Tag: church

Categories
Values

A nation of stone-throwers

The judgement in the case of the two paedophiles Godwin Scerri and Charles Pulis has justifiably leapt to the top of the most talked about news stories on the ether. There is no doubt that any normal human (anybody who does not have a Breivik streak anyway) will have passed through a mixture of emotions when hearing about how these two beings (they do not deserve to be called men) abused of the position of trust and responsibility with which society had entrusted them. Indignation, disgust, anger, sadness (for the victims) and the strong primitive desire to punish that hides the even more primitive need for revenge and retribution surely played a part in all of this.

While there is no doubt that Godwin and Charles deserve society’s strongest of reprimands and punishments that should be meted out in proportion to their heinous crime, it is also true that society – particularly the “instant liberals” need to put a damper or two on their enthusiastic attempts  to throw everybody and everyone in the same basket. Sure Godwin and Charles operated under the guise of (and abused the name of) priests. Does that justify the sudden lynch mob directed towards priesthood in general? Is the institution so base as to suddenly equate it with “assassins” or “necrophiliacs”?

Let me state this differently. Our criminal law contains an aggravation (a factor that means that the crime committed will be punished more harshly) in the case of a policeman committing any crime. If a policeman steals something for example, his punishment is aggravated because he is committing a crime that he was duty bound to prevent. The crime is the same (theft) but the penalty is harsher (aggravated) because of the person who committed it. For a very logical and sound reason (that most people can get to without outside assistance) there is nothing written in the Criminal Code about punishing the whole police force whenever a policeman commits a crime.

Now “the Church” (and not only the MSSP) is a vast institution and I never tire of reminding people that it has an important social role to play within the fabric of many societies let alone ours where it has been a mainstay of society for at least a thousand years. We may suddenly have a lynch mob that has emitted the verdict of GUILTY on all priests and all MSSP members in particular but they conveniently tend to forget that the operation of orphanages in this country of ours (not to mention other social support structures) is entirely dependent on the Church. It is a service that goes on every day unnoticed (and mostly untrumpeted) in  much the same way as your postal service works daily away from the limelight.

There can be no doubt that Malta’s Church requires a period of reflection and introspection : it has to ask itself which parts have gone wrong and why. It is not just the rotten apples that need seeing to but much more. From a lay point of view, the Concordat with the Maltese State has done the Church (and Malta) more harm than good and would best be disposed of as soon as possible. But this is not the time to stone the Church to death. The rotten part of the Church must go. For the sake of the Church and for the sake of our society that still depends on many of its valuable services.

Unleashing the lynch mob of “anti-papists”, “anti-clericals” and “liberal extremists” who won’t rest until they have the metaphorical blood of the Church on their hands will lead us to nowhere. Believers and non-believers might find that they have the same duty and social responsibility to help the Church redirect itself and its flock to living in a more tolerant world where abuse of trust does not happen so easily.

Hopefully it will not happen at all.

Categories
Divorce Politics

This is my Church

This is where I heal my hurts. Today is referendum day. Not in Malta of course – that one is still a couple of weeks away – but in Britain. The UK votes in its first referendum in 36 years and chooses whether or not to change its voting system. The No vote seems to be miles ahead in the polls but what seems to matter most is not the result itself but the aftermath of the referendum campaign as the forces of different parties return to home base.

The UK coalition government is facing a bleak future following the “mud slinging and bad blood” of the campaign. As LibDems and Tories return to the governmental fold they will be sharing the space with people who were on opposite sides of the referendum battlefield and this does not bode well.

We are so caught up in the run-up to the referendum in Malta that we have not even considered this eventuality that seems to be inevitable. After all once push comes to shove and once referendum and parliamentary vote are over, the likes of Evarist Bartolo, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando et al will return to their parliamentary grouping and sit next to other MPs who were on the other side of the divorce divide. Will this have an effect on the running of the parties? Will the wounds in what has already been described as a “dirty campaign” run deep enough to create (more) fissures in the PLPN set up?

Another participant in the divorce battleground that will be nursing unexpected wounds is the local version of the Catholic Church. It has long dumped any semblance of the non-crusade stance and is now facing a few unpleasant realities that had long lain under the carpet of history. These are but a few glaring examples:

  • the Church-State agreement is under review: Thanks to the whole situation in the Rota vs Civil Courts issue, the anomalous status quo with regard to the workings of our laws has been brought to the fore of public debate. The Church can no longer hide the fact that its courts are also liable to the scrutiny of the rule of law so long as their decisions are intricately bound with the rule of the land. The first arrow in the heart of the church state agreement remains the right to a lawyer of choice and to a fair trial. Expect a test case moving on to the Constitutional Courts any time now. Does the local Catholic Church really want to have Rota decisions reviewed by Ceasar’s court? Is it aware of the possibility?
  • the local Church is an anomaly: the workings of the local Church, (comforted by the entrenchment of the Church-State agreement) have been exposed as being different from the workings of the church worldwide. In a bout of investigative journalism prompted by a priest’s comments MaltaToday exposed the fact that elsewhere in this world it is the Church that waits for (or expects) a civil divorce decree before proceeding with annulment. Again this kind of information begins to highlight how the Church-State agreement is turning out to be a very bad idea indeed. Time for some brainstorming on the church front – for the church’s sake.
  • the weakness of spirit: It is ironic that, of all churches, the one of the island of St Paul is failing its members drastically. All the actions of the church in this divorce campaign have uncovered an uncomfortable truth about its faithful: they are weak and need protection. For were our local version of the church confident in the lessons it has partaken with its flock then it would not fear the availability of the civil right to divorce. The church’s teachings are being misdirected and abused. The fact that God does not want divorce (whatever divorce that may have meant 13 centuries before Christ) has little to do with the availability of divorce in society but much to do with the strength of christian character in believing that assertion and following the scripture. I am sure John Zammit, the infamous John Zammit, would not divorce even if it were possible… but would all those who are being exhorted to vote No and deprive their neighbours in society of a civil right be of such a strong character? The Church of Malta and its messengers does not seem to think so. A massive Christian Fail.

So whatever the result of this referendum a number of “churches” are bound to end up  wounded and maimed. The political party “churches” have been exposed as vehicles of opportunistic rhetoric unable to promote their respective values due to their fear of compromising their voting base. The spiritual church has given clear signs of its failure to teach and pass on its interpretation of the Holy Texts. It has misinterpreted its duty to guide the flock and instead is shielding it completely from the greatest gift that God hath given man short of His own Son… free will.

No matter what the referendum result we already have one new truth to face about our society. Our Churches are a-crumbling.

Enhanced by Zemanta

 

Categories
Divorce Politics

I accuse : a writ of summons

Over the past few weeks the intelligent Maltese voter has had the opportunity to witness at first hand the abdication of its politicians from their duty as effective representatives. Two of the three branches of an effective democracy have been all but neutered and hijacked in the name of political opportunism. This opportunism is a direct result of the constitutional interpretation of our politic by the two main parties fettered as they are by the chains that they have wrought around our constitution through practice and custom.

Government and parliament have shed aside their duties towards the electorate and engaged in a battle of confutation motivated by their eternal short-term concern for the 50+1 Holy Grail and in absolute defiance of any representative logic. The first foul committed was the turning the debate over a civil right into the cliché ridden political football we have long gotten used to. The second, greater foul, was the treating of the electorate like a cheap strumpet – easily bought and easily shed away. In this there is no distinction to be made between the conservative nationalist heritage and that of the progressive labourite – both are contriving to scrape the bottom of the barrel of zero-sum partisanism where losing out only means surviving in opposition warming the benches of the smaller side of parliament.

J’accuse would like to denounce this sorry state of our nation and its inability to maturely discuss an issue such as the civil right to remarry. I have prepared my inquisitorial accusation on the following points:

  • I accuse the partisan parties of PLPN of willfully failing to treat a civil right with the dignity and relevance it deserves, of falsely imputing moral reasons to their machinations and shenanigans when it is blatantly evident that the paramount concern is the electoral vote come the next round of elections;
  • I accuse the conservative and supposedly progressive parties of failing to assert a basic set of principles which they believe in and in which a voter could identify himself come election time, of preferring the rainbow spineless option where ‘anything goes so long as it gets us votes’;
  • I accuse the nationalist party of lack of conviction, of declaring that it is against the introduction of divorce while toying with the representative element of parliament by allowing a free vote to members of parliament who have absolutely no popular mandate on the issue – whose vote would consequently transform into a personal usurpation of a seat obtained by public vote and support;
  • I accuse the labour party of crass opportunism and of manipulation of the misinformed, of willfully misleading voters to believe that support for a referendum is tantamount to a position on divorce, of hijacking the possibility of any debate by linking a civil right issue to the making or breaking of government, of being unable to put money where its mouth is when it comes to explaining what being progressive is all about, of abusing – in the same way as the pn – of the pretext of the free vote in parliament in order to abdicate from its responsibilities;
  • I accuse the academic and informed establishment for not speaking out sufficiently on the ridiculous notion of submitting a decision on a civil right for a minority to the vote of the general public, of not having taken a reasoned position on the issue – whether individually or collectively in groups purposely assembled for the purpose – of why a civil right is not an issue for referenda in 2011;
  • I accuse the fourth estate, made up of what is left of the independent media, for having actively collaborated with the cheap thrill of “controversy” stirred up by the media machines of the partisan establishment and thus for having contributed to shifting the debate from the real point of divorce to that of “who wants a referendum” (read who is a friend of the people);
  • I accuse the third parties and movements (AD, pro- and anti- divorce) for not having come out strongly against the idea of a referendum, for not holding the partisan parties up to their principles, for not boycotting any referendum solution that allows the pontius pilates of this nation to thrive on confusion, for not insisting on a parliamentary solution – preferably after an election by popular mandate;
  • I accuse the Maltese public and voter, for whom I should have the utmost respect, for once again allowing the circus that is our representative political system to take him for yet another ride and allowing himself to be convinced that the “yes, no, maybe, depends on the majority and on how they vote” way of politics is actually a serious way of running a representative system – and for measuring the PLPN by that meter;
  • I accuse the Roman Catholic Church in Malta for not sufficiently believing in its power to convince believers to do the right thing in an open and liberal society where the door of divorce is open to whoever wants to take it but is not forced on anyone, of being unable to instill among its political flock the idea of an open and  tolerant society in which they are free not to divorce but in which others, who might not share the same beliefs (or for whom those beliefs no longer hold true) are granted the civil right to do so, of not sufficiently believing in itself and in its capability to transmit the messages upon which the idea of indissoluble marriage is built;
  • I accuse myself of not having sufficiently contributed to the debate and of having allowed myself to be disheartened by the huge wave of ignorant rhetoric and opportunistic politicking that has invested the Maltese political landscape for the umpteenth time. And yes, that is a proud and pompous statement from this blogging wankellectual.

I hereby summon those who are still willing and able to take on the gargantuan movement to join J’accuse in this struggle. It is not a revolutionary struggle that will be fought in the squares with bombs and molotov cocktails. You will need a pen, the instruments of modern democratic expression – such as this blog and social networks, and plenty (but plenty) of patience.

Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter

(your knowledge is nothing when no one else knows that you know it)

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics Values

New York's Catholic Paladino

You know you’re growing old when you remember Governor Cuomo Snr. His son, Andrew M. Cuomo is running for Governor of New York on the democrat ticket. In an all-Italian (origin) showdown, Cuomo’s republican opponent is Carl P. Paladino – conservative to the bone and very proud of his Italian and catholic origins. The gubernatorial battle is turning out to be a curious export of the tensions in the old continent as Padalino’s conservatism is pitted against Cuomo’s more liberal (a European description) approach. Padalino is proud of the winks and smiles linked half-jokingly to the implications of having Italian ancestry in this part of the world while Cuomo is wary of the image of political Sopranos.

Back on the campaign trail Padalino’s no holds barred attitude could land him in trouble and yesterday’s speech to a gathering in Brooklyn was of the incendiary kind. Curiously Padalino’s message contained the dilemma that currently has no borders in the western world – from Belgrade, to Valletta to New York, the cohabitation of religious values and liberal rights are suffering the sort of tension that can best be described as dangerous. Here’s the New York Times reporting Paladino’s speech to Orthodox Jewish leaders:

The Republican candidate for governor, Carl P. Paladino, told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year. Addressing Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mr. Paladino described his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,” he said, reading from a prepared address, according to a video of the event.

And then, to applause at Congregation Shaarei Chaim, he said: “I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did, and that’s not the example we should be showing our children.” Newsday.com reported that Mr. Paladino’s prepared text had included the sentence: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.” But Mr. Paladino omitted the sentence in his speech.

An hour after the speech, Cuomo’s team denounced the statement as being “stunningly homophobic” and that it was a glaring disregard for basic equality. Paladino’s campaign manager duly responded by denying assertions that Mr. Paladino was antigay, and noted that Paladino employed a gay man on his campaign staff. (Isn’t that charitable of him?)

“Carl Paladino is simply expressing the views that he holds in his heart as a Catholic,” Mr. Caputo said in a telephone interview. “Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church.”

I’m beginning to think that the problem is not the catholic church (or God) in whose name these obscenities are regularly perpetrated. It’s ignorance. How, for one minute Paladino could believe that the phrase “dysfunctional homosexual” could be seen as anything but a homophobic statement is beyond my ken. His taking refuge behind the hazy notion of “the Catholic Church” to justify his attempt at fuelling the conservative vote is pitiful and – here’s the word again – medieval.  Caputo (Paladino’s campaign manager) worryingly appended the following sentence to his justifications: “the majority of New Yorkers agree with him” while adding that the campaign had done its own polling. That’s ok then is it? I mean this is not San Francisco but hey,  waddayaknow?

While Andrew Cuomo polled voters to get an insight on how far the Iti-Mafia-Pizza stereotype is stuck in the New Yorker mentality (and this with the aim of getting rid of it), Paladino was busy checking whether New York really likes its poofs. It’s his Catholic duty (God bless his soul) and he told the Orthodox Jews that he is on their same wavelength (for heaven’s sake) – he’d never march in a gay pride event and he criticised Andrew Cuomo for doing so.

If that’s what a Catholic Heart can contribute to a community then bring on the infidels…..

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta