He's kidding, right?
Published:
April 10, 2009 at 9:48am
If all else fails, they can always make chips
L’Osservatore Romano says Pope Benedict has sent ceremonial oils blessed on Holy Thursday to Italy’s earthquake-devastated region as a sign of solidarity with the survivors. The Pope plans to tour the place after the Easter holiday.
63 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What do you expect, that he doesn’t take his Easter break? Isn’t that what Jesus Christ would have done? ..Incredible, and these people should be leading by example.
Ratzinger’s first aid earthquake kit. Well, the man is busy. Easter business comes first. Blessed oil is an essential item of well-assorted camping equipment. Since Berlusconi suggested the earthquake survivors should spend a day at the sea (read this in an Austrian newspaper), they can also spoil themselves with holy suntan oil.
…….and they get away with it……..and they’ve been getting away with it for ages………and probably they’ll be getting away with it in future as well……..
Some consolation. These people are living in another world, unfortunately…
Where has good taste gone?
A gift from OILus Dei
Listen, Daphne, if you are a lapsed Catholic, that’s your affair. For those of us who try and live this faith as best we can, it’s a meaningful gesture. [Daphne – I was never a Catholic as an adult, so you can’t really call me a lapsed Catholic. It’s not as though I had a choice about the first bit. And precisely because I’m not a Catholic (and because I don’t think there should be this kind of restriction on free speech) I don’t see why Catholicism and the pope should be afforded special protection from jokes and criticism. So stop behaving like a backwoods Muslim, please.]
I am very critical of my church, but not of its basic tenets. The ceremonial oils mentioned are for the Viaticum, or the “grizma tal-Morda” and the last rites. [Daphne – Thank you for telling me this. In that case, my question is reinforced: he’s kidding, right?]
If the give an added measure of comfort to those facing the terrifying journey of death, then those oils would already have done their part. [Daphne – Sorry, Mario, but a far more appropriate and useful gesture would have been digging into the Vatican coffers and buying enough tents to go round, adding some convoys of tinned foods for good measure. Ceremonial oils are a little cheap, don’t you think? A bit like a 17th-century lord swanning through the slums and chucking a few coins around – except in this case he hasn’t even bothered to visit.]
The Pope’s gesture is a good one.I’m sure he followed it up with money. The church always does. [Daphne – You know that for a fact, do you.]
How to use blessed oil:http://www.diocese-sdiego.org/Handbook/Handbook_PDFs/Liturgy10.pdf
A prayer must always accompany the application of the blessed oil. Double magic power.
Mela ma takx assoluzzjoni meta mort tqerr Mario? ;)
Sa fejn naf jien kull ma baghtilhom kien il-kalci tieghu….. eh bil-haqq u qallhom li se jitlob ghat-tfal, mhux ghal kulhadd ta, imma ghat-tfal.
Not in a bitchy mood are you today Mario? Tghid insemmilu lil Sant ha nibdillu l-mood?
And to tell you the truth Mario, I don’t like the sound of you. All you did lately is quarrel with Daphne over the wig-man (fuq Vince ta mhux Sant), issa qed taqbez ukoll ghal Papa…. Are you sure this is Mario writing here Daphne? Doesn’ t sound like him at all.
Tal Muzew, I am one and the same. I’m not a good Catholic.I just dont like people taking the church for a ride and picking on snippets that do not reflect the whole truth.
And frankly, I’m fed up of Sant, so you can mention him till you are blue in the face. I don’t have anything against him; it’s his arguments that worried me.
U ghadni ma qerrejtx dan l-Ghid. Thanks for reminding me.
Yes, I do know that for a fact. I have some friends up there. They told me that church organisations were the first to get organised and mobilised. And that the priests were the first amongst those digging with their bare hands right after the earthquake.
[Daphne- Sigh.]
http://www.chiesacattolica.it/pls/cci_new/bd_home_cci.vis?id_n=1924
look at the date.
http://www.poim.it/vis_news.php?id_art=233
Il-hanina madunna, Mario, illum donnok trid issir it-tieni qaddis ta’ Malta! Ara, hemm ohrajn qablek (bhall-president per ezempju).
Are you ok Mario? Ate too much figolli?
