Thursday, 12th March 2009
When the priests go barging in
The bad news is that the state of the priestly vocation in Malta is in a mess, at least according to a number of well-cultured citizens of the Republic. The worse news is that THEY have taken over broadcasting.
Prepare yourself to be shocked.
A certain reverend with the name of Joe Borg has been identified as the chief pornographer of the Island. He unwittingly revealed his evil perversion while trying to banalise a fantastic play on TV! What a cheek! L-anqas jaf jisthi! If he speaks porn in public, imagine what he does in private! Defrock the b****** now!
The clerical establishment and its faithful lap dogs always projected Rev Prof Peter Serracino Inglott as the wisest of them all. Now it has turned out that the intelligence of this professor is a myth. Prof Serracino Inglott had the cheek to write that Howard Benton’s play about St Paul had practically no value bar that of offending the Maltese. How shallow! You got it wrong professor. The play is, in fact, a strong and vigorous meditation on how we still need the Pauline Christian philosophy in an increasingly secular world. Anyone with a milligram of intelligence and a few catechism classes could have seen the great catechetical and evangelising value of this play.
These shocking revelations about these two so-called priests were made by Chris Gatt the General Manager of St James Cavalier. Mr Gatt said more. Borg and Serracino Inglott are muggers. Pictures of them lurking in dark corners hitting old women and cultural general managers on their heads and in other places as well immediately come to mind. Awful! Disgusting!
If you are shocked prepare yourself for the worst one of the lot.
Reverend Prof Emanuel Agius who hails from Qrendi has just carried out a coup d’etat, or so it would seem to anyone reading Kennth Zammit Tabona in The Times of March 10. This youngish rouge from Qrendi (the professor and not KZT, the whistle blower), it would seem, stormed Parliament armed with the little grey matter that he garnered from the half dozen or so Universities where he studied. He ordered the honourable members to stop dragging their feet about assisted reproduction. They should not waste time in study or reflection. All they had to do was to go to the Curia and receive from the ecclesiastical warlords the draft of the necessary legislation. Aguis banged his hand on the Parliamentary table exclaiming: Ma qui commanda l’vescovo. Following this shrill crescendo, it seems, he dutifully gave a two-fingered salute to the statue of democracy, which graces Parliament. Few people know that the intolerant bigot from Qrendi has already commissioned an ecclesiastical tailor to fashion a female religious habit for the scantily clad statue.
This is a victory for decency.
Don’t take any of this too lightly. Agius is a member of the prestigious bio-ethics consultative committee of the European Union. Will Brussels be the victim of his next coup? KZT please alert the European Commission.
I differ, and aggressively so, from one point mentioned in the erudite musings of Mr Kenneth Zammit Tabona. He opines that “it seems as if Malta is being run by a bunch of Catholics Brahmins.” Brahmins my foot! Such rogues as Agius and the Curia cronies should only be compared to the Taliban – though the latter are far less intolerant than the former.
It’s good that these scoundrels have now been outed and ousted. Borg will be sent on perpetual retreat to a desert monastery where he will be able to see nothing but holy pictures, Serracino Inglott will be sent to a skola tan-nuna run by Chris Grech and Agius will be frozen in the midst of one hundred thousand frozen embryos.
The bad news is that this is not just a question of three upstart priests. There is an epidemic of arrogant priests as very ably documented in Prof Mark-Anthony Falzon’s expose in The Sunday Times. The heading of the piece encapsulates their arrogance: Let me through, I am a priest. They pretend li jibilghu id-dinja although they have so far only succeeded in jibilghu Maltese TV. The clerical invasion of TV space was bared for all to see in the terrific broadside that Dr Raphael Vella published one week before. It seems that the root of all evil lies in the perverse compulsion of Maltese TV presenters to invite priests to offer us moral advice on virtually every topic under the sun and the moon as well.
Let all the Peppone’s of this Island rally together to finally banish these frocked, cocksure, sanctimonious moralisers. The Peppone’s have nothing to loose but their chains.
(Now off to Mater Dei to distance my tongue from my cheek. A little humour does not harm anyone. Or will the above quoted brigade opt to censor me finding the Mickey a dash too offensive?)
It’s the context stupid
The above caricatures in part some of what these gentlemen wrote, but the piece is close enough for the readers to get the drift of the various arguments presented. One particular argument deserves an answer couched in tones that are more serious. I refer to the number of accusations levelled against thanks to my quoting form Stitching during my participation in Xarabank.
One of the ploys being used by the producers of the play to give a completely false description of its contents. They started by saying that the play was banned because it discusses abortion. When this bubble was burst, they claimed that it was just about the breakdown of a relationship, giving the impression that all those who had read the script had failed to understand it.
When on Xarabank I brought out, in no uncertain terms, the true nature of the play, they made a false appeal to context. In so doing, they hoped to mitigate the cruelty and perversity which saturate the play from beginning to end. While claiming that they have no intention of changing a single comma of the text, they are now using interpretation as an excuse, to make people believe that there is nothing obscene or offensive about it.
The producers have tried to depict the members of the Classification Board as a bunch of incompetent readers who can’t understand the sublime message the play is trying to convey. They have attempted to dilute its contents by giving an erroneous picture of what it says.
Rather than trying to do this, they should have had the courage or their convictions to admit that the play is highly offensive and yet claim the right to stage it regardless. People who have not read the play might be fooled into believing that there is nothing gruesome or morbid about it. But, as one critic has put it, “If it’s a cleverly told story about everyday life, why go the extra mile to make it revolting?”
The play has been described as “sick” even by those who argued against its banning. Its local apologists, on the contrary, have wanted the general public to believe that it is merely a love story gone wrong.
A simple rule governing interpretation states that first you have to see what the words mean, rather than saying what you would like them to mean. Xarabank viewers could sample the artistic delicacies the play has to offer. They could also witness the producers’ desperate antics to cast a cloak of respectability over the corpse that emerged. In spite of their gallant efforts, one particular guest, a young lawyer, could not bring herself to read a particularly gruesome passage from the text, and the presenter had to do it himself.
In their vain attempt to justify their choice and heap abuse on the Classification Board, the producers had the temerity to draw parallels between Stitching and such masterpieces as Euripides’ Medea and Shakespeare’s Macbeth. One would expect people with their theatre credentials to know better.
RSS
Comments
Part 2.
“This leaves us with another million dollar question of ....which came first.. the chicken or the egg? does the artist have the right to define art or do the establishments define what art should qualify to be as such??”
As you rightly say, “art is culture”, - art reflects the time during which it is produced. Many facets of the human condition contribute to the development of art: our imagination which can take us anywhere; our behaviour, whether noble or decadent; our fears of hell and damnation or our hopes for eternal life.
There is no clear cut definition for Art. It is a philosophic question which has often been argued.
However, I tend to believe that it is often the art critics who set the trend. They have a great responsibility towards artists in general, but they are humans with their particular likes and dislikes and therefore, it is debatable how objective they could be.
Part 1.
“The question is this: Do transgressive works, deserve to qualify as art? Is it fair to censor/allow works which border on the profane/pornographic etc? Can they be allowed in order to provide catharsis? Or treated as the forbidden fruit which will be tasted anyway?”
Hi Sharon! Glad you’re asking some challenging questions. I will try to give my views.
Transgressive works can be very valid as works of art.
If an artist is commissioned to produce works to cater to the base nature of man, he has the mental ability and the mastery of his tools to do a very good job of it. History of art is peppered with such works of art produced by well known artists, however, most of these works can best be described as erotic rather than pornographic, and sometimes their true nature is disguised behind subtle symbolisms, but I do not exclude the fact that blatant pornography was also produced for private delectation and such work also, would definitely qualify as art.
If works only “border on the profane/pornographic” they could escape censorship, however, hard-core pornographic works, if brought out for public display, deserve to be censored accordingly.
continued...
The idea of elevating a usually degrading object (the urinal) was taken to its limits and sometimes twisted by successive artists.
Serrano by using urine not only challenged the parameters of the materials used (as being unconventional), but he also degraded the image of Christ (outside its religious context). Had he put Buddha inside he would have had the same outrage from the Hindus (hopefully also from Christians :) ). Mettle or no mettle the ‘do not even go there’ rules have been challenged very differently by Serano form Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ in my opinion.
The question is this: Do transgressive works, deserve to qualify as art? Is it fair to censor/allow works which border on the profane/pornographic etc? Can they be allowed in order to provide catharsis? Or treated as the forbidden fruit which will be tasted anyway? Ma nafx? Honestly ma nafx? You tell me?:)
This leaves us with another million dollar question of ....which came first.. the chicken or the egg? does the artist have the right to define art or do the establishments define what art should qualify to be as such??
Art reflects culture.
Serrano’s art challenges convention and the established order, and it does not do it in the same manner as Michelangelo’s. Serrano’s art challenges more than just the Christian sentiments; he outraged various members of the public including the senate in the US in 1989. I do not intend to get into a discussion of whether I see it as art, (a photo of which gives the impression of being such before one knows what materials were used, and its name). Sure it offends my religious sentiments! (I let God be the judge for Serrano’s morals according to his intentions) it probably offends a non religious viewer for mere disgust on seeing urine on display. Serrano challenged established conventions namely that the crucifix, besides its formal qualities and materials, is also a ‘representation’ of the Son of God for the Christians. The latter and human waste do not by convention go together, let alone be regarded as art! Duchamp only challenged the objectivity of the object and its perception (without challenging any moral issues), plus its possibility of turning it into an ‘objet trouve art work’ which became very popular at the time.
