Squeak
The saga of the bit of mouse in a midwife’s salad has now moved beyond the ridiculous. It is essentially a comic story of very minor significance, but has been fanned into a national catastrophe by the combination of a furiously inadequate opposition party, reporters who are at a loss for real stories in early September, and a population the greater part of which is entirely devoid of a sense of humour, and whose reaction to ‘dirt’, except in public spaces, is disproportionate because for centuries they lived mired in it. This has bred the mentality that it is necessary to distance oneself with dramatic gestures from the merest suggestion of dirt so as to be thought clean.
The accusation that the bad press is fuelled by partisan politics is correct – L-orizzont mocked up a picture of a whole mouse served up on a bed of salad like a king prawn – but it is fanned by our strange preoccupation with the minor details of life and our inability to put things into perspective. A tiny bit of mouse in a midwife’s salad in a hospital canteen keeps us talking in appalled tones for days. The news that next year is going to be a very bad one for tourism, because the British economy is in turmoil, is something we just blank out. We’re sure it will sort itself out somehow, unlike the bit of mouse in the salad, which is a much bigger problem.
Of course, a bit of mouse in a hospital canteen salad is just what the Labour Party needs. It diverts attention from the fact that the Labour leader is still fooling around three months after he was elected, pretending to be far too busy to take on the constitutional role of Leader of the Opposition. He’s not too busy to go out to dinner – he was there at the next table the other day, he’s not too busy to socialise, not too busy to scuttle around appointing various committees and commissions to clear out the party cupboards, not too busy to listen to Sammy Meilaq and Tony Zarb down at the shipyard, and not too busy to see through new rules that will have recalcitrant Labour MEPs fined €15,000 for speaking their mind rather than parroting the party line. Yet he’s too busy, we are told, to take the oath as opposition leader.
The line is fed to us that it’s because he’s writing that VAT report for his current employers – a fine excuse, as my headmistress would have told me before sending me home for the day. But really, given that he’s up to something and in the news almost every day, rather than holed up in his garret with a laptop tapping away, we are beginning to suspect what is far more likely to be the truth: that the reason he hasn’t become Leader of the Opposition is because he hasn’t got a seat in parliament, and the tussles over who is going to give up his seat to make way for him have not been resolved yet. Muscat can’t become Leader of the Opposition without that seat, and the delay is making it increasingly clear that the negotiations to wrest a seat off somebody else are proving tougher than expected.
I imagine that Muscat must have envisaged a procession of members of parliament ready to sacrifice themselves for the great white hope of the Labour Party, asking for nothing in return, their virtue being its own reward. People with a sense of entitlement tend to think that way, and Muscat is not the self-effacing sort. He must have discovered rather too late that this was more than a little bit naïve, because altruism is a rare quality in politics, despite the propaganda to the contrary.
If nobody came forward to volunteer their seat, then it would have become necessary to demand of somebody that he sacrifices himself. But of course, our constitution does not allow for that: as amply illustrated by the Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando case, members of parliament are autonomous and their seats are their own and not the party’s. A member of parliament cannot be bullied into resigning his seat or swopping it for something else; the constitution protects him, and so it should be.
I am surprised that the ramifications of Joseph Muscat’s very difficult situation have not been more widely discussed. They have not, in fact, been discussed at all, except in passing. It seems to have been taken for granted that a seat will be found for him, and a solution spun by magic out of thin air. This is not just optimistic. It betrays a quaint and rather touching faith in the altruism of those who have toiled, schemed and plotted, kissed babies and sucked up to the geriatric, promised street-lighting and pavements and even jobs, scoured the constituency for every last vote, only to then throw it all away for the scant reward of giving their seat to Joseph Muscat. I wouldn’t do it. Would you? Exactly – so you can rest assured that this is precisely the reaction of every last one of those Labour MPs, and I’m with them on that. Why on earth should somebody throw his hard work into the gutter just so that Muscat, who has spent the last four years furthering his personal ambitions in Brussels, can get a free ride on his back to further even more of those ambitions?
The only option left to Muscat is a combination of persuasion and leverage, called negotiation. If you give me your seat, I will make it worth your while. But as every seasoned negotiator knows, when somebody has the very thing you want, when you want it at all costs because without it you cannot reach your essential goals, and when the other person has no interest in giving it to you, it is not enough to offer in return something that is of equal value to him as his seat. What you must offer is what the seat is worth to you, and not what the seat is worth to him. And that seat, as we know, is invaluable to Joseph Muscat because without it he has no chance of becoming Leader of the Opposition, still less prime minister. At this stage in the game, it is worth everything to him outside his family, and anyone who is capable of getting enough votes to secure a parliamentary seat knows that.
Joseph Muscat is, in negotiating terms, in the weakest of all possible positions because he needs something that somebody else has, and this ‘somebody else’ has no equivalent need or desire to give it to him. The stakes are very, very high and are being driven higher still by the fact that time is running out, which piles the pressure on Muscat and weakens his negotiating position quite dramatically, while strengthening the position of the person with the seat. To get that seat, he will have to offer something quite extraordinary in return, or find an absolute sucker to give it to him with his blessing, which is most unlikely. I trust he is not counting on the shocking and deeply upsetting fate that has befallen Karl Chircop to serve as his deus ex machina. That would be quite revolting, and an ominous start to his parliamentary career.
