Saturday, 18th October 2008
The silence of the lambs
In the last couple of months the bishops, on more than one occasion, exhorted Catholics to take a more active stand in the public sphere. They referred to a “responsible and fearless commitment” and warned against people remaining silent because of “fear of criticism.”
It seems that among the Shepherds there is the feeling that the lambs are remaining silent and they wish to prod them into action. This brought with it the charge of crusading, which I don’t think is fair. If the environmentalists vociferously make their case in public then their actions are described as an exercise in advocacy. But if a similar kind of action is done by a church group then the action is described as a crusade. Can anyone tell me why there is this different attitude?
As, in actual fact, the flock is neither homogeneous nor regimented – conditions that conservatives strive to make the order of the day – different sounds and silences can be picked up. The Environment Commission and the Justice and Peace do not shy from grazing on controversial grass. These, I guess, are not that part of the flock that is worrying the bishops. These commissions’ forays in the public sphere can create a different kind of problem since they are bound to be met by fire not of the friendly type. This should not be considered as a problem, though. An important caveat could perhaps be made: these are Church commissions and the media should present their statements as such and not as the Church’s official position.
In a collective statement the bishops referred to those who keep silent because they are afraid of criticism. Earlier on this very week (on October 15, in fact), Archbishop Cremona made a similar statement during his brief address to the Synodal bishops meeting in Rome. After stating that many Maltese Catholics live in a state of nostalgia and shock, he continued: “Many times they stand in fear of speaking openly before this, many times, hostile culture.”
Whoever they may be, these are the kind of sheep that shame their name and status. They deserve the appellative “chicken” more than the appellative “sheep”. Are they many? If the answer is in the affirmative, as the Archbishop’s speech to the Synod seems to imply, it is very pertinent to ask why? Could it be that the paternalistic way the Church was very often run, stunted the growth of many of our lay people and did not help them prepare for the changes that occurred in our society?
Such silent sheep do service neither to the church nor to society. As Archbishop Cremona said on more than one occasion a pluralist society by definition needs different voices and opinion to function well.
There is, in my opinion, something worse than silent sheep. These are the sheep that emit yesteryear’s bleats throwing the fold to the Jurassic period, or thereabouts. It is not the first time that I cringe reading or listening to individuals that are clearly neither prepared technically to take part in media programmes not prepared intellectually. What they say would fit Iran or Afghanistan more than they fit to-day’s Malta. Archbishop Cremona, during his Independence Day homily and in his article to the Malta To-Day June 1, 2008 (just to mention two examples) charted with great clarity the way forward for the dynamic relationship between church and state, religion and society. Unfortunately, many in the Church lack this clarity.
The members of the flock should be particularly noisy within their home pen as well.
This is not happening as much as it should. It is a pity that today, in the Church, there are no grass roots advocacy groups, (remember the priests’ association Christus Rex?) worthy of note. In the last twenty-five years there was what I call a process of privatization. Many abandoned the ecclesial public sphere and retreated into their own private spaces. These ecclesial private spaces take the form of one’s lay movement, parish or some other area of work or personal interest.
Perhaps trying to find why this is so is as useful are trying to find out why Catholics of different shades of opinions prefer the comfy shade than the sun of the country’s public space which can be scorching.
The day that time did not stand still
It seems that this particular posting is still active so much so that from time to time it makes it back into the list of the ten Most Commented.
In that piece I wrote, among other things, that:
“A few days later an English journalist recounted to me his shock when a senior government official (whose name he mentioned) told him verbatim: We attacked the Curia and they succumbed and came to negotiate.”
I distanced myself from the assertion in this statement which is very clearly untrue. I wrote:
“People with little minds misunderstand the actions of wiser people who are always ready to extend the hand of friendship.”
I strongly distance myself from the false allegation of the “high government official”. I was head of the Press Office of the Curia at that time and so I know first hand that it is not true to say that Archbishop Mercieca “succumbed and came to negotiate.”
History will undoubtedly show that Archbishop Mercieca’s actions in those troublesome Eighties were inspired by his courage, love of our people and the interests of the Church. His sense of prudence emanated from his convictions. Besides serving our county, he helped to save it in a difficult hour.
RSS
Comments
Why are you drawing my attention to an on-going court action for financial compensation for a murder victim?
If you want my opinion about the police investigation of that murder in the early years following that crime please read my comment dated 19 August 2008 in the Andrew Borg Cardona blog "PREDICTABLE"
If you want to draw my attention to the evidence that the police are still probing the Karen Grech murder case you may be interested to know that as far as I know they are also still probing the planting of a bomb on my doorstep at about the same time. I identified the culprit to them immediately after the crime. I was warned to hold myself in readiness to be interviewed by the CID inspector in charge of the case. The prominent MLP personality identified by me during my sworn evidence before the court-appointed explosives expert died many years after the event. Needless to say I was never approached by any police inspector to solve that case - presumably they arestill probing.
Have you any other information to give me?
For your information:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081023/local/police-still-probing-1977-karin-grech-murder
I do not see any for you to justify your support of Joseph Muscat after the MLP ditched its former leaders and missed the opportunity to select George Abela. I share your hope that Josph Muscat will, in due course, prove himself as a new type of MLP leader and that applies whether he is a leader of the opposition or a future prime minister. Let us also hope that he will be allowed to effect the necessary and promised "earthquake" but please do not give me credit and do not blame me in any way for your choice. Let us just keep our fingers crossed that you will not have cause to regret it.
'here show that some people are more interested in demonising the others than in understanding them'- tha's what I used to think during Alfred Sant's era and it looks like history is going to repeat itself .
It is a pity that we always demonise Labourites than trying to understand them .
Good point father ,and hopefully everyone exercise what they write , not they write one thing and then they do exactly the opposite .
Please update yourself about what has been happening in Orissa, India since last Christmas exploding into a long lasting persecution of all Christians including rape, arson, murder, and forcible conversions to Hinduism.
I have to disagree with the claim that Christianity is persecuted in contemporary societies. And there is, surely, no systematic persecution as was the case under ancient Roman rule and recent ex-Communist regimes.
