Are we communicating?
Like 200,000 or so people this weekend I listened to Archbishop Cremona read the Lenten pastoral letter published by our bishops. Unlike circa 170,000 of them I think I understood its intended message.
I had a number of advantages on most of the members of the congregation. I studied theology and got a better result than some form two students. Besides I read the pastoral letter before going to Mass, and heard it being read during the three Masses (only three this weekend) I celebrated. Most of the people in the congregation heard it being read only once; some could read it while listening to it and others could follow it on video.
The content of the letter had internal logic. Each of its three sections flowed one from the other. Besides, listening to it attentively one could even learn one or two new things. I did not know, for example, that the term diaspora was also applied to the Exodus experience. Tikber u titghallem, they say.
However, I think, most people attending Mass felt lost with the references to the Exodus and the Exile. The first event they know from its depiction in films; the second most have never heard of. And whenever one feels lost by the beginning of what is intended to be a communicative exercise one would stop listening.
A friend of mine told me that during the most recent live-in organised for parish priests as part of their permanent formation they listened to a ninety minute lecture on the concept of diaspora by one of Malta’s best biblical scholar. He was thrilled. Try to reduce that to a ten minute rendering on audio tape and most will find it much less than thrilling. The method currently used to write pastoral letters and divulgate them risks, many times, of falling between two stools. Either it is too difficult to understand or it seems too simplistic.
I think that one of the problems about pastoral letters is the medium used. There is not a lot that one can do unless the exercise is only secondarily a Church based one and unless it is tied to some concrete action that accompanies it.
A rethink of the whole process is sorely needed for pastoral letters to be a meaningful communicative experience.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
36 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Richard Curmi
Feb 26th, 11:07
Heaven & Hell.
At the San Remo Festival, Adriano Celentano criticised a paper and a magazine of catholic inspiration because according to him they do not write about God and the beauty of heaven. In his criticism he included also priests in general. But hell hath no fury... worse than the one shown by the two media in condemning the singer/preacher!!!! But to be fair I heard at least one Italian priest who in more than so many words said that Celentano was right.
Now we read every now and then that in Malta priests are no longer mentioning or referring to or teaching about Hell.
In the Uk a Bishop through his lenten letter for his diocese urged the Catholics to "confront the terrifying reality of Hell" and to regain the perspective of eternity by reflecting on the shortness of life and of what comes next (Novissimi?) death, judgement, purgatory (temporary) heaven or hell.
I find that this topic is an integral part of the Church's communication problem. Is the existence of heaven and hell a part of the depositum fidei and as such should be explained to whom is willing to listen without the use of a threatening language. Or is the church going back to the weapon of fear to try to stop the hemorrhage of members. OOps to communicate in the right way I shouldn't have used the latin language for doctrine of faith...
But to continue on the Hell/Heaven topic I would support Celentano for these reasons:
Hearing about the beauty that no eyes have seen etc... should be more of an incentive to lead a good life.
Real catholics should love their God and want to go to heaven to be with him and not because they fear hell.
Now if one is a true catholic one would be doing his utmost to get to heaven and therefore one would be already evading hell.
the beauty of heaven, when explained in a relevant way to the people may even appeal to non-believers and agnostics. Though they may look at it as a fairy tale, they might be willing to leave it up their sleeves so to speak and what a wonderful suprise it would be for them if when their time comes they find themselves in Heaven as they would have led a very good life according to their conscience.
"And as I have said at other times I do not believe in Hell as in the fire and brimstone type......." Ms DeBattista I take it that you believe in hell because it is a dogma of your church but that you subscribe to the belief that hell/heaven is more of a state than a place.
As an after thought somewhere in the gospels there is mentioning of fire, gnashing of teeth........
charles caruana
Feb 24th, 12:46
'There is not a lot that one can do unless the exercise is only secondarily a Church based one and unless it is tied to some concrete action that accompanies it.'
Fair enough, but that sounds as nebulous and cryptic as the theological lingo you are criticising the pastoral letter for. What did you actually mean by ' only secondarily a Church based one' and ' some concrete action'? I listened to and read it, and the only difficult word, lexically speaking, I found was 'diaspora', which the bishops tired to explain by referring to its biblical and historical context, and as far as I can see, in quite simple language.
Like you, I do have a couple of caveats with the letter, but they have to do with the pastoral perspective that seemed to have conditioned the bishops' choice of words. To clarify what I mean, I shall try to be forthright rather than cryptic. They speak of eternity, for instance, while lamenting the fact that 'unfortunately' we are not mentioning it enough nowadays. They fail to specify who are the ‘we’ and who is eminently responsible for this unfortunate state of affairs. Also, they restrict eternity to the life of the blessed in heaven, while they politely ignore the life of the damned in hell, not to step on some politically correct toe perhaps. Again, they write that ' l-ezilju huwa dak kollu li jbeghidna min Alla’ – quite a literary and correct turn of phrase that nicely substitutes for the word ‘sin’. But what has happened to that grating word ‘sin’ ,which has become almost a taboo word in pastoral language nowadays , while the gospel and the liturgy are literally saturated with it. Have we become so sensitive about disturbing the delicate moral and political ‘tastes’ of contemporary Catholics? Would Christ have been? For example, hands on breast, when was the last time you, Fr Joe, or any other priest for that matter, made a suitably modernized, ten minute sermon on the so called Novissimi, or are such permanent Catholic truths too delicate to touch?
I agree with you that a whole rethink is needed, but not just about the process of pastoral letters, but the more important and demanding mission of Evangelization, of which pastoral letters are only a minor part.
One major concern is the question of local Catechesis and its present deficiencies, ably alluded to by Mr M Dean below, especially its lifelong dimension . Secondly, Church Evangelical strategy should focus more and especially on the Media, especially television and the internet, which have become not just a ‘fifth column’ but the quintessential pillars on which the forma mentis of present generations rests. It is about time, for instance, that the Church starts seriously considering ways of responding to the shaping influence of such a programme as Xarabank, with its successful bid to replace much in Judeo- Christian morality with a more fashionable liberal-populist one.
You Fr Joe, being more expert in communications than me (no irony at all in that, just a bald statement of fact) , might teach us more about this subject, so crucial for the Church.
charles caruana
Feb 24th, 14:29
Ooops, sorry for the blooper - not 'Church Evangelical strategy' of course, but Church evangelization strategy.
M Dean
Feb 23rd, 19:40
The problem is the lack of catechesis. Adults are being lazy and not reading the Scriptures or studying the Catechism, which is their duty as adult Catholics. I would not want the Archbishop to talk down to the laity, but for the laity to prepare themselves to listen to the Archbishop. There is nothing in the talk which a good grade school student with adequate preparation for Holy Communion and Confirmation would not be able to follow.
If adults complain, then it is their duty to find out more about the wonderful Faith we have. We live in an age of information. There is no excuse for ignorance. On the whole, the Archbishop writes and communicates well. But, if the people in the pew are not open to the Gospel, words are wasted. Perhaps it is time for the Church in Malta to offer adult catechesis on a regular basis, adult faith formation,which is happening in other dioceses in the world. I know, as I was involved in such.
Jessica Debattista
Feb 23rd, 17:56
@Kenneth Cassar: “I would disagree with you on two counts.
First, if I were a believer, it would worry me at no end that people (especially, but not exclusively, friends and family) risked losing the chance of eternal bliss, be it out of free-choice or otherwise.”
Kenneth I do not need to worry since as I said earlier I believe that we are all meant to be saved - as long we live a morally good life.
Society is changing rapidly and religion (as in Church attendance etc.) seems to be losing ground giving way to a spirituality that is very much personal. Young people nowadays seem to be totally disinterested in the Church but they feel that there is some Being who is responsible for their existence and they feel that there is a link between them and this Being. They do not profess that they believe in God but they are in awe of this Being they do not understand.
As I have said in other comments in some earlier blogs I feel that the only souls who will be lost are those souls who do not acknowledge a Being/God they owe their existence to and they repudiate God. I believe that the soul wants to be reunited with its source - God and God will not refuse a soul that wants to be reunited with Him.
But it is the soul’s choice whether it wants to be reunited with its source – God. And as I have said at other times I do not believe in Hell as in the fire and brimstone type.......
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 24th, 05:59
@ Jessica Debattista:
Seeing that I find nothing particularly objectionable in your last post, and seeing that we have gone way off-topic, I'll let you have the last word.
Thanks for your the interesting conversation.
Jessica Debattista
Feb 23rd, 11:24
@Kenneth Cassar: “I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to what you might perceive as a loss if someone loses one's faith and therefore risks losing "eternal life". I know I would think that way if I believed in heaven.”
I believe in heaven and I believe in eternal life and I also believe that we are all meant to be saved. Obviously heaven is not a material world. So I cannot conceive of heaven as being a world where I will be trasferrred to body and soul to live happily for eternity.
I believe that the soul will reach its fulfilment when it is reunited with its source – to be one with God.
It does not bother me much if one turns atheist for why should I worry for somebody else’s soul when the person concerned has made a free choice to renounce God?
What bothers me is their insistence that God does not exist as if they know what they are talking about. I would not mind it at all as long as they do not go all out and quote this man or that almost as if these were infallible.
Man has a finite mind with serious limitations and to top it all is subject to influences from various sources. These influences are assimilated and they manifest themselves in ideologies that sound quite interesting especially to the ones who are prone to accept them unquestionably. They feel they have found a champion for their cause for they have a weapon they can use against the believer.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 23rd, 11:53
@ Jessica Debattista:
"It does not bother me much if one turns atheist for why should I worry for somebody else’s soul when the person concerned has made a free choice to renounce God?"
I would disagree with you on two counts.
First, if I were a believer, it would worry me at no end that people (especially, but not exclusively, friends and family) risked losing the chance of eternal bliss, be it out of free-choice or otherwise. But then again, maybe it's me. After all, I even care about non-human animals being killed for other people's dishes, let alone the fate of other humans.
Secondly, you are gravely mistaken in believing that belief is something one chooses. You will see this if you try a little experiment. Try believing in something you don't believe in for a day, without any evidence supporting the existence of that something, and see whether you will succeed.
Atheism - defined as disbelief in a deity - is as much a free choice as belief in God: None at all. One may choose to act as if one believes or disbelieves in something, but belief or unbelief itself is not something one chooses.
"What bothers me is their insistence that God does not exist as if they know what they are talking about".
Ah, but then, I might retort that this is due to the fact that the religious insist on the existence of God as if they know what they are talking about. And we're back to square one.
"I would not mind it at all as long as they do not go all out and quote this man or that almost as if these were infallible".
Isn't that what the religious do when they quote the Bible or other highly regarded religious people? What should concern us is not the fact that people quote other people, but whether the quoted piece makes sense or is true. When someone quotes someone else approvingly, that someone makes the quote "his own". Others are perfectly free to rebut the arguments in the quote, if there are indeed any.
"Man has a finite mind with serious limitations and to top it all is subject to influences from various sources. These influences are assimilated and they manifest themselves in ideologies that sound quite interesting especially to the ones who are prone to accept them unquestionably. They feel they have found a champion for their cause for they have a weapon they can use against the believer".
Again, you may replace the last word with "unbeliever", and this paragraph would still be true in many instances.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 23rd, 12:16
All I can say is this: if God did not exist, .... if there was no Heaven or Hell ... no angels, .... no nothing ... that's just it, there would be 'nothing'. If this were to be the case, then, life would be so unjust, so meaningless and without scope.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 23rd, 13:12
@ Franco Farrugia:
First of all, truth (whatever it may be) remains truth, irrespective of how we feel about it or what we would like it to be.
Secondly, yes, looking at it from the human perspective, life is indeed looks unjust. But that's only because we are by nature self-conscious beings. But essentially, and looking at it disinterestedly, life is neither just nor unjust; it just is.
Thirdly, life's meaning and scope is the meaning and scope we give it ourselves. My life is full of meaning and scope, irrespective of the existence or otherwise of an afterlife.
Dan Vella
Feb 22nd, 12:12
the church has no right to impose on others but propose, i dont think that if youre not a christian and dosnt go to church you dont have values or not happy with yourself , its better to help somone in need or not judging society because theyre different from you , its how and the way you live counts no matter how you preach in front of others to be liked .
Jessica Debattista
Feb 22nd, 10:54
@ Kennth Cassar:
-"... it is in fact on this blog that I found out the extent of the diffusion of atheism on our little island. It seems to be gathering ground and more and more people are going in exile away from the heritage that awaits the believers".(my quote)
“You say it as if this is necessarily a bad thing”. (your answer)
From my perspective I can understand that I matter as a person/soul who accepts that I belong to God and will one day be reunited with Him. It gives me a scope in life and I can face the tribulations that occur in the physical world for I believe that man was not born for this world but for eternity.
- “Not necessarily. It must depend on what one is severing oneself from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't suppose you would have that opinion on Muslims converting to Christianity.”
Actually I am for the unity of Churches and the eradication of fundamentalism.
- “Ridicule comes from all sides......Different people have different characters and different ways of debating. Some are more effective than others.”
If by that you mean that they can hit where it hurts, then I can understand that. You have a short memory Kenneth! Allow me to jolt it by referring to your hurtful and ridiculing comment behind my back on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s blog.
-"And to your question to Mr Chetcuti, please allow me to answer it by saying that I've never been happier in my entire life.”
So happy for you!
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 22nd, 11:35
@ Jessica Debattista:
"From my perspective I can understand that I matter as a person/soul who accepts that I belong to God and will one day be reunited with Him. It gives me a scope in life and I can face the tribulations that occur in the physical world for I believe that man was not born for this world but for eternity".
I wrote my comment which prompted the above reply half-jokingly. Of course you would find it to be a bad thing for people who renounce religion and consequently the eternal paradise you believe in. So of course you would see people turning atheists as a "bad thing". But I was more referring to the consequences of atheism on others, not on the self-interested hope of eternal reward. And those consequences I don't necessarily believe to be a bad thing. It always depends on the person and the way he/she conducts his life.
"Actually I am for the unity of Churches and the eradication of fundamentalism".
Well, I'm actually for the unity of ALL people and the eradication of fundamentalism, and I think you will agree with me on this. However, I only meant to point out to you the mistake in considering people who lose their faith or converting to other religions as "less whole". What you wrote was: "Growing away (from your religious upbringing, I suppose you meant - correct me if I'm wrong) is a severing of oneself from something that had made one whole". Do you still consider this to be true?
"If by that you mean that they can hit where it hurts, then I can understand that".
No, that's actually not what I meant. What I meant is exactly what I wrote. Read it again.
"You have a short memory Kenneth! Allow me to jolt it by referring to your hurtful and ridiculing comment behind my back on some other person's blog".
Yes, I choose to have a short memory sometimes (I don't bear grudges). If I remember well, it was a comment on a comment of yours which in my opinion was ridiculous. Sorry, but I don't recollect the details, but feel free to remind me if you think it's necessary. As for posting it on another blog, it was during a period when I was having trouble getting lawful comments published here. But apparently, this happens in phases. I'm on a lucky streak right now.
"So happy for you! (in reply to my saying that I have never been happier)".
Thanks. I wish you all the happiness too. To each what makes one happy, provided it is not to the detriment of others. Hopefully, despite our differences, we can all learn to get along.
As a closing note, allow me to point out to you that my replies show that your comments attract my attention. A lot of other comments I usually ignore. That, alone, should count for something. If it makes any difference to you, I truly believe your heart is in the right place. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother replying.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 22nd, 12:13
@ Jessica Debattista:
Please note that I did not remove the blogger's name myself when quoting you. I will count that as one of life's mysteries. Would I be less of an atheist if I called it a miracle? (I'm only joking, of course, but the first sentence is true.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 22nd, 12:37
@ Jessica Debattista:
I was curious enough to see whether I was unkind or mistaken in the evaluation I made in another blog to the comment of yours to which you refer. Google is very useful in such cases, and it only took me five seconds to find both your post and my comment in the other blog.
Your post in question may be found here: "http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110525/blogs/a-no-for-a-quick-fix.367188" (it is the comment you posted on May 26th 2011, at 09:28).
To your long-winded post, I only remarked that I found it "idiotic" (and I still do...sorry...I'd rather be honest than heap false praise), and I reproduced - verbatim - your whole post elsewhere, for others to judge for themselves. I would have loved to correct your numerous errors, inaccuracies, and what I saw (and still see) as outright deceptions in your letter through the same medium (in this blog), but like I already explained, lawful comments of mine were persistently miraculously disappearing on their way to the blog at that time.
I'm sure (or at least hope) that if you give your original comment - made during the heated period during the divorce referendum campaign - a second reading, you will understand why I reacted the way I did. Or maybe you won't. Such is life.
Jessica Debattista
Feb 22nd, 14:08
@Kenneth Cassar: “So of course you would see people turning atheists as a "bad thing".”
Actually I do not have an opinion about that because I can understand that the modern way of life is not conducive to the contemplation of the spirit - we have become too materialistic and hedonistic. Not to mention that we are prone to turn against the Church and attack religion when members of the Church behave in a reprehensible manner.
As a believer I look past the misdemeanours of the clergy for they are not exempt from sin. They are human just like the rest of us; very much susceptible to all the temptations that surround us.
What I find “bad “ in atheists is that most of them seem to bear a grudge against the Church, and bearing a grudge is not likely to make one happy.
We are all entitled to our opinions and that is what makes life interesting. But personal attacks are too much present on this blog. This blog attracts atheists for the simple reason that the writer is a priest and I find certain comments designed to put Fr. Joe in a bad light very much immature.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 22nd, 15:42
@ Jessica Debattista:
"Actually I do not have an opinion about that because I can understand that the modern way of life is not conducive to the contemplation of the spirit - we have become too materialistic and hedonistic".
I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to what you might perceive as a loss if someone loses one's faith and therefore risks losing "eternal life". I know I would think that way if I believed in heaven. But yes, since you mention it, I do agree that generally speaking - since I don't think this applies to me - "we" have become too materialistic and hedonistic. Most people think short-term and miss the lasting value of true wisdom and happiness. Instant gratification is what many (or most) people seek.
"Not to mention that we are prone to turn against the Church and attack religion when members of the Church behave in a reprehensible manner".
Again, this doesn't apply to me. But yes, I do agree that many unfairly judge a whole institution on the actions of the few. Take the paedophile priests case, for instance. I understand that you will find paedophiles from all walks of life. My only problem was with the cover-up before it was no longer possible to keep it under wraps. Then again, I won't judge a whole group of people on the actions of one or a few (even if the one or few happen to be leaders).
"As a believer I look past the misdemeanours of the clergy for they are not exempt from sin. They are human just like the rest of us; very much susceptible to all the temptations that surround us".
True. But once again, I only ask for equal treatment. But why are we discussing this? I don't think I brought this up myself.
"What I find 'bad' in atheists is that most of them seem to bear a grudge against the Church, and bearing a grudge is not likely to make one happy".
That, I believe to be one of your prejudices. You'd have to know most atheists to say that most of them bear a grudge against the Church. I certainly don't. And I have an (unproven) theory that those who turn to atheism only because of a grudge, will revert to their faith later in life. Grudges are not a very intelligent reason to renounce one's faith and go atheist or agnostic. And the same, I suppose, would apply to converting to any religion.
"We are all entitled to our opinions and that is what makes life interesting. But personal attacks are too much present on this blog".
I agree. And they come from "both camps". I like to think I'm generally not one such person. I hope I'm not mistaken.
"This blog attracts atheists for the simple reason that the writer is a priest and I find certain comments designed to put Fr. Joe in a bad light very much immature".
Wrong. It might attract some atheists for the reason you give, but you cannot say (or imply) that it's the only reason. Speaking for myself, I occasionally check the blogs (depending on how much time I have on my hands) to see if what is written (by the blogger or commenters) concerns me. Otherwise, I move elsewhere. Who the author is concerns me little (it only care about that because sometimes it helps one recognise trends and manners of speaking, and so contextually understand the author better). Otherwise, all that matters is what is written, and not who writes it. It could have been written from a married woman - and not a male priest - for all I care. The article (or comment) would get the same response from me.
But yes, I'll agree that some comments are indeed immature. To some of these, I reply. Others, I many times ignore.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 23rd, 09:51
One clarification: I don't consider child rape or sexual molestation to be "misdemeanors", but perhaps that's not what you were referring to.
Maria Brincat
Feb 21st, 23:16
I think we're living in a time where the Church cannot, and should not waste its ever-dwindling human resources trying to bring in more people into the fold..
I think we're past the age where we follow blindly.. if you believe, you believe because you're convinced of what you believe in, and not because that's what they told you to believe..Of course, those who do not believe, are welcome to change their opinoons anytime, and I woud be only too happy to say welcome...but I honestly do not think that the church...in this case, the archbishops, should worry about attracting an audience...
Min irid jifhem, jifhem.... I think I got the gist of what the archbishop was saying... and i didn't study theology...
charles caruana
Feb 22nd, 11:37
Ms Brincat, I am afraid I have to disagree with you on this. The sacred obligation to evangelize was laid down by Christ himself on the apostles and the disciples and their followers. For the Christian, it is not an option, but an inescapable duty and mission. no resources should be spared for this If you had in mind the rejection of all forms of coercion, subtle or not, on people to adopt Christianity I would heartily have agreed. Whenever the members of the Church tried to impose, rather than propose the Christian way of life, they betrayed Christ, as history has repeatedly demonstrated. Whether the Church is in a minority or a majority, it has to evangelize, in season and out of season.
P Bonnici
Feb 21st, 14:58
If it takes someone who studied theology at university to understand the bishop's pastoral letter, the bishop is failing to communicate effectively with the lowest denominator.
Maybe this is the reason for the decreasing church attendance.
Victor Rodenas
Feb 21st, 12:56
@F.Saliba MD. And what about the baptism of infants?
Mr Henry A. Grima
Feb 21st, 11:29
Most times the message is too complicated for the people in the street to come close to be interested or even care.
K.I.S.S. keep it simple. Jesus used to tell the masses simple messages with parables.
But we have to use theology to give today's Christian message these days. And, of course, very few people understand anything.
We forget that it is the message to the faithful that should help them to be saved, to go to heaven, and not to be lost in hell.
And then we make big mistakes in everyday ceremonies in the church.
For example, last Sunday I went to a Mass in English and at the end there was, as expected and as usual after any Mass, a song to Mary. Part of it was 'when wicked men blaspheme thee'.
Now, in my knowledge of the English language, 'blaspheme' means when God, and only God is sworn by.
So, when Mary is said to be 'blasphemed', she is considered to be as a God.
The other week another song to Mary was sung at the end of the Mass. This time 'as I kneel before you' was part of it.
I thought that one can only kneel before God and not anybody else.
Weshould adore God, but only venerate Mary and the saints.
I donot know any theology, but surely those who do know,must have some comments to make.
Victor Rodenas
Feb 21st, 08:25
I think that the Bishop must take heed of what Fr.Joe had written.Fr.Joe is a well known commentator,university lecturer and winner of the Gold Award for Journalists.
Maria Brincat
Feb 21st, 23:08
that does not mean he's necessarily any better as a priest.!!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 20th, 23:56
The trouble is not with how the bishops are communicating. The real trouble is that the Maltese people have turned off and are no longer listening or wanting to listen. They have had enough of void words! Il-fidili have grown up.
Jessica Debattista
Feb 21st, 16:28
Yes unfortunately “ Maltese people have turned off and are no longer listening or wanting to listen”.
But are we any happier Mr. Chetcuti?
I have been following Fr. Joe’s blog for some years now and it is in fact on this blog that I found out the extent of the diffusion of atheism on our little island. It seems to be gathering ground and more and more people are going in exile away from the heritage that awaits the believers.
You say that “il-fidili have grown up”, I say “il-fidili have grown away”. Growing away is a severing of oneself from something that had made one whole.
Faith in God makes of us a community that has the confort of knowing that God is continuously present. He permeates all that exists. He is inside us, outside us and in the very fabric of what constitutes a human being, animal, inanimate thing etc. and we do not need to seek Him anywhere . We just have to be still and communicate with Him and we do not need words for our thoughts are enough since He is also in our thoughts.
“They have had enough of void words!” you say, but where is the substance in all the arguments atheists vociferously put forward to ridicule the believer?
Allow us to live in a fool’s paradise if that is what you think of us believers. But I wonder who the fools really are!
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 22nd, 08:41
@ Jessica Debattista:
"...it is in fact on this blog that I found out the extent of the diffusion of atheism on our little island. It seems to be gathering ground and more and more people are going in exile away from the heritage that awaits the believers".
You say it as if this is necessarily a bad thing.
"Growing away is a severing of oneself from something that had made one whole".
Not necessarily. It must depend on what one is severing oneself from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't suppose you would have that opinion on Muslims converting to Christianity.
"...but where is the substance in all the arguments atheists vociferously put forward to ridicule the believer?"
Ridicule comes from all sides, Jessica. You only need to follow the comments on this online paper to see this. Different people have different characters, and different ways of debating. Some are more effective than others, while others are self-defeating. All this, of course, is a matter of perception.
"Allow us to live in a fool’s paradise if that is what you think of us believers. But I wonder who the fools really are!"
I hope you realise that Mr Chetcuti is not THE spokesperson for atheism, just as you are not THE spokesperson for Christianity. We would do well to keep this in mind, and not risk losing our whole argument by unnecessarily and unreasonably offending others who are not our intended target.
And to your question to Mr Chetcuti, please allow me to answer it by saying that I've never been happier in my entire life.
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Feb 20th, 21:11
I think that you are missing a very important point. The crass ignorance about the Holy Books cannot be attributed to the laity. Apart from the Jews, who kept their language alive through the reading of the Holy Books and made it centuries later the national language in Israel (with neologisms, of course), other Christian denominations are definitely more well versed in Bible studies. Who is to blame for neglecting the Bible (both Old and New Testament) in Malta ?
Then it is no wonder that people do not understand references.
To say it bluntly, pastors are more interested in "extracurricular" matters. So who teaches the laity ?
Victor Rodenas
Feb 21st, 09:08
A little bit more than half a centuary ago most Maltese were illiterate,so it was impossible for them to read any book.Also, there was no Bible in Maltese, Mons Saydon had to fork out money from his own pockets for its translation from the Greek and Aramaic, the Church did not offer any funds......studying or just reading the Bible one will notice that in many cases we are doing the opposite of God`s Word.Learn first and then be Baptized,....do not let anyone call you Father,because there is only one Father and he is in Haven,do not make carved images of God ,etc,etc.But of course we know better than God and all excuses come forth so that we will do the opposite of God`s Word. This is all wrong.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 21st, 11:13
One has to remember that there were periods in the Church's history when the same Church banned the laity from reading the Bible. I mean even as recently as the beginning of last century, there were members of the hierarchy who were critical of George Preca for teaching theology to the laity. If they want someone to teach the Bible then they should get people like John Shelby Spong.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 21st, 11:25
@ Victor Rodenas.
Not everyone does the opposite of God's Word. Some distort the meaning of Christ's word. When he said "do not let anyone call you Rabbi" some translate that into Do not let anyone all you "Father". And when he forbids the worship of graven images some distort that into a prohibition of all sculpture!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 20th, 20:34
"I studied theology and got a better result than some form two students." Dan iehor! Ghax ma johrog bir-rizultati wkoll? Torsi hu biss studja t-teologija!
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 21st, 08:32
Lighten up. It was a joke.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 20th, 19:30
Wasn't there a third diaspora after Titus sacked Jerusalem and made it a capital offence for any Jew to return to that city?
Matthew Galea Debono
Feb 20th, 18:53
well done on that joke about form 2 religion.
joking apart though, i agree with you that the content of the letter, while well meaning and intending to be educative (i myself was drawn in by the use of the word diaspora even after having heard it in many of my theology lectures at university) may have been lost on many due to its assumption that everyone has the same academic background in this regard. i would honestly suggest to the archbishop to release different letters depending on the audience.
my prayer group would have likely kept up with the logic in the letter because we've had the whole of the Old Testament related to us on many occasions. i somehow doubt, however, that many people who attend our churches are either that well versed or (and i'm sorry to have to say this) all that interested.
I agree that there needs to be a better awareness of the audience. this mistake comes as a staggering surprise after the previous letter near Christmas about reassessing how the Word is being brought to God's people.