This one cares.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/09/obama-reforms-immigration
Plenty around.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/10/markets/iea_forecast.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009041005
@ Mario de Bono
Just because sending oil to the dead is a meaningful gesture to you, does not mean that we cannot criticise the pope for his insensitivity at sending a jar of oil instead of being in L’Aquila to offer moral support to the victims’ families and to see how the the Church can help the homeless thousands pick up the pieces of their devastated lives. Even Berlusconi went, and he’s not exactly the best role model.
And by the way, viaticum is the term the Catholic Church uses for the eucharist given to a dying person. It is not the same as the sacrament of the anointing of the sick.
The victims of the L’Aquila earthquake are dead not dying, and the oil is useless for the same reason.
The viaticum is preceded by with the sacrament of the sick. That’s the norm. The sending of the oil is a meaningful gesture to many Catholics.
[Daphne – The assumption being that everyone made homeless is Catholic.]
If you have been to Abruzzo, especially Aquila, then you would see that the great majority are Catholics, and Abruzzo is one of the regions in Italy where they go to Mass in greater numbers than usual. They rival us Maltese for the number of churches per capita. [Daphne – The sort of Catholics we are here, I would imagine.]
And it’s no use sighing Daphne, everyone was digging with his hands, priests and prostitutes included. That’s what happens when an earthquake hits and buildings fall.
i think the church should consider forfeiting part of its fortunes and help as many as possible of those affected by the earthquake to rebuild their homes – an act of generosity.
The pope’s gesture amplifies the values of those leading the Catholic movement. The are mostly focused on symbolism and pagan rites.
Malcolm, pray what part of the fortune the church possesses should it give up? Are you saying that the state should abdicate its role here to the church as well? As for the pagan rites, can you explain exactly what you mean?
The consequences of adding to, or subtracting from, the original story have been well documented, Mario.
This I cannot for the life of me understand
L’Aquila is only 60 miles away from Rome. It would have been a nice gesture on the part of the Pope if he had paid a quick visit soon after the earthquake. This could have caught the world media by surprise. When he does make the trip, there will be TV cameras from all over the world. The event will be better stage-managed than a Rolling Stones concert.
During the transmission of the funeral some priest or other said that the Pope did not go to the funeral and sent his top man and his personal assistant instead as he felt he would cause alot of hassle and detract from the solemnity of the occasion.
I think there were international TV cameras the very next morning just like in the Madeleine Mc Cann case.
Lack of faith is a horrible thing. If shoe laces re-attach retinas, why can’t ceremonial oils rebuild houses?
Can’t even figure out if that was meant sarcastically or not.
Dead serious!
Scary!
You all seem to forget that the Pope is an old man. Granted this pope is no Karol Woytila but he has his merits.
One thing he did is to ask EVERY DIOCESE to donate all monies from collections this week in churches towards helping earthquake victms in Italy. This includes Malta. Its obvious that agnostics in this blogsite missed that for obvious reasons.
Please give generously. Italy has always been generally generous with Malta. Human solidarity demands that we are generous as well.
I happen to know through a friend of mine that some church aid was delivered even before state aid arrived. This included tents, heaters, food and clothing, and the taking in of refugees into church residences.
You really seem to be well informed about everything. Are you related to a Lino Cert by any chance? The Pope is an old man? Why does he not pass his Little Red Riding Hood costume on a younger man (women are not requested) then?
If I am not mistaken, Berlusconi said that they did not require any foreign help.
@Mario Debono
I happen to know through a friend of mine that some church aid was delivered even before state aid arrived. This included tents, heaters, food and clothing, and the taking in of refugees into church residences.
When I happen to pass near an almost empty monastery (today there are even less priests or monks left), I ask myself, why doesn’t the church take in illegal immigrants (it doesn’t bother the church to leave them living under tents), poor souls? Is this the generosity you’re talking about, Mario?
Hi all, it seems this pope is missing something – his important mission is as head of the Catholic Church and being its humble shepherd. I wonder if Pope John Paul II would have behaved and acted in the same way, especially when this tragedy struck on the eve of Easter festivities and only 100 km or so away from the Vatican itself. I am sure that he would have done as Jesus Christ with his apostles at the last supper. But then this pope has left much to be desired in his speeches and actions. What his predecessor built with much love, charisma and hard work with worldwide religions and different races, this pope seem to have destroyed in little time. I am sure he can’t go down in history as the shepherd finding his lost sheep, let alone be of spiritual support. This pope has lost another most important chance to show that the church cares for its followers and loves them to the point of suffering with them in their desperate moments of life.
