The Spanish parliament has just made EUR 15b worth of budget cuts (by one vote) and Malta can afford to discuss communion to cohabitants, hypothetical coalitions, Daphne Caruana Galizia, Lou Bondi and whether secularism is a disease. Damned lucky country. – Fausto Majistral
So cohabiting couples should strictly speaking not be allowed to take part in the sacrament of holy communion. We were reminded that recently and suddenly there is a furore, a raising of the metaphorical ruckus and more by an indignated part of the populace. What do our Bishops think they are doing? Don’t they know that there are people who traipse up the aisle and swallow the wafer who are much less deserving than the poor cohabiting couples whose only crime is to love each other?
Say what? I could not believe my eyes as more and more people jumped on the anti-church bandwagon once again. Suddenly people were pontificating on a virtual classification of “communion merit”. Soon enougha ritual of a specific denomination on the island was discussed in the same manner as one would a universal human right.
Have I got news for the pseudo-libertarians: there is no universal human right to communion. On a scale of human interpreted religious ritual – one that strongly believes that what the earthly representatives of a divinity say is truly inspired by the aforementioned divinity – whatever anyone else has to add is pure balderdash. Communion is a religious ritual that has quite possibly existed ever since the man from Nazareth chose to ask is apostles to break bread and eat it in his remembrance. True, at that point in time there were no postillae or qualifications as to who could partake of this commemorative meal whenever it happened (neither did Haysus mention anything about wheat intolerance – something the Catholic Church would only solve in early years of the 21st century) but we must perforce presume that he left such work to Peter “the Rock” and his followers.
That last presumption is also crucial since the Catholic Church is now the supreme authority of what is kosher in communion. Which is why the sudden jumping and yelling when it was made clear that cohabiting couples should stay put on their church seats while the purer folk go about their queuing and communing is all very out of order. And what is all this nonsense about the Church being picky and hypocritical when it spares the more obvious candidates from wafer deprivation? I do not recall the church or any pointy hatted representative say that liars, thieves etc CAN have communion while cohabiting couples CANNOT. The rules are quite clear for everybody and there is also a mechanism for the repentant and the contrite – it’s another ritual which involves a sort of skype with God via his earthly rep.
Do we really need to get into the ritualistic details of Roman Catholicity to understand the difference between a rite and a right? But, they protest, the Church also has a social role and is a social example. Bollocks. Let the church deal with its own contradictions in its own time. Let it explain to its flock how sex before marriage, cohabitation, adultery, theft and murder are all on the same level in the “Does Not Qualify for Communion” point system. What the church also does is something very sly. It does not police its aisles with lie detectors and identifiers of premarital fornicators – it simply and very calmly puts it on your own conscience. It does not need a reminder from Mario & Cremona for a good catholic to know that sins and contrition are all part of the mechanism of personal development. Religion and spiritual development is all about rites in this case – and about the relationship between you and God – should you believe in her of course.
It’s a rite, not a right so stop harassing the catholic flock and if you don’t like it just do not go in there.
The Times of Malta. Debate rages on communion to cohabiting couples.
Not Only in Malta. In Holland controversy over a priest who refused to give communion to a gay person.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7ddb7ca5-1983-49c1-9f50-8c8585940782)
The better half organised a Eurovision party last night. Not that I needed an excuse to take a peek at the goings on in this year’s kitsch fest but a bit of party snacks and company for the dissing always helps. So we’re out – and a song that was never really destined to shoot through the charts makes a gracious exit (almost gracious bar the snipe at “neighbour votes”) from the world of euroglam and drug-free fantasia.
There’s something eerie about this Eurovision. Its thrown up the usual suspects from the weird to the tasteless to the musically undesirable but there is something more to it. There is almost (and I stress almost) a whiff of the political once again. It’s not all Plastic Bertrand if you know what I mean – there is a DNA of the economic depression that runs through most songs and – weirdly enough – a very unexpected common strand in what is generally considered a heathen festival of bugger-thy-neighbourdness (while getting his vote) is the constant appeal to religion and spirituality – a peak reached by the weepingly ungrammatical implorations to Mr God (was it Moldavia?).
Lithuania promise a musical solution to the depression on Thursday but Russia has already dug into the deeper and darker side of its soul providing with an incredibly melancholy outfit that reminds you of anything but music but that would also be a brilliant soundtrack to a Euro-Dollar exchange chart. In times of trouble we take refuge in the spiritual and phantasmagorical. What better place then for the expression of men with bulging crotches dressed as birds, butterflies gone wrong and trees that dance and sing Whoary-horny?
The festival will go on on Thursday and Saturday. The French have an Outre-Mer catchy football anthem featuring Brasil football gear while any intelligent bets would be on Ze German song- catchy and full of euro-pronounced English. Intelligence is not what wins the Eurovision though and given the usual betting shenanigans Deutschland and Merkel will be spared the expense of hosting the next edition of the travelling circus.
Back home we will probably revert to the usual suspects of accusations of waste and disquisitions as to whether the € spent on euromadness would have been best spent on something with more “kulcher”. We just don’t get it … c’est ça la culture … and even in this kitschfest of depressive depravity and soul-searching spirituality we exit early in a shower of self-commiseration, misguided xenophobic accusations and a renewed disgust at the failure of Greater Europe to give credit to this small island’s Dream.
