Thursday, 25th June 2009
DISGRACEFUL
I seem to remember (the now Rev) Joe Abela back in the far-off mists of time, when we were both at Tal-Qroqq. I was studying beaglery and he was a budding clerical gent, and when one says he was at Tal-Qroqq, this was up to the point in time when Dom Mintoff and his henchmen's respect for academia bundled him and his colleagues off the campus.
If this is the Joe I remember, he was one of those athletic types who would charge off down the track, leaving most everyone gasping in his wake. I'm not sure that he didn't play for the Theology footy team, too - all the holy rollers seemed to delight in running the rest of us off our feet. Our theory was that they were un-hindered in their quest for physical excellence by the vices and vicissitudes that used to beset the rest of us. You know what I mean, beer and babes, basically.
It goes without saying, of course, that the dear fellow also had something of a brain - you don't get on in that faculty by being a couple of fries short of a Mac Meal, that's for sure. It must have been something in the water, too, because that lot seemed to have quite a fair crop of independently minded folk, Fr Joe Borg being another who springs to mind.
Thirty years on, I probably wouldn't recognise Fr Abela if he trotted up and patted me on the head, but then, I mightn't recognise someone I'd seen last week, so horrendous is my memory for faces and so lacking is my facility for putting names to them. If I bump into you and look blank while proffering the brand of bull that is so synonymous with my profession, don't be offended - I'm always doing it, so much so that the most common phrase to be heard issuing from the wife's mouth after I've failed to introduce her, yet again, to someone we've just bumped into is "you've no idea who he is, do you?"
To which my reply is generally a sheepish bleat.
But I certainly wasn't surprised to read the account of Fr Joe's testimony in the suit filed against that repressive and reprehensible lunga manus of the regime, the Board of Cinema and Theatre Censors (or whatever banner they skulk under) He was fair, reasonable and clear, which is a quality sorely lacking in way too many of the citizenry.
He has now been removed from the chairmanship of the Church's very own Board of Censors, the Church Film Reviewing Board.
The juxtaposition of these two events is perhaps coincidental, though I beg to be forgiven for denying that I am so naïve as to believe this. Of course, the Church has every right to have its own advisory body and use it to guide the faithful about what it (the Church) thinks are good or not-so-good performances to watch, and it has every right to dispose of its human resources as it deems fit.
And I have every right to express my disgust at this petty manoeuvre.
Just as I had, and still have, every right to express my disgust, pure and simple, at the sheer undiluted arrogance of the Board of Film and Theatre Censors who dared, in their smug omniscience, lay down the law on what I, an adult, should or should not watch.
Shame on you, the whole flipping lot of you, for coming up with this appalling ban and shame on you for not resigning with your heads hung low.
RSS
Comments
Sp please answer to my "Terrinu' question so I will foreward you another one to respond! This way you will educate yourself with my honest assistance. Waiting! Please do not play deaf and dumb! Have courage and accept the truth and enlighten yourself.
@ I. M Dingli .... Martinelli and his likes are terrified of the Truth! Martinelli's behaviour, as you well pointed out, demonstrates all.
Answer JBA's question. Why do you always avoid direct questions coming from anybody within this blog? Are you afraid that the truth will prevail?
Do please educate me on 'the other half' which I know very little about.
I don't know why you are so reluctant.
As a student of sociology and psychology you seem to have great difficulty separating fact from fiction and it is you who accepts what is convenient for you and rejects that which you do not want to hear. There is no man more deaf than the one who refuses to listen.
Keep on soldiering Joseph. You are so entertaining and so is your co-star, by the way.
accepts others right of expression of facts and the truth.
But personally I find it interesting to tackle a 'biased mind'. His behaviour is a fountain for someone who studies 'sociology and psychology'. Pleasse note the more one pushes a 'biased mind' the more one learns of its behaviour.
@ Martinelli ... Of course no personal offence is meant by the above. No, you do not present facts you present half truths, manipulated and half pictures of events. The other halves you try to 'hide' and simply 'records' what you love to and never the real picture, that you can never accept. The truth is much different then that you want to accept. You know it and I know it.
Just one simple example .. whom do you blame for the 'Terrinu' allegations and the persecution that followed of Lord strickland and his entire family. I used this example not to give you any chance to twist this event on the PL!
Waiting!!
"Tpaxxix nies li ma tistax tlahhaq maghhom?" Grazzi.
@ JBA
I am so glad you had a chat with PBO on the Gozo Ferry, but I am sure that you did not discuss the subject we debate here so often. Pity that PBO is so much younger than I and may not racall the 'glorious days' of the MLP. (Lucky him!) I hope you are not as young because in that case, you are only depending on your party's interpretation of history. I prefer to use documentary evidence.