Granted, this pope is not John Paul II. He would have gone. And yes, his style is different, maybe more Germanic. But John Paul was unique. At the end of the day, it’s not popes who make the difference, but a caring church. The Church is made up of all Catholics. Priests and popes are but a small part.
A blessed Easter to all.
The Germanic peoples would have used pumpkin seed oil. A pagan practice to prevent themselves from parasites.
[Daphne – It’s brilliant on salads.]
I know. I am addicted to pumpkin seed oil.
Mario Debono,
“Please give generously. Italy has always been generally generous with Malta. Human solidarity demands that we are generous as well.”
As in a boatload of illegal immigrants, expecting us to keep them? As in the bombs it dropped on Malta in WWII?
One question pops to mind
“Where was the ‘All loving god’ when the earthquake hit L’Aquila?”
An earthquake is part of the all inclusive ‘way up to heaven’ package. Via Dolorosa, life of suffering, ordeal, the way of the cross, etcetera p.p.
http://images.wikia.com/familyguy/images/e/e1/GodFamilyGuy.jpg
Rehearsing for Good Friday!
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090412/local/stop-misquoting-pope-on-condoms-mgr-anton-gouder
@Daphne
I think that your comments towards a man who is perceived by many of your avid readers as a holy man are rude and offensive and hiding behind the veil of free speech is ludicrous to say the least.
@Mario Debono
I think you should desist from trying to enter into rational logical arguments about religion with someone who has three, four maybe five times your IQ level. You will only end up satisfying the provocation in the first place, albeit for a short while, not to mention making a fool of yourself and other believers in the process. Faith can’t be reasoned and logically argued. Besides, and I am sure you agree with me, that even non-believers don’t actually believe that the Vatican’s support in this tragedy is merely that of sending a tub of oil. It is just a provocation. So treat it as such.
@Daphne
It has always intrigued me as to why non-believers need to provoke and ridicule other’s beliefs (besides DCG, a certain J Guillaimer comes to mind). If someone is at peace with her/himself, safe in the knowledge that through reasoning alone he/she has come to the conclusion that religion is hogwash, why the provocation, why the ridicule? Of course I have my two pence-worth explanation to this. Non-believers do this as they need to listen to people’s idiotic and stupid reasoning justifying the religious beliefs to reinforce their non-belief.
So one little word of advice to those who rush in to defend their faith on the merest hint of provocation: ignore
[Daphne – Things don’t go away just because you ignore them. On the contrary, they usually grow bigger. The idea that religion is beyond ridicule, jokes or criticism is one much admired by the Taliban. Better a million offensive jokes about religion than that. You may argue that there is a middle road. There isn’t. To stop people ridiculing religion, criticising it, and making offensive remarks about it, you have to use oppressive means. That is completely unacceptable in the context of Europe, the history of which continent is soaked in blood spilt by religious oppression and religious wars. Europe didn’t wake up suddenly in the last half of the 20th century able to laugh at religion and criticise it. That was the end result of thousands of years of bloodshed, most of it concentrated in the previous 500 years. To be able to poke fun at religion and criticise it is a wonderful thing, a hard-won achievement. And it is a privilege that we should value. Look at the circumstances of those who are without it.
If your religious belief cannot withstand a few jokes and some very apt criticism, it’s not that strong, is it? Another point: John Guillaumier is a totally different sort of person. He is a disillusioned one-time fervent Catholic. He is angry. I never was a Catholic as an adult; I just went through the motions while at school, with a very sceptical approach. Therefore I am not angry. I am simply bemused and amused. I am provoked into annoyance only when attempts are made to ram other people’s religious beliefs down my throat, by means of the law. And then there are occasions when I feel a mixture of extreme annoyance and extreme hilarity, as with the Dun Gorg Preca beatification and magic shoelace circus. It’s important for you to understand that many Maltese people are scathing about Roman Catholicism because it impinges on many areas of our lives whether we want it to or not. We are not similarly harassed by Islam or Hinduism, but if we were, we would react in the same way.]
@ Daphne thank you for your thorough reply.
