Rock in a liquid culture
European society is becoming liquid, according to Pope Benedict XVI, referring to the vanishing stability and increasing inconsistency that characterise it
He was speaking to representatives of culture, art and economics in Venice on May 9.
So is Maltese society. Inconsistency is more strongly evident on all levels.
We are increasingly saying what we do not mean and not meaning what we say.
More seriously, we are claiming that to be inconsistent is a right and a sign of progress.
Liquid positions are far from missing from the ongoing divorce ‘debate’.
Inconsistency is the new logic.
We can be for marriage and for divorce at the same time.
We can be sensitive to the victims of domestic violence while shortsightedly missing out on the pain and suffering caused by the remedy we are proposing.
We can be Catholics and against Catholic teaching and ethos at the same time.
We can believe in Christ and yet remain free to reject any part of his teaching.
We want to strengthen the family and undermine its foundations at one go.
We want to promise lifelong and unconditional fidelity so long as it is temporary and the conditions remain right.
While covering this debate the media bemoans the lack of objectivity that they themselves promote.
They provide the fighting ring for the fights and clashes they condemn from their amoral high ground.
Political parties mix principles with expediency, pushing their not-so-hidden agendas in the name of progress or enlightenment. Champions of freedom of expression censor opinions that differ from theirs, accusing them of the intolerance they themselves practice.
Secularists protesting against any whiff of a crusade conducted by the Church spare no effort in crafting their own against it.
Churchmen give mixed, compromising messages in an effort to appear open-minded to today’s enlightened liquid culture.
Inconsistency is indeed part of our fallen and weak human nature. No wonder that all of us, politicians, sociologists, churchmen, believers or non-believers alike, have our inconsistencies.
The question is: are we courageous enough to admit them instead of making them the norm?
A liquid culture seeks to redefine values to fit our comfort. Being inconsistent becomes equivalent to being practical and realistic, and thus becomes a new value.
According to liquid culture, ideals may be noble but unliveable in practice. Once we turn solid truths into fluid and flexible standards, we become free to pick and choose what suits us and when.
Thus we can freely break our promises in the name of being in touch with reality.
We can profess loyalty and deliver betrayal.
We may genuinely want to be faithful on condition that we remain free to abandon each other when the going gets tough.
Our trust in each other is underpinned by a deep layer of suspicion and insecurity.
Briefly, love becomes a passing emotion instead of being a freely chosen and solid gift of self.
When love, indissoluble marriage, commitment, loyalty, trust, stability and other basic values are no longer considered as the solid foundations of our relationships, no wonder our lives become a broken mess.
One day we will discover that our liquid culture has transformed our society into a deadly whirlpool.
Blessed are those who find the strength to go against this culture.
They will survive to tell their children that deep down, below the treacherous waters, there still exists a solid rock on which real life may be built and true love may be found.
The name of that foundation is Jesus Christ.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Christopher Ripard
May 22nd 2011, 23:34
How many of you out there know that, a few weeks ago, the Society of Jesus agreed to pay 160 million (yes, million) dollars in compensation for systematic sexual abuse of indigenous Americans? This news was, I suspect, suppressed by the powers that be in Malta, due to their severe influence by the Jesuits in Malta.
Also, what right does Fr Chetcuti have to rant on about the permanence of a vow, when priests find it so easy to get themselves released from theirs? How can celibate (?), non-married Catholic priests possibly claim to know what marriage is all about and decide on other people's?
The Church needs to start respecting the intelligence of its members. Its priests need to come down from the ivory towers of dogma, privilege, mind-control and arrogance and really communicate with its flock, rather than treat them like, well, sheep. To me, a catholic, it looks very different from what Christ founded!
Mr d. attard
May 22nd 2011, 14:07
This argument goes back to the late middle ages when the protestant movement emerged as a reaction to a corrupt church that found its sustenance in relics, cash generated therefrom and ignorance. As the protestant movement was transforming Europe, the latin Church made a counter reform itself that sought to halt its own decay. It found its feet on the absolute, providing an alternative to a protestant communion that secured its strength from its diversity within the union. Saints were repaced by a marian culture (except for malta where we have both) and its sense of it being the absolute word provided solace to the 'lazy' cultures. The economic implications from this is today very easy to note.
Blogger seems to be selling certainty, a corollary to the attcach by the dogmatic church on relativism. There will be of course periods when the absolute will see the church regain some of the lost ground, but it will only be 'some', in the long run it will just melt into nothingess as an irrelevant appedix to society if its continues to hold up its absolute culture that will give it absolute temporal power. Vatican council 2 came along to provide a new light yet unfortunately the power mongers made sure that its light be diminished to a small glow. Spiritual humanist catholics hope that this glow may finally rage for a life of honesty, spirituality and love of neighbor and away from power considerations in rubbing shoulders or more with the ruling elite. . A yes vote next saturday will go a long way here in malta. We should than hopefully have a change of leadership in our bishops who have, in my opinion, embarrased progressive catholics... we can not remain a church based on superstion and relics...
Kevin White
May 22nd 2011, 13:15
You couldn't be more wrong Mr.Sciberras.
The essence of the article embraces democracy and tolerance to opinions. What it is against is the contradictions, in arguments, beliefs in the individual.
Don't try to be a proponent of the enlightenment and reason when your discourse is anything but.
Don't say you're an ardent Christian, when you are the one choosing which doctrines you adhere to.
Don't try to say you are in favour of marriages when you are trying to introduce divorce.
And so on. Different opinions in a society are understandable but contradictory beliefs in an individual are not, I'm afraid.
Kevin White
May 22nd 2011, 13:14
You couldn't be more wrong Mr.Sciberras.
The essence of the article embraces democracy and tolerance to opinions. What it is against is the contradictions, in arguments, beliefs in the individual.
Don't try to be a proponent of the enlightenment and reason when your discourse is anything but.
Don't say you're an ardent Christian, when you are the one choosing which doctrines you adhere to.
Don't try to say you are in favour of marriages when you are trying to introduce divorce.
And so on. Different opinions in a society are understandable but contradictory beliefs in an individual are not, I'm afraid.
Mr William Flynn
May 22nd 2011, 13:06
Does priest Chetcuti think he can sit there moaning and not take responsibility for most of this?
"We can be for marriage and for divorce at the same time". Isn't that what the church does with its crazy divorce packaged as annulment?
"We can be sensitive to the victims of domestic violence while shortsightedly missing out on the pain and suffering caused by the remedy we are proposing". Ditto the above. Except that the church grants peace for some but lets everyone else wallow in misery.
"We can be Catholics and against Catholic teaching and ethos at the same time". Like child abusing nuns? And child raping priests? And church courts which do absolutely nothing for the child rape victims and their families?
"We can believe in Christ and yet remain free to reject any part of his teaching". Ditto the above...plus church wealth vs Christ's poverty? Curia arrogance vs Christ's humility? Church's constant pursuit of worldliness and wordly power?
"We want to strengthen the family and undermine its foundations at one go". The church has had 2000 years of "strengthening the family" and failed miserably. Time it let someone else have a shot.
"We want to promise lifelong and unconditional fidelity so long as it is temporary and the conditions remain right". Ever heard of "It takes two to Tango? Perhaps not.
What would a priest know about the real world of marriage except what he reads in books? Let spouses do what's best and let them have a second chance if the first marriage fails...just as in Catholic divorce...oops, sorry... annulment.
Culture by definition evolves and is therefore essentially and continuously fluid. That's reality; something priests are not familiar with as they are always preaching "spiritual" Bronze Age fairy tales.
Mr David Borg
May 22nd 2011, 12:41
The negative effects of the "modern" family and the value of the "traditonal" family can be seen in this study http://www.facingthechallenge.org/fatherless.php.
Kevin White
May 22nd 2011, 12:19
You couldn't be more wrong Mr.Sciberras.
The essence of the article embraces democracy and tolerance to opinions. What it is against is the contradictions, in arguments, beliefs in the individual.
Don't try to be a proponent of the enlightenment and reason when your discourse is anything but.
Don't say you're an ardent Christian, when you are the one choosing which doctrines you adhere to.
Don't try to say you are in favour of marriages when you are trying to introduce divorce.
And so on. Different opinions in a society are understandable but contradictory beliefs in an individual are not, I'm afraid.
Mr Patrick Gatt
May 22nd 2011, 11:50
What a load of nonsense! I can't believe this random collection of inane thoughts merits an article on a national newspaper.
Charlie Borg
May 22nd 2011, 11:03
Strange, isn't it? Those people who yesteryear were all'avanguardia and all that, are now very status quo and urging one and all to dig our heels into the ground.
Mr Terry Gosden
May 22nd 2011, 10:45
Father Mark is a prime example of not being a liquid thinker, or believer. For that we are grateful
Christian Sciberras
May 22nd 2011, 10:37
So some human issues a statement, and another one readily manipulates it and diffuses as much fraudulent information as possible.
The article is in itself written in a "fact" manner. "Inconsistency is the new logic."
So for a better society, we need to act, think and breath as one? Is that what you say?
Democracy is all wrong and Jesus never preached about tolerance?
Is it me or the writer is deliberately contradicting himself?
Kevin White
May 22nd 2011, 12:31
You couldn't be more wrong Mr.Sciberras.
The essence of the article embraces democracy and tolerance to opinions. What it is against is the contradictions, in arguments, beliefs in the individual.
Don't try to be a proponent of the enlightenment and reason when your discourse is anything but.
Don't say you're an ardent Christian, when you are the one choosing which doctrines you adhere to.
Don't try to say you are in favour of marriages when you are trying to introduce divorce.
And so on. Different opinions in a society are understandable but contradictory beliefs in an individual are not, I'm afraid.
Kevin White
May 22nd 2011, 12:52
You couldn't be more wrong Mr.Sciberras.
The essence of the article embraces democracy and tolerance to opinions. What it is against is the contradictions, in arguments, beliefs in the individual.
Don't try to be a proponent of the enlightenment and reason when your discourse is anything but.
Don't say you're an ardent Christian, when you are the one choosing which doctrines you adhere to.
Don't try to say you are in favour of marriages when you are trying to introduce divorce.
And so on. Different opinions in a society are understandable but contradictory beliefs in an individual are not, I'm afraid.
Christian Sciberras
May 23rd 2011, 17:43
"You couldn't be more wrong Mr.Sciberras. "
Prove it.
Please choose the reason of your report below: