Towards a Political Church
The Church cannot be anything but a political church.
It is a must for the Church to interest itself in the human person, her condition in society, justice, the distribution of wealth and power, the rights of present and future generations. Quite naturally different levels of the Church have different roles in the fulfilling of this mission.
The role of the hierarchy and the roles of church commissions, individual priests and layperson are different though all are inspired from the same spirit.
The Pope, during a speech on the occasion of this year’s Epiphany feast compared the role of the hierarchy to one of shedding light on human experience.
"The world, with all its resources, is unable to give humanity the light to guide it on its journey. This is clear also in our own day, when Western society seems to have lost direction and is feeling its way forward. Yet the Church, thanks to the Word of God, sees beyond these shadows. She does not possess technical solutions but she has her gaze turned to the final destination offering the light of the Gospel to all men and women of good will, of whatever nation or culture".
At a “lower” level , though, different members of the Church can propose technical solutions. It is important to stress that at this level different members of the Church can have different appraisals of a particular situation and they can offer different and contrasting solutions.
The political role is a core role
However, the political role is a fact, it is a core role and it goes beyond the offering of consolation to those who are suffering. It also goes beyond the preaching for charity. It is a role that militates for social justice and the furthering of the integral development of the whole human person.
Mary herself had described Christ’s role in political terms. “He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”
The attempt to deny the Church the right to exercise this role through her members at different levels has been on-going in different countries. The Church, say these, should be happy with doing liturgical celebrations, administering the sacrament, and teaching the Word of God as if it was a disincarnate word that has nothing to do with the here and now. For such people the space that should be occupied by the Church is the temple and its sacristy.
It is not only the Catholic Church that is targeted. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was told to mind his own business when he touched the topic of religion and politics during his Christmas sermon. He defended himself by referring to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which speaks of “binding together our obligations to God and to one another, in a dense interweaving of love and duty joyfully performed”. The fulfilling of this duty is based on the position that the problems facing society are just as much spiritual and moral as they are political and economic.
Malta is no exception
As an example of this intolerant attitude in Malta one can point to the criticism levelled from time to time at Bishop Mario Grech who, on more than one occasion addressed “political” issues. What he says is sometimes reported selectively and thus erroneously or in a sensationalised way. Such a speech was the one he delivered some weeks back in Ta’ Kercem.
He spoke, among many other things, of the emergence of new forms of being widowers or orphans. Marriage breakdowns result in this new state of widowhood. Is not every marriage breakdown a cry for help? Should this cry for help be ignored? Should not society and the Church help in a material, affective and moral way those who want to be loyal to their marriage vows?
Bishop Grech included in his category of orphans those children in need of care which unfortunately is not given because of limitations within our social services, though these are quite extensive. He gave concrete examples.
Then Bishop Grech “dared” to address the subject of working mothers. His message was essentially one of respect to the choices that mothers make and to the duty of society to respect, defend and help these choices in concrete and tangible ways.
Several of the topics mentioned by Bishop Grech were ignored and his thoughts about working mothers were misrepresented.
I am not saying that Bishop Grech or anyone else for that matter is not the subject of criticism. It is legitimate not to agree with what he says, criticise him and propose different points of view. However, in the first place, his point of view has to be well represented and respected.
It is the role of the Church to be a critical voice in society by highlighting areas which could be improved. The Church has a duty towards her Founder, humans and society to fulfil this role. A pluralistic society prides itself in being a society where different voices and points of view compete for the attention of public opinion. It is a pity that some of the proponents of the pluralist society behave in such a way as to recognise the right for all voices – bar that of Church people – to be heard.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
91 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
charles caruana
Feb 8th, 19:36
Fr Joe, I'm afraid you are partly to blame for the invective of some of the commentors here - putting aside for the moment those secular and political bigots whose knee-jerk reaction at the mere mention of the Catholic Church is to see red, or perhaps blue. You have not clarified enough the definition of the word politics as you meant to use it in this particular blog entry. You might have distinguished better the difference between party politics in the very narrow sense used locally, and the larger and more noble meaning of politics as the exercise of power by a legitimate authority to maintain order and ensure justice in the state. As far as I know, Church discipline does not allow any priest to actively engage in any form of party politics, whether it be public or private. If you, Fr Joe, or any other priest has done so in the past or are doing so at present, you and they are simply out of line.On the other hand, no one can deny any priest, in his capacity as citizen and interested member of society, the right to comment on and criticize, both in public and in private, the stances, decisions and activities of politicians of all hues, especially where these in some way or other are considered to threaten or harm the common good. Priests individually, and the Church as an institution are duty bound to play an active and prudent role in the collective politics of a nation, understanding politics in the broad sense defined above. Christianity is an incarnational faith, meaning that for the Christian all aspects of human life, including politics, must be interpreted and lived under the light of faith. Nobody has the right to exclude the church and its take on life from the public square in a pluralistic and democratic society. Anyone who thinks he can ghetto the Church in the sacristy or in the realm of private devotion had better think again and examine his democratic credential and pretensions to freedom and tolerance. The Church has as much right to preach and teach its beliefs as those who flout their secularist or atheist beliefs on every possible occasion.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 8th, 17:38
@ Franco Farrugia. (8 Feb at 13:23)
I agree completely with you that you are your own worst critic. Were you not so incompetent as a self-critic you would never flaunt your intention to insult anybody as if insolence was some highly desirable accomplishment.
I know when you are trying hard to be sarcastic and I also know when you only succeed to render your comment extremely foolish, for example, when you take pride in insulting people and when your only regret is that your insult was not clear enough. That is the real difference between us. I consider such behaviour to be contemptible whereas you take pride in it.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 8th, 19:58
What is 'contemptible' to you, generally, is the opposite for me, and there reside my good intentions. You, on the other hand, simply find a balanced mind, most abnoxious!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 9th, 06:44
@ Franco Farrugia.
Your self-assessment as the proud owner of a "balanced mind" full of "good intentions" - when actually taking pride of insulting others - is not enough to make you realize that your self-praise is no commendation in the eyes of others and It does not even suffice to make you realize when you have had enough. That is where I leave you to bask in your self-assessed balanced mind bursting with its good intentions to insult others.
Joseph A Borg
Feb 8th, 17:22
I agree with you Fr joe with one proviso: the politics revolves around issues not particular political parties.
After all Jesus died because he was a political force.
I look forward to honest debates conducted impartial hosts with other organisations representing civil society, something that rarely happens.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 8th, 14:53
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti (and similar )
Your unwholesome (I'm being charitable in not using "venomous") cocktails of abuse, invective, slander and lies leave me quite unperturbed, though they offer hilarious and zany interludes in the course of one's day. However, one must disabuse you instantly of your wishful thinking concerning the Crucifix displayed in public places, especially in schools. To begin with, there is a European Court of Justice decision regarding the matter. And then there is the tiny matter of people like me, who till my last breath will ensure that the Crucifix, whether displayed on the wall of a classroom or on the back of the files I carry with me, etc., etc., WILL continue to be present in any classroom it pleases my Creator to place me. And there is absolutely nothing that you and/or others can do about that, at present and in the foreseeable and unforeseeable future.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 8th, 08:41
“Forgive me for not being clear: I meant to offend you.” ( Franco Farrugia.7 Feb at 19:27)
What incredible conceit! You take inordinate pride in having the intention to offend a "defender of the Faith" as if that were something to be proud of, and, in the same sentence, begging forgiveness for your incompetence in making your intention clear!
Joe Xuereb
Feb 7th, 19:38
Time was in Malta when vocations for the priesthood were two a penny; Fr. Joe Borg was of that generation. Fair enough and good enough for an aspiring young man. But he was (is) an intelligent man and he wanted to widen his horizon. What to do? Leaving the Order would have caused to much pain, embarrassment and speculation. So he stayed put but embarked on his through passion. Journalism and politics I believe and with a handsome pay-packet at the end of the month. Not exactly a breakthrough decision. I am acquainted with at least one college for boys that is entirely staffed by priests. And they taught (still teach?) the whole gamut of subjects over and above religious instruction and Latin. Were they ever qualified to teach odd subjects? Did they ever enrol at a college that teaches how to teach? I imagine so since these Church schools do not come cheap I shouldn't wonder.
So back to the matter in hand, i.e. the politico, the lecturer, the journalist and of course the priest, by now somewhat in a diluted form. Now, going back to a full-time priesthood is out of the question since dabbling in politics has been so fruitful. Besides, what would one do with one's knowledge gained; let it go to waste (although marriage-counsellor priests are not unknown albeit in tandem with their original vows). So, what to do?! Well, one option is to declare, and get people to agree, hopefully, that the Church can indeed be political. No more pangs of guilt. Just infiltration through the back-door with a foot firmly set in the front door, and so into what should have been a primary career of choice.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 7th, 18:20
@ Franco Farrugia (7 Feb at 14:58 and one minute later)
Please, no “perhaps” about it. This blog actually bristles with comments because Fr Borg is a highly effective blog writer and succeeds to stimulate discussion about the topic chosen by him. Not all the resulting comments would be brilliant, of course. Some are just a meaningless “tut tut” or an entreaty that “Catholic defenders of the faith” would please withdraw and leave the field open only to the anticlericals without contestation.
No one objects to the expression of your personal opinion that Fr J Borg’s defence of the Gozo Bishop is “ineffective” - especially not after you make it clear that you are speaking for yourself and nobody else. On the other hand, you must concede that, just because you solemnly declare: “ … you have it all wrong, Father” then the rest of us should bow our heads in submission to your oracular pronouncement from on high. Speaking for myself, I beg to differ, and that is the reason why I quote the resulting flurry of controversial comments to Fr J Borg’s mentally stimulating article. You flatter me unduly when you attribute this flurry of correspondence as being in response to my own efforts and which you disparage as harmful to the Church. As I said before, it is due to Fr Borg’s skills as an experienced blog writer.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 7th, 19:27
'You flatter me unduly when you attribute this flurry of correspondence as being in response to my own efforts....'
Forgive me for not being clear: I meant to offend you.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 7th, 20:57
And if you wish to talk about human rights talk about freedom to practice and not to practice religion. You lot impose religion on others. You do so when religious holidays become public holidays, when shops are closed on Sundays, when crucifixes are placed in state schools and in court rooms.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 7th, 22:31
@ Franco Farrugia.
You had already tried to insult me as a "so-called Catholic Defender of the Faith" when, with me it is a matter of pride to defend my faith. Therefore I never doubted for a moment that your intention was to offend me once more - but you did not succeed. Instead you gave me credit for the flurry of comments that boosted Fr Borg's blog. You fail not only to argue calmly and logically but you also manage to fail when you try to offend.
You beg me to forgive you and I find no difficulty in doing so. One thing however. I do not think that offending people is some desirable accomplishment. Trying to offend, failing to be clear about your evil intention, and instead giving me credit aggravates the situation by adding incompetence on top of being offensive.
It goes to prove that you are just as "ineffective" when you try to offend me, as when you try to offend the Bishop of Gozo, Fr Borg and any other person who tries to defend the Faith.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 8th, 08:54
I lay stress on the words 'so-called'. Regarding the way you set about 'defending the Church', I will leave it to the readers to decide which one of us two is more effective, whether it is you with your art of argument (sic) or with my down-to-earth and practical suggestions. Readers will also judge for themselves the 'evil intentions' coming out of me, as compared to yours.