As for that mouse, we really could do without the high drama. Nobody ever died or got a disease from the skeletal part-cranium of a mouse, in a salad or elsewhere. Mice, unlike rats, are not carriers of infection dangerous to humans – no more than rabbits or hamsters are. Mouse faeces or urine might be different, though only disgusting rather than dangerous, but nobody is suggesting that any has been found in the food preparation facilities. I think that the government’s way of dealing with this situation has been quite extraordinary and severely disproportionate, a hysterical instant reaction rather than a considered decision rooted in commonsense. Shutting down the canteen for weeks with no end in sight has not only inconvenienced the people who eat there, but has also caused, I would think, serious financial problems to the people who run it. But then we all know that the general approach to businesses is that they turn on taps out of which money flows, so they can be expected to cope with any degree of assault.
The most disturbing thing is that sabotage has not been ruled out, which means that the consequences being endured by the hospital staff and the canteen-operators may be the work of somebody with a grudge or even just a practical joke to which, given the magnitude of the results, nobody will ever dare own up now. It doesn’t take much strategy or effort to go to a restaurant with a cockroach in your pocket and let it loose, or plant its corpse in your plate. People have done it for a laugh before, and they will do it again.
I’m not saying that the midwife who found it did this, of course. I’m saying that it might have been done to her, or just done to nobody in particular. I’m pointing out how easy it is to do these things and cause chaos and disruption. Oh, and something else: the president of the Malta Union of Midwives and Nurses has said that the midwife is still in shock and on leave of absence from the workplace, a full 10 days after the discovery in her salad. He says that she will probably need counselling. I read this on a flight back to Malta and gave serious consideration to getting back on another plane as soon as I landed. Midwives spend their entire working lives seeing the sort of gruesome things that make grown men pass out: body parts, women’s orifices ripping as babies force their way out, blood, guts, placentas, excrement on the sheets, emergency caesareans, babies born dead or dying, late-stage miscarriages – and that’s just the midwifery bit, not the general nursing bit that they must go through first before specialising, everything from cleaning infected wounds to slopping out the bedpans of those with a malfunctioning digestive system, to tidying up the badly mutilated corpses of accident victims. I find it hard to believe that somebody who has seen and done all that is unable to cope with a bit of mouse-head in her salad, instead of tossing it away, and getting on with it.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
79 Comments Comment
unfortunately I cannot paste a pic here as I have a funny one on the subject doing the rounds at the moment
Apparently Joseph Muscat’s report is ready. Maltastar even reported that it passed 40-1 http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msrv/msfullart.asp?an=23909
So now he’s almost ready. The amusing part to me is that they’re calling it the ‘Muscat Report’ – for effect of course.
(Daphne – Notice how they don’t elaborate on the most important point of all: how he’s going to take that seat in parliament. They make it sound as if it’s a simple matter of going to parliament and sitting down.)
It had to be a joke, what other explanation is there for finding just part of a mouse as opposed to the whole thing?
(Daphne – Maybe it went through the vegetable dicing machine.)
For anyone who missed this:
University libel case
Earlier this year, the same company lost a libel suit against the University of Malta’s student newspaper Insiter, which ran a report claiming the university’s toilets were cleaner than the cafeteria’s tables.
The story, “Never mind the toilet seats, here’s the canteen-table bacteria”, reported the results of a biological test carried out on toilet seats on campus, and the tables at the University canteen.
The test was carried out by biology students using sterile cotton swabs. According to the test, “the results gave a clear indication of the state of cleanliness of different areas.”
Whilst claiming that “inaccuracies and contamination could have contributed to sources of error”, it resulted that the number of colonies of bacteria obtained from the swab used for the table surface at the university canteen was greater than that obtained from the swab from the toilet seat, “possibly indicating a poor state of cleanliness of tables in the canteen.”
The Magistrates’ Court rules that the test results by a biology student had been faithfully reported word for word, while the news story itself was precise in pointing out that the tests were carried out by students, and not professionals.
The court said that the Insiter had verified the authenticity of the biology report, reproduced it faithfully, and that the biology students’ test results had been historically correct at the time.
Muscat should also prepare a report for this mouse thing that happened, perhaps suggesting to the canteen owner to keep a cat around.
Any suggestions for the name of the report? I would call it “THE MoUSeCAT REPORT”.
:o)
Ouch, poor mouse.
Just one small mistake..the canteen was not closed. There is the same operator running it. The only difference is that now staff have to pay for their lunch (only staff spending more than 10 hours at the hospital are entitled to free food). The government will give an allowance with the wage for this difference…..
Now thing is…this hospital is not serving the patient well…and yet the opposition/super one…just harp on an on about this episode….
The picture on this news item is even cornier:
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msrv/msFullArt.asp?an=23736
(Daphne – Maybe it’s the editor, Kurt Farrugia, in drag. He’s about the right size.)
I’d like to see Daphne’s expression if she were to find any piece of rodent/insect in HER plate! :)
Would you just toss it away and get on with it, Daphne?
(Daphne – Actually, sir, I would. I’ve lived surrounded by fields for the best part of 20 years, and have had to contend with mice on a regular basis in the summer months when the doors and windows are open. I am an expert at poisoning them, trapping them, killing them with a broom, and picking up their corpses by the tail and flushing them away. Hot tip: they float, so it’s best to pile a lot of lavatory paper on top.)
imma skond ma qed jirraportaw huma (super 1)kollox ghandom lest biex joseph jiehu postu fil 25 jew 29 ta settembru imma kif ikkumentajt int ma jelaborawx kif…….Jidru konvinti pero li m emmx problemi.
(Daphne – Forsi se jaghmel kif jista biex jiehu is-siggu tat-tabib Chircop, biex ikunu jistghu jibqghu b’siggu wiehed biss inqas minn tal-gvern. Fin-nuqqas ta’ dan, il-Partit Laburista se jkollu zewg voti inqas fil-parlament mill-Partit Nazzjonalista, peress li it-tabib Chircop qatt m’hu se jkun fi stat li jista jivvota.)
I hate to ask this question but unless Carl Chircop personally resigns (or lets face it, passes away) nobody can take his seat can they?
(Daphne – Google Constitution of Malta and a pdf of the Constitution is the first on the list. Then check out Ch 6, which deals with parliament and MPs. You shouldn’t feel bad for asking the question, because it is a vital one – but of course, the issue is being avoided because nobody wants to be thought to be out of order. It does have to be addressed, though, by the Labour Party, which has now lost its much-vaunted ‘only one vote fewer than the government’ advantage. Dr Chirchop, tragically, will never recover and never be in a position to go to parliament and vote. The Constitution provides for the barring from the election process of those who are of unsound mind. But it does not provide for what happens after the election in a situation like this, when the person’s mind is, as far as can be gathered, very much there (and to me, this is even more appalling) but his physical condition makes his role as MP impossible. In short, to answer your question, he can’t be made to give up his seat, but he might agree to give it up because he can’t use it. The only problem is how to get him to signal this agreement given that he can’t move or speak. I have no idea whether this situation is covered by a power of attorney which would allow his wife to administer his affairs; she will obviously need one sooner rather than later if only to deal with the bank, children’s affairs, and so on. I feel really angry for her, that she has been made to endure such sorrow.)
In todays’ Times, there was a little paragraph at the end that said:
“Dr Muscat’s resignation will kick-start the process of his co-option to Parliament following the resignation of a sitting Labour MP and a bye-election to fill his vacant MEP seat.”
Now just for curiosities sake, I wanted to find out how all this bye-election business to the Euro Parliament works. I had assumed that the next person with the most votes, irrespective of political affiliation would be elected. This would be Mr.Arnold Cassolla. However, I asked around, well phoned the Electoral Commission really, and they told me that no, I was assuming wrongly. As they say, an ass of u and me. The person who has the most votes and who is from the same political party is elected, which would be Mr Joe Debono Grech.
I think we can expect to be the first country to be expelled from the EU, don’t you think? It was nice while it lasted.
(Daphne – I believe the reference in this news story is to the Maltese parliament and not to the European parliament.)
Erm , did I stumble across something before?
What if Joe Debono Grech were to switch places with Jo(seph) Muscat? The Eu Parl would even save on a new door plaque, seeing they’re both named the same!
I don’t think it was regarding the Maltese Parliament. It said his vacant MEP seat while talking about Joseph Muscat.
And if Joseph Muscat is resigning from his MEP seat, to take up his post as Opposition leader in the Maltese Parliament, they can’t leave his MEP seat unfilled till the next MEP Elections ,even if they are in a few months time.
Somehow I took it foregranted that Alfred Sant would give up his Parliamentary seat to make way for Joseph Muscat. However, that seems not to be the case.
Moggy: me too. I thought that Alfred Sant had a special place in his heart for Joseph.
@Daphne: I do not think such a power of attorney covering parliamentary affairs is possible. The MP himself has a mandate from the people and cannot pass on that mandate to his wife: “delegatus non potest delegare” especially in this case. If he could sign such a power of attorney, why not sign his resignation in the first place (if that’s what he wants, of course)?
(Daphne – Yes, that’s what I understand re his parliamentary affairs. As for the rest, I used the wrong expression. Actually, there’s no expression to describe it: what I meant is that Mrs Chircop would have to resort to the courts to gain the right to administer his affairs – but this, of course, would not cover the resignation of his parliamentary seat.)
Any excuse to get at Joseph and the Labour party. Now we have to start finding mouse heads in our plates and just go on as if nothing has happened. unbelievable.
(Daphne – You can always use your initiative and start a Joseph Muscat fan blog, honey.)
Can one do a “living” will in Malta? I’m not sure if this is the correct term but it would cover cases like Dr Chircop’s and avoid “avoidable” heartache for their loved ones.
(Daphne – I asked about this when there was all that horrible debate about the American woman who had been a ‘living corpse’ for 10 years, and whose husband got into a legal battle with her parents because he wanted to switch off the machine and they didn’t. I’ve just woken up and can’t remember her name, although I do remember it was Italian – though it will no doubt come to me when I am doing something else. Please, anybody who remembers, post it here. I had written quite a lot about the subject, and enquired about this living will business because I am quite clear in my mind that if the same thing happens to me, I want to be allowed to die, rather than spend a decade or so hooked up to a machine with no brain activity. And no, you can’t make a living will here; it wouldn’t be valid. The doctors’ obligation to keep you alive when you are unable to signal a desire to the contrary in the present time overrides your will to die. Now this is a bit of a grey area, because if you get cancer, or any other life-threatening disease, you can refuse treatment. It can’t be forced on you, and you are allowed to die for lack of treatment. Our home help tells me how her father died a slow and painful death of gangrene. He was diabetic and needed to have a gangrenous little toe removed, but he refused. His children would beg the doctors to knock him out and cut the affected part off, but they said – correctly – that they had no legal right to do so without his consent, and if he wanted to die it was up to him. And so he died. Under Maltese law, even donor cards don’t count. Your body belongs to your heirs, so if they don’t want to donate your organs or eyes, even if you have made it clear that this is your wish, they don’t – and vice versa, they can donate them even if you didn’t want to. So of course, the donor campaigners are doing the wrong thing by targeting the individual. They should be targetting whole families.)
I stand to be corrected but when someone is co-opted to Parliament, they have to be accepted by the majority of MPs which means, in effect, that Joseph Muscat will have to be approved by at least some of the PN members.
It would be a nice practical joke for the PN Parliamentary Group to let an MLP member give up his seat and then refuse to let Joseph in. They could say, for example, that they would only co-opt him if he apologises nicely for the MLP wrong-doings of the Mintoff-KMB era.
It was Terri Schiavo (spelling?) you’re thinking of. Obviously not a happy ending, but at least she finally got her rest and her husband was a true hero, fighting for her right to an as dignified end as possible.
(Daphne – Thanks.)
I couldn’t help it but eyes are organs too :)
(Daphne – Yes, of course – as opposed to internal organs.)
35 Labour seats and 36 people who want one. A game of musical chairs is just crying out to be played here. There is a parliamentary sitting which I would actually want to watch.
(Daphne – This is a different Matthew. Can you use an initial or number to differentiate yourself from the other Matthew, please? I agree it that it makes for an excellent farce.)
Relatively recently there was a case in Italy were a man (I forgot his name too) was virtually paralysed and and wanted to remove life support but was not allowed even though he expressly demanded it.
Isn’t that a case of refusing treatment?
Also, does a guardian have the right to refuse treatment in the case of minors, or insist on it – Jehovah’s witnesses refuse blood transfusions even for young children, is that allowed or not?
And also, does a guardian (in the case of minors) have the right to INSIST on treatment – in Australia the parents of a twelve year old boy wanted him to get a blood transfusion without which he would die, but being a Jehovah’s witness he refused – and died. Whats the case in Malta, does anybody know?
(Daphne – Another name I can’t remember, though I know it wasn’t an Italian surname. I’d written about the case a lot, getting really angry about it. That’s what I argued: that if the law provides for an adult with a fatal condition to refuse treatment and die in peace, then that refusal shouldn’t be made conditional on the adult’s ability to physically ward off the medical assaults of doctors and nurses. Put simply, this man was made a victim of the fact that he couldn’t physically kick the doctors away, lock them out, or prevent them from accosting him with their treatment. Because he was hooked up to a machine and couldn’t move, he was at their mercy. Incidentally, this kind of vulnerability if felt by many who are confined to bed or a wheelchair. They say that they are treated like sub-human-beings or infants. His lawyers argued that this case was covered by the right to refuse treatment, and after a protracted legal battle which made the world news – because the thought of doctors forcing themselves on an unwilling patient is so fundamentally horrific – he won, and was allowed to die.
As for Jehovah’s Witnesses and the rest, please make the distinction between children and adults. Adults have the right to decide whether to receive treatment or not. They do not have a similar right to decide the fate of their minor children and let them die. As in other cases where the parents are considered a threat to the health and safety of the child, the child in this situation is made a ward of court, or the Maltese equivalent which puts the child under the direct responsibility of the Minister of Social Policy. The child is then given the necessary treatment. The most famous case of all – and how could we forget it? – is of the Gozitan couple who wanted to let their conjoined twins die, instead of separating them and making one fully viable. Because they were on British territory, the hospital resorted to the courts, and the judge ruled that the parents’ wishes were to be pushed aside because they spelt death where there could be life. That couple now have the British legal system to thank for the healthy daughter they are so proud of, and not the Gozo priests who agitated all over the British and Maltese press for them to be allowed to die because it was ‘God’s will’.)
“he won, and was allowed to die”
Did he even win? I believe a doctor (from another region) took it into his own hands and went to the hospital specifically to disconnect him!
(Daphne – I honestly can’t remember the exact details, though given the name I’d be able to pull up the news reports of the time.)
And that doctor was a kind hearted humane person might I add.
(Daphne – Yes, I agree. Fortunately, our own doctors here take the same approach. People are not left on life-support machines indefinitely. The next-of-kin is asked for authorisation to ‘pull out the plug’. I do find that leaving the decision in the hands of the next-of-kin is not always ideal, though, especially if the person who has to make that decision is an elderly woman deciding about her husband, with a lot of religious hang-ups about ‘killing him’. There’s too much guilt involved. People like that would much prefer to have the doctors make the decision for them.)
It was Piergiorgio Welby. Was he the poor guy who was refused a Catholic funeral?
(Daphne – That’s it. Thanks, Paula. Yes, appallingly, he was refused a Catholic funeral. The Vatican had deemed him to have committed suicide, but given that suicides are accorded a full Catholic funeral and burial, the general consensus was that he was being punished post mortem for having openly defied the Vatican in full view of the world’s media.)
Ah yes, his name was Piergiorgio Welby !
“The case was brought to a court which denied the request, finding no specific law governed it and urging Parliament to solve the problem.[15]
In December 2006, anesthetist Mario Riccio contacted Radical Party member Marco Cappato, informing him that he would perform the operation, seeing no legal impediments. Doctor Riccio arrived in Rome and after ensuring Welby’s request was voluntary and not dictated by external pressures, decided to grant his request.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piergiorgio_Welby
(Daphne – Thanks.)
The Italian’s name was Piergiorgio Welby
The Italian was Welby.
Here’s a column I had written about Piergiorgio Welby. For some reason, the date comes up as today’s, but it’s an archived piece written at the time of the controversy.
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=44017
“The general consensus was that he was being punished post mortem for having openly defied the Vatican in full view of the world’s media.”
It must have been that, after all the Catholic faith allows one to refuse extreme measures to keep them alive. There is even the argument that it is God’s plan that he passes away so extreme intervention to avoid that CAN be refused. So they should never have denied him a catholic burial! Misshom jisthu!
Piergiorgio Welby
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/politica/articoli/articolo341148.shtml
Welby kien rifjutat funeral kattoliku mhux ghax ried imut biss imma hu kien jaghmel parti mill partit radikali (xellugin estremi) li jopponu,jirredikolaw u jizuffjetaw bil knisja il hin kollu .U kienu huma tal partit radikali li taw pubblicita u hadu rikba min fuq il kaz biex jippruvaw idahhlu l ewtanasja l italja
(Daphne – Muhiex il-kaz. U anke jekk kien veru hekk, l-istess knisja m’ghandiex problemi, mid-dehra, bil-funerali Kattolici ta’ Mafjuzi, qattelin, dawk li jmorru mat-tfal, u negozjanti tal-eroina.)
Welby was indeed involved with the Partito Radicale – so? They were the only ones (in Italian politics) to back him publicly.
But anyway that was not the reason he was denied a Catholic burial. Oh what a black mark on the Church!
X igifieri muhiex il kaz x inti tighd mela jekk ghamilt l iskop ta hajtek tidhak bil knisja,tighd li l genna u l infern ma jezistux, Alla mhux veru jezisti u tiddikjara mal erbat irjieh tad dinja li int ateju, kif imbaghad tipretendi funeral kattoliku.Welby kien ateju ferventi u ha li dejjem xtaq funeral civili
(Daphne – Li kieku kien kif qed tghid int, ma kienx ikun hemm dik l-insistenza kollha ghal funeral Kattoliku. Jekk taf taqra bl-Ingliz jew bit-Taljan, fittex l-artikli ta’ dak iz-zmien fuq l-Internet u studja d-dettalji tal-kaz.)
rene – Il-Partit Radikali Taljan mhux “xellugin estremi” izda speci ta’ libertarjani revoluzzjonarji, ghad li difficli tiddeskrivihom ghax l-ideologia taghhom tvarja maz-zmienijiet u skond l-ideat ta’ personalitajiet bhal bhal Marco Pannella, Anna Bonino u Marco Cappato (illum MEP mal-Liberali, izda gej mit-Transnational Radical Party, moviment pan-Ewropew li spunta mir-Radikali Taljani).
Dawn, ma taqbadilhomx art. Daqqa libertarjani u daqqa statisti; daqqa pacifisti u daqqa favur il-gwerer – skond il-banda, it-tambul, izda jiehdu kollox fl-estrem. Xi zmien ilu kienu qed isejjhu ghad-dhul ta’ l-Izrael fl-Unjoni Ewropea (nigu sew, konfront dirett mal-popli Gharab), izda dan l-ahhar qalbu ghal xi idea ‘radikli’ ohra.
Dejjem a la Pannella, e!
(Daphne – Rene seems to believe that because of his politics, the Vatican was right to deny Welby a Catholic burial. Shades of 1960s Malta….)
Yes, I went on a tangent.
But rene and the Vatican are right. Ma tarax, a Catholic burial for a ‘radical atheist who committed siucide’! Only fine, suffering Catholics should get a Catholic burial.
I would personally prefer a Maori burial, but unless I die a centenarian I know I’ll undeservedly get the standard Catholic ritual.
I ask if it is true that this Welby was so vehemently an anti-catholic – and always ridiculing the Catholic Church – then, why on earth did he (or his family) expect a catholic burial? Just because one is baptised – does not ‘automatically’ mean one is a catholic. By any standard he was NOT a catholic at all. In my opinion the Catholic Church just acted correctly. I really disapprove of those who are always dead set against the Church and its teachings (and I mean any Church here) and then when they come to their ‘final journey’ they demand its rites and rituals. You know even Stalin did it (and a number of other so-called atheists and communists)! At least they should have ‘died with some dignity’ and stood by their beliefs / ideologies.
(Daphne – Oh come on, honestly. How do you know what Welby felt about Catholicism? We only have the word of those who defend the Vatican’s stance. As I remarked earlier on, the church that has no problem giving a Catholic funeral to Sicilian mafiosi, murders, drug-traffickers and child abusers should have had no problem doing the same with Welby. Or is the reasoning that it’s OK to be a mafioso if you also go to mass on Sundays and refrain from cracking jokes about the Pope? It was purely an act of spite, and no more, and that’s exactly how it came across: as the very opposite of the Christian message the church is supposed to preach. But then few people confuse the Vatican with Christianity.)
Daphne – “Here’s a column I had written about Piergiorgio Welby. For some reason, the date comes up as today’s,”
That must be a flaw in the Independent’s system, because any archived news item, article or whatever comes up with the date you retrieve it (so there is no way of the reader knowing the actual date it was published).
Why is, logically, ‘pulling off the plug’ of a life-support machine is considered suicide?
Using the same arguments I sometimes hear from pseudo-religious sources, isn’t artificially keeping someone alive ‘playing God’ and thus, morally wrong?
…. on the same vein, why does it seem that the Church stubbornly continues to equate divorce with abortion with euthanasia?
… one last thing… correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I have never heard the Italian Radical Party being in favour of war.
muhiex il kaz li ma giex midfun b mod kattoliku minhabba l politika li jhaddan imma ghax hu ddikjara li ma jemminx u l insistenza ghal funeral kattoliku qajmuwa l izjed il gurnali xellugin il Manifesto u l Unita li kulhad jaf l idejat taghhom u ghalfejn uzaw il kaz
(Daphne – Carry on defending the indefensible. If the Catholic Church insisted on burying only those who are certain in their belief, they wouldn’t be very busy – especially not in Malta. Oh, and while we’re on the subject – just as there was, in Malta, no mechanism for marrying outside the Catholic rite, so there is today no mechanism for being buried with a secular or non-denominational rite. When a friend who was a non-believer was buried – in a Catholic cemetery, the Addolorata, natch – some three years ago, a couple of hundred of us stood pressed up amongst the graves, trying to listen to the eulogy but failing because of the wind.)
Kev
“Ma tarax, a Catholic burial for a ‘radical atheist”
hanini, try using your brain, I know it hurts for you but try!
If he were a radical atheist he wouldn’t have wanted a Catholic burial would he! It would have been insulting to his memory to give him one!
Daphne
Karl Chircop’s seat can be vacated without Labour having to declare him of unsound mind. The Constitution section 55(1)(d):
And the Standing Orders section 157:
Of course, such approach would only be marginally less shameful than declaring Chircop of unsound mind.
(Daphne – Fauso to the rescue. You never let us down! The tragedy is that he is not of unsound mind. It might have been more merciful if he were.)
@Darren Azzopardi
Casual elections (not bye elections; we do not have bye elections in Malta) do not work by giving a vacant seat to the next candidates with most votes.
What will happen is that a writ will be published for a casual election and the Electoral Commission will receive applications from candidates who stood in the MEP election in 2004. The Muscat’s package of votes will be re-opened and a normal single-transferable vote election will proceed.
Now, it is most likely that the people who voted Muscat gave their lower preferences to the other Labour candidates. Meaning that in all likelihood a Labour candidate will be elected.
Secondly, it is not a foregone conclusion that Debono Grech would make it: it is just an inference from the fact that, going by the first preference votes, he seemed to be the most popular of the unelected Labour candidates.
Veru Cathrine ,Welby kien anti kattoliku u l uniku skop li ried li jindifen b mod kattoliku kien biss biex il partit radikali jiehu rikba mill kaz favur l ewtanasja..U fuq li ghidt inti fuq il mafjuzi u tad droga dak argument iehor ghalkemm qajjimt punt tajjeb hafna
(Daphne – Let’s all disparage Welby because the Vatican is leading the chorus.)
Rene,
Any regular to this blog should know my views on Catholicism. I am quite the conservative old fogey in this. (not old in age).
But that does not mean that the Church, that is administered by human beings, does not sometimes act shamefully and vindictively. For heaven’s sake look at the church’s history, with inquisitions, wars, theft etc. Even popes do horrendous deeds – just look at Pope Alexander (the Borgia one), and Pope Innocent (I forgot the number) who used to kill his opponents by giving them a poisoned Eucharist during mass.
The church DOES mistakes and this is one of them! Shameful!
@ René – Pls note that it was not me that mentioned the mafiosi & drug barons. For me, as you very well said – they are 2 different arguments. So I don’t discuss them together.
However, in my opinion a catholic burial should not be reckoned as a ‘judgment’ by the C-Church, as according to Christ; judgment is God’s prerogative and not ours.
@ Daphne – In my opinion there is a great/massive difference between cracking a wise joke and ridiculing – I myself crack ‘clean’ jokes about the C-Church and I also criticize it constructively. Surely I do not consider myself an anti-catholic. However, only those who loathe the C-Church ridicule it.
To give an example: yes (maybe you have realized by now) that I really hate dictatorships/tyranny of any kind and communism/socialism – I cannot lie to myself and say that I am not ‘in heaven’ when they are ridiculed and whenever I have a chance to do it myself – I do it. But then, sort of, if I’m dying and they have their ‘burying ritual’ – I would not imagine asking them to bury me in their cemetery – would I?
(Daphne – Your last argument is very confused. You can’t equate the significance of religion with that of political ideology at the point of death, or even during life. Besides, why would a political ideology have a burial ritual? As for the rest, your clean joke is another person’s offensive one. You say that you hate dictatorships, and yet you support one of the tactics used by all totalitarian regimes throughout history and across the globe: outlawing anything that brings them into ridicule. Poking fun at anything, everything and anyone is one of the greatest safeguards against tyranny of whatever sort. It is not a coincidence that the world’s oldest democracy – England – is also the one with the longest tradition of satirising and mocking anything and everything, including the ruler. Nor is it a coincidence that there was no rise of fascism in England in the 1930s, or that fascism was strongest in those parts of Europe dominated by obedience to the Catholic Church.)
Sorry to butt-in again – but if he wanted a Christian burial so badly – why didn’t he ask the Church of England to give him one – if I’m not mistaken, they ‘admit’ euthanasia. But then what he did is not exactly euthanasia and is not against the Catholic belief at all – so definitely there must be something else that justifies the refusal of a Catholic burial.
(Daphne – Look here, my dear: if you want to regard your religion as a club, go right ahead and do so, only it is always best to remember that what differentiates Catholicism from Islam and Judaism is, supposedly, Christianity.)
@ David Tubbigieg – Sarcasm, irony and puns fly past you like a fly’s farth in a hurricane.
(Daphne – Is a farth anything like a farthing?)
@ Rene
Wasn’t Jesus Christ the founder of the Catholic Church, wasn’t He the one who forgave the people who killed him. Then who gives the right to the Catholic Church to punish people who don’t follow its teachings, especially after they die?
Dan l-ghagir tal-Knisja qed ibighed in-nies mill-Knisja!
David dak il papa kien Innocent viii,u warajh halla ruxxmata tfal ghalkemm tnejn biss irrikonoxxa li kienu tieghu
But who said that the Church does not make mistakes? Isn’t that why – we ‘Catholics’ have the sacrament of reconciliation? And why just harp on what the Catholic Church did wrong centuries ago? What about other religions – were/are they all perfect? When I ‘judge’/appraise ‘religion’/faith – I do it by its Founder and not by its followers. As all followers are humans [or so is my impression! :)] – thus all liable to err. I believe there are other religions that have not yet made the transition to a more peaceful era. It is only Jesus that preached incessantly the 3 most important things in life – Love God Almighty (i.e. perfection) / Love thy neighbour & Forgiveness – for me the 3 pillars of Christianity.
(Daphne – The point is that the Catholic Church only realised in retrospect, sometimes by four hundred years, that it was wrong and that it did wrong. Today, it could be making mistakes, too, but we’ll have to wait another couple of hundred years to find out.)
Rene – It isn’t just Pope Innocent who fathered children whilst supposedly under vows of chastity (and whilst preaching that sex outside marriage is a sin).
There are a couple of Maltese priests who come to mind who fathered children (whilst still priests) in my lifetime, one of whom was the rector at a Sixth Form college, another who was a priest at the same college and yet fathered children with an Albanian girl after a stint doing missionary work in Albania, and another (now deceased) who infamously fathered a child with the wife of a very public figure.
The usual excuse is that they’re human beings too and are not infallible. Why, then, should they be free to judge others? Why, also, should they be able to hear confession (one archaic sacrament, if there ever was one)? More importantly, why would people want to go to confession at all? Would the act of contrition not be enough for believers?
Having seen so many “errors” commited by such supposedly holy people, I fail to take any of them (the clergy)seriously. I may have respect for a couple of individuals purely as individuals, but would never hold them on a pedestal simply because of their imagined status.
(Daphne – Confession began as a form of power and control, but then began to serve the same purpose as offloading to a therapist, just as prayer groups serve the same purpose as secular self-help groups where some damaged or needy people are concerned.)
Well, at least the Catholic Church realises in hindsight – while others seem never to realise at all and persist in their transgression/oppression.
As to my confused thinking – what I meant is that I hate hypocrisy (and it seems that not just me even Christ hated it – because, according to the bible, it is to the hypocrites that HE reserved the harshest expressions. I reiterate – why on earth should someone that all his/her life did nothing but humiliated/persecuted the Catholic Church, and then at the ‘final stage’ ask for a catholic priest or for a catholic burial? Isn’t that a sheer example of hypocrisy? I find it intolerable. One should at least be honourable till the end and as one lives one dies. Unless of course one has real repentance, but then that remorse should be conveyed with the same vigour that persecution was transmitted.
And here is the ‘permission’ that Christ gave to Peter’s successor: obviously should always be used responsibly.
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” Matthew 16
“And why just harp on what the Catholic Church did wrong centuries ago? What about other religions – were/are they all perfect?”
“Well, at least the Catholic Church realises in hindsight – while others seem never to realise at all and persist in their transgression/oppression.”
This is not much of a defense of the catholic church. It’s like saying “Why criticise Hitler, he didn’t take pleasure in seeing his victims’ relatives in tears like Genghis Khan did”.
“When I ‘judge’/appraise ‘religion’/faith – I do it by its Founder and not by its followers.”
By that same standard the catholic church should be judged on the same merits as, lets say, the Westboro Baptist church, as they have christ as their founder too. A more correct way to judge would be by its teachings.
(Daphne – Ah, but Pat, re your last sentence: Catholics believe that the only church Christ founded was the Catholic Church.)
Daphne: Exactly, and my point is that so do these other offsprings. There are approximately 38000 christian denominations all over the world, all thinking they have found the right teaching, while at the same time not a single one of them can show evidence to the superiority of their teaching.
The fact that Jesus clearly proclaimed against preachings in churches and synagoges and instead pray in solace is something that has gone way over the head of all of them.
The Church IS run by people, priests mostly.
Unfortunately being a priest does not equate to being a good person.
This does not mean that there aren’t good priests ofcourse, but to be a good priest you have to be a good person to begin with. And to be a good priest one also needs a certain degree of intelligence.
@Pat,
Today I believe some other churches are a lot more fundamentalist then the Catholic church, Westboro Baptist “church” being a prime example. Well, if you can call a group of 80 inbreds a church:)
And yes, I do go to confession if I find the right priest to do so and I do feel better for it. The key is to find the right priest!
Grace: Christ did not found the Catholic Church.
Corinne,
Yes, according to both Bible and scriptures he did –
“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”
David Buttigieg: It wasn’t the Catholic Church at the time. The word ‘Catholic’ isn’t mentioned in that quotation. That is why the various branches of christianity – including Catholicism – claim that they are the one true church.
@Corinne
Well true enough actually.
However practically every Christian church acknowledges the pope as the successor of Peter but yes, you are correct.
No, only the Catholic Church acknowledges the pope as successor of Peter, very few other Christian denominations do.
Pat,
Actually they do and always have. Remember most denominations started as part of the Catholic church under the authority of the bishop of Rome. It was relatively recently that splits started occurring.
Today, many denominations (well practically all non-catholic ones) do not recognise the authority of the Pope but still acknowledge him as successor of Peter.
@Daphne: “…..just as there was, in Malta, no mechanism for marrying outside the Catholic rite, so there is today no mechanism for being buried with a secular or non-denominational rite”
I thought that ta’ Braxia (Braqxa) cemetery serves that purpose.
(Daphne – Who mentioned separate cemeteries? The days when only Protestants were buried at Ta’ Braxia and only Catholics were buried at the Addolorata are gone. The non-believer I mentioned was buried at the Addolorata. I was speaking about something else entirely: a gathering-place where the dead person in his or her coffin can be eulogised and bid farewell, that is not a church or chapel, so that the mourners at secular funerals in the pouring rain and January wind are afforded a little dignity and respect – and likewise the deceased – instead of being left to stand among the gravestones while all this takes place.)
Dave , you can never win here on this subject , deep down they consider you as narrow minded. They want to convince themselves that they are doing the right thing by trying to win an argument with you. Heads you lose , tails they win.
(Daphne – I certainly don’t consider David to be narrow-minded. The little I know of him – through this blog – gives me to understand that he is a true believer who respects the right of others not to share his sentiments.)
I think that Mater Dei’s mortuary hall can serve for this purpose ,it is “secular” (no religious symbols).
Btw: even Orthodox Greeks are buried at ta’ Braxia , I don’t recall seeing any religious symbols in the destitute ‘chapel’ , that is why I thought it was secular.
I agree with you that secular burials should be more dignified.
(Daphne – John, you are displaying some very confused thinking here. Ta’ Braxia was designed and built in the 19th century, by the same architect who built the Addolorata, as a Protestant cemetery, because in those days, each division of the faith insisted on having its own cemetery and not sharing. Nowadays, we think of cemeteries not in religious terms but as places where people are buried. The mizbla/hallowed ground division is not one we acknowledge in the 21st century. Since those days, Ta’ Braxia has embraced everyone else who wants to be buried there, or who has no choice but to be buried there. This includes Jews, Hindus, and all divisions of the Christian faith, even Catholics if they prefer it to the Addolorata. Muslims prefer to use their own cemetery. The reason there are no religious symbols in the Ta’ Braxia chapel is not because it is ‘disused’ or ‘secular’ (a secular chapel is obviously a contradiction in terms) but because it is a Protestant chapel. True Protestant chapels are bare of all decoration, and that includes the religious symbols which are associated with Catholicism: crucifixes, Madonnas and bleeding saints with pierced hearts. The absence of these religious symbols does not mean it is not a consecrated space.)
Dave:
“Actually they do and always have. Remember most denominations started as part of the Catholic church under the authority of the bishop of Rome. It was relatively recently that splits started occurring.”
The pope is seen as a self-proclaimed successor of Peter and one of the most central themes of protestantism, although not really voiced anymore due to inter-faith relations, is the rejection of the pope as a successor of Peter.
Admittedly I might very well be wrong when I said “very few other denominations”, there might still be a large proportion which does.
Daphne:
“a secular chapel is obviously a contradiction in terms”
Look up the Bilotti Chapel, which was eventually entrusted to Andy Warhol for construction, but due to his untimely death was put on hold indefinitely. A “secular” chapel dedicated to meditation for artists, irrespectively of their faith.
(Daphne – Oh yes, of course, but that’s very different. I think the Millennium Chapel in Paceville tries to strike that kind of balance between ‘secular meditation’ and Christian prayer. At least I remember reading something of the sort when it was first opened.)
Re: Ta’Braxia
There’s another sad thing! My great great great grandfather
is buried there and there are some beautiful carved headstones and very moving inscriptions from Victorian
times. Unfortunately, in the new bit, one sees black granite, fake flowers, etc.. Why do we always manage to
spoil things.
Daphne:
The Millenium Chapel is still a Christian chapel, the Bilotti chapel was meant as a truly secular one. My objection would obviously be to the idea of even calling it a chapel, makes no sense to me :)
@Pat,
Well, seeing I’m hardly the mother of all experts, you may well be right!:)
Not really worth losing too much time over, so I’ll concede – gracefully!
John,
“Dave , you can never win here on this subject”
We are having a discussion like adults do without the need for a “winner” and “loser”.
I certainly don’t consider it a case of “us and them”. For argument’s sake that is hardly a Christian attitude!
My own brother, who was raised in exactly the same way as myself happens to be an atheist, and we get on fine, we even discuss religion sometimes and it is still not “us and them”!
Out of interest he intends raising his daughter as a Catholic, allowing her to make her own choice (his wife is a practising catholic). Same with me, I will obviously raise my children as best I can but I will certainly not impose any religion on them! After all, I myself went through an atheist period in my late teens and early twenties! My wife, (then girlfriend) gently pulled me back by never preaching to me but just doing her own thing! But I don’t think I was any “worse” a person back then!
I’m in a similar seat. I have conceded to baptise my coming child, more than anything due to make them fit in (although it still pinches some nerves in me).
There is unfortunately a common theme to be associated with lack of morals due to atheism, but it’s also something very easy to prove wrong and shrug off, so I rarely have that problem.
Anyway, glad you found what makes you happy and, who knows, perhaps you will see the light again one day ;) (j/k)
@Pat,
“perhaps you will see the light again one day ;) ”
Likewise:)
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/10/31/boudin.nc.mouse.in.bun.wcnc