One lives and learns
The Malta Independent on Sunday, 11 January
University lecturer excommunicates himself from Catholic Church
Dr Ing. Patrick Attard, who contested the last general election as the first openly gay candidate, yesterday excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church at the Chancellor’s office in the Curia.
Following the Vatican’s opposition to the UN Resolution for the universal decriminalisation of gay relationships a few weeks ago, the Pope, in his Christmas Message to the Vatican, called homosexuality a destruction of God’s work and that the world should be saved from homosexuality just as we should save the rainforests from destruction.
“These outrageous comments can only spread intolerance and hatred towards the gay minority,” Dr Attard said. “I do not want the government to assume I am part of this hate-preaching organisation just because I was baptised. Since the Curia does not want to disassociate itself from the Pope’s 22 December remarks, there is no choice but to excommunicate myself publicly from this power and money-hungry institution.
“By excommunicating myself doesn’t mean I am a Satanist or a selfish person.”
The person who wishes to excommunicate himself/herself from the Church should make an appointment with the Curia’s Chancellor (Telephone 2590 6238), take his/her Identity Card and write a declaration that he/she has left the Catholic Church. This declaration should include the place and date of baptism. The declaration is also signed by the Chancellor on behalf of the Catholic Church. The date of baptism is written on the baptismal certificate, which can be obtained from the Parish Office of the village where the ceremony took place.
An excommunicated person cannot receive Holy Communion, cannot have a religious funeral, cannot actively take part in the Mass, and cannot be a witness in a Catholic ceremony – baptism, wedding, confirmation and so on. He/she is however allowed to enter churches.
27 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Oh sh*t. i have to wait after my brother gets married to follow suit… and thinking about it… better to do it after my both parents die. i can’t imagine how my mum would feel if i die before her and she has to prepare for my funeral and the kappillan tells her that i cant’t have the bye-bye-c-u-soon-inheaven/hell mass! she knows i’m a “mazun” (her words) but that would be too much for her to handle
‘joking’ apart…. I think there’s no need to excommunicates oneself from Catholic Church to not be a part of it. A piece of paper doesn’t make any difference. The same goes for marriage… being married doesn’t mean you’re in love.
[Daphne – Actually, ASP, with marriage that all-important piece of paper makes all the difference, and it has nothing to do with love.]
This is a brilliant idea, I didnt know you can do this. I will follow the instructions above and also excommunicate myself from this shameful institution. I was baptised without my consent anyway. One question, how do I get this baptismal certificate? I have no idea which parish I was baptised in. is there no central office that could issue this certificate?
[Daphne – Surely you know where your parents were living when you were born, if at least one of them isn’t alive to tell you where you were baptised.]
I was equally shocked to hear what the Pope allegedly said about homosexuality. It appears to be a complete distortion, and sadly even distorted by BBC and SKYNEWS where I have seen clips on youtube.
Apparently this is the correct translation of what the Pope did say :
“Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Credo, the Church cannot and should not confine itself to passing on the message of salvation alone. It has a responsibility for the created order and ought to make this responsibility prevail, even in public. And in so doing, it ought to safeguard not only the earth, water, and air as gifts of creation, belonging to everyone. It ought also to protect man against the destruction of himself. What is necessary is a kind of ecology of man, understood in the correct sense. When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman and asks that this order of creation be respected, it is not the result of an outdated metaphysic. It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the selfdestruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God. That which is often expressed and understood by the term “gender”, results finally in the self-emancipation of man from creation and from the Creator. Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him. But in this way he is living contrary to the truth, he is living contrary to the Spirit Creator. The tropical forests are deserving, yes, of our protection, but man merits no less than the creature, in which there is written a message which does not mean a contradiction of our liberty, but its condition. The great Scholastic theologians have characterised matrimony, the life-long bond between man and woman, as a sacrament of creation, instituted by the Creator himself and which Christ – without modifying the message of creation – has incorporated into the history of his covenant with mankind. This forms part of the message that the Church must recover the witness in favour of the Spirit Creator present in nature in its entirety and in a particular way in the nature of man, created in the image of God. Beginning from this perspective, it would be beneficial to read again the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sexuality as a consumer entity, the future as opposed to the exclusive pretext of the present, and the nature of man against its manipulation.”
So before everyone queues up to excomunicate him/herself as Ing Attard so hurriedly did, I would suggest you get the facts right.
“Actually, ASP, with marriage that all-important piece of paper makes all the difference, and it has nothing to do with love” – and that’s why divorce is essential, in case (too many cases) you ‘find out’ you don’t want to remain married.
An openly gay candidate? Someone who calls a spade a spade? He must have been contesting for a liberal party then… surely the nationalists – that great all encompassing umbrella of ideals!
X’ghandu x’jasam?…. xejn…. u hafna.
[Daphne – Actually, Jacques, like many people of your particular political persuasion, he comes across as extremely intolerant. AD is an intolerant party stuffed full of intolerant people, led until fairly recently by somebody who will not tolerate anyone who fails to think precisely as he does. AD may be at the opposite end of the political spectrum from ANR, but in terms of intolerance, they are equal. And AD is not a liberal party. It is a left-wing party, packed to the gills with capitalism-hating chip-ridden individuals who have made whacko ‘environmentalism’ their new religion.]
Jacques Rene’ Zammit – Regarding AD being tolerant (not)
Some years ago I attended a MEPA public hearing for the Verdala golf course application. I intended to speak in favour but (perhaps too provocatively I admit) sat right in the middle of a gaggle of AD members, including Harry, and some hunter-farmers of the Bdiewa Progressivi association.
The whole affair was a farce, with the consultants who had carried out the EIA and other experts being continuously and loudly interrupted and insulted. When the floor was opened for discussion I had to make an extra effort to receive the microphone as it kept getting hijacked by those around me. In spite of this I eventually managed to speak and the attitude and behaviour of the AD militants and the hunters (they were allies for the occasion) took me back to the old Strangers’ Gallery of Mintoff’s days.
Now, I don’t mind being heckled and pushed and having the microphone snatched out of my hands by someone from AD; it was my choice after all to sit amongst the pack. I think I managed quite well to bring out the worst in the AD militants, including their leader who, at one point when the Bdiewa Progressivi behind me where being particularly obnoxious, asked me sniggeringly if I wanted to get out of there alive.
After the hearing the police who were present were concerned for my safety and offered to escort me to my car (I had gone by bus though). They needn’t have worried: AD militants are not thugs, they are just intolerant brats.
[Daphne – I was at that hearing, and can confirm what Antoine says. The behaviour of the AD contingent, led by Harry Vassallo, was as bad in terms of intolerance and verbal aggression as that of Labour pampaluni in the mid-1980s, of which I also had direct experience. There was exactly this same sort of behaviour a couple of years later, at a MEPA public hearing for the Qala marina village project. Again, the ‘militants’ were led by Harry Vassallo. Again, truly tolerant people were shocked. That is not how liberals behave, but AD ‘chattering-classes’ supporters don’t understand this, just as, in their scant understanding of politics, they fail to realise that AD is a left-wing party with extremist tendencies, and not a liberal party. Support for divorce and gay rights does not make for liberal politics.]
An excommunication is merely a “state” the Church imposes (in this world) upon a person for a serious “midemeanour”. It is revoked on the person’s deathbed and in no way does it mean that an excommunicated person is headed straight for hell. That would be part of God’s job description, not the Church’s and much less ours.
To drag out the trite and hackneyed club membership analogy, it’s as understandable as anyone who breaks an important rule in a club’s statute (or whatever it is with which clubs are run)and is given the boot by the club’s committee.
“AD is an intolerant party stuffed full of intolerant people, led until fairly recently by somebody who will not tolerate anyone who fails to think precisely as he does. AD may be at the opposite end of the political spectrum from ANR, but in terms of intolerance, they are equal. And AD is not a liberal party. It is a left-wing party, packed to the gills with capitalism-hating chip-ridden individuals who have made whacko ‘environmentalism’ their new religion”
Daphne, I cannot but agree 100% with this statement.
David S:
Whether the speech was reported as 100% correct or not is just a small point. In a way it was a good thing the media blew it up a bit, as it’s something the Catholic Church needs to be challenged on.
What is more clear is a letter from the then Cardinal Ratzinger, from 1987, stating the bishops’ responsibility towards homosexuality:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
What generates intolerance, hatred and ridicule towards the gay community is not the Catholic Church but the “in your face” attitude of many gays. I don’t care what they do in their private time so they don’t have to go out and flaunt it all the time. I know gays who live their life like everybody else, not hiding their sexual preference but not flaunting it either. On the other hand there are those who simply try your patience with their attitude. If gays want respect they should show respect towards those who are not like them.
[Daphne – But that’s just the trouble, isn’t it? ‘Gays’ have become a special interest group, like ‘blacks’ and ‘women’, so every homosexual, black person and woman is seen as representative of the whole ‘group’. The only people who aren’t a group, and who don’t represent each other, it seems, are heterosexual men. Try replacing the word ‘gay’ in your comment here with the words ‘straight man’ and you’ll see what I mean. Or haven’t you ever been bothered by a heterosexual man who insists on telling you the blow-by-blow details of his sex life (often literally blow by blow, I’m afraid) and of the Ukrainian prostitutes he’s been seeing, and the ‘depressed housewives’ he’s been picking up, and the teenage girls he’s got off with….They make me sick, but I’m not going to see them as representative of all ‘straights’.]
Erm. My political persuasion? Liberal? Christian-Democrat? I know, I know, you insist on thinking and implying I work for AD… not. Neither am I an AD activist. I’ve said that many times on my blog and will say it again… I have no affiliation with any political party and reserve my right to choose and vote for any of them whenever I am called to vote.
You tend to confuse my disagreement with the imposition of a national dichotomy (aha PLPN all over again) with sympathy with the AD all too easily, all too readily and all too naively (conveniently so).
But hey… whatever makes you feel more comfortable when commenting on my comment… it’s your blog after all!
Eppur si muove…
[Daphne – Jacques, the reason I know you vote AD is because you were campaigning for them all over your blog in the run-up to the last election, and telling people how you were going to vote. And yes, you are a typical AD supporter, I’m afraid – a text-book case who fits the profile precisely. I say this not as an insult, but as an observation, because these things interest me.]
P.S. I did not say AD is liberal by the way… I implied that the Nationalist party is not. Two very different things (thinking outside the black and white box would help see this easier). Incidentally if AD does hate capitalism so much then I would be out of place in this party – I looooove the consumerist side of capitalism (and I own a 4×4 … ironic isn’t it … not much of the tree hugger either). Which makes “wasted votes” cast for a party I cannot fully associate with all the more a pity … but given the choice…
[Daphne – The Nationalist Party is a liberal party. It wasn’t, but over the last couple of decades it has embraced liberal politics, a key component of which is respect for institutions and the role they place in society. And that is why it is the Nationalist Party which is pushing for a parliament house as a symbol of democracy right at the entrance to the capital city, while AD supporters are rubbishing the idea, denigrating the symbolic status of parliament and saying that a centre for ‘kulcher’ is more crucial. It is also why Labour is sitting on the fence. I have noticed that some people who comment in the print media and on blogs confuse the meanings of the words liberal and libertine, and labour under the delusion that liberalism is all about people and their private lives. I’m not saying you’re one of these, but you must have noticed it too.]
The complete press release:
http://patrickattard.blogspot.com/2009/01/dr-ing-patrick-attard-excommunicates.html
Adrian Borg – And you think there arnt “in your face” straight persons out there, who are so annoying!
So, just because there are some “in your face” homosexuals, these people ought to be hated or ridiculed? You don’t realise that these people in fact represent a MINORITY of the gay community, because the rest behave no different to heterosexuals. The added difference that in Malta many “not in your face ” homosexuals are living a closeted life or even married. Perhaps you should google gay famous people, and you will be surprised to find out who is/was “not in your face” gay. But sadly you seem to be one of the backward school who thinks that gay equals screaming queens only.
@antoine vella : deja vu. becomes boring after a while.
@daphne: intolerance? verbal aggression? Where do I begin? The last election campaign springs to mind. Anyways, I never expected anything more than a label. Yes I did vote AD …. if you DID read the blog thoroughly you also would know why I voted AD and you would know that it is not because I am a supporter of their party (you would also know that I abhor such an idea as a “party supporter”). Once elections are over I revert to being a normal citizen who will wait for next elections before considering which party most deserves his vote.
I did NOT campaign for AD Daphne. I campaigned for a vote for change. I campaigned for a break from a dichotomy that is holding us down and will continue to do so as long as we have our laws and system created to allow politicians to rest assured that they will remain in place come what may and no matter how much they screw up. You can only understand that if you are not comfortable with the system.
You still have not got it yet have you? Now we will hear the rest of the drivvel… immature, playing with vote, unmarried… wasted vote. It’s a vicious circle isn’t it? It all begins and ends with the boxes and labels created for the convenience of some and with the disrespect of the ideas and thoughts of the many. Plus ca change!
Once again. I did not campaign for AD I spoke as a voter considering his options openly at election time. That my options led me to AD is also partly based on the Wasted Vote debate… a wasted vote that liberals in PN are quite happy to admit exists and quite happy to do nothing about so long as they can have campaigners harp on about “objects of hate” who dare complain about lack of choice.
Thinking free of labels and prejudices can be quite exciting. You should try it sometime!
