Monday, 17th August 2009
Is the wish for a just society a futile dream?
Some may answer this question with a definitive yes. They say that the privilaged few are too powerful to overcome and too hard hearted to convert. Others point their fingers at human history and opine that over time different societies became more just, though injustice there still is a plenty. Isn't South Africa more just to day then when apartheid ruled the state?
Don't we have more justice in Europe to day than there was fifty years ago? Some point fingers at the state, politicians, unions, employers and churches. They are the ones who should make the dream come true. Others look at individuals and say that we can only have a just society if each Dick and Tom does his utmost to be just.
The debate is evergoing.
An episcopal incursion in the fray
This debate was recently joined by Mgr Mario Grech, Bishop of Gozo. He has a knack for intelligently weaving together things which prima facie do not seem to be interconnected. He just did this on the occasion of the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven. Mgr Grech turned his pastoral letter into a manifesto for a more just society. The Bishop of Gozo tackled both the micro and the macro dimensions of justice. He challenges the readers to examine whether justice is being respected in our society by looking both around themselves and, also, inside themselves. The facets of a just society are legion, he explained.
What follows is a check list built on the Pasoral Letter of Bishop Grech. Try reading and ticking your yes or no answers.
Are you being unjust?
An episcopal checklist.
The micro and macro levels of justice and injustice intertwine. It is difficult to make two different checklists as a number of items will be on both when considered from different perspectives.
- Justice is not respected when some person or group tries to soil the name or the memory of a person by spreading rumours. I touched this subject last week, but no one was eager to comment.
- "We have families that are no longer families because of the unjust way family wealth has been distributed; siblings that do not talk with each other because of abuses connected with inheritance; families who, through interference by third parties and legal manipulations, found themselves robbed of the family patrimony; families that are victims of usury."
- Isn't unfaithfulness in marriage a source of many injustices? Doesn't infidelity deprive men, women and children of what is rightfully theirs?
- The financial crisis has hit the world due to unjust and incorrect administration is an example on the societal level. A lot of new social poverty should have been avoided.
- Bishop Grech says that just and unjust actions by several play a part in determining the level of the price index. He posits a number of questions: how just are the prices being set? How just is the cost of services we provide? How free of dishonesty is the product or service we are paid for? How honest are we in the preparation of legal documents? In the same way that just remuneration is important, one must not be careless or abusively absent from work.
- "Distributing wealth and burdens equally for everyone would not be a just choice. It would not be justice if, in the case of social services, the State helps everyone in exactly the same way, or if the citizens expect the State to support everybody using the same weighting across the board. The consequence of that would be that those who have a genuine need would not be helped to the extent they deserve!"
- Bishop Grech mentions EU funds, saying that it is the responsibility of Government and the people themselves to ensure that these funds are used in the best interest of our people.
- "Whoever tries to evade these laws (on taxation) or to associate with those who want to avoid them is acting against justice."
- The Bishop of Gozo notes both the right of the State to collect money and the right of the citizen to monitor how public funds are being spent. He praised good administration of public funds as a blessing and encourages building of the culture of personal accountability of administrators.
- From the latest encyclical letter of Pope Benedict, Bishop Grech refers to the principle of gratuitousness, "which implies the giving and self-giving in a spirit of fraternity." He continues: "the abusive use of social services is an injustice. There are those who cheat the authority to qualify for social assistance. A typical case is when one takes unemployment benefit when, in fact, one is working for gain."
How did you score? Are you a net contributor or a net loser in the task to build a just society? Do you think that Bishop Grech was realistic in making all these questions and observations? How practical is his position?
RSS
Comments
I cannot believe that you have the cheek to write that you " did not comment on the intentions of Christians. I only commented on yours". You have commented harshly, adversely, and in my opinion unjustly, on just about every Catholic from Popes, past and present, and all the way down to all segments of the local hierarchy!
I did not comment on the intentions of Christians. I only commented on yours. I don't believe the majority of Christians would refrain from openly admitting a fault in a public debate (be the fault theirs or of their Church) just so that they do not "provide ammunition" for their "enemies".
Because I am a very moral person, I would always say what I believe to be true, and admit when I (or any organisation I am part of) is at fault. I would never refuse to admit what I believe to be a truth for any reason.
Apparently you believe that the end (the good name of the Church) justifies the means (not openly admitting truths that put it in a slightly bad light).
A debate where one party is entirely honest and open (if not always right) while the other keeps from admitting fault when it is inconvenient to do so, is a debate doomed to failure and therefore a waste of time.
Once again, good bye.
I would never dream of questioning your claim that you are “very moral person”. I will keep on trying doggedly to reconcile this claim of yours with your persistent “rewording”, wrong speculations and harmful guesses about the intentions of Christians.
What you are saying is that I am saying something that cannot possibly be true. Not much difference from saying I am lying, is there.
In any case, you already made it clear that you would not admit the truth if that "provides ammunition" for the "enemies of the Church". So even if I am right, since you obviously consider me as an "enemy of the Church", you would never admit it.
I'm wasting my time. It is useless arguing with people who believe that the end justifies the means, and who proclaim they do not value truth above personal crusades.
Good bye.
Please stop patronising. I know that "never convincing me" is not the same as "lying to me". However, the fact remains that if you claim (and you did) that I would never convince you, and I insist, you cannot do otherwise but disbelieve me. You have constrained yourself to disbelieve me unless I tell you what you want to hear (which would be an untruth).
The point is that you would never believe me. If you don't believe me, you believe that what I claim to be true is not actually so.
Mine is not a rash impulsive statement. You may not believe this if you wish, but I am a very moral person who would not do anything that goes contrary to what I believe is morally just. So if anyone (be it my father, mother, brother, wife, best friend) causes much suffering to a child (and in the case of paedophilia, it wouldn't be a one-off event), yes, I would report him/her immediately to the police because it is the morally correct thing to do.
But then, Christians are supposed to be more moral than atheists!
Please understand that "NEVER CONVINCING ME" is not the same as "LYING TO ME" because:
1) you may, for the purpose of this blog, truly aspire to act in an uncharitable and unbrotherly way - but you may act very differently in a real life situation.
2) you may be making a rash impulsive statement now, innocently unaware of its full implications, but in a later moment of truth you could be jolted back to reality. The essential element of lying id the deliberate intention to deceive. I did not make that accusation but you persist in "chi si scusa s'accusa!" You must have heard of the saying that Hell is paved with good intentions that never materialize.
The purpose of debate is to convince or to learn. It is part of human nature not to be right at all times. Therefore, one cannot convince, nor learn from someone who believes he is always right (when, if he is human, he should be wrong sometimes).
I'm obviously wasting my time. Goodbye.
Speaking of "amateurish balderdash", the reason "lying" is not mentioned in my major and minor premises is that it is inferred from them.
Now let's take your own "syllogism".
Major premise: Dr Saliba is not convinced that anyone would immediately report his brother to the police.
Minor Premise: Kenneth Cassar states that he would immediately deliver his brother to the police.
Conclusion : Dr Saliba is not convinced by Kenneth Cassar.
You will perhaps notice that the minor premise is unnecessary. If Dr Saliba is not convinced that anyone would...etc, since I am part of anyone, then the minor premise is redundant. You might as well have simply said "Dr Saliba is not convinced that Kenneth Cassar would...etc.
So it turns out that yours is no syllogism at all.
Who's the amateur?
Ah, dear Doctor, but you are "twisting words" here.
You did not say you are not convinced. What you said is that I would NEVER convince you. Please note the word "never". It really changes everything.
If you claim that I would never convince you, and I insist, you cannot do otherwise but disbelieve me.
You have constrained yourself to disbelieve me unless I tell you what you want to hear (which would be a lie).
So, while your latest syllogism is true, it is so only because you deceptively changed "would never convince" to "is not convinced".
It is not logical to underestimate your adversary. I am not that easlily fooled.
“Pure logic”? More accurate would be "Amateurish balderdash". “Lying” is not even mentioned in your major and minor premises. You should not introduce it in your conclusion. Your “purely logical syllogistic conclusion should have been: “Therefore I (Kenneth Cassar)do not convince you”
A valid syllogism would be the following:
Major premise: Dr Saliba is not convinced that anyone would immediately report his brother to the police.
Minor Premise: Kenneth Cassar states that he would immediately deliver his brother to the police.
Conclusion : Dr Saliba is not convinced by Kenneth Cassar .
Premise 1. You say that I would never convince you that I would report my brother.
Premise 2. I say I would report my brother to the police.
Conclusion inferred from premise 1 & 2: You think I'm lying.
No twisting of words, just pure logic.
"I never accused you of lying when you claimed that you would immediately report your pedophile brother to the police".
What you actually said is: "You will never convince me that you really would immediately report to the police a hypothetical brother".
Now, since I say that I would, if you're not convinced, that means you don't believe me. If you don't believe me, that means you think I'm lying.
Enough said.
It is you who needs advice about not making incorrect assumptions. It is you who regularly make assumptions by “basically rewording” ( i.e. distorting) the written word of others, and who “speculates” wildly about what others believe, and who “interprets” the comments of others in such a way as to draw protests.
Re: your para 3. I never accused you of lying when you claimed that you would immediately report your pedophile brother to the police. This is one more instance of your false "pre-emptions", “assumptions” and distorted “interpretations”. However I draw your attention to the Italian proverb “Chi si scusa, s’accusa” and the Latin version “Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta”.
Some friendly suggestions:
1. Never assume that the person who disagrees with you, or holds different beliefs, is your enemy. Thinking of the other as "the enemy" is a sure way of making you prejudiced in his respect. Prejudice prevents reasonable discussion.
2. Never assume that anyone hates anyone else just because someone criticizes (even strongly) some people from the same group. For instance, to strongly criticize a minority of abusive priests does not mean one hates priests.
3. Never assume that a person disagreeing with you must be lying, much more pre-empt a reply by saying it will be a lie. For instance, don't assume that if one claims he would even report his brother if the brother is a paedophile, he would be lying.
4. Always assume the best in people, unless you can prove otherwise.
5. Don't assume that people have ulterior motives unless you can demonstrate it. For instance, if one criticizes a minority of priests because of serious crimes they have committed, this does not mean one is criticizing the priesthood.
6. To oppose beliefs or opinions does not necessarily mean to hate the people holding them.
"Treatment: Although pedophilia has yet no cure, various treatments are available that are aimed at reducing or preventing the expression of pedophilic behavior, reducing the prevalence of child sexual abuse. Treatment of pedophilia often requires collaboration between law enforcement and health care professionals".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
This is why it is so very important that the police get to know of active paedophiles, both for their own sake and their possible child victim's sake.
If I really care about my brother and if my brother was a paedophile, even for his own sake, I would report him to the police.
Paedophilia is not petty theft, where everything is ok as long as the stolen goods are returned.
That said, I hope you do realise that if someone chooses not to refer such cases to professionals and law enforcers, the responsibility of further paedophile acts falls squarely on them.
Finally...and explanation that might conceivably be seen as justifying your non-reply.
However, although perhaps I would never convince you that I would do so, yes, I would immediately report my brother to the police if I found that he was sexually abusing a child. But in any case, priests are not brothers.
I would do this because the duty to protect the innocent (particularly when a serious crime such as paedophilia is concerned) overrides any family ties I may have. That's what being a rational moral person entails.
Also, confronting my brother (if he were a paedophile) would not eliminate the problem. An active paedophile (who does not only crave looking at children, but actively sexually abuses them) would seek other children to satisfy his urges. Not to mention that keeping the brother in the same home as the abused child, or sending him to another home with other children, would change nothing.
You clearly do not understand paedophilia at all.
I am not anti-clerical (there are several priests whom I actually respect). But I am definitely and unreservedly anti-child abuse.
