zing' somewhere about your person. With all due respect, I couldn't resist that.
Religion and democracy, etc. are strange bedfellows. Never heard that one before. One lives and learns. As for Dante (creative or what?) and his take on some holy men?! Oops!!
This (these?) blog/s end up all over the place. Primarily because half the camp ONLY respond to those parts of their 'opponents' comment that they can use as ammuniction. So one could be here forever and a day and still not make headway. So, allow me to shore up (and note I make no mention of treatises, be they secular, philosophical or biblical).
Man created god in his own image, personified him(?), gave him(?) admonishing pointy finger and ire, and love. Existential angst, sorted. Pill, sugared. Abdication of responsibility attained at a stroke. Of course it doesn't work (you want proof?). Look around (but not with eyes wide shut, please!).
Call it church, cathedral, mosque, popemobil, call it what you will. At the end of the day a den is all it is.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 17:44

@ Robert Attard:

"The opium is wearing off!!!!".

I wouldn't say that. I imagine that your phrase was inspired by Karl Marx's "Religion is the opium of the people". However, that is an oft misunderstood and misquoted phrase. All that Marx meant by that is that religion consoles and relieves people of some of the anguish of every day life.

Andrew Battenti

Apr 23rd 2010, 16:12

The current crisis in the Western Church is perhaps a golden opportunity for all the faithful to seek shelter within the impenetrable fortress that is Eastern Orthodoxy. I find Bishop Hilarion's "European Alliance" (*), the most encouraging and visible sign of a tangible European regeneration, certainly in my lifetime, and quite possibly, since the conclusion of hostilities in Europe in 1945.

(*) "Towards a Catholic Orthodox Alliance" Interview with Hilarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria, Representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions, by Robert Moynihan, editor-in-chief of ‘Inside the Vatican’, on 24 April 2005, the day of enthronement of Pope Benedict XVI

Joe Xuereb

Apr 23rd 2010, 16:06

How often do we hear/read, even on these pages, that odious phrase, 'with all due respect'. Respect due to what? VERY odious. I circumvent the phrase any which way these days because I know I would kick myself if I said it of/to someone who subsequently proves himself/herself a right rogue (examples abound). This is the problem with respecting people who have titles and positions. Now, if one believes in creators and all that, one would concede that only god is perfect. Isn't he? Anybody and everybody below that godly accolade is imperfect. Yes, even the pope (but he's infallible you are told and respect is de rigueur, automatic, absolute, otherwise, under pain of Fr. Joe Borg's ire). The gist of all this is that respect needs to be earned. Consistently. It must be merited. Consistently. Now that is quite a tall order if nothing else because people's private thoughts are very private. Which makes respect a mere reaction to what one sees. Very flawed. Very flawed indeed.
The young don't do church much we're told. Yet they flock to the capital in their thousands to pay their respects to a visiting 'leader'.(?????)
Very well observed Dawn Cummings.

Dawn Cummings

Apr 23rd 2010, 15:33

@Jessica

Do you mean atheists (me included) have no respect? Everyone should respect others who embrace a religion...sure why not - I totally agree with you here Jessica. But why don't you (the Catholics) respect the introduction of civil divorce? "Live and let live" you are saying and this would be indeed the ideal situation for everyone but sadly it's not what I am experiencing here in Malta. What I am seeing is them pointing fingers to the separated (even non-catholics one) individuals out there and label them as sinners because they engage into a new relationship and build a family. Who are they to judge about why my marriage failed and decide not to give me a second chance? Why not introduce it for the non-catholics only then? Everyone would be happy, no?

@Daniel
But statistically the majority of the Maltese population is catholic right? In the region of 90%, no? Anyway, that was my point exactly: Officially Malta prouds itself to be catholic....but reality is very far from it...the 60% you quoted seem quite realistic to me. But this kind of statistic you won't get confirmed anywhere.

Steve Pace

Apr 23rd 2010, 15:29

@Fr. Joe - "@ Orazio Cachia. You are right on target my friend. The lack of respect that some people show for the sentiments of others and for all things religious is incredible."

So true .... As i am sure you also would say the same thing to the Maltese church and some members of its clergy when dealing with a number of other issues where their stand is so obsolete !

Perhaps if the Maltese church took some courage to publicly and officially ask for pardon for the two or more interdictions put into practice in Malta in the past together with the threat of mortal sin for those who voted labour during those times, there would be a wider consensus that the church really wants the best for everyone and it too would probably gain more credibility and respect .

Offering no answers to many questions placed before you in many blogs makes some also feel that there is a lack of respect from your end , towards people searching for the truth .

its a double edged sword ... Both sides cut and both sides are very painful.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 15:21

@ Charles Caruana:

You're quote mining ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context ).

Saying that "superstition overcame Europe" (a historical fact) is not the same thing as "dismiss(ing) two thousand years of Christian civilization as superstition".

"Why did science, democracy and civil rights appear in the Christian West and nowhere else?"

