Wednesday, 23rd April 2008
Are your children being abused? (1)
During his first trip to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI brought a certain closure to the cases of sexual abuse of children by priests. This scandal has shaken the church in the US for more than six years. The lives of hundreds if not thousands were shattered and several parishes and dioceses came to the brink of bankruptcy. The Pope in no uncertain terms expressed his personal shame at what happened. He did more than that. He met some of the victims and prayed with them in a very moving, tearful and therapeutic meeting.
The Pope addressed clerical sex abuse on five occasions, beginning with his encounter with reporters aboard his plane from Rome. He spoke from the heart about the shame, the damage to the church and the suffering of the victims. He also spoke about the church's efforts to make sure perpetrators are out of ministry and to implement better screening of would-be priests.
At one point, he said that when he read the case histories of the victims, he found it hard to imagine how a priest could betray his mission to be an agent of God's love.
Pope Benedict was more direct than Pope John Paul, because as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the doctrinal congregation, which took over the handling of sex abuse cases in 2001. What Cardinal Ratzinger saw in those files led him to denounce, in early 2005, the "filth" inside the church -- even among its own priests.
The Pope's forthrightness was a consoling and healing moment in the life of the Church in the United States. It is a pity that those involved in a different type of child abuse - physical and mental abuse - in our country have still not found the strength to ask for forgiveness and do amends.
What the Pope did was very important; but he also pointed out to other kind of abuses of children that are common in our culture. He said:
"Children deserve to grow up with a healthy
understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. They
should be spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of
sexuality so prevalent today. They have a right to be educated in authentic
moral values rooted in the dignity of the human person.
"What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and
violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today? ...
.. We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society, so that a
sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike."
There are many parents today who use TV and the Internet as baby sitters. They leave their children - even very young ones - unattended in front of the TV sets for hours. The Internet is fantastic, but when children are left alone to their own devices harm can accompany and, perhaps surpass, the benefits of this medium.
It is true that there are several software packages that can filter a lot of offending material but the care and attention that parents can give cannot be surpassed by software.
Generally parents leave children on their own as they have other things to do. In our culture bringing up children has become another chore. What a pity! Parents react strongly to any hint that someone is abusing their children but they are passive when they themselves become guilty of abuse, albeit unwillingly.
Are your children being abused (2)
Last Friday (18/04/08) Xarabank highlighted one of the worst killers among us: drugs. It will continue doing so next Friday. If nothing more urgent happens, next week, I will write about these two programmes and the killer they exposed.
Meanwhile if you and your children (perhaps not those who are too young) have not seen the first episode make an effort to see the second programme. If you have seen it there is no need to prod you to see the second programme. I'm sure you will do just that and have recommended the same action to other parents.
Moreover, next Friday you will have the possibility to donate money to Caritas who are doing sterling work in the area.
Is your heritage being abused?
I think that respect for our heritage is not of the pick and choose type. It is true that our heritage manifests itself in diverse ways. One finds, for example, our natural, historical, folkloristic and linguistic heritage. These are diverse but unified. Our past and present is made up of all these aspects of heritage and other things as well. One cannot say that he or she loves our natural heritage but neglects, ignores or, worse, does not care for our historical heritage. Would someone who ravages our natural environment be considered as a lover of our historical heritage? Same applies to all other permutations possible between the diverse manifestations of our heritage.
For this reason I cannot understand how someone can "champion" our natural and historical heritage but then show lack of respect for or ignores our linguistic heritage. Maltese is our heritage as much as the Valletta fortifications are our heritage.
Unfortunately it is respected by foreigners but not so much respected by many Maltese. Our government had insisted that the EU accept Maltese as one of its official languages. We can write to any EU Commissioner or bureaucrat in Maltese but Maltese civil servants use the English language when writing to other Maltese.
I am also unpleasantly surprised when in official or semi official occasions Maltese persons who champion our heritage address other Maltese persons in English.
I was impressed some weeks ago by a TV interview with the British High Commissioner. He did not even use one English word throughout the whole interview. The respect that this High Commissioner shows for our linguistic heritage should make the Maltese-pick-and choose-defenders of our heritage blush.
RSS
Comments
I never hinted even remotely that he or anybody else needed "recruitment" from me. May I ask "Recruitment for what?" Neither did I ever pretend that I belonged to any particular side whether "beatified" or not. It was JGA who presumed to sit in judgement over me, find me a sinner of sorts, and order me to repent, not only once but twice. He would have been justified to accuse me of a personal attack on him if, for example, I had accused him of having some ulterior motive in demanding that the Pope soften his stance regarding sins against the sixth commandment, specifically clerical paedophilia, so that the ten commandments be preached by the Church with "equality" to the satisfaction of JGA. But I did nothing of the sort.
Is it too much to hope that JGA first read calmly and digest fully the comments before responding calmly, coherently and respecting the syntax?
Dr F Saliba
I do apologise if I have offended you in any way and beg your forgiveness. It is true I was rash at my answers and should not have answered at a time when I was angry at your reply. I am sorry.
Having said (and meant) that, I feel I should make certain things clear:
1. Crticising HH is NOT condemnation. As much as one can criticise the Dalai Lama or Queen Elisabeth, also as the head of the Church of England, one can crticise the Pope, who is not aloof of criticism just because he is head of the Catholic church, to which I belong.
2. Also, submitting my opinion is not prompting HH what to do, or being presumtous about his priorities. I cannot understand how and why you come to such conclusions!
3. Proclaiming and emphasising at the right place are not the same; the latter holds more ground than the former. Had HH, even slightly, touched the suffering of children (whether regrettably or not) in wars which the USA and George Bush approve and sustain, then universal approval would have been much wider, for the head of a universal church.
4. I also do not understand how you came to the conclusion that I have any private priorities . And where did I say that HH should "concern himself more with breaches of the fifth commandment (not to kill) and less with breaches of the sixth (not to commit adultery)"? I clearly said that ALL commandments are EQUAL! Why do you attribute me with things I did not say and in which I do not believe? And why do you accuse me of imposition? How on earth can anyone pretend to impose anything on anyopne, let alone the Pope? Do the "likes of me" have to shut our mouths, stop our writings and bow our head and not comment about things that have to do with HH? Even Paul criticised Peter when he found it necessary! To be simple and plain, no amount of judgments will ever stop me to express my opinions
Mr. Martinelli
The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church AND a politician. Together. Body AND soul. One cannot be without the other. If fmost of "civil laws are basically founded on most of the ten commandments....", then my argument is right because BOTH paedphily AND wars are against two commandments, the former against the 6th and the latter against the 5th. Incidentally if the chronology of the commandments shed any light on their importance (with which I do NOT agree but some do), the 5th comes before the 6th.
Mrs. Margaret Pace
Thank you for a well-constructed and balanced argument. WELL DONE.
One contributor lamented on the fact that the Pope did not raise the question of the treatment of children in Iraq and Palestine publicly and it was in this vein that I responded. What the Pope discussed in private with Mr. Bush will not be revealed for a long time yet. So, we cannot judge.
You very correctly stated that the Pope is 'not a politician in the very narrow sense of the word'.
It is precisely for that reason that the Pope chose not to publicly point fingers during his pastoral visit to the United States. Any political remarks were left to the audience of the United Nations Council in its building which, correct me if I am wrong, is regarded as autonomous as the Vatican is in Italy. There he delivered his remarks for all to listen to and for those who should heed them. Thus he observed an age long protocol of respect and prudence for the country which had invited him for a visit.
Of course, the Pope is not a politician in the very narrow sense of the word for he does not deal with partisan politics but the Church that he heads has a very coherent voice to contribute to the global debate on many issues and has the duty towards her members to guide them towards making informed decisions according to their conscience. It is unfortunate that sometimes, the Church has gone beyond this mission which has led to a cleavage between her and the faithful.
Divorce, abortion, corruption, the environment, abuse of power, poverty, and I would add, capital punishment are all moral issues and the Pope could very well have discussed without stepping on any political toes. The fact that civil laws are basically founded on most of the ten commandments do not make the latter political statements.
Discussing issues on Iraq and Palestine are purely political and at least in public, a prudent Pope would not bring these issues up. Mr. Bush and the USA do not need the Pope to point out the mistakes the USA made in getting overly involved. With regards to children being killed in both countries you mentioned, you will find most often that it is their own who are killing them and I am surprised that you have not heard of any children volunteered by their own parents to be suicide bombers. Frequently these suicide bombers are around 14 years old. I consider them children. The parents are often compensated for their children and given assurance that they are martyrs and that they went straight to heaven.
If the Pope had to discuss wars, state imposed poverty, injustices and suppression of basic human rights, he would be a full time politician not the head of the Catholic Church.
Against a background of regrettable sex abuses afflicting the Church in America, HH the Pope's mission has been received with universal approval. The modern Papacy's condemnation of war and all its horrors and injustices have been proclaimed repeatedly, whenever the occasion warranted it and without waiting for any prompting from the likes of Grech Attard.
Grech Attard is being presumptious when he tries to impose his own private priorities on HH the Pope and the way he carries out his pastoral duties. Evidently JGA would prefer that HH the Pope concern himself more with breaches of the fifth commandment (not to kill) and less with breaches of the sixth (not to commit adultery). Doubtlessly he has his strong reasons and he is entitled to them. He has no right to impose them on others, least of all on HH the Pope.
I criticised Jos.Grech Attard's for his original comment because it was an unashamedly biased attack directed primarily against His Holiness the Pope. It is only now that he adds the recruitment of children by Al Qaeda for terrorist activities and suicide missions as also "outrageous and evil". Previously he had restricted his condemnation for HH the Pope (and for Bush) because of the death of children during anti-terrosist operations. Even now he makes no difference between regretted and unintended children casualties and the deliberate recruitment of children and training them specifically to commit murder and suicide . There is no comparison between the two and if Grech Attard does not appreciate the difference on his own accord there is not much scope for spelling it out for his benefit.
Did I mention that HH did not do any of the things you mentioned? If even you yourself were bored with hearing these things, why repeat them to me? I might have been as bored as you were. Now even more. Together with yourself, millions followed the news about HH visit, including myself. And since when does the head of my Catholic Church not mix religion and state (i.e. political) matters? Do you mean to tell me that HH should not speak about divorce, abortion, corruption, the environment, abuse of power, poverty, etc? The problem with politics nowadays is that morality has declined rapidly and ethics have disappeared in most things, including answering to legitimate comments. I do not want to label you or show lack of respect to you so I just say that I do not agree with you.
Dr. F. Saliba,
Children are children and I cannot agree more with you about Al Qaeda. After all who does not, but Al Qaeda themselves? Why try to be destructive by trying to label me as though I approve what Al Qaeda are doing? I feel that, standing up for what HH did and said, but on the other hand trying to put serious doubts in peoples' mind about a neighbour's integrity, does not make one a better Catholic. And, by the way, training children to be suicide bombers is outrageous and evil, but so is killing innocent children for whatever excuse or reason EQUALLY evil. Both instances are EQUALLY evil, not one more than the other. Both are abusing children's lives, whether these children die or, even worse, if they live to see nothing but death and destruction. They are mentally destroyed. And I cannot recall, at least nowadays, anyone in the Christian world speaking of a "just war, " but only, at times by some, as a necessary evil.
I watched ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and a host of other networks at different stages of the visit and I was almost bored with the repetition at every newscast, hearing about the Pope's apologies at ever opportunity he had, for the priests' abuses against children. It was simply the most sincere effort by the Pope to apologize and make some amends on behalf of the abusers.
Also, Mr. Attard Grech should note that the Pope arranged to meet with a number of victims, prayed with them, encouraged them and promised them all the support which the church could provide.
The Pope also mentioned the wars in Iraq and elsewhere and certainly it was no endorsement to Bush or the USA. Mr. Attard-Grech should also appreciate that the Pope, as Head of State has certain protocol to follow, one being not to mix state and religious matters.
The Pope's visits are normally pastoral in nature and the closest he came to relating to both state and moral matters was his visit, pray and say Mass at Ground Zero. It was proper to do since, at that site, over 3000 people of all faiths lost their lives due to political and terrorist action.
Dear Sister,
Don't you think that by not aplogising to the people who had such a hard time in Lourdes Home you are essentially telling them that you still think that they are not truthful? Saying sorry is a way of showing them that you believe them. The Commission's acceptance of the truth and the Bishop's apology is not enough for them.
If you are as Catholic as you want me to believe, you need to remember not to judge or else you will be judged. Hence I would rather put aside your "It seems that you have a chip on your shoulder with regards the Catholic Church." I can assure you I do not.
HH was all praise for USA, mentioning no faults whatsoever, despite a ranging war in Iraq and Middle East, both with the blessing of the USA. My argument is that those children are being abused as well, not sexually, but of their own lives. And Fr. Borg, rightly so, also mentioned is his article " It is a pity that those involved in a different type of child abuse - physical and mental abuse - ......"
I cannot see why you doubt my sincerity. i do not doubt yours. Who am I to do so? I am no hypocrite and never intended or ever intend to "choose to ignore"; and neither am I ignorant of the teachings of the Church. The Commandments are there, all 10 of them, and all equally important, at every point in life and, hence, even nowadays. However, I repeat, OUR Catholic Church uses most of its energy on the 6th Commandment, to the detriment of the other 9, equally important. If you follow the ongoing emphasis of the Church, you would find that the severest condemnations go to wrongdoings regarding the 6th Commandment - sex, pornography, divorce, sexual orientation, marriage, decency', cohabitation, condoms, contraception, etc, etc and a long list of other sex-oriented subjects. APPEALING "on goodwill so that the massacre of children in war torn areas stops" is one thing, making an EMPHASIS about it to the superpower that supports the wars is another. USA Catholics have rejoiced, and the US Church is vinidcated, and that seems to be all that matters from this pastoral 6-day visit of HH.
It seems that you have a chip on your shoulder with regards the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was on a pastoral visit to the USA. This means that his main concern was to address the major issues faced by the Catholic Church in the USA. And the one major issue is the great open wound caused by pedophile priests. I cannot understand what the children of Palestine and Iraq has to do with these issues. You must be sincere and admit that the Pope has on more then one occasion during his public appearances appealed for goodwill so that the massacre of children in war torn areas stops. Can you please explain how you have gauged this big boost to George Bush? And finally I must say that you either choose to ignore or you are ignorant of the teachings of the Church. I can assure you that if you pick up all the teachings of the Church dealing with all the commandments from 1 to 10, one lifetime will not be enough to get through them. Please try and be a bit more objective.
English is increasingly becoming the lingua franca for officialdom, is it a case of ignoring our constitution?