Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Culture, religion and all that jazz
Despite the fact that there are people who wish to delete the three clauses in our Constitution that give the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church inalienable rights over each and every one of us, I can assure you that there is no party that will ever have the temerity to carry such a thing through. The electorate is far too strong in its belief and no politico, no matter how determined, can override this fundamental tenet in the Maltese character to remove the following statements.
I quote: Article 2 (1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion; (2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong; and (3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education.
The duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong is a very onerous responsibility in Malta today. This constitutional clause cannot be taken lightly and it obliges the head of the local Church to speak out when the nation is swayed by ideologies and forces that make a mockery of the message of Jesus Christ. Do not get me wrong. The last thing I am is a Catholic fundamentalist. However, if both the Church and the state wish to retain these three clauses in the Constitution, then both must live up to them.
Flouting the Constitution is a criminal offence and, therefore, no matter how loud people are going to holler about freedom of expression, should that freedom of expression lead to breaking the law, both civil and moral, then it becomes heinous and must be prosecuted instantly. Should this same freedom of expression go against the tenets of the Church then, according to the Constitution, that same Church has the duty to point it out. Ergo, failing to do so gives the message to the rank and file of Malta that such wannabe politicians like Norman Lowell could be right, or "could have a point after all", for, as the Duchess said in Alice in Wonderland, "everything has a moral as long as you can find it!"
Apart from the inexplicable silence from the Attorney General's Office, I am mystified at the attitude of the Church itself to what amounts to a public declaration that if and when Mr Lowell will take Malta over he will introduce abortion of defective foetuses, infanticide for defective babies and a fate not to be imagined not only for those not of the same Caucasian ethnicity but also for all those Maltese who had the temerity to adopt babies of a different ethnicity. Both children and parents will be sent to some island off Africa, there to live in their natural habitat!
There was more, however, than on just these three points and, because at every turn the fire of racism can be fuelled, the Attorney General and the Archbishop should have acted and, to date, have not. Therefore, am I to understand that they tacitly agree with these enormities?
The proverbial ostrich attitude simply does not work in a country that each day sinks to new depths of moral degeneracy.
The ability to distinguish right from wrong has become a dead letter. We have, during and after the Pope's visit read about the most absurd theories and the extent of Roman Catholicism a la carte was far more mind-boggling and widespread than I ever imagined.
It started with the invitations issued by persons unknown to MPs and spouses not partners to attend the Papal Mass on the Granaries and was further exacerbated by the confusion caused by what Fr George Dalli declared on Xarabank about cohabitating couples and Holy Communion. The hoohah that ensued clearly indicated that, for most people, attending Mass and receiving Communion is a not an act of faith but a social nicety!
We occasionally have these religious blow-ups. I recall the absurd notion of placing the supreme religious symbol, Jesus Christ, on our euro coin in order to "restore Catholicism in Europe" as the Maltese coins, like talismans, circulate from Malaga to Prague and from Copenhagen to Palermo! Now that we have the cross of the Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta the compromise has been found, yet, has anyone ever stopped to think that this same order is still a powerful international body with observer rights in the UN? What a joke!
Another storm in a teacup happened after the European Court ordered the crucifix to be removed from Italian state schools because of the objection of a Finnish woman.
Malta and his wife went into panic mode and declared, in what amounted to a hysterical public outcry, that the cross was there to stay irrespective of the European Court's ruling; not for a moment bothering to look up article 2 (1, 2 and 3) of our Constitution, which makes such removal impossible.
Is the image of Malta Cattolicissima that Pope Benedict so admired just a sham? Is it no more than a show to put on every so often when the Pontiff comes to visit us? Does it reduce parables like that of the Good Samaritan to something with less meaning than Puss in Boots? Do we fail so spectacularly in recognising the Pharisee is us? For centuries, we have, Sunday in and Sunday out, flocked to the 365 churches that dominate our landscape listening to scripture, yet, we remain by and large a people that is spiritually infantile with the moral fibre of jellyfish!
Popular Stories
In Discussion
102 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Jun 26th 2010, 21:40
Church attendance to weekly Mass is 72% because there are those who do not go regularly. Parish priests know exactly also those who do not go to Mass every week.
Besides, the others who do not attend are still Catholic. They still baptize their children in the Catholic Faith. They still send their children to learn their Catholic Faith at school and Church societies. They still prepare them to receive the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Eucharist. They get married in the Catholic Church. When they die they are taken to a Catholic church and after Masses are offered for them in Catholic churches.
On Trinity Sunday 96% of Maltese and Gozitan children of their peer group have made their First Holy Communion. This augurs very well for the future of the Catholic Church on our Catholic islands until the end of time.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 25th 2010, 18:20
@ Grech, Christpher. How old are you? 9? Maybe 9 and a half? Any mortal can tell me by any means available that Japan exists. Some call it Nippon, or Toshiba. I've not been there. Not likely to go either. But I know it's there. A flea decides to move from A to B. It's brain is wired to its legs, wings, whatever. It propels its 'mechanism' and there it is, at point B. Likewise myself. My mind motivates me. That is the soul speaking. Similarl to a flea. When the brain closes down, so do we. So does the flea. The difficulty Christopher is not proving whether something exists or not. The problem are the people who set up these notions of whatever, and needy people needed these fanciful ideas, they were comforting. Once you set up a lie - even one that is earth bound, like calumny, how does one start to unravel it. Anybody who set up a lie that has affected billions of people over the years, has a lot to answer for. The church says dignified humans have souls, animals don't. Dignified? With the birthing system god gave. Nonsense. Man is a thinking animal. Period.
Christopher Grech
Jun 24th 2010, 23:02
I believe in the Bible = 100% and not a la carte.
The Bible is a set menu, take it or leave it.
For those that do not believe in God, here is what it says to them:
Psalm 14
14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
The irony of it all is this. Most churches (and not only Catholics) choose what to believe in, but due to "traditions of men" have made "specialty menus" which differ from the "set menu" of the Bible.
This specialty menu may go and often is in contrast to the Bible. For example the Bible does speak of divorce, but the Church does not admit it. (I can provide lots of Biblical proof should anyone want it). The Bible speaks of obeying Commandments, but lots of people do not bother.
You cannot speak of religion and then do away with the Bible. The choice is yours.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 24th 2010, 11:07
What happens to Catholic foreigners resident in Malta who march to different drums? My experience of Catholics in UK is of a people who are not at all vociferous (British sang-froid blah-blah?). Yet they're practising Catholics. Living in Malta, are they allowed to practise in the same way they do back home? If not, doesn't this mean that Malta's putting it's foot down. It wants Catholicism to be practised Maltese-style across the planet. Now THAT is fanciful. It can't/won't happen!
This debate is tediously, interminably-circular. A debate between those who believe in tooth-fairies and those who don't. The ones haven't a stilt to stand on. The second, well, at least they have plausibility. Strange that many very intelligent people here, erudite, excellent command of English, capable of holding their own in an argument(??). PhD. material even. BUT!! What is the point of seventeen PhDs and another bun on the 'kenur' (obsolete Maltese Barbed-Queer ieB.B.Q.).- if they believe in tooth-fairies? I guess the salvation of their soul is paramount and, merging my mind with theirs (ouch!), I well understand that. If I'd retained their obsession with slave-ating myself, I'd be in similar Scylla? or Charybdis? Strait(s) Street straitjacketed CUL-de-sack. Poetic licence.
Christopher Grech
Jun 24th 2010, 09:24
@ Joe Xuereb
Just because you might never been in Japan, does not mean it does not exist.
Similarly, since most people cannot see the soul, you cannot determine this, can you?
A Maltese living in Australia, see http://www.victorzammit.com/ has pledged a million dollars if you can prove that there is no afterlife!
You cannot prove however that there is no soul. If so, you can win a miillion bucks!
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 23rd 2010, 18:36
Many people know that i am particularly allergic to IVORY TOWERS; indeed i am in everyday contact with the REAL WORLD and especially with the young, as opposed to those who inhabit phantasmagorical theatres of the absurd.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 23rd 2010, 16:45
The soul is but a mere abstraction/idea/concept/fanciful flight of fancy - three Big Fs with frisson, x4.. Totally unverifiable. Unverifiable because when the idea was born, people were drinking unfiltered water. Hence the fevered brows.
Ken, you'll be accused of cynicism re: the Constitution etched in granite, I shouldn't wonder. But a little cynicism can save lives. Bear with me.
No Party will ever dare scrap/alter the Constitution. Parliamentarians could be staunch secularists/atheists/whatever - that aspect of them will always be in the closet. Their status, social standing, photo-shoots, handshakes, salary, expenses, profile, ingratiation - all these take precedence of loss of votes. So Malta, and its people, are held over a barrel. You see, this concept, this idea I mentioned a few lines back, needs saving. All this infamous legacy, this obsession, this flighty idea, they'll do everything to 'salvage' it. What a legacy!
Ken, this is in response to your first paragrapgh, more specifically the Constitution writ in stone. I'll read the rest later. I'm a busy man drafting a Constitution that runs parallel with other, more reasonable ones - I'm spoilt for choice.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 23rd 2010, 18:17
you mean there's more????? Amazing
Christopher Grech
Jun 23rd 2010, 15:33
There are two weights and two measures with the Catholic Church on scripture.
They perform scripture "a la carte", and choose what they want to portrey and shun/dismiss other parts of the Bible.
Worse still, the Pope John Paul II speaks of traditions of the Church to continue, and that Christ strongly condemns.
The Constitution speaks of teaching principals of right and wrong. The Bible, which has a higher authority/standing than human laws, speaks also of right and wrong.
Christ says that those who teach how to break the Commandments (see Matthew 5:19) is the LEAST in the Kingdom of heaven. By whose authority? Christ of course and not the church.
Now we have the church that has changed the Commandments to suit the church, ensuring with 100% certainty that they are the least in front of God. It cannot be any clearer.
No wonder I had to write the archbishop on how and why they are breaking and teaching how to break the Commandments.
Here is my letter: http://100777.com/node/1931
Is therefore teaching false principals or immorality a church given privilege? No sarcasm intended.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 23rd 2010, 18:17
I read your letter to the Archbishop
Should Catholics be iconoclasts? How exasperating and exhausting. Iconoclasm denies and stifles art and according to Dante; l'arte all iddio nipote meaning that if we are children of God, art is God's grandchild.
This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion anyway. Please do stick to the subject.Thankyou
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 23rd 2010, 14:43
Bishop Grech is crying over spilt milk
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100623/local/bishop-speaks-of-empty-vessels-in-politics-media-and-the-church
I wonder whom he is referring to?
Joe Zammit
Jun 26th 2010, 04:22
Kenneth, Bishop Grech is calling a spade a spade, because TRUTH makes you free, also when truth jars on your ears! The more you love the Catholic Church, the nearer you are to God because the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 23rd 2010, 14:34
@KZT
"the wannabe Hitler will be in Castille before you know it": yes, and the moon is made of green cheese.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 23rd 2010, 15:20
Gorgonzola actually!
William P Flynn
Jun 23rd 2010, 12:43
DrSaliba
Again you trip over your own words.
1.Yes Maltese may worship their own way or even not at all.
But, ridiculously, the Church still has the right to teach them, as Maltese, what's right and wrong.
And yes the church can make it known to the Parliament of Malta that Article 2 is a sham, stolen goods; and wishes it to be removed. It would be the right thing to do.
2. The gypping did take place as related by a major PN identity in his memoirs.
3. The church did support every Fascist/Catholic butchers; from Franco to Pavelic. Each and every Catholic man-jack of them participated in crimes against humanity and many were executed.This is also in the public domain and beyond historical doubt. Go find it.
Some were hidden buy the Vatican and escaped using Vatican passport "rat-lines" shortly after the war.
I have named the butchers, (many of them actually ordained Catholic priests) in these columns many times.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 23rd 2010, 16:00
@WilliamPFlynn.
There is nothing “ridiculous” and no inconsistency between the obvious fact that the Church has the duty to teach and the other fact, admitted by you, that all Maltese actually “may worship their own way or even not at all”. If anyone is tripping up over his own words, that must be you.
You, a foreign atheist, are being ridiculous and presumptuous to dictate to the Church authorities in Malta that Article 2 of the Constitution is a “sham”. That is not true at all. It is very real integral part of our Constitution and the majority of those who have the right to amend it, and to enforce it, are happy with it. You personal opinion that Article 2 is “stolen property” is worthless. That is why it sticks in your atheist throat.
The Church does not address Parliament. It is one important opinion-former among many others, e.g. political parties, newspapers, NGOs etc. The Church does not have the need or the power to instruct Parliament to remove/amend the Constitution. That would be interference by the Church in the affairs of state!
C.Busuttil
Jun 24th 2010, 00:00
You have never named anyone you just quote from novelist not historians, Not even the basics!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your anti catholic charade convinces me each time you write, that you need to seek some medical advice because its an obsession and obsessions are not healthy.
As others have told you what we Maltese do, is NOT your business and rest assured that the Catholic Church is here to stay whatever you might think whatever you might write. Just get a life and stop wasting your time
@ Dawn Cummings
Any foreigner that currently resides in Malta and wants to lecture us about our affairs, if they don't like our ways they can pack up and leave, nobody asked for them to come here, nobody pointed a pistol at their head to come over, therefore shut up, this is a catholic country and so it will remain. I am no church fan but meddling in our affairs by outsiders is getting on my nerves and that of many others. Since Malta is no longer a colony we don't need others to tell us what to do, it's our business!!!!
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 23rd 2010, 12:42
@ S Calleja
Congratulations for supplying us lesser mortals with your magical elixir, consisting of :
a. AN OPEN MIND, but be careful your brains do not spill out into an unholy mess;
b. KEEN SENSE OF OBSERVATION, but make sure you are looking througha tinted prism;
c. SOME TIME LIVING ABROAD, ah we have discovered the new valhalha, such joys and delectation.
Impressive; this is certainly the stuff of "distinctio cum laudae". Wow.
S. Calleja
Jun 23rd 2010, 14:17
Well done for the dramatic and poetic description, but you haven't really contributed anything new to the argument. Calling names and being sarcastic is not an argument.
I will refrain from commenting further about your points, since I think it would be rather pointless. Just one small thing: people like you remind me precisely the reason why I do not live in Malta any longer.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 23rd 2010, 11:55
@ KZT
Illegal immigration CAN and MUST be controlled according to internationally accepted regulations and the particular circumstances of individual countries. This is best done through patient, careful, and meticulous diplomatic relations as well as strict application of legislation aimed at preserving law and order. All the rest is futile surmising. The Church regularly speaks out against racism; but you cannot expect the Church to condemn every single sinner on the island, otherwise it will have to do so till doomsday; there are so many of us.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 23rd 2010, 13:07
If you serously think that the would be immigrants being destained by the Libyan authorities are being kept according to international regulations then you have another thing coming. Ask AMNESTY iNTERNATIONAL.
Sooner rather than later the Colonel will find some excuse to renege on his agreement or the Cavaliere will be ousted form government and replaced by a PM who would not wish to pursue the Cavalier's policies. Then the proverbial merde will hit the fan.
The Church does NOT regularly speak out against racism as much as it speaks out against swearing; another national pastime! All it is concerned about is about the sex that is beyond its control because it has not been given a nihil obstat by a priest! This has reached the point of obsession.
Should Malta's AFM decide that it is fed up of playing nursemaid to immigrants and believe me they are, horribly so, and with good reason, all it will take is one little spark and Mr Lowell and the wannabe Hitler will be in Castile before you know it.
Get out of your ivory tower
charles caruana
Jun 23rd 2010, 14:47
@ KTZ
Again Kenneth, don’t you think you are painting a rather lurid, hysterical scenario? Your exquisite and witty pastels are more convincing. Lowell and the wannabe Hitler in Castile? You must have an abysmally low opinion of the intelligence of the Maltese electorate and Malta’s AFM.
For the nth time, the Church has spoken out against racism, swearing, the abuse of sex, and many other sins. But if you want to insist to the contrary, go ahead; it’s useless and time wasting to rehash points already made.
Rather, why don’t you turn your guns on the EU, with its shameful track record in the ‘help’ it has given us to cope with the immigrant problem? Sure the EU is loud mouthed when it comes to denouncing racism and our treatment of immigrants. But did it ever walk its talk?
charles caruana
Jun 23rd 2010, 11:43
@CJohn Zammit
Do you even know what you are talking about? Neither the EU nor the ECHR have legal jurisdiction over the Maltese Constitution, which is the sovereign domain of the Maltese people and their parliamentary representatives. If they had, why do you think they accepted the Maltese bid for membership in the first place, with our present constitution?
So this is your liberal-progressive idea of national freedom and sovereignty, to have our constitutional choices made for us by foreign institutions? And you consider yourself a champion of free CHOICE?
Don’t you think that over here we have greater liberal-progressive pampaluni than you and they would immediately have followed your advice had it been viable? They simply know the law better than you.
Why don’t YOU volunteer yourself to present the case to the your precious ECHR, if you are a Maltese citizen and have the right to vote of course. Who knows, you might even succeed in convincing the ECHR to impose your pro-abortion agenda on our constitution.*
*Your words in another blog: ‘There is no unborn child. A fetus is not a child. The "unborn child" is nothing but a figment of the imagination.’
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 23rd 2010, 11:18
@ John Abela/John Borg/whatever/
TOUCHE'! You caught me off guard! That is one of the risks of me waging war(metaphorically speaking) on too many fronts. I should have realised from your use of language immediately that it was our dear ghost writer. Too many details to go into here. Will watch out for you, do not worry!
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 23rd 2010, 12:58
what ghost writer is this? That's all we need now!
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 23rd 2010, 11:09
@WilliamPFlynn
Your comment is a typical example of your habitual “terminological inexactitudes” (Winston Churchill's euphemism for a lie). There was no question of any swindling of H.H. “the Pope by Archbishop Gonzi, the Curia and the PN”. There was difficulty for the British monarch (who is also the Head of the Anglican Church) to sign any independence constitution that included an article endorsing the status of the Catholic religion as the religion of Malta. That was the reason for the roundabout way Article 2 was introduced in our Constitution - not any "out-gypping".
The Vatican did not “support every butcher Fascist dictator of the 20th century". There was an uncomfortable and uneasy alliance between forces antagonistic to the invasion of an atheist communist dictatorship. That did not imply any endorsement of methods of dictators whether of the right or of the left. Of course you only find fault with the butchery of the anticommunist dictators putting on blinkers so as not to see the just as reprehensible butchery committed by the atheist communists.
David Friggieri
Jun 23rd 2010, 10:50
Good that Kenneth brings this up here. All the interminable arguments about Malta's particular Church-State set-up generally fail to go back to the basics and look reality in the face. Strangely, Article 2 of the Constitution is often ignored, resulting in debates which entirely ignore Malta's specific constitutional context. So what we get is a kind of backdoor secularism (lifestyles, attitudes) coexisting with an official statal apparatus (the constitution and those who swear allegiance to it) which has not budged an inch and on which there is no serious debate. Secular attitudes of some vocal members of the community versus non-secular state. And the occasional reminder that even a more or less benign non-secular state can bite hard when it decides to.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 23rd 2010, 10:35
@ John Abela
I am glad to note your admiration for my use of "sarcasm and irony" and would like to reassure you that i have no wish to "blast" either you or anyone else. Only terrorists and anarchists perform those hideous criminal activities, certainly not me. However, i was disappointed with your presumptious conclusion that i "certainly have no counter-argument" for what our "birth-rights and legacies" are. If you are not aware of them then i pity you. It means that you live in a void without any form of belonging or identity. Yes, i am obsessed with anarchy because it is a despicable form of existence where might is right and where individuals are condemned to a meaningless, endless drifting into nothingness, or in more technical terms nihilism/Dadaism.
William P Flynn
Jun 23rd 2010, 09:51
MsCummings, if you are a Maltese Citizen you have every right to join the debate, no matter what your name is. Our Constitution is for everyone; even those with a foreign name-probably the majority. If you aren't, do so anyway to balance the other foreigner apologist and whom DrSaliba chose not to single out.
How historically ignorant of DrSaliba to class my Irish surname as belonging to our erstwhile Colonial masters.
Gerry Cowie
Jun 23rd 2010, 19:55
What is your definition of a Maltese citizen, Mr Flynn? Fair question! There you go again telling people to mind their own business! Is it your business?
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 23rd 2010, 09:18
Be warned.
All it will take is a blip in the mysterious agreement between our neighbours the Gallant Cavaliere and the Intrepid Colonel for an influx of asylum seekers to flood Malta once more. We are living in a hiatus as I am pretty pessimistic about this concordat lasting out the year.
If and when illegal immigration becomes uncontrollable then the local hysteria will start again and ideologies like Mr Lowell's will become relevant to those whose fear and uncertainty is not assuaged by the practically identical policies of the centrist parties and a Church with nothing to say for itself apart form harping about its favourite hobbyhorse; sex, much to the annoyance and boredom of all!