I would like to point out two things:
1 I did not address my comment to neither you nor Mr Martin Portelli, specifically because I see validity in both your arguments. I simply contributed my opinion, while remarking that the two opinions/approaches (yours and Mr Portelli’s) can co-exist however there will always be negatives and positives.
2. The art I was referring to was art in its totality ie also including performance (being part of Fr Joe’s blog)/ theatre/film/photography, and all that falls under the umbrella of art.
I absolutely agree that an artist has to know the academic basics prior to venturing into new ‘unorthodox’ grounds, and eventually break those same rules in order to make a difference. All the geat artists did:)
However one must keep in mind that Michelangelo did NOT challenge other established rules, except artistic ones, not even those of the church, as for instance Caravaggio did with his lack of decorum. My argument was mainly regarding the dangerous threading of grounds where the established norms/order (within a given community) and not just pertaining to art rules is challenged.
cont...
I know, but I suspect that he really believes that all secularists believe in freedom of speech while denying that same freedom of speech to the Catholic Church. I get that impression from following his other contributions.
I only wished to clear up the fact that this is not so.
Of course, if I have the wrong impression of K Pullicino, he is of course free to correct me - freedom of speech and all ;)
Which adjective do you object to , pretty, grotesque, cynical or free?
There is no ulterior motivation save discussion. Yes agreed, creativity is not endowed or applied in equal measure and one can question technical ability & artistic execution as well. You do choose however, to quote Karl Zinsmeister and Barzun 'to buttress' your argument against 'Filth'. Unlike Barzun and Zinsmeister , I do reject the fearful belief that Democracy will undermine social 'order,' hence the political proscription of ART and Culture is not an option.
Part 3
Jackson Pollock, with his huge canvases laid flat on the floor and his sort of tribal dance as he dripped paint onto them was giving more importance to the act of painting than the finished product. His fame as an abstract Expressionistic painter, probably owes more to the art critic Clement Greenberg who took it upon himself to promote him than to the actual greatness of his work.
What I can’t digest is seeing so called art connoisseurs, stand in front of a work of art which leaves them utterly cold, and they try to convince themselves that it must be good only because the authorities (art critics) have said so
Part 2.
Marcel Duchamp, the French artist who decided to show a ‘urinal’ (ready-made) in an exhibition, was not making great art but he was an artist who veered away from established rules. He was the one to give later artists the impetus to try their hand at anything for, as he saw it, if you are an artist than whatever you declare as art, is art. But, and this is important, you have to be an artist first, and than you have the license to challenge and change the rules. Notwithstanding he also said that his ready -mades were not art but anti-art
Continued…
It’s nice of you to laud Dr. Saliba and Mr.Franco Farrugia; you should now follow their good example.
During your ‘The Predictable and Nonsensical’ blog you made a categorical statement in that I attacked Archbishop Cremona, I had asked you to substantiate your accusation and to underline exactly how and when I attacked or even criticised the Archbishop. In spite of my repeated appeal to clear my name you chose to ignore me, then Dr. Francis Saliba, animated by the love for the Church, came out to defend you and to hurl further insults towards me.
Do you call this love for the church? What do you consider as The Church, its spirit or the bricks and Mortar of the Vatican? Don’t I also deserve a civil reaction from a person who tried to tarnish my reputation even though I’m not in perfect synch with his ideology?
BTW I don’t think that a reply like “Your retraction........only came about after you learnt that I was taking immediate steps to sue you for libel. Of course that does not exclude that you may also have had some pricking of your conscience.....” could be considered as sport .
Part 1.
“…the human’s innate desire to challenge the established rules even if the consequences are that of sliding into the chaos which prevailed before the establishment of that order.”
Yes the innate desire to challenge the established rules has been the driving force behind the evolution of art and if the artist is not of the kind of mettle who can break the established rules and come out victorious, (such as - to mention an extreme case and a well-known great master - Michelangelo and his work “The Last Judgement”, where he was veering away from the Renaissance and into Mannerism), than unfortunately his work will only be remembered as a ‘Bravura’ aimed to convince but with not enough clout to make any difference. In such a case art can only be referred to as a decadent art.
Continued….
"I think it would be best to remind you that in this age of 'Freedom of Expression', you cannot mention anything that comes close to referring to "God", "The Church", "Morals", "Ethics" or 'You cannot', among other things"
Why not?
"...because it goes against Freedom of Expression".
No it doesn't.
Some of us find this ‘testing of limits’ intriguing and others do not, some believe that are mature enough to handle it and some are not, some require it to be a right to allow this kind of freedom of expression while some do not. I do not think it is my right to decide who pertains to which group, but I believe that it is a matter of supply and demand, (based on many aspects of the human being), together with the human’s innate desire to challenge the established rules even if the consequences are that of sliding into the chaos which prevailed before the establishment of that order. Some find protection within the confines of religious or social morals while others believe that they are immune. Some recipes have stood the test of time while others have not.
It would suffice to say that the impressionist were considered radicals at their time!
cont....
Fr. Joe,
should I apologize to Franco as well? But I am afraid he might snub me. And I probably deserve it.
@ Franco:
Anyway Franco, if you will accept it, I apologize
Jessica
Martin, I am as much against the pretty, chocolate box type of art as you apparently are. In fact I find that type of art too sickeningly sweet and I see it as the other extreme to what we have been discussing. What I find strange, however, is why you keep on throwing those adjectives at me almost as if I am propagating that type of art. Nowhere have I given any indication that I might find pretty pictures pleasing. Please check!
I guess homophobic,intolerant name calling = respect deserving views, whereas articles by by KZT and Prof M.A.Falzon are paranoid and risible.
I think it would be best to remind you that in this age of "Freedom of Expression", you cannot mention anything that comes close to referring to "God", "The Church", "Morals", "Ethics" or "You cannot", among other things, because it goes against Freedom of Expression.
Mr Farrugia showed maturity by apologising and Dr Saliba showed maturity by accepting the apology.
Let the debate continue .
Your retraction of the accusation that I am a hypocritical Pharisee doing the opposite of what I preach only came about after you learnt that I was taking immediate steps to sue you for libel. Of course that does not exclude that you may also have had some pricking of your conscience. I now consider the matter as closed.
I addressed my comment to you because it was my reply to your question, specifically address to me, " ...what do you consider wrong with a homosexual to be a good Catholic?" and your declaration that you know homosexual priests who are good Catholics. Had you forgotten?
Part 3.
But even today, Serrano admits, “I don’t know much about photography.” Even though developing is as big a part of the photographic art as composing and shooting, he acknowledged being incapable of printing his own compositions; he sends his film out to others to interpret and finish. “I don’t like to do any manipulation. Not even cropping,” he said.
Lacking skills which allow some photographers to turn the everyday into art, Serrano has instead been forced to rely on extreme subject matter to gain attention. When I heard him speak he was just finishing a particularly hideous series of photos of dead bodies stored in an undisclosed morgue. One was a closeup of a female shotgun suicide. Another series was of a man who had been hacked to death by his wife. There was a shot of an eight-year-old dead from meningitis, a gruesomely decomposed drowning victim, and a decapitated woman.
Admittedly, Serrano stands on the front edge of artistic decadence. But he is a highly celebrated and in many ways representative member of today’s art establishment.)
www.freerepublic.com
Part 2.
I shall buttress my argument with the following quotes from ‘When Art becomes Inhuman’ by Karl Zinsmeister
(………..the trendy shock-artist Andres Serrano, who burst onto the scene with his photo of a statue of Christ immersed in urine.
I heard Serrano lecture at Cornell University several years ago, and got to ask him some questions. What struck me most was how little artistry there was in the artist. He explained quite frankly that his training consisted of less than two years of perfunctory classes at the Brooklyn Museum of Art School, where he found that “I couldn’t paint or sculpt at all.” He then became heavily involved in drugs for a decade. At age 28 he decided that photography was something he could handle.
Before long he was photographing a calf’s head on a pedestal, someone dressed as a Catholic Cardinal standing next to a bound and bleeding nude woman, Christ’s head atop the bloody skinned body of a goat, a dead coyote dangling from a hangman’s noose, and close-ups of his wife’s used menstrual pads. He became a celebrity artist.
continued.....
Part 1.
“Violence, oppression, moral degredation can hardly be wished away by producing pretty pictures to hang on the wall……You also assume that Art's sole purpose is Aesthetic pleasure.”
In no way do I assume that Art’s sole purpose is Aesthetic pleasure or producing pretty pictures. What I am contesting is the fact that some works produced nowadays, besides portraying “filth”, lack technical skill.
Violence, oppression, and moral degradation have often been portrayed in art, and not limited to contemporary art either.
Just to mention a couple of works:
Artemisia Gentileschi, a 17th century woman artist who had been raped, portrayed herself as Judith in a number of powerful works depicting the ‘Beheading of Holofernes’. Her hatred for men was poured out into these powerful works.
Kathe Kollwitz, an early twentieth century artist, in a series of engravings titled ‘The Weaver’s Uprising’ makes a passionate appeal on behalf of working women at the time.
Her work was so powerfully effective that the Kaiser refused to give her the gold medal she had won.
continued......
Some things I got in return - discriminated at school by my religion teacher and risked my career prospects; discriminated in my ex-place of work by my boss who was a fanatic catholic; rejected by a family member and even been called "satanist"; not to mention how many times people look at me with an angry face and misjudge me just because I don't do some of the pagan and symbolic rituals that they do. Praise the catholic country!