It might improve your powers of comprehension if I repeat my previous replies in upper case, so here goes: DON'T ASK ME ANY MORE QUESTIONS. SORT YOURSELF OUT ON YOUR OWN. I HAVE MADE MY LAST ATTEMPT TO SOLVE YOUR CONFUSION.
I repeat: Do you agree with my statement number 1 or my statement number 2 (see previous post)?
If you do not reply, you leave no option but for speculation.
I also do not need your "authorization" to write anything here, like you do not need mine. So stop being so childish.
I only chose to speculate after I asked you directly what "your beliefs are". For your own reasons, you are ashamed or afraid of stating them unequivocally. I'm not confused at all. Apparently you are, if you can't even state your own beliefs by answering a simple question.
Let me tell you my own belief on the issue, since I AM NOT ASHAMED OF MY BELIEFS:
I believe that every adult has the duty to immediately report active paedophiles to the police, who will in turn prosecute and a competent court will decide on the necessary steps to take. I would not do like someone suggested, and wait for the parents to discover (if they do) and report the crime themselves. My conscience would not let me look the other way while a child suffers for years on end.
I repeat: Your speculations on what my beliefs are and your presumption to “basically re-word” my comments are not authorized by me because I have no faith in your competence and/or your rectitude to carry out the tasks. Don’t ask me any more questions. “Sort yourself out on your own; I have made my last attempt to solve your confusion”
Basically, there are only two options available:
1. Dr Saliba believes that priests who get to know of an active paedophile should report him immediately to the police.
or
2. Dr Saliba does NOT believe that priests who get to know of an active paedophile should report him immediately to the police.
One of them must be true. I chose option 1, because it is what a decent person would do. If Dr Saliba knows that I am wrong, all he has to do is say so, and I will gladly choose option 2 for him.
It's that simple!
"Mr Kenneth Cassar is not authorised by me to speculate on my beliefs".
But the question is: Am I wrong or am I right?
All I said was "It is quite evident that, being a moral person who cares for the welfare of innocent children, Dr Saliba believes that priests who are not the confessors of paedophiles should report paedophiles immediately to the police".
So tell me...am I wrong or am I right?
If you say, for instance, that I believe dogs should be tortured, all I have to do is say that I believe no such thing, which would mean that I do not believe that dogs should be tortured.
So read the question once again. If I am saying an untruth about you, you have the opportunity to correct me, and I will acknowledge your correction and take your word for it.
So tell me, Dr Saliba, should priests who are not the confessors of paedophiles report paedophiles immediately to the police?
I will not give up that easily.
I don't believe that reporting known paedophiles to the police is a destructive way. Do you? If so, why? Don't you trust the local justice system?
Reporting known paedophiles to the police is the only way to ensure that a competent court takes the neccessary steps to stop the abuse and if necessary and possible, help both victim and paedophile. It is also the best and proper way to ensure that the paedophile has no further contact with both his present victim and possible future ones.
The responsibility of "handing over" suspects to the police does not lay with relatives in cases where relatives do not know of the abuse taking place.
By making the claim that the responsibility of reporting paedophiles to the police falls on the parents (who at the time might not know of the abuse) shows that you know nothing about the fear felt by paedophile victims, which makes them fearful of speaking out, which makes more serious and urgent the duty of whoever discovers paedophilia to report it himself.
Mr Kenneth Cassar is not authorised by me to speculate on my beliefs, or to basically reword any statement of mine. I do not hold myself responsible for his interpretations and any rewording that I disown completely.
It is quite evident that, being a moral person who cares for the welfare of innocent children, Dr Saliba believes that priests who are not the confessors of paedophiles should report paedophiles immediately to the police.
Funny how you can go about describing the "happenings" of an imaginary pilot, but then can't seem to be able to answer a simple question.
But of course, confused people who are unable (or unwilling) to reply to a simple question, will say that it is the questioner who is confused.
So let me ask the question slightly differently (to make it easier for you):
Do you believe that Fr X, who knows Fr Y is a paedophile and is not Fr Y's confessor, should report Fr Y to the police?
Yes or no? If no, why not?
Come on. With your qualifications, I am sure you can answer this elementary question and thereby shut me up.
A very experienced pilot was taking a young cadet for a demonstration flight in his supersonic jet fighter. After showing him the controls he showed him the emergency ejector seat button and told him “If I shout JUMP just press that button and don’t ask any questions because I won't be there to answer you”.
I am not telling you “Jump”. As I had warned you, I am telling you: “Sort yourself out on your own; I have made my last attempt to solve your confusion”
This won't work for you neither. While one can be an accomplice in the planning stage, it is not being suggested by anyone that priests who failed to report paedophiles to the police were involved in the paedophilia's "planning stage". All that is being said is that the priests who knew after the fact, did not report it immediately to the police.
So yes, in this particular case, someone can be accused of being an accomplice of THIS crime only after the fact. Not nonsensical at all.
As for being an accomplice DURING the actual crime, the fact still remains that one can only be accused of being an accomplice AFTER the crime (of paedophilia) has been committed. How can it be otherwise?
So no, you have not justified your evasion of a simple question, no matter the mental contortions you are indulging in to try to avoid it.
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is inappropriate as a yes or no question, since it assumes that the defendant did beat up his wife at some time.
The question "Do you believe that people (except confessors or personal lawyers) who know of paedophilia should immediately report it to the police?" does not assume anything, and therefore it is a legitimate yes or no question.
I am not such an idiot to fall for your trick. Now how about answering my simple question. Or do you refuse to do so only because in your heart you know that people (except confessors and personal lawyers) do have a moral duty to immediately report active paedophiles to the police, but if you admit this, you admit to a serious mistake on the part of your Church.
Is this a case of "the end justifies the means"?
I cannot be expected to keep on commenting for eternity on such nonsensical comment as your latest “Someone can be accused of being an accomplice … in a crime, only after the fact”. One can be an accomplice from before the crime in its planning stage, during the commission of the crime and after any crime by concealing the evidence but, of course, the accusation (unless it is a frame up) must come only after the fact. I have preserved this selection from this comment to you: “Sort yourself out on your own; I have made my last attempt to solve your confusion” and that is the only reply, if any, you will get from me in the foreseeable future on this topic
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" cannot be answered by a simple yes or no.
The question "Do you believe that people (except confessors or personal lawyers) who know of paedophilia should immediately report it to the police?" can. If not, why not?
You remind my of the police statement "you have the right to remain silent", which the guilty will happily obey.
I am not such a complete idiot as to accept your imposition to answer “yes or no”. You remind of the sly lawyer who asked a defendant: “Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no!”
Someone can be accused of being an accomplice or an accessory in a crime, only after the fact. Your argument is at best paradoxical. What you are saying basically is that years ago Fr X should not have reported paedophile Y, only because today, Fr X is being accused of not reporting paedophile Y years ago.
No distortion - just facts.
And by the way, how would a person knowing of an active paedophile within his organisation, be incriminating himself if he reports the paedophile to the police? I believe the opposite is actually the case. One would only be potentially incriminating himself if he learns of a paedophile within the organisation and fails to report it to the police.
But then again, I suppose a rational mind cannot be expected to think the way a faith-based one does.
Cont...
Furthermore, a person/organization can only be accused of being an accomplice to paedophilia only if he actually is an accomplice to paedophilia. Someone who learns of an active paedophile cannot be accused of being an accomplice unless he does nothing about it. Therefore someone who learns of an active paedophile (unless a confessor or lawyer) cannot be exempted from reporting to the police because if he doesn't, in the future he will be accused of not doing so.
All that is needed for one not to be an accomplice to paedophilia is to report it to the police. Its that simple.
Now how about answering my simple yes or no question:
Do you believe that people (except confessors or personal lawyers) who know of paedophilia (and are not paedophiles themselves) should immediately report it to the police?
You do not "need to remind me" that "the organization (the Church) is under the accusation of 'doing nothing to prevent it' when it had the duty to do so and therefore it is being accused of being an accomplice or an accessory in that crime".
First off, I never made such an accusation. My accusation is simple: The Church has in the past (and possibly in the present) had the habit of not immediately (or sometimes not at all) reporting paedophiles to the police. This is my only accusation. In any case, the other accusation is irrelevant to the fact that everyone (except confessors and personal lawyers) has the duty to immediately report active paedophiles to the police. For one to say (and I'm not saying you are) that priests are exempted from this because they are accused of doing nothing to prevent paedophilia (which is false), is simply illogical.
Cont...
Please refrain from “basically, rewording differently” anything that I write. I do not appreciate your help to express myself, still less to have my writing distorted or deliberately "misunderstood". I do not need to be reminded that the organization (the Church) is not under the accusation of pedophilia. I need to remind you that the organization is under the accusation of “doing nothing to prevent it” when it had the duty to do so and therefore it is being accused of being an accomplice or an accessory in that crime.
Any person/organization being accused (rightly or wrongly) of pedophilia, or of being an accomplice to it, is protected by law from incriminating himself/itself by being compelled to testify, much less to lodge a report with the police. That is true even if the accusations are true, let alone if – as in this case - the accusation of complicity is absolutely groundless. The legal exemption is not from “the thing he/it is being accused of”. It is from having to report it or to be compelled to give evidence about it.
And that is positively my last attempt to solve your confusion.
Apparently, with you, one is only safe if one poses simple yes or no questions. So here goes.
Do you believe that people (except confessors or personal lawyers) who know of paedophilia should immediately report it to the police?
A simple yes or no answer please. I might ask further questions, but only following an unequivocal yes or no reply.
Please check my writings carefully and have the decency to apologize. What you wrote was that "no individual AND no organization under accusation is under any obligation to report, to testify and to give evidence".
Basically, worded differently, this means that no indivudual is under any obligation to report, to testify and to give evidence, and no organization under accusation is under any obligation to report, to testify and to give evidence.
So I was correct all along.
However, if that is not what you meant, what you actually meant makes no sense at all.
How is an individual under accusation THAT HE DID NOTHING TO PREVENT PAEDOPHILIA (by not reporting it to the police) be exempted from the thing he is being accused of? Bear in mind that this person is not under accusation of paedophilia.
I think you're getting confused.
What I have to say us this: Contrary to what you allege I never said or implied that "NOBODY (my emphais) and priests in particular has the moral or legal duty to report paedophiles to the police", I do not agree with that statement and what I said is radically different. If you do not understand this, more so if you are only pretending not to understand it, that is your fault not mine.
"I have just spotted your gross lie that I had ever written that no organization has the obligation to report serious crimes. What I said is totally different, namely that no person and no organization UNDER ACCUSATION is under any legal obligation to testify and incriminate himself/itself much less to lodge a report with the police".
So are you now saying that persons who are not under accusation are legally obligated to lodge a report with the police? You should also note that no person is under accusation until a report is lodged with the police or the police find out the crime themselves (a very unlikely event in the case of paedophiles directly abusing children in homes or institutions).
You should also note that there is a difference between being accused of inaction, and being accused of paedophilia. People accused of inaction are not accused of paedophilia. That would be a seperate case. So this effectively means that witnesses to paedophilia, not being accused of paedophilia, are under legal obligation to report it to the police, are they not?
Please make an effort to reply without spin.
Trust me to think that the only way that paedophiles are brought to justice is either in the highly unlikely event that they are found out directly by the police, or that they are reported by others who know they are paedophiles.
I trust that the Pope is a fairly reasonable person who knows this.
But let me try to bring some closure to all this.
Basically, what I am saying is that anyone who knows of a paedophile abusing children should report the paedophile to the police, thus possibly sparing the child years or even decades of abuse that will scar him/her for life.
On the otherhand, what you are saying is that nobody (and priests in particular) has the moral or legal duty to report paedophiles to the police, thus, through nonchalance, indirectly condemning a child to years or decades of abuse.
I wonder what you have to say about this.
Comment below was downloaded onto 'duelling clerics' (sic) blog in error. Apologies!
I didn't quote my 'more illustrious' fellow atheist Richard Dawkins to aggrandise myself. I am who I am, well pleased with myself. I would n't drop names to upgrade myself. As for me trying to be clever by being sarcastic (a lie you said - some humour, doctor? wouldn't go amiss you know) - if by clever you mean intelligent, then, risking accusations of boastfulness, the bad news, for you, is that I have my fair share. And cleverness? You think Hitler wasn't clever (and intelligent)? And Stalin? You think sundry Popes with a track-record of heinous behaviour weren't clever (and intelligent), Francisco?
Methinks cleverness is willingness to use the brain and recognising that seeking sound justice is the only thing we have. No fanciful frills/unverifiable promises.
I have just spotted your gross lie that I had ever written that no organization has the obligation to report serious crimes. What I said is totally different, namely that no person and no organization UNDER ACCUSATION is under any legal obligation to testify and incriminate himself/itself much less to lodge a report with the police. Please check all my writings carefully and have the decency to apologize.
Spot the difference:
Pope Benedict: " … victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice".
Your version: "victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice BY BEING REPORTED TO THE POLICE BY PRIESTS AND BY THE CHURCH AUTHORITES (My emphasis).
I have explained many times that it is not the scurrilously defamed Church, itself being falsely accused of complicity in the crime of pedophilia, that should throw aside its civil legal right not to report to the police. There would be many others - not under any accusations - who should do the reporting so that “those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice”.
Regarding those who respect relics of saints, I am not aware they have ever stooped to lie about me or or to insult me or anybody else on any blog. They respect me and I respect them. I wish I could say the same for Joe Xuereb.
So tell me, Dr Saliba, what do you make of the exaltation of people for some body part or even a glove of a "saint"? Small minds?
Some people exalt for the living, some for the dead. It takes all sorts.
Cont...
In any case, if any organisation other than the Church fails to report a paedophile to the police, thus allowing him to abuse his victims for decades, that organisation would get equal condemnation from me. Isn't that fair enough? Now how about you reciprocating by unreservedly condemning priests (other than confessors of the criminal) who fail to report serious crimes such as paedophilia to the police, thus allowing for the suffering of the victim for years or even decades? Is that too much to ask?
As for your my expectation that “priests who are not criminals” should “report (paedophiles) themselves”, the Christian instruction to forgive does not exempt one to do one's civic duty, especially if children's lives are at stake. You seem to be forgetting that even Pope Benedict believes that priests should report paedophiles to the police. In fact, he actually said, and I quote, "victims should receive compassion and care, AND those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice". I hope you won't suggest Pope Benedict is contradicting the teachings of Christ!
I agree with you that it would be irresponsible to name organisations (if there are any) who failed to report paedophiles in their midst to the police. Often, that is the reason we do not get to know about them, since (if there are any) they are not discovered. However, you will also appreciate that it is also irresponsible to say that other organisations do this unless one has some evidence to back up that claim.
You say (about other organisations apart from the Church) that you "can safely presume that they did not all react in an identical manner that (I) am suggesting". Actually, you cannot assume anything at all, unless you have any evidence (not necessarily proof) that any of them had paedophiles in their midst and failed to report them.
Regarding no organisation having the obligation to report serious crimes, you may wish to check your facts with a lawyer of your choice. In actual fact, every individual is under legal obligation to report serious crimes.
Cont...
I misunderstood your "double jeopardy" comment only because it is irrelevant and therefore unexpected. Nobody expects a criminal to report himself. However, it is to be expected that other priests who are not criminals report him themselves.
I also already made it clear that I do not blame an organisation (any organisation) for the "sins" of its members, provided the organisation does not know of criminal activity and fails to report it immediately to the police.
You still have not answered the only question that matters in this case. So let me repeat it:
Do you know of any other organisation (apart from the Church) that fails to immediately report paedophiles to the police when it discovers them? If not, isn't singling out the Church in this case both fair and reasonable, considering it would be the only organisation doing so?
Then again, I don't expect you to reply. An honest answer would hurt your pride too much.
I have to word my comments most carefully because there are too many commentators habitually engaged in distorting them. I also have to be concise because I do not circumvent the restriction of 200words/comment. I regret that my care in writing is not reciprocated by the same care when others read them – otherwise they would not misinterpret me and they would not ask questions to which I had just replied – and that applies to your last serial. For example, the priests whom I said would be “in double jeopardy” could only refer to the sinner and not his confessor! I refuse to stoop down to the same level of those who denigrate the Church by blaming it for the regretted sin of any member. I do not find it objectionable that any organization would protect its good name from defamation and would hesitate to provide ammunition to its unscrupulous slanderous enemies who accuse it falsely of “tolerating” the abuse. Those who have the moral and legal obligation to report do not include the accused himself, his organization also under attack, close relatives, personal lawyers, attending physicians.
You now say that not only did you not claim that other organisations fail to report known paedophiles to the police, but you did not even "accuse other organisations to have paedophiles in their midst".
I admire your skill in carefully wording your comments. However, this does not entitle you to evade relevant answers.
Of course you did not "accuse" other organisations of "having paedophiles in their midst".
For one, to accuse is to name. You did not name any organisation, even when challenged.
Secondly, the question is not about organisations having paedophiles in their midst. The question is whether there are (or were) any organisations who knew of paedophiles who were (at the time) in their midst, and failed to report them immediately to the police.
So while you did not "accuse" any organisation (how could you when there are none), you did say that "Yes, (you) know of authentic cases of pedophiles abusing their position in organizations in contact with young people".
So the question (no spin this time, please) remains: Do you know of any other organisation (apart from the Church) that fails to immediately report paedophiles to the police?
"Attacks" have been specifically targeted "against the Church" only because it is only the Church that fails, or has failed in the past, to immediately report suspected paedophiles to the police, sometimes even when knowing of the facts for decades.
This is not bias. This is plain and simple truth. Singling out the Church when a particular serious wrongdoing is unique to itself, is both fair and appropriate. It is defending "improper" (outrageous) conduct (be it done by anyone) that is not.
What I cannot understand is how you can defend the practice of not immediately reporting suspected paedophiles to the police, when even the Pope believes this is what should be done.
By pointing out my agreement in this instance with the Pope (the head of the Church), I hope I made it clear that I am only criticising a particular practice, and not the Church as an institution. As for the Church as an institution, it doesn't concern me as much, considering that I am not a member of it.
However, whenever there is what I believe to be a serious abuse that keeps a victim suffer sometimes for decades, I do protest.
I know that there is no evidence that the Church did not "allow" proper investigations. That is why I wrote "allow or assist". In any case, the point is that it is the duty of everyone (both legally and morally) to report any suspicion of paedophilia immediately to the police. I hope we at least agree on this.
Priests are not in "double jeopardy" unless they know of the facts through the confessional.
As for the obligation falling on the person/organization under accusation, of course this is not to be expected. But in cases of paedophilie priests, it is not the Church that would be under accusation, but the individual priest. In this case, the law does not exempt other priests (unless they are the accused's personal confessor) from testifying or reporting to the police. Especially the duty to report serious crime (like paedophilia), this certainly does not exempt priests just for being priests.
As for tarnishing names, if one has proof that an organisation failed to report anyone to the police even when knowing of the crime, and says so publicly, one would not be libellous. Check your facts.
You would wouldn't you especialy since you and verbosity are rather close bosom friends. I doubt rhetoric is going to get you anywhere. It never crossed my mind that you could answer any of my questions, that unfortunately is one of your false perceptions. It was never within your power. Only their Excellencies the Bishops of Malta and Gozo can and I fully intend to keep asking them. Do enjoy the rest of the summer however. I still suggest you catch up on your reading of the papal homilies though They are always stimulating.
By now you should have realized that I am not at all dazzled by your use of polysyllabic words when a shorter word would be better, or when you write a whole paragraph to say something that could be expressed in just one sentence. I am only amused by the luxuriant exuberance of your verbosity. I do not need to consult any dictionary to decipher your pretentious circumlocutions – only patience, quite a lot of it. It has become too tedious a job to correct the profusion of mistakes in your comments and then to locate any possible grain of wheat in a bushel of chaff. Please find some other hapless victim to answer your questions.
You tell me “this (the Church’s mission) does not exonerate anyone from the duty to allow, or assist towards, the proper cource of civil justice”. There is no shred of evidence that the Church did not "allow” proper investigation by the civil authorities. Priests are in double jeopardy in having to face the strictures of the Canonical Law in addition to civil court justice. The separation of Church from State demands that the two be kept separate.
Any legally responsible individual or his legal guardian may lodge a complaint with the civil authorities – there is no similar obligation on the person/organization under accusation. The civil law exempts such a person, his near relatives, or anyone bound by professional secrecy from being forced to testify in court, let alone from being obliged to report to the police.
A person/organization could still be defamed and could seek redress in the civil courts for libel if the good name of that organization would be tarnished even “by stating facts” if that organisation is arbitrarily linked with the criminal activity of any of its members when that criminal activity would be openly disapproved by the organization.
"Where is any disparity in the Law (Gods Law) should we be in a Theocracy? I challenge you".
Perhaps I should have given this more thought, so I accept your challenge. Where is the disparity, you ask. Well, given your own interpretation of the Bible (which obviously you would not call interpretation, but would call it the actual word of God), women should be subservient to men. Elsewhere you even claimed that it benefits women for them to be subservient!
How about that for disparity in your theocracy?
Once again I have to correct you. If paedophile priests are not charged in court, it is only because their actions are kept hidden (or at best, not disclosed to the authorities). One cannot expect the police to be everywhere and at all times, and I have a hunch that the cases brought before the court (now I am speaking of paedophilia in general, and not priests in particular), are unfortunately proportionally a small percentage of the actual cases that happen, sometimes for years.
The paedophile priests cases are only examined within the Church before the courts only because the police would not know of these cases at the time. However, I will accept your contrary claim if you give at least some evidence.
As for disparity in "God's law", when you have all sorts of people giving different interpretation to "God's law", to leave law in the hands of a single theocrat is at best dangerous.
You are correct in stating that there should not be a set of laws one for the church and one for the state. In practice this however is not the case of the paedophile priests.
The so called democratic system that we have on these paedophile priests, are first considered in the churches courts, and may stop there, other than the state courts.
It is the democratic system that is at fault. See http://jahtruth.net/democra.htm
You mentioned Sharia Law. This is also at fault, because the imams in the various countries have different opinions, and only consider the Koran as the basis and not also the Old and New Testaments.
Where is any disparity in the Law (Gods Law) should we be in a Theocracy? I challenge you.
The separation of Church and State should not mean different laws for the Church and different laws for the rest. It only means that laws are made by democratically elected representatives and they apply to everyone equally.
It is theocracy that can create the disparities you mention, since anyone claiming God speaks directly to him can do anything if he is believed (witness sharia law).
In the case of Malta, the law applies equally to everyone, and this is what actually happens. The problem is that if a suspect is not reported to the police, justice will not be served.
When the Church used to conduct investigations itself in the case of suspected paedophiles (not sure if this practice is still on), it is only because the investigation is somehow brought to light after several years (the victim speaks out, for instance) that there seems to be a disparity in local law. However, it is not the law's fault because only known suspects can be brought to justice.
The law in Malta, at least in this case, applies to everyone equally.
Before you correct me yourself, I would like to correct myself. You actually did not claim that other organisations fail to report known paedophiles to the police. What you claimed is that other organisations do have paedophiles in their midst - something that is as irrelevant as indisputable.
However, until one provides some evidence on other organisations who do cover up or fail to report suspected paedophiles to the police, one would be both reasonable and fair if one singles out the Church on this instance.
RE
'It is my conviction that no organization - be it the Church or any other organization - should be held accountable for the sinful activities of any of its members as long as such sinful activity is not willingly tolerated and accepted by the organization.'
