Thursday, 26th February 2009
The predictable and the nonsensical
Some things I understand. Some I don’t. Some things, I think, make a lot of sense. Some things make no sense at all. It could be that this is due to my poor sense of making sense of things. Could be.
Let me share with you one example of each category.
Makes sense: attacking PBS
I can easily understand the onslaught of the Partit Laburista on PBS newsroom. Such a thing makes sense.
There is a time for every thing, the Bible says. A time for love and a time for war. A time for kissing and a time for punching. A time for wooing and a time for spurning.
Machiavellian would explain it differently. One can woo by pretending to spurn. Or one can get someone to kiss by threatening to punch. Wouldn’t it be better to kiss someone than let him/her punch you? Got that?
We are nearing an electoral campaign i.e. that for the European Parliament. So what, many would say. But the Partit Laburista who has soundly won the first set of these election wishes to register a more resounding victory this time round. These elections have been billed as the first step in the journey towards Castille.
In this scenario attacking the newsroom of PBS is predictable and makes perfect sense. The following strategy is generally adopted.
i. Play the victim in the run up to an election. It always helps. Mobilising supporters becomes easier when you put on the mantle of the victim. Besides, the same mantle can get you the sympathies of those in the middle of the road.
ii. Remember that journalists, like others, can be conditioned. If you harass them enough it could be that next time round they will be tempted to give you extra coverage as probably no one will protest at that.
iii. If journalists do not give in to your pressure, then pressure the non-journalists. A hysterical phone call higher up never hurt anybody, has it? While doing all this get on the high horse of editorial independence and pretend to champion its cause.
iv. The Broadcasting Authority, faced by many protests, will have the temptation to go the extra mile and split hairs to find something when you are right. In that case you are a winner. If they always say you are wrong you are a bigger winner. The coat of the persecuted will look nicer now.
Things will get hotter the nearer the climax of the hunting season (read: elections) becomes. Once it is over things would return to normal. That would be the season for peace. It will, in due time, be followed by another season of war.
Let’s take a drink for that one.
Does not make sense: attacking the Archbishop
The Hon. Helena Dalli’s rabid attack on the Archbishop, on the other hand, was both nonsensical and unpredictable (vide The Times, Monday, 23rd February, 2009). She was white-hot under a red collar because the Archbishop agreed with the Prime Minister to halt the St John’s Co-Cathedral project due to its causing division among the people.
She seems to be between two minds whether to accuse the Archbishop of political naïveté or being blinded by political partisanship. At one point she wrote that the “Archbishop was dragged into this situation by the Prime Minister” implying that he was forced to do what he did. The image of a weak Archbishop is projected here. Not a nice characteristic for an Archbishop to have!
At another point she gives credence to the other possibility. “Archbishop Paul Cremona chose to buttress the Prime Minister’s statement …” “Chose” implies free will. She says more. “The Archbishop was happy to oblige.” This is a different story now as these statements of the Hon Dalli make the Archbishop guilty of blind political partisanship.
This point was hammered in. Read these three quotes.
· “This was an obvious political move by the Archbishop, of the type we have not seen for some time.”
· “The Archbishop accepted to put his name to the damage-limitation statement concocted by the government ...”
· “.. colluding with the Prime Minister with regard to the infamous joint statement …”
I don’t think that there is any need to waste my time and yours trying to show that none of these wild allegations come close to describing the Archbishop or his behaviour. Archbishop Cremona is neither a puppet nor a political fanatic.
There is, though, one part of Ms Dalli’s article which is very predictable. She accused the Archbishop of opening – from the contest quite capriciously too – the old wound of the politico-religious controversy. What an awful and unjust accusation!
Why is it predictable? Whenever you do something not very nice accuse your opponent that he or she is doing. That way you go on the attack and people will not accuse you of what you did but will accuse your opponent instead.
This is a very old trick and one so common that many pick it up.
I will not drink to this one.
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.
RSS
Comments
Only just read your comment to mine about tackling the topic on vegetables. Good one!!!
However, not as good as mine about ‘Coalitions’. (ehhhhhh, just joking!) :=)))
Jessica
I sign off by ignoring your evaluation of the warfare between the Ottoman Turks and the Crusader Knights because this is inaccurate and irrelevant to your attack on Fr Joe Borg's behaviour as a priest.
You started by associating Fr J.Borg with “some of the other popes” and two days later, on the same blog, you presented a list of scandalous popes from the Middle Ages implying that these were the “other popes” with whom you associated Fr Borg. You then proceeded to taunt Fr Borg for his dignified silence.
You accused Fr Joe Borg of unpriestly conduct because he defended the Archbishop who had been maligned and accused unjustly of colluding with, and coming to the assistance of the Prime Minister because both jointly decided to drop the St John Cathedral Museum project so as to defuse a worsening divisive situation.
You insist that you did not attack the Archbishop - of course you did not do so directly, but you did so by proxy through your attack on Fr Joe Borg who had loyally defended him.
And we had our own Christian Crusaders who were as brutal and evil. Many people were forced to "convert" to Christianity. If they refused, they were put to death. The idea of conquering a land through war and violence in the name of Christ is completely unbiblical. Many of the actions that took place in the crusades were completely the opposite of everything the Christian faith stands for. And yet they were blessed before going to battle.
Do I want to hold the present church accountable for the actions of people who lived 900+ years ago? Do I want to be held accountable for the actions of everyone who claims to represent my faith? No I do not. Trying to blame all of Christianity for the crusades the bad Popes and the indecent clergy is equivalent to blaming all Muslims for Islamic terrorism. Yet I preserve my right to criticise and oppose.
As far as I’m concerned this debate is now closed. It’s becoming ever so boring, superfluous and fruitless.
@ Dr Francis Saliba Part One
I don’t go to church everyday like you boasted you do yet I can tell you that the Chaplain is in the picture, in a different form perhaps, but he is there.
No I am not suggesting that the right of self defence should not have been availed of, what I was saying was that the troops on both sides of the battle are normally blessed before they go out to kill each other. I’m sure that the Islamic Imam blessed Dragut and his armada before they set sail to slaughter our forefathers and capture our land in the name of God and Country, our same God. This time, they, were the invaders. But it is also true that as soon as the knights arrived on Malta, they began building fortifications and ships from which they could raid Muslim shipping.
Yes, unfortunately I made a mistake, for reasons which I gave in my previous comment (which did not make it to this blog quickly enough for you to read it before posting). When I read Charles J Buttigieg's reply (after I made my posts), I immediately realised that I obviously misunderstood you. Unfortunately, by then, I could not take back what I had already posted.
In such circumstances, in the absence of an edit or delete button, the best one can do is to acknowledge one's mistake, and apologise - which I did.
So again, I apologise, and am grateful that you followed the comments that stemmed from my misunderstanding, simply by an explanation.
Of course, my reply that I only mentioned one Pope, which was sufficient for proving my point that criticism is not necessarily an "attack"; that no human is above criticism; and that one is entitled to say that a priest, bishop or pope is not behaving in a priestly manner provided one gives valid reasons for making that statement, still stands.
My comment was clearly addressed to you AND Charles J Buttigieg. I never mentioned any "confrontation" in your regard. Mr Buttigieg agrees that there is a confrontation albeeit a "personal" one. What is absolutely necessary is not the I shed my prejudices but that you should read carefully and understand my comments
Since the symbol "@" is normally used when addressing someone, I took your comment intended at Charles J Buttigieg to be made at me. My mistake was also due to the fact that the sentence before the "@" which is followed by my name, makes sense, even if one omits what follows it.
I apologise.
"a confrontation that you declare as "extremely personal"".
Now I think I remember. What I might have referred to as becoming extremely personal (months ago, I think) was the confrontation between you and me, and not the imaginary confrontation between me and Fr Borg (that never happened).
And come to think of it, the simple fact that you have dug up a comment I might have made months ago, proves the point I was making back then.
"a confrontation that you declare as "extremely personal""
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
"You had to go back several centuries to exhume a list of bad popes - and that should make you think".
I only mentioned one Pope, which was sufficient for proving my point that criticism is not necessarily an "attack"; that no human is above criticism; and that one is entitled to say that a priest, bishop or pope is not behaving in a priestly manner provided one gives valid reasons for making that statement.
I believe that this should make you think.
Also, I have made no attempt at confrontation with Fr Joe Borg. If you shed your prejudice and take time to read my other posts in this same blog (particularly the first one), you'll find that I am actually agreeing with Fr Borg.
The "ongoing confrontation" with Fr Borg is only to be found in your imagination.
All the way you are doing nothing else except trying to reverse a situation where Fr. Joe Borg made a false statement to tarnish my reputation into one as if I am the liar and Fr. Joe Borg is the victim. My reference to ‘extremely personal’ was explained in that it was personal between him and me solely with regards to his allegation against me and that had nothing to do with you. Furthermore when I need your opinion about how I project myself I will ask for it.
With regards to anticlericalism, yes I do appreciate that the era pre renaissance and reformation cannot be used as a sample of today’s church ministers’ behaviour but it does go to show the human weaknesses. Unfortunately paedophile crimes are not all that uncommon within the church today, are we expected to ignore these sad facts because the perpetrators are priests? Would you label a person as anticlerical when they criticise and rightfully attack such perpetrators?
If you want to know the reason why you yourself are creating the impression that you behave as a radical anticlerical just read your own latest contribution @Kenneth Cassar dredging up an irrelevant list of long dead misbehaving popes from centuries ago in an attempt to buttress your ongoing confrontation with Fr Joe Borg - a confrontation that you declare as "extremely personal" but that you carry out in public.
You must have gone through all my comments and did not find one single remark or reference to Archbishop Cremona so now you came out with this idiotic notion of attacking by proxy.
Joe Borg tried to defame me and he should have been man enough to correct his blatant mistake and all would be forgotten, instead he chose silence. And then you had to come out to justify him with a silly theory. Do me a favour-just keep out of this; this is something extremely personal between Fr. Joe Borg and me.
For the record-yes, I openly confess that I am very critical about some of the clergy’s life style more so when they involve themselves in partisan politics and scandalous moral behaviour, however I have enormous love and respect for the others, the righteous, and Archbishop Cremona won my full admiration and respect from day one, even though, unlike you, I’m a sinner.