I repeat what I have been telling you for ages: you defend the Church very badly, your words and 'arguments' are very abnoxious and they weaken the stand of the Church. It is better if you stay out of such discussions - for the good of your Church.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 8th, 11:23
@ Franco Farrugia (8 Feb at 08:45)
I do not accept your distinction between my being an actual defender of the faith, or only a “so-called” defender. So-called by whom? By you? Why should I after your damning admission that your intention is to offend me and after you ask me to forgive your inability to make yourself clear? After that admission I cannot accept your other opinion about the efficacy, or harmful nature, of my defence of my Church. Your entreaties that I should desist posting counter arguments to your obnoxious attacks on Catholic priests only convinces me that you have no reply, apart from trying to insult me, and therefore my comments must be much more efficacious than you care to admit.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 8th, 13:23
Empty words, dott, empty words. You cannot be your own critic, that much is certain. As for myself, I am my own worst one and cast my eyes down and say, 'there go but I without ...'. That's the basic difference between the two of us.
Regarding the 'obnoxious attacks on Catholic priests', I challenge you to quote where I have ever done so. However, whether they are Catholic priests or not, where I see the need to slam them, I do and without impunity. Another difference between the two of us.
By the way, please learn something about subtlety, form of writing and wit: when I asked for your forgiveness, I was merely being sarcastic. VERY SARCASTIC!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 7th, 09:59
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti. (7 Feb at 02:30)
The “form” that the Maltese priests have is the usual “human” form that you and I also have and that entitles all of us to the protection of any Universal Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights. By trying to deny them that protection YOU are trying to oppress them and not the other way round.
If you would only try to control your outrageous anti-clericalism you would not need elementary instruction about human rights applied without uniformly and without discrimination according to your prejudices.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 7th, 20:54
I do respect human rights ... even those of priests. However, for them to exercise these rights under the pretext that what they say is also in their capacity as ministers of God, as the old Gonzi did, is totally unacceptable. Borg can enter politics if he wants to. No one is stopping him but he should stop meddling religion with politics because at the end of the day that is what political priests do.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 7th, 03:05
As an atheist Maltese born and bred I still feel I have a duty to be quite concerned about Malta's Christian heritage being weakened and undermined. I think it is a very special and unexplainable bond that one has with one's country of birth. This may sound paradoxical coming from an atheist although there is nothing in the strata of Maltese limestone that says a true blood Maltese should be anything at all other than an atheist at birth. But defend the little rock and what it stands for I feel, is my birthright. Certainly, I would never dare suggest that a religion alien to these tiny islands has the right to build as many of its distinct temples as it deems fit. This has horrendous implications for tiny Malta especially when one considers that an increasing number of Maltese are indifferent to Malta's plight in this respect. And yet others are abandoning the ship, preferring to ingratiate themselves with the new aliens and their alien religions. Now THAT is cause for concern. And in this respect, the Church should indeed be more political if nothing else to preserve itself.
Of course putting forward the case that it is right and fitting for the Church to be more politicised could be interpreted in two ways. One would be to make the stance of the Church more palatable in political circles (and thus ease the way for anyone who suffers pangs of guilt between secular decision-taking and allegiance to their religious beliefs - as in the divorce referendum not so long ago). And the down side would be alienating tepid believers even further from the Church. So no, State and Church should be separate. Whether this is achievable in Malta, only time will tell. But claiming that it is in order for the Church to be politicised and rightly so - this is short-sighted and retrograde.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 7th, 02:19
Of course Borg wants priests to intervene in politics ... so that they can help his beloved PN. After all, is not the Maltese Curia solidly behind the PN?
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 8th, 05:08
No denials?
Mario P. Sciberras
Feb 6th, 21:50
@ Mr MD himself
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine
Franco Farrugia
Feb 6th, 18:45
With all due respect, the way that you try to 'excuse' the Gozo bishop is ineffective. Speaking for myself, I never criticised him for speaking about things that can be termed as 'political' but criticised ON THE WAY HE SPOKE, ON THE WAY HE DELIVERED about things spiritual! So, ... you have it all wrong, Father.
By the way, Father, now that we have divorce in the country, in what way is the Catholic Church in Malta contributing even further towards the strenghtening of marriage? How is the Church in Malta responding to this new phenomenon in the country (read 'divorce')?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 7th, 06:47
Ineffective? Then why the bristling reaction from the usual anti-religious mob?
Franco Farrugia
Feb 7th, 14:59
'Bristling', perhaps, in retaliation not to the good father who loves being silent when he wants to, even when and if politely asked a question or two, but in retaliation to people like you, self-acclaimed defenders of the faith.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 6th, 18:38
@ Mario P Sciberras. (5 Feb at 21:32)
A word of advice. When you slam the gates of hell behind you, please make sure that you stand on the right side of it. That is an honest piece of advice from a Catholic well-wisher who does not lay any claim to being the last great defender of the faith.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 7th, 14:58
Dear, dear ... tut, tut! These so-called Catholic defenders of the Faith have not yet learnt the lesson that they should have learnt over the 'divorce debacle' a few months ago. They refuse to realise that the more that THEY personally stand up to be counted and voice their feelings over the net, the more HARM that they are doing to the Church! Jahasra, oqghod kwiet, tiktibx, ghax qed taghmel aktar hsara milli gid, dott.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 7th, 20:42
@ Franco Farrugia.
There is no lessen to be learnt by the Catholic Church because the local secular power added this tiny island to the other much bigger countries who had adopted divorce legislation. As the Universal Catholic Church continued to do all over the world, the Malta diocese will continue to teach unperturbed what is right and what is wrong according to the teaching of Christ who insisted that his kingdom is not of this world. Christians who believe in the existence of that other world would not be intimidated by your insult them as "so-called Catholic defenders of the Faith" and your unchristian and quaint ideas about "divorce debacles* or you assessment of the "HARM" done to the Church by people like me who conform to the teaching of Christ!
Franco Farrugia
Feb 8th, 18:06
@ Francis Saliba: Tut, tut, seems to me you're getting a mighty bit angry this time, as seen by your grammar and spelling errors - which I must admit, are not your wont. :-)
I actually asked the priest-blogger to furnish me with answers, not you. But as usual, whenever it suits you, you jump up to 'defend'.... well!
And still, the priest has not furnished me with any answer. So, what am I expected to think? After so many months since divorce was legalised, no further enrichment to couples has been declared by the Church in Malta, for all that many priests wrote about such a relevance and need, the best way to answer the problem of divorce in this country.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 6th, 15:12
Seems to me as if a lot of vultures and hyenas (not to mention assorted hypocrites) are after your blood, dear blogger; metaphorically speaking, that is; at least I do hope so.
carlos ellul
Feb 6th, 11:45
I wonder what the only non democratic nation in the West can teach us at this point in time. The same guys who swept the priest pedofelia and the staggering corruption in the IOR problem under the carpet. Anyway Europe did followed 'God's way in the past. That time is known as the medieval times.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 6th, 17:43
You've got us all baffled. Which is the "only non democratic country in the West" to which you refer? Cuba?
carlos ellul
Feb 9th, 08:16
Vatican City
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 6th, 11:16
@ Eric Soames. (5 Feb at 22:05)
The attempt to muzzle the Church in Malta is all too obvious to anyone who does not wear blinkers. Not so obvious is your complaint of “drowning out” of those trying to muzzle the voice of the Church and its priests. They have all the space they want to carry out their nefarious campaign even on the blog run by their targeted priest!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 6th, 10:55
@ Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti. (5 Feb at 20:40)
You do not seem to care that you are advocating the denial to Malta's Catholic priests, the UNIVERSAL fundamental right to hold and to express opinions. You also fail to realise that these same priests are entitled also to that other UNIVERSAL fundamental human right namely not to suffer discrimination because of their religious belief.
I am neither judging nor "prejudging" you. I am just trying to explain that you are writing illogically like any typical Maltese anti-Catholic priest hater. You are not objecting to priests using their "collar" - you are objecting to their using their pen.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 7th, 02:09
Maltese priests have form, masquerading behind their human rights to oppress others. They do not just hold and express opinions. They pretend they have a god-given right to inflict them on others and call on their God as their witness. That is what I object to.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 7th, 02:30
I am anti-clerical because I do not believe in a church that is run by male priests for the comfort of male priests who bugger the fidili. That does not mean that I do not have friends who are priests (both in Malta and Australia) who see eye-to-eye with me.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 6th, 02:26
Given what one reads in these columns one can only conclude that the God of Roman Catholics (at least the Maltese variety of it) is a meddling and destructive God who divide and conquers. I say the Maltese variety of it because I know of many Anglo-Catholics who would shirk at such banal representatives of their God. Was it not this same God who hardened the heart of the pharaohs to get his own way. What justice is there in this, I ask? What free will? Let us be blunt about it. Jesus was wrong when he spoke of the end of the world. True, the Gospels send different messages also but this goes to prove that the Gospels are inconsistent. Believe in your God if you want to but do not expect the rest of the civilised world to go along with your nonsense. After all, Roman Catholicism only flourishes among the poor and the ill-educated, not to ignore those who are superstitous. Is it any wonder that it is going downhill in Malta? Bring on the party political priests. They will only help accelerate this downfall.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 6th, 15:57
Hahaha! Kif nghidu ahna L-Maltin u l-Ghawdxin: "Hanqa ta' hmar ......." EndlessLY hilarious!
Jessica Debattista
Feb 5th, 22:35
@ Mr. Joseph Carmel Chetcuti and Mr. Carmel J. Caruana:
As a mother, grandmother and career woman I feel I have acquired enough experience to be able to talk first hand about the the role of a woman.
I firmly believe that women are intellectually on a par with men for God/ Mother Nature does not make distinction in that department but God/ Mother Nature does make distinction as to the role male and female are designed for.
Experience has taught me that though we might deny it, deep down in our hearts we know that children need to be nurtured by the mother until such time that they can be relatively independent from her.
Of course, families are trying to adapt to a changing society which is making it necessary for a woman to go out to work and contribute financially to the family coffer and women today are well equipped to hold good jobs.
God/Mother Nature has also seen fit to regulate the childbearing/childrearing period by having women go through menopause thereby allowing them a more relaxed way of life at an age when they need to rest or to take up an activity/job they had put on hold because of the exigencies that motherhood had called for.
But what is happening nowadays? Grandmothers are drawn in to bring up the grandchildren because both parents are not in a position to do so. I find it rather unfair on the grandmother for it puts a lot of pressure on her; I have known this pressure to result in ailments both physical as well as psychological.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 6th, 09:41
There are many women with your years and experience who would disagree with you. You are not a spokesperson for women.
Jessica Debattista
Feb 6th, 12:07
@Mr.Joseph Carmel Chetcuti: “There are many women with your years and experience who would disagree with you. You are not a spokesperson for women.”
I am not trying to be a spokesperson for women!
I am speaking from my and other grandmothers’ experience. Obviously there would be others who would disagree with me. In fact I know of at least one grandmother who had found a new lease on life when she was called upon to look after her grandchild.
She had thought the child was a godsent, because she had felt lonely when her children got married and left the house. But sad to say, she soon realized her mistake when she was expected to look after other grandchildren born to her other children.
She tried to make them understand that she could not handle raising other infants but it was with a lot of guilt feelings that she finally put her foot down. To this day the other children keep reminding her that she had made preferences.
It would interest me to know why you are so vehemently against what I say. I think I am entitled to air my views about the matter without having you forcefully trying to shut me up.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 21:39
I am not aware that Fr J Borg "takes an active part in any political party" or in any "governing labour union" but I stand to be corrected. I only know him as the author of a blog who is also a priest and a University lecturer about the media. In my opinion, that qualifies him to express an opinion about matters of simultaneous religious and political import, much more so than the critics on his blog who would like to silence him, his religious superiors and any lay Catholic person who accepts their teaching.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 6th, 02:13
@ Francis MD. You obviously have much to learn about reading whether such reading is explicit or implicit. There is little doubt that you and Joey are birds of the same feather who flock together. And the flock I am referring to is the PN. Any imbecile reading Joey's blog or for that matter your comments will realise where your political sympathies lie. Please don't take readers as fools.
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Feb 6th, 07:49
I repeat again. I was talking about Fr Caius, Fr Titus, Fr Sempronius and Fr Publius. The first two are nationalists the second two are labourites. And another one Fr Julius, a staunch supporter of "il-Partit tal-Farfett". I want none of them to hoist high their party flag on their home. Clear enough ?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 6th, 08:36
I do not know any of the Rev gentlemen Caius, Titus, Sempronius, Publius and Julius. I would object if any one of them promised heaven or hell to anyone voting, or not voting, for X or for Y. But I do object if anyone of them (assuming that that the gentlemen are all Catholic priests) were to teach that it does not matter if someone divorces his wife/husband and to remarry, to kill a baby in the mother's womb or to kill a senile grandparent or anyone else with subnormal intelligence.
Any Malta priest publicly expressing his opinion about such admittedly political hot potatoes (as well as other political injusticies) could not justifiably be considered as "hoist(ing) their party flag on their home".
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 6th, 10:13
@ Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti.
I was tempted to answer you sardonically that I bow to your superior judgment but I thought that I'd better not risk your missing my sarcasm.
One does not have to be a genius to deduce that I support the present Nationalist Party because the Labour Party has been chronically unable to provide a possible credible alternative up to now. In that belief I am in the good company of the majority of the Malta electorate since 1987. The brief aborted Sant government only strengthens that view.
If you disagree with that historical fact then it must be you that "have much to learn about reading whether such reading is explicit or implicit" (whatever you meant by that).
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 7th, 02:11
You mean the majority at the last elections?
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Feb 5th, 19:57
@ Dr Francis Saliba. I commented on the article, not on Father Borg.
I never liked priests who take a partisan political role, whether Labour or Nationalist. Once RAI televised a debate between a priest openly to the political right and another blatantly to the left. It was really edifying !!!!
My position should be clear enough. And I am not alone.
The Canon Code states :
Can. 287 §1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.
§2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labour unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it."
With this I agree for all concerned.
Mario P. Sciberras
Feb 5th, 15:00
FR JOE AND HIS TROJAN HORSE
The Greeks used a "Trojan Horse" to fool the Trojans and defeat them. Fr Joe, bless his soul. uses the same stratagem and tricks to influence negatively our ability to exercise our "free will" in choosing rationally between different points of views. He does not use a horse to do this but instead uses religion, the word of God, Mary, the Pope, the Bishops, our propensity to feel sympathy for a just cause and so on.
Fr Joe is telling us that a POLITICAL church is good. He forgot to tell what sort of Politics he is talking about and goes on to give a few examples of things most people agree with and which most people would not regard as political. Then he reinforces his writing by quoting the Pope, the Bishop of Gozo and even Mary; she got roped in as well.
The conclusion that he wants us to come to is that it is OK for the church and the clergy to get involved in politics. Which kind of politics he does not say. But for now he has put down his marker, the rest will be revealed in future contributions by Fr Joe.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 12:37
@ Pat Muscat. (5 Feb at 12:06)
I do not believe you when you put YOUR anti Catholic comment into the mouths of unidentified Maltese missionaries serving in missions abroad, who regularly ask for, and receive, help from their Maltese compatriots and who publicly acknowledge and express grateful thanks for the generosity towards their missions from local Catholics.
Your artificial diversion into other irrelevant issues exposes your animus against Maltese Catholics and lays your motives bare for all to see.
Eric Soames
Feb 5th, 12:03
Nice one Reverend, you've alienated at least half the population. The church should lead by example. Go on driving your wedges then. The 'wall of separation between church and state' to coin Thomas Jefferson's phrase, was instituted to protect, in this case, the Baptists in Danbury, CT from . . . other denominations!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 15:04
@ Eric Soames.
In Malta approximately half the population is blinkered pro-Labour and the other half is blinkered pro-Nationalist. The Reverend Borg is not responsible for that partition or for driving any wedge between them now.
In Malta the Church respects the separation of Church from State but that dies not satisfy the local anti-Catholic, secularist and atheist lobbies aided and abetted by their foreign allies. Their not so well-hidden agenda is to muzzle the Church, to deprive its followers from their fundamental human right to hold and express religious opinions and to deprive them of that other fundamental human right to choose and practice their religion in a Malta with its undeniable ancient Catholic culture.
As if you did not know!
Eric Soames
Feb 5th, 18:25
Francis Saliba M.D. - I certainly take your word for it as expressed in your first paragraph. As to your second; I disagree of course because I don't see any mention of a person's right to not have religion prattling in their ears willy nilly. And your last line is the norm for many commentators here; rendering an argument personal and letting off a Parthian Shot based on what are only, because they can't be anything else, assumptions.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 19:36
@ Eric Soames.
