'Streaker' runs into Marsaxlokk church

A. J. Ellul

Nov 9th 2010, 12:56

@ Dr. Saliba. Perhaps we should feel compassion for Mr. Xuereb who appears to lead an empty and bitter life, that by his own reckoning, shall literally come to an abrupt dead-end when his time comes. He attempts to compensate for a life apparently devoid of the faintest glimmer of hope by perversely getting his jollies in repeatedly posting the same nonsense, like an annoying broken record, intentionally offending people with his patronizing, and condescending, diatribes that betray him as someone who, underneath it all, appears to be literally scared to death. His sole comfort appears to rest on his self-attributed intellectual superiority, which he bases on his denial of God’s existence, while flattering himself that others feel threatened by his claptrap. Others, who are at the very least his intellectual equals, feel sorry for him, not threatened by him. It is a trivial, petty person indeed who seeks to bolster his/her self-esteem by belittling others.

“It has been said that the highest praise of God consists in the denial of Him by the atheist, who finds creation so perfect that he can dispense with a creator.” - Marcel Proust

A. J. Ellul

Nov 8th 2010, 16:31

@ Joe Xuereb

First, let me ask you who do you imagine the mentor is that you attributed to me when you directed your claptrap at me “+ mentor”? Rest assured that there is no “mentor” except in your fevered imagination. In the same posting, you incorrectly attribute to me the following - "We're weak, you say. And then one goes to heaven." and again ".... than weak (your word) and hinging ....." Where in my remarks do you find these words, especially the word weak? Are you hallucinating, or is your ego so over-inflated that you cannot see and must resort to misquote others fraudulently in order to further your weak opinions?

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 5th 2010, 13:23

@Joe Xuereb

Please understand that I would not give a farthing to induce you to believe anything. I would really need all the help that God can give me if ever reach a stage where I would need to “shore up (my) own belief” with anything you are able to say. You are not even able to identify one, just one, of the Freudian slips you falsely attribute to me! Your diversion into “slips/Y fronts” suggests that you would not know what a Freudian“ slip of the tongue” is without delving into some Wikipedia.

Joe Xuereb

Nov 5th 2010, 12:44

@ Ellul + mentor. Quote: 'Confessing one’s transgressions and asking for forgiveness is an act of humility. We're weak, you say. And then one goes to heaven'. Do you realise how silly that sounds? I understand you because I've been there. I found it wanting. Better to be godless and 'strong' (as much as a mortal human ever could be) by reason, using a god-given brain-cell or two, than weak (your word) and hinging life onto - what exactly? If you find me threatening, don't read me (we've always got a choice). If you insist on feeling threatened, why don't you take it up with one of your stalwarts, who is supposed to defend what you stand for? I am referring to:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta
Oh well! as long as the Constitution favours freedom of worship for all.
Not forgetting the Church's loss of credibility by its own bejewelled hands.
Doc, you'd give anything for me to believe but not for altruistic reasons, oh no! Merely to shore up your own belief, so insecure are you!
You look for everybody's F.slips/Y.fronts but your own. You don't see yours if they stared you in the face during a month of Sundays. Infaxxaw il-griehi!

A. J. Ellul

Nov 4th 2010, 13:49

@ J. Xuereb

No, it was not meant to “floor you”. It is clearly impossible to “floor” someone who arrogantly bases his claim to intellectual superiority on his denial of the existence of God. Amazingly, you contradict yourself yet again .... "I know god knows irony when he sees it." One wonders why as a self-proclaimed atheist, you repeatedly refer to the God that you reject. That IS ironic.

Your remarks remind one of the words of the wisest man who ever walked this earth, Jesus Christ, far wiser than you or me. He said, "Therefore I speak to them in parables because seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." The English dramatist John Heywood paraphrased this into the saying commonly used today, "There is none so blind as those who will not see."
Clearly, it is waste of time discussing such matters with you. Goodbye.

Joe Xuereb

Nov 3rd 2010, 17:18

@ A.J.Ellul. Was that supposed to floor me? Atheists are made of stern stuff you know.
For the sake of argument, I can not prove anything any more, or less, than you can. But I insist that accepting finality is an act of humility. You, on the other hand, justify your humility by all manner of made-up spin as gleaned from a dusty, dog-eared tome. Go on spinning!
That makes me more plausible. And you, you don't stand a chance.
Happy journeying towards...........................? Redemption of transgressions committed? Not using your god-given-brain-cells for a start. And no, there IS no contradicition there. I know god knows irony when he sees it. You have still to start to being to understand that. More's the pity!

A. J. Ellul

Nov 3rd 2010, 15:26

@ J. Xuereb. How contradictory of you – a self-confessed atheist acknowledging a “god-given-brain” Confessing one’s transgressions and asking for forgiveness is an act of humility. People are imperfect, and despite their best efforts, they sometimes re-offend. Clearly, your “honest ego” admits no transgression. How could you? As an atheist, you arrogantly determine what is/isn’t a transgression, and since you make the rules, you couldn’t possibly transgress - the PINNACLE of arrogance.

You mock people’s belief in eternal life. Believing in eternal life is a humble admission of our imperfection, acknowledging our inability to achieve fulfillment during our lives. By “accepting our finality”, you relegate humans to the level of animals and vegetation. It’s all over at death you claim. Can you verify that it is so?

You accuse "’practising’ Catholics” of “terrible crimes". True, there have been those who claimed they were Catholic and committed dreadful crimes. Yet, you fail to mention the heinous crimes committed in the name of atheism – Lenin (3,500,000), Stalin (40,000,000), Hitler (11,000,000), Mao Zedong (30,000,000), Pol Pot (2,300,000), Kim Il Sung (3,000,000).

One can only imagine your reaction when your time comes – “Oh my God, I was wrong!”

Joe Xuereb

Nov 3rd 2010, 14:36

Francisco (very san-tly, but not the Goya y Lucientes version, the one with the even more sometime-saintly, sometime-profane, brush-strokes), I don't need you to expose me mister. I expose myself quite admirably, an exposure that's focused and stands up to scrutiny. What you stand for, whence your exposure is really immaterial, is crystal-clear and it's not a happy scene. Goya would pass it by, too saintly for him and too profane even more so. El veneno!! would stop a raging bull in its tracks. It would turn round, blow a petard, and retreat to its enclosure. Untouched and unscathed.
Gracias to Ernest Hemingway.

Joe Xuereb

Nov 2nd 2010, 20:47

I'll say the same thing again but from a different angle.
Time was (centuries ago, if we're going to tap into history) when the church's punishment was something to be reckoned with. This was a time when the church was all-powerful and people did not have access to computers. And cathedrals rose from the plains as a reminder to the people in hovels surrounding such opulence (e.g. Chartres) what awaited them if they behaved. A veritable foretaste of heaven. In them days there was famine, and pestilence and regal wars, and the people were prone to rebellion even if it was 'sans souliers' (without shoes) and just pitchforks.
Time has changed all this. Now the church's strategy is not to draw too much damning attention to herself, believers are ever more lukewarm, no more cathedrals are being build (bar in Malta and the huge one at Xewkija, Gozo, naturally). So, any misdemeanour within the church is swept under the carpet or sent off to some obscure backwater (gay 'friends' of mine of the priestly - you didn't think I only frequented prostitutes, did you?! - persuasion got this treatment when they became too hot to handle in Malta.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 2nd 2010, 16:25

Joe Xwereb is mistaken if he thinks that I will refrain from exposing him because he openly criticises me without actually addressing me by name. His comment is actually a CONFIRMATION of my statement that nowadays, and for centuries past, the Church tribunals did not send anyone to prison, let alone to execution. Lacking any pertinent argument he is forced to go back in history for centuries in order to dredge up long abandoned cruel and abhorrent punishments that were routine for all SECULAR administrations by whom they were administered. Regrettably in those unenlightened days the distinction between Church and State was very blurred indeed and, very often, being a heretic according to one religion (not just Catholicism) was tantamount to being guilty of secular treason. To be loyal the citizen of those days very often had no choice but to practice the same religion as his sovereign otherwise he would be giving treasonable allegiance to a rival contender to the throne practicing a different religion. That is not relevant to the society of the third millenium.

Joe Xuereb

Nov 2nd 2010, 13:06

* I say this because the church knows damn well that once an abuser, always an abuser. The church, more than anybody else, has glaring proof that sinning is a repeat-performance phenomenon. How does it know? Through the sacrosanct sacrament of confession, you dummy!!
When I think about it, maybe sending a priest to kingdom come would be better at least the children would be safe. But I'm a kind man. A criminal priest should be behind bars where very likely he'll get a taste of his own medicine (if one is to believe what goes on in prisons, worldwide). See link below:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_and_Men's_Eyes

Joe Xuereb

Nov 2nd 2010, 13:00

1) I'm not addressing this at our doc as it's quite pointless. But I'll quote him just the same: ' I said that nowadays Church tribunals do not send people to prison'. I had to laugh. In them there days the churchy tribunal sent people to prison, burned them at the stake, Bassett allsorts of pleasantly sadistic sendings-off by, no doubt, a catholic executioner.. These here days the churchy tribunal does NOT send them to prison. Instead it keeps them on file (symbolically) and transfers them, in its self-serving naivete,* to pastures new.
continued

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 2nd 2010, 11:26

@Raymond Cachia.

You are actually the latest addition to the list of those who have been “putting the words in (my) mouth" by “inferring” that I said things that I did not say and with which I do not agree.

It is true that I am happy that the Church said “sorry” but I did not say, or imply, that that was enough. I maintain that, obviously, it is outside the jurisdiction of the Church “to put clerical criminals in prison” as you desire. That would require that aggrieved citizens exercise their right (if not their duty) to do their share by lodging the requisite complaint with the police. As the law stands today that is an essential requirement before the police could investigate, prosecute and obtain the sentence of imprisonment that would make you happy.

I look up to the Church for moral guidance because it is NOT TRUE that the “reprehensible crimes” you mention take place “ under the mantle of holiness and Christ”. They are carried out specifically AGAINST the teaching of Christ and his Church – not under their mantle. And you know it.

Joe Xuereb

Nov 1st 2010, 21:27

@A.J.(Twanny) Ellul. As an atheist my ego is as inflated as a bicycle-tyre should be, properly pumped up. It is an honest ego because it has not the arrogance to want to live forever, the ULTIMATE arrogance. You, like some others here, hold onto your believes because you are incapable of relinquishing this unverifiable promise that you all hang onto. This renders your life 'on-hold', 'in abeydance'. In the meantime you sin and go to confession and then sin some more. What a life!! inside the opium den! It doesn't work and proof of this are the terrible crimes committed by 'practising' Catholics. These, and examples of blatant denial, are all around us. Here, even!
In life we have a choice to either live decently and HUMBLY, accepting our finality. Or we can sin and be forgiven, and sin again, and again and aspire to an arrogant life-everlasting. Welcome to the Opium Den that's Shianghai in the Med. If one has to believe, why not fully use, gratefully, god-given-brain?. Not easy but nothing worthwhile ever is. The trick is to question, question, and question yet again. We're getting there. Blind-belief is so stultifying and we deserve better. Not proselytizing, honest!!

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 1st 2010, 11:15

@Mikiel Sciberras.

Why the malice of attributing to me things that I never said. I never said that priests should not go to prison - I said that nowadays Church tribunals do not send people to prison.

I never said, as you falsely allege, that human laws are "sacrosanct" and that they should not be changed even if reprehensible.

You are so bereft of logical argument that you feel the need to invent remarks that I never said and to put them in my mouth.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 1st 2010, 05:45

@GuzeXerri.

The Roman Catholic Church does not find itself in any new predicament – its persecution has been the order of the day since its inception, fulfilling its founder’s prediction. It has had its saints and its sinners. Its detractors put on blinkers so as to see only the sinners. I do not bury my head in the sand because I have always acknowledged that we Catholics do not always achieve the perfection demanded by Christ. We declare that we are all sinners and that is why we beg God’s forgiveness in our daily prayers. It is the detractors of the Catholic Church who accuse Catholics unfairly that they claim to be “holier than thou”s. Contrary to what you allege, I do not absolve anybody’s crimes – I only beg that my own sins be forgiven. When others sin I think humbly “there, but for the grace of God go I”. I do not sit in judgment over him and I do not blame the societies to which he belongs, possibly unworthily.

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 31st 2010, 18:17

@GuzeXerri.

I cannot prevent you from sticking your head in the sand, ostrich-like, and from denying what is glaringly obvioius to everyone else namely that there is a persistent concerted campaign against Catholicism in these blogs under any pretext whatsoever be it nude streaking into a church, a referendum about divorce legislation, sex abuse, homosexual exhibitionism, abortion, revolting "artistic" spectacles etc. Let me remind you only that sticking your head in the sand so as not to perceive the obvious is a very awkward and ridiculous posture that exposes your posterior to a very hefty kick without the possibility of any adequate response from you.

A. J. (Tony/Twanny) Ellul

Oct 31st 2010, 13:44

There are people who arrogantly think that their refusal to acknowledge God’s existence somehow makes them the intellectual superiors of those who do believe. They seize opportunities (as some have done here) to spout off their absurd remarks, often under the guise of humour or pseudo-intellectualism; remarks that they know are inflammatory and offensive to others. Equally arrogant and irresponsible are those who remarked that they were amused by such comments. Sadly, the arrogance of these people appears to be a thin mask for fragile egos that crave attention – an “adult” form of childish tantrums.

The time shall come when they too shall die. Then they shall be in for some unpleasant surprises when they discover that many people - among them many that believe in God - are at the very least their intellectual equals or superiors, that God does indeed exist, and that while He has a sense of humour, He abhors arrogance when He reminds them that, “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled.” (Matt. 23:1)

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 31st 2010, 11:52

@MikielSciberras

The Church could very well be anxious to avoid scandal but it is not the Church that obstructs the trial of lapsing clergy under the secular justice system. If that were so, the Church Response Team would not advise victims and their legal representatives that they should lodge the necessary report with the police themselves since the response team could not do it on their behalf. No Church tribunal could ever satisfy the victims’ demand that guilty priests should be imprisoned – that practice was abolished centuries ago.

Maltese law may be reprehensible according to you but not to me. Above all you are absolutely wrong to judge that MY correct quotation of the law as morally reprehensible. Whom do you expect me to quote? You?

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 31st 2010, 09:12

@MarySmith

Here are more false attributions by you iaccording to your brand of morality that clashes with mine.

I do not obtain my information “only” from the Church. I am a fairly liberally educated person and as a result I do not swallow uncritically the obviously biased propaganda of the antireligious.

The letter AND the spirit of the Maltese laws insist that acts of indecency shall not be investigated ex officio by the police and require a prior complaint if they were not committed in a public place. The reason is obvious to any intelligent person. You are manipulating that truth by applying it inappropriately to other crimes such as murder or GBH.

The proper function of the Church is to convert sinners not to report sinners to the state. It does not obstruct anyone from doing that reporting and in Malta the Church Response Team advises accordingly. The Church deals with sinners in accordance with its own competence under Canon Law – it cannot send any sinner to prison on demand by the victims. The state does that in accordance with its own laws. That is known as the separation of Church from State.

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 30th 2010, 22:54

@Mary Smith.

You do not understand plain English. I DID NOT SAY anything that could be twisted into an exoneration of any paedophile, whether priest or laity. I HAVE NOT put the onus on the child victim, or the legal guardian, to report that heinous crime. It is the law of the land - not drafted by me - that demands that the police shall not act ex officio without a report being lodged if the alleged crime was not committed in a public place – and there are good reasons for that legal requirement.

My morals are such as not to allow me to make false attributions like the above made by you. They oblige me to draw a distinction between the abusive and forbidden lapses by individuals and the official teaching of the Church. And last of all I do not obtain my information about the official teaching of the Catholic Church by reference to Hitchens and Youtube. That elementary precaution protects me from making the kind of false attributions that I have pointed out to you.

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 30th 2010, 21:20

@GuzeXerri

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? I do not blame anyone for being the innocent victim of any paedophile priest. I criticize them for neglecting to take the essential initial step of lodging their complaint themselves with the police at the opportune time - not now belatedly and as an intrinsic part of the on-going widespread anti-Catholic Church campaign. These victims are now making it clear that nothing less than a prison sentence would satisfy them. It was not within the jurisdiction of the Church to grant them this wish. Evidently, the police, not the Church, could ever satisfy them but the police were prevented from doing their job because the victims neglected to play their part through their guardians or as soon as they became of age to manage their affairs.

Mary Smith

Oct 30th 2010, 20:18

@Dr. Saliba

Well if I have not burst your bubble, then let me put it in another way. You are deep in denial about the facts surrounding your Church.

Again, I reiterate my point, you have put the onus on the child to report these heinous crimes and exonerated the culprits, that is the Church and its clergy. Therefore it is the fault of the victims!!

I do not know what sort of morals you aspire to Dr. Saliba, but all I can say is that I am glad I do not belong to your "club".

By the way, paedophilia within the Church is not the only crime that your 'club' is guilty of, this is just the top of the iceberg.

Here is a list, by no means extensive, as outlined in this UK show by the eminent Chrstopher Hitchens, which is reproduced here on Youtube for your listening pleasure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilfSlpENb2Y

Mary Smith

Oct 30th 2010, 17:26

@Dr. Saliba

You state:

"I object to the lie that the Church condones paedophilia in its ranks when the blame for failing to prosecute lies, fairly and squarely, on those who do not act on the advice given to them to lodge a report also with the police because the Response Team itself was prevented from doing so."

Not so, Dr. Saliba. I hate to burst your bubble but there is no lie. The Catholic Church has been actively hiding and abetting paedophilia and therefore condoning it, within its ranks. The present Pope when he was Cardinal Ratzinger issued a world-wide letter of instructions to all bishops in each and every country, written in Latin no less, outlining a policy of outmost secrecy when dealing with Church child abuse victims and threatens those that speak out with excommunication.

Yet you would put the blame on the child-victims for not reporting these crimes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

Joe Xuereb

Oct 30th 2010, 12:14

2) At a glance, scanning the headlines this morning: the poor pueri victims of sexual abuse by priests finally want said priests guilty of the sexual abuse of said pueri to be behind bars. They are moving forward, the victims. Thank god for small mercies. They are moving towards freedom, and closure, and most importantly, towards maturity via letting go of this insidious stranglehold that's been choking them all their lives. Thank god for big mercies. When - and if, this being Malta after all - the allegedly guilty priests end up behind bars (the Lord moves in mysterious ways we are told) - that, for Malta, will be a big Red Letter Day. On that day, god will appear benevolent indeed.

Joe Xuereb

Oct 30th 2010, 11:59

1) My thoughts:
Not on YouTube is it?
Not funny. But female senior-citizens running out is quite funny.
He probably was having a psychotic episode. Not funny.
If mentally ill, nakedness in church is significant. Sexual repression - as in Catholic guilt - is often cause of neurosis leading to mental ill-health.
He could have been sleep-walking - well, running.
Damage to the door? He ran into the door and 'scratched' it with a hard part of his body (well-known in men first thing in the morning).
With so many veils in church, he could have been covered up and ended up doing a male impoersonation of Salome's dance of the seven veils.
Of course this man is very likely ill (one guy in UK does it for dare-devilment, so not 'ill'). But a useful survival tactic is learning to see the funny side of things. It's called having a sense of humour.
What has Lady Gaga and this man got in common?
Lady Gaga is covered in streakey bacon and this streaker left his bacon at home - but not the rest of the breakfast 'tackle' (if you see what I mean).
cont.

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 30th 2010, 06:07

@KevinCassar.

It is a very sick type of humour that tries to produce callous merriment at the expense of the medical sufferings or the religious convictions of their fellow men. That evident fact would never deter an unbeliever, or those who feel no compunction to be gentlemany and courteously respectful for the feelings of others. They try to justify themselves by pointing out that other people, for example in the entertainment business, do it all the time and so they might as well do it themselves. Being uncivil because others are just as uncivil is not a convincing argument!

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 30th 2010, 05:41

@GuzeXerri

There is no need for me to repeat my recent reply, denying your false statement that I do not object to the abuses committed by errant Catholics laity and clerical. This unambiguous reply was printed only a few hours ago. There is no hope that you will ever make the slight effort needed to understand it. For the last time, it is a blatant lie that I do not think that it is “ truly offensive and criminal such as the abuse of young children by Catholic clergy or when in care in its institutions”. I object to the lie that the Church condones paedophilia in its ranks when the blame for failing to prosecute lies, fairly and squarely, on those who do not act on the advice given to them to lodge a report also with the police because the Response Team itself was prevented from doing so.

I do not start blogs. I only react to correct false accusations. That is what I am doing now and that is what you object to. You have no logical response and have stoop to personal attacks because you prefer that your false accusations remain unrebutted.

Joe Xuereb

Oct 30th 2010, 01:43

2) It helps the omerta` by timely introductions to visiting dignitaries who with a pat on the back and some pretty beads touched by the hands of god on earth, the victims are well and truly blackmailed into keeping their mouths shut and fervently clutching till it hurts, like one's salvation depended on it, for safe-keeping a very valuable family heirloom for future generations to inherit. The whole thing is so insidious that only a snake terrified of losing its skin would manipulate a situation in this fashion.
But then blackmail (plus the usual 'free will' as sop, a veritable clincher, the conscience card and all that self-serving nonsense) is the name of the game. And the game is well-nigh up.

Joe Xuereb

Oct 30th 2010, 01:32

1) Putting aside, for a moment, men running around in church, naked, and frightening women with a fuller figure clad in black, and the horses..... may I quote one doctor: 'I object to the lie that the Church condones paedophilia in its ranks when the fault for failing to prosecute lies with those who disregard the advice given to them by the Response Team that they could lodge a report with the police themselves because the Response Team itself cannot do so because of the problem of confidentiality'.
The church does not condone paedophilia within its ranks and I should hope not too (what a shallow comment!). Its Response Team is bound by confidentiality until such time when the victims decide to have recourse to the law. These victims, it's fair to assume, are still beholden of the Church and are loathe to stir up trouble for the Institution in which they've invested their salvation. So they shut up. In order to continue availing itself of the confidentiality which, once breached, would fairly spell its demise.

