OH REALLY, COME ON
As someone who believes in freedom of expression, I have to preface these remarks by saying that the Bishop of Gozo has every right to his opinion and every right to express it. This is not meant to be as patronising as it sounds, it is merely a statement of the obvious.
It was not always so obvious that in this country, you have the right to an opinion or, even more so, the right to express it. I don't wish to rake over old coals, but anyone my age and less, for that matter, will recall the good old days of socialism, when taking to the streets to protest about - for instance - there not being any water in your taps would be a sure-fire route to having some physical nastiness visited on you by the thugs who bolstered Mintoff and KMB's regimes.
You also got quite a bit of psychological nastiness chucked your way, too.
Apologists for those regimes, as well as fully paid-up members of the league of ladies who sneerger, will try to tell us that the same happens now, especially in the psychological stakes, but these silly remarks will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
But to get back to His Grace, as I say, he has every right, and in fact given his position in the Catholic Church's hierarchy, he even has the duty to express his thoughts and opinions, especially on matters of morality.
However, the fact that the Bishop of Gozo occupies such a prominent position makes it equally incumbent on people like me, who have the privilege of platform, to express our own opinion, even if this opinion is not four-square with those of the Catholic Church as expressed by people like the Mgr. Grech.
It seems that His Grace has taken it upon himself to set the agenda for the Church in Malta. I'm not entirely clear on why he thinks he has the right to do this, though apparently, there is a degree of independence enjoyed by the Gozo Curia that facilitates this. Not being completely au fait with canon law, I used to think that an Archbishop outranks a Bishop, but this is not apparently the case.
Since, then, Mgr. Grech is the one who put it on the record that teaching adolescents about contraception is tantamount to abusing them, it is he who will have to take the brunt of my reaction to this astounding statement.
It is astounding on so many levels that I'm not sure where to start.
It shows, for instance, an almost breathtaking insouciance, almost an indifference, to the consideration that the word "abuse" is liable to provoke such an obvious reaction in the context of the abuse that was perpetrated on many adolescents by their spiritual guardians, their priests. By appearing not to care that many will react by saying "abuse? the Church is a fine one to talk about abuse!", he seems to show that he doesn't care about the abuse itself.
I know this is not the case, but that's the perception, and if the Catholic Church doesn't care about the perception many have of it, which often appears to be the case, then again, it is just signalling that it is out of touch with the world.
Which is a peculiar position to take, given that in so many regions, so many priests and nuns are very much in touch with the real world and do so much good in the trenches.
And how, precisely, does teaching about contraception constitute abuse of a young person? Does giving said young person the means to avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy constitute abuse? The Church's reaction is that abstinence gives one hundred percent protection against both, so there, but hey, the rest of us live on Earth, not in Nonsuch.
Oh well, at least we didn't get a dictum about anyone teaching about contraception committing a mortal sin, unlike when it was suggested that anyone who collaborated with bringing in - or administering - a divorce law would be deemed a sinner.
Freedom of expression is all very well, but it has to be expression with responsibility and not blithe disregard for human needs.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 9th 2010, 07:30
@ David Seychell (part 2):
Now, regarding teaching contraception even to believers who consider it a sin, is in no way imposing. For one thing, there is no such thing as a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/atheist child, no matter how the parents like to think so. Secondly, if we were to ban the teaching of scientific facts out of misplaced respect for religious sensibilities, we probably would not teach science at all.
Let's leave science to science class, and leave religion to religion class. The state has the right and duty to provide education on demonstrable and proven scientific facts. Contraception is one.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 9th 2010, 07:30
@ David Seychell (part 1):
"...Considering that the majority of the students in this country belong to catholic parents, I think that such teachings...would be in breach of the Human Rights....The reason why the The ECHR found that the cross is in breach of the human rights is (because it) thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe".
I'll start right off by saying that I find that particular reason given by the ECHR ridiculous. Displaying a religious symbol does not prevent parents to educate their children in any way they see fit. A case could of course be made that displaying one (and only one) religious symbol gives a real or apparent advantage to one particular religion, making the other children feel inferior. But this is in any case off-topic.
Cont...
David Seychell
Nov 8th 2010, 21:21
Protocol 1, Article 2 - of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"Article 2 provides for the right not to be denied an education and the right for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views. It does not however guarantee any particular level of education of any particular quality"
Educating children about using contraception would go against the view of many parents that contraception is immoral and sinful. Therefore I think that, "teaching adolescents about contraception is tantamount to abusing" both the parent's and the children's Human rights.
David Seychell
Nov 8th 2010, 17:59
@Kenneth Cassar (2 of 2)
I foresee another problem to such teachings in our public schools. It is a fact that according to catholicism, contraception is a sin. Considering that the majority of the students in this country belong to catholic parents, I think that such teachings about contraception in public schools would be in breach of the Human Rights.
Many of us will remember the Lautsi vs Italy case. The reason why the The European Court of Human Rights found that the cross is in breach of the human rights is not because the cross offend or does not offend someone. The reasons given by the Court were: "thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe" The Court based its judgement on Protocol 1, Article 2 - education and Article 9 - conscience and religion. I already expressed my opinion on that case and said that such principle could have serious ramifications. I wrote: "the removal of the crucifix could be the key that opens a pandoras box" -http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20091105/andrew-borg-cardona/getting-cross
David Seychell
Nov 8th 2010, 17:54
@Kenneth Cassar (1 of 2)
"It is true that it is illegal for adoloscents to have sex. However, what we teach adoloscents in the present (contraception in this case), might prove useful in the very near future."
If the idea is to teach adoloscents how to act for when they become 18-year-olds, the idea is credible. However, if adoloscents are taught these things before form 5, than this idea is not credible. Teaching students about contraception before form 5, would mean that they are instructed how to have sex in situations where they are not necessarily 18 or older. Since having sex before you turn 18 is crime, a crime taken seriously by the State; by stretching the argument, one can say that such an education at such an age, tantamounts to educating our youngsters how to become conscientious criminals.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 8th 2010, 08:43
@ David Seychell:
1. It is true that it is illegal for adoloscents to have sex. However, what we teach adoloscents in the present (contraception in this case), might prove useful in the very near future.
2. It is also illegal to take illegal drugs. However, it is government policy to discreetly distribute free syringes to decrease as much as possible the spread of AIDS. One may disagree with the policy, but its the same thing with adoloscent sex. If we cannot prevent all adoloscents from being sexually active, at least we should ensure that we diminish the occurrence of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 7th 2010, 19:23
" ... Oh well, at least we didn't get a dictum about anyone teaching about contraception committing a mortal sin ...... "
No, but we did get a dictum from the opposite camp labelling the bishop as "unproductive and hysterical" for trying to carry out his priestly duty and also we did get the unproven serious accusation that " he seems to show that he doesn't care about the abuse (paedophile priests) itself".
David Seychell
Nov 7th 2010, 17:13
Isn't it illegal for adolescents to have sex? If so, what exactly is the point in teaching them -in public schools- to use condoms when doing something which they can't legally do?