[Daphne – Your last sentence: if you have no one else to think about, then you are at liberty to do that. It’s not a coincidence that the AD ‘hierarchy’ is made up mainly of single men and childless people, and was led by an extremely selfish and self-absorbed husband and father, who famously gave an interview describing how she starts her day with the housework at 6am, then takes her husband a cup of tea in bed at 8am before whisking the kids off to school and going to work to support the family, then doing the shopping on her way back home. And those are not labels, but an important observation. When the marketing gurus of large corporations identity Jacques or Joseph as somebody as a typical consumer of electronic gadgetry, for example, they are not labelling you but identifying you.]
The teaching of the Catholic Church says that sex is not sinful only if between husband and wife and is open to new life. All other sexual activity is sinful according to the Catholic doctrine. It has been like that and it is not expected to change. Today everyone is free to belong to or to leave the church as opposed to the past. o I do not know what is the issue if people do not want to follow the church’s teaching they don’t have to. What I don’t understand is those who expect the church to change its teaching to fit their lifestyle, what do these people really want?
[Daphne – Yes, I agree with you there. People want to practise Catholicism and still be in a gay relationship, or an unmarried heterosexual one: having their cake and eating it, and thinking of it as their right. It’s unbelievable.]
A. Attard:
The obvious problem is the influence and power the Church still wield in these matters. It is even constitutionalised in Malta that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the right (and duty I think) to teach what is right and wrong. Such blunt favouritism for a specific faith is not possible in a secular society and as long as it remains there we all have to put up with being told what to do and not to do. I’m not to keen on theocracy and I think a quick look around the world suggest that it might be in our own interests to work against it.
@Pat
“as long as it remains there we all have to put up with being told what to do and not to do”
What are you suggesting total annihiliation of the Catholic Church? Freedom of speech applies to the church as well, even if it wasn’t costitutionalised the church still could freely voices its teachings. Even if the church tells us “what to do and not to do” it is up to individual choices to follow or not. The influence and power of the church is not as great as it used to be.
@ Pat
The church does not wield any particular influence. If you don’t want to listen to it you don’t. end of story. It’s just as A.Attard said: people expect the church to change its teachings to suit their lifestyle. Quite stupid if you think about it. Regarding your point of what’s wrong or right, the church has every right to set out its “agenda”. You don’t have to agree with it.
@ ‘Daphne – The Nationalist Party is a liberal party.’
Yes, I can see the PN pushing for divorce, civil gay unions … oh come on.
[Daphne – Unfortunately, you make the mistake of reducing liberal politics to matters of sex and the regulation of sexual unions. This may came as a surprise, but in liberal politics, those are side issues.]
Jacques René Zammit
“deja vu. becomes boring after a while”
Tell me about it. Why do you think I stopped following your blog?
@ A . Attard :The teaching of the Catholic Church says that sex is beautiful between husband and wife and when done with responsibility. People who flaunt their sexuality put me off. As I stated before on this blog, being a heterosexual I cannot stand a gay proud man by my side; he puts me off, I cannot stand his behaviour . I also avoid heterosexual men who never stop passing comments on every girl who passes by. I wouldn’t mind working with a gay person who behaves normally. Being subtle is not everyone’s virtue.
[Daphne – Yes, but the ‘gay person who behaves normally’ might mind working with you. Have you asked him?]
@ Pat : In Malta we don’t have monarchy, we have the Catholic Church instead.
The Catholic Church is recognised by the Constitution. Whatever that may mean.
I cannot recall an instant when the Church used this part of the Constitution in its favour.Our politicians depend on the ‘Catholic’ votes.
@ Daphne : whether he minds working with me depends on other criteria, I do not gloat that I am heterosexual.He may not like looking up at someone tall. I am not working with gay persons at present.
[Daphne – “He may not like looking up at someone tall?” Are all homosexual men short, in your experience?]
Gbid tas-saqajn!
@David S
I can assure you that I am equally annoyed by heterosexual men giving blow-by-blow accounts of their conquests. I think I may have been misunderstood, I have absolutely no objection to a person being gay, and have many gay friends. What I dislike and find annoying is people, homo, hetero or bi, that flaunt their sexual preference publicly. It is not their sexuality that causes the derision and ridicule but their attitude. This was my point. As for this guy publicly excommunicating himself, well to me it is just a gimmick, and my response is “who cares!”. You don’t like the rules of the Catholic church then good for you for choosing to quit it. No need to make a song and dance about it though.
@ Adrian Borg.
The whole point was making a song and dance about it. Otherwise it would have been meaningless,since auto-excommunication is practically a contradiction in terms. Still, as has been suggested, Ing. Attard and others who supported his gimmick would do well to find out exactly what the Pope actually said.