However, I honestly fail to comprehend how one can be bemused and amused at religion and other people’s beliefs and pass his/herself as an intellectual whilst one who feels and states that he is offended when a columnist gratuitously ridicules what is dear to him is likened to the Taliban.
[Daphne – I don’t consider myself to be an intellectual. Only naff socialists go in for that kind of thing. You go beyond feeling offended or letting us know you are offended. You demand that we don’t do it. You would be quite happy if restrictions were put in place to stop us doing it. Your sentiments are no different to those of the Taliban. You merely live in a different culture, which places restrictions on your desires instead.]
You state there exists no middle road. That is false. It exists, and in my world its called respect. You see, being bemused and amused at the religion I believe in does not in any way offend the Church (it has been there 2,000 years, in can take some bashing from intellectuals and disillusioned-angry old men) nor is it offensive to the Pope; it offends me.
[Daphne – No adult can expect to go through life without having his or her sentiments offended. Part of being a grown-up is dealing with it, and not insisting that those who offend you be dealt with instead.]
I can understand if this criticism is levelled at the Church that ‘impinges on many areas of our lives whether we want it to or not’. However, I live on this rock as much as you do and fail to see this ‘impingement’. It might have existed in the past (which was wrong), but seriously, in this day and age?
[Daphne – That’s because you are of the same faith. So of course you don’t see it. You can’t. To people who are not Catholic, living on this small island feels akin to living in an overtly Muslim community. Religion, religious discourse and religious symbols are in your face, all the time.]
I see spineless politicians who can’t discuss divorce (let alone legislate), who take years to come up with in vitro fertilization regulations, and the list goes on. Do you honestly believe that it is the Church that is ‘impinging’ on these moving forward? I beg to differ.
[Daphne – Not the Catholic Church as such, but fear of what the Catholic Church will say – indeed, what the Catholic Church is saying already. That insufferable Gouder person, in his interview in The Sunday Times last Sunday, warned MPs who might consider voting for divorce what their status would be in the eyes of the Catholic Church. He is the archbishop’s ventriloquist’s doll. That our politicians are spineless – there, yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly.]
However, I also see the Jesuit Refugee Service who seem the only ones on this island making any sense of the illegal immigration non-issue; I see Caritas; I see Dar tal-Providenza; and loads of others where daily sacrifice is the order of the day. Those too are the Church.
[Daphne – Well, actually, they’re not. What they are is individuals. They happen to operate nominally under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, but that’s about it. I am quite sure they would be doing the same sort of work even if they were not priests.]
So no Daphne, you are wrong to compare me taking offence and speaking out to the Taliban.
What is being forgotten is also the fact that many non-believers actually consider many forms of belief as dangerous and detrimental to mankind and find it hard to respect a belief that is, in their view, immoral.
Christians don’t hesitate a second to speak out against paganism, satanism, witchcraft and many more practices they find wrong and I support them 100% in their right to speak out against, criticise and ridicule such practices. On the same level I support 100% my own right to speak out, criticise and ridicule Christianity.
It’s sometimes very hard not to ridicule when you hear people speaking about hellfire and suffering, consuming the real flesh and blood of the son of their god (to me it’s a cracker and wine), the existence or non-existence of limbo and then obviously the great misinformation it results in, such as poor understanding of science, the belief that men have a rib fewer than women (and yes, my wife was actually taught this in school), the whole trinity spectacle… do I need to go on?
And please don’t tell me this is not what the Catholic Church or theologians claim today. Look around you and you may come to the same conclusion that I did, that what theologians and bible scholars claim is rarely the belief held by the common people.
My view is that God does not exist. I know many think that this is too certain and arrogant a view to hold (our dear host Daphne, for example), but I find that the default view for anything is non-existence, until there is good (or at least some) evidence and reason to think otherwise. Once there is some basic reason to think something exists, I would become agnostic about it. Once the evidence is overwhelming I would move on to certainty (or at least close to it). That’s the level of discernment that works for me.
Speak out, criticise Christianity but ridicule?! What pray will you achieve by that? In my book that is nothing but disrespectful, as much as I would be disrespecting you if I had to ridicule your non-belief.
It is as if we have lost the sense of decency and respect, and all that remains to put our point and beliefs across is ridicule and belittling others belief to give us a false sense of security. Might sound patronising (apologies if it is) but I find all this very weird.
