Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Inward signs of outward grace
This really must be the silly season. With half the world at war, another quarter dying of hunger and the rest feeling as if they are sitting on a volcano, 41 local worthies have decided to make some sort of statement by considering taking legal action against the Curia as they wish to formally excommunicate themselves from the Church, in other words they wish to “unbaptise” themselves in a formal signed and witnessed document stating that the very first “outward sign of inward grace” that they were given, practically at birth and without their consent, will be considered to be null and void. This, apparently, requires an interview with the Chancellor at the Curia after which you will be handed a stencilled form along with a copy of your baptismal certificate.
Well blow me down. To start with I had never even thought of baptism in terms of bits of paper to be shoved around and signed. For those who truly believe, primarily the Church itself, the sole purpose of baptism is to eradicate what we Catholics call original sin, something that we are born with, something that we inherited from Adam and Eve. It sounds almost more absurd than anything Tolkien may have penned but there you are, that is what it is for. I frankly doubt whether the Church in all its might and power can doctrinally restore original sin to its former bearer once it has been washed off by a sacrament no matter how hard it tries and, therefore, while signed declarations will be no skin off its nose to issue to anyone who wants it, the Church knows that, according to its own teachings, there are simply Catholics and lapsed Catholics. May I humbly point out to those who think that excommunication means that you are no longer a Catholic that it means quite the opposite.
Excommunication, a tool used arbitrarily over the centuries with variegated effect, means that the excommunicates are denied the sacraments but not that they technically cease to become Catholics, far from it. Therefore, excommunicates are merely people who have been prohibited from participating actively in the seven sacraments of the Church: baptism, the holy Eucharist, confession, confirmation, holy orders, marriage and extreme unction, not necessarily in that order.
I say merely in view of what the 41 members of the Not In Our Name group are trying to achieve: total severance with the Church. Coming to think of it, if the Church really believes in the intrinsic divinity of the sacraments which, by all accounts it should, there is no way that it can reverse any of the processes that emanate from that same sacrament. They are divinely irreversible and should the Church itself issue any paper to this effect it would be reducing a sacrament to a bureaucratic club membership form turning the entre concept upside down into an inward sign of outward grace!
There are many who find the whole idea of Church and Catholicism an absurdly tremendous bore at best and a tyrannical imposition at worst and decide neither to participate in the Church activities nor to observe its rules. These people are lapsed Catholics.
However, they do not make a song and a dance about it like this intrepid Not In Our Name group for the simple reason that they feel they have decided to merely opt out of the whole shebang and do their own thing. The Church is fully aware of this and can take it in its stride. Not that it should or will ever give up its quest to recover more and more lost sheep, which is probably why it hands out these doctrinally meaningless bits of paper so glibly, knowing full well that they have less spiritual value than monopoly money and that they are just humouring people into thinking that they are divested of that elusive and mysterious substance called grace.
What the Not In Our Name group has to lobby for is the removal of the so-called Catholic overriding clauses in our Constitution that technically gives the Church as an institution the right to influence. By stating that “the Roman Catholic religion is the religion of Malta”, the Constitution implies that all Maltese citizens are by default subject to Catholic influenced rules. That is what the Not In Our Name group should object to for even should they be given a plethora of papers each signed and ratified by holy bulls and great seals, as long as the 41 remain Maltese citizens and not Hottentots, they will remain subject to a Codex in which the cross in courtrooms hangs above the cathedra of every judge and every magistrate...
One is not a member of a religion because of the bit of fragile paper that was signed by our happy parents and godparents at one’s birth, which is why New Age Catholics are advocating adult baptism, but by our individual attitude.
Since Limbo has long been declared obsolete, there is now no danger that an unbaptised baby may go to this gloomy place should it snuff it for any reason. I suppose that makes eminent sense. All the rest is a matter of conscience because, since time immemorial, the vortex of one’s faith, the real thing, has always been between the person concerned and his maker, provided that one believes that there is a Maker in the first place and believes in the symbolism of Genesis and reconciling it with Darwin’s theory that we are just overdeveloped simians! But then is it worth it?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
22 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr JOSEPH AGIUS
Sep 8th 2011, 11:25
Prima facie it might seem that Mr Bondin just takes issue with the stance and language used by KZT in his article against NION members. In fact it is more likely that Mr Bondin relished that article because it gave him something to latch on and keep the debate alive.
KTZ seems to take NION as a bunch of morons who do not even grasp the basic considerations he makes, notions well within the ken of men with common sense. I would say it was he who 'might' have been rather naïve in this case. Did he possibly think, for example, that NION does not realise that for a new order the constitution needs important amendments? The problem is: how is this to come about? Who is the politician who dares propose the necessary changes this time round?
KTZ himself agrees with these changes and he provided the occasion for a new voice in favour of the initiative to come public. If for no other reason NION should be grateful to KTZ for this; and KTZ proud to have provided the opportunity.
In the name of greater democracy may there be more of these opportunities for this debate. Particularly interesting would be articles and comments by members of the clergy.
Richard Brown
Aug 26th 2011, 20:06
Though I always enjoy my frequent visits to Malta, where I have many friends, sometimes I just have to shake my head in bewilderment at what I read in these columns. How can so many of you be so out of touch? I was absolutely flabbergasted (for instance) with many of the stone-age comments posted in the divorce debate – divorce has been a part of UK law for over 500 years and it is absolutely unthinkable to question it– and was then utterly shocked at just how many people actually voted against divorce. Malta is perhaps not on the same planet as the rest of us in Europe?
I must say I am equally astonished at this new debate. The issue is very simple: an institution – the catholic church in Malta – refuses to acknowledge that some people (who were enrolled without being asked) do not wish to belong to it any more. The institution has neither right nor prerogative to refuse in this way. That is the end of the issue. It doesn't matter if the people who wish to leave the church are many or few. The theological position and the internal rules of the church don't matter. The opinions of people who wish to stay in the church aren't important either. It only matters that the church must have no means whatsoever of impeding that exit, by all or none who wish it, and if the church is so arrogant as to refuse, it must be forced to behave. Yes: forced to behave. You may believe that God may be above the law, but human institutions are not, and whatever it maintains, under law the church is a human institution. Confusing a divinity and its priesthood is never a safe path for society to take, and recent and saddening revelations of what the church did in Ireland when it was not held reponsible under the law should be your guide here.
For the record: I am sure the catholic church in Malta knows well (but perhaps some of your readers do not) that there is a long-established procedure in Italy, formally recognised by the Vatican, and in perfect accord with canon law, which allows those baptised there to register the fact that they no longer consider themeselves catholics. It's not a theological question – it's a question of politics and statistics.
Adrian Sacco
Aug 25th 2011, 03:02
As much as I find infant baptism mildly distasteful, this all seems rather academic to me. Disgruntled wannabe ex-catholics should consider themselves lucky they weren't born into one of those large religious groups that routinely carry out genital mutilation of infants. "Undoing" a baptism pales into insignificance next to the chap with a lost and unrecoverable foreskin.
Mr Daniel Schembri
Aug 23rd 2011, 19:03
Baptism gets you in the register. Debaptism/ defection gets you out of it. And the more people in the register, the stronger the 98% statistic. And the stronger the 98% statistic, the more the priviliges allowed to the Church institution.
The Church has supplied us with a spiritual aim of baptism - the sick argument that we are born with sin and we need cleansing. And you actually think, Mr Zammit Tabona, that this silly argument is what the Vatican still holds as a sole reason for baptism? Has it ever crossed your mind that behind the fake spiritual agenda, there is a political one?
I feel that baptism, like other sacraments, was meant to give a duty to the clergy and to put them as a seperate class of people, thus strengthening them through differentiation from the rest of the community.
Baptism being done on neonates is obviously ridiculous ... the concept of Catholic baby is inconceivable to me. Religion is a personal decision. I am sure you are aware of the political agenda behind baptism...the fact that it is performed on babies, and the fact that Mr Ratzinger recently changed canonic law to make self excommunication difficult, proves that there are more political motives, than spiritual ones.
I think you purpusefully gave the impression of misinterpreting Not in Our Name; you wanted to give the impression that the 41 people are doing this for individual purposes. Everyone knows that is is political. Political actions demand political counteractions.
Your insistence that the church cannot erase us on doctrinal terms only implies a view of complete amalgamation between Church and State. You ''are not concerned with the bureaucratic element of the issue, but the real significance in Catholic light''...Well...not everyone has the same priorities. I think you might have an agenda....that of veiling political power with dogmatic/spiritual power. I think Not in Our Name seeks the reversal of this i.e. unveiling the deceptive spiritual meaning of baptism and exposing the political one, while weakening the latter as one of the various steps aiming at change in constitution through change in mentality. For constitutional change, you have to first have at least some awareness in the citizens.
Peace
Mr Carmel J. Caruana
Aug 24th 2011, 07:19
Super Mr Schembri! - In my opinion Mr Zammit Tabona in this piece simply tried to discredit NION members and try to make them appear to be imbeciles (it's so easy to be tough with a small group). I am not a member of NION but fully support their views and when the procedure for leaving the Church is simplified and is reduced to filling an online form I can assure you I will make use of it. By the way I have simplified matters for my youngest daughter - I have not baptised her - she may get herself baptised later on in life if she wishes - I have given her the option to choose - those who baptise their children are ready to sacrifice giving their children the power of choice simply to look good with their neighbours (with the exception of devout Catholics of course who have every right to their belief that they would be cleaning their children from what they see as the pre-birth stain of original sin) . So go NION go!
Mr Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Aug 24th 2011, 16:42
Mr Caruana
41 people is totally disproportionate to one solo columnist who has taken on the nonsensical stance of the NION and the glibness of the Church all at the same time......you are IN FACT technically correct with regard to your daughter but techncally incorrect with regard to yourself; a Catholic you were, a lapsed Catholic you are and a lapsed Catholic you will remain. If both you and the Church for expediency's sake, issue and accept a bit of paper to make everyone happy that's your affair but theologically and doctrinally it means nothing. The church bases its hard facts on the amounts of people who PRACTICE their religion and receive holy commnunion. That is how the surveys are carried out and not through baptismal certificates......Whe your daughter is 18 she will have the right to choose which makes eminent sense but could at school etc lead to unwarranted complications if it hasnt already which is why most people go along with the outward forms
Chris Fenech
Aug 23rd 2011, 13:43
Dear Mr. Zammit Tabona,
the actions which Not In Our Name is trying to take have to do more with statistics and freedom of association, whilst I'm sure that it agrees with you that it needs to lobby in favour of certain amendments of the constitution.
Statistics are important in Malta because many like to say that Malta is a Catholic country with about 98% of the people living on the Islands being of the Catholic faith. NION with this defection process will be creating an instance were one can talk about the number of people who were baptised but are no longer part of the Church.
Defectors will be able to express their freedom of association or dissociation. I am starting to ask myself why there are people who are writing against defection from the Catholic Church. I think it is a person's right to express displeasure and dissociate him/herself from an institution which s/he doesn't feel to be part of.
That said, I agree with your suggestion that people should strive to erase certain clauses (example: Chapter 1 Article 2) from the constitution that make the Catholic faith the official religion of Malta, and give it right of influence. Several NGOs agree with such amendments of the constitution and NION is no exception. If NION remains active throughout the years, I am confident that it will lobby in favour of such amendments.
Best regards
Mr Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Aug 23rd 2011, 14:34
What you are missing here is that the Church doctrinally cannot erase you or anyone from being a Catholic without compromising the significance its own sacraments which is what this article is all about. I am not in the least concerned with the bureaucratic element of the issue but the real significance in Cathoic light. Whatever you do you will remain in the eyes of the church either a catholic or a lapsed catholic.This is a gesture equivalent of Don Quixote tilting at windmills......
As for statistics............you know what they say about them dont you?
Chris Fenech
Aug 23rd 2011, 22:14
Clearly, I do not have any power on what the members of the Catholic Church believe about defectors. Whether it is the case that the Church cannot erase anyone from being a Catholic without compromising the significance of its own sacraments, is not something I am really concerned about (although I'm interested in it). What I'm really curious about, as, I assume, many of those using NION also are, is whether given the case that the Catholic Church does not erase information about defectors from its registers (as opposed to what they consciously want), the Catholic Church would be compromising the Data Protection Act and the right to freedom of association. This I shall find out by studying the laws in question and talking to people who know Civil law more than I do.
Mr. Zammit Tabona, I am hereby pasting a link to an article which appeared on the 25th of June 2011 about NION and its intentions. There you can read that “to open a dialogue about changing Article 2 of the Constitution" is one of their long-term aims.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/%E2%80%98not-in-our-name%E2%80%99-says-budding-self-excommunication-group-0
Kind regards
Mr Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Aug 23rd 2011, 23:12
Chris I had based this article on what was reported on the Times but I had not read the malta Today article. Thanks for sending it.
Saviour Sam Agius
Aug 23rd 2011, 13:42
I want my original sin back. It wasn't fair to take it away from me without my consent. Come on! What a simplistic way of looking at it.
The idea is not to unbaptise oneself or to get a paper from the church proving that one's no longer a member. To be honest, I wouldn't like anything at all from the Church. All I want is for the Church to get rid of my name from its books. I don't care what they call it or however they might refer to it. It's a matter of principle and of the law. The Data Protection Act gives us the right not to have our data kept by any organisation against our will. The Church is insisting on keeping our data in its books. Any other organisation wouldn't be allowed to do that.
Regarding the Constitution, I hope that issue comes up next. Once we're no longer in the Church's books, we can safely and legally claim that the Church doesn't represent us and so it is not true that Catholicism is the religion of all the people of Malta.
Mr Alfred Hili
Aug 23rd 2011, 13:29
Babies are baptised cause their parents decide for them. Later on, when they are 12 years old they are confirmed. This time the children themselves decide to do so. Wouldn't it be better if they had to be confirmed when they are 18; knowing what they are really doing !
Mr Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Aug 23rd 2011, 23:15
I could not agree with you more. In fact now that Limbo has been abolished the need to baptise as soon as possible disappears as steted in my article
Emanuel Muscat
Aug 23rd 2011, 12:53
They should join the international club 41 and do some social work or have their head examined.
And please do not use this piddly 'look at me' trifle to take pot shots at our constitution:we already have a maltese australian doing that from afar!
Mr Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Aug 23rd 2011, 14:50
Emmanuel
I was wondering what had happened to you? There are loads of Maltese Austrailans doing that from afar and loads of Maltese think the same way too and that does not necessarily make them kangaroos! What there is here is a Kangaroo Court where judgement is summarily delt without proper examination of the evidence. What I am saying in the article is perfectly clear however as usual people insist on misinterpreting blatantly for thier own purposes do let me spell it out then; The 41 are barking up the wrong tree by giving huge importance to an institurtion that paradoxically they would have eradicated while the Church while happily dispensing bits of paper to these people knows full well that it cannot dissolve the sacraments that any of these people have received as if it does it would be undermining its own credibility. What remains after all the fuss and bother die down is Catholics and lapsed Catholics. Apart from Maltese Australians what I want to be is a Cathoilc by conviction and not by constitution. Can you dispute this logic?
Mr Joseph Calleja
Aug 23rd 2011, 14:58
If born in Malta, that makes this Maltese, Australian a full blooded Maltese. You can take the man out of the country, but you cannot take the country out of the man. There are a lot of Maltese living here in Malta, that think our constitution should be changed. Democracy is a beautiful thing Mr Muscat.
Mr Steve Sant
Aug 23rd 2011, 20:11
Who is this Australian you claim is trying ?
Eric Soames
Aug 23rd 2011, 12:37
Baptism is the outward sign of rebirth in the Holy Spirit as brought to us by Christ Jesus. I suppose if a person wants to get unbaptized he/she should commit the unpardonable sin, ie, disbelief in the Holy Spirit.
Adrian Buckle
Aug 25th 2011, 17:24
Oooh, the unpardonable sin! Disbelief in the pigeon who got the virgin Mary pregnant.
Mr Raphael Vassallo
Aug 25th 2011, 17:55
I don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Does this mean I am automatically 'unbaptised'? If so, thanks for pointing out how very easy it was after all.
Mr Carmelo Micallef
Aug 23rd 2011, 09:10
The "Not in or name group" have purposefully invented an issue to exercise their belligerent form of secularism
Gerry Cowie
Aug 23rd 2011, 20:07
You have hit the nail on the head, Carmelo! And other ardent secularist apologists are no doubt full of glee about it, even though it is small number of people!