Certainly not BECAUSE of Christianity. I would recommend a good book that answers this question: Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel ).

Steve Pace

Apr 23rd 2010, 15:11

@Jessica Debattista - "I sense an ulterior motive behind the content of your comments"

Can you please clarify without putting your words or thoughts in my comments ?

Robert Attard

Apr 23rd 2010, 14:22

"the Pontiff's words revealed that there are deeper issues of alienation of Catholics in Europe or the United States as evidenced by declines in Mass attendance, priestly vocations, and marriage within the European and American Church. "

The opium is wearing off!!!!

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 13:46

@ Jessica DeBattista (part 4):

I believe that this blog is an adult blog (not in the sense understood of adult movies), and that people who participate are mature enough not to take offense every time someone criticizes their perhaps deeply-held beliefs. In any free debate, there will be people who will offend without really being offensive, if you know what I mean.

If we were to be expected to refrain from saying anything that would cause offense to anyone, we would end up discussing only recipes (perhaps not even that - meat recipes might be offensive to vegetarians like me ;)

Come to think of it, imagine what people would think if I stopped anyone talking about a meat recipe, telling them that they were causing me offense! I hope you get my point.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 13:45

@ Jessica DeBattista (part 3):

Apologies for the long-winded reply, but since I have mentioned this several times, I need to explain myself well so that I will not be misunderstood.

Let's say the blog becomes a "religious people only" blog, and makes this clear for all to see. Then, while it may perhaps be seen as unfair for the blog to criticize (and sometimes ridicule) unbelievers without them having the opportunity to reply back on the same medium (the blog), at least people who visit the blog will know what to expect - that is, they will know that the non-religious are not replying back not because Fr Joe (or any other religious person) must be right, but because the non-religious would be denied the opportunity to reply back.

If, on the otherhand, the blog remains what I describe as a "free blog", then both the religious and the non-religious are to be expected to air their honest views without being labelled "offensive" or "disrespectful" just because they are being honest about how they feel about other people's beliefs (or lack of beliefs).

Cont...

Joseph A Borg

Apr 23rd 2010, 13:25

@ Charles Caruana:

May I quip with a Gandhi quote here: What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea.

Modern science, was born out of man's questioning of superstitions in the late 17th century. It's interesting to read about the struggles Newton went through in bridging his very superstitious nature with his brilliant analytical mind. You succeeded in ignoring democracy in Athens, human rights in ancient Babylon. The medical compendium written by Galen effectively marks the end of human enquiry and health sciences have languished for more than a millennium in Europe because of those waiting for the rapture in their lifetime. Same with architecture: it took Vitruvius' De architectura to spark the renaissance.

The catholic church didn't succeed in keeping the Empire united. Why take its advice on managing the state? Math & science continued to flourish in the east but it took Europeans shedding the shackles of superstition to finally give YOU the benefits of modern science.

I'd follow Zeno or Epicurus to your Jesus any day.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 13:22

@ Jessica DeBattista (part 2):

"But it would help atheists to have more respect, if not towards the religion others embrace, at least to the commentators themselves who are entitled, as much as anybody else, to express their views without being regarded as fossils from way back when".

This works both ways. However, when one takes offence, one would be expected to give justified rational reasons for taking offense. Not holding religious things sacred (as the religious people do) is not one good reason.

And no, politeness is not outdated. There are ways and ways of saying things. But I always value honesty above "political correctness". If I believe (as evidence shows) that the Pope, for instance, covered up pedophilia "for the good of the Church", I will say so, regardless of the fact that it will "cause offense".

I believe I should respect people (with some reservations), but I have no duty to respect any of their beliefs. Neither do others have a duty to respect mine.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 13:19

@ Jessica DeBattista (part 1):

"Now that would be very anti-democratic, wouldn’t it Kenneth?".

Not really. The Times Online is a privately owned website, with every right to decide what to publish and what not to publish. Moreover, the Blog is Fr Joe's, so the issue would be between him and The Times.

That wouldn't be censorship, as long as people will be allowed to air their views elsewhere. And as long as it is established that - for instance - I (or any other) am not allowed to comment, I would respect that. But as long as the blog gives the impression that it is a free blog (in the sense of allowing dissent), then the blog author shouldn't complain when the dissenting voices keep coming in.

"Come to think of it, what if he were to say it? Imagine the uproar from the staunch atheists".

As you say, I will not be one of them. In any case, there are only two options:

1. Allow dissent, but don't complain for it.
2. Disallow dissent, as they (Fr Joe/The Times) have every right to.

Cont...

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 23rd 2010, 11:30

@ Kenneth Cassar: “I will immediately stop commenting just as soon as you place a notice saying that "atheists and other dissenters of things religious are not welcome", or something to that effect.”

Now that would be very anti-democratic, wouldn’t it Kenneth? I don’t suppose anyone would ask that, let alone the writer of this blog who is very much aware of the kind of dissenters his articles attract.

Come to think of it, what if he were to say it?

Imagine the uproar from the staunch atheists. Not from you Kenneth, for sure – You are too much of a gentleman! – You would stand by your word. But the others…..

But no! That would not be a good idea - the discussion would lose its ‘zing’.

But it would help atheists to have more respect, if not towards the religion others embrace, at least to the commentators themselves who are entitled, as much as anybody else, to express their views without being regarded as fossils from way back when. - For politeness sake at least - or is ‘politeness’ outdated too?

charles caruana

Apr 23rd 2010, 09:52

cont.
for his Holiness Pope Benedict than is shown by some of the shoddy provincial atheists of this blog. He even wrote a book with him, which might enlighten you. About the ambiguous legacy of the Enlightenment read Horkheimer and Adorno and Zigmunt Bauman. You secularists are highly and self-righteously critical of all religion, especially the Catholic Church, which has repeatedly admitted, apologized and redressed many of its historical mistakes. Where is that atheist and secular institution, movement or ideology, including you their self-proclaimed champions, that have done as much? I am still waiting from you secular proselytists a single word of self-criticism regarding yourself and your ideology. Get down from your moral high horse.

Daniel Vella

Apr 23rd 2010, 09:50

2-
In reality, those who believed in the church/god before the pope's visit still do, and those who didn't, still don't. The pope's visit did not change anything (except for maybe some road surfaces and free international "publicity" of the Luqa monument)

Daniel Vella

Apr 23rd 2010, 09:48

@ Dawn Cummings

90% is an over-estimation, I'm sure. Church attendance has dropped to below 60% (if memory serves well - if not, I stand to be corrected).

@ Fr Joe/Orazio Cachia

Who is being intolerant here? Of course one can deny that Pope is the "Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ". That is not an absolute truth (except for the Roman Catholics). What you are both saying is that it's ok to disagree, as long as deep down in our hearts we believe in what you believe. And god forbid should we say otherwise.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 09:37

@ Fr Joe Borg:

One other thing. Apparently ridicule is fine when the one doing the ridiculing is a "Father" and the one at the receiving end is either an atheist or someone who criticizes the Catholic Church. Apparently this would not be lack of respect for the sentiments of others.

You generally choose not to reply much to some people's comments. I can understand why.

charles caruana

Apr 23rd 2010, 09:31

@ Joseph A Borg

'...it's fair to associate the church with fascism...Secularists were born in the age of reason, after superstition overcame Europe for the best part of 1500 years. '

It's offhand simplistic comments like this that convince me of the futility of expecting to have a respectful, balanced and intelligent argument with secularists on this blog. It takes an abysmal lack of historical consciousness and arrogant bravado to dismiss two thousand years of Christian civilization as superstition. Look around you all over Europe, at its arts, its sciences, its cultural, political and economic institutions, and you tell me that Christianity had nothing to do with it? Why did science, democracy and civil rights appear in the Christian West and nowhere else? Even the Enlightenment itself could not have happened anywhere else. Read the sociologist-historian Rodney Stark, an unbeliever, to learn about all this, read that champion of the Enlightenment and an intelligent secularism, the philosopher Jurgen Habermas, another unbeliever, to learn about the crucial role of Christianity in shaping Western. Because Habermas has far more intelligence than the run of the mill 'pop' secularists and atheists,he has far more respect
cont.

Dawn Cummings

Apr 23rd 2010, 08:11

@John Ebejer
I agree with you.
Over 90% of the maltese populatin is catholic Ok fine, but ARE you (plural) truly catholic?
Do you LIVE a catholic life from dawn till dusk like Jesus Christ did teach it?
Or do you think it's enough to go once a week to join the church service?
Texting while mass, gossipping during the psalms and never ever read the bible?
Do you swear during the week, ask for forgiveness Sunday and swear again next Monday? Have no idea what it means to be separated but would vote against civil divorce?

But hey...who am I to judge...you are part of the 90-so-and-so% of maltese catholics. Congratulations Malta! Even the pope comes for a visit and hails your courageous catholic stand.

I feel much safer now.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 08:05

@ Fr Joe Borg:

"The lack of respect that some people show for the sentiments of others and for all things religious is incredible".

I am under the impression that the option of posting comments under the blogs means that people can express their opinions on the content of the blog, even if they disagree on the content and if they (for their own reasons) disrespect religion.

However, if that is not the case, I will immediately stop commenting just as soon as you place a notice saying that "atheists and other dissenters of things religious are not welcome", or something to that effect.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 23rd 2010, 07:36

@ Orazio Cachia:

When criticizing people (saying things such as "they are ridiculing this or that person"), it is only fair to mention names to avoid misunderstanding. I, for one, don't think I have ridiculed the Pope, although I have put my fair share of criticism. No one is beyond criticism (not even a leader of millions of adherents).

You also take too many things for granted. For instance, that the Pope is the "Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ - the Saviour of humanity" is only the belief of Christians (actually Catholics), and certainly people have every right to deny that.

@ Fr Joe Borg:

Am I also right on target when I say that unfortunately, when people criticize religion, many Christians (including you, apparently) see that as "disrespect"? Why should religion be beyond criticism?

Patrik Larsson

Apr 23rd 2010, 07:05

Orazio Cachia:
1. Where did anyone ridicule the pope here?
2. Why can a public figure not be ridiculed? Noone raises an eyebrow when a political figure, a movie star or a famous musicians is ridiculed.
3. One can very much deny the fact that he is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Since when is that a fact?

Joe Xuereb

Apr 22nd 2010, 23:32

@ Orazio Cachia. Why not come out with it? You would feel happier if secularists, atheists and sundry others who refuse to believe in the pope's infallibility. Jesus Christ may be the saviour of humanity if one is into that sort of thing. But the pope is only after saving his own skin. I think he has a lot to answer for (behind the drowsy, sickly-sweet, benign facade).
And have you noticed another thing, Cachia? Can you imagine a comment such as this being written just after the last pope's visit? Times have changed. And Malta. And its people. How Malta has changed these last few years! Why, only last Sunday the pope told us to exercise our Christian values and welcome strangers (as in illegal immigrants) as is our tradition. Ah! Malta and its time-honoured traditions, too numerous, some of them too shameful, to list. They could spell her downfall yet.

Fr Joe Borg

Apr 22nd 2010, 21:18

@ Orazio Cachia. You are right on target my friend. The lack of respect that some people show for the sentiments of others and for all things religious is incredible.

CJohn Zammit

Apr 22nd 2010, 21:04

While Fr. Borg revels in the great reception given to the Holy Father, an Illinois man has just filed suit against the Vatican and the Pope ...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/22/abuse.pope.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2

It was bound to happen, and there will be more.
The tightly closed closet has been busted, and the skeletons are spilling out to spook the Holy Father.

I am sure Fr. Borg will have a lot to comment on this new chapter of the never-ending saga of shame and scandal.

John Ebejer

Apr 22nd 2010, 19:47

At the end of the day, dear ladies and gentlemen, Malta and the Maltese will not change, from the Pope's visit. When all the hue and cry dies down - it has already done so! - people will remain the same. And just because we have so many baptisms and other sacraments taking place, it does not mean that we have a strong Church in Malta. The strength of the Church lies in the way it swacontrols politicians, especially members of the Government, particularly the PM. Otherwise, please, do not be so overwhelmed by the thousands of people thronging the streets of Malta to get a glimpse of the man in white. Separatons will not wane; divorce will continue to be uppermost in people's agendas; pique in localities which will give way to all kinds of sordid and unchristian events; abortions will unfortunately take place and homosexuals continue to flourish, let themselves loose and love each other, as is their right. People will continue to go to church and stay in the last pews, with pastizzi, mobiles and newspapers in their hands. And then, some bright commentator will ask: Fejn huma dawk li sal-bierah kienu qed ihambqu kontra z-zjara tal-Papa?

Orazio Cachia

Apr 22nd 2010, 19:08

The lack of respect really amazes me. Some respect more their dog than the Pope. Even if one does not agree with him, one must bring to mind the fact that the Pontiff is the head of a Church (not rotten as many think) with millions of adherents. If I do not agree with someone it does not mean that I have the right to ridicule him or treat him as an object of derision. Some people had better to know exactly what Roman Catholicism is, because even in Catholic Malta ignorance in religion prevails.
Whatever the Pope is one cannot deny the fact that he is the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ - the Saviour of humanity.

Christine Galea

Apr 22nd 2010, 14:02

@ C Cauchi
On behalf of the Organizing Committee of the Papal Visit, I wish to confirm that Bishop Cauchi was invited to the celebrations. Unfortunately, he was indisposed.

Joseph A Borg

Apr 22nd 2010, 10:11

@Charles Caruana: many of your fellow religionists do not understand this:

Fascism was tied to the church and there are many fascists still hiding behind the church's petticoat, look to Spain. They are the most faithful to the institutions of the church and the most violently vocal when they lose power. Until the church publicly purges its hierarchy of these rightwing demagogues then it's fair to associate the church with fascism.

Secularists do not care about the 'religious depth' of fascists what we care about is institutions and how they serve society. I don't give a hoot about the god references on nazi uniforms and I agree with you that it's more superstition than spirituality.

Secularists were born in the age of reason, after superstition overcame Europe for the best part of 1500 years. Secularists have nothing to do with stalinism.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 22nd 2010, 09:03

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"Perhaps that is what you hoped to stir inside me (anger), but I steer away from such a negative attitude if only to keep age at bay".

Believe that if you wish. I would have cared if you had said that some months ago. Now I know better.

As for any "contemplation" of "disturbance" by your imaginary foes, you need not have thanked me. No effort at all from my part. It would have been an effort had I created (or planned) a "disturbance". Having a picnic with family and friends hardly constitutes an effort (apart from carrying a heavy picnic cooler).