Even if they failed to protect minors as is their duty through non-action? Of course you cannot agree you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that saving the Church requires a total denial of any fault of its administration. If you take time to listen/read the homilies of the Benedict XVI in America and Australia perhaps you will understand that his Holiness the Pope thinks otherwise! How do you expect proper healing to occur not just for victims but to restore faith in the Church?
@ Joe Borg, it would be intersting to ask the Law Enforcers in Canada the intricacies of the matter. Have you got their telephone number?
Think hard.
Well for starters, the priests would first in Malta undergo a trial at the eccesiastical court. This is to seperate the state court, with the church one. Is this so that perhaps they can more effectively clean thier dirty linen?
@ F Saliba
Although I stand clearly for a theocracy, I wish to point out that with our current legal structures, there is one set of rules for the common people and another with the priests.
@ Jessica DeBattista
You are right to state that there is some brushing off peodophile issues onto the victim, and that perhaps, as some might think of these actions as "acceptable", some may attempt to do this on others. Statistics apart, the moral damage has been done, and only by praying to God, can the harm be undone, if asked with humilty.
I never claimed that some victims might not end up as paedophiles themselves. What I claimed is that there is no necessary correlation.
22% is not an insignificant number. However, it is good evidence (not proof) that there is no direct correlation between being a victim of paedophilia and becoming a paedophile oneself, otherwise the percentage would be much higher.
In view of this, I think it is unfair to give the impression (though it certainly was not your intention) that we should expect many or most victims of paedophilia to become paedophiles themselves.
Regarding naming and "defaming" organizations who fail to report known paedophiles to the police, please note that if there are any, you would not be defaming them since you would be stating facts. I believe that truth is one of your principles.
However, and in line with my assumption that truth is one of your principles, I would expect you to back up your claim that other organizations fail to report known paedophiles to the police.
You say that you know of authentic cases of pedophiles abusing their position in organizations in contact with young people. That's not what I was disputing. There obviously are people abusing their positions in all walks of life. What I asked was if you knew of any other organisation which does not report suspected paedophiles to the police, even when the suspect would allegedly have been at it for several years. I know of no such cases.
However, I do appreciate your claim that you would expect that as soon as an organization becomes aware of the improper activity it should take whatever steps are necessary to stop the abuse. If the abuse is criminal (paedophilia), I would expect the proper step to be an immediate report to the police.
I also agree that no organization (including the Church) should be held accountable for all the illegalities of its members. However, I believe that organizations who fail to report illegal activities within their organization to the police should be held accountable. I believe that we also agree on this.
Cont...
I acknowledge the fact that some people hold some misconceptions regarding the relation between the Church, the State and "sinners". I never disputed this fact. I also know that the Church does not "hand over" suspects for punishment. However, the Church is morally and legally bound to report suspected paedophiles to the civil authorities. Apparently, some do, and some don't. An internal investigation (within the confines of the Church), with all the best intentions, is not the proper way to handle such delicate situations.
I also know that the Church's professed mission is one of compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation. However, this does not exonerate anyone from the duty to allow, or assist towards, the proper cource of civil justice. I am not one who clamours for revenge. However, proper justice (and/or psychological help) should be left to a proper investigation and a ruling from a Court of Law.
In this, I am in complete agreement with Pope Benedict, where he says that "victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice".
Cont...
When I ignore your comments addressed to “Francisco (not Goya y Lucientes),” I am not “avoiding the issue” – I am ignoring inane, unsuccessful attempts to be sarcastic and your ridiculous attempts to create your own interpretation of some phrases used by me e.g. atheists giving the game away = unwittingly disclosing the true reason behind some hostile comment against religion.
They're human. They break down.
My meaning is clear enough. You alleged that that the Church “tolerates” clerical pedophilia and you expressed resentment. I disagreed with you as regards your use of the word “tolerates”. You give it a shade of meaning that is different from mine. You use the word in the sense of willing conspiratorial approval. I understand something quite different namely that the church abhors pedophilia especially among its rank and file but, according to its mission, it treats sinners and victims with understanding, compassion and mercy.
It may interest you to read my reply to Kenneth Cassar that just preceded and anticipated most of your arguments.
@Kenneth Cassar:
“….but I never heard that victims of paedophilia become paedophiles themselves.”
Granted that through your experience from someone who works with both victims of paedophilia and paedophiles themselves, you are in a better position to comment, however, you cannot ignore some of the heartfelt statements submitted by paedophiles themselves in the site I referred to the readers earlier on.
A paedophile, in his comment entitled ‘I want to die - pete - Jul 5th 2007’, ends his contribution with these words… “I was molested 4 times thru my childhood, so don't say I don't know the damage done. I AM the damage done, I AM what happens when you molest a child! Thats why I want to die. Pete”
Here is another comment from said site ‘Most pedophiles are NOT victims themselves - Dr. John Lawler - Sep 8th 2006’
“….Most pedophiles are NOT victims themselves. The Buruea of Justice Statistics (doc. # 202/307-0784) cites that 22% of pedophiles reported having been sexually abused themselves during childhood.
Kenneth, don’t you think that 22% is not a percentage to be brushed off as insignificant?
Yes, I know of authentic cases of pedophiles abusing their position in organizations in contact with young people. Mr G Portelli has given some indication that he too knows about some of them. I expect that as soon as an organization becomes aware of the improper activity it should take whatever steps are necessary to stop the abuse. It is my conviction that no organization - be it the Church or any other organization - should be held accountable for the sinful activities of any of its members as long as such sinful activity is not willingly tolerated and accepted by the organization. Therefore I cannot take your advice to abandon my principles by naming and defaming unnecessarily meritorious organizations just “to be fair to G.Portelli” as you put it. Evidently Mr Portelli does not have the same scruples when dealing with errant priests and the Church but that would not justify me in following in his footsteps in the case of other organizations that I do not consider blameworthy.
You again assume that there is no greater love than yours for the Church and anyone else who asks questions is to burn at the stake. I refuse to accept yours is the only legitimate love for the Chuch and our Religion. Belief in a just society requires action too. Rechristianisation requires courage for renewal not cognitive dissonance. Please stop playing playground twist you are well aware that other organisations are subject to state law first and foremost.
NB I suggest you look up the concept of cognitive dissonance perhaps you will not confound it with the expression of love.
The Church’s mission is one of compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation. It takes its cue from Christ’s teaching especially Matthew Chapter 18. v 15-17
"15 If your brother sins (against you) go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen take one or two others along with you so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
17 If he refuses to listen to them tell the Church. If he refuses to listen even to the Church then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."
Christians follow the instruction “Revenge is mine, says the Lord”. It should not be usurped by anyone else. The Church authorities would be most foolish if they were to become involved in any retributive civil judgments.
(with apologies for unusual but unavoidable length of comment)
The comments on this blog have shown a serious misconception about the proper relation between the Church, the State and sinners. The Church does not “hand over” the sinner to the civil administration for punishment. Such an attitude inevitably disturbs the desirable separation of the Church from the State. This used to happen in the Middle Ages when “heretics” were handed over by the Inquisition to the State. In those bad old days the citizen was expected to endorse the same religion as his ruler – failing to do so was interpreted as the transfer of allegiance to a rival pretender practicing a different religion, a treasonable offence in civil law. The blamefor the resulting atrocities (by modern standards) became inextricably intertwined between State and Church. For that reason the separation of Church from State is a highly desirable state of affairs. (continued)
You would only be fair to G Portelli if you mention just one other organisatin apart from some dioceses withing the Church who know about suspected paedophiles and do not report them to the police for a proper investigation.
I suspect that G Portelli "targets" only the Church because there is no other organisation that does this. The onus is on you to provide examples from other organisations together with supporting documents (like Steve Pace did - e.g. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2003_07_12/2003_10_26_Schembri_PriestCharged.htm )
Nobody is saying that only priests abuse children - these are in any case a minority within the Church. But unlike I am mistaken - prove me wrong if you wish - only some dioceses within the Church fail to report suspected paedophile priests so that proper investigations by professionals (not by priests) may be conducted.
I would be foolish to the point of madness if I were to accept your “assumption” of all the different brands of dissonant “love” that Catholics could demonstrate towards the Church. I would willingly accept any respectful constructive criticism but not aggressively hostile, destructive criticism selectively targeting the Church and turning a blind eye to similar defects in all the other organizations. Your belated and grudging extension of pedophilia to these organizations comes much too late to convince me that previously you had not uniquely targeted priests for your quaint brand of dissonant “love”.
You are right in saying that Christopher Grech is mixing the function of the Church and the State. This is to be expected from someone who craves for a theocracy.
However, I think you may have misjudged Joe Xuereb. Joe Xuereb's point, if I am not mistaken, is not that the Church should have prosecuted, judged and punished Bernard Prince, for instance, but that his diocese allegedly knew about Bernard Prince's abuses since 1968 and allegedly did nothing (like report him to the police).
http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1714189
Ostentatiously self-confessed? Giving the game away is the hallmark of the closeted surely. Ostentatiously self-confessed is one thing. Ostantatiously giving the game away qite another. Contradiction there, methinks.
I am a decent enough guy who watches as the church crumbles (literally) - why, even churchy luminaries declare that Muslim leaders must have the right to build as many mosques as they deem necessary (talk about a Trojan Horse) - and without lifting a single bejewelled digit.
I made amply clear that I do not single out the ruinous behaviour afflicting and affecting children (and others) by priests. But such criminality by priests stands out because it is such a paradox. Without lifting a bejewelled digit.
You are deliberately mixing together the function of the State with that of the Church doubtlessly because in this particular instance, and only in this instance, it suits you to fudge the separation of state from church on which you usually insist so adamantly and so correctly. It is the state that is responsible for the prison sentence and it was doubtlessly inflicted in accordance with the law of the land and not in accordance with any thirst for vengeance. The Church authorities imposed the serious punishment of defrocking. I presume that nothing less than “hanging and quartering”, burning at the stake and ruinous amounts of financial awards for damages would satisfy your thirst for your brand of justice as applied to priests who are as prone to error as any other human being.
Pope Benedict who as you know recognises that the Church is in crisis, has indicated the way forward in the matter. He said so in both the USA in Aril 2008 and in Australia July of the same year. What is stopping the Maltese Church authorities from following suit? Will you not acknowledge at least, that the state of affairs sincerely troubles some Maltese Catholics ? Or will you simply put it down to anticlerical motivation on my part as Dr. Saliba insists? Isn't it legitimate for a Catholic to ask such a question?
@ F. Saliba
You assume that only your brand of 'love' for the Church should be advertised as legitimate. I reserve the right to contest that. My Church and My religion subscribe to the principle of Universality. What will serve the common good best, dissonance or an opportunity to set the house in order?
Other social groups like the Scout movement, football nurseries, sports organisations, dancing schools, state and independent schools and other lay organisation etc are subject to the same laws as everyone else!
Do you know the REAL penalty for pedophilia? Read God's judgments on the matter in the Torah. It is a far cry from the extremely mild 4 years in jail, for abusing 13 young men.
Actions, from knowing or abusing God's Laws is the answer here.
The 4 year penalty, mentioned below, is testamony that the church has its own way, rather than God's way.
I did not say anywhere "it was unfair that churchy people were targeting" (who?) "for meddling with children ......". I said that it was unfair to single out the clergy from all social classes because that demonstrated antireligious antireligious bias.
If you have any proof that “unbeknown to myself I may have a vested interest in protecting (my) church”, more so than any self-confessed atheist would have a vested interest in denigrating my church and all religion, out with it – otherwise please have the decency to curb your too vivid imagination and base insinuations.
Since you ask, yes, there are atheists who keep their unbelief to themselves and there are others who are ostentatiously self-confessed. Unwittingly the latter give their game away immediately when they indiscriminately attack anything, good or bad, about all religion and when they keep their eyes tightly shut so as not to see that “other social groups” are doing the same thing. It sort of weakens their “arguments” such as they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition
With a new mindset, Justice, its attainment, will start to seem more graspable. Not till then. Has not happened since forever. Time for change.
Joe Borg, the Monseigneur' s - no abbreviation for illustrious tiles - last victim was 'vilified' for life in 1984. Bernard Prince (of the Church no less) is currently serving a four year prison sentence. That makes his conviction around 2005 at the earlies. Why the lapse of 21 years before this happened? I need to know. I want to know. I demand to know. It is our right to know. Even yours, Joe Borg.
Yes, the first 3 kings were for the whole tribe of Isreal, before the split into the "House of Israel and the "House of Judah". To Quote 1 Samuel
8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the "I AM".
8:7 And the "I AM" said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.
God warned them that should they have a king, they would only benefit according to how good these kings were, but of course never as good as God Himself. Kings come at a heavy price.
Regarding clerical pedophilia, the church is only interested in minimal damage to its image, rather than a severe solution to the situation. Words versus actions?
"Child victims very often become paedophiles themselves" - this is false. From my experience with someone who works with both victims of paedophilia and paedophiles themselves, some turn to violence, some would abhor sex altogether, but I never heard that victims of paedophilia become paedophiles themselves. Even intuitively one feels this is as possible (little if at all) as a rape victim becoming a rapist.
"The experience of sexual abuse as a child was previously thought to be a strong risk factor, but research does not show a causal relationship, as the vast majority of sexually abused children do not grow up to be adult offenders, nor do the majority of adult offenders report childhood sexual abuse" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Causes
As for censorship, it is not an object of derision - it is an object of outrage, treating adults as if they were children. But lets just agree to disagree, as long as you stay out of my living room (where I might watch films that "will make me" rape, kill, steal, take drugs - yeah, right!)
So I was correct in assuming that you crave a theocracy (provided it is a theocracy that conforms to your own beliefs and opinions).
Please note that I never mentioned the strapping of bombs. A theocracy, in my books, simply means imposed rule by religious law, which in essence means compulsory religion.
Theocracy is not "justice the way God wants it to be". Theocracy is "justice" the way theocrats want it to be. You can have a St Francis of Assisi as a theocrat, but then again, you could also have Charles Manson who claimed God spoke to him.
On one thing you are certainly correct. Support for theocracy is not something non-believers will understand, but then again, neither will people who believe in democracy.
A self-confessed atheist? Is there any other? A self-confessed homosexual man? Neither. Not since I learned that the only way to deal with snide remarks is to be upfront, thus disarming the attacker. Naturally, some persist in missing the point.
Jessica, we are indeed exposed to human sexual expression, perverted or otherwise. Refuting censorship has nothing to do with appearing modern but everything to do with wanting to be informed and make sound decisions. Nothing wrong in 'knowing' evil (if that is what it is). It's doing evil that's wrong (my mother's lesson to me). You needn't worry about your children. They will grow soon enough and they will have to deal with their sexual 'demons', perverted or otherwise. NOBODY'S lef off. Get it?!
Too true. The idea of Ethical economics however will not be allowed to germinate. Look at the G8 summits what gets truly accomplished except promises that are hardly given much thought except through the idea of 'giving handouts' which ignore the circumstances of the economic injustice in the first place and make the handout necessary. That simply reinforces the status quo. Justice is scarce. Instead, injustice thrives, reinforced through social and cultural values, public policy, and institutional systems. Privilege reigns, mostly based on sexual orientation, gender and gender identity, ethnicity and race, affluence and in Malta's case a system of patronage. Keep in mind that most privilege is unearned and those that have privilege are very reluctant to cede it. Are we really always that powerless to prevent injustice? We have to concede that there is a drought of moral courage and leadership.
I am in complete agreement with H.H. Pope Benedict and I have never written anything that justifies your crooked "thinking". You are being most unreasonable when you expect me to rubber stamp publicly every statement by the Pope otherwise you would accuse me of "refusing to even acknowlege" his declarations. It is you, not I, who have been expressing resentment that the Church tolerates clerical pedophilia. It is your vain hope that if enough mud is thrown at me some of it is bound to stick - and this your latest effort.
The Egocentric Thinker
This style is about where the thinker believes absolute truth is. He believes it is within himself.
This person is absolutely convinced that his understanding of things is the absolute truth. This means he will not listen to argument or other viewpoints. This does not mean that he is egotistical or arrogant, although those could be true, and often are. He could have a very low opinion of himself, and retain that view regardless of any arguments presented. He can hold this view even after winning some prestigious award.
This person will go through strange mental maneuvers to avoid changing his view. He must maintain his "view of the world and the way that it "is" at all costs!
Egocentric thinking is common in small children. They tend to accept their first understanding of something as the absolute truth, and will not budge from that belief.
Some people stay in the egocentric mode all of their lives. They are difficult to deal with.
How sad but true ...
I know that imitation is a form of flattery but your echoing of lengthy selections from my comments reminds me of echolalia. This condition is normal in babies – but one should grow out of it in early childhood. Please stop.
So you agree that there were kings of Israel before it broke up into Israel and Judah following the death of Solomon. You may like to note, in connection with your comment, that according to 1 Samuel, Ch8 (especially verse 7) that Samuel was most reluctant to anoint a king for Israel because that would amount to the rejection of God as their king.
Quote ..."Society has become so sex driven “thanks” to the glut of sexual perversion in the media. How can we better protect our children? " This is expecially true with the advent of internet. Unfortunately its up to the parents to try and protect as much as possible. Its a daunting task i admit, but i feel its part of their role. The sex driven society you metion does not just affect children Jessica, it also affects anyone who watches TV .. Married men, Priests, Young people and old. How can we e protected against it ? This is off course just my humble opinion and subject to any sensible criticism .. I would very much value your comment Jessica, on this ..
I have never appealed for anyone "to turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to pain or injustice". I protest against those who actually turned a blind eye for decades to sins committed many years ago and who are now suddenly waking up from their torpor but only after the stench of filthy lucre assailed their nostrils.
My comment "..Is it Justice that when a priest is accused of sexually abusing children he is hidden away rather then exposed an brought before justice ? link provided ( may not be updated ) Who deserves to have the Hammer of Judgement in Hand ? "
You have purposely degenerated this discussion to steer it away from the original context . J Xuereb could not have put it better when he said " interest in 'defending' (or playing down) "
MGR Vella's latest contribution on the topic of divorce is admirable.
Fr. Joe's comment below "... Whoever abuses children should face the total wrath of the law." is also admirable in that they both acknowledge a strong element of humanity and humbleness.
You on the other hand show only an impresiive sense of arrogance and intolerance, which ensures that people who are away from Church .. simply stay away .
Sir whether you attach any importance to what I say is inconsequential, do not assume therefore that your appeal to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to pain and injustice will be accepted. I can only refer you to the writings of St. Augustine and his three theological virtues: Faith, Hope, and Love, the greatest of which is Hope. According to Augustine by Faith we know God is; by Love we know God is Good; by Hope we know God will work God’s will. And Hope, says Augustine, has two lovely daughters: Anger and Courage. Anger so that what must not be cannot be, and courage so that what can be will be.
Society has become so sex driven “thanks” to the glut of sexual perversion in the media. How can we better protect our children? How can we lessen their exposure to so much sex? People are so afraid of censorship - of appearing backward. They constantly cite that democracy does not allow for censorship, so we are bombarded by sex from every angle.
We are all flesh and blood, susceptible to influences which can warp our nature and we are also ever so ready to point fingers and throw stones - hungry for justice which is often misplaced.
I have come across an article which has made me see this grave problem from a different perspective. I suggest readers have a look at the site and read some of the heartbreaking comments by paedophiles themselves. I came away not knowing who to pity more – the paedophiles or their victims???
“Pedophile Priests: Monstrous But Not Monsters”
Mark Dombeck, Ph.D.
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=1560
Paedophilia has been discussed in a previous blog 'A church of saints and sinners' - May 31, 2009 and worth a review, for many points came out which tally with what is being discussed in this blog.
Parents of young children live in dread of paedophiles and are so ready to brand them as monsters but what is society doing to lessen this scourge which seems to be propagating? Child victims very often become paedophiles themselves, and when as children they are pitied for the perverted practices they had been subjected to, as adults with the acquired compulsion to act out their sexual fantasies themselves, they suddenly become monsters to be locked up for life.
Continued...
Saul was the first king of all Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Israel
Prior to Saul, God was King of Israel, and hence I was correct in stating that Israel was ruled none other than God's Laws as contained in the Torah, the first 5 books of the OT.
Many rulers (kings and queens) came to King Solomon to see and understand just how great a Theocracy can really be. Solomon however wise, succumbed to strange women with many wives adoring false gods, and hence God punished Israel for this practice.
@ Kenneth Cassar
The beauty of a Theocracy is not a strap with bombs on your body blowing people up. It is true justice for all, and I mean true justice the way how God wants it to be. It is ALSO a blessing for those who abide by God's laws guaranteeing good health and wealth by God Himself.
This is something difficult to comprehend by non believers and even so by lukewarm Biblical believers, do not truly understand God's majesty on earth.
Your Quote ... "Who gave you the right to allege falsely that I “really have no conception of what these victims go through let alone the turbulent emotions that accompany them most of their lives” or that I am “so blinded (that I) will never even try for one minute to put himself in the victim's shoes"
My Quote " To be honest with you ... the same right you have to distort my arguments and steer away from the original context ..."
Your quote "It is unbelievable that you should have the effrontery to pretend that modern society allows the deliberate distortion of another person’s written comments"
Your quote again "Who gave you the right to allege falsely.. "
My quote "allegation" unquote ... is simply based on what you yourself are writing.
Quote 1 - "You have absolutely no grounds for accusing me of distorting your arguments"
Quote 2 -"It is only now that you concede that the authorities of the Catholic Church in Malta have the right to teach what is right and what is wrong. The previous day you had challenged that right and duty when you asked “….Who says that what the Malta Church Party is saying is right. What if other religions are right and the catholic church is wrong?”
Disguising your assertion under the guise of a rhetorical question does not hide you expressed intention to challenge the right and duty of the Church to teach. "
If this is not distortion than Pigs can fly and elephants lay eggs ...
quote 1 "It is unbelievable that you should have the effrontery to pretend that modern society allows the deliberate distortion of another person’s written comments under the pretext of “freedom of expression”."
Quote 2 - "It is not true that I “cannot” answer questions by Steve Pace. I deliberately ignore sly rhetorical “questions” that are only veiled, barbed accusations, enabling the questioner to squirm out of his predicament by protesting that that is not exactly what he had said or what he had meant. "
Quote 3 - "You deny the right of the authorities of the Catholic Church to teach what it considers to be right and what is wrong, you would deny its duty to do so and.."
Now who is distorting arguments and putting words in people's mouth ? YOU and only YOU ! The original discussion was sexual abuse. You steered it away to avoid embarrassing the church . You have every right to do it. But at least own up to it and stop playing the victim.
Just in case you are insinuating that I am one of those who have “a vested interest in defending (or playing down) the indefensible” please note that I could not possibly have any “vested interest” in defending or playing down pedophilia and whoever practices it – assuming that you know what vested interest means. I object strongly when anticlerical persons or self confessed atheists falsely accuse Church authorities of tolerating and condoning pedophilia committed by anybody. This unjust attack is worsened when they have the gall to pretend that they are motivated by a non-existent desire to improve the standing of the Church in a just society. That pretence is an insult to anybody’s intelligence.
You are entitled to your opinions and I am just as entitled to my own. But please note that I do not attach any value to your opinions and to your circumlocutions as any pertinent rebuttal of the facts as given by me.
It is unbelievable that you should have the effrontery to pretend that modern society allows the deliberate distortion of another person’s written comments under the pretext of “freedom of expression”. No reasonable person would agree with you. Your shocking claim explains why I recently had to expose your attempt to distort and to manipulate my written comment by blatantly tampering with it! You have absolutely no grounds for accusing me of distorting your arguments, and unlike you, I do not even pretend to have that right.
I detect anticlericalism only because, left on your own, you consistently attach sex abuse to priests and never to any other organization whose members commit that crime. You grudgingly diversify your attack only after being challenged.
It is only in the case of the Church that you insist that it “hands over” its clergy to the civil authorities – not in the case of any other organization. It is only in the case of the Church that you consider it “accountable” for the misdeeds of its members.
Regarding the “thousands who went through similar emotions” decades ago, I do not suggest anything. I assert that it is highly suspicious that the victims and their defenders kept mum for decades and that they came out of the woodpile only after the possibility of cash benefit loomed over the horizon and only against the Church on the assumption that it would hurriedly pay up rather than be pilloried by anticlerical.
You will not substantiate your allegation of “many cases of abuse of minors and the perpetrators (other than priests) do end up facing Justice in Maltese courts at last.” With regard to offences committed decades ago.
To be honest with you ... the same right you have to distort my arguments and steer away from the original context ... Its what modern society calls ... Freedom of expression. A civil right probably not very much practised 70 or more years ago, especially when the content of such subject could have put the Malta Church Party in a bad light.
Yes the wish for a just society is a futile dream because our society thrives on dissonance and in the case of Maltese society a system of patronage which shackles any change. There is a great chasm between words and action. Achieving a just society would perturb the system too much. There is no real will for that to happen . We would get the occasional tweak and sop but that's about it.
You keep assuming that there is an anticlerical motivation behind this. You also insist that no one should question the Church's actions. I will disagree. You keep arguing that the Church cannot be held accountable for the behaviour and actions of errant priests, I believe otherwise specifically when the behaviours of said clerics and the non-action of the Church authorities put or have put at risk further children and the trust of the flock. Why you insist that asking the legitimate question about this is obstructing the Church is incomprehensible to me. Or would you rather cloak everything in secrecy.? Secrecy begets suspicion and does not engender trust. As I have said before you cannot really answer questions about the non-action of the Maltese Church authorities only the Bishops can. I firmly believe that the redemption of the perpetrator should not come about at the expense of the victims. That is why I will keep on asking the pertinent questions.
My sincere apologies, as I can only respond to what you actually pen down just as you do . Your seeming anger and lack of empathy for other victims was rather puzzling as you instead attributed devious financial motives to every case across the board. Not every case is the same. We have seen others destroyed by their experiences mostly because there was no one who they could talk to and because other adults failed to notice what was happening or do anything about it.
Re the "thousands who went through similar emotions "
Are you suggesting that when you were growing up this was the norm or that it was endemic or rather that these experiences are easily surmountable?
Sir I focused on paedophile priests because I believe that is an issue that is not justly dealt with. No one is suggesting that paedophilia is more predominant in the clergy. There are however, many cases of abuse of minors and the perpetrators (other than priests) do end up facing Justice in Maltese courts at last.
I did not ask any question nor did I ask for any clarification. I was simply pointing out, obliquely, that your statement “They (the Israelites) were not ruled by kings, and therefore did not have a state nor a need for one” was historically incorrect.
The original Israel consists of 12 tribes. After Solomon's death there was a rift between the House of Isreal 10 "lost tribes of Isreal" now rediscovered (see http://jahtruth.net/abraham.htm) and the House of Judah (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin)
After Solomon the House of Isreal (the other 10, still referred to themselves as Israel).
The British people (Brit is Hebrew for Convanent) and their royal house has thus come from King David. See coat of arms of true Israel of the Brit-ish http://jahtruth.net/britca.htm
I hope that I satisfied your query or comment.
For each word, the dictionary gives several synonyms and definitions that usually have different shades of meaning depending on the context in which they are used. It takes some skill to use the exact synonym, without giving rise to equivocation. The words “tolerance” and “toleration” are perfect examples. In most cases in this blog it has been used loosely to imply wholehearted “approval” when it should have meant reluctantly allowing, (i.e. without punishing) an undesirable state of affairs which is actually disapproved. It is quite correct to say that Christian countries tolerate the practice of other religions but is defamatory to say that the Catholic Church “tolerates” pedophilia whether practiced by the clergy or by laymen.
And we bloggers always thought that Saul, David and Solomon were kings of Israel before the division of the kingdom of Israel after Solomon’s death!
True, my questions refer to matters of Law as enacted (in our case) by elected representatives. Also true that different countries and/or political regions have different laws, which proves my point.
There are different kinds of laws, some being organisational and some (the most important) to enforce justice. Now, if different peoples have different concepts of justice, it will follow that they will have different (sometimes opposite) laws.
As for the elimination of poverty, charity is one way to go about it, but charity alone is not a long-term solution. Eliminating the source of poverty is the hardest but more effective way, and it is here where one would encounter the most controversy.
Should wealth be distributed according to need or merit? Is inheritance is just system? Is the accumulation of wealth in parallel with abject poverty justifiable?
These are the questions on which there is no consensus...hence my point remains intact.
The Israelities, before being seperated into two kingdoms (of Judah and Israel), followed or supposed to follow Moses's Law, and that was by definition God's Law. They were not ruled by kings, and therefore did not have a state nor a need for one. They were ruled by God's Laws, in deep contrast to the mountains of laws of today, both local and now at EU level.
These human laws go directly against God's Laws. Rather than following them, we continue to perverse them.
Are we not supposed to be subject to what God wants from us or not? If not, the above argument is futile, but if we are His subjects on earth, than it is a different matter.
I do not think that the Catholic Church is following Christ's teachings. Let us assume it does, for the purpose of my argument. The Church has every right to inform its adherents to Christ's message (God's really) on ANY aspect of what God intends for us. Hence the seperation of church &state, seperates us from the Godhead.
Who gave you the right to allege falsely that I “really have no conception of what these victims go through let alone the turbulent emotions that accompany them most of their lives” or that I am “so blinded (that I) will never even try for one minute to put himself in the victim's shoes”. I have been “in the victim’s shoes” and therefore I have a genuine “conception of what these victims go through”. In my case the abuser was an official in an organization that looked after young children and youths and it has no connection whatsoever with the local Church. I guess that there are thousands like me who similarly went through “turbulent emotions”. But I did not become an anticlerical fanatic and I do not try to obtain cash benefit, decades later, from the organization to which my abuser belonged. That organization and the local Church do not condone the abuse, they are not in any way responsible for the sins of any of their members and they should not be obstructed when they are giving a valuable contribution to society.
All your questions refer to matters of Law as enacted by elected representatives. Different countries and/or political regions have different laws.
The "just society" -- the topic of this blog -- refers to a universal problem, namely, the elimination of poverty, that is, leaving no one behind. The debate is about on how best to achieve this dream. The Catholic Church has been attacking Poverty through its charitable works since its beginning.
@Steve
Bringing a pedophile to justice and achieving a "Just Society" are two different things.
@Dr. Saliba
There are other authoritative dictionaries around which define "countenance".
Black's Law Dictionary also includes "encouragement; aiding and abetting".
The American Heritage Dictionary adds, "tolerance".
Your repeated definition of the "mission" of the Church ignores the charitable work done on behalf of the disadvantaged by countless priests and nuns of whom some have paid with their lives.
My reference to Entrepreneurship is a continuation of my first post, suggesting that the Church ought to finance worker cooperatives.
The Church is very much in business with its own Bank. No one is complaining or getting upset about that.
As for my allegation ... I have solid, first hand knowledge of Maltese priest-pedophiles.
The guilty has a vested interest in keeping a low profile. Low profiles cannot mete out justice. They fear judgement and counter-attack. So they shut up and 'sweep under the carpet' hoping awkward questions will go away. They do not. Questions become more insistent.
A program on Channel 4 (UK) last Sunday asked leaders of five major religions their stance on the existence of a god. Four insisted on seeing the questions beforehand. Sometimes the interviewees were advised by their press minders not to answer certain questions. Very telling.
I read somewhere on these columns that some commentators seem to be all out to discredit the Church. That is one way of looking at it. Another way would be to see these commentators as well-meaning individuals who are giving the Church a wake-up clarion for it to bow out with dignity while it can.
Although it does not apply to the subject of abuse and divorce, i feel that before any more pain is inflicted to victims, some bloggers and some clergy should see this and put a hand on the hearts of those who in one or another are suffering emotional abuse by the sensless butchering words that are being splashed . They woud indeed come down from the pedestal of superiority and stop believing that they are one step closer to the truth then any one else .
My I draw your attention to the easily ascertainable fact that, so far, you have not been condemning paedophiles in general – you have been concentrating your attack on priests/monks/nuns. I am not a bishop and therefore there is no need for me to answer your last rhetorical question. I presume that the Church authorities would be guided by Christ’s instructions on how to deal with sinners given in Matthew Ch 18 verses 15 – 17. It is up to the civil authority to apply the law of the land. This does not give any special privilege or immunity to the clergy. The era of grandmasters, bishops and inquisitors vying with each other to protect their individual patches of jurisdiction has been relegated to the pages of our remote history for centuries. Please, could we have less hypocritical anticlericalism hiding behind the mask of social justice?
You really have no conception of what these victims go through let alone the turbulent emotions that accompany them most of their lives. You also ignore the fact that perpetrators of paedophaelia thirve on secrecy and instilling shame in their victims. For decades such crimes were not only ignored but children's accusations written off as malicious fabrication, delusion etc. Where it was so obvious that even other priests protested the perpetrator was sent from one diocese to the next or abroad. How are children, who are powerless victims, expected to react particularly when a significant other betrays their trust and innocence? People speak out later primarily because Society now acknowledges that it really occurs, there is a better understanding of the phenomena , there were other victims brave enough to speak out and society finally decided that such behaviour can no longer be ignored and hidden in secrecy. How just is it to favour the redemption of the perpetrator at the expense of the victim?
I wonder the course of action you would take were you bishop confronted with ievidence of a paedophile priest in your diocese. Who would you protect the the victim or the perpetrator?
I do not trivialize the grievances of those who suffered sexual abuse in childhood. It is those who keep mum about the abuse for decades, but who come out raising their arms in horror only when the stench of filthy lucre reaches their nostrils - that is the trivializing!
Disgusting!
Restitution is of course the antidote. No amount of charity given cash, with all the glory attached to it , can wash away the putrifying dirt of injustice.
“ suspect that your hidden grouch is that the local victims of abuse do not achieved the same rich financial awards for "mental suffering" peculiar to the U.S.A. system of “damages awards" by juries"
Please don't trivialise the suffering of those that are sexually abused. I have no hidden agenda I merely see dissonance re the Church's words and actions on this issue locally. I do suggest however you devote some time to work with people who were abused perhaps that will help you gain a better understanding of suffering and pain. What are you implying that I am after the Curia's bankruptcy? Please don't be so crass. Why should justice for victims of abuse by the clergy be so threatening to an organisation as secure as the Church in its quest for Social Justice? Please refrain from equivocating it is not a pleasant practice and does the Church more harm. “Immunita’ ecclesiae” and the “privilegium fori indeed! Immunity from prosecution results when victims of abuse by the clergy who are left with shattered lives do not see the perpetrators of the alleged abuse facing Justice like ordinary citizens do. Money would never put right lost innocence and trust.
"Contrary to what Kenneth Cassar wrote, the term has been clearly defined".
Contrary to what I wrote? If you are referring to my post addressed to Fr Borg, I obviously was not referring to poverty. After all, the article is not just about poverty, but about justice in general. And although justice can be defined, in practice what constitutes justice has been constantly debated for centuries. Is capital punishment justice? Is abortion punishable as murder? Is capitalism a just system? Is socialism a just system? Need I go on? There is no concensus on most topics about justice. That's all I meant.
Quote " There is no shred of evidence that the Church authorities have ever countenanced such behaviour "
Quote " Asked why the Curia should be taken seriously when it asks for pardon when it emerges that it tried to hide cases of alleged sex abuse, Mr Buttigieg said the Curia “strongly objects to the defamatory allegation .However, Mr Buttigieg would not reply why the Curia hadn’t compelled Fr Scerri to return to Canada and face criminal charges there in 1993, in line with the priestly “vow of obedience”. Nor would he reply how was children’s protection ensured by the Curia letting him remain in Malta and work in active ministry with children.... "
F Saliba .... Spot on ! Well done !
I am beginning to suspect that your hidden grouch is that the local victims of abuse do not achieved the same rich financial awards for "mental suffering" peculiar to the U.S.A. system of “damages awards" by juries. These have led to the closure of many churches not to mention many laymen who opt for out-of-court settlements under blackmail to avoid harmful adverse publicity from dishonest lawyers who appropriate for themselves most of the damages award. You seem to be under the false impression that local priests/monks/nuns are immune from the justice system of the state. If so please come out of your time-warp and learn that the “immunita’ ecclesiae” and the “privilegium fori” are only dim memories of a very distant past. The priest/monk/nun mentioned by you are undeniably subject to the local laws to the same extent of any ordinary citizen and victims have the same access to “redress”.
Re your take on disengagement
I doubt anyone can afford to be sarcastic about disengagement of the faithful and youth. Disengagement doesn’t necessarily mean leaving the Church it can also mean not questioning anything because one perceives it as futile in the quest for change and renewal. This usually leads to discouragement. It is then easier to look at the plight of others in realities far from our own then to look at our own reality. I have time and time again listened to discussions in various contexts where it seems the idea of community is reduced to those who still go to Church. The discouraged and the disillusioned it seems are not worth the bother. That does not exactly tally with the idea of Universality, nor does it tally with "the acceptance of everyone in a spirit of diaconia and the promotion of justice” as declared by the Diocesan Synod.
'The clamour from certain individuals is for more intense uncharitable unchristian vengeance masquerading as social justice.’ There is no shred of evidence that the Church authorities have ever countenanced such behaviour.
The narrative of the Maltese priest/monk/nun is one of trial and tribulation like that of any human and one that deserves compassion. There is not much evidence however that the Church locally has gone further than in-house inquiries with regards social justice and victims of abuse. A situation where members of an organisation are perceived as immune from the Justice system of a state is not conducive to a just society. It also weighs the scales heavily against the victims. They have no hope of redress. Dissonance between belief and action should at some point cause anguish. I find it hard to believe that there is no one else who agonises over this in Malta. I think it is legitimate for Maltese Catholics to question this rather than assuming some ‘intense uncharitable unchristian vengeance’ as an ulterior motive.
Why would this not be working towards a just society or justice in society ? a genuine question and no sarcasm .
I use the word “countenance” with the precise meaning given to it by the Concise Oxford Dictionary of “sanctioning” and “encouraging” without the addition of other meanings given to it “as language evolves”.
I do not intend to canvas anybody to support your allegation about what happened seventy years ago because I was very much alive at that time myself and I was not aware of any countenancing. I do not understand your reference to “Entrepreneurship” in relation to the Church in Malta. Are you suggesting by any chance that the local Church, embattled as it is in refuting the unjust allegation of “imposing” itself on the state should now antagonize the world of commerce by competing in its business and commercial activities?
I repeat for the umpteenth time that the mission of the Church is to teach and spread the gospel – not to “impose” not to coerce. Faithful Christians would be well advised to follow its guidelines in all their activities be they domestic or political activities – and I now add in their business activities, as a sop to your involving “Entrepreneurship” in this blog.
If by "countenanced" you mean "approval", then you are quite correct that there is no shred of evidence of the Church (in Malta) approving criminal behaviour by its priests.
However, as language evolves, "countenance" has taken on the additional meaning of "tolerance". In this case, your assertion fails because, if you were to canvas the old parishes -- 50 while I was growing up on the Island -- you would find, in every parish, at least one person, over the age of 70, who would give you all the evidence of wrong-doing by a priest whose only punishment was his removal from the duty of hearing confessions.
But the bringing to justice an errant priest has nothing to do with working towards a "just society" -- a term coined by Canadian Prime Minister, the late Pierre Trudeau, himself a Catholic and whose education included rigorous training by Jesuits.
Contrary to what Kenneth Cassar wrote, the term has been clearly defined; the debate is on how to achieve the elimination of poverty. The Catholic Church has been battling the "obscenity of poverty" through Charity, since its inception. The sad part is that Charity is a poor vehicle to combat Poverty. Entrepreunership might do it.
It should be obvious to any unbiased person that the faults of individual Maltese church members when their behaviour falls short of what is expected of them by the Chirch itself cannot be attributed by any reasonable person to the universal Church itself or to the Church authorities in Malta. There is no shred of evidence that the Church authorities have ever countenanced such behaviour. The clamour from certain individuals is for more intense uncharitable unchristian vengeance masquerading as social justice. Moreover the tone of the criticism of the teaching of the universal Catholic Church regarding such important issues as abortion, divorce and euthanasia does not support the pretence that it is intended to slow down the local “disengagement of the faithful”. It is a destructive criticism much more likely to increase the “disengagement of the faithful” rather than to foster social justice.
"There is no “absolute right” moral code Therefore, your comment about “moral relativism” is nonsensical".
So would you say that rape may be justifiable if a culture permits it? If the answer is no, would this not be a clear example of an absolute?
Having more than one wife cannot be both right and wrong. It is either right, wrong or morally neutral. Morality does not limit itself to culture. If a culture permits something another culture does not, then either one culture is wrong, or the issue is morally neutral. It can't be right in one culture and wrong in another.
Moral relativism is when one excuses wrong action under the pretext of culture. It is what tries to justify forced female genital mutilation, for instance.
Regarding the Church's imposition of morality, I've already been through this. I already made it clear that it has no such right, and that it does not impose morality (at least not in Malta).
It is not the Church that denies divorce to non-Catholics. It is the State.
To deny the Church the possibility to influence the State is to deny it freedom of thought and expression. As an atheist, I will never accept that state of affairs.
Like someone once said, I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.
Quote, “To use your example, having more than one wife is either right or wrong. It cannot be both, or else "right" would lose its meaning entirely.”
Frankly, your logic escapes me. Having more than one wife can indeed be both right and wrong. It may be “wrong” by Western standards but “right” by the standards of many other cultures. We are not talking about scientific facts here, merely societal norms that vary from country to country. Societal norms are based on history, culture, traditions and of course religion and they are constantly changing and evolving. For example, the Old Testament endorses slavery and outlines in clear detail, how slaves, which it claims are the property of their owners, should be treated. Thankfully, we do not follow this “moral” teaching today. There is no “absolute right” moral code Therefore, your comment about “moral relativism” is nonsensical.
The denial of divorce by the church is based on the church’s current moral norms, but not society at large. The church has ever right to preach this “moral” to its followers, but it is absolutely wrong to impose it on everyone through its influence on the State.
No you cannot answer Steve Pace's questions particularly those pertaining to Social Justice and the victims of sexual abuse by Maltese clergy members, only the Bishops can. What you can do is understand that for the Church to renew itself in Malta a lot of courage is needed. You can surely perceive that what you term loaded and rhetorical questions are valid questions to pose the leaders of the flock. Why any argument has to be termed an accusation or an attempt to squirm out of something or an attempt to silence you escapes me. Semantic footwork will not make those questions go away they merely hasten the disengagement of the faithful. I do not think that is helpful. How is a community that does not voice its concern at dissonance and injustice, a Catholic vision of Christ's community? Would you rather it slumbers on in a false reality to preserve a status quo, becoming a community of the numb? We have been going down that road for a while now . We are in crisis and as my Christ is empathic he understands that courage is needed for true renewal.
Maltese society a reasonable society? How can a society in a feverish stranglehold that is belief in tooth-fairies be described as reasonable? When that which purports to work for justice is a sham. Such a sham in fact that it was useful in its day (as a concept) but no more. Justice lies way beyond the realms of fantasy. Justice has to be grounded. With reality checks. And reality based. A serious institution would stop pointing fingers, blaming other institutions for the ills that abound. It could start by pointing fingers at itself. Then, and only then, can we start to begin to consider the meaning of justice and its implementation.
I do never ask sly rhetorical questions and your quotation of my comment is an obvious travesty of what I actually wrote.
You do not quote me faithfully as anybody could easily verify that you have deliberately omitted a most important section. Why do you do it? It only destroys your credibility.
The point is that the Catholic Church has ever right to preach what it deems to be right and wrong, but only to its followers. It has no right to impose its beliefs on the State, because the State is charged with the responsibility of representing the interest of all its citizens, in as balanced a way as possible. For example, despite the fact that France is generally a Christian society, no religious symbols are allowed in its public institutions/buildings, Thus, Muslim women are prohibited from covering their head in schools, as would be Christians from wearing a Cross, or Jewish people from displaying the Star of David.
The denial of divorce in Malta, to use one example, is hardly indicative of a just society. Rather, it reflects too much influence/interference by the Church in the affairs of the State.
It is only now that you concede that the authorities of the Catholic Church in Malta have the right to teach what is right and what is wrong. The previous day you had challenged that right and duty when you asked “….Who says that what the Malta Church Party is saying is right. What if other religions are right and the catholic church is wrong?”
Disguising your assertion under the guise of a rhetorical question does not hide you expressed intention to challenge the right and duty of the Church to teach.
We all know Dr. Saliba is in reality motivated by his brand of loyalty and love for the Church but that shouldn't result in a standoff. Dr. Saliba cannot answer your questions. He assumes that he can speak for and justify the Church's actions. He also seems to assume that Catholics let alone others, have no right to question certain behaviour they find dissonant with the teachings of Christ or the Church's own universal principles particularly when said behaviour stems from the Church institution itself. He further assumes that any decent discussion is motivated by an anticlerical sentiment which I can assure him it is not. I am sure Christ would empathise. Social Justice deserves proper discussion not equivocation. If anything equivocation merely harms the Church. I suggest you direct your questions to their Excellencies the Bishops of Malta and Gozo. I fully intend to do so, as a Maltese Catholic, deeply troubled both by this state of affairs and the process of disengagement so apparent within Maltese society. My question will also centre on whether the Maltese ecclesiastical authorities are more concerned with issues of status quo at the expense of the disengagement of their flock!
" . I never said that the Church does not have a right ! F.Saliba tried to put words in my mouth yet again by saying " You deny the right of the authorities of the Catholic Church to teach what it considers to be right and what is wrong " What i think is that it does not have a riight to Impose .. Which has a completely different sense .
If you don't mind me asking,, How would you make justice to someone who has suffered infedility ?
I am convinced that it is not true at all that most/all Malta law courts (i.e. including the Constitutional Court itself) are disregarding the Constitution of the Republic of Malta. Such a preposterous allegation should not be repeated unless supported by hard facts - the alleged opinion of an unknown person would not be enough. That is the problem!
Of course, though I wouldn't put it exactly in those terms (I wouldn't use "rightfully theirs" - as if spouses are the property of each other). But yes, marriage infidelity is a betrayal of trust, and definitely an injustice.
Of course...nothing controversial about that, although I would clarify that it is not the state's business to decide what the Church's duty is, or is not. That falls on the Church authorities themselves. But regarding the right to teach what principles are right or wrong, of course it does have that right. Only totalitarians would disagree.
I feel like I'm being robbed of my capacity to answer to it all, as 200 words vanish far too quick. Going through your chechlist would be impossible within that limit.
You ask "Don't we have more justice in Europe today than there was fifty years ago?". I think the answer is a clear and distinct, yes. I have had that discussion so many times as of late when people claim how much better it was in the past. Societies, at least across the western world, has become beacons of light to many nations and I think this light is slowly being expanded to contain nations which have not been as fortunate in regards to progress. I doubt we will ever reach a moment of completely "just society", but lets keep trying.