***
ADDENDUM:
And even more Maltese kulchur unveiled. The PL HAD to have its say on the matter.
PL sends its congratulations
The Labour Party in a statement congratulated Thea Garrett and her team for an excellent performance and said that Thea should continue to pursue her dream in the music industry.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c09c69bf-8f75-4dab-b542-662afa2494c4)
J’accuse has received a copy of Lou Bondi‘s defence argument before the Broadcasting Authority. It makes for very very interesting reading. Much as we would like to enter the debate on the issue of whether or not Lowell should have been allowed on the programme (and elsewhere we have done just that), we are more intrigued by the manner in which this ‘apologia’ continues to expose Lou’s selective amnesia as well as double-standards with regards to the weight of public opinion.
You will find below a link to the full document presented by Lou Bondi to the BA and you might like to read through it with particular attention to point 12 – regarding public opinion. Two questions stand out: firstly that Lou is arguing a technical point based on the very public opinion he chose to minimise in the Delimara program (Programmes People Watch).
Then there is the blatant selective amnesia – such as has been displayed before on the occasion of the infamous Plategate Bondiplus programme. Just look at point 12 of Lou’s apologia: first he quotes media guru Joe Borg and then he quotes an article in the Times – referring to the comments section. Having thus exhausted (according to Lou) all instances where his programme was mentioned and criticised he concludes:
Jidher car li ftit hafna kienu dawk li argumentaw li l-programm ma’ kellux isir. Interessanti wkoll li hafna minn dawk li qalu li l-programm kellu jsir, jikkritikaw, anki bl-ahrax, lil NL.
Brilliant. But false. Lou would like everybody to believe it. He probably believes it himself but the problem is tha this very forum chronicled the response in the mainstream media for you in the post entitled Gurnalizmu fuq Kollox (The Sunday Quotes). Claire Bonello, Mikela Spiteri and Tanja Cilia – all on the Times – and the Indy in a report all mentioned and criticised Bondiplus without any qualms.
You will notice of course that this assessment of all that Lou left out does not include the boringly irrelevant reality of the “peclieqa” on blogs… still, even without that proof you can see how selective Lou has been.
If you want a wider assessment of public opinion then dive to the wiked site youropenbook.org and input “norman lowell”. J’accuse has done it for you just click here. Scroll down to the period on and after 3rd May and see for yourself.
The farce continues….
Click to open the “Risposta BA re: Lowell” file.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=eeb796b9-9596-4cd8-954b-9a67bee99ced)
On 3rd October 1992 Irish singer Sinéad o’Connor appeared on Saturday Night Live and gave a rendition of Bob Marley’s song “War”. During the a capella rendition she switched the word “racism” with the words “child abuse” in protest over the problems of sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. At the end of the performance she displayed a photo of Pope John Paul II which she proceeded to tear up while pronouncing the word “evil” and “fight the real enemy”.
Incitement? You be the judges of that.
Some guy gets fined €500 under the Press Act for having commented that the pope should be shot through the hands and feet in order to feel closer to Jesus. This declaration was made within the “confines” (that’s sarcasm guys) of a facebook group called “No to the Pope in Malta”.
The charge was of incitement under the Press Act. Some people including, surprisingly, defence lawyer Owen Bonnici, argue that the publication in question (a Facebook entry) is not made in Malta but wherever Facebook has opted to have as a place of abode. What rubbish. We have repeated time and time again that the important thing with regard to publications is not where the site is registered but where it can be read. Hence anything you write on public forums/sites/comment boards etc is liable to be subject to Maltese law for the simple reason that it can be read on a computer in Malta.
My gripe is more on the issue of “incitement” than anything else. the police must have received a complaint and proceeded thereupon – they are not so much to blame. My worry is how far do we define this incitement and with what limits. For one thing it would be evident to any reasonable minded individual that Karl Farrugia’s comment regarding the perforation of the papal limbs with projectiles is surely not in the same league of seriousness as, let’s say, a loony rightist leader’s intimation of the use of violence methods for the expulsion of immigrants.
I believe that neither in the case of Karl nor in the case of the (fictitious) loony leader are we confronted with an equivocal statement as that uttered by Henry II. History leads us to believe that speaking of Becket Henry said “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest”. In actual fact it went more like this:
“What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!”
Four knights – Reginald Fitzurse, Hugh de Morville, Willieam de Tracy and Richard le Breton – overheard the regent’s appeal and took him to his word. They found Becket in Canterbury cathedral and brutally murdered him. The King lived to regret this deed while the four knights ended up being excommunicated for their troubles. In any case their interpretation of the royal despair as some form of command might be forgiven. Whether we should think that Karl Farrugia’s exhortation is an invitation in the manner of Henry II is something I doubt very much.
True, people should be more aware of the consequences of their utterings and postings on such tools as facebook but surely no one in his right mind would believe that Karl Farrugia’s statement was meant to be taken literally?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fdd802b8-eab8-425e-ba54-e4e1cbd44b0d)