Kevin Cassar

Oct 29th 2010, 19:37

I'm sorry to have to say this, but people who find it offensive that others find this funny because it happened in a church do not have any idea of what humour is. It is a well known fact, that making fun of "serious" things is the most common practice in the world and it is so successful that nearly all comedy films use it. Think about it for a while. Why is for example Rowan Atkinson so funny when portraying a high ranking army official or a spy? Why do we have so many parodies of scary or serious films. and most of these are incredibly funny and successful? Personally I would be inclined to think that this was a case of someone with a mental problem and would not make fun of the person. Nevertheless the incident itself is extremely funny and would have been equally humourous had he streaked in parliament, during an opera or in a police parade.

Karl Consiglio

Oct 29th 2010, 19:04

Like Adam and Eve. Without sin.

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 29th 2010, 17:58

@GuzeXerri It is a lie that I do not take as “ truly offensive and criminal such as the abuse of young children by Catholic clergy or when in care in its institutions”. I object to the lie that the Church condones paedophilia in its ranks when the fault for failing to prosecute lies with those who disregard the advice given to them by the Response Team that they could lodge a report with the police themselves because the Response Team itself cannot do so because of the problem of confidentiality

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 29th 2010, 17:46

@CharlesGrixti Please do not appoint yourself as a faitful interpreter of my comments. I made it clear that it is uncivil and offensive to submit the mentally sick to ribald mockery whether their unusual behaviour occurs inside a church or anywhere else. That is the kind of humanitarian concern that I practice because I strive to act as a decent human being irrespective of my religious belief. I deny your insinuation that I consider similar incidents to be “funny” - and not offensive - if they happen in a supermarket or in any other public place as long as it is not carried out in church. In the latter case it is only aggravated by the offence it gives to the congregation at its prayers.

S Mercieca

Oct 29th 2010, 16:42

'Some people ran out of the church' lol need I say more? ! I found most of the comments rather amusing!

joseph borg

Oct 29th 2010, 15:07

i don't know what this fuss is all about! if anybody tries to look carefully at church paintings he could easily notice that they are full of naked or half naked men and women.

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 29th 2010, 13:18

"Oh for heaven's sake, must you make everything an affront to your religion! " (CharlesGrixt)

What more do you require before you admit as "an affront to (my) religion" than the coarse, ribald mockery and ridicule exhibited in these comments to the sad spectacle of a mentally disturbed individual rushing into a church to the distress of the congregation?

Valentina Portelli

Oct 29th 2010, 11:28

I do not Know how to react on this But I smiled BUT imagining Me doing it One Day , I am sure no one of who wrote in here is Laughing at the man But at the scene of it ...so half the people in the Church ran away HUH ???? that made me sad .I am sorry for this Guy and I am sure he will be Loved and taken care of ,People who smiled at this all smiled imagining it a scene of a movie not Laughing at the Real Fact that this Man is in need of Mental Help.

J Farrugia

Oct 29th 2010, 11:23

F'dal-pajjiz lesti li nidhku b'kazi mentali... pajjiz Kattoliku... imma l-aqwa li ma jidholx id-divorzju!

Malcolm Mifsud

Oct 29th 2010, 10:10

I am sorry for what I posted yesterday and declare that I was under the impression that this was some kind of bet placed by the man in question. My deepest apologies to him and to anyone hurt by my comment.

Claire Busuttil

Oct 29th 2010, 09:10

I would like to agree with Dr. Saliba with everything he said. I work in a mental health setting and the saddest part in this, is the reactions of mockery from other people. Has anyone ever thought about the reaction of this individual once he gets better and he needs to go to terms with what he has done. such reactions from the public will surely help.
A lot see it is unacceptable to laugh at physical illness but somehow it is 'acceptable' to laugh at psychiatric manifestations. I believe people should open their minds more and their mouths less.
@CDimech: please let me know whenever an illness becomes a topic to be light about.

john mahoney

Oct 28th 2010, 20:36

The faithful in church were certainly not familiar with the story "The Emperor's new clothes"
- much ado about nothing - probably the man was a bit under the weather - Amen.

C.Brincat

Oct 28th 2010, 20:22

A small number of people who were in Marsaxlokk parish church this morning got a surprise when a man ran into the church in his birthday suit.

"Some people ran out of the church while others ushered the man away."

Genesis 1:27

victor baldacchino

Oct 28th 2010, 19:50

Sinifikanti mal- rahal ta marsaxlokk. (Gharwien Huta.)

Anthony Ellul

Oct 28th 2010, 19:26

I think that this man has entered in the church in his birth suit is a massage for the budget..May be!

jmicallef

Oct 28th 2010, 19:23

Perhaps he wanted to be baptised?

Or did he take the Bible's words too literally...halla hwejgu warajh u mexa wara l-Mulej....

Billy J Mcbee

Oct 28th 2010, 19:21

F'dan il-pajjiz tant GHadna Lura u niskandalizaw ruhna mix-xejn li lanqas il kelma 'Naked,' jew 'Without Clothes On' ma ntuzat f'dan u fl-ebda artikli li jinvolvu il-knisja!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pule' Carmel

Oct 28th 2010, 17:29

This case is genuenely really not a laughing matter and mental disturbances do affect us in different ways. What is also a case or a form of mental disturbance, is the manner in which some "healthystudents" come " inappropriately dressed" to our university. Again it is their mentality that controls their inappropriate selection to the occassion, and I often see, hiddentatoos, underpants, low cut bras, gells all over, the valleys down lower fronts,backsides and bosoms, where in the case of hairy males,it is better to use high rise jeans instead of such low cuts cotoure
But the interesting situations is when women try to emulate men in wearing office suits especially those aiming for management position. Here women emulate the men's jacket, even the striped version, complete with trousers, for that is men's traditional authoritarian office wear, but women being women, NEVER WEAR A SHIRT AND A TIE UNDER A JACKET. Their curious mental state dictates that they must imitate,emulate,men from the bosom down but the bosom must be preferentially female and so females,they must insist of wearing an open neck under their jackets, showing a little of the valley into what nature attributed to the female shape. MentalityDiversifiedAccordingly!!

Jon Scibberas

Oct 28th 2010, 17:16

Streaking???The Road To Freedom Baby!!!

Ruth MIZZI

Oct 28th 2010, 16:34

Ohh well !! With most of the fishermen away at sea, a glimpse at a "Fully Monty" wouldn't have done any harm to the ladies back home now, wouldn't it?!?! LOL

stephanie esposito

Oct 28th 2010, 16:11

The streaker might have been an answered prayer from one of the old ladies

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 28th 2010, 16:08

@KennethCassar.

Your suspicions are wrong. My guess is that, until the contrary is proved, this would be an unfortunate manifestation of a mental disturbance that should elicit compassion, not ridicule, from civilized people.

@SCalleja

In this case the difference “between us and them” is the refusal to laugh at the misfortune of others, especially the mentally ill.

I do not share your enthusiasm for nude exhibitionism inside places of worship. I am not unduly upset if, in your disappointment, you decide to keep “miles away from all religious institutions” because they do not provide merriment at the expense of the mentally sick or by some antireligious agent provocateur.

Peter Shaw

Oct 28th 2010, 15:58

Well, after having received gallons of water from heaven from the last storm, maybe he went for a swim !

billy j mcbee

Oct 28th 2010, 15:27

they ran out? they were scare? - haven't they ever seen a naked figure before? ... most churches and square sites are full of nude angels, nude saints, etc etc... not to mention how many of those ppl / wives that were in the church have seen their husbands or kids naked? BLAH... closed minded snobbish drama queens

Stanley Cassar Darien

Oct 28th 2010, 15:15

He might have been wearing a suit from Renzo Piano's winter collection.

Marion Spiteri

Oct 28th 2010, 14:42

Most probably he was having his last fling of summer before sunday's time change when clocks go back to the horrible winter time AGAINNNNNN.

Vincent Scerri

Oct 28th 2010, 14:40

With the kind of weather we are having, he couldn't make up his mind what to wear and what not to wear.

josef grech

Oct 28th 2010, 14:02

by jove!!! I have never seenso many comments to an article. this guyhas really stolen the days' highlights. hope it will not turn into a habit !!! I can imagine the surprised faces of the elderly in church.

Daniel Schembri

Oct 28th 2010, 13:29

Clothes and churches are both the work of human hand. Commotion regarding the issue is redundant.

Sean Grima

Oct 28th 2010, 13:21

All morality is crumbling. various websites like maltapark and di-ve classifieds are full of people offering "massages" which in reality are nothing more than a subtle solicitation of prostitution.