As I said, someone had replied that to me. I do not know. If it is the case that courts in general disregard this article, wouldn't you agree that it would make it a bit of a mockery? If it's not the case, then what is the problem?
I do agree with you 100% that the constitution not only provides the Church with the right to deem what is right and wrong, but even says it is its duty. I think this clearly prove how non secular the Maltese constitution is, something I have a feeling you don't mind.
Steve Pace:
I simply pointed out that the excerpt about the RCAC right and duties, as stated by the constitution, was in context of his post. Whether it was in context to earlier posts or not is besides the point.
Before deriding the Constitution of the Republic it would be neccesary to prove the assertion that the "constitution (is) being disregarded in most (/all) courts" by quoting specific judgments.
You deny the right of the authorities of the Catholic Church to teach what it considers to be right and what is wrong, you would deny its duty to do so and, on top of everything else, you question the obvious fact that our Republican Constitution clearly acknowledges this right and imposes this duty. And yet you have the cheek to ask ME to climb down from the “pedestal of superiority”!
This issue is certainly not “out of context” after you twisted my comment into a malicious invitation that I agree with you “that the church has no business in trying to impose its laws on the state”.
I'm sad to say that he isn't quoting it out of context. It says what it says and it doesn't say it in context to anything different. I had discussed this on another forum just recently, with someone replying on the lines of this part of the constitution being disregarded in most (/all) courts. Makes a bit of a mockery out of the constitution in my opinion.
Until such time as there is economic opportunity, for all, there cannot be a just society.
The "obscenity of poverty", as you so rightly put it, is at the root of all that is wrong in societies everywhere.
If you were Canadian, I would bet my last dollar that you would be counted among those of us on the Left of the political spectrum where the elimination of poverty is our top priority.
Where we fail is our obsession with the "fair distribution of wealth". We cannot come to admit that, under a Market economy, there can be no such thing as "fair distribution." The Market produces goods and delivers services, only if there is a profit to be made. From this profit, we expect to be able to tax enough to cover the needs of the disadvantaged. It is a mathematical impossibility.
If the Catholic Church were to mobilise its enormous wealth, and its universal presence, to switch from a charity to an enterprise to fund worker-cooperatives, the problem will be solved.
Only then will the dream of a just society materialize.
What if the Constitution of the Republic of Malta states:
“(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.” ?
How about you coming “down from the pedestal of superiority and pull away from the feeling that you are one step closer to the truth then anyone else !
It is consciences that need to be cleansed and renewed in the spirit of Christian love and respect for the dignity of each and every human being. We are all invited to turn to God for help if we truly desire to correct our ways. “God helps those who wish to wean themselves from unjust attitudes. Man’s yearning to live in justice spurs him to believe in eternal life, where there will be no more suffering and God will wipe the tear from every eye and sin and death will be no more.”
If we all strive to change our ways we will turn the wheel around. Institutions and organisations are made up of individuals and a courageous witness will bear fruit in due time.
“… we can only have a just society if each Dick and Tom does his utmost to be just.”
In a nutshell, the above is exactly what is needed to have a just society. After all aren’t organizations made up of individuals? And aren’t the individuals who come together in committees of various, institutions, establishments, government departments ….. bound to work for the common good?
On a personal level, what I find very irritating is the fact that various bodies try to inculcate civic pride in the young, but this civic pride is then totally ignored by parents. For instance, we have had items on the local news showing a drive to clean up beaches and other areas, then all too often we see the bad examples which insensitive grown ups give to their children.
We have all witnessed, I’m sure, plastic bottles, empty cigarette packs and bits of paper flying out of open windows of cars infront of us – and how many parents clean up after a barbeque on the beach? Isn’t that a shame?
And, incidentally, what of the harmful exhaust fumes which we still have to inhale notwithstanding that the problem was to be dealt with?
Your Excellencies
As we stand at the moment (August 2009) there is still no social justice for Maltese and Gozitan victims who were subjected to sexual/physical emotional abuse by ordained individuals. Your Excellencies the Bishops, can make sure, that the Maltese and Gozitan victims of abuse by individuals who are priests, monks, members of religious societies etc partake of social justice. Social Justice is not served by in-house inquiries that keep failing the victims. That is a disturbing state of affairs for a great number of Maltese and Gozitan Catholics.
Rechristianising Maltese society requires courage, one should find the courage to ensure that social justice happens for these victims of abuse too. Is it so difficult to see? Reason can guide Faith here. The loud silences on the issue merely feed disappointment and further disengagement.
G.Portelli
We were discussing the Catholic Universal principle of Social Justice, you do Catholicism no favours ! My questions in effect cannot be answered by equivocation that degenerates into an infantile power game. I do agree with you however that the duty to report a criminal act devolves on all of us, not just Mother Church. My questions really should be directed at their Excellencies the Bishops. You and I can only argue our different views, in the meantime, the Maltese Catholic community further disengages from the Church in light of the cognitive dissonance between words and action. Disengagement should be worrying the spiritual leaders. I will therefore directly appeal to their Excellencies, Archbishop P. Cremona and Bishop M. Grech.
Don’t jump to the wrong conclusion and don’t expect me to follow you when you do so. Your profuse thanks are premature and out of place! I do not agree with you that the Church is “ trying to impose its laws on the state’. The Church is carrying out its mission to teach what is right and what is wrong. It cannot shirk that duty. It is my hope that Maltese society, in its role as the nation’s electorate, would freely choose to heed the teaching of the Church and to elect representatives showing the same disposition. That is not the same as agreeing with you that the Church has no business imposing its laws on the state.
I think that you must have written your comment without properly digesting my own (posted just 11 minutes before yours) otherwise you would not have asked so many loaded questions to which I had clearly replied. My comment leaves no doubt that I never advocated protecting any criminal activity. I insist that such acts be reported to the proper authorities for their proper investigation and action. This duty devolves on all of us, not just Mother Church. Some professional people e.g. lawyers, priests, doctors are not as liable as the general public to report and to denounce suspects because of restrictions imposed by their calling and by obligations under professional secrecy as imposed by law – they do not “hand over” suspects.
After the demise of the Spanish Inquisition, and the wise separation of Church from State, the Church no longer “hands over” sinners to the civil state. The Church had learnt its lesson but we stll encounter those who would make a scapegoat of it at the drop of a hat.
from http://jahtruth.net/why.htm
We have made human laws that protect the rich from the poor or middle class!!
In some countries enterprises pay corporate taxes less than income % taxes. Consessions, monopolies, statutes can also give some enterprises that leading edge, or cutting out all competition.
The teachings of all of the Prophets in The Bible, including Christ Himself hinge on the obeying of The Law. As Christ said Himself, in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 5; 'Think not that I am come to destroy The Law or The Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For truly I say unto you, till Heaven and Earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from The Law, till all be fulfilled.'
Are we still listening? Catholics promote "love" towards each other, and doing away with Moses' law, exactly against what Christ was about, to reinstate God's laws.
" However, Mr Buttigieg would not reply why the Curia hadn’t compelled Fr Scerri to return to Canada and face criminal charges there in 1993, in line with the priestly “vow of obedience”. Nor would he reply how was children’s protection ensured by the Curia letting him remain in Malta and work in active ministry with children.
The Curia is also keeping absolute silence about whether it will seek to defrock Fr Scerri from the priesthood, in the light of the criminal charges filed against him in two different countries. Asked whether the Curia’s response team had contacted Canadian police or the alleged Canadian victim, Mr Buttigieg refused to answer"
Furter comment on the matter is futile. ..... I hope this is simmered enough to your liking ! .. It just makes me shiver to try to come up with a reason why someone would defend such a situation ! It really does !
and now for a quote from the article ", Charles Buttigieg, did admit that the case was closed for the Curia after the priest had denied the accusations to his MSSP superiors." "The MSSP’s “investigation” itself was, however, concluded, on the basis of Fr Scerri’s denial that he ever abused children in Canada."
I tremble to think about the result of handing over any “hammer of justice” to anyone so blinded as you seem to be!
Why shouldn't the Church hand perpetrators of child abuse to the civil authorities to be tried before a criminal court if social justice is a Catholic universal principle? How is the Church to ensure that victims abused by ordained individuals obtain a legitimate redress for the betrayal of trust, loss of innocence etc? How will social justice prevail if perpetrators are not processed before a criminal court whoever they are? Any discussion on victims of abuse can't afford to be flippant about the undeserved pain and turmoil such victims go through. A MotherChurch that does not seek redress for its children who were abused physically and sexually by priests/nuns etc. is not an evenhanded mother. Care for the perpetrator but not at the expense once again of the victim, otherwise why should the Church speak of social justice? It is losing the moral high ground. It is baffling and hurtful to most Catholics that reason in such cases (e.g. the Gozo case) certainly is not guiding Faith. Such instances merely act to speed up the process of disengagement from the Church. It doesn't help in the rechristianisation of Malta anyone can see that, so why the obtuseness?
It should be quite easy to simmer down without going to the other extreme of lapsing into a coma. Neither rage nor coma are commendable in a reasonable society. Obviously it would be the primary responsibility of any abused individual, or of his legal representative if underage or mentally weak, to lodge a complaint with the responsible authorities as soon one becomes aware of the offence, and not only many years later, after the smell of possible lucrative compensation becomes obvious. No one ”hands over” any suspect to anybody else; this is not the Wild West adopting kangaroo courts methods. It is up to the whole of society to support the legitimate keepers of the peace and not to shield any culprit but remembering that even the law exempts close members of the family and those who hold professional secrets from being forced to testify - let alone "hand over" a suspect - under certain circumstances.
Would it not be better if you simmered down a bit? There is no evidence of the Maltese Church “defending” the “perpetrator” and it is not its duty to “hand any person over to justice”. I tremble to think about the result of handing over any “hammer of justice” to anyone so blinded by rage as you seem to be!
With regards to my simplistic comment.. Well yes Fr. Joe .. I am a simple man with simple ideas contrary to yourself . Plus i have only 200 words to develop any idea. Granted , maybe i should have said, " The rest of the world is TRYING.... " or maybe i should have not mentioned a muslim country .
Take this example. Two people where seperated ten years ago. They decided to start a family. They cannot marry even civily. Why, because the Malta Church Party is full speed ahead with interfeering with state affairs, thus ensuring that discrimination against these people remains.
MGR Grech once said that it is not just that Co-habiting couples enjoy the same privildges as married couples. Is this not inciting discrimination . How can anyone who blurts out such discrimination say anyhting about Justice. Anyone with such blind folded attitude cannot be objective . My questions in my earlier comment about the sexual abuse will remain unanswered. Why, as you read in the article , the church will not answer . Those people who suffered abuse cry . The perpetrator is in a safe haven . Is this Justice ?
Since when have two wrongs made a right?
The "Hammer of Judgment" is ultimately in God's hands.
Bishop Mario Grech has drawn attention to most of the endemic problems which we are all aware of but which either our human nature finds hard to overcome or else are problems which are too complex to resolve.
Man finds a thrill in spreading rumours especially in this day and age when nothing is taboo anymore. What was once considered as something to be hushed up and unchristian to repeat, seems to have become commonly accepted as an everyday piece of news.
Quarrels over inheritance has a long history, why should it be any different now? What is shameful is the way some lawyers take advantage of a sad situation and exploit it for their own gains. Lawyers should be the last persons to be brought into a quarrel of this sort. How much better it is to have words with family members but which, with some effort and good will, is brought to a civilized solution! If said problems are taken to court, you can bet it is the lawyers who will emerge as winners - I know of businesses that went bankrupt because of legal expenses and court cases that dragged too long.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2003_07_12/2003_10_26_Schembri_PriestCharged.htm
Who deserves to have the Hammer of Judgement in Hand ?