[Daphne – You are free to ridicule my opinions and my views on religion. It won’t bother me at all.]
Why not ridicule? If you find something ridiculous I think it should be ridiculed. I think we should feel free to ridicule when we hear a scientologist speak (I’m sure you all remember the leaked Tom Cruise video a while ago). I think we should ridicule when we hear a creationist saying the earth is 6000 years old. I think we should ridicule when people go to church pretending to eat the flesh and blood of their deity. To me those are ridiculous beliefs whether you like it or not.
@ Pat
I think you purposely forgot an ‘ism’ in your earlier reply (to go with paganism and satanism). The way you write betrays you stating you are non-believer. It seems you do believe in something.. hedonism.
[Daphne – Sorry to let you down, Jean, but Pat is a happily married man with a new baby, who works quietly in an office. And that’s more than can be said for the vast majority of Catholics I know.]
Could you please explain how you came to the conclusion I’m into hedonism?
But sure, I’ll play along. Read my last statement as:
“Christians don’t hesitate a second to speak out against paganism, satanism, hedonism, witchcraft and many more practices they find wrong and I support them 100% in their right to speak out against, criticise and ridicule such practices. On the same level I support 100% my own right to speak out, criticise and ridicule Christianity.”
It changes absolutely nothing, despite your attempt at some wit. Any other isms you want to add? Despotism perhaps, as it’s not far of theism.
If my writing reveals me being a non-believer (which I was very open and clear about), then it’s not a betrayal, simply a statement of a fact.
@ Pat
Of course no offence meant. Daphne has the advantage of knowing you personally. I don’t. We all create an image of each other by what we write.
But again you betray what you write. Both you and Daphne immediately reacted to my ‘hedonistic’ comment, even if it was meant to ridicule your non-belief and compare it to hedonistic tendencies. So maybe we all get touchy when it comes to ridicule.
[Daphne – No, we reacted to a wildly inaccurate description of Pat as a hedonist. I find it fascinating that very religious people have formed this dichotomy: if you are not religious then it is because you want to be/are a hedonist. Most of the hedonists I know are very keen on prayer groups. So really, it’s not religion versus hedonism.]
Daphne, a common mistake by non-believers, again to reinforce their non-belief, is to look at the way supposed Catholics lead their life. If they fall short to their non-believer’s idea of Catholic virtues, they then dismiss the religion or worse still use that as some kind of inconsistency in religion. When frankly, it is your yardstick and entirely your measure and judgement.
[Daphne – I don’t use Catholics to measure Catholicism. I just find it interesting that so many people wish to straddle the fence: live the life of a non-Catholic while convincing themselves that they are practising Catholics. The reality is that religion has nothing to do with the goodness or stability of one’s life or otherwise, which is why so many non-believers have stable, non-chaotic, productive lives and solid homes while so many Catholics don’t.]
I didn’t react strongly at all at being called a hedonist, I simply pointed out the error. Also, I don’t mind you ridiculing my beliefs for a second, but do so on their own merits, not on some made up misconception of me being a hedonist. It’s of course true we create an image of who we read online, but we should refrain in leading to non fact based conclusions. What you knew of me was that I don’t believe in God, there is no reason to attribute anything else to that knowledge, unless you have a strong reason to do so.
At least now we have agreed that it is all well to ridicule each others beliefs. Good.
So let me see if I got this right.
If Pat makes the assertion that just because he feels he has a right to ridicule other people’s beliefs and it makes him feel right, and one decides to ridicule this thinking to hedonism, then before one makes this comparison we need to analyse Pat. If we find that Pat is a ‘is a happily married man with a new baby, who works quietly in an office’ then we should refrain from calling him a hedonist, because the way he leads his life is inconsistent to what he writes and thinks.
[Daphne – The way Pat lives his life is NOT in consistent with what he writes and thinks. You see, this is the mistake that people like you make all the time: thinking that only religious people live good, stable lives.]
If on the other hand Pat wakes up in one of his (less) respectable moods and ridicules Jean’s receiving holy communion with nothing more than eating thin wafers accompanied with (occasionally) low grade quality wine, then Pat here makes no attempt to analyse Jean and Pat’s ridicule can stand. The way Jean leads his life, even if it might be consistent with what he writes and thinks, is irrelevant in this case.
Quite frankly, and again, very convenient.
