Forgive me father, for I have sinned

Advent is a privileged time reserved for reflection, prayer and conversion. Shame on me. I started the Advent season by sinning. Worse still, I sinned during Mass. Bear with me and my confession, please:

On the morning of December 1, I was faced with a reading from the Gospel which uses insulting language towards people with disability. Three years ago I brought this to the attention to the powers-that-be at the Curia. Nothing happened.

No one in Malta today uses the word ‘immankati’ to refer to people with disability. It is only used by the Church during the reading of a Gospel text that coincides – sopra corna bastonate (to add insult to injury) – with the week dedicated to people with disability.

I was tempted to change the word ‘immankati’ with ‘persuni b’diża­bilità’. But then I remembered that last year (the second year running that I wrote about the topic) I was publicly warned by a high Curia official that according to official Church documents it is not permissible to change the text while reading.

The gravity of such an abuse was left in abeyance; an absence I appreciated, since I learned to be thankful for little mercies.

In pre-Vatican II days, mortal sins rained galore on priests who dared to change one iota from the official rubrics. One would like to believe those were the bad old days. Unfortunately, among people in high places, some newly ordained priests, and a number of seminarians, those were the good old days.

The Taliban is not running up and about only in the mountains of Afghanistan.

This ominous choice stared at me at 6.30 a.m. on December 1. Should I abuse the rubrics or insult vulnerable people? I chose not to abuse people with disability.

After all, I am reliably informed that last year during the Mass celebrating disability week the priest who read the gospel changed the offending words. The main concelebrant was the Archbishop.

Fortunately, during the first week of Advent our courts decreed that I am not the awful a sinner some pronounced me to be. They declared that a story in Kullħadd against Il-Ġensillum was libellous.

The story was part of a persistent and ongoing campaign launched by the Labour media against me personally and against the Church media I then ran.

The period before and following the 1996 general elections was the most vicious period of the campaign. The Labour media went out of their way to portray the Church media as part of the Nationalist Party’s propaganda machine. I instituted several court cases against the Labour media to defend my integrity. I won them all.

The courts repeatedly declared that what the Labour media said about me and the Church media were barefaced lies. This was just a malicious campaign aimed at tarnishing me and my colleagues.

Now I have another court decision that what the Labour media reported about us was malicious. I think it is the sixth such decision.

Quite naturally, the Labour media was only interested in the short-term perceived gains of its dirty campaign. They believed that 13 years after the event no one would care about what had happened.

However, all those who really believe that truth eventually always prevails (in contrast to those who use this statement for convenience’s sake) are reminded by the court decision of what happened in the past. They will then intelligently reflect on similar current antics being perpetrated by the same individuals today.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt