Church and politics: Take Two
My latest post “Towards a political church” caused quite a stir. Mixed with the comments there was quite a good dose of venom. Darnel was abundant, but wheat was not at all scarce. Most comments prove that whatever one writes, meaning always lies within the mind of the reader. It is always very instructive to read the different points of views on what one writes and the different ways people understand the same thing.
Out of respect for those who – independently of whether they agreed with me or not – made very valid points let me reflect some more on the subject.
The use of the work political quite rightly came up for a lot of comments. Like many other word, the term political has different meanings depending on its context. I thought that the context of my article pointed out the meaning of political with a capital “p”.
The same applies to the word church. I clearly stated that there are different levels: hierarchy, commissions, individual priests, other individual Christians. I was not advocating that the institutional (or hierarchically) church should – manifestly or covertly – support a political party. There could be some very rare exceptions when this could be historically justified; but in the great generality of cases it should not be so.
This also applies – with some exceptions as the reference Dr Brincat made to Canon Law shows - to individual priests. Our bishops have clearly and rightly warned against priests becoming part of “il-miskja politika”. Miskja means the thick of the battle and does refer to the core of party politics. However, this does not mean that priests cannot take a principled position which can be construed to mean (or in actual fact shows) support for some policy or other of some political party. The contest will make such a position acceptable or not.
Lay people are part of the church – an essential part. They can and should take an active part in politics. They should be in the miskja politika.
A continuum, not a monolith
There is a whole continuum from enunciating principles to the other end of the spectrum, that is, proposing technical solutions. The easiest is the former; the most difficult position is the latter.
One can have different applications of the same principles and different proposed solutions because it is totally legitimate to have different readings of one situation. For example, I had written more than once about the position of different USA bishops before the last presidential election in the USA. Some were implying that it was a sin to vote for Obama, others had a different position.
One can find different Catholics in different political parties. There is generally no one Catholic practical position even if there is agreement about basic principles.
I hope that this clarifies my position, though I would not be surprised if it muddles it further … at least in the perception of some.
Lessons from Ireland
However, as another attempt at clarifying the issue let me share with you some thoughts from a homily delivered on January 1, 2012 by Dublin’s Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.
The bishop appealed for a “mature” debate about the role of faith in society and warned against crude caricatures of religion. He also said that society must acknowledge that despite the scandals, the Church’s overall contribution to Ireland has been positive.
Bishop Martin said: “the Catholic Church, the faith of the majority of the citizens of the nation, had a dominant influence on the values which keep our social interaction intact. … A new situation now exists and this requires a change in the manner of interaction between Church and State. Faith in Jesus Christ cannot be imposed on any individual. When attempts are made to impose faith on a society then the originality of faith is inevitably damaged,” he said.
However, he warned “this does not mean that faith has no contribution to the political or even the economic life of a society”.
The bishop admitted that Church leaders have over the years overstepped the boundaries of their legitimate mandate. “Yet the contribution of individual believers and of the Church as an institution to Ireland’s development and social culture has overall been positive. A mature future-oriented dialogue between Church and Irish culture should build on those positive aspects of our past.”
While accepting that criticism of the Catholic Church is legitimate, he added that criticism is different from negative and cynical caricature of faith or spin. Caricature of faith does little to build up in society the values that endure.
Take away the word Ireland and put instead the word Malta. The words of Bishop Martin will nicely fit our situation. Whatever mistakes committed by the Church, its positive contribution to society by far outweighs its lapses.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
62 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 16th, 15:15
@ Carlos Ellul (today 16 Feb at 09:02)
It is my opinion that the Christian faith was at its most glorious phase, not during its triumphalist period but when it was most persecuted and driven underground into the catacombs. Christianity today may not be so bloodily persecuted in the Western World but it is being just as viciously persecuted using modern media weapons rather than feeding its practitioners to the lions. I do not think that Jesus, St Francis of Assisi or Mother Theresa of Calcutta would condone today’s persecution without protest.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 16th, 22:54
The Church, any church, should be challenged and continually so. Not to challenge it simply means that it is part and parcel of the status quo.
carlos ellul
Feb 16th, 09:02
I think that the church should take Jesus and the apostles strategy route since it had proven time and time again (from St Francis of Assisi to Madre Theresa) that its the most effective way. Jesus's ways were simple but effective ie stir away from politics and traditions as far as possible, mix with the people and lead by example. That's exactly what the church did in its early days.
In my opinion the RCC needs a radical change and a return to its roots. Priests should be allowed to get married and have children, and they should be qualified not through their academic background but through their religious zeal. The majority of priests should work for a living, many of whom in 'common' jobs and they should be made to live on that salary. With all respect towards the pope and the bishops, but how can an unmarried person, who spent much of his lifetime in a palace, understand the turmoil of a young married couple who can't make ends meet and is set to lose their job because its cheaper to produce items in China or employ an illegal immigrant for peanuts? Its easy to talk about giving a second/third/forth/fifth chance to criminals when you've got guards at your back and you sleep in a fortress like monastery. And how would a priest react if he knew that his own son rather then Mr X or Mr Y son/daughter could have been raped by some other priest?
Mary Mills
Feb 16th, 12:52
So, so well-put, Carlos. Now we're in business!
charles caruana
Feb 16th, 19:32
Another latter day reformer, a postmodern Luther who wants to hack at the trunk and branches of the Church to reduce it to its roots. What a farrago of tired, trite and clichéd suggestions, betraying the fact that you seem to know little or nothing about the lives, attitudes and actions of either St. Francis or Madre Theresa. St Francis had such deep and humble reverence for the priestly state that he thought himself unworthy of it, while you seem to be such an expert in priesthood that you cavalierly decree the abolishment of priestly chastity, the passé vaguely socialist idea of the worker priest current in the sixties, and labour under the delusion that a doctor has to experience all the diseases under the sun to cure them in others. You also seem to be blissfully unaware of the rich social teaching of the Church promulgated by the Popes living in their ‘palaces’ , starting from Rerum Novarum and reaching to Benedict’s Caritas in Veritate, with their deep and hard hitting analysis of social injustice and unflinching defense of the worker’s rights and dignity. Go on, do yourself a favour and at least read the last mentioned encyclical and see whether Benedict’s insight into social justice at least manages to rise to your sublime level. ‘With all due respect’ indeed! And do you think Madre Theresa was ‘stirring’ away from politics and traditions when she publicly criticized politicians and statesmen about their legalization of abortion in places like UN and elsewhere? It is easy to talk about reforming the Church, Mr Ellul, but if you really want to reform it out of a burning love of it, why don’t you start from where St Francis and Madre Theresa started, by reforming yourself into sanctity?
M Grima
Feb 16th, 08:58
If you want to witness how your church behaved during the 60's just watch the first programme on One TV 'L-Istorja tal Partit Laburista'. You would be amazed how the Maltese church headed by non other than Archbishop Michael Gonzi (sound familiar?) in its frenzy to condemn the MLP went to great lenghts to suffocate every single labourite with its famous 'dnub il-Mejjet'.
You should perhaps conduct a research to find out how many families had to emigrate to Australia, Canada, USA and UK because your church in collaboration with the PN exiled these people because they were marked as labourites.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 15th, 10:39
"There's nowt as queer as folk except me and thee and even me and thee are a little bit queer".
So there you have it, a deep insight without recourse to heavy tomes and pericopae (sounds like some disgusting fetish), and anything in between.
I want to refer to one failed ballet dancer on pointes who turned evangelicals, leaving by his spouting - he thought - a devastated queerdom. I can never understand why people have to sort out others when they would do better to contemplate their belly-button and its fluff.
Queer. Of course it was a put-down for queers. That was of a time when homosexuals - for the uninitiated to these pages, a homosexual is a man who has sexual fantasies about other man. And acts upon his fantasies and then on, it is the luck of the draw as it is for the red-neck counterpart in his search to find a suitable woman and bear children, plenty of them, like the Church decrees, and let no man pull asunder, and all that nonsense. But first find a good woman - I digressed. Time was when homosexuals cowered and queer was appropriate if unjust, insensitive, and reflected something terrible on the accuser(in my book, who isnt a bit queer, talking from experience?).
Times changed and the queer is now empowered and calls himself queer in the face of his accuser, often a self-loathing shirt-lifter himself. So queer with pride it will be. Full circle. Thus turning the tables. But that is another story, another tome.
@Joseph Borg. The Church as we know it today has indeed strayed from the original message. The Vatican - behaving like there is no hope for one unless one is RC - is indeed a powerful institution and one would not expect it to operate from a Nissen hut. Fine by me. But to me, the Vatican is just an extension of a Roman Empire that died because that is what empires do. The Old Empire and the Church are but two of a chain that just wither away, naturally. Meanwhile, Secularism/Atheism is making inroads, fast. And they, too, will succumb to some revealed truth in the future. Paradoxically, this too might come from the heavens as likely as not.
@Caruana, you seem to be bending over backwards (quick, think of a clever retort) to bash queers (that is men who fancy men). As a red-neck hetero, dont you think you are devoting too much time to a matter that concerns you not a bit? I mean, it is not like all this effort is to raise their stakes and therefore positive, human, but to damn them. I may be a celebratory queer but I am quite/very comfortable with my hetero brothers and sisters (especially when a brother hanging on for dear life to some female when I KNOW he has been to my bed when it was already occupied), reminding myself that we are all together in this. We are all the product of such a hetero coupling so why not be grateful, some queerly so, at that and live. Life isnt a piece of cake and there's nothing wrong with that. Live and let live says I. And dubiously picking on a minority to dubiously validate oneself is such of
dubious worth when there is so much else to be dubious about. Don't you think?
PS@Saliba. I looked it up. Pericope = an extract from a text, especially a Biblical one. Quote: 'The writers of the gospels were only putting down in writing what had been learned by heart and transmitted orally by people who were Christ's contemporaries'. I'm afraid you'll have to do better than this for me to have a peep-in. Why did you not say it was an extract, Francis? Or were you trying to impress, to score points? I for one, am not impressed. Nowt as queer as folk, indeed. It takes a no-nonsense Northern country bumpkin to come out with that jewel. Of course we use it in the South as, unlike Mellieha, earthy Yorkshire travels well. Meanwhile, I must keep 'pericope' in mind to use as appropriate in the future; but I'm not holding my breath. Happy queers don't need to impress and score points. They are happy being self-accepting queers. And if they do not believe there is a god, and no afterlife, so much the better. For as such, they are in touch with this nonsense called life and feel no need to vent their venom and scapegoat others to raise their own stakes.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 15th, 15:00
I see that you have left me out of your "hit-list", dear Xuereb! Interesting and intriguing! Or could it be that you intend to "devote" an entire diatribe to poor little me? Or possibly, after all, I'm not really THAT effective in my comments? No posturing, Xuereb, out with it; it's good to "relieve" yourself of any baggage - I'm old and seasoned enough to handle anything that comes in my direction. Not just old and seasoned enough, but spiritually buttressed, too.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 15th, 17:02
@ Joe Xuereb.(today at 13:39)
I will make a rare exception and reply to you, even though I suspect that you were not consulting the right dictionary. that you stopped reading half way through or that you did not quote your source in full. Pericopae, in the context I used that term, could never be extracts from gospels that had not yet been written and of which they were the source.
These pericopae were "sections" or extracts from the life itself of Christ, memorised by Christ's contemporary disciples and these extracts (pericopae) were regularly used by the early Christian communities as basis for instruction during their religious services. They were reliable contemporary sources for gospels that were taken down in writing decades later. I mentioned them to rebut the charge that those who wrote the gospels 3 or 4 decades after the death of Christ would not "remember what anyone said 30-40 years ago".
Victor Gelfo
Feb 15th, 09:23
Youre right Fr Borg. One thing i say from these comments, how undemocrartic are the so called progressives and socialists!
I am really becoming allergic to socialists!
Andy Farrugia
Feb 16th, 20:22
"I am really becoming allergic to socialists!" Victor Gelfo.
Allergic? Have a look at the following quotes:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Winston Churchill.
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
Alexis de Tocqueville
“Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it”
Cecil Palmer
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 14th, 20:39
To all those Christians and Catholics who think that no one should dare criticise their beliefs, thankfully whose numbers are greatly diminishing, what gives you the right to criticise and insult everyone else, their beliefs, their political stances, their sexual orientation, their identities, and at the same time think you have some God-given right to be above any criticism. The audacity of those who call (homo)sexuality intrinsically disordered and by implication every homosexual to be equally disordered, why should we not criticise you for your fantasies and orthodox but highly warped beliefs, the kind of beliefs that one only expects children to have? And if you want to draw a distinction between homosexual behaviour and homosexuals, then why should I not be able to draw a distinction between yourselves and your beliefs. As the good old saying goes, with friends like you (orthodox Christians and Catholics), who needs enemies.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 15th, 20:37
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti.(14 Feb at 20:39)
Reasonable people, of whatever religious conviction, do not claim the right to “insult” anybody – that is your glib accusation. However they do not permit you to challenge their “right to criticise … everyone else, their beliefs, their political stances, their sexual orientation …”. That is known as “the fundamental freedom to hold and express opinions”, whether one likes those opinions or not.
Please go over calmly the comments and accept the obvious fact that it is usually the anti-Catholics who intemperately hurl personal insults because, like you, they think that they are above criticism and because, in their paranoid mentality, anyone who dares to criticise their opinions would be insulting their person.
I make a “distinction between homosexual behaviour and homosexuals” because Church doctrine makes the distinction between beinga person “born” a homosexual (that it does not condemn) and actually practicing sodomy which the church teaches is “wrong” and unnatural – consult any textbook of normal male and female human anatomy and physiology if you have any doubts.
With reference to your “good old saying” please understand that “orthodox Christians and Catholics” like me believe, as they are taught by their religion, to love thy neighbour, friends and foes alike. Therefore, to me, it is immaterial whether you choose to be my friend or my enemy – that choice is yours. My choice is to love your person in either case, but not your anti-Catholic venom.
Mary Mills
Feb 14th, 19:48
Charles Caruana, I understand what you say but a personal attack is not an argument.
charles caruana
Feb 16th, 18:24
'Charles Caruana, I understand what you say but a personal attack is not an argument.'
That ,Ms Mills, is the non-argument. You made a semantic point, and I answered with two semantic points. I'm still waiting for you to kindly point out where my alleged personal attack on you is. As for personal attacks, you seem to have the same selective attention about them as in your linguistic interpretations. Go over the comments of your 'queer' comrade-in-arms on this thread, and you might, perhaps might, recognise some genuine specimens of personal attack that really scratch the barrel of vulgarity and insolence.
Mary Mills
Feb 14th, 11:31
Joseph C. Chetcuti: yes, and as they say up North "There's nowt as queer as folk except me and thee and even me and thee are a little bit queer".
Now there's humility for you, helped no doubt, at times, by a drop of the hard stuff!
Hard-nosed but simple folk such that (if one believed what the Gospels say) Jesus would have had no problem knocking around with them.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 14th, 08:33
" ... Now tell me who would remember what anyone said 30-40 years ago... " (Joseph Carmel Chetcuti 14 Feb at 04:17)
The writers of the gospels were only putting down in writing what had been learned by heart and transmitted orally by people who were Christ's contemporaries - pericopae. Look that up (but please do not try to explain to me).
Mary Mills
Feb 13th, 23:58
F.Saliba MD: I understand what you're saying but, you see, language (did make specific reference to 'church' and 'Jesus'), is what interests me, not point scoring.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 14th, 10:20
I am not trying to score points and I do not need any lectures about the various meanings of "queer" in the spoken English language.
My point is that if a self-confessed homosexual did not mean to use "queer" in the sense of "homosexual", when he applied that word to the Catholic Church in general and to Christ in particular, then it was up to him to clear up that matter and not for anyone else to hint by proxy. Please note that he has NOT done so yet and to me that is highly significant.
charles caruana
Feb 14th, 11:04
Clever Ms Mills, but perhaps too clever by half. Your semantic delicacy is not a large enough fig leaf to hide what Mr Chetcuti really meant, and I say proudly meant. I thought that the word 'queer' is nowadays worn as a badge of honour by the homosexual lobby, rather than a word that needs shamefaced defense by semantic quibbling. In this Mr Checuti was being more honest than you give him credit for. So honourable does he consider it that he did not think twice, like you did, to pin it on the breast of the Church and Christ. Who would not want those two to be on one's bandwagon? Next you will be telling us that the word gay still means just cheerful, happy, etc. It is current use that gives currency to the meaning of words Ms Mills, as you will no doubt teach me.
And by the way, please do use your linguistic expertise to clarify and go deeper into the full and correct meaning of the word 'orthodoxy', rather than satisfying yourself with the narrow cliched meaning bandied about by those who have little or no idea what they are talking about. For instance, doesn't the homosexual lobby itself have its own kind of orthodoxy, that is correct and valid ideas and beliefs,( as it rightly should, in my view) when it comes to explain and justify its stands about the nature and status of the homosexual orientation, such that it is perfectly natural, not chosen and deserving equal legal and social recognition with the heterosexual orientation? Should these orthodoxies be called narrow, bigoted, oppressive?Why shouldn't the Church have hers? And if you want to really begin to understand some of the deeper meanings of orthodoxy, you can do no better than by starting with Chesterton's book 'Orthodoxy.' - a book I humbly recommend to Fr Joe too.
Joseph Borg
Feb 13th, 23:36
@Andy Farrugia
Veru li l-knisja Sidna Gesu Kristu waqqafha. Imma int tahseb li l-knisja tal lum ghada l-istess.
Meta kont ghadni zghir kont taghlimt id duttrina mil muzew u mil knisja,imma meta kbirt u bdejt insegwi il Bibja li kullhadd jaf li hi il kelma ta Alla bdejt ninduna kemm il knisja kienet zvijjat mit taghlim originali taghha. Insejt kemm kienu jbezzghuna bil limbu u ma nafx xiex. Illum ma semmiehx izjed dan. Hu xi nghidu fejn tithol l-idolatrija? Nispicca biex insemmilek punt wiehed fejn il knisja iddevjat mil kmandamenti ta Alla. Wiehed mil kmandamenti huwa li ghadna inharsu jum il Mulej. Fil Bibja jaccenna car u tond li dan ghandu jkun is seba' jum tal gimgha. Allura b'liema dritt il knisja dan dawritu ghall ewwel jum tal gimgha. Suppost ebda xoghol m'ghandu jsir f'dan il-jum jekk mhux f'kaz ta emergenza bhal mard u hekk ghax anke Kristu kien fejjaq il morda f'jum is sibt. Nixtieq inkompli nghidlek izjed fuq dan imma mhux possibli hawnhekk. L-ahhar wahda nghid li Kristu qalilna li biex wiehed isalva irid jemmen Fih u jsegwi il kmandamenti kollha.
charles caruana
Feb 14th, 11:29
@ Joseph Borg
Mr Borg, don't you think that your arguments have been made long ago and much better, hundreds of years ago by Luther, Calvin , Zvingly an co., none of whom could agree with each other, much less with the Catholic Church? What makes you think that your individual interpretation of the Bible is any more true or authoritative than that of the nearly 40 thousand protestant and evangelical denominations spawned by the Reformation? Don't try to re-invent the wheel please.
Mary Mills
Feb 13th, 22:33
A.Farrugia, J.Debattista: I understand what you're saying but the variants on 'queer' do include the 'unexpected', 'unusual', 'unorthodox' and the rest as per my previous comment.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 14th, 17:58
Not any longer; it has long since been hijacked just like "gay", "weird" and the "rainbow".
Joe Xuereb
Feb 13th, 21:04
One can spin and turn this way and that. But if its because of one setting oneself up to fail?
It would be churlish to deny that the Church has indeed been the donor of good deeds. Unfortunately, even a good deed can conceal the abominable, whether it is revealed or not. What I mean by setting oneself up to fail is, as an example, the Church purporting to be the means for one to save one's soul. And then it fails, miserably (I am thinking of the less than perfect amongst its officers and the way She dealt with the matter, the scandal). One can spin and turn this way and that and protest that what the priests did, no doubt in all the four corners of this planet under the pretext of benefaction, happens all the time elsewhere in any society. Now, if one did not claim to be the saviour of souls, I could buy that. But the Church does say all along that through it, is the salvation of the soul. Therefore it has to be utterly, and ultra squeaky clean. No buts. And any priest incapable of sticking to the vows, or their vocation otherwise weakened or thwarted, would do better to leave and find another job that would satisfy their ambitions.
It is a crying shame, this scandal. It is not the Institution's fault. How else was it supposed to deal with the matter. For a while, and rather dishonestly (because it was well aware that the mischief was not just like any other happening out there, every where), it kept its closets shut. Naively? (we were not aware of the suffering I read the other day), or else, hoping it would blow over and nobody would be any the wiser. But the whole sad spectacle was exposed and gradually, no doubt begrudgingly, the apologies came, tentatively. Sadly, as far as I am concerned, the Church may now stoop and pick up nothing. I feel sorry that the Church has been visited by this downfall that centres so much around our demon-to-bear. I feel sorry for its priesthood that has to struggle with all this. And no, I bear no hatred or malice. The world is full of awfulness and I would not allow any more of that into my being, not if I can help it. After all, just because a couple decide to separate and divorce, do they have to do so with rancour.
Allow me a slight detour here to respond to an unsolicited attack on us queers (talk about uncalled for! and in context, talk about bizarre! As in - how one deals with one's demons is one's business entirely. But to foist their resultant rancour onto others is not on and primitive with it). People who off-load their anguish onto others - scapegoating I think the bible calls it - is unacceptable. If they MUST project they could do worse than taking a long and lingering look at themselves in a mirror. And let us hope it don't crack!
The thing with us queers living abroad.... We could either have stayed and a) got married and resolved nothing b) lived a life of self-loathing and resolved nothing c) joined a holey order d) lived a secret life of secret buggery and secret shame or e) lived a desperately lonely life pretending to be someone we could never be and condemning all to make us feel better. This last option is the worst of the lot and I say this because I have seen it happen and what it does to the poor wretches. So no, some of us go abroad where life is not necessarily a piece of cake but at least we live with honesty. And were there is none of this oppressive stone saints covered in pigeon muck and standing on a graffitied plinth, watching over one. Thank god the UK has largely done away with that idolatrous nonsense and the most offensive thing one comes across on street-corners is some pathetic prostitute plying her wares, or rent-boy, ditto. Yuck!! Just like Malta, in fact. Acceptance of one's self is healthy. Non-acceptance and one becomes a sexual neurotic, all-pervasive of all other areas of their miserable life, and the basis of so much illness according to some. For the red-neck hetero men out there - but with a kissable nape of the neck as they ponder over tomes trying in vain to find solutions to their anguished soul - I would recommend a foray into a London/or Sydney Gay Pride Parade. Exposure to the thing they dread might come as a pleasant surprise when they survive the 'ordeal' and change their mind about the buggery thingy which is not exclusive to any one group. And a woman to hold their hand will be provided. We don't want any Maltese visitors to Oxford Street seeing them in the company of this queer and spreading rumours on their return back home, do we now?! Sorted!
Queer or red-neck, as in two orientations AND A ZILLION OTHERS IN BETWEEN, but one demon. We are all in this together. Get over it!
The whole world, from London to Sydney - not forgetting dear-old-Malta-refusing-to-budge-from-its-pauline-tradition in between; it thinks itself special - is one big demon inescapable hotchpotch, a huge kobba suf(a skein of wool for those who do not understand the lingo. You ain't missin' much. The language is fine, it is the too many people who spout it that disappoints (not me, but them. I am well out of it. I left and learned how to breathe freely). I liken them to lost, soulless souls in a rudderless coracle, a` la pauline. An old book as a rudder in swirling waters ain't much use. Being gay is no big deal either, it really isn't. Go to London, go to Sydney. Or stay in Malta and follow a guru. I wonder what happened to him?!
Joseph Borg
Feb 13th, 19:44
@Francis Saliba M.D.
Telling you the truth I am none of them. But I am trying to be a real Christian by following God's word from the Holy Bible. To day I realise that most of doctrine taught by the church are false. Unfortunatly the church still have a lot of followers. But this is a very delicate and vast topic to discuss in a short paragraph here.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 13th, 19:58
Iehor dan, ta jghid li jimxi fuq il-Kelma t'Alla imma mhux fuq id-duttrina tal-Knisja; bhal dak li qallu il-Knisja mhux Kristu Sidna waqqafha! Insejt fejn kont smajtu dan it-tip ta kliem, snin u snin ilu! M'ghandux bzonn il-medjazzjoni tal-Knisja biex isegwi l-Kelma t'Alla. Mur obsor hej!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 13th, 20:32
@ Joseph Borg (13 Feb at 19:44)
Silly me! And I thought that I had covered all possibilities.
You would like me to believe that you are not a Christian (real or phony), but you are trying to be one - a "real" Christian who would turn the other cheek as recommended in the Holy Bible and who would not moan about the unjust treatment meted out to him!
You could have fooled me but your phrase "Unfortunately the church still have (has) a lot of followers" gives your game away. You are not a Christian of any sort and you do not have the slightest intention to augment the number of its followers - you are only sorry that there are any!
My knowledge of the Holy Bible teaches me that when a servant of the High Priest slapped Christ across his holy face he did not hit back of course,but he did protest why he had been slapped when He had done nothing wrong.
Joseph Borg
Feb 13th, 16:14
Kollha kemm intom tidru insara mill kummenti li qedin tiktbu.
Hadd minnkom mhu kapaci jaqla daqqa u jdawwar wiccu ghal ohra.
U int sur Borg ikun ahjar jekk tmur missjunarju w tghallem il kelma vera ta Alla.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 13th, 18:18
@ Joe Borg.
@ Joseph Borg (today at 16:14)
Are you one of those gentlemen who slap other people's faces, or are you a Christian who always turns the other cheek, or again are you a Christian who does not turn his cheek to be slapped again?
Or are you no Christian at all but one who enjoys slapping the faces of Christians and who insists that their victim asks for more?
Just asking.
Mary Mills
Feb 13th, 15:36
My argument with J. Debattista would be about her superficial understanding of "queerness" certainly used metaphorically in the previous blogger's last sentence since she narrows its meaning down to its use as a put-down for homosexuals and then starts sounding rather alarmed when The Church and Jesus come into it.
Incidentally in ordinary speech, amongst its nuances 'queer' also conveys the 'unexpected', 'unusual', the 'something- not- figured-out'... It is the opposite of the 'expected' the 'orthodox' 'straightforward', the 'neat and hierarchical'
'
So, in the context of semantics, who is going to turn round and say that Jesus was an orthodox,conservative, 'regular' man of his time? And not unusual, a someone new and 'strange' to his contemporaries? Actually, real change by unorthodoxy (Mandela, De Valera and others in recent times) has taken place throught history.
As for the Church as an institution, it too ought to pass the test not of orthodoxy, respectability, status, power but of Unorthodoxy, being as in one sense of that Teuton word, a bit 'queer' - 'other' to what it's been in order to make more of a difference - now.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 13th, 19:42
So we are now playing the semantic card; gosh, as if we've never heard of denotations and connotations! And coming from a certain blatant, in-your-face, beyond-the-pale critter we all know what he meant by using it!
Jessica Debattista
Feb 13th, 19:56
Certainly Ms Mills!
But somehow I do not think that Mr.Joseph Carmel Chetcuti meant his statement the way you propose it.
I quote Mr. Chetcuti: “The Church can still play a positive role in Malta, as in other countries, but it can only do so by abandoning an imagined past and, significantly, by being honest with the people. And honesty involves the abandonment of orthodoxy because orthodoxy was imagined.”
The phrase “by being honest with the people” does not augur anything positive but rather the opposite.
And by “....because orthodoxy was imagined” likewise implies that the Church had another side to it which one could easily interpret as being “shady”.
As Fr. Joe says: “Most comments prove that whatever one writes, meaning always lies within the mind of the reader. It is always very instructive to read the different points of views on what one writes and the different ways people understand the same thing.”
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 13th, 20:46
@ Mary Mills.
Why do you not allow Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti to speak up for himself and clarify that he was not using the term "queer" as a synonym for homosexual, if that was the case, and that he regrets the misunderstanding that gave offence?
Had he delegated you to speak up for him?
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 14th, 04:17
Oh Mary Mills, you got them going! Now don't mention queer theory or queer theology to them because they will hit the roof. This sort of thing is not taught in Malta's halls of academia (except for one subject introduced recently). Church history is revisionist. They threw out what they did not like and kept what appeared to them orthodox. As to Jesus' queerness, perhaps they should read the secret gospel according to St Mark. But for the record let me say that I do not know if Jesus was gay, straight or bisexual ... or married to Mary or in a deep meaningful relationship with St John. What I do know is that the theological Jesus (as found in the Gospel) is not the one and the same as the Historical Jesus. The Jesus of the Gospels is manufactured. Words were put into his mouth. I mean St Paul wrote some 20-30 years after after Jesus' death and had b**ger all to say about the historical Jesus except for such facts as that he was born of a woman. Well, with respect, no one thought he was born of a spider. The Gospels started to be 'written' some 30-40 years after Jesus' death. Now tell me who would remember what anyone said 30-40 years ago. I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday morning. Oh, beg your pardon, I forget that the Scriptures were 'inspired'.
Jessica Debattista
Feb 13th, 11:29
@ Joseph Carmel chetcuti: "The Church can only be true to itself if it discovers its own queerness and that of Jesus.”
At the risk of sounding condescending or patronising I feel I have to say it: I pity you Mr. Chetcuti. I truly do!
It must have been really painful coming to terms with your sexual orientation at a time when homosexuality was not accepted. It must have warped your entire outlook upon life and you cannot be content with what you are. You seem to want to strike at imaginary targets failing to see how ridiculous you are sounding by certain statements blurted out in anger and hate.
Life is so complex and nobody is spared.... At some point or another in our lives we all have to adapt to a way of life which is far from ideal. We all struggle to go through life – some more than others.
It is when we rebel against our religion that we find that we are unable to carry the burden that life has inflicted on us. Religion gives confort to the ones who feel oppressed and confort brings with it a sense of contentment.
I truly wish that you find contentment in being a homosexual and if you can find it in you to desist from attacking believers you might come to realize that your worst enemy is the hate that is festering inside you.
And that is the enemy you need to fight!
George Azzopardi
Feb 12th, 14:17
It seems that all mr.joe borg wants is popularism with his blog and so he continues with his usual fine tactics of political writings!! You can see here that most PN high activists (Dr.Cikk etc) will always side with this gold award journalist (tad-dahk din) whatever he rubbishes here!!!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 13th, 19:28
@ George Azzopardi. (12 Feb at 14:17)
Your comment only goes to prove that you talk through your hat - other wise you would know that I did NOT always side with the Rev J Borg although I admit the I never stoop to using pejorative terms in his regard as you do when you take the liberty of calling me Dr Cikk. Is that the best that your brain can do?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 12th, 10:37
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti. (12 Feb at 09:32)
I do not need your reassurance that “not all Roman Catholics think like” me – I would find that daunting scenario really frightening. However the very thought that any genuine Catholic would ever think like you is absolutely shattering.
I also know that I would be extremely foolish to expect that inveterate critics of Christianity of your ilk would ever “think like” me - I would be seriously worried if my views on Christ and his Church ever started to approach yours. So, please, spare your breath. I do not recognise you as any authority on extra-territorial Catholicism, Petrine apostolic succession and what constitutes “truth” and respect for, or hate of, Christianity in general and of Roman Catholicism in particular.
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Feb 12th, 10:33
I fully endorse your last sentence. The Church has often taken over from the State humanitarian duties which were neglected or side-lined. But we tend to forget the good, as the bad makes more news. A case in point is the Missionary Society of St Paul. (No more need to be said). Dar il-Provvidenza has released persons with special needs from the home ghettos to respectability......the list could be endless. Who remembers the life of Fra Diego ?
In years gone by, the Church was also the best teacher of life in a community. Unfortunately this is no longer. We have become more individualistic and egocentric, and materialistically minded. Not to speak about ethics !
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 12th, 11:58
I do not embrace the pessimism of Joe Brincat. We humans tend to romanticise the past (as some romanticise the NT period). I mean what was so ethical about slavery? Or the way women were treated? Or domestic violence? Or the inquisition where people were persecuted for their beliefs? I rather think that we are becoming far more ethical nowadays if by ethical we do not just mean 'sex'. We have after all rediscovered our bodies and we are not afraid of it. As for homosexuals, we are not afraid to 'come out' and be ourselves. That, as someone has already said, is truly a sacrament of honesty. And who knows what our forefathers and 'foremothers' got up to? Take our approach to the environment and the rights of children. Children born out of wedlock and no longer stolen from their mothers. People are also more educated and are not afraid to speak their minds. We no longer respect authority just because it is authority and we also question the validity of authoritative texts. And if one wants to talk about materialism in the past one only has to look at the Church's endless pursuit of riches and lands. The Church can still play a positive role in Malta, as in other countries, but it can only do so by abandoning an imagined past and, significantly, by being honest with the people. And honesty involves the abandonment of orthodoxy because orthodoxy was imagined. The Church can only be true to itself if it discovers its own queerness and that of Jesus.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 12th, 12:49
"The Church can only be true to itself if it discovers its own queerness and that of Jesus. "
Further evidence of the FACT that you are beyond the pale! Now you resort to blasphemy!
charles caruana
Feb 12th, 17:31
@ Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
'The Church can only be true to itself if it discovers its queerness and that of Jesus.'
Mr Chetcuti, do you actually ever bother to re-read your comments? What an abysmal lack of self-awareness! Do you even have a clue about the myonumental conceit conveyed in that sentence, which has all the style and sophistication of a gay parade? You once boasted publicly you could tell that a saintly priest was queer by the mere sound of his voice - don't tell me that now you have even heard Jesus speak to you personally? Typical of those who have staked their whole personhood and total identity on their sexual orientation, you simply cannot help but see the whole universe painted queer can't you? Just remember this, the Catholic Church will continue to teach till doosday that extramarital heterosexual lust and homosexual buggery, whether practised by clergy or lay persons, are mortal sins, indulged in at our immortal peril, no matter what you or I say or think about it, and no matter the size of the chips on our shoulders. And by the way, do brush up a bit your history - slavery was abolished by the efforts of mainly Christians. Ever heard of Wilberforce?
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Feb 12th, 07:46
The above is all well and good. But this is not your position and what you state above contrasts sharply with your blog. In your blog you continually attack on a low politifcal level - not on principles or policies. For example, your blog on your visit to Hamburg was pure political party propoganda - trying to convince us how good things are under the NP. You gave a one-sided picture of the local situation. Imagine if you had told your listeners in Hamburg how our PM was caught helping himself to our money without even bothering to tell us and then giving a mere sop to wage earners. Now that would have given the real picture to them. I still cannot understand what was the point of that blog if not pure propoganda.
J.A. Ebejer
Feb 13th, 11:28
Mr. Camilleri, I suggest you re-read the blog: A Hamburgian perspective to the Debonian crisis by Fr. Borg. The point of that blog was that, whereas several EU countries are in crisis because of euro-related problems, Malta has a political crisis because one MP was not made minister. Franco Debono’s talk about constitution, ministry justice etc. is smoke screen. He abstained in Parliament because he was not made minister. Full stop.
Joe Borg’s blog brings out the irony of the situation. It is also a tongue-in-cheek criticism of Debono for being so self-focused and selfish and for having a distorted sense of priorities. Mr. Camilleri, evidently you are too politically biased to see that.
The problems in Greece and Italy are so serious that they had to appoint technocratic governments to sort things out. The issues you raise are important but nowhere near the serious problems that Greece, Italy, Spain and other EU countries faced and are still facing.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 14th, 04:21
Malta would do much better with a technocratic government than a government of clowns.
Mario P. Sciberras
Feb 11th, 10:49
A Dublin bishop said ".....that society must acknowledge that despite the scandals, the Church’s overall contribution to Ireland has been positive." Imagine saying that "Jesus's OVERALL contribution to the world has been positive". The word OVERALL in this context implies that after measuring the good and the bad, the Good won, maybe marginally, but it won. I dont think HE will be happy with us if we accept this interpretation.
P Sciberras
Feb 11th, 10:48
I have seen similar comments 51 years ago.
Mario P. Sciberras
Feb 11th, 10:28
"Some (American Bishops) were implying that it was a sin to vote for Obama, others had a different position."
Comments :
1.Do we need an American example, have we forgotten the 30's, the 60's and 2011?
2.I was always under the impression that the Clergy (at different levels) claims that it is divinely inspired by God. In the eyes of men there can be different truths but in the eyes of God there is only one truth. It takes a big leap to go from the political zone to the divine zone.
Victor Rodenas
Feb 11th, 09:59
In fact Fr.Peter Serracino Inglott involves himself a lot in politics,he helps BOTH PARTIES and he always calls a spade a spade.He critizises both parties when he does not agree with them,this is accepted by all.This is the difference between a priest and a priest,if a priest is biased and he does not comment if the party he sides with makes mistakes.........it is wrong if he does this in public.
Alfred Hili
Feb 11th, 12:48
Priests and laity have to condemn evil wherever it comes from; we cannot condemn abortion, for example, because it comes from a certain party and then say nothing about another form of corruption because it comes from the party we support !
The reverend, learned professor you mentioned always calls a spade a spade.
I totally agree with your views.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 10th, 21:50
It is indeed a naive writer who thinks that what one writes cannot be interpreted differently. Writers write and readers read within different sets of contexts. There can be no better example of this than the reading of Scripture. Or perhaps one can look at Anselmn's proof of the existence of God and how it was received. In the context of Malta and Gozo, readers interpret within a historical context of clerical interference in politics. So to put it bluntly, the Maltese Church has form. Whereas in the past it interfered directly, it nowadays does so in an underhanded manner. That Borg relies so heavily on quotes of an Irish bishop (where much sexual abuse was swept under the carpet) speaks volumes and provides ample proof that the Church is not yet ready to let go. Society is diverse and in the case of Malta following the divorce referendum no longer Catholic. As to the readers' venom, may I respectfully suggest to the author that he takles some time off to look at a mirror.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 12th, 11:49
"As to the readers' venom, may I respectfully suggest to the author that he takles some time off to look at a mirror."
You are the one who should look at a mirror; your venom, your vile and hateful attacks on Roman Catholics on another thread of this e-paper are sufficient evidence. You are beyond the pale.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 13th, 21:04
Christianity and Catholicism are not beyond criticism. Criticism of Christianity and other isms takes place in all respectable universities including respectable schools of divinity. It is a pity that for many Malta's Catholics, Vatican II's aggiornamento is yet to take place. Orthodox Christianity simple lacks credibility. You cannot believe in a man being god without proof. We can all believe that funny men live on the sun ..., so what! Get real. Jesus was born a Jew, lived a Jew and died a Jew, never intended to found a Church and the Church only came into being after his prophesy about the end of the world did not eventuate. Jesus is not the property of Catholics or Christians. If he were anyone's property, he belongs to the Jews.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 10th, 17:21
"Mixed with the comments there was quite a good dose of venom. Darnel was abundant, but wheat was not at all scarce." Some people feel that they can be as rude, offensive and hateful as they wish while punching in front of a monitor.
"Most comments prove that whatever one writes, meaning always lies within the mind of the reader." Are you surprised? This is the post-modern, post-human age, where multiple, competing interpretations co-exist. It signifies the "death of authorship" and the advent of hagiographies. BTW there are quite a few hagiographies doing the rounds at the moment, especially with regards to a particular period of recent Maltese politics. Hahaha!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 11th, 17:44
The greater pity is that those who are incorrigbly "rude, offensive" and full of hate towards religion insist on punching the keyboard from far off distant countries and pour their venom on any Malta Catholics who, in their native land on the local media should meekly turn the other cheek and do nothing to defend Christ, his teaching and the Church that spreads his teaching. They ignore that part of Christ's teaching where he expected his followers to stand up and acknowledge Him on earth otherwise he would not recognise them before his Father in heaven!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 12th, 09:32
Francis MD, be rest assured not all Roman Catholics think like you. It is only after you live away from Malta for extended periods that you realise that Malta Catholics (or at least some of them) are ultra-conservative, interpreting the Bible as it suits them. I prefer to think of Christianity rather than Catholicism after all Catholicism is built on the false premise that Peter was the bishop of Rome when we all know that there is no hard evidence that he in fact was a bishop there let alone a Pope. As to papal succession, well we are not even sure of the names of at least two of his successors. So much for apostolic succession. This has nothing to do with hating Roman Catholicism. It has everything to do with history. Now let's not talk about Jesus being God because here again there is nothing explicit in Scripture that Jesus was God. As I and others see him, he was born a Jew, lived a Jew and died a Jew. Now if you think that's vilification, that's too bad for you. You simply can't face up to the truth.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 12th, 11:52
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Your hagiographies, your drivel about anything to do with Christianity, and Roman Catholicism in particular, is of interest to no one apart from hate-filled, desperadoes like yourself.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 12th, 22:32
Andy wrote: "This is the post-modern, post-human age, where multiple, competing interpretations co-exist. It signifies the "death of authorship" and the advent of hagiographies. BTW there are quite a few hagiographies doing the rounds at the moment, especially with regards to a particular period of recent Maltese politics. Hahaha!" Well, it appears that the HaHaHa is on you. Where is your logic?
Andy Farrugia
Feb 13th, 14:49
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
You would be able to sense irony, sarcasm and wit even if such had to hit you straight between the eyes. What Hahaha? And on who? You are .... follow these words carefully....b.e.y.on.d...t.h.e....p..a...l...e....! Got it now!
Andy Farrugia
Feb 13th, 17:23
errata;
that should have been " You wouldn't be able to sense" .. and not "You would be able to sense."