Some people would want me to be seen as a radical anti-clerics for one single reason and you don’t need me to tell you what that is
You had to go back several centuries to exhume a list of bad popes - and that should make you think.
The survival of Christianity and its undoubted valuable impact on today’s Western culture, the astounding way in which it has outlived the mighty empires that had persecuted it and the human fragility of popes and other high dignitaries prove one thing and one thing only i.e. that Christ’s promise that hell shall not prevail against the Church has been accomplished. And that is what matters today.
Furthermore,
Pope Stephen VI had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber
Pope John XII gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII was lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.
Pope Alexander VI a Borgia, was guilty of nepotism and his unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.
Pope Leo X a spendthrift, member of the Medici family, once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony.
Pope Clement VII also a Medici, was famous for his power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany.
For instance, I wouldn't necessarily be attacking the Papacy and Catholicism if I say that Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife, was not acting in a priestly manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes
When you attack the papacy (Pius IX, Pius XI, Pius XII and sundry other unidentified popes) you attack all the hierarchy down to the village priest and that would include bishops and archbishops.
You made a categorical statement that I attacked Archbishop Cremona. Would you care to substantiate your accusation and underscore exactly how I attacked or even criticised the Archbishop?
This is my second appeal to you. Mala fama is an unforgiving sin if not corrected.
Rest assured, that comment wasn't directed at you.
I am no expert in any law but it doesn’t take an expert to see through your irony and for one to realise an infringement of the law when that law is so blatantly sabotaged under the excuse of defending the same law.
I may be a lost sheep but tell me, are you following Jesus’ example to bring me back to the flock? Did Jesus ever use sarcasm with Mary the Magdalene and other sinners? The great expert of canon law by the surname of Buttigieg indeed-You are the expert and I am the sinner, teach me Father don’t insult me please as I have my dignity too.
It should be obvious to all unbiased people that the St John Museum project was treated very much in the public domain as befits any matter of national heritage - so much so that political parties and NGOs exerted successful pressure against it at such an early stage that the project was aborted hastily even before an EIA could be prepared. The people had a right to know and in fact they knew all that was necessary to mount a successful campaign against it.
The present agitation has nothing to do with "letting the people know" or "lack of transparency and accountability". Evidently, it is still only yet another contrived attack, on the flimsiest of pretexts, against the local Church as represented by the Archbishop, the Cathedral Chapter and individual priests.
I don't know why your question is dircted to me. First of all, I am not disputing the fact that generally speaking, the Catholic Church as we know it has always been politically right-leaning. I'm also not disputing the fact that the Vatican did not do enough (or anything at all) to stop such abuses as the right-wing coup in Chile (and the murder - or forced suicide - of democratically elected Salvador Allende), etc, etc.
Yes, it could have been the case of ‘The enemies of our enemies are our friends’, just like the US helped Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran for precisely that reason. But this is all going off-topic.
Just a final comment - if you think I'm a Vatican apologist and a right-winger, you are gravely mistaken. I'm only interested in saying the truth the way I see it.
Is this not a project that is part of the Maltese heritage and the people have the right to know? Was someone against the people knowing the position of the cathedral chapter?
Wouldn’t you like to have civil answers for civil questions?
The issue is not of a confidential nature. We are talking of public property and therefore transparency and accountability are of the essence.
As late as 1870, the Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed a reactionary programme at the first Vatican Council. Convened by the ultraconservative Pope Pius IX. Vatican I loudly condemned modernism, democracy, capitalism, usury, and Marxism. Anti-Semitism was also part of the mix; well into the twentieth century, mainstream Catholic publications set an intolerant tone that later Nazi propaganda would imitate. Anti-Semitism remained conspicuous in mainstream Catholic literature even after Pope Pius XI (1922–1939) officially condemned it.
I ask you my friend- were Franco, Mussolini and Hitler democratic,Marxists and did they love the Jews? Could it be that the church’s attitude towards Fascism had been a case of ‘The enemies of our enemies are our friends’?
What I find even more preposterous in T.Sant's post is demanding to know what goes on between a priest and his Bishop!
@Fr Joe Borg
My statement re the Vatican’s behaviour during WW II was thus: -
“While the Nazis were killing the Jews in gas chambers and committing other war crimes, the Vatican kept numb even though that was carrying a principle to the extreme something which I do not condone.” Isn’t that a historical fact? I also wrote that “I’m not so sure whether during World War II the Vatican and Pius XII behaved in a priestly manner and whether you are in good company in that regard, but I’m sure that you would be in good company with some other previous Popes.” Where is my attack on Pope Pius XII? Aren’t my doubts shared by millions of other people, including fervent Catholics, throughout the world? Were you defending Pope Pius XII or attacking me for associating you with some of the other Popes?
You also made a categorical statement that I also attacked Archbishop Cremona. Would you care to substantiate your accusation and underscore exactly how I attacked or even criticised the Archbishop? It is true that I am somewhat out of synch with the church however I am fully aware of the high esteem enjoyed by Archbishop Cremona.
Probably your reply to "some people (who) criticize Pius XII for not speaking up against the Nazi regime" was not aimed at me, but just to be clear, when I said that the Pope had his hands tied and couldn't speak against the Fascist/Nazi regimes, I certainly do acknowledge that he probably worked "behind the scenes" and might actually have saved thousands of Jews.
Could he have saved more? Now that's a completely different question which I won't even attempt to reply. It is off-topic anyway.
“Even if, for argument's sake only, one were to grant that the Church did not always condemn the reactionary violent resistance of rightist regimes with the same intensity as it condemned the prior provocative violence by communist atheistic regimes.......................,”
Unbelievable...ummi ma. Since you choose to open this can of worms tell us how Salvatore Allende provoked Augusto Pinochet? Did Fidel Castro provoke Fulgencio Battista? Did The Spanish Republicans provoke Franco’s Fascists? And who provoked Benito Mussolini? Explain to me why the Russian Orthodox Church canonised Tsar Nicholas ii (Bloody Nicholas) and the Catholic Church condemned Josef Stalin?
The right wing dictators murdered innocent people in the name of God and Country and were supported and blessed by the church; the communist atheistic regimes murdered in the name of a Godless Country and were condemned by the church.
Salvatore Allende was democratically elected yet he and his anti American Socialist party were savagely opposed by The rightist opposition led by the National Party, the Roman Catholic Church and eventually the Christian Democrats, who were all very instrumental for his assassination which was followed by Pinochet’s dictatorship-the-church’s-friend.
The Church’s heart is on the right.
Don't you feel that you are just a teeny weeny bit presumptious in insisting that you be informed of details regarding the exchanges between the Achbishop and his Cathedral Chapter that are bound to be of a confidential nature? What is your hidden agenda in whipping this dead horse of a project that was abandoned post haste by the Church and civil authorities, even before an EIA was prepared, with the precise intention of avoiding diviseveness?
Part one - Pius XII
When some people criticize Pius XII for not speaking up against the Nazi regime they are invariably referring to John Cornwell's book “Hitler's Pope” (1999). In a striking statement in The Economist (Dec 9, 2004) Cornwell subsequently confesses "I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany.”
Ronald J. Rychlak's Hitler, the War and the Pope (p. 401) is critical as well but defends Pius XII in light of his access to most recent documents. cornwell's scholarship has been criticized. For example, Kenneth L. Woodward stated in his review in Newsweek (The Case Against Pius Xii, Newsweek. September 27, 1999. http://www.newsweek.com/id/89597t) hat "errors of fact and ignorance of context appear on almost every page."
Most recently, Rabbi David Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis (2005) p. 3 argues that critics of Pius are liberal Catholics and ex-Catholics who "exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today" and that Pius XII was actually responsible for saving the lives of many thousands of Jews.
In August 2006 extracts from the 60-year-old diary of a nun of the Convent of Santi Quattro Coronati were published in the Italian press, stating that Pope Pius XII ordered Rome's convents and monasteries to hide Jews during the Second World War.
The following link could help
http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Did%20Pope%20Pius%20XII.pdf
What's the point in signing a treaty disallowing priests from meddling in politics in Nazi Germany if priests were already disallowed from meddling into politics before the treaty?
What exactly is the (your) point that the signing of the treaty proves?
That most of the priests who broke silence supported Mussolini and Franco (if that is the case) further supports my claim that it is that particular treaty that bound them, and nothing else. Those who supported Mussolini and Franco had no problem, since both Mussolini and Franco were fascists, and so the signed treaty did not effect them, since the treaty, in short, only stated the following: Do not oppose the fascists and we (the fascists) will not interfere in anything else that you (the Vatican) do.
You are inadvertently doing Fr Borg a favour drifting away from the original discussion. Fr Borg has a lot to answer for, don't help him get away. I'm pasting some of the questions here for those who do not wish to scroll down. We are waiting for the answers. These questions were originally asked to Mr Buttigieg the Curia spokesman under his letter to The Times. But he has refused to answer them too. Is the Archbishop holding Fr Borg from answering? On what a fine mess Fr Borg has got His Grace in. Here are the questions:
When did the Cathedral chapter decide against the Project? Was the public informed. If yes, When? If not, why?
Is this not a project that is part of the Maltese heritage and the people have the right to know? Was someone against the people knowing the postion of the cathedral chapter? Why? Was the vote unanimous?
Since the Archbishop's delegates on the Church-Government Committee represent his voice on the committee, when did they inform the archbishop about the Project? Did he give them the go-ahaead and if yes on what grounds?
I suggest that for your next blog you tackle a topic that is on the news today : Malta self-sufficient for most vegetables.
I believe it is a safe topic which will not jeopardize your priestly duties. (unless politics, somehow comes into it as well.)
But please, don’t bank on too many posts!!!
Lighten up please! IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY : =)))
My comment regarding the "fudging of issues" was not directed at at anyone else in particular. You agree that there was fudging by others. I was not addressing you. What exactly is the point you are trying to raise unless, of course, it is a case of "Chi si scusa, s'accusa"?
In my comments I could not trace the "conjectures, cliches, platitudes and innuendoes" mentioned by you. By any chance you were not reading one of your own comments rather than one of mine?
I’m not so sure whether during World War II the Vatican and Pius XII behaved in a priestly manner and whether you are in good company in that regard, but I’m sure that you would be in good company with some other previous Popes.