It is true that Christian societies worldwide are, in general, very accepting of other religions, while the converse is rarely true. China and India are classical examples. Places like Japan and Indonesia remain very resistant, while to Saudi Arabia, any non-Muslim worship is simply out of bounds.
Nevertheless, persecution of Christians is essentially non-existent, and when instability arises, it comes down more or less to temporal social and economic conflicts.
Of course, one has to acknowledge that pockets of antagonists or “extremists” pose a risk to life and limb. Over all, however, I think that now it is more a question of tolerance, or the lack of it, rather than persecution per se.
What I am getting at is that redundantly indomitable Christians have now lost the ‘privilege’, or better still, the 'opportunity' of persecution that once upon a time could earn them a premium spot at the front.
Food for thought:
Throughout the Middle and Dark Ages and throughout Europe clerics were practically the only literate section of the population, remained so until the Renaissance and retain a position of prominence up to the present day. Your jibe about a "know-all" and "Maltese" Church is therefore in bad taste and irrelevant.
The Church is not a business concern or an "exploiter of opportunities" trying to attract customers. Its mission is to spread the gospel in an environment that is often so hostile that its missionaries often end up losing their lives. When Christ encountered resistance to his teaching he did not change his message to meet the popular demand - he asked his followers if they wanted to leave too.
To-day's Church is following that tradition.
The most glorious episodes of Christianity were when it was being perecuted (as it is now) not during any triumphalistic period or when it shared power as a common worldly state.
I am glad you realise that there is a lot of anger and pain around. I can only agree wholeheartedly that there should be discussion, hopefully a sensible and fair one.
We would have never got ourselves to support the MLP under Mintoff , KMB or Alfred Sant for a number of reasons , we would have considered that possiblity with George Abela as a leader and Joseph Muscat was never a person we admired until things started to take a different perspective . This young , intelligent and charismatic new Leader has enhanced the MLP with what it had lacking ever since I remember and this is now making us comfortable to identify ourselves with the new progressives and yes next time we will vote Labour essentially thanks to you , your friend Mr.Martinelli , JPO and the rest . Good bye PN.
Raymond Caruana was murdered when the MLP was in its last throes before being voted out of office. Then the murder weapon was mysteriously found in the farm of an innocent person in an unsuccessful attempt to frame him by the police. This criminal activity occurred at a time when the MLP was still in office, it was proven in court and it delayed and derailed the investigation.
@ Francis Saliba
Referring to your reply to MDFenech.
After Karin Grech was murdered and her brother Kevin was seriously injured the Labour Party was still in government for a number of years and I guess that you are implying that the police then had ulterior motives to leave the case unsolved. (ghamluhx la bis-sewwa u anqas bid-dnewwa).
Raymond Caruana was sacrificed a few months prior to the 1987 Election and therefore our cleansed police force now under a PN government had no reason to manipulate the investigations and yet the perpetrator/s is\are still unknown.
In spite of it all you always point a finger at Labour supporters for the murder of Raymond Caruana and leading us to believe that Karen Grech’s murder was not a political crime.
You always accuse me of being a facts-twister now here’s an opportunity for you to prove if this time I’m twisting facts. I promise you that you are not capable to do that and when you exhaust your futile efforts your hidden agenda will only become more vivified.
Don't ask me why you should begrudge my use of the free media. Ask yourself why you actually did so when you accused Fr Joe Beirut-Borg (sic) of encouraging me.
On her part, the Church never considered what constitutes threats and opportunities, like a business entity would do in order to ensure its survival in a world of competing wolves. For example, were post-WWII Church leaders thoughtful enough to make meaningful forecasts of the impact of technology on Maltese society. Probably not much.
Nor the Church, this indomitable body of people, would have ever been prepared to acknowledge that She may have, after all, ‘weaknesses’. By corollary, neither did She exploit opportunities, much to her own disadvantage.
The grave consequence has been a detachment of society from the Church. The student who sets out to learn science is told squarely that they must learn science and society, and not science for the love of science. In my view, this applies equally to religion, and this means that differentiating between lambs and sheep, sheep and shepherds, and shepherds and wolves is tantamount to incorrigible vanity.
Na nistghax nindovina ghaliex qabbistni fin-nofs meta anqas biss naf ghall-liema artiklu dwar Karen Grech qieghda tirreferixxi; x'aktarx ma qrajtux u ghalhekk ma nistghax inwiegbek. Jekk hu l-istess priedka li bilfors ghamlu xi Nazzjonalist u li qatt ma setgha jkun xi Laburist infakkrek li l-pulizija ta'dak iz-zmien kellhom l-obbligu li jikxfu l-qattiel, dan ma ghamluhx la bis-sewwa u anqas bid-dnewwa u il-lum hadd ma ghandu l-ebda dritt jipponta subghajh lejn hadd.
Jien ghandi rispett bizzejjed lejn l-Arcisqof biex ma niddetalux x'ghandu jagmel. Naf zgur li ma' certu nies "Bil-glekk jaqlaghha u bla glekk jaqlaghha wkoll".
We tend to look at some people as good and others as bad. If we think and reflect more we will realise that good people have bad elements in them while bad people have good elements in them. Let's look at the good in each and every person and build on it.
Several who comment seem that they do not want to do this. They look at people as either totally good or totally bad.
This is also a great pity.
I know many decent Nationalist and many decent Labourites. I know many lousy Nationalists and many lousy Labourites. I know many good people from the North and many good people from the South. I know many bad people from the North as well as bad people from the south. Stereotyping people as good and bad will get us nowhere. Many posting comments here show that some people are more interested in demonising the others than in understanding them.
This is also a great pity.
I read all comments and there is something which worries me a lot and would like to share with you. It is very clear that there is a lot of anger and pain around. There is a lot of "us" and "them"/ There is a lot of shouting and hardly any listening. There is a lot of debate but hardly any discussion. This is a very sorry state of affairs.
I accept your challenge. The extremely violent "gangsters" that attacked the Curia were led most of the way by prominent leaders of the MLP movement who later gave them the accolade of being "the aristocracy of the Labour movement". No identifiable NP supporter would have dared to accompany them unless he was under duress and fearful for his safety if he disassociated himself from that orgy of violence.
I am not obsessed with the infamous injustice done to me by the MLP and admitted by you. I have long since forgiven the culprits. What worries me very much is the bad omen of Joseph Muscat surrounding himself by people of the time, the emergence of a strong and vociferous lobby of apologists for that era and that no MLP leader has so far categorically condemned it. That is not a good augury for the future.
You have no right whatsoever to let your imagination run riot about my non-existent prejudice against the South. I am not at all surprised by your calumnious suppositions after reading your wild insinuations against all Catholic clergymen from Pope down to humble priests.
With regard to what she writes about the Karen Grech affair, I am of the belief that after 29 years, nothing really valid will turn up and things will remain as they were. The Raymond Caruana murder also comes into the equation. The more saner and balanced among us believe that both parties – who, after all, both had the opportunity, while in government, to delve and enquire into this mystery – know what was what in both cases but have secretly agreed to let things stay as they are, in order not to trouble the waters: 1-1, as it were! Heinous, really! Quite despicable!
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081005/local/lawyer-and-family-offered-gozo-rape-girl-euro-7-000-deal/
Bhala persuna mis-south, u bhala laburista QATT u QATT ma nista' nassocja ruhi ma persuni li attakkaw il-kurja, it-Times, lil Dr Fenech Adami etc.
Pero l-Malti jghid 'Kull razza fiha paljazza'. Ghadni kemm qrajt l-artiklu fuq Karen Grech. Dawn zgur ma kienux laburisti hux Dr Francis Saliba? Allura x'tghidilna INT fuq dawn?
Bhala Kattolku ma tghid xejn meta tara l-Gvern iberbaq eluf ta' Liri/Ewros fi progetti, bhal Mater Dei, Toroq godda li jergghu jinqalghu wara ftit etc?
Il-Knisja tixtieq li jkun hemm aktar nies jitkellmu u ma jibzawx mill-kritika.
Kristu hekk ghamel.
Imma nistenna li l-Arcisqof jaghmel hu hekk ukoll.
Qed isemma lehnu fuq kemm nies ser ibatu bit-tariffi l-godda tad-dawl u l-ilma?
Qed isemma lehnu fuq kemm nies qed jitilfu l-impjieg?
In-naghag jimxu fuq il-passi tar-raghaj!
To your remark about my family I just reciprocate your compliment . As to your conclusion that the anecdote is a fictional one I can tell you that I'm not in the least surprised with your attack because that is typically you . In a reverse situation where the said priest invited me to his place and I conveyed the insults you would have accepted his version as gospel truth and you would have also serialised the event and concluded that all Labour supporters are anti clerical . You would of course deny this .
And why should I begrudge you for using the free media? I just dislike the way you use this medium to arouse an anti Labour Party sentiment to revenge for the injustices you had suffered . Even other PN supporters pointed out to you that you are harming your own party .
The contributors on this blog are decent and intelligent people with different political views but nonetheless intelligent,do you really expect me to insult their intelligence by spelling out to them the obvious?You know,I know and everybody knows that the big majority of the Maltese clergy supports and pontificate the PN
The Late Popes , Cardinals and Bishops were Ministers of the Roman Catholic Church yet they had slaughtered more innocent souls than Hitler killed Jews .
The Church had nothing to do with the pain that Francis Saliba endured it was a miscarriage of justice by a Labour administration .
Francis Saliba is possessed with bitterness about what happened to HIM in the past and grabs each opportunity to demonstrate his anger and strongly promotes the Nationalist Party .
The same person is a fervent Catholic and a regular church goer and finds no fault in the past history of our church .
What do you conclude out of such an attitude , his fervour to promote Christian values or a platform to hit back at Labour ?
Sadly enough , by his silence , Father Joe Beirut- Borg is encouraging Francis Saliba and other Nationalist supporters to promote class distinction . PN Supporters good people , MLP Supporters bad people . Proset Father Joe you are doing a good job to keep the bad people away from the church , precisely the teaching of our Lord .
" You lament that Fr Joe Borg " never explained why the MLP supporters made the Curia their target " . Make a thorough job of it , go the whole hog , and complain also why Fr Borg did not explain why the MLP supporters burned the building of "The Times " , why they ransacked the residence of the leader of the opposition , the headquarters of the Union of Teachers , the law courts and numerous political clubs . With apologies to anyone else left out . "
Qouting : Charles Buttigieg :
" What a crude tentative suggestion designed to elicit the reactions of others ! After this there"ll be the Prologue and then the drama will be divided into four main sections , each titled with a question : "Why?" , When? How ? And then we get the predetermined conclusion for the epilogue .
What a boring repertoire
------------------------------------
The gangsters that ransacked the Curia were nothing less than a group of violent anti clerical Labourites plus a group of anti clerical young PN supporters . I invite Francis Saliba to dispute that and prove that they were all Labourites
As its name implies Christianity is based on the teaching of Christ and this is found in the books of the New Testament - not the Pentateuch. The early apostolic church's attitude to Mosaic Law became clear as early as the First Council of Jerusalem and St Paul's letters (e.g. Galatians Chapter 3:13)
The archbishop was unexceptionably correct in stating that the Church could "consider" issues condemned in the Pentateuch without implying in any way either automatic acceptance or automatic rejection.
It is ungentlemanly, and most uncharecteristic of the Bencinis of my acquaintance, for a good host to recount demeaning apocryphal anecdotes about his guest especially if they cast suspicions on many worthy members of the clergy fighting colour prejudice.
Instead of recounting tasteless anecdotes of an anonymous priest allegedly in his cups you would be better employed amplyfying what you mean by the Maltese Church (sic) "support of the ilk of Dr Francis Saliba".
You cannot have any proof of any such support because it does not exist. You are only begrudging the access that I have, on an equal footing with everybody else, to the free media in this country - not Church ones. I suspect that you would prefer the freedom to say whatever you like without the possibility of any response proving that you are wrong!
And as a 'savage from the south' myself, I can say that in our country, only the most pigeon-brained among us (apologies to the pigeons!) who have nothing better to do, make a distinction bet. north and south.
The more time passes, the more I come to realise that there isn't much difference left between Blue and Red. Not much difference either between the faithful and the rest.
I think the best way forward is to show HUMILITY everywhere and in every circumstance. If we look at the mirror every morning and try to recognise ourselves for what we truly are, then, we would shed the hypocrisy within ourselves and make more valid contributions to society in general.
Arrogance does a lot of harm, especially when it comes from people who should know better and those who make themselves the defence of what according to them is sound morality and traditional values.
I had a well known priest for dinner once who , surprisingly , was under the impression that I was a Nationalist supporter . After drowning half a bottle of Barolo he turned round and with a smirk on his face remarked that we Nationalists are blessed with good tastes unlike those savages from the South . When I remarked that Labourites are also God's people he agreed but emphasized that they (us) are a bunch of ignorant savages and he hates their (our) guts .
This same Minister of the church , publicly , is a vigilant militant against colour prejudice .
The Maltese Church is still very politically baised against the Labour supporters , the attitude of Fri Borg and the priest I had for dinner are not isolated cases and that is vivified by the way they support the ilk of Dr.Francis Saliba .
It is impossible to accept your claim that the target of the MLP mob that attacked the Curia was restricted to "the group led by the Archbishop". Facts prove otherwise. At one time or another, this same mob attacked most sectorsof Maltese society including the press, free trade unions, the judiciary, financial institutions, the university, non-government schools and hospitals, doctors, members of parliament, private residences and anyone else who would not embrace the brand of socialism being rammed down the throats of the inhabitants of a supposedly democratic Republic of Malta.
I would not grace that institutionalised violence as "frantically transforming backward Malta into a significant modern and industrialised country". In fact Malta was being downgraded to a third world country in which computers, coloured TV sets, cordless telephones etc were prohibited. A "modern industrialised country" had to wait until much later when law and order were re-stablished and Malta became peacefully stable and attractive to foreign investment. Prior to that Malta could only attract primitive Chinese industries doomed to early failure with the exception of a China Dock forming part of a Dockyard that was not only bankrupt itself but risked bankrupting the whole country.
Why the silence? Why do even priests and bishops do not take the bible seriously? They do not do so, when concerning homosexuals, the place of women and men in society, to seriously obey Gods Commandaments and NOT to break them.
When minority elements in society throw issues to the archbishop, such as the case whereby a homosexual Universal lecturer blasted the archbishop when he visited the University, he replied that the church should consider this issue more! That is silence, knowing what to do, when the solution is simply to read the bible, and act upon it.
My apologies. Perhaps I did not mange to communicate correctly and so my point was missed.
My reason for writing was not to lament or probe politically into how where and what else they attacked and/or if this was right or wrong.
My reason was Father Joe Borg’s morale obligation to clarify to readers. Knowledge is power and omitting to say – Who was their target – continues to lead readers to think what Father Joe said - God forgive them they do not know what they are doing - to the house of God.
I learned that at the time, quote “While Mintoff was in power frantically transforming backward Malta into a significant, modern and industrialised country, he was ferociously opposed on ALL FRONTS by the defenders of the status quo. This gave the new PN leadership, ……a convenient excuse to whip up an odium that brought about terrifying consequences.”
Rightly or wrongly; A- the Maltese Church & Leaders had once decided to play a Major Political, in fact DECISIVE Front. B- Their target was to equate the ferocity and damages caused by this front – not God or the House of God.
Your last posting addressed to me is mischievously deceptive because you quoted me only in part deliberately leaving out that part in which I had anticipated your objection. The censored part stated specifically that I was waiting for you to submit your questions one by one. Obviously this is absolutely necessary if I am to answer you adequately within the limit of 200 words. Nevertheless I have to-day answered your question number 13 which I had never heard before. Look it up in A Borg Cardona's blog "Unexceptionable".
“I am still waiting patiently for you to respond to my offer to give you a detailed response to your extensive questionnaire in Andrew Borg Cardona's blog “
What are waiting for, you got the list already just start answering at will. I got no time to play silly games
I would not dream to entice you to react to my comment addressed to J Buhagiar. I am still waiting patiently for you to respond to my offer to give you a detailed response to your extensive questionnaire in Andrew Borg Cardona's blog "Unexceptionable" provided you submit your questions, one at a time, so as to give you enough time to digest my replies
"I pray everyday that the Maltese people starts to realize about the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, but it`s very hard unless they start reading the Holy Bible"
I garantee that if the maltese actually take the time to read the bible from cover to cover they will discover to their horror that this book contains examples of genocide, infanticide, incest, eternal condemnation and useless vicarious sacrifice. Yes, it contains teachings about love but do we really need this book to tell us what love is? moslims, buddhists, agnostics, atheists and hinduist all have the capacity to love, but guess what the common denominator is?..... they dont read the bible!!!! Why cant most people see the truth about these holy books? They ve been written by people living in primitive societies with no notion of science and with a perverse lust to control peoples' minds and actions. The simple truth about religions is that there are hundreds of them with completely different and contrasting revelations, Surely you must admit that most of them are just delusions. Which are the false ones? My opinion: every single one of them!
@ J Buhagiar
“You lament that Fr Joe Borg "never explained why the MLP supporters made the Curia their target". Make a thorough job of it, go the whole hog, and complain also why Fr Borg did not explain why the MLP supporters burned the building of "The Times", why they ransacked the residence of the leader of the opposition, the headquarters of the Union of Teachers, the law courts and numerous political clubs. With apologies to anyone else left out.”
What a crude tentative suggestion designed to elicit the reactions of others! After this there’ll be the Prologue and then the drama will be divided into four main sections, each titled with a question: "Why?", When? How?, and Who? And then we get the predetermined conclusion for the epilogue.
What a boring repertoire!
I pray everyday that the Maltese people starts to realize about the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, but it`s very hard unless they start reading the Holy Bible,mind you there are quite a few that do, there are a lot of true christian churches around Malta, were we hold the Bible in our hands and read the scriptures along with the Pastor and mind you, we do not read a couple of scriptures only, we have a least an hour & a half after the songs and praise, and also i must point out that there is no body forcing the Pastor on what to preach about it`s inspired by God, not like the RCC it`s the Vatican who impose on the church what to preach, that alone is very unnatural and unbiblical, The pastor spends ours praying for a revelation from God and a week to prepare for service on Sunday,
Part one
It is propitious that the Sermon on the Mount is mentioned for in it is crystallized how Jesus immersed his teaching in the culture of the time. There are many examples to be found in the whole of Scripture (not only the NT) but I’ll take one of the most popular portions of the Sermon, the Beatitudes as found in Matthew (for in Luke they’re much shorter).
The Beatitudes get their name from the fact that in the Vulgate they begin with the word ‘beati’, meaning ‘blessed’. Such statements beginning with ‘blessed is/are’ express the speaker’s acknowledgement of some cultural value which can be found in some attitude, line of conduct, possession (children, trees, land, etc.). Within an honour-shame cultural setting as prevalent in the Jewish society, perhaps the best translation for ‘blessed is/are’ would be ‘How honourable…,’ ‘How full of honour…,’ The counter to ‘beatitudes’ are the ‘woes’ or reproaches found in Matt. 23, 13-35. There the formula: ‘Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites…’ ought to be translated: ‘How shameless you are…’. It is important to note how the Matthean set of ‘beatitude/honour acknowledgements’ matches the set of ‘woes/shame accusations’ in the same Gospel.
HONOUR ATTRIBUTIONS (Mt 5, 3-12)/SHAME ACCUSATIONS(Mt 23, 13-31)
Positive/Negative
Third-person formulations/Second-person formulations
Addressed to disciples/Addressed to opponents
Opens public career of Jesus/Closes Jesus’ public career
“theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (vv. 3,10)/“you lock ppl out of kingdom of heaven " v. 13
“hunger and thirst for righteousness” (v. 6)/“on the outside look righteous” (v. 28)
“merciful…mercy” (v. 7)/"neglected…mercy” (v. 23)
“pure in heart” (v. 8a)/Impure (v.27)
“see God” (=pilgrimage, v. 8b)/“by the throne of God” (v. 22)
“children of God” (v. 9)/ Son of Gehenna (v. 15)
“in the same way they persecuted the/ "descendants of those who murdered the
prophets" (v.12) prophets" (v. 31)
*The Moral of the story?*
Culture should always serve as a springboard for teaching - even if what one wants to teach is diametrically opposite from what the prevalent culture is offering.
1. Whether I am in the Church, whether I am outside it, on in some periphery, waiting for a new prophet, is nobody's business. Certainly, I am in no Church where people like Francis Saliba are! On the contrary, meet me in the farthest corner!
2. The silence of people like Fr Joe Borg, who allows himself to be thwarted by the Salibas of this world, is very loud. Apparently, Joe Borg likes seeing people getting hurt through the words (Saliba: 'slippery eels') and the venom of such Salibas and other bible-huggers - another reason why the CChurch is not my home anymore.
The real CChurch, the one founded by our Lord JC., wants priests to be seen as Good Shepherds, running after the lost sheep! And nothing else!!!!
One also hopes that History will show that Archbishop Mercieca’s actions were also primarily taken in the name of Social Justice. Whether History will be as kind to the head of the Press Office of the Curia before, at that point in time and slightly after is another matter. I think History; will also undoubtedly show Archbishop Mercieca to have been justified in insisting that the clergy do not hold positions of power in state run media. A universal priest should not have to be reminded that his flock is far from homogenous. One hopes that the present archbishop firmly grounded in the Thomistic tradition is just as enlightened.
You lament that Fr Joe Borg "never explained why the MLP supporters made the Curia their target". Make a thorough job of it, go the whole hog, and complain also why Fr Borg did not explain why the MLP supporters burned the building of "The Times", why they ransacked the residence of the leader of the opposition, the headquarters of the Union of Teachers, the law courts and numerous political clubs. With apologies to anyone else left out.
I will not admit such a thing because I do make a distinction between "baited" when used as an adjective and "bait" used as a verb. However, what you wrote is: "You dangle a baited hook and promtly land two (so far) eels conspicuous for their slippery length rather than their substance".
The purpose of "dangling a baited (adjective) hook" is to bait (verb) fish. What other purpose could there be for dangling baited hooks (metaphorically or literally)?
Please, admit once and for all that you are unable to make a distinction between "baited" when used as an adjective and when it is used as a verb Please understand also that when I wrote about Fr Borg "dangling a baited hook and promptly landing two eels more conspicuous for their slippery length rather than their substance" I could only have been referring to the statements and not to the people concerned. In my syntax people could be tall but they could not have "length".
Could you please point out where or when I said "As Catholics we have no room to discuss divorce and condoms"?
Father Joe, like you I am much older and mature (learned and in control) now. So I seek to read/ learn how Malta became so divided in two and the hate culture that emerged. So from 99% PN, I changed to Floating not a puppet of PN, the Church or MLP
It is now 10 minutes to 10am the 21st October and listening to you on the radio. So you understand now that like was explained, Mintof’s ONLY objective was Malta's freedom not a Church Fight. Only the UK Empire and the opposition stood to gain from this fight.
Like REV. DR. MARK F. MONTEBELLO (CRIM. JUST-UNIVERSITY-OF- MALTA) wrote; During the early ’60s a battle of ideologies occurred between the conservative / reactionary forces, (mainly Catholic Church and PN; conservative) and the progressive and liberal forces, mainly the MLP.
But you never explained why MLP supporters made the Curia their target. Their target was not God. Their target was “the group” led by Arch. Gonzi that sided with the conservative reactionary forces.
If “the group” stood out of the way then, Malta would have had a much smoother transition. So please let go and let the Maltese people decide THEMSELVES!
The Catholic Church has enough power of argument for it's teaching that it can discuss such subjects with it's members and non.
The Catholic churches teaching have relevance for a society which is based on reason, debate and science.
Unfortunately those who are not convinced that any such subject as divorce and condoms cannot be discussed by the Catholics within the Church and society in general, express doubt or lack of conviction in the Church's teaching to be of contribution to society or have not understood the validity of such teachings.
It all depends how well knowledgeable, prepared and guided one is to discuss these with fellow society members who do not profess a faith. And that is challenging as there is no longer the protective aura professors of faith had to up some time ago, were the churches' teaching were not challenged.
I dare say that this could be the opportunity to show how, even or level of reasoning and debate, the Catholic Church's teaching have relevance.
If one leaves the Catholic Church (like Franco Farrugia said he might) because he disagrees with its teachings or leaders, that is not childish at all. What would be childish would be for people (and we have lots in Malta) to live a totally unCatholic lifestyle and still claim to be Catholics.
Also, please note that leaving the Catholic Church does not necessarily mean leaving Christianity. I don't think Franco ever said he would stop being a Christian.
A "baited hook" is not innocent at all, especially in the context you were using it ("You dangle a baited hook and promtly land two (so far) eels conspicuous for their slippery length rather than their substance".
The metaphor of a "baited hook" is usually made because its effect is similar to that of a real baited hook. It deceives fishes into thinking that they are getting free food (an innocent piece of writing), when they will subsequently be trapped (the will be made to show their "true colours" in their reply).
I'm not at all stupid, and neither are the other readers.
I still stand for what I wrote. If you meant something different, you made an unfortunate choice of words, since most normal people would get the same meaning I did.
But then again, maybe Fr Borg will correct me (or intercede on my behalf, if you like).
I don't like closets...cos I am afraid of the dark. (geddit?) Besides, I need the light to read Hitchens and posts by you Hehe
Bleeeeeeeat! Bleeeeeeeeeeat! :)
Applying the Bible to today is done through a process of binding and loosing.
In the sermon on the mount, "You have heard it said…I say unto you" Jesus bound murder to anger. adultery to divorce/remarriage. loving one’s neighbor to loving enemies.
Jesus loosened Sabbath-keeping so that one might harvest grain and even heal people; restrictions against idolatry by allowing tax-payments to Caesar, himself a god.
Jesus then delegated this binding-and-loosing authority to the church.
The church decides through the Pope as direct apostolic successor to Peter.
As a Catholic I obey the church and can only bring forward official Church dictum when participating in a National secular debate.
Now other churches including The Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Communion, branches of Protestantism, including the Reformed churches, the Presbyterian Church, and the Methodist Church all tolerate forms of divorce and all accept the same Nicene Creed as an ecumenical Christian statement of faith as our Church.
Now our Church must decide if the interpretation of these churches (plus other opinions) should be also reflected in national legislation or if it demands legislation that reflects only her truth.
U le! You have something in common with Dr Saliba... Fr Joe! It's always a start...
And you also have me... since the slippery eel thingy was also directed at myself. Ah I wish I was that supple of body...but at least I'm supple of mind.
Indeed I did and I apologize for my misplaced last sentence which should not have been directed at you.
I enjoyed your last posting where you pointed out my error and furthermore your very keen observation, and I quote, "They do not posses the fine tuning to see that this speech is mostly addressed to important people in key roles in the Church who will not budge from their positions, who resist change". Without that important explanation many who did not follow the Archbishop's speech may very well feel marginalized. I heard part of his speech and the impression I got was that he was more inclined to chide the intransigence of some bishops than Catholics who have become somewhat disengaged from the Church of yesteryear.
Change is always difficult and unless changes are explained properly, people may hear but will not listen.
You're right...Fr Joe was talking about a totally different kettle of fish...lambs :)
All private media (including RTK) have their own policies and agenda. I am all for freedom of speech (except for hate-speech or libellous speech). However, the right to freedom of speech does not necessarily include being given free-reign to say things that go against the policies or agenda of the media one is using, particularly if one is being paid for one's services by that media.
Let me give you another example. Would a DJ on RTK have the right to advocate atheism? I don't think he/she would, and this would not be denying free-speech. What really would be denying free-speech is if someone applies to start an atheist radio (for instance) and this is refused.
To allow the freedom for one to say things against media (radio/TV/newspaper) policy would be to deny the right of the same media to have its own policy or agenda.
Of course, I'm only speaking of private media, not the state media, which should be balanced as much as possible.
You still fail to differentiate between my use of the innocent adjective "baited" in "baited hook" and your pejorative distortion into a false allegation that I accused Fr Joe Borg of trying "to bait (verb) anyone". An intelligent reading of what I wrote should convince anybody that I did not accuse Fr Borg of "persecuting" or "exasperating" anybody with "unjust ,malicious or persistent attacks" or to "harass" or "badger" anybody - those are the usual meanings of the verb "to bait".
What I admit doing is complimenting Fr Joe Borg on astutely provoking a reaction to his blog. It seems that I should not make the mistake of attributing too high degree of acumen to all readers of this blog.
I protest that distorting His Grace the Archbishop's clear message and reading more into it than what he actually said would be dishonest and unfair. And you petunantly threaten to leave the Catholic Church! How childishly irrelevant!
Shame on you for having a mind of your own, and speaking out! As if befriending an atheist and reading Hitchens were not bad enough! Could it be that you're a closet atheist after all? Be silent, lamb! :P
(Tongue firmly in cheek...you never know, someone might take me literally)
In this regard let me quote what Dr Mario Tabone Vassallo, who used to conduct a current affairs programme entitled Bla Kantunieri on RTK radio, wrote in Il-Mument of 12 October page 15: “...kont twaqqaft hesrem bla ragun, wara li kkritikajt dik li jien rajt bhala attitudni falza li taf tkattar l-immigrazzjoni illegali lejn u bi hsara kbira ghal pajjizna”. He was abruptly silenced by the Church radio for speaking against illegal immigration.
Doctor Francis Saliba:
'dishonest and unfair';
'eels conspicuous for their slippery length rather than their substance'.
These are remarks, levelled at my direction.
Father Borg, is this the kind of Church you are offering in Malta? With people like Doctor Francis Saliba?
Father Borg, is this the 'hostile and intolerance' that we are speaking about?
With people like Saliba in the flock, my home lies not with the Church, but elsewhere. We have nothing in common.
You wrote: "You dangle a baited hook and promtly land two..."
I don't think Fr Borg dangled any baited hooks. To "dangle baited hooks" one would be intent of catching "fish". Usually this works by deceiving fish into thinking they have free food when little do they suspect that there are the hooks waiting for them.
So I repeat, I don't think Fr Borg dangled any baited hooks. Do you really believe that Fr Borg would stoop to that level?
But again, since I don't have an overblown opinion of myself, I admit that I might be wrong. Hence my invitation to Fr Borg to correct me if I'm wrong.
You are digressing from what I said. By an evolving interpretation and application of the bible I meant that obviously today nobody quotes the bible as if it were a science or a history textbook. It is widely admitted that the text of the bible is often allegorical and metaphorical and that it could have had a special meaning to the community at which it was addressed.
I think you confused me with Franco Farrugia who said he won't reply. I have no problems with replying. I think that my comment about Mater et Magistra should be seen from the perspective of those among us who were lately dubbed 'outdated' Catholics etc. I have no problems with the Archbishop's Synod speech from where I sit. But I read it also from the perspective of those who all of a sudden feel disenfranchised...if this is the word. I met people who feel hurt by this speech because they were made to feel redundant since the model of the Church they embraced has been relegated to the second division. They do not posses the finetuning to see that this speech is mostly addressed to important people in key roles in the Church who will not budge from their positions, who resist change. Common folk took it personally and therefore I entreated Fr Joe to explain things to them since, in my opinion, he is in the best position to do so.
@ Francis Saliba
A slippery eel, moi eh? :)
Yes, I know perfectly well what "to bait" (not baiting - please don't misrepresent what I write) means. When used as a verb (like I did), one meaning is "to entice by deception or trickery so as to entrap or destroy".
So yes, I stand by what I wrote: I believe that its not in Fr Borg's style to try to bait anyone, or to dangle metaphorical baiting hooks.
I did not ask for anyone's intercession. I only gave my own opinion on how I view Fr Borg. Its only fair that I ask him to correct me if I have a wrong impression of him.
Now can you stop shooting the messenger and start debating issues.
Quote 'The Church's interpretation and application of the gospels has evolved slowly and inexorably over the centuries in the light of scientific advances and modern exegesis'
Can this be so? The Church is our path to salvation. How can your theory be true when we have to thread this path through a lifetime of a few years if said path is in a constant state of flux?
The Church's tenents are constant and unchangeable; the Holy Spirit the guiding light of God's Ministers.
As Catholics, we have no room to discuss issues such as divorce or use of condoms. These are matters that are decreed by the Church in the light divine inspiration.
If we start discussing our beliefs, we shall only inherit a Babylon.
That is the Church, our Church.
Matters of State are of course totally different.
The Church has the obligation to make her voice heard also in matters of State. This can only be one voice. (does the church have pro and anti divorce lobbies etc? of course not.
The role of the faithful is to repeat that single voice if they feel that there should not be room for choice.
I would never dream of accusing the Rev. Fr J Borg of "baiting" any person - I hope you know what that really means. I only commended him for a successful metaphorical fishing expedition using a baited hook and that is a totally different kettle of fish. Surely, even you can appreciate the difference without the need of appealing to the Rev. Father's intercession on your behalf!
Having said that though, it much depends on how much knowledgeable, convinced and able to contribute in public commentaries are members of a concerned group. It much depends how much all we Maltese have been educated to participate in a public debate.
How many healthy debates have we been exposed to? How many subjects have we bothered to get knowledgeable about in order to participate? Do we Maltese have the opportunity in our clubs, societies church groups other social meetings to educate ourselves in exchange of ideas? How much are our children given such opportunities in our schools, homes, society?
Has the strong party allegiance discouraged us from participating in public debates even when this concerns our beliefs? Has such our important contribution been discouraged by the parties favouring party interests?
The Church's interpretation and application of the gospels has evolved slowly and inexorably over the centuries in the light of scientific advances and modern exegesis - much too slowly in my own inexpert opinion. Especially since Vatican Council II the faithful have had a lot to contribute in this respect although personally I do not anticipate any immediate and dramatic responses to fashionable newly emerging situations. That is why, again in my own private opinion, an intelligent and respectful exchange of opinions is desirable without accusations of bad faith, fundamentalism and wild charges of wanting to revert to the crusades or to the Spanish inquisition.
Of course, I stand to be corrected by Fr Borg if this is not so.
Congratulations! You dangle a baited hook and promtly land two (so far) eels conspicuous for their slippery length rather than their substance.
If I were you I would not mind so much falling from the grace of anyone who admires your skills at generating a meaningful intelligent exchange of views but only if it is in a blinkered confrontation with our bishops' pronouncements - otherwise you are condemned as their lackey or some disingenuous media hack.
No matter how it is distorted Archbishop's Cremona address at the Bishops' Synod remains a reasoned appeal to Maltese Catholics not to be cowed into a sullen acquiesence to a hostile atmosphere.
Please keep your comments about me in the right blog. I use your name only when I respond to your comments directly.
@ Victoria Grech
Some of your comments are valid, some are not. The Church is indeed Mother and Teacher but if the daughter will not understand mother's teachings, then mother should not be blamed.
No use saying much more since (thankfully) you promised not to reply.
No one can deny that far too frequently any attempt by our bishops to fulfil their obligation to guide their flock elicits a hostile knee-jerk response from some quarters. These pay grudging lip service to the bishops' right to teach but they immediately nullify that right by unjust accusations that in doing so they are imposing their prejudices on society as a whole, especially on voters and legislators.
Admittedly, since the ransacking of the Curia in Floriana this hostility has never again reached that "vicious" and "violent" level but Archbishop Cremona's address cannot with justice be distorted to imply that he did so.
It is equally true that any attempt to support the local hierarchy in its role to give guidance about moral values is promptly met by preposterous accusations of trying to revert to the times of the crusades, the inquisition and the wars of religion. Undeniably, Archbishop Cremona was only encouraging the faithful not to be intimidated by such hostility. Reading more than that in his clear address is dishonest and unfair.
The bishops, warned against people remaining silent because of “fear of criticism.
Now come to think of it, the church is not a platform for debate. The Church interprets the Book and that is it.
So people have nothing to contribute to a debate other than what the Church decrees. Now where does this leave the church when it states that it wants to participate in national debates?
All it can do is to tell the faithful to repeat the official Church line and that is it.
Come to think of it, I find this to contrast realities in, say, Australia, where the concept of conscience is strongly imbedded therefore giving wider scope for debate.
Given our generally low education standards, we seem to be miles away from this stage of development, and indeed, the faithful will have to either stay silent or repeat the official stance.
So when we talk of talking, we are not referring so much to argumentation as to numbers repeating the same thing.
Not a nice thought.
I took some timeout to mull over the Archbishop’s Synod speech and your faithful reporting of it in this blog and elsewhere
Whatever the conservatives might accuse you of; they surely would not accuse you of being a fly in the ointment anymore. I think that you have made it quite clear that you like Archbishop Cremona and are following him very faithfully. This is commendable, for he is your Bishop. My only problem with this is that you'd become predictable. The irony would be that you'd be viewed as a conformist. Shock! Horror! :)
As for my personal opinion about the Synod speech, I found parts of it a bit harsh and rich coming from an institution that essentially frowns upon individual and/or (worse still, collective) creative opposition. Is it any surprise that the Church is feeling the pinch of her silent lambs? She is to blame for this sorry state of affairs for coming down like a ton of bricks on anyone who dared voice a different opinion.
The essential flaw of that speech is that the Church is pitting herself against the prevalent culture and has thrown the baby with the bathwater. The speech harps on the dualism of culture/church when in fact it should highlight the duality - the capability of exchange and interchange. The Church is in the World and not out of it. It is ironical that this rift was highlighted so strongly at the Vatican the place where Gaudium et Spes (the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World) was promulgated. As a Maltese Catholic, I felt very offended by the Synod speech. I think that what it accuses some people of (nostalgia etc), the synod speech has embedded in it an 'us-them' old world mentality dressed up in 'forward-thinking' language.
Part three
In both of your articles, you faithfully reported what Archbishop Cremona said. I see nothing wrong in this per se were it written by a fledging reporter for Lehen is-Sewwa or Radju Marija (ouch) But you're no fledgling cub reporter. You're you, someone who helps us to think, and not to tell us what to think - or worse, tell us what other people think.
I think that you're morphing into His Master's Voice and it doesn't suit you at all. Even if his speech at the synod was 'daring', there's a lot of room for criticism, something which you are refraining from doing with this HE. I feel that you want to but you're keeping it in check.
I really cannot stress enough where your attraction lies, in your refreshing worldview, in pushing the envelope, in challenging the status quo, and other qualities that makes you stand out among some who mostly fall over themselves to toe the line, metaphorically kissing rings and Episcopal slippers. You must be the voice for theose silent lambs.
Don't you think that these 'outdated' Catholics need to be taught how to think? The speech will drive them even more underground and not provoke them into action. Why do I think so? Because people who were never taught how to use weapons will burrow themselves even deeper in their comfort zone, especially when under attack. So the way I see your role in their resurrection is to provide them with these tools with which to arm themselves. To these 'outdated' Catholics, society is already proving to be a hostile environment. They feel lost already. Let's not make them feel unwanted in their own Church. For all their 'mothballs' I believe that they are still relevant members of the church. Feeling unwanted is the worst feeling in the world. Let’s not exacerbate their sense of rejection.
To carry on with lamb metaphor, the Church is no lamb to the slaughter. She has contributed fully to this state of affairs. Therefore it is totally unfair to lay it at the door of these 'outdated' Catholics.
Isn't the Church Mater et Magistra? She's being neither to these people at this point in time.
I think that such reactions may be termed 'excited' also due to the fact that, indeed, in a past which cannot be termed as distant, people and individuals belonging to certain minorities, felt the crunch of the effects of some of the so-called teachings of the Church. Such teachings are known - and it has been proved so - to have instilled in the general populations a further dislike - no, hatred - in people belonging to such minorities. And the Church was seen as responsible for this further hatred among the people.
In this light, does one expect a quiet audience when the Bishops and other 'pastors' speak out?
I think not.
I conclude here: the Church's leaders are duty-bound and obliged to teach and proclaim. But they have no right to expect to impose on society. Let there be a healthy discussion among society on various points but let there be a level playing-field.
I repeat: I conclude here. I have given new impetus to this blog and I am sure that a few bible-huggers of repute will lambast me to kingdom come for daring to express my opinion. Oh, well ... I will not reply.
Where was I? Oh yes.
So, just because one does not agree with the teachings of the CChurch, it does not mean that one is anticlerical. Point made, I hope.
We cannot expect all Maltese people to agree with the teachings of the CChurch, simply because they don't! And it's no use having the State trying to push dogma down our truths, because it simply will not stick.
I think that the sometimes vibrant and excited manner with which those among us react to moral issues and other issues where the CChurch appears to have a direct say, is precisely that: that they FEAR that the CChurch will impress on those whose task it is to run and manage the State, with its dogmas. People, coming from both sides of the political spectrum, are AFRAID that key-people who are well-known for their religious allegiances and practices (do not get me wrong, please: such people have a right to practice their spiritual life), will be coerced by the CChurch into submission.
... to be concluded.
Actually, you didn't get a reaction in your article in The Sunday Times, either. I wonder if that's due to a general lack of disinterest in the subject?
I, too, reacted when I read in The Times (TT) about what Mgr Cremona reportedly said in Rome. I beg to differ with his opinion.
I feel that the Archbishop is exaggerating in the way he portrays the criticism on the 'pastors' of the Church. Anyone reading that report would come to the conclusion that there is some sort of vicious, no, rather violent, reaction whenever the Church's pastors speak out.
I don't think that this is true.
I don't wish to take long - nor do I wish to take a lot of space from your blog. However, it is a trend, here in Malta, that whenever you voice disagreement about something, you really get it, and hard too.
Hence, I, personally, have often been labelled a hardcore Nationalist, an equally hardcore Labourite (by a Mr Martinelli) as well as being anticlerical. When none of this is the truth, for those who know me! In fact, there are times when we laugh about it.