This is why it is essential that racism of any kind must be stamped out. This is why both the Church and the Authorities must speak out CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY and without further delay. That is their constitutional obligation and they are shirking it.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 23rd 2010, 09:17
@GeorgeBajada
Your comment is a catalogue of misconceptions.
1) The Church “will not change Article 2 of the Constitution” not because of your slanderous reasons but because it does not have the power to touch any article of the Constitution.
2) In Malta all citizens already have the right to worship in his/her own way. No one is forced to belong to any religion or to go to church. Neither the State of Malta nor the authorities of the official religion of the republic oblige any Maltese citizen what to believe and to worship. (Article 41)
3) It is a defamation of our representatives in Parliament to accuse them of lacking the guts to stand up for “Religion Toleration”. Religious tolerance in Malta is already an accomplished fact. Intolerance is what some disgruntled local atheists and anti-Catholics are demanding by challenging the Catholic Church's right and obligation under the Constitution to teach. Anyone with a grain of salt would recognize that that is not the same as forcing anyone to believe anything or to do anything.
William P Flynn
Jun 23rd 2010, 08:18
@DrSaliba
Disenfranchised citizens of the Republic of Malta, by which virtue they have citizenship, have every right to discuss, motivate and criticise our Constitution. Just because we are temporarily disenfranchised we never stop being citizens. It's our Constitutional right and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to stop us.
Every citizen can re-enfranchise him/herself simply by returning to Malta. But there's as many of us outside Malta as inside it. Maybe we should all come back all at once and stay in Mellieha.
I wouldn't make too much of the disenfranchisement if I were you. It is a travesty that Malta, an EU country, disenfranchises its citizens. There are hundreds of thousands of us and a class action at the ECHR can be financed with less money than each of us spends on a given day on a bottle of Aussie wine.
Stay tuned.
William P Flynn
Jun 23rd 2010, 00:23
In 1964 the pope did give the order against Article2, KZT. But Archbishop Gonzi, the Curia and the PN out-gypped him without making Archbishop Gonzi seem to be disobeying his Vatican superiors.
So, in your opinion, not only should we have the church of Malta screwing our Constitution, we need the pope as well? What is this? The Holy Republic of the Vatican of Malta with a Vatican overlord?
And another thing, the last time an Imperium type regime (a real one regrettably) sprung up in Catholic Germany, the then pope with his trusty Nuncio Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) actually cleared the decks for Hitler to achieve total power. They dissolved the ZentrumsPartei and made a ReichsKonkordat with the Nazis.
The Vatican also supported every butcher Fascist dictator of the 20 Century, all Catholic.(I tire of naming them); one of the reasons why Ratzinger’s high profile bid to imprint Christianity on the EU Charter failed so utterly and miserably. I wonder if Article2, as an example of church dominance, helped EU leaders reject Ratzinger’s idea. Europeans would never accept Article2.
Article2's position on our Constitution is dishonest, embarrassing and anti-EU.
Gorge Bajada
Jun 23rd 2010, 00:18
Article 2 indicate to me that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church is above the Government, in another word the Bishops/Pope are running the country not the Prime Minister.
The Church will not change Article 2 of the constitution, it will jeopardize their power and wealth and in the Parliament of Malta there is no one who have the guts to stand up for 'Religion Toleration' because it will jeopardize the votes.
---
To be able to move forward, Article 2 in the Maltese constitution needs to change
(1) A citizen may worship God in his/her own way. He/she is not forced to belong to any particular religion or to go to church at all.
(2) It is not the Government's duty or the church of what the citizen should believe or worship.
---
This freedom of worship is known as Religious Toleration and that includes the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion as-well as other religions.
You have to tolerate others if you want to be tolerated.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 23rd 2010, 11:24
The Church cannot change the constitution; only a three quarter parliamentary majority can do that. Ask your local MP.
The Church does not run Malta but if parliamantarians enact laws that are in synch with those of the Catholic Church it is their obligation according to the constiturtion; ergo if you would like to view the state as adhering to Catholic belief that is a different matter.
Neither party will ever remove those clauses unless the Chruch wishes them to be removed.
The Church has a choice; either taking its constitutional obligations seriously as in this case or asking for Article 2 to be removed.
Antonio Anastasi
Jun 22nd 2010, 21:55
The Catholic church contribution is beyond tradition.
Man's behaviour is guided along according to his concious. The knowledge of right and wrong is cultivated during his upbringing, at school, in the family, friends and life experiences. His religion.
In Malta, the Influence of the church teachings is everywhere you look. Most are baptized, receive Holy Communion, Confirmation, Marriage and death all, at least for most people within the church.
The church gives us guidelines and we either follow them or not.
We have free choice to go against its teachings, have an abortion, use contraception,sex before marriage,you are also free to lie and cheat.
It's US that make a choice. We have the choice to differentiate between, what WE percieve to be right or wrong, according to our concious
If I understand KZT point, in issues like that of advocating hatred to all that, we either do not like, or disagree, or fear the, church as the moral shepherd MUST stand up and speak out against this despicable bigle which people try to pass for creed. It has the moral, and apparantley, constitutional to speak out.
CJohn Zammit
Jun 22nd 2010, 20:13
@Raphael Vassallo
You might want to check whether the Constitutional Court has any jurisdiction over the Constitution. It is likely that they cannot alter it in any way. Only Parliament, with a two-thirds majority vote, can make changes.
It has to be a higher authority to force the change.With Malta in the EU, that authority is the ECHR -- as in the Italy-Crucifix case.
@KZT
You are forgetting that Malta is more than just 'Malta'. It is, now, a State within the EU and as such has to bring its laws up to EU 'standards'.
If Maltese parliamentarians are not willing to make the change(s) (to legislation which deprives any citizen of fundamental human rights), any Maltese can exercise the rights of EU citizens and challenge the government's (in)action at the ECHR. All it takes is one -- just one -- say, someone seeking divorce, to seek the ECHR's protection, as Ms. Lautsi did.
Don't kid yourself ... an ECHR Grand Chamber's judgement is binding, Malta's Constitution notwithstanding. It is final with no appeal. With a bonus ... No Joe Zammit or E. Muscat will be able to stop its implementation.
Who will take the challenge to the ECHR? Any volunteers; Raphael, KZT?
Joe Zammit
Jun 22nd 2010, 20:07
Kenneth, I repeat: 2000 years ago, in his infinite providence God sent us St Paul to make us Christians and Catholics. God then thought of us. So now I would like to make it clear that TODAY he is still thinking of us, and how!
Let those who can understand, understand!
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 22nd 2010, 20:00
@WilliamPFlynn
If, in your unsolicited. opinion the involvement of the PN and the Curia during the drafting stage of our Constitution was "meddling" and "fiddling" what do you call the comments in this newspaper of foreigners and disenfranchised expatriates from across the seas?
@Dawn Cummings
The same applies to your opinion "Article 2 ...... has no place in a republic's institution". Our Republican Constitution freed us from any imposition from outside. Some people with surnames suggesting our last colonial masters do not seem to realize it!
Dawn Cummings
Jun 23rd 2010, 12:23
What "imposition from outside"??