You are still missing my point. I’m not talking about constitutional rights. I’m talking about the prohibitions imposed by the Canon law in spite of the constitutional rights and Fr. Borg is, first and foremost, a priest or so he should be. People have a right to get married; priests forfeit that right because they are priests. So don’t accuse me of muzzling and suppressing the clergy.
The fact that the Vatican kept numb (even though many priests did not) only because of the treaty, signed a decade earlier, binding both the Vatican and the Nazi regime not to interfere into each other's business,just proves my point. And most of the priests who broke silence supported Mussolini and Franco.
. We’re not talking about opinions; we are talking about ‘Political opinions’. The same kind of opinions that the church put brakes on Prof.PP Saydon, Canon Zerafa, Canon Zammit, Fr.Felicjan Bilocca, Fr. Mark Montebello and others whose heart beat on the left.
"Re. Kenneth Cassar 'The Vatican kept numb (even though many priests did not) only because of the treaty, signed a decade earlier, binding both the Vatican and the Nazi regime not to interfere into each other's business.' That proves my point. And most of the priests who broke silence supported Mussolini and Franco".
No, it doesn't prove your point. The Vatican/Hitler thing was only a specific treaty which guaranteed that the Vatican does not meddle in Germany's politics and the Nazis do not persecute Catholics. If it is the case that Catholic priests were disallowed to "meddle into politics" before the treaty, the treaty would not have been necessary.
Since I was quoting you verbatim it would be obvious that when I said that "No one is talking about clerics assuming public office involved in the exercise of political power" etc I meant no one apart from your good self.
Judging from the other responses to your comment it is obvious that I am not the only one who thinks that you are fudging the issue. I did not argue your points - I demolished them - and I have never read a more exhaustive list of cliches than those in your comment.
Part Three
Jesus makes a distinction between the ‘Church’ (there was no established Church as we know it then) and the State when he tells us to give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Even Paul has a lot to say on the Christian and politics. Rom 13 is a case in point ... and it would be well to remember that the authority at the time was Nero!!
The bottom line of my argument is that priests are not excluded from all political activity for the nature of their vocation is also as leaders to guide and enlighten where there is need. In certain circumstances, priests are not only allowed, but even obliged to engage in political action. The 1971 Synod of Bishops states that together with the entire Church, priests are obliged to the utmost of their ability to select a definite pattern of action, when it is a question of the defense of the fundamental human rights, the promotion of the development of persons and the pursuit of peace and justice. This condition is also found in the Code of Canon Law 287 n 2.
It has been Fr Joe’s lot ever since he ever put pen to paper that someone accuses him of meddling in politics. In this blog, we have also been told that Canon Law (Can, 285 n. 3; 287 n. 2) forbids priests from assuming public office that entails participation in the exercise of civil power and to have an active role in political parties. The only side Fr Joe has taken is the Archbishop’s, his Superior. What is sad, though, is that some have taken Fr Joe’s legitimate defense of the Archbishop as an invitation to attack the latter with unbridled gusto.
There is an important distinction to be made that none have yet done so. When a priest/journalist like Fr Joe comments on issues pertaining to the society he lives in, he is not meddling in politics. After all, it is his duty as a Joe Citizen to offer such comments, especially if someone is suffering some sort of injustice, for by definition politics is the total complex of relations between people living in society.
To Fr Joe’s mind, the Archbishop has suffered an injustice and therefore he felt duty-bound to defend him. I hope that no one is decrying his freedom of speech! This same right was defended quite vociferously for the people behind Stitching!
The separation of church and state is not always what it seems to be. People of religion do not have to remain silent when it comes to politics. It can be a source of inspiration for politicians and it can enhance ethical consciousness and behaviour. Therefore, people like Fr Joe and others like him should not be excluded from politics. It is important to make the distinction between politics and the state.
For those among us who are already brandishing the New Testament to cry foul, Jesus himself made this important distinction. His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew can be considered to be a political discourse for there he is showing us that in making the preferential option for the poor we are being just, and what is justice but a major ingredient of politics?
Is this discussion never ending?
How much longer do we have to keep hearing that Fr. Joe is behaving in an unpriestly manner?
Ok! so a priest is a role model but he is not a robot.
He is a human being,same as all of us; subject to failings, same as all of us; with god-given talents, same as all of us; and with the right to make use of his talents, same as all of us.
Now if his talent lies in journalism, how can anyone deprive him from expressing his opinions? And what is there in Malta to talk about if not politics which seems to be the air we breathe - discussing ‘Stitching” was quite a welcome diversion notwithstanding the controversy.
And where have we heard him attacking the Archbishop? I must have missed it!
The problem in Malta lies elsewhere. And deep down in our hearts we all know where.
"While the Nazis were killing the Jews in gas chambers and committing our war crimes, the Vatican kept numb even though that was carrying a principle to the extreme something which I do not condone".
The Vatican kept numb (even though many priests did not) only because of the treaty, signed a decade earlier, binding both the Vatican and the Nazi regime not to interfere into each other's business.
It had nothing to do with individual priests genrally not being permitted to voice political opinions.
I did not miss your point and did not put words in your mouth.
Here is what you said:
"politics and journalism are off limits for a Catholic Priest."
And you persist ... "priests are in duty bound to forsake their constitutional right and refrain from political debates if they want the respect of the faithful."
Instead of refuting what Fr. Borg wrote, you are bashing him simply because he is a priest who, according to your own diktat, should not have written it. Sorry, Charlie, that's pure nonsense.
Fr. Borg is, first and foremost, Citizen Joe Borg. It is not for either you or me to decide whether or not his writings contravene the Church's rules. The Curia can attend to that aspect.
If you disagree with him, or with any priest for that matter, either rebut or shut up. Muzzling him is not an option ... in a democracy.
The dispute is not about any imaginary, unsubstantiated abuse by some priest against the strictures of the Canon Law. It is about the challenged fundamental right and duty of the Church - from H.H. the Pope down to humble priest - to teach what is right and what is wrong. This right and duty of the Church helps the faithful to form an enlightened conscience and an informed choice through which electors and legislators would be able to carry out their civic duties freely and democratically. Clearly that is guidance not imposition. But as soon as any priest, from H.H. the Pope downwads, expresses an opinion on current social issues that happen to be on the agenda of some political party or other he is pounced upon and glibly accused of by the uninformed of infringing Canon Law or the principle of separation of Church from State.
No one is talking about "clerics assuming public office involved in the exercise of political power" or "to have an active place in political parties or trade unions". We are talking about priests having the right and duty to teach what is right or wrong even if the topic is simultaneously being tackled at the political level. Any other interpretation would be unreasonable and undemocratic because it would muzzle the church from teaching what is right and what is wrong in a multitude of social questions.
Precisely because the "priest is a role model" our archbishop and the clergy must resist the partisan political pressure being exerted against them so as to intimidate them into silence and abandoning their duty and their right to teach what is right or wrong.
Even if, for argument's sake only, one were to grant that the Church did not always condemn the reactionary violent resistance of rightist regimes with the same intensity as it codemned the prior provocative violence by communist atheistic regimes, to your satisfaction, it does not follow that the Church should now abandon its duty to teach what is right and what is wrong regarding the new emerging social problems.
Incitement to violence and\or class hatred is illegal for any political party in the civilised world and has to be condemned by all the church included. Ironically however the Vatican did not condemn Mussolini, Franco and Hitler’s atrocities yet the Catholic Church exercised its right and vociferously condemned Communism as well as the extreme left in South America.
I grant you that no one has the right to construe that whatever a priest does, it is done in his capacity as a minister of religion, but people do because to a large portion of the population a priest is a role model
There should be no room for confusion. Priests should not engage in any kind of partisan politics. Under Canon Law, Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power. Priests who involve themselves in politics should be suspended from priestly functions to ensure that there is no confusion between priesthood and politics, thus respecting the separation of church and state.
A corollary provision under Canon Law also holds that clerics “are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labour unions ...”
The Archbishop is your boss and the spiritual leader of the faithful; if you attack the Archbishop you will lose the respect of those who respect you.
You and all of us are in duty bound to defend the Archbishop and the clergy however when they exit the spiritual domain they also expose themselves to criticism. The Infamous Church\Labour dispute of the 1960s was all about people defending the Archbishop and attacking Mintoff versus people defending Mintoff and attacking the Archbishop. I don’t know whether you’d like to see us going back to the 60s to face that potential risk but I do know of some people who would- the beneficiaries, those who will never change.
As for a more succinct statement from me –yes in this regard I think that you are behaving in an unpriestly manner.
Whoever said you are very good at media management is right. Why don't you answer the many questions put to you instead of changing the argument and playing the victim? Writing cliches such as 'some people never change' will not impress anyone, you can maybe point that finger at yourself and carry out a self-examination.
You are missing the whole point and putting words in my mouth. I had never implied that the priests are lesser citizens and that they do not have the same constitutional safeguards like the rest of us. Nor did I suggest that the Priestly Vows of Obedience, Poverty, and Chastity, in any way run counter to the Constitution. Therefore, in that regard, I do not need to rethink my position.
My point, which you missed, is that priests are in duty bound to forsake their constitutional right and refrain from political debates if they want the respect of the faithful. The constitution will protect them if they want to exercise that right but then their duty as ministers of the church would become untenable. Is this so difficult to understand? There is nothing controversial about that, Royalties as well as our Presidents refrain from political debates and controversies.
While the Nazis were killing the Jews in gas chambers and committing our war crimes, the Vatican kept numb even though that was carrying a principle to the extreme something which I do not condone.
No one has the right to "construe" that whatever a priest does, it is done in his capacity as a minister of religion. That is a subtle way of muzzling all priests and deprive them of their constitutional rights of freedom of expression on all sorts of issues. The logical conclusion to your line of reasoning would be the acceptance of the priest's theoretical right to freedom of expression but, in actual practice, he must never exercise it.
As one concrete example, in virtue of his calling a priest is in duty bound to express an opinion against any incitement to violence or class hatred and that duty (and constitutional right) does not disappear simply because violence and class hatred happens to be on the agenda of some political party.
So sorry!!!!
Gave you wrong website. Stupid me!!!
Here it is: www.npgmalta.com
X
Jessica
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It protects the rights of all citizens, priests included. Freedom of speech and expression, is one such right.