Those who object to "religion prattling in their ears" are entitled to plug their ears or to move away - they have no right to deprive anyone else, even religion prattlers, from expressing their opinions in writing or by mouth.
My last line asumes that you know the obvious which you confirm by stating that it is the norm here. So what is exactly your objection to that norm?
Eric Soames
Feb 5th, 22:05
Francis Saliba M.D. - Expressing an opinion is fine, drowning out those who prefer to hold a different opinion by stating that their intention is to muzzle the church is a different ball game. A nebulous conspiracy you seem to think I should be, or am, aware of. Maybe you should read my last sentence again, it's a thought I've expressed before here.
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Feb 5th, 11:45
It is misleading to use the term "political" which has different meanings.
When the Church speaks of values which are universal, applicable in South America, the USA, Europe or Australia, it may deal necessarily with political issues, in the sense of the behaviour of society. Cardinal Tettamanzi spoke openly about the dignity of migrants. The Church in Malta did the same. One of the best encyclical letters ever written was that of Pope John Paul II when he warned, after the fall of communism, of the threat of "savage capitalism". The position of the Church on armed conflicts has been consistent, and it troubled George Bush, for example, when the Church took a strong stand on the attack on Iraq.
But then there is the other meaning of "political". Every member of the clergy has a right to his personal "political" opinion in the community in which he lives. Has he the right to express those opinions ? That is a human right. But there may be constraints, which any priest has to impose on himself if he remembers that he is the pastor of all political views. Certainly if he opts for full freedom to air his opinions, then he cannot arrogate to himself the title of being "the Church".
And from that point onwards, his opinions are subject to scrutiny, criticism and disparagement, or applause and gratitude from the political party favoured.
The common mistake is to equate the Church with the opinions of such individual politically partisan priests. They are worth the same as any opinion of any party supporter.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 14:01
I am not aware of any instance when Fr Borg abused his priestly calling in the exercise of his journalist or teaching duties - quite the opposite in fact. There were occasions in the past when I had to cross swords with him because, in my opinion, he allowed his role as a journalist to overshadow his priestly role.
The plain unvarnished truth is that, according to MLP fanatics, priests should express only views that suited the MLP agenda. When expedient, innocuous declarations by priests were distorted and given a false pro-LP or pro-divorce bias. I find it regrettable that, due to an excessive and misplaced prudence, such malicious distortions were not always prompyly rebutted, thus scandalising the faithful.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 11:40
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti. (today at 00:07)
I do not blame you for suggesting that someone else, not you, would do the silly thing to explain what is obvious to all i.e. "not everyone is a Catholic". It should be just as obvious to you (even if it is not) that your not being a Catholic does not preclude me from expressing the widely held opinion that the Papal encyclicals quoted by me are the Church's valuable contribution to the social welfare state of today
Those Popal encyclicals do not impose anything on you and they do not order you what to do with your body - but you must have read them, at least, to understand that simple fact. You do not give any inkling of having done that, still less of being able to appreciate their import.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 7th, 02:15
And I continue to read them. One has to know what the enemy is all about!
Andy Farrugia
Feb 5th, 11:33
There seems to be a clear sustained attack by some commenters on this blogger. They cannot understand what freedom of expression is all about. They are hypocritical and draconian. Let me see if they get MY message. If you don't like what blogger writes, don't read him.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 11:16
@ Carmel J Caruana (5 Feb at 08:39 and Jos Carmel Chetcuti 5 Feb at 00:10)
I would venture a guess that Jessica Debattista would prefer a role model for her sex that, in addition to her proficiency in chores related to her home, would not need DNA testing to ascertain who is the father of the baby in her womb.
Her role model as a good wife and a good mother would give due priority to her duties as wife and mother – skills that are preferably exercised by her gender rather than the male – over and above her skills in professions open to both sexes. Good luck to her and to her family if she has the strength, the skills and the time to cope with both satisfactorily without sacrificing her family ties.
That is the real concern of Catholic parents about the family, not the gibe that "Intkom il-kattolci dejjem tridu tilhqu salib haddiehor".
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 7th, 02:17
Speak of a universal Church. Many Roman Catholics in Australia would be roaring with laughter at your nonsense.
Mario P. Sciberras
Feb 5th, 10:05
Election is coming and Fr Borg wants the church to be political. I want to be able to choose my Politicians. I did not choose self appointed people like Fr Borg, to interfere in my Politics.
Maybe if a definition of what he means by politics in this context was given it would have helped.
Fr Borg goes on to tell us that "Mary herself had described Christ’s role in political terms. “He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.” Can Mary say the same thing about the local church in general and some clergy in particular?
pat muscat
Feb 5th, 09:07
Which Church is Joe Borg referring to; the Church that fights for justice as in South America, or the Church that fights for privileges, such as the one in Malta? I
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 10:04
@ Pat Muscat.
There is only one Catholic Universal Church and its committment to social justice is just as evident in Malta as it is in South America to which place the Malta diocese sends its missionaries in the fight for justice that you mention.
Could you please take off your blinkers for a moment to illuminate us about YOUR non-Catholic contribution in the fight for justice in South America?
pat muscat
Feb 5th, 12:08
@F Saliba. These were not my words, but the words of Maltese missioners who work in Peru, Guatemala, Ivory Coast, and Ghana, Egypt, Turkey Pakistan. And please try to read more of the Catholic Herald-the one who published letters by British Catholics about the interference of the Maltese 'political Church in the 60s-and you might also read about the unbalance that exists in the Roman Curia between diminishing western Catholics who dictates what goes on in Rome, and the greater majority of non-western Catholics who are hardly represented in the echelons of power.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 5th, 00:12
Give them an inch and they will take a mile. After all, Malta's Church does have a form ....