The Commissioner of Police himself had declared that the police were not expecting any disturbances. But of course, that's not enough to reassure the paranoid among us.

And apparently, anything will do to taint atheists as evil, even if only by saying that "maybe", just "maybe" they "contemplated" a disturbance. Oh yes, "contemplated" is a very convenient word, since one can neither prove nor disprove contemplation. And after throwing mud, one can always say "I said 'maybe'...and 'contemplated'". Well...maybe you're being intentionally deceptive...just maybe.

Patrik Larsson

Apr 22nd 2010, 07:14

Charles Caruana:
While agreeing that perhaps calling it "exclusively Catholic" is a bit of a misnomer, you can not deny the extremely close ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the regimes mentioned. In the case of Mussolini there was surely dissonance, going from an anti-clerical position, to eventually one of embrace, but in the cases of Franco and the Ustasi they were close to inseparable.

One of Franco's main goal was to maintain the RCC's influence in all aspects of Spanish life and culture and, as you surely know, was always done at the barrel of a gun.

In regards to the Ustasi it becomes even more disgusting. They had direct support of the Vatican. Priests were running several prominent positions. Jasenovac, a concentration camp that humbled many German run camps in its terror and oppression, was run by a Dominican priest. The war criminals were repeatedly given access to the vatican rat line.

In the case of communism on the other hand, there is absolutely nothing about them that can be called secular, now is there.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 21st 2010, 21:50

@ Kenneth Cassar: “By the way, I can sense that you are still angry. You need not be. See...I told you no one would spoil your day.”

You are mistaken Kenneth. I am not easily moved to anger. Perhaps that is what you hoped to stir inside me, but I steer away from such a negative attitude if only to keep age at bay. And haven’t you heard that crows feet are more becoming than frown lines? So I much rather smile!

My day and that of thousands of others was definitely not spoilt, thank you, and I appreciate the effort that went into the ones that would have, maybe, contemplated a disturbance, but once again the Maltese inbred sense of respect came to the fore. Thank you

jessica DeBattista

Apr 21st 2010, 20:07

@ Steve Pace:
Part 2.

The Pope is a human being and this trip, on top of all the controversy he had to struggle with, was a drain on his strength. It is commendable that he mustered enough energy to travel at all, when the odds were all against him! However, he came out triumphant, notwithstanding the charisma that he is said to be lacking. His pre-written speeches will be the subject of many a debate as, I would say, would also be the admirable pre – written speech that the President Dr. George Abela delivered.

Here I find it opportune to congratulate all those entities who made of this Papal visit such a smooth-running event.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 21st 2010, 20:04

@ Steve Pace: “ “No difference " There is a lot of difference in my opinion . To be honest the pope seemed quite tired and at times looked very much in a daze ! Someone has also suggested that at times he fell asleep .

A public speaker's carisma is definetly a plus . Take Adolf Hitler for example, who in my opinion was a wonderful orator ( even though the content left much to be desired to say the least ).”

Part 1
I sense an ulterior motive behind the content of your comments.

Are you trying to make the Pope out to be a doddering old man like somebody hinted in another blog? He is definitely not in his prime such as Adolf Hitler was when he delivered the ‘demented’ speeches passionately driven by his racial hatred.
Continued…

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 21st 2010, 19:59

@ Jessica DeBattista:

By the way, I can sense that you are still angry. You need not be. See...I told you no one would spoil your day.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 21st 2010, 19:27

@ Jessica DeBattista:

Clutching at straws just for disagreeing with pompous titles? If you want to think so. For want of a better argument? What want for a better argument? I'm only making a point. Disagree if you like. No harm done.

Do I have an egalitarian mentality? Well, that depends on how one defines "egalitarian".
Do I flout etiquette? Depends...if the title is pompous, exaggerated and undeserved, then yes. But that would also be a matter of opinion. We disagree...fine...its not the first time and it won't be the last.

You mention several titles such as doctor, professor, honourable, excellence...(I'll stop there). The first two are deserved because they are earned. The third depends on the person. The fourth is an obvious lie (nobody is excellent). But let's disagree on this too.

And finally, no, I wouldn't address the Pope as "Aw man!, but neither would I call him "His Holiness". Will anybody be offended by this? Tough. People get offended by trivial things all the time.

C Cauchi

Apr 21st 2010, 14:25

Papal visit was very nice and exciting, on Sat my family and I crossed to Malta and managed to see his holiness quite close and clear and on Sunday we spent the whole day infront of the tv, the least we could do to paritcipate since we couldn't cross to Malta again on Sunday.

One question though-it was clear enough that this time the Gozitans were not so excited about the papal visit since he was not visiting Gozo. Why is it that Bishop Nikol Cauchi was no where to be seen?? was he invited?? Arcbishop Mercieca was present to the ceremonies. Perhaps the Curia PRO had forgot to invite him? or someone was just scared that the ex Bishop might take for a few seconds the lime light of the show.........

Joe Xuereb

Apr 21st 2010, 13:47

3) Much was made of St. Paul's shipwreck in Malta during the Pope's sojourn. Now, - and here I stand to be corrected - was the stock of Maltese from 50AD to the present, catholics to the last - was it uninterrupted. I understand there was a time when the archipelago was bereft of any Maltese. If they were away for a couple of weeks, all well and good. If considerably more prolonged, then it was a new stock of Catholics. Which would, in my opinion at least, make of the St. Paul's story a mere historical event that has no bearing on the present. I hope I'm wrong. I really do hope I am wrong.

Steve Pace

Apr 21st 2010, 13:47

@ Richard Curmi. Thanks for explanation . Somewhat clearer in mind but i still cannot understand the difference between "Santo Padre" "Mqaddsa" and Holy father .
@Jessica Debatista .." No difference " There is a lot of difference in my opinion . To be honest the pope seemed quite tired and at times looked very much in a daze ! Someone has also suggested that at times he fell asleep .

A public speaker's carisma is definetly a plus . Take Adolf Hitler for example, who in my opinion was a wonderful orator ( even though the content left much to be desired to say the least ) .

Joe Xuereb

Apr 21st 2010, 13:42

2) The minimal threat of hatred within Islam south of the border is certainly there. Maybe it is even in Malta as we speak (in spite of immigrants going to greet the pope - an attempt at integration maybe? with more plans long-term? There is no maybe in mainland Europe. Minimal yes. It only takes a cell of one or two to send scores sky-high. Sure they are few. But look how much it is costing the world in taking security measures. It affects the quality of one's life. Terrorism is a worst case scenario. And it is with us.
"It is more comfortable," he once noted, "to live the lie," but then men get angry about the truth. Famous last words, maybe?!
cont./

Joe Xuereb

Apr 21st 2010, 13:38

1) 'to commend Malta's effort to address the problems of migration humanely even as doing so involves economic suffering or burden'. Genuine people who need asylem need to be treated humanely. The people of Malta suffer economic and/or burden. But more than this, they are worried about the drip, drip effect of migrants who take more than they give (look at Europe). Malta is like a very fragile eco-system, a tiny one at that.
With regards to secularism. As a true atheist, I, like Mr.Flynn further down, do not need mentors, or congregations, or 'safety-in-numbers'. As an non/ex-christian, I do not proselytize. That's a christian prerogative, now alien to me.
cont./

Sylvana Debono

Apr 21st 2010, 12:17

Just two small points:
1. Great organisation and Church-State synergy :)
2. What great courage the Pope showed in meeting the victims of abuse! And he does not have the media charisma of his predecessor, so all cards were stacked against him.

I sincerely believe that the response of the Maltese to this visit was a message, loud and clear, to all those who saught to diminish the importance of the Church in Malta and of the Visit in particular.

I cannot but refer to a particular headline on the eve of the Visit which referred to the money spent on the visit and to comments on TV that such visits would not be conducive to finding jobs. Yes, Papal vists cost money and Yes they will not create jobs but neither do mass meetings. Such comments, as I understood Ambassador Kmiec, in a recent article are only aimed at weaking the tripod on which society stands: State, Church and Family.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 21st 2010, 11:02

@ Kenneth Cassar:

Kenneth I reiterate that it is ridiculous to assume that by addressing the Pope as ‘His Holiness,’ one is declaring the Pope as a saint. I think you are clutching at straws for want of a better argument.

Apparently you have an egalitarian mentality where etiquette is flouted because you probably believe we are all equal under the sun. It is true that we are all equal under the sun but one has to distinguish a person according to his/her standing in life.

Mr. John Smith – Dr. John Smith – Professor John Smith - the Hon. John Smith – His Excellence John Smith - His Majesty John Smith – Fr. John Smith – His Excellence Bishop John Smith – His Eminence John Smith - His Holiness John Smith.

They all share the same name but one knows immediately who one is talking about when one gives the appropriate title. Certainly it would facilitate matters and reduce the risk of making a gaffe when it comes to giving the proper title to the person concerned.

But then imagine somebody being introduced to the Pope and the person greets the Pope, ”Aw Man!” :-)

charles caruana

Apr 21st 2010, 10:35

@Patrik Larsson

To assert that Fascism had any genuine religious depth to it is already somewhat of a wild generalization, and to call it 'exclusively Catholic' is even more. Sure, given the historical circumstances (threat of a rising and aggressive communism) many Catholics came to terms with the basically anti-religious and odious ethos of Fascism, but many others fought against and suffered under it. Fascism is a very complex and varied phenomenon, combining historical, ethnic, economic,ideological and pagan elements in a deadly and anti-human concoction. Please let us not simplify by calling Mussolini, Franco and the Ustasi exemplary Catholics. It's like calling Stalin, Mao , Pol pot, responsible for the murder of many more millions than any in human history, exemplars of genuine secularism.

Richard Curmi

Apr 21st 2010, 09:36

Holy or His Holiness is a tiltle applied to the Pope not because of his personal sainthood but it refers to what the catholic faithful believe to be his Holy mission. The Dalai Lama is also officially addressed as His Holiness besides being given other titles.

I agree with Kenneth Cassar in that I would like to see a clearer distinction between state and church in Malta. This distinction does not mean they cannot co-operate on many levels; on the contrary that would be something to be desired.

I must have said this somwhere else but I repeat it as I strongly believe that it is wrong to refer to the Govenment of Malta as a Catholic Government. That would make of Malta a Theocracy and not a Democracy. Even though all or most of the Maltese MPs declare that they profess the Catholic religion it does not mean that the Government is a Catholic Government.

It should be clear that the Government of Malta can only be called the Maltese Government: it is elected by the Maltese for all the Maltese.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 21st 2010, 08:14

@ Jessica DeBattista:

Ah, I see! I am being ridiculous. Thanks for the compliment. As for calling the Queen "Your Majesty", I find that bombastic nonsense too (so, as you see, I am not singling out the Catholic Church), and not at all befitting to anyone, especially someone who has not attained the post through any skill or merit, but through heredity. Same goes for "Your Excellency" and all other pompous titles that the truly deserving would be too humble to accept.

And incidentally, saying that ‘Holy’ is a title which "befits the Vicar of Christ on earth" who is "dedicated to God" does not explain anything at all, when the question is: How does "Holy" befit the "Vicar of Christ", and why must one assume that the "Vicar of Christ" is "Holy". After all, we've had our share of bad Popes in the past (Read Peter DeRosa's Vicars of Christ).

Joseph A Borg

Apr 21st 2010, 07:14

@ charles caruana: may I correct a bit your argument. the problem with fascisim, communism and theocracies is that a single ideology is combined with autocratic rule. The official church aligned itself with Franco in the 30s and the stalinists with their agenda ruined the republicans' chances of building a society that was more anarchic and liberal.

An aside: it's interesting how the church redefines anarchism to frighten the sheeple with another bogeyman.

Patrik Larsson

Apr 21st 2010, 06:26

Charles Caruana:
While agreeing with much of what you said, you did a major error in connecting fascism and secularism. Fascism, throughout the 20th century, has been nearly exclusively Catholic. From Mussolini in Italy, to Franco in Spain and the Ustasi in Croatia.

That said, I think we can all back secularism in its purest form, that which seeks to simply separate all legislation and statecraft from religion - obviously without the removal of religious figures and proponents from the public sphere.

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 20th 2010, 22:05

@ Kenneth Cassar: “Good question. I always wondered why Catholics still keep referring to the Pope as "Holy Father". It sounds pretty close to blasphemy to me. "Normal" saints go through a whole process of "investigation" after their death before they are declared saints. Popes are declared saints (holy) while they are still alive. It doesn't seem to make sense.

Now someone will say I am "attacking the Church".”

Kenneth, You are only being ridiculous by saying that we declare Popes as saints while they are still alive, just because we address them as ‘Holy’.

Subject to correction I dare say that ‘Holy’ is a title which befits the Vicar of Christ on earth, and because they are dedicated to God.

We refer to the Queen of England as ‘Her Majesty’. Is it because she is impressively beautiful or grand, or is it because it is a befitting title for the supreme head of England?

Jessica DeBattista

Apr 20th 2010, 21:44

@ Steve Pace: “I would have liked to see the Pope actually say what he had to say without the need to read from pre written speeches . But as they say ... The world is a stage and we are actors !”

What difference does it make whether he delivers an impromptu speech or read out a speech prepared under due reflection, thereby ascertaining that all the relevant points are presented clearly and concisely?

Besides, the Pope did have a heart to heart talk with the victims of sex abuse by priests, and that certainly was not a pre-written speech.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 20th 2010, 21:41

@ Kenneth Cassar

I agree totally with your point and add this ironic and almost laughable fact - the previous pope John Paul 2 was also referred to as Holy Father while he was alive, yet he seems to have lost his "Holiness" at the time of his death since he has not yet been made a saint.

TG CURMI

Apr 20th 2010, 21:40

Prosit and thanks, Fr Joe.

charles caruana

Apr 20th 2010, 21:26

@ Kenneth Cassar

Kenneth, you are spot on in your distinction between a healthy secularism and a dangerous totalitarian one that wants to invade and occupy all the public square, relegating religious belief to the private sphere and the 'sacristy'. Your accurate and succinct definitions find me in perfect agreement The latter form of secularism is not only an enemy of the church but of civilized existence. It spawned the horrors of Communism, Fascism and all regimes that tried to extirpate all traces of religion from public life. As you know, the first great statement of the right separation between church and state was made by Christ in his 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's' Unfortunately, whenever the church forgot this teaching of her Founder, and tended to take over temporal powers, her members committed grave and outrageous mistakes. All theocracies are anti-Christs. Today we are witnessing the resurgence of both extremes, which are the deadliest foes of genuine believers and genuine secularists alike.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 20th 2010, 20:05

@ Steve Pace:

Good question. I always wondered why Catholics still keep referring to the Pope as "Holy Father". It sounds pretty close to blasphemy to me. "Normal" saints go through a whole process of "investigation" after their death before they are declared saints. Popes are declared saints (holy) while they are still alive. It doesn't seem to make sense.