Not an awful lot of Maltese Catholics are aware that the Quran recognises Jesus Christ as a prophet. Muslims actually believe that Jesus had been sent to guide the Children of Israel with a new scripture, the Quran believed by Muslims to be God's final revelation, states that Jesus was born to Mary as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God To aid him in his quest, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles, all by the permission of God. According to Islamic texts, Jesus was neither killed nor crucified, but rather he was raised alive up to heaven., Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim, as he preached for people to adopt the straight path in submission to God's will. Islam rejects that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God, stating that he was an ordinary man who, like other prophets, had been divinely chosen to spread God's message.
Personally I would rather accept the basic teachings of the Christian Holy Bible
Like Jesus, Mother Theresa’s mission was to care for the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.
This is what His mission on earth was all about not to build a mega structure and call it the Vatican where His successor and the Cardinals crown themselves as Princes of the Church and enjoy diplomatic immunity.
I don’t know why you addressed your comment re homosexuality to me because I never said that the Church condemns that trait. I also agree in principle that it condemns indulging in homosexual acts. I am also against same sex marriage and concubines. In fact I am a very traditional person who strongly believes that marriage is only between a male and a female till death us do part with the ultimate goal to procreate. I am also anti divorce and against sex out of marriage. I also respect the Church for propagating these values. Having said this at the risk of sounding hypocritical, it doesn’t mean that I agree with the Church if it tries to use undue pressure to push our legislators to deny a different lot of sexual and matrimonial values. No more no less.
The Church does not condemn the homosexuality trait - it condemns indulging in homosexual acts just as no one should be allowed to steal because he/she is a kleptomaniac.
Re my last, the last sentence should read ‘I know a number of priests that are extremely dedicated to the Catholic Church and some of them are homosexuals and honour their vow of celibacy scrupulously.’
Although Fr Borg's blog dealt in large part with what you had said, my own original comment did not refer at all to anything you said – just re-read my comment more calmly and digest it properly.
“Sexual deviation” includes many varieties of sexual aberrations and I used that term deliberately so that no paranoid homosexual would be justified to think that I was referring to him. When I wrote my comment I had no knowledge of your own sexual orientation. Even so an intelligent reader of my original comment would realise that I did not criticise all homosexuals, all atheists, all agnostics or all lapsed Catholics. I only criticised a “noisy minority” among them who notoriously seize on any opportunity to deviate from the subject of all blogs to castigate the Catholic faith and anything connected with it. There is fair constructive criticism that is praiseworthy and there is destructive criticism that is not indulged in by anyone who really “loves” Christianity.
Being yourself has nothing to do with pride, and not being ashamed to proclaim openly your beliefs (or non-beliefs) is a laudable trait. What's to be pitied is when someone cannot think for himself or is afraid of saying what he really believes if that goes contrary to recieved dogma.
As most of the blog dealt with what I said one cannot but conclude that you included me in the equation. I am not a sexual deviant althouth I am homosexual something I have no hang ups about. As foir being either a lapsed Catholic, an athiest or an agnostic; that is belied by the fact that I am preparing to go to Sunday mass. As Fr Borg rightly pointed out one need not be any of those things to criticise the Church
I rest my case
The Catholic Church today is too materialistic to be called Christian. I am not a homosexual or an atheist or agnostic I am a heterosexual Christian (if that has anything to do with it ) yet I can still it. Incidentally, what do you consider wrong with a homosexual to be a good Christian?
I know a number of priests that are extremely dedicated to the Catholic Church.
Today He would again speak truth and this would disturb our daily illusions and misconceptions about life and being a good Christian, so we would rather kill him again than accepting the truth.
I believe that Spiritualism is within us and we do not need Constitutional articles to protect what we believe in. Before God we are all seen as equal and we do not need Cardinals and Bishops with special privileges to teach us canon laws, we need true and honest spiritual leaders who live the life of Christ.
Does what I believe makes me a lapsed Catholics, a sex deviant, an atheists or agnostics who would take every possible occasion to denigrate the Catholic religion?
You wrote that “Perhaps good Catholics criticise the Church more than others since they know more about the Church than others and love her more”.
Please consider the possibility that those who defend the Church may be just as knowledgeable as its critics and could quote many more instances where the actions of the Church, taken out of the context of the time when they were committed, would not be acceptable by the standards of today. However these defenders of the Church would think twice before flaunting these remote failings so as not to delight of those who would harm the Church. Even at the cost of being wrongly accused of being ignoramuses.
If for example , the egg of the woman is fertilised by a donor (not the husband) , wouldn't this mean that the end justifies the means? Would it really save a marriage? What are the implications on the child's life when he will get to know that his real father is a donor Wouldn't he think that his mother had an affair with his biological father?
I'd rather have Professor Agius from Qrendi heading the Bioethics committee rather than a good writer and artist who's main guiding light is Macchiavelli.
Obviously, this runs contrary to what the Church teaches. So, what do we do with this book? Burn it? Ban it? Put the author in jail for going against the "religious sentiment"?
Priests have always been barging in on the privacy of the individual. So what? The Constitution empowers them to do exactly that. They are acting according to what the Constitution expects of them: teaching what is right and what is wrong.
Critisizing priests is an exercise in futility. Go after the Members of Parliament. Pressure them to amend the Constitution and the Criminal Code to reflect Malta's modern pluralistic reality.
In a democracy, Church and State do not mix.
I'll assume you are alluding to contemporary art. Why art should only reflect a sanitised version of humanity is subject to discussion. Without embarking on a dead treatise of what constitutes art , one has to acknowledge that the dark aspects and traits of humanity are hard to ignore, they have not and will not disappear. Violence, oppression, moral degredation can hardly be wished away by producing pretty pictures to hang on the wall, by bowdlerising art or refusing to discuss unsavoury realities.
Why should one fear to engage as an active participant in building meaning? Allusions to 'Clear meaning' assumes that this 'meaning 'is somehow transmitted in a pure and unadulterated form in turn implying passivity '. You also assume that Art's sole purpose is Aesthetic pleasure.
Aesthetically pleasing forms might not always be amenable to highlight those issues that may be oppressive, violent, unjust, demeaning etc but are unfortunately still upheld by orthodox culture.
If one looks at the issue of women in society for instance,had a space not been established for moral, ethical and democratic discussion (at least in Western Christian cultures) than women would be still be viewed from the Judeo-Christian perspective of being mutilated males, irrational, hardly able to form an opinion and having just one functional use . This can still be seen in other cultures who haven't as yet engaged this process. There really shouldn't be such hysterical caterwauling if someone points out the obvious, where is the harm in that? Why any criticism of the clergy needs to be labelled 'anti clericalism' is rather irrational and smacks of insecurity. I will assume that the clergy in Malta are compassionate Christians who rather value the dialogue between Reason and Faith than percieve Maltese society as a fragmented list of witless, deviant minorities.
I also doubt one can claim that the Maltese church ever was silent/silenced regarding civil matters, our history proves that .
The attack on authority, the ridicule of anything established, the distortions of language and objects, the indifference to clear meaning, the violence to the human form, the return to the primitive elements of sensation ... have made Modernism at once the mirror of disintegration and an incitement to extending it.”
“The twentieth-century writer is by nature anti-social. He despises his audience,” concludes Barzun. That’s why so many of them neglected clear syntax, were unnecessarily obscure, and created ugly, graceless works.
www.freerepublic.com
I will close with quotes from ‘When Art becomes Inhuman’ by Karl Zinsmeister
Obscene language and bizarre pornography have grown like mold over much modern art. Images of Presidents and religious leaders have been defiled. Sadistic rituals like razor-cut bloodlettings have been dressed up as “performance art.” Novel writers and film and theater producers have started selling voyeurism, drugs, homosexuality, and pedophilia to middle- Americans at the mall, instead of leaving these things to patrons of peep shows and trendy art galleries.
This is the high art of today. Critic Jacques Barzun calls it “anti-art.” It ridicules, it desecrates, it celebrates vileness, it rejects all rules, conventions, and decencies. “It attacks everything by dislocating everything…. The cruel, the perverse, the obscene, the ‘sick’ [are] increasingly taken for granted as natural and normal.”
…..unless a piece of art is ‘disturbing,’ ‘cruel,’ ‘perverse,’ it is written off as not merely uninteresting but contemptible.” Tame. Outdated. Reactionary.
continued.....
‘Stitching’ the play, will be staged, and to a full house, possibly with extra performances fitted in to accommodate the demand after such an extensive publicity, albeit negative, has engendered. It will be staged if only because we are obsessed with the idea of not wanting to be regarded as a backward country. We must shed our provincial mentality!!! We must not lag behind!!!
The producers will be applauding themselves and openly acknowledging the favour that the media had conveniently done them.
Curiousity and the perverse streak in man will propel many to go and watch it and the curious and preserve streak in others will make them wait for the reviews hoping for a negative one. But most probably it will not get the negative reviews that they expect or wish for, for most critics are renowned for priding themselves as being avant-garde and anything that is not mainstream will automatically find favour with them, immaterial whether it rates it or not.
Continued….
Sex deviants, atheists, lapsed Catholics etc...all thrown in the same basket. Very Christian-like indeed...I'd like to know Fr Borg's own opinion on that statement.
I was a Roman Catholic too you know. People who speak like you helped me find my way out!
My objection was not to the sexual orientation or to the irreligiousity of any individual but to any person allowing his personal inclination to overrule better judgement and become involved in any campaign to denigrate the Catholic Church.
'These people are an assorted collection of lapsed Catholics, sex deviants, atheists, agnostics ...' This assertion verges on the libellious. Secondly, I invite Francis Saliba to take a closer look at this morning's international news from the US and the Roman Catholic Church's problems there - then, he should speak about 'sex deviants'!
'...their motivation being that this religion cannot be expected to change just to accomodate them.' I don't think this is the case: people just don't want the RCC hierarchy to control the State, through careful, disguised and subtle coersion on its leaders, that's all. A lot to ask for?
'... They should not be allowed to hijack most blogs by monotonously dragging in their anticlerical propaganda irrelevantly whatever the subject of the blog.' Again, this is an attack on freedom of expression and the right to one's own opinion. Is this man the same as the one who writes in favour of a Party that prides itself with having brough freedom back to our country?
Faults of some of its members are exaggerated and the wealth of good works and values it still instils in our society are downplayed.
Whilst I do not always agree with his views, it is refreshing to observe trenchant priests like Fr. Joe Borg not being afraid to proclaim the beliefs and position of the church. For this he has to suffer the intolerance of a vocal minority who think that they have the right to impose their imagined modern views and mores on a silent majority.
The only way the vatican can win back any integrity is by giving every cent it has to the poor and stop parading its' riches!
While I am a member of the Catholic church, and would not go to see the play, I refuse to be told what I am allowed and not allowed to see! I have my age, know my tolerance and acceptance border, and can be trusted to make up my own mind, thanks. Why should a work of fiction not be allowed? Sure, it may offend some. They have been warned - they can choose NOT to watch it! I don't really think the church has to have a say in everything - Malta is not church-run and should not become so. The basic principles of the church do not include interference in everything; the human mind is capable of making its own informed decisions. If I know the content of the material that I am about to view, and I know that it will offend me, I will simply not go to see it. But being banned from viewing it? What is this - dictatorship? A handful of people should not be allowed to decide what should be banned from the general public - we are not puppets on a string!
Think nothing of it. I expect nothing less from holier-than-thou's (such as your kind self) who profess their Catholic faith, yet ignore completely the very basics of Christian charity. I am used to such pharisees and have nothing else to add.
This papacy has been peppered with gaffes and misunderstandings, about the Crusades, about homosexuality and pedophilia, about IVF, and those are the ones we know about.
I stand by the opinions expressed in my article The Name of the Rose and wish to assure all these papadins of the catholic faith that I am no less enamoured of it than they are.
Jesus's mission of earth was one that was hallmarked by one thing and one thing only COMPASSION. If he was really the Son of God and I firmly belive he was, his will was oriented entirely towards those people who had fallen victim to the caprices of Life. He cured the possessed, the lame, the blind and raised at least two people from the dead; lazarus and the son of the widow of Naim. He walked about with zealots, tax collectors and fishermen and was rarely seen in the company of the rich and powerful, still less the pious Pharisees and Levites.............He did not like them very much to be quite honest and I can see why!
Can't you?
It is extraordinary how people generalise and make sweeping statements about others, especially me! As soon as I write anything that is too close to the bone I am accused of being an ignoramus.
I will stand to be accused of alot of things but NOT an ignoramus, per carita'!
I have my opinion which has been formed by 52 years of experience built on a Jesuitical education. I know my history, bith ecclesiastical and not and I do know my cathecism; or at least I think I did till many of the modifications and liberalisations that came about with Vatican 2 started disappearing.
It was when the previous Pope started questioning the rehabilitation of Limbo towards the end of his pontificate that I started suspecting a concerted effort to reverse Vatican 2 was under way and I was right. The result was the election of Cardinal Ratzinger. I di not recall ever having heard a cardinal declare an electoral manifesto as Benedict XVI did
It is extraordinary how people generalise and make sweeping statements about others, especially me! As soon as I write anything that is too close to the bone I am accused of being an ignoramus.
I will stand to be accused of alot of things but NOT an ignoramus, per carita'!
I have my opinion which has been formed by 52 years of experience built on a Jesuitical education. I know my history, bith ecclesiastical and not and I do know my cathecism; or at least I think I did till many of the modifications and liberalisations that came about woith Vatican 2 started disappearing.
It was when the previous Pope started questioning the rehabilitation of Limbo towards the end of hios pontificate that I started suspecting a concerted effort to reverse Vatican 2 was under way and I was right. The result was the election of Cardinal Ratzinger. I di not recall ever havibng heard a cardinal declare an electoral manifesto as Benedict XVI did .....contd
Hey Franco, I must have touched a sore point!
How you flare up!!!