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 5th, 00:04
They have you, Joe, as a politial priest. Is that not enough? By a political priest, I read your subtext as one that supports the Nationalist Party.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 09:03
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti.
You object to priests expressing a political opinion only when that opinion does not support your political affiliation and its best forgotten recent historical record.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 5th, 20:40
Francis, in typical Maltese Catholic conservative style, you pre-judge. I object to any priest expressing any political opinion. Priests should not meddle in politics. If they wish to meddle in politics they should take off their collars and desist from using their collars for their own political advantage.
Mario P. Sciberras
Feb 4th, 22:47
I honestly think that contibutions like this one by Fr Borg are made to confuse and not enlighten people. Here are some example:
1. her (the church's) condition in society,
2.The Pope.... compared the role of the hierarchy to one of shedding light on human experience
3. Yet the Church, thanks to the Word of God, sees beyond these shadows.
4. offering the light of the Gospel to all men and women of good will
and so on.
What do these and similar terms actually mean.The church's condition, shedding light on human experience, beyonds these shadows, men and women of goodwill etc.
Fr Borg makes references to the word of God to support whatever he was trying to say. The questions that remain unanswered are Which God? Whose God? Which words? are they the words contained in the old testiments or in the new testiments? What is the position of a person who has issues with the Bible/Gospels.
I think one sentence would have sufficed " the church should keep away from party politics and concentrate on improving the human experience on this earth". There were never any controversies when the Mons Azzopardi set up and run "id-Dar tal-Providenza" but the same cannot be said about the church's sortees into the political arena (1930,1960,2011).
When will you learn? Do you want to learn?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 08:56
@ Mario P Sciberras.
Do YOU want to learn? When will YOU learn that the Church is greater than any of its members, and most certainly greater any of its past and present detractors, in fulfillment of Christ's promise that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her and that He is with her till the end of time! That is the undeniable historical experience of the past two millennia.
Mario P. Sciberras
Feb 5th, 11:57
@Francis Saliba
Do I want to learn? Of course I do, but I do not think that I will learn anything of substance reading your contribution. When you decide to back up what you wrote with serious philosophical arguments or historical truth I will gladly concore with your points of views.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 13:35
@ Mario P Sciberras.
"Serious philosophical arguments" are unnecessary and they would be beyond the comprehension ability of many on this blog who demonstrate a mulish determination to pretend an inability to understand the "substance" of my contributions whenever they do not have a logical answer. I do not consider it worthwhile to waste my time to make you "concore" with my points of view (whatever you may mean by your "concore").
I would have thought that the progress of Christianity from an insignificant Palestinian sect to the worldwide religious culture of today, affecting many millions, is an undeniable historical fact that does not need any serious philosophical argument to be understood by anybody.
Mario P. Sciberras
Feb 5th, 17:54
@ Francis Saliba
I agree with you that I should pay more attention when typing with one finger. The correct spelling is concur and I apologies for any inconvenience caused to the learned MD.
"Serious philosophical arguments" are unnecessary and they would be beyond the comprehension ability of many on this blog,,,,," said Francis. Well why dont you give it a try and regale us with pearls of wisdom such as "a dozen is bigger than one", "the church is bigger than any of its members".
The "gates of Hell shall not prevail against her and that He is with her till the end of time." What does this mean exactly.I do not understand "gates of Hell" and "End of time."
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 5th, 19:46
@ Mario P Sciberras.
Writing "concore" instead of "concur" is not a typing error. To me it is a warning not to enter into any "serious philosophical argument" with the author of that howler who moreover takes pride in not understanding such phrases as "gates of hell" and "end of time".
Mario P. Sciberras
Feb 5th, 21:32
@ Francis Saliba MD
The last great defender of the faith has spoken. I will now retreat and close the "xatba tal-Infern" behind me.
Manuel Mangani
Feb 4th, 17:13
The Church would be betraying its mission were it not to comment, try to influence, and, indeed, participate in, the administration of the polis. It is extraordinary how those who tend to view Christianity in terms of horizontal relationships only ("l-aqwa li tħobb lil għajrek, tħenn għall-batut, u ma tagħmel ħsara lil ħadd'') bristle when the political dimension of the Church's role is brought up.
Perhaps the objections to Church participation in the political sphere have to do with an insufficient understanding of what politics is all about, i.e an activity which goes well beyond partisan affiliation and prejudice and that for the Christian politics has everything to do with justice, preferential choices in favour of the poor, the oppressed, the weak and the vulnerable ( like unborn babies and immigrants), caring for God's creation, respect for human rights for all citizens and upholding the common good.
Perhaps the objection is intimately connected mostly to do with a fear of a repetition of the mistakes of the 60's. That time is past. Some individual priests may be too closely tied to the apron-strings of the PN or the PL, but the Church itself is very well aware that its political participation must be free of partisan connections.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 4th, 16:37
There are many issues in society's every day life that straddle morality in the religious sense and the legislative role of government in maintaining public order. Not all things that are legal would be also morally right and not everything that is immoral would be illegal in all jurisdictions.
Faithful members of the Church must never allow themselves to be intimidated from expressing their own opinion, based on their religious beliefs. They must never give a free hand to the secularists to express their own different opinions, unopposed. The fundamental human right to hold and express opinions is the right of the religiously inclined as much as it is also the right of the irreligious and the secularists.
Victor Rodenas
Feb 4th, 16:02
What is the Church`s view of the moral situation in Parlament? C arefull now you might be given a sabbatical for your answer.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 4th, 17:24
@ Victor Rodenas.
Much more probable than an enforced sabbatical for Fr Borg, if he (or the Church) would rashly answer your vague question, they would be pounced upon promptly by the usual anti-religious faction and accused of not observing the separation of Church from State and not giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's,
As we say in Maltese "Bil-glekk taqlaghha u bla glekk taqlaghha wkoll".