Now someone will say I am "attacking the Church".

Lawrence Azzopardi

Apr 20th 2010, 16:58

What a show!!! Choosing our small island?? Great PR team. I beleive its called spin!!

Joseph A Borg

Apr 20th 2010, 15:28

I was impressed by the level of organisation.

Props to the church and the government for the pageantry.

Many still seem to confuse secularism and secular government for the intentions of the church there's a big difference.

Steve Pace

Apr 20th 2010, 15:24

I would have liked to see the Pope actually say what he had to say without the need to read from pre written speeches . But as they say ... The world is a stage and we are actors !

Steve Pace

Apr 20th 2010, 15:17

@Fr . Joe - Question - In the hail Mary prayer we say , " holy mother of God , pray for us sinners ... " . In the Maltese version we say " Mqaddsa Maria omm Alla , "


Some refer to the Pope as Holy Father .. Does this mean that you are putting the pope on the level of our holy mother of God ? Does this imply he is a living saint ?

Please don't think this is sarcastic however i think the term 'holy father' should only refer to our ' Father in heaven ' rather than to living human being like us who is also prone to sins and mistakes like any of us common mortals .

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 20th 2010, 14:40

@ Richard Curmi:

Regarding the Pope's short meeting with the Maltese victims of child abuse, actually I was not expecting that to happen at all (particularly with all the hints at the Pope having a tight schedule).

So I would say that, yes, that's a good point in his favour...perhaps the hilight of the whole visit and the thing that mattered most. Of course, that doesn't negate or cancel out any responsibility for the mishandling of child abuse cases, but at least it seems to suggest genuine remorse.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 20th 2010, 14:25

@ Patrik Larsson and Richard Curmi:

Thanks for the clarification. I have no problem with that. It is true that (with some reservations), secularism may be perceived as an "enemy" of faith. It all depends on what one understands by "secularism".

I define secularism as the insistence on separation of church and state. Some might see secularism as the exclusion of organised religion from any public debate on matters of public policy.

I count myself as a secularist in the first sense, and a strong opponent of secularism in the second sense.

So is secularism in the first sense (mine) an "enemy of faith"? I don't think so (at least not in isolation) since secularism in my sense does not deny the right to religious belief or the right of the religious to involve themselves in political affairs.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Apr 20th 2010, 14:13

Malta has been a historical defender of the faith? What waffle. The usual twaddle and propaganda that once worked on a naive bunch of Maltese Catholics. Just as they believed that Malta was always Christian since the coming of St Paul. And who cares what Benedicat says. Or for that matter the President of Malta who is increasingly becoming divisive and political. I say political because he is rejecting the separation between Church and State being promoted by the new LP leadership. Some may see this as some kind of a revenge on a party that did not make him its leader. Why are these political sentiments not being made by the PM? How arrogant for Catholics to think they are the one true way. How childish. How insular.

Richard Curmi

Apr 20th 2010, 12:19

@ Kenneth Cassar: "I thought it was Muslim fundamentalists who did this." You are right. But the Pope did not say that secularism sought to stir hatred into Islamic belief. He described secularim as the foe of faith to the North of Malta and to the South the challenge comes from "those who sought- wrongly- to stir hatred into Islamic belief". He then encouraged Malta to carry on the inter-faith dialogue which is not possible with the fundemantalists who, fortunately for us all, are neither the genuine Muslims nor the majority of them.
Whether we agree or not with the Pope it is proper to have the correct understanding of what he actually says as it should be with everyone else for that matter.
I believe there were many good things that the Pope's visit brought with it to Malta. Of the crowded events, protocol, loud singing and other welcoming manifestations the highlight of his visit in my book is the quiet, sober and emotional meating with the victims of child abuse by priests. For those men who declared that they have found peace, that meeting is worth more than one thousand apologies.

Patrik Larsson

Apr 20th 2010, 11:09

Kenneth:
Read it again. I think what he said was that there are two foes of faith. One is secularism North of Malta, the other is the hatred in some Islamic beliefs South of Malta.

I can not but agree.

Kevin Cassar

Apr 20th 2010, 10:52

He came, He slept (during mass), they woke him up!!

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 20th 2010, 09:29

Am I understanding this correctly - did the Pope actually say that it is "secularism" that "sought to stir hatred into Islamic belief"?

I thought it was Muslim fundamentalists who did this.

Jim Cassar

Apr 20th 2010, 09:20

i was disgusted by the negative portrait given by the media before the arrival of the pope. It was as if they wanted to discouarge anyone who wanted to take part in the visit. Shame to all of them. Luckily, things turned out different. I'm pleased with the pope's visit and hope that his message will get through.