The Priestly Vows of Obedience, Poverty, and Chastity, do not, in any way run counter to the Constitution.
In light of the above, you may wish to rethink your position.
While Dr. Dalli's article correctly brings out the political nature of the joint-statement by the Prime Minister and the Archbishop, it would have been better to just laud the gentlemen for stopping the project, and thank them for sparing Parliament from an acrimonious debate.
@JDeB
Fr. Borg's PR skill is evident in that topic. He tried to make the case that divorce does not exist in Malta. Yet, a careful reading of Judge Joseph Azzopardi's decision, in the case of A -vs- B, delivered on July 25th (2008), leaves no room for doubt. Any lawyer, worthy of the title, could use that decision as the basis for Annulment in all cases including those which would normally be considered for Divorce. But it's Malta ... if there is a long, arduous way to achieve a goal, why do it the logical way? Quaint!
Is it fair and reasonable for him to insist that members of the Cabinet should disclose what is said and what happens during their secret and confidential meetings otherwise they would be accused of some nefarious activity?
Is that what an aspirant for the job of a future prime minister would allow for members of any future Cabinet under his leadership if and when the LP wins the next general election?
Does he think that this silliness will endear him to the all-important floating voters and that it improves the prospect of a win at the next general election?
@ Dr Francis Saliba.
A priest’s mission is a 24\7 job with no time out. Whatever they say it is construed as the word of a Church Minister, there is no private life for a minister of God if he wants to be worthy of his priesthood attire.
On the other hand I do appreciate that a priest also enjoys constitutional rights however his first duty is to serve God’s children failing which I would refuse to respect him as a priest. Had you been on the receiving end of the harm done by priests in politics you will, without a shadow of a doubt, see it my way. But the party which you support had been and still is the main beneficiary, so you wouldn’t notwithstanding the harm done to the church.
Hi Franco,
I posted a comment on one of the previous blogs ‘Quaint Happenings Malta Style’ by Fr. Joe Borg, which you might want to have a look at.
You might want to raise a controversy. ;=)))
Or maybe it will help ease up the tension!!!
Jessica
When did the Cathedral chapter decide against the Project? Was the public informed When? If not, why?
Is this not a project that is part of the Maltese heritage and the people have the right to know? Was someone against the people knowing the postion of the cathedral chapter? Why? Was the vote unanimous?
Since the Archbishop's delegates on the Church-Government Committee represent his voice on the committee, when did they inform the archbishop about the Project? Did he give them the go-ahaead and if yes on what grounds?
By throwing in strong asssertive statements , such as "this is untrue" and "My point still stands" Fr Borg shows his expertise in media management, but there are also those who are interested to look for the substance and not just the form.
I know that Fr Borg does not need my advice, but here it is anyway: when you are in a hole stop digging and stop embarrarring His Grace.
Are you now saying that the archbishop is so weak that he would let himself be embroiled in a clear political move? I would rather think that what happened is a combination of both statements (that of Dalli and Spiteri): it was an obvious political move that the archbishop chose to be embroiled in the joint statement. I wouldn't think he was doing it unconsciously, therefore I fail to see where the "total difference" between the two statements lies.
I wonder who was the person or persons who was/were advising the Archbishop to choose to get embroiled in the political move of somene else, maybe Fr Borg can enlighten us?
Expecting priests not to participate in the political dialogue is as undemocratic as expecting the civil service, the armed forces, the Commissioner of Police, the Speaker of parliament, the President of the Republic and other offices that are there to inspire the trust of the general public.
Celibacy goes against nature and it would be extremely undemocratic to impose it, yet if it is an option one voluntarily takes it becomes democratic. Priests have a constitutional right to express their political opinion like you and I however their church membership rules prohibit them from that right like they prohibit them from the natural right to get married. It’s a choice which a priest need to take if they really want to serve the children of God.
If one doesn't agree with what they have to say, then so be it. Rebut their argument(s).
"the archbishop should have publicly said the truth he had told the prime minister in December, ie that the church is against the project" -- Lydia Caruana
"This is absolutely untrue." Fr. Joe Borg
"His Grace wrote to the Prime Minister, expressing his concern regarding the foundation and the project itself, on December 19, 2008, that is, when the project had not yet been pushed into the political controversy." Charles Buttigieg, public relations officer, Archbishop's Curia
It would appear that Ms. Caruana is correct and the good Father is not. More to the point, Fr. Borg seems to be engaging in some good old-fshioned spin doctoring. But hey, it's politics. What else to expect?
It happens to be that the priest is a journalist. Come on! We're in 2009, and ahead of the Vatican Council II.
1) How can Fr Borg say that what L. Caruana wrote is not true? The Curia did not deny what was reported in the Sunday Times i.e. that the archbishop wrote to the PM that "it was not within the competence of the St John Co. Cath. foundation to carry out a major project such as the proposed underground museum". In substance, what this means is the church is against the Foundation carrying out the project.
2) I have no doubt that fr Borg knows that the members of the Cathedral Chapter voted against the project being carried out. A unanimous vote but for that of Mons Calleja who abstained.