Why don't you build a wall like in Berlin....just to be on the safe "side".
PS: My name does not need to be Peppi Borg to be Maltese and having the right to have a say here.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 23rd 2010, 18:52
@DawnCummings
The "imposition from outside" refers to Malta born atheists who have abandoned these shores for such a long time that they have long lost their right to vote here on our domestic issues. We do not object that anyone exercise their right to have their say here, not even when they adopt coarse unladylake language to vent their anti-Catholic frustrations. But very often we do have to remind these foreigners that it is them that are "meddling" and 'fiddling" in our internal affairs - not our resident religious leaders or our elected representatives in parliament..
Gerry Cowie
Jun 22nd 2010, 19:47
A very interesting and thought-provoking piece, Kenneth.
You paint a very worrying picture of Malta!
At the end of the day I do not think the situation will change.
As it is, it is only those Maltese with a right to vote who are ever going to change things, and no amount of barracking from people outside Malta, including myself, who have no vote, can ever change things nor hope to influence them in any way!
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2010, 18:01
Regretfully, i have to admit to being a sinner like any other human being; amongst my various failings is that i cannot suffer fools and in particular delirious, raving wombats (with all due respect to wombats). The amount of gibberish and the offensive language regularly punched in by these nihilists and the manner in which they pervert history and reality is astounding - almost as much as the stupidities uttered by ...sorpassiamo; control yourself, Andrew, dear. As to your query Mr Zammit Tabona, i am afraid to say that your bald statement about the role of the Church in the 20s and 30s is incorrect: check what the Church did to save many (including Jews) from the evils of fascism and nazism at a time when even powerful politicians like Chamberlain tried to appease the ghoul.
S. Calleja
Jun 22nd 2010, 17:15
Besides the external religion such as traditions, the Catholic Church contributes nothing to the moral decisions of the Maltese.
a) If someone in Malta wants to do an abortion, she goes to Sicily/UK.
b) If someone in Malta wants to use contraception, it's available and they buy it.
c) If someone in Malta wants to have sex before marriage, they do it.
d) If someone in Malta wants to cheat or lie, ditto.
I'm not saying everyone behaves like this. I'm just saying that the same % of people who do such things abroad can be found in Malta. So statistically, Maltese people behave no better than any other non-Catholic Western country. I can tell from experience because I lived for a long time in Malta before emigrating. Crime abroad seems to make much more noise simply because of the sheer numbers (in a country of 40 million people there will be approximately 100 times as many murders as in Malta every year).
The only difference is that many (most?) Maltese, despite their lifestyles, believe that when they die they go to heaven. Otherwise there's little difference, and in some things it's worse. So much for Catholicism.
charles caruana
Jun 22nd 2010, 18:57
What an original, statistically impressive comment! Your sociological survey of Maltese morality is absolutely mind-blowing! And your awesome conclusion is simply…well, without specifying for whom, humiliating.
You should develop it into a PhD thesis. Having been bowled over by your insight into the utter failure of Catholicism, I simply can’t wait to shed it!
Gerry Cowie
Jun 23rd 2010, 00:21
You appear to demonstrate somewhat anti-Catholic views! So what clear evidence can you provide that the Catholic Church, the majority religion of Malta, contributes nothing to society? Where is you proof?
Sure, everybody across society is subject to the same weaknesses, and nobody can claim to be perfect whether religious or athiest secularist.
S. Calleja
Jun 23rd 2010, 08:55
@ Gerry Cowie
I didn't state the Catholic Church contributes nothing. I just said it contributes nothing to the "moral decisions" of the Maltese. The Church in Malta does many good things otherwise, such as charity work and education. No, I'm not anti-Catholic. I think anybody is free to believe in whatever they like. I was only passing an impartial observation, which some might find offensive of course, but nonetheless is there for all to see.
S. Calleja
Jun 23rd 2010, 09:54
@ Charles Caruana
Your reaction is very emotional, which reflects how much you have your religion at heart. I'm not expecting anyone to shed it of course. That's entirely up to the individual. Somebody might want to make a PhD about the topic (I don't have time for that myself unfortunately), however I have a feeling that if given facts black on white, you would have a similar reaction, and come up with a thousand arguments to protect your faith. You have all the right to do this; it's faith after all. And once it's ingrained, you'd protect it with all your might, having invested all your life in it. Fair enough. But I don't think you really need a PhD to come to my conclusion, but just an open mind, a keen sense of observation, and some time living abroad. Of course, I cannot see what's in people's hearts. What I can observe however is their external behaviour. It's not hard science, just observation that might, as you suggested, make for a scientific study. But neither is religion, so don't expect to have arguments stronger than mine, since your claim for the opposite is still unfounded.
charles caruana
Jun 23rd 2010, 12:51
@S.Calleja
Not emotional, just ironic, and irony thrives on a cool head, as you know. The problem is that you have not ‘given facts black on white’ but only your subjective ‘faith’ in your ‘open mind, keen sense of observation, and some living abroad.’ As you said, not exactly reliable data for ‘hard science.’ Yet you even dabbled in the stastical claim 'that the same % of people who do such things abroad can be found in Malta.'
My faith and my protection of it have nothing to do with the argument at hand; my irony was directed at the logical incoherence, the wild generalizations, and the pseudo-conclusion of your argument.
S. Calleja
Jun 23rd 2010, 14:26
Mr Caruana, mine is just a personal observation (albeit shared by many), and which I am quite convinced is correct. Of course it is a generalization, but you cannot formulate an opinion unless you generalize. E.g. "Maltese people are hospitable". True or false? Logically false, but opinionably sound. Logically, the correct statement would be "some Maltese people are hospitable" or, if you have some statistics at hand, "most Maltese people are hospitable (>50%)".
Anyway I won't be commenting further since me and you are apparently living in different worlds.
charles caruana
Jun 23rd 2010, 14:58
For a change, you are right Mr Calleja, we do live in different worlds. When your arguments become more rational, we might inhabit the same world.
S. Calleja
Jun 23rd 2010, 16:01
And note that at least my observations can be measured scientifically, and proven right or wrong. All scientific experiments start in fact with the observation, followed by a hypothesis.
Your claim on the supernatural on the other hand cannot be measured, by definition, and works by faith alone. Beats me if that's rational.
Furthermore, when commenters use exclamation marks as you use above, it reflects emotion, not irony. So you might want to check that out too.
S. Calleja
Jun 23rd 2010, 17:09
"When your arguments become more rational, we might inhabit the same world"
And being convinced of the existence of invisible and undetectable beings is rational? Thankfully, me and you will never inhabit the same world Mr Caruana. Let's just leave it at that.
charles caruana
Jun 23rd 2010, 17:09
Again Mr Calleja, you are stating the obvious: yes your observations could be measured scientifically, but in fact they were not, that’s why your conclusions were presumptuous and unfounded.
Yes Mr Calleja, the supernatural cannot be measured scientifically, I know, what’s new about that? And yes it is experienced by faith, like love, like honesty, lie beauty and the majority of our everyday experiences. Science is just one form of reason, and scientific evidence one form of evidence. Can you give me scientific proof of your love for your wife and children? Do you need laboratory observation and experiment to convince me of your honesty? Even science itself requires a kind of 'faith', in the order and regularity of natural law and the ability of the human mind to discover them.
Mr Calleja, you seem to be an intelligent man, why do I have to repeat these basic notions to you?
About your connection between exclamation marks and emotion, again you are indulging in a logical fallacy. If you did not detect the irony of my first post to you, you never will.
S. Calleja
Jun 23rd 2010, 17:47
Love, honesty, beauty, peace, faith, etc. are qualitative not quantitative terms, and thus cannot be measured numerically. However there's nothing supernatural about them. They are in essence abstract man-made terminology to describe a set of (real) observed and experienced human emotions, which ARE physical.
You can rightfully say that they exist, but, like the supernatural, are only a perception of human experience, used to simplify our thought processes and make order of things. Let me put it another way: "Is a life of sacrifice to your children caused by love for them, or is love the terminology we use for a life of sacrifice to your children and other similar altruistic feats?" Sometimes it is easier to think the cause of the actions of love is love itself, rather than love used as a terminology to describe the actions of love.
A good book about this philosophical notion is "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which has little to do with Zen and motorcycles, but rather is an exposition on quality and how it relates to the rest of the physical structural world. It's open ended so don't worry :-)
Good luck and happy reading.
S. Calleja
Jun 23rd 2010, 18:55
"Even science itself requires a kind of 'faith', in the order and regularity of natural law and the ability of the human mind to discover them."
Wrong. In fact science is never satisfied with the order and regularity of natural law, and is always on the lookout for the exceptions, which general tend to indicate a hole in the original explanation, only to be filled in with a more refined explanation of how the universe works. Each new hypothesis and its experimental proof is incomplete due to its empiricism, but induction is the best thing we currently have since it is practically impossible to test an infinite number of scenarios.
With regards to the ability of the human mind to discover them, you're wrong again. Peer reviews have to make sure that the experiment is repeatable, and scientists are continually on the lookout for new sparks of inspirations to come up with better, simpler and more unifying explanations.
Once the term "faith" enters the scientific domain, its stops being science and becomes religion.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:33
@ K Zammit Tabona
I am no spokesperson for the Church and will not arrogate to myself the right to interpret the Bishops' statements. From what I can understand, which may or may not be correct, the Church regularly makes it clear that each human being of whatever race,creed and orientation is endowed with dignity and can aspire to Grace and Salvation. I do not think that the Church should provide any kind of propaganda to the unspeakable NL; it leaves that sort of thing to the sensationalist media. The unmentionable has "no point" whatsoever; only fools and idiots are likely to credit him with "being somehow right". Though fools and idiots do exist - you would be surprised to discover the lofty nirvanas some of them inhabit - the Church cannot be held responsible for the delirium of such. Even then, as far as i can tell, the Church condemns actions and thoughts and never individuals, who irrespective of their heinous actions may always be bessed with Grace and Salvation by God Himself . I am sure you are familiar with Greene's excellent short story "The Hint of an Explanation".
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:50
...........and when the church kept silent in the 20s and 30s watching with mounting horror the rise of Adolf Hitler? What then?
charles caruana
Jun 23rd 2010, 10:00
@KZT
If you are comparing NL to Hitler, and Malta to Hitler's Germany, you really must have the fertile imagination of an artist. You see, even great evil demands its own special kind of genius, and rest assured, this is not the case here.
ftheuma
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:18
What is article 2(1) really saying? Why was the need felt to write down what was then obvious in our constitution? Is it implied that maltese catholics have more rights than maltese non-catholics? Is the state taking the role of protector of the church? More to the point, splutterers and fulminators apart, could it really be true that the majority of the Maltese population in 2010 still believe that the right and duty to show what is right and wrong belongs to the church? Does that not mean that the state is relinquishing a measure of its powers to the church?
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:34
What you think and what we think as Maltese is completely irrelevant. I do not think that those clauses should be there HOWEVER they are there and believe me, not party will ever remove them unless given a direct order to do so by the Pope himself.
Once these clauses are there the Church has the constitutional obligation to live up to them.
It is as simple as that
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 22nd 2010, 18:37
@KennethZammitTabona
" ...no(t ) party will ever remove them( the articles in the Constitution) unless given a direct order to do so by the Pope himself" (KZT).
What a provocative speculation! I can imagine "the Pope" uttering a "nihil obstat" but certainly no "giving a direct order" to the political parties forming the government of the state of Malta.
charles caruana
Jun 22nd 2010, 21:48
@ KZT
NL has already been condemned by our civil courts for racist hate speech. His racist, xenophobic and pro-abortionist speeches are, judged by Catholic moral standard, sinful. The stand of the Church on such issues is well known by everyone, and it has repeatedly denounced them. But you should know that the Church always condemns the sin, never the particular sinner. Do you really think that the Church is under a ‘constitutional obligation’ to publicly condemn every single sinner who publicly boasts of his sins, whatever they are? That is absurd. Article 2 has nothing to do with this question.The real question to ask is why are you demanding the Church to do this in the specific case of NL? Do you expect the church to grind your particular axe KZT?
Joe Tabone-Adami
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:44
Regarding KZT's astonishment at the alleged absence of any condemnation by the Maltese Church authorities on Lowell's stance on defective foetuses and defective babies.
KZT is very well aware - or should be as a proficient columnist - of the Catholic Church's stand for the protection of life from its inception to natural death. This stand has been proclaimed over and over again for ages and all over the world - including Malta. To expect, therfefore, our Bishops and Church leaders to take up the cudgels at every absurdity - and everytime - that any self appointed pseudo-prophet - not to say popinjay - of the Lowell type 'solemnly' pronounces in this regard is not the stuff of serious opinionists.
renald williams
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:34
From jazz to Rock… peace and health wishes to you all…
quote... the message of Jesus Christ...
1
Jesus is Greek Petra, Rock, Roccia, Blata, cannot be moved;
Luke 6:47-48; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8
2
Lord and God is Rock ;
Genesis 49:24; Deuteronomy 32:3-4, 15, 18, 30-31; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2; 2 Samuel 23:3; Psalms 18:2; Psalms 19:14; Psalms 28:1; Psalms 31:1-3; Psalms 62:2-7; Psalms 71:1-3; Psalms 78:35; Psalms 89:26; Psalms 92:15; Psalms 94:22; Psalms 95:1; Psalms 144:1; Isaiah 8:13-14; Isaiah 26:4; Isaiah 30:29; Isaiah 51:1
3
Christ is Rock, and on Christ the Church is built
Saint Augustine (353-430) Sermons on New Testament Lessons, The Retractions, Sermon, On Rebuke and Grace;
Ewsebius of Caesarea (263-340) Commentary on the Psalms
Theodoret Bishop of Cyprus (5th Century) Epistle
Cassiodorus (490-583) Exposition in the Psalms
4
on Sinless Lord church build, Gates of Hell/Hades will not prevail
not on Christian sinners, under Satan control, Mattew 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33
5
Christians are Greek petros, pietra, stones, gebel, which can be moved; 1 Peter 2:5
6
Jesus gave Keys to all Disciples,
Revelation/Apocalypse 1:18; Revelation/Apocalypse 3:7; Matthew 16:19
to pray directly,
Matthew 18:1; Matthew 18:18-19; Matthew 16:19.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:14
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! you are waking up the demons
charles caruana
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:25
Dear Mr Williams,
As much as I sincerely envy your knowledge of Biblical texts and Patristics, do you really think you are helping the Christian cause by shooting volleys of quotations at your interlocutors? I respect your freedom to do so, but do you actually think that anybody reads your references much less goes on to look them up? Did Christ himself bury his listeners under heaps of learned quotations, or didn't he speak in homely Aramaic using simple parables? Wouldn’t you be more persuasive and effective if you distilled and communicated your Christian message in more personal and plain English, sticking more closely to the argument, avoiding denominational polemics and using current idiom and expression?
Peace and health wishes to you.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:20
Despite the efforts of mischief makers from down under and Ditchkins supporters, the salient clauses of our Constitution will NOT be altered. Any attempt, however loud, boisterous and iniquous, is doomed to failure. MPs would be well advised not to renege on their oath of office to protect and defend our Constitution. The Constitution of Malta, like any other constitution in democratic countries, is what allows for peaceful co-existence and harmony amongst the citizens of a country. Meddling with our Constitution does not only deprive citizens of their birth rights and the legacy of those who fought for our sovereignity, but it also throws the nation into chaos and anarchy.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:13
you are spot on Mr farrugia HOWEVER do you, or do you not agree that the church
is constitutionally obliged to speak out on matters of christian morality and that not doing so allows people to have second theoughts as to whether a man like Norman Lowell ' could be right' or 'could have a point'?
John Abela
Jun 22nd 2010, 19:17
'Meddling with our Constitution does not only deprive citizens of their birth rights and the legacy of those who fought for our sovereignity, but it also throws the nation into chaos and anarchy. 'You seem to have 'anarchy' on your mind. You continually write about it. Since when is revising a Constitution lead to 'anarchy'? Are you so afraid of change? Sorry, but you don't live alone on this island. What 'birthrights' are you referring to? And what 'legacy of those who fought for our sovereignity' are you referring to? Surely not the legacy of someone who was prepared to keep nukes stored in our country for the Brits? Is that the 'sovereignity' you are talking about?
Over to you: let's see you blasting me with sarcasm and irony, since you certainly have no counter-argument for that.
JOe VELLa
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:11
@Dawn Cummings
You referred in your mail ''no Maltese will attack me on this ....... go ahead ...... I don't care! Boy! my friend, you sound really hot around your collar! I assure you we Maltese do not ATTACK neither do we BITE !
However we willingly debate if you so wish, SO, it seem you are all excited to quote you: ''That's is pure arrogance you say the church has the right etc., etc.''
Talking of arrogance, when I joined the Canadian Scottish Reserve, (I always went for rebels) I had to swear my loyalty to the Queen of Britain or is of England who happen to be the head of the Anglican Church.
or, when the Government raised the VAT from 15 to 17 per cent, without consulting me.
When this article was introduced was another time, I believe like you, not that it is arrogance but like every normal sensible person it is time to be modified or dropped.
By the way I have no intention to ask any foreigner to challenge me if he dared. I think it is unbecoming to get that in print here not even in Canada.
Another time
E.Muscat
Jun 22nd 2010, 14:51
@Cummings:we are not imposing our beliefs on anybody.On this island we are the majority: so we declare our faith in Jesus Christ,entrench it in our constitution, and that is democracy (since we do allow other religions and non-religions to freely practise here):if you do not like it,sorry,but keep your sh by all means!
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:15
Apart from betraying a complete misconception about how democracy works, your argument is also self-defeating. Christians may be a majority today, but tomorrow (as the saying goes) is another day. I suggest you think hard about the implications of your own comments before posting them. You might find your own arguments used against you sooner than you think.
E.Muscat
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:41
@R.Vassallo:by the time your warning has a chance of seeing the light of day,we, the indigineous maltese, will rise to the occasion.And by the way,democracy is the will of the majority that governs and regulates,so help me God.Go to Iran for your theocratic education and then smell the coffee!
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 22nd 2010, 17:39
Funny you should think you are 'indigenously Maltese' when you share a surname with the capital of Oman.
Dawn Cummings
Jun 23rd 2010, 12:06
By having the church as say in our constitution and interferring in states affairs like the introduction of civil divorce...yes you are imposing your beliefs on us.
I am not a catholic, separated and want to re-marry. What business do I have with the catholic church anmd who is she to tell me what to do...(btw...I do not care if in your eyes I am a sinner...those are your eyes after all and not mine)
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 22nd 2010, 14:45
Kenneth your article is depressingly defeatist. This is a Constitution we are talking about here, not a book of magic spells straight out of Harry Potter. It is a legal document, and there are perfectly legal ways to change it: Parliament is one, the Constitutional Court is another. I can't understand why are you are so ready to give up on even the possibility of removing Article 2. It is an entirely achievable objective, and I have no doubt it will, in fact, one day be removed... like plenty of other anachronistic hang-overs from our theocratic past. You just need a little patience, that's all.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:06
Raphael
I am not asking for its removal yoy are right because I know that we will be long gone lost and forgotten by the time someone will be able to do so unless the Church itself washes its hands of its constitutional responsibilities which is the most likely.
Once the 3 clauses are there I am pointing out that the Church vis a vis racism for instance is NOT taking its constitutional obligations seriously and allowing a situation where the average understanding of morality is a load of codswallop.
charles caruana
Jun 22nd 2010, 14:36
Kenneth, though there are a number of good points that I subscribe to in your article, there is one serious confusion that must be highlighted. It is evidenced by such as sentence as this: ‘should that freedom of expression lead to breaking the law, both civil and moral, then it becomes heinous and must be prosecuted instantly.’ Not quite.
Criminal and civil law are not the same as the Church’s moral laws. Though they may overlap at many points, they remain distinct. Some acts deemed sinful by Catholic morality, are not illegal, such as adultery. Similarly, someone who is merely speaking freely in favor of divorce or abortion is not going against any constitutional law, though he is certainly at odds with Church morality.
However, I do agree with you about the increasing number of nominal or cafeteria Catholics around who are abysmally ignorant of even basic Church teachings. They make up for their ignorance by hysterical and vociferous shouting.Though this may be cause and effect of the times ‘in a country that each day sinks to new depths of moral degeneracy,’ it does point to serious shortcomings in the catechetical and evangelizing efforts of the local Church.
JOe VELLa
Jun 22nd 2010, 13:18
@Kenneth Zammit Tabona
As usual your writing is worth reading and informative, besides it is food for thought to those who want to be taught!
Two points that I wish to refer to, (1) is your mention that we are the Pharisee. I always knew from time immemorial that pharisee are referred to those who know the law, preach the law, dress different to impress, YET, they do not practice what they preach. So I say yes some are pharisee, I could be one, but most I rather refer to as being like sheep.
(2) is on the issue of the Cross, sorry although you could have a point and I understand your view I say how come Poland, Italy, and Malta decided to take a stand on this? I was one against the removal because I am starting not to trust the E.U.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:01
1) The European Court has NOTHING to do with us being in the EU.
2) Our Constitution makes removing the cross from public places impossible. So we have nothing to worry about.
Franco Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2010, 12:24
Yes, I agree. In many ways, we, as a nation, are just a sham! Our religion is a constant show. It has also started to divide us even more. Religion is also used for political mileage. People are ostracised for their religion. People are even thrown out of work within a Ministry for their religion.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2010, 12:24
@ Victor Rodenas
Of course, you are right to speak of "new depths of moral degeneracy", but i am not as pessimistic as you are about "the beliefs of MOST young people". In my profession, i happen to be in constant contact with hundreds of young people and i can testify that most of them are fun-loving, "normal" teenagers who cherish Catholic values. Unfortunately, you may be misled by some of the loudmouths and pseudo-liberated individuals who regularly hit the keyboards in order to post delirious inanities on these threads. Most of the others have more fulfilling things to do in life. As for moral degeneracy, i bet that it is mostly evident in people our age, ie. forties and fifties and even then it would be erroneous to generalise.
victor rodenas
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:12
I hope you are right Andrew...........well ,see you in about 15-20 yrs just to see who was right.If we are still alive........pro tempore.
E.Muscat
Jun 22nd 2010, 12:20
@KZT:you mock the maltese in general: the attorney general ,a priest and the archbishop come in for special treatment !
The jellyfish has a lot of moral fibre:it stings you if you annoy it!
Why do you condemn what you call 'our spiritual infantilism'?
We,the people,need to have a set of beliefs that unite us.They may not be perfect as other religions claim theirs to be, but we have a faith which is both fundamental and populist!
We also adapt to the modern world and chose also to celebrate our beliefs in village feasts and fireworks!
We are not all descended from the royal house of Bona,thank God!
You even had a go at the Cross : why , you want it replaced by the Crescent?
Try and unite with Mr.Flynn of Australia who regularly in this paper wants to convert us to emptiness!
Dawn Cummings
Jun 22nd 2010, 13:17
I prefer to be empty than full of sh.
I can't understand why you (catholics) are imposing your beliefs on the non-catholics? That's is pure arrogance. you say the chucrh has the right to do this because of Article 2...well this article has no place in a republic's institution.
But of course...no you maltese will attack me on this...go ahead...I don't care.
William P Flynn
Jun 22nd 2010, 11:56
According to KZT, Mr.Lowell’s Imperium is going to romp it in for only Malta’s Article2 can stop him; and no other European country has anything resembling Article2. No wonder Mr.Lowell was so confident. Should we start a countdown for Imperium D-Day?
The last time Mr. Lowell’s philosophy took hold it did so in 100%Christian, 60%Catholic Germany and Austria.(the Anschluss).
The removal of Article 2 doesn’t require an entire political party; just one or two independents can force a referendum. If we need a referendum, the church should request it.
But why should it even require a referendum? The church needs credibility right now and should relinquish Article2 voluntarily. It was ill-gotten;even the Holy See was against its introduction.
I differ that we have to wear Article2 for ever. Other country’s churches manage without it. The church imposed it on us in 1964 by foul means and sooner or later it must go.
If not, gays are doomed, separated spouse shall never get divorce etc. Article 2 is a stolen right. It should be returned.
And, it’s not Jazz, KZT. It’s the tango and it takes two to do that. The church can’t keep Art 2 if we refuse to dance.
Antonio Anastasi
Jun 22nd 2010, 12:59
I cannot understand the attitude of the past years that it is the Church that needs to bend to our way of life, our beliefe.
People do not go to church Because they feel that the church should modernize itself and adapt to todays standards.
The church should not interfere or comment on our daily life.
It should simply, stand there with head bowed and be silent.
Which is just what it has unfortunately done, particularly in the NAZI dogma(my words) incidents mentioned by KZT.
We all too often forget that God is not there to bend to our wishes, yet that is just what we ask the church to do.
There is no other great religion who's faithul demand that their religion bends to their wishes, be it Islam or Buddisim or Hindu. Like Catholisim these religions too have in an influence a compromise between religion
They have their beliefes and the right to either follow these or not, as do we.
Mr. Attorney General, If a facist is procecuted for hate crimes when speaking to a small crowd, How much greater is the crime when the same utterances are repeated on prime time national TV?
E.Muscat
Jun 22nd 2010, 13:55
@Mr.Flynn:you and KZT together ! Get together and reform our constitution and then it will be foreign interference at its best : protection for maltese souls through the art of atheism !
David Borg
Jun 22nd 2010, 21:50
Mr Flynn, have you read Rajt Malta Tinbidel by Dr Herbert Ganado? Your statment regarding the Holy See's position in 1964 is wrongm at least acccording to Dr Ganado.
He states that there were members of the Catholic Church in Malta who wished to have a different wording of the Constition to protect more strongly the Church's rights.
Karl Consiglio
Jun 22nd 2010, 11:19
@KZT
So true about culture and religion, but you forgot to talk about jazz.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 22nd 2010, 12:19
It's merely an expression Karl; nothing to worry about!
E.Muscat
Jun 22nd 2010, 13:47
@KZT:so all that jazz is pure poetic licence,ejj?I don't think you understood what Mr.Consiglio meant? I think if you go after our constitution,religion,etc, such poetic licence is hardly relevant.
victor rodenas
Jun 22nd 2010, 11:16
Yes you are right Kenneth ,no party will have the temerity to carry such a thing through. But as you said,Malta is a country that each day sinks to new depths of moral degeneracy. So slowly but surely we are sinking and in the near future( 10-20yrs. time) we will hit the bottom. If we are still here by then we will notice that everything has changed,...we will be like the rest of the World in the good and the bad.......if I look at the sky and see black low clouds approaching ,I say a storm is coming ,many storms pass and very little damage is done......but by weighing the beliefs of most young people.....to-morrows generation ,we will be hit by The Perfect Storm and everything will be mowed down to smiterns. Most people posses a weak cultural religion ,instead of chewing meat they are still sucking milk. Being only Bendu`s sheep, they will be the first to go over the cliff.
Joe Zammit
Jun 22nd 2010, 11:06
Kenneth, remember that, in his providence God has sent us St Paul to convert us and make us faithful followers of Christ. That was 2000 years ago. He thought of us then, do you think he is not thinking of us now? I hope you are understanding what I'm saying!
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 22nd 2010, 12:18
I understand you perfectly well Mr Zammit however I hope you do understand me. St Paul has nothing to do with the church's constitutional rights and obligations
Dawn Cummings
Jun 22nd 2010, 13:06
Why don't you make some social work and re-collect your sheep in Paola, Mr. Joe Zammit?
According to this link, only 52% of residents of Paola attend mass.....tal biki le?? (that is below the average of 56% if you calculate them all)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Malta#Current_status_and_law
And a question from my side: Why haven't you commented on Alison't blog on abortion? Is it because you can't convert the unborn children to catholicism or maybe do not care because they are not baptised yet and have no soul? I guess you were just too busy on other blogs.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:31
I understand you perfectly but what you say has nothing to do with the debate in hand. Please stick to the subject