[Daphne – Jean, hasn’t it ever occurred to you that religion is absolutely unnecessary to a well-lived life?]
Daphne I think you misunderstood my post.
I think you made it abundantly clear that Pat leads a good life in an earlier post. Pat cannot be spared from his beliefs being ridiculed and called hedonistic just because he leads a good life.
Of course I believe that one can lead an extremely good life even by not being religious.
You can call me a hedonist all you like. I could not care less, as the only one being ridiculed by you doing so is yourself.
I’m going to be very clear of what I think so you won’t have to do any further (bad) guesswork. If you keep your beliefs to yourself I would leave you completely alone. But, when you openly profess a certain belief, with reason for ridicule, then trust me, it will be ridiculed.
I can’t be much blunter and direct than that. If you think your belief stands above ridicule you can either travel back to the dark ages where such mindsets was shared by the masses, or you can keep your beliefs to yourself. Same goes for the pope. And yes, same goes for me. When I publicly pronounce my beliefs you have my sheer and utter blessing to ridicule, provoke and challenge those beliefs.
The difference between you and me is that I have good reason to believe what I believe. I’m not just born and bred into a certain mindset and made that way for life. Also I would gladly change my belief if I thought the truth was different. I don’t need to struggle against rationality and evidence, I simply go along with it. When was the last time you looked at a church sermon, or one of your holy books and started thinking if it really made sense. Then indulge in some other holy books and see if they make any less or more sense. Take your own beliefs seriously and do them the honour of finding ways to defend them without imposing on others right to criticise them.
@ Daphne, again (sincerely ;-)) thank you for replying.
Maybe with hindsight (fashionable term these days) I was wrong to suggest earlier to believers to ‘ignore’ provocation as I must admit this is interesting.
‘You go beyond feeling offended or letting us know you are offended. You demand that we don’t do it. You would be quite happy if restrictions were put in place to stop us doing it.’
Really? I wonder how you come to that conclusion. Again I reiterate. If any individual has the right to bemuse and amuse (as opposed to criticize) not only him/her self with other’s beliefs, then I see no difference in believers stating that they are offended. From there concluding I would rather gag you up is out of line and is done purposely by non-believers to feel persecuted, gain sympathy and up the ante.
[Daphne – Your comparison isn’t accurate. A correct comparison would be to a situation in which a non-believer rushes into a church during mass and begins berating the congregation for offending his sentiments, telling them that they are wrong to believe, deluded, etc. Secular space is secular space and religious space is religious space. Religious people constantly enter the secular domain to berate non-believers. Non-believers never enter religious space to berate believers. Religious people famously do not respect boundaries. Non-religious people respect them.]
What I expect is respect towards my beliefs, my roots, my upbringing and my heritage as much as you expect the right to freely criticise.
[Daphne – This is a common error, the roots of which may be linguistic rather than intellectual. Most people speak about ‘the right to an opinion’. There is no such thing, because opinions are something over which we have no control, and nobody can know whether we have an opinion unless we voice it. The right is to express an opinion and not to be victimised or discriminated against because of it. Similarly, there is no such thing is the right of a religion to be respected. Religions do not have rights. Individuals do. Your right is to freely espouse whichever religion you please. If you choose to espouse a religion that others choose to mock, that’s your problem. If religious people believe that their religion shouldn’t be mocked, and respond with bombs or fury, that’s everyone’s problem.]
It intrigues me that non-believers actually pass on as a right that ‘religion, religious discourse and religious symbols’ will actually vanish in a jiffy and we all become ‘sterilised’ and devoid of this. I must be under-estimating the serious and profound effect this must have on non-believers.
‘That insufferable Gouder person, in his interview in The Sunday Times last Sunday, warned MPs who might consider voting for divorce what their status would be in the eyes of the Catholic Church. He is the archbishop’s ventriloquist’s doll.’
Fr Gouder was replying to the journalist’s pressing question. He can’t be expected to reply in any other manner. However you are being selective. This archbishop (on the issue of divorce) clearly sees the separation of church and state and has stated so. In this case it is the spineless politicians that are hiding under the friar’s cassock.
[Daphne – You know, I think many of them actually fear their religious leader’s censure.]