3) Lino Spiteri did not write "obvious political move" he wrote "clear political move". It is obviously clear that in substance Dalli and Spiteri were saying the same thing.
4) Lino Spiter also wrote that "the Archbishop, in turn, could have been saved the embarrassment he must surely feel in retrospect.” Maybe you too fr Borg should save the archbishop further embarrassment and stop trying to defend the indefensible.
Part 2.
Good morning!
The strategy used in the run up to the election makes perfect sense. That is true!!
It happens in almost any other competition where candidates, whether worthy or not (generally when not that worthy), put pressure on whoever can push them to where they want to arrive.
It happens quite often in art. How do you think some artists amongst us, have made it big while others of the same ilk (or probably better) still sit in the shadows?
If you have the gift of the gab, the nerve to put pressure on the right buttons, the right connections who can give you the extra impetus, the perseverance to wear down any counter argument, and the subtle scheming technique to get your opponent round to your way of thinking (whether he really believes it or not), you have arrived.
Bravo!!!!
Jessica
Part 1.
“There is a time for every thing, the Bible says. A time for love and a time for war. A time for kissing and a time for punching. A time for wooing and a time for spurning.
Machiavellian would explain it differently. One can woo by pretending to spurn. Or one can get someone to kiss by threatening to punch. Wouldn’t it be better to kiss someone than let him/her punch you? Got that?”
No, sorry! I don’t get it. I can understand, however that ”One can woo by pretending to spurn.” Yes that I can understand - only too well!!!.
But I suppose I am interpreting the above out of the context you mean.
Sorry! Not quite sharp tonight!
See you tomorrow!!!
Continued…
Firstly, I don't agree with Helena Dalli, and even if it were true, I would not write the way she did, in order not to stoke the fire and create more harm than has already (allegedly) been done. But Dalli is a politician and she will have her say, oblivious of the general good, obviously.
However, equally must I show my disdain that a priest should involve himself in such political matters. I am sorry: there's no other way around it. A priest's work brings him out of the sacristy, certainly, but not to the extent that it pushes him into the Maltese political boxing-ring which is, as has been said, a 'dirty' one.
I've had my say.
“Had the foundation reacted properly to the near-unanimous outcry against its proposal, the Archbishop, in turn, could have been saved the embarrassment he must surely feel in retrospect.”
I think that far from being nonsensical Dr Dalli’s article made a very valid point that the archbishop should have publicly said the truth he had told the prime minister in December, ie that the church is against the project and not give a helping hand to the prime minister and say that the project will be abandoned because it was dividing the people. A very clear and no nonsense article to those who want to say things as they are.
“Then came the unexpected crunch. Somehow, Archbishop Paul Cremona, no less, was persuaded to sign a joint statement with the political supremo of the country, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi.”
“Thereby they raised a series of questions. The most basic of these are: Why did it take the Archbishop to be embroiled in a clear political move to sink the proposal?”
“The motion, had it been debated, could have proved embarrassing for the government. By joining hands with the Prime Minister, the Archbishop helped to avoid that political embarrassment.”
You see, this is the problem for Labour. On the course of five years they try to associate themselves with all that are against the government, even if this goes against their policies. Is Labour in favour or against the project? If it is against, then why this attack on the Archbishop for the withdrawal of the project? They should thank the Archbishop for taking note of their's and other cries and withdraw the project, if Labour is really against the project.
Going against their policies? Yes they are, only 12 months ago these people were suggesting cutting off Valletta as an island so that gondolas can pass from Sa Maison to Valletta Waterfront underneath City Gate bridge!!! So for Labour extending existing tunnels to house a museum, well that's monstrosity...and cutting off Valletta as an island, well that's the real project that will enhance Malta's product...Credibility is the key dear.
It seems that politics in Malta is destined to remain immature.
We create problems to widen the rift between the two sides. (And how naïve of me! I had thought that things were getting better.)
“No doubt, this unnecessary hand-holding between the Archbishop and the Prime Minister has sounded alarm bells to those who have been there before. It is a pity that, by letting himself get involved in this way, the Archbishop has reopened a wound for some practising Catholic Labourites and others who appreciate the secularity of state.”(Monday, 23rd February 2009 “A quondam wound reopened”)
Dear Hon. Helena Dalli, although you must know that we do not wave the same colours , however, I have great respect for you, but hearing the above statement has set me back a little. We do not want a repeat of the times when you were probably still too young to feel the full impact of what your statement, if taken seriously, could once again start in motion.
Regarding the Archbishop, I'm with you on this one (see, the secularists are not that bad - I've already agreed with you on two issues lately).
The way I see it, you can never win with certain politicians (unless, of course, you take their side - and THAT would seem partisan, wouldn't it?).
One could argue that the Prime Minister, perhaps realising his position was untenable, chose "damage limitation" and used the "non-division" issue as an excuse. Or maybe not.
But where the Archbishop is concerned, I think that once the issue was settled (the project was halted), the "non-division" reason is perfectly understandable and reasonable. The Archbishop is not a politician.
I'm with the Archbishop on this one. The alternative would have been either siding with the PL or with the PN. He chose the middle (unifying) way, seeing that it obtains the same result without irritating the reasonable. Of course, some will find fault in anything, more so when finding faults , even if imaginary, might win votes.