Carmel J. Caruana
Feb 4th, 15:54
Dear Fr Joe,
Unfortunately you did not point out the obvious, that is, that there are TWO shades of meaning of the word 'political'.
1. Political: as working to improve equal and fair distribution of wealth, speaking against the impoverisation of the masses and the manipulation of the banking system to steal from the poor/middle-class to give to the rich, working against the domination of the media by a small group of business people to the extent that the media has been changed from its educational purpose to merely a gigantic and very powerful selling machine...
2. Political: as in creating alliances with one or other established political party simply to increase own influence, maintain own wealth and power as an organization, maintain own dogma and outdated views of social reality...
The Archbishop of Canterbury was using the first meaning of politics and this is reflected in his support for the 'Occupy Wall street' type of protests in the UK - protests against the abuse of the banking system to further enrich the few at the expense of the poor and middle-class. This is why he was lambasted by the business class and it's media.
However in Malta you have to be careful as 'political' is often used in the second sense - as has been evident in our history of Church-State relations and issues such as the recent divorce referendum and the absence of criticism of the exploitative businesses and practices.
Can you tell me when the Church has voiced an opinion against the Paceville business elite who are destroying our youth?, against the exorbitant prices of medicines (medicines that could be bought much cheaper overseas, medicines that are always a few weeks off their expiry date), the lack of transparency in the selection of people sent for treatment overseas (as in one infamous court judgement from last year or the year before)...
A socially minded Church tackles the real issues that are destroying the fabric of society. It's not the fact that mothers work that is destroying families, in fact seeing their mothers work is good for kids. What is destroying families is the impoverisation of the middle-class that has made it imperative that mothers and fathers work LONG hours, the lack of facilities that would make it easier for mothers to juggle work and family life, etc
These are the real issues - and you ignore them. Tough journalists tackle tough issues.
Jessica Debattista
Feb 4th, 18:25
@ Carmel J. Caruana: “It's not the fact that mothers work that is destroying families, in fact seeing their mothers work is good for kids.”
How did you arrive to that conclusion?
Children nowadays are used to seeing their mothers go out to work, but whether it is good for them or not is anybody’s guess.
It was totally different a few decades ago. Mothers then, were unpaid, taken for granted, fully employed housewives. They might be more realized in their career nowadays but at the expense of being more hassled by the end of the day and with scant time to spend with the children.
Mothers do try to give what is called “quality time” but “quality time” is just a buzz phrase which sounds nice but in reality it is just an imposed duty which does not fool the children who are quite attuned to the tenseness that underlies the good intention of the mothers who try to do their utmost to bond with the children.
Having said that, there is no way that life can revert to those long gone days when married life was more structured to sustain a good balance.
It is not only the children who are affected in such a modern way of living! The married couple themselves go through harrowing times for it is not easy to maintain a loving relationship when stress gets in the way.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 5th, 00:10
Jessica, women have a choice ... that is what matters. Leave it to the individual mother to decide what is best for her, her children and her family. Stop meddling in what, at the end of the day, is not your business. Intkom il-kattolci dejjem tridu tilhqu salib haddiehor.
Carmel J. Caruana
Feb 5th, 08:39
@ Jessica Debattista
Dear Jessica what type of role model do you want our kids (particularly girls) to see in their mother - a cleaner, cook, human washing machine, servant totally dedicated to serving the family but with near zero own personality and aspirations of her own ... or a woman doctor, lawyer, accountant, scientist - a woman who is a model of not only motherhood but also of an intelligent, assertive human being?
As a father I dont want the first model any more - and not for monetary reasons I can assure you.
pat muscat
Feb 4th, 15:45
Dak li hu ta Cesri u ta Alla ghandhom jibqghu mifruda: min ihobb il-politika ghandu jidhol f'partit politiku!. As if we are still not suffering from the bouts of indigestion brought about by the 'political' Church of the 30s, 60s and as recent as last May! Yes bring back the 'Time Machine': it.s good for 'politics' ( read PN) but not for the Church!
David Scicluna
Feb 4th, 15:06
Are you trying to justify your political bias? Are you trying to justify Fr.Peter's central role in the PN? Or are you trying to justify Gonzi"s meddling in politics in the 60's?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 4th, 14:34
Our bishops would be acting in the best traditions of the Catholic Church when they tackle "political" issues in their relationships to Christian morality. These traditions are quite ancient and have contributed beneficially towards modern society as a whole. One need only mention the Papal encyclicals Rerum Novarum (Pope Leo X111 1981), Quadrigesimo Anno (Pius X1 1931), Mater et Magistra (John XX111 1961) and Centesimus Annus (John Paul 11 1991).
Bishop Grech has nothing to feel apologetic about when he carries out his duties in such good company.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 5th, 00:07
Someone should tell this Francis that not everyone is a Catholic and that people like me know the Church has no right to tell me what to do with our bodies. Who cares about your Church's encyclicals. Live by them if you so wish but do not impose them on the rest of us and don't come up with this common good nonsense.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 4th, 13:51
Good to see yet another contribution from Fr Borg, and good to see that he did not succumb to the insipid flak from the usual suspects. I was beginning to wonder whether he may have been brow-beaten by the obnoxious comments posted on his last thread. To be sure, I may not always be in agreement with what he writes but I always look forward to his musings and will always defend his right to express his thoughts in any shape or form. This is the stuff of which tolerance, freedom and democracy are made; but others only pay lip service to such concepts. Carry on blogging, Fr Borg.
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Feb 4th, 19:47
yes i am sure you would say the seem the same thing if a priest started blogging in favour of the LP or Joe Muscat. Iddahhaqnix!