As regards the limited sample of religious organisations I mentioned and your assertion that ‘they happen to operate nominally under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, but that’s about it’, quite frankly that’s very convenient. So let’s ‘weed out’ the good from church and retain what isn’t. Again: convenient.
[Daphne – Not really: I make the distinction between the official voice of the Catholic Church and the voluntary efforts of semi-independent or wholly independent Catholic organisations.]
[Daphne – You know, I think many of them actually fear their religious leader’s censure.]
Again Daphne I don’t agree with your emphasis. Your emphasis is always on the church’s position towards divorce rather than on what the ‘spineless’ politician should do.
A sensible politician would understand that the social fabric is being eroded in a more dangerous way by the current practice of cohabitation and absence of legislation in this regard (if at all possible in the first place) and its implications rather than by the introduction of divorce. Rather than attacking the cabinet and our prime minister’s position in this regard (oh how agonisingly painful this must be for Dr Gonzi. Being an extremely intelligent man, I am sure he understands this very simple concept but is held to ransom by his beliefs), you choose to attack the church’s position which is obviously against both cohabitation and divorce. Fr Gouder cannot be expected to have any other position on this.
In your fervour to consistently apologise this government (thankful sparing Tonio Borg), and in the absence of a credible opposition, you put pressure on the wrong end. The result is that we all lose.
[Daphne – No. I’m afraid you’re wrong. The only reason BOTH GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION have problems with the introduction of divorce is fear of the Catholic Church’s censure. All it would take is for the archbishop to get on the phone to the prime minister and the leader of the opposition and say ‘Hey, legislate for divorce. I won’t stand in your way.’ But the opposite has happened. Instead he has taken to the pulpit and sent out his ambassador Gouder to make it clear that MPs who vote for divorce are going straight to hell.]
Daphne I can’t seriously believe that you expect the archbishop to make such a call.
[Daphne – Why on earth not?]
I’ll reverse the situation. What if the PM and JM act as real leaders and LEAD, rather than expect to be absolved by the church from the clutches of hell. I honestly believe that we have a leadership vacuum were our cabinet ministers are shell shocked, seemingly paralysed and putting off decisions until they are sure that public opinion is behind them.
[Daphne – There I agree with you.]
Look at the issues for which decisions have been postponed; MEPA, in vitro, cohabitation, divorce, gambling shops etc. In the meantime, our status quo continues to erode the very essence of our social fabric. The only positive I see from this cabinet is their stance on illegal immigration, the only thing at the moment that makes me feel proud to have voted this government in last March, although even here public pressure is beginning to sway their resolve.
[Daphne – Their stance on illegal immigration being….?]
And by the way, do you really believe that politicians are actually afraid of hell, and that is why they don’t legislate for divorce?! If that is really the case they should follow the advice of Fr Peter and Fr Joe Borg who have a different opinion. My cynical view is they are terrified to lose their seats rather than do what is good for society as a whole.
[Daphne – Why are you against divorce? And why do you expect them to think differently?]
To be very brief, the government’s stance on illegal immigration is a humane one (excluding Tonio Borg). This is seriiously under attack by public opinion, especially the disgusting comments one can follow on The Times comments section.More can be done, as suggested by the Jesuit Refugee Services but again the government can’t walk that extra mile due to the changing tide in public opinion. It needs to lead, educate and be consistent.
As regards divorce I’m not against it. I can see that the current damage of cohabitation/separations is in my opinion more damaging and a greater threat to society then divorce. Divorce could restore some social order. This does not mean I will resort to it myself, but I can separate my beliefs from what is needed by society. I wish politicians could do the same, rather than cowardly waiting for the church to absolve them.
I am sure ‘God’ has got a sense of humour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3eTsNEgmL8
Nah, this one’s much better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o
Never heard of That Mitchell and Webb Look before. Absolutely brilliant clips.
The SS officer one is hilarious (out of topic now, sorry)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO5WoLnOOlU
@ Daphne
“Non-religious people respect them”
… you’re kidding! It only shows a very poor knowledge of modern history.
“I make the distinction between the official voice of the Catholic Church and the voluntary efforts of semi-independent or wholly independent Catholic organisations.”
You are free to make such a distinction. But the Catholic Church is one. Please make another distinction between: voluntary work (which anyone can provide) and diakonia (i.e. chiristian charity). You know, the Gospel does make a difference in some people’s lives.