P. Borg

Oct 28th 2010, 12:16

What is amusing is that another news portal (in Maltese) whislt confirming that the man was stark naked also reported that a number of persons present either hurriedly went out of chruch or sought refuge in the sacristy with the thought that he (the man) could have been "armed" !!!!!!

victor pulis

Oct 28th 2010, 12:13

That's not original. St.Francis of Assisi did it before him!

Leon Zawadzki

Oct 28th 2010, 11:55

He was probably a skinny dipper looking for some warmer water.

Come on you guy's and girl's 'Look at the funny side of life ' break the mould and have a laugh.

Pule' Carmel

Oct 28th 2010, 11:21

Really this is not exactly funny. My wife is a nurse and she often tells me how mentally sick people " think" and "do" in our mental hospitals.
On a lighter vein however, when I was in England, some city faithful "educated snobs old dearies" went roaming in the countryside abd were taken to a farm where they saw a naked bull mating with a naked cow in the middle of a field. one of them was heared to ahve said, " This is absolutely disgusting and it I had known that htis sort of thing went on in the open I would never have come!". Later I had heard that she started advocating a campain that all bulls and cows should not be permitted to mate in the openfields and that police and cavalry horses in the cities especially male horses should wear a sort of cover to hide what the old deary thought was rather unsightly.
@ C Azzopardi, If he Run I guess he could damage the door, but if he walked slowly, at those early hours he would not. It is all a case of dynamics, I guess.

Evarist Saliba

Oct 28th 2010, 11:19

Undoubtedly some comments are funny, but the man's action is not, irrespective of whether it is an act of defiance or mental 'stress'.

Paul Konti

Oct 28th 2010, 11:16

Imma kif f'kollox irridu ndaħħlu l-politika hux?!!!?!!!

The budget has nothing to do with it. This man might be in dire need of help. On the other hand, he might be anti-religious. Who knows? There should obviously be an investigation. Then we will know how to deal with this escapade.

Malcolm Mifsud

Oct 28th 2010, 11:12

Must have just finished watching Brother Sun Sister Moon by the looks of it!

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 28th 2010, 11:05

What a shocking sense of humour at such uncouth and uncivil behaviour whether this was due to psychiatric illness or to a deliberately offensive antireligious provocation! Shame!

Daniel Vella

Oct 28th 2010, 11:00

The poor guy wanted to offer a prayer to San Fallu after hearing the budget speech

DGalea

Oct 28th 2010, 10:54

He must have been in one hell of a rush to get baptised.

Stephen Koludrovic

Oct 28th 2010, 10:42

I am not a religious man and am quite broad minded, however I do not think its so funny for a streaker to run into a church and offend the poor old dearies.
I do hope this person is taken up to court, and made to pay for the insult to the people present at the time in the church.

Charles Sammut

Oct 28th 2010, 10:20

Just goes to show how our culture is based on (religious) taboos. Didn't God create man in His own image? So why is it considered shocking to be seen naked? So many irrational contradictions.

K. Rizzo

Oct 28th 2010, 10:19

A case of "Leave everything and walk behind Me" perhpaps?

J theuma

Oct 28th 2010, 10:11

Hahaha :) this made me laugh in this dull thursday morning. birthday suit!! classic

C Azzopardi

Oct 28th 2010, 10:05

"... a man ran into the church in his birthday suit ....

...damage was caused to a secondary door."

Ouchhh! lol

K Sciberras

Oct 28th 2010, 10:03

What was his name? Francesco? Was he from Assisi?

Peter Shaw

Oct 28th 2010, 10:00

The man was trying to make a point :"The budget has stripped me clean"

Wilfrid Buttigieg

Oct 28th 2010, 09:52

HAHA!!!!
Very Good comment William!!!!

Joe Borg

Oct 28th 2010, 09:50

Proof that church goers never look around in their church, otherwise they would have noticed the naked angles!

Or is it a case of two weights, two measures?

William P Flynn

Oct 28th 2010, 09:30

Evidently they finally caught him by the organ in the vicinity of the apse.

K.Anastasi

Oct 28th 2010, 09:29

"Some people ran out of the church" LOL come on ...this has made my day :D

Pia Zammit

Oct 28th 2010, 09:16

le streak, c'est chic!!!

Peter Korsten

Oct 28th 2010, 09:14

“For we walk by faith, not by sight.'”

Corinthians 5:7

Joseph Micallef

Oct 28th 2010, 09:11

I wonder how the secondary door was damanaged and why!

Victor Vella

Oct 28th 2010, 08:56

He must have been in a rush to hear mass.

Joseph M. Meli

Oct 28th 2010, 08:45

To put it musically ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtzoUu7w-YM

Enjoy :)