@ Dingli
I told you once before, it is none of your business why I chose to come to Canada and I repeat that I defend the NP not because I ever received any favours from them, much less from the MLP or anybody else. So rest assured that I don't owe anybody anything and receive no consideration for my time and I expect none. I can also assure you that had I any scars to bare they would be from beatings I received from MLP thugs, but I managed to avoid that fate although I came quite close on a few occasions.
Tpaxxis nies li ma tista tasal imkien maghhom.
No, you got it backwards Joseph.
I present recorded history - facts in other words - you present allegations.
You really perplex me by saying that certain recorded events (presumably referring to NP violence) are never published! If the NP had the initiative to film, record and collect data from different sources, the MLP had no such pizzazz? Or is it the case that the MLP had nary a reason to do so because the violence was coming mainly from their side? Believe me, if the MLP knew of such recordings, they would go to the end of the world to obtain them.
It is funny how certain stories still can be visited through links on MaltaToday, which I keep hard copies of and which provide me with a wealth of information. If you had a chance, peruse them and I can assure you that you will have a few sleepless nights.
Nothing personal, though.
Just some days ago I had a talk on the Gozo ferry with new PN Gen secretary and was asked what made me join the opposite camp! Of course I assured my friend that there was nothing personal!
So I ask you and your likes to stop twisting 'past events' and before you try to 'hammer' what you want us all to believe, dig deep to find the truth and give us the real picture. Of course many are recorded but never made public.
Pls note too that morality changes with time too as the teaching of the church does. So you cannot judge present events with 'past' morality. Capish ??
Then it is your duty to point out the events which you accuse someone who day in, day out 'hammers' them to your obvious disgust.
The documented events, recorded and filmed cannot be termed as 'false events' unless of course, cleverly edited the way Perici Calascione's speech was recently.
The problem is that editing equipment was not as sophisticated in the 70s and 80s and any attempt to edit, would have been too darned obvious.
Besides, your rant about these hammered false events have absolutely nothing to do with the present topic, which means, I was correct in detecting a political slant on matters of pure morality and not political positions.
Your comment addressed to me is ambiguous at best and contradictory.
If the '..some people NEVER change', means that 'some' people still hang on to moral values irrespective of changing times, then you have a valid point.
On the other hand if the same phrase either has a political connotation or you label 'some people' never change because they consistently do not agree with your opinion, then being at odds with your feelings is an understatement.
Morality and the Church's teachings do not change especially when such teachings reflect Christ's message and changing for the sake of accommodating 'modern' interpretation of His teachings would be hypocritical at best.
The best examples of the Church's consistency are its views about contraception, divorce, same sex marriages, common law unions and anything else which fall under God's ten commandments. The Church however can change those rules which it had created itself such as fasting during lent, the consumption of meat on Fridays, etc.
He isn't right ( and has no right) to put Mintoff in this( a pinch of salt as always, of course). May I remind ABC that before Mintoff's reign to enter for any course at the University depended ONLY of what kind of family you come from or WHOM YOUR PARENTS KNOW and NOT on one's Qualifications or merit.
@ Martinelli ... Morality and the teachings of the church does change with times! However it is much true that some people NEVER change!
Part 1
ABC, we've come a long long way from the days when many towns had three or four theatres all advertising coming showings with super large posters in many a prominent corner of town.
Oddly enough when some female super star dared expose a bit of cleavage, a strip of paper with something like - "Starts this Saturday" - was strategically placed to dress her up.
The Film Board has been in existence for decades going back to at least, my childhood and although from time to time there were some protests for high or X ratings, generally speaking everyone respected the board's dictum.
But I also remember the days that the word 'damn' was beeped from television shows but today it is not even noticeable and much worse swear words are commonplace. The violence, the gore, foul language and lewd acts seem to sell better than the wonderful musicals of a few decades ago. Producers claim that musicals are too expensive to produce!
The Church's Board of Censors should be free to express its opinion but not use its influence to bar any production of doubtful moral values and I give reasons for this.
Continued
Today technology is such that whatever show is banned, it can be accessed through satellite or computer anyway, and I am sure that the Board of Censors will not even come close to having enough clout to control these sources.
But even before satellites and computers, VCRs and DVDs filled the gap and if one tried hard enough, a banned film or play could be obtained if not from Malta, from many overseas sellers.
The Church has the responsibility to teach and to guide, but ultimately it is up to its followers to listen and obey or disregard or disobey its teachings.
One question arises, - Has the world changed for the better since absolute liberty, lowering of moral standards, all in the name of free speech and free expression, became the norm, or has it changed for worse?
Malta is a prime example when one compares statistics of today versus those of fifty years ago. How many more failing marriages? How many more single mothers - fathers unknown? How many more armed robberies, murder, fraud, pornography and infidelity?
Were we suppressed by the church or were we listening a bit more than today's youth?
People change, morality doesn't.