PS. I fail to see what is so devastatingly humorous about hailing from Qrendi and being less than young! In the mood to blast us all are you?
I have absolutely never tried intimidating anyone, let alone a member of the gentler sex, however 'ungentle' she may be!
Indeed, I prefer the 'law of the jungle' than a Roman Catholic-style taliban regime. But hey, why go to the other extreme and have the 'law of the jungle'? You mentioned the 'law of the jungle'. I never advocated such a thing.
I am very glad that I am creating a diversion from your 'usual routine'. At least, it serves for something.
So, I am 'eager to put the Church into a bad light', am I not? I doubt that very much. Various contributors and the Church authorities are doing fine work at it themselves and certainly don't need 'moi' to do the work for them.
@Franco Farrugia:
Part 2
“It is very easy to dismiss and put in a negative light those who challenge our beliefs.”
Allow me to answer you with a quote from Kenneth Cassar when I had made a similar comment regarding certain individuals eager to put the church in a bad light: “No one puts anyone else in a bad light. People usually put themselves in a bad light.” (The Dictatorship of Relativism)
what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
“About 'preaching and hogging the media' ... well, are you trying to push me off the mic? Trying to stifle those who do not agree with you?”
God forbid that you stop writing!!!!! This is the best time of my day – gives me a break from my usual routine.
“Certainly, those who preach and hog are not those who, like myself, do not wish this country to start being run by a Roman Catholic Taliban regime.”
Let’s ignore the jibe in bad taste! Would the law of the jungle be more conducive to your temperament? (bit too harsh maybe! - sorry could not resist it - happens to all of us- Taliban regime! tsk, tsk, tsk !!!!!
Congratulations.
Part 1
“…surprised if you had to know my formation and training, which, certainly would not put me among those who do not know anything about religion”
If your religious formation is as thorough as you had led me to believe when you challenged me with that list of questions, regarding the validity of certain art works, hoping to intimidate me (Quaint Happenings Malta style 1), I can be excused for doubting your words in this case.
If you recall, following soon after your challenge you, inadvertently (maybe), let the cat out of the bag by the following comment: “I am not good at appreciating works of art: I can only say that I like this portrait or picture, and I don't like that work. I am in no position to say that the artists behind those pictures are good or bad.” Franco Farrugia.
What a volte façe!!!
Continued.....
Here Fr Joe Borg is trying to be ironical.
Yet, it could be that Fr Joe Borg knows from some personal experience that there is some truth in his “botta.” Maybe this is one of the reasons, (the fact li [xi whud minnhom jaslu ghal kollox]), why now in Catholic-Malta only 51% of people are attending Sunday Mass, with a decrease of one percent every year. X’tahseb Fr Joe?
I firmly believe that some bleak Maltese politicians are too afraid of the Maltese Church. However, all those who like me had the opportunity to study and live abroad know that this phenomenon of having a Church which is too powerful will be over in fifteen years… Mark my words!
The church in Malta is day by day becoming more and more unpopular… For those who are in love with statistics, my assertions are backed by them!
Bless me Fr Joe.
Prof. Anthony Dalli
It is very easy to dismiss those who do not agree with our opinions, or who do not share our zeal, wherever that lies. It is very easy to dismiss and put in a negative light those who challenge our beliefs.
But it is very difficult to meet them headon and discuss with them.
About 'preaching and hogging the media' ... well, are you trying to push me off the mic? Trying to stifle those who do not agree with you? Not very lady-like, I am sure.
Certainly, those who preach and hog are not those who, like myself, do not wish this country to start being run by a Roman Catholic Taliban regime.
Sincerely.
Dear Kenneth,
you must be preening yourself at all these laudatory comments that are pouring in, and not just in this blog but particularly following your article of the 10th. But don’t delude yourself, for a closer look will show you that all the contributors singing your praises, are the same ones that seem to have nothing to do all day but preach their particular blend of belief or unbelief. Talking about preaching and hogging the media!!!!
And Kenneth, they are not the voice of the people but the voice of the few who are poorly informed (or misinformed) about religion, and with a chip on their shoulder which they are desperately trying to shake off.
So keep your perspectives right!
jessica
And they laughed when the joke was on them.
HOw much of this are we seeing in these blogs?
I thought that the 'priest's' singular hold on the media is a pretty obvious state of affairs. So what's the big deal?
It seems to be an ingrained aspect of our culture that blends so very well with our backwardness.
Is it also now forbidden to stare at this perception?
Now ... 'Or will the above quoted brigade opt to censor me...?' asks Joe Borg.
Kenneth, now that's pretty cheeky, don't you think? Joe Borg jolly well knows who is doing the censoring!
It's a great case of the pot calling the kettle black! Or the Maltese adage of the 'spizjara'? Har Har!
What is the whole point of all this ranting anyway? You haven't even watched the play!
Can you believe that?