Hmmm, curiouser and curiouser
Please, miss - it wasn't me
Word reaches me that it can’t have been the archbishop himself who sacked Fr Abela after he testified against having a ban on the play Stitching. It must be said, though, that the archbishop is the biggest cheese at the Curia (it is called the Archbishop’s Curia, after all) and if he doesn’t agree with the sacking of Fr Abela, then he can snap his fingers and undo it. If he doesn’t snap his fingers and undo it, then he agrees with it – or he’s being whipped about by that would-be inquisitor Anton Gouder.
Both political parties can forget about the passage through parliament of a divorce bill or cohabitation rights as long as Dun Gouder is snuffling about the Curia, and they know it – even the disingenuous Joseph Muscat.
Fr Abela was appointed to the Catholic Film Classification Commission by some oblique ‘media commission’ at the archbishop’s office (the ‘curia’ was the administrative centre in imperial Rome). It is unclear who or what runs this commission.
I have been told that the archbishop may not have been informed of Fr Abela’s sacking, and that he could well have been presented with a fait accompli by one of those minions who actually run the show. The archbishop likes Fr Abela: he assigned him to a Bormla parish after his return from Canada (he was in Canada, hence the enlightened mind) because he thinks him the sort of priest who can handle the myriad social problems there.
In other words, the archbishop knows Fr Abela well enough to trust him with a difficult pastoral job – so it would have been out of character to dismiss him from the Film Classification Commission and to subject him to the humiliation of ostracism.
Therefore it would be entirely in character for the archbishop to repair the damage done by his underling/s to Fr Abela and to ensure that they don’t take further initiatives of this sort.
22 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Why is it so difficult for the government to cut the Catholic Church in Malta down to size. We are supposed to be a secular nation as far as I know. Parliament should work to curb the political influence which the Catholic Church still exerts on Maltese society. An amendment to the Constitution would do for starters, but then I forget, none of our politicians have the balls for that. All tend to fall head over heels in their eagerness to show us how religious they are. It is truly sickening.
The Catholic Church should attune itself to the times. However, as a church it has every right to form an opinion and express that opinion to the public. On the other hand, the state should take a secular approach in this matter. Although this controversial play might be extreme and unsettling the state should still let ‘Stitching’ be viewed at least by mature viewers. Then it is up to the citizens to follow whatever values they choose.
[Daphne – Well, there’s some consolation. We are still allowed to leave the country. So when the Maltese next pop overseas for an abortion or a divorce, they can fit in Stitching.]
No doubt
Daphne
Be careful on how you criticize the Curia. People might take you at your word and ransack the Floriana palace once again.
You might be compared to KMB … heaven forbid :)
KMB did a hell of a lot more than just criticise the curia.
When I read of events such as the above I ask myself: can I ever bring myself to return to Malta?
I do find these things disturbing, but let’s face it, Malta is still one awesome place to live!
In this day and age when children can teach their parents more than the facts of life; when everyone has access to the internet and a million and one hard core pornographic films; when a large number of teenagers have been sexually active since puberty; when we have so many school girls getting pregnant every year; when there are so many cohabiting couples; why do we have a Film Classification Commission with priests appointed on it?
What is the real need for such a useless commission in this day and age. Who is it supposed to protect and from what?
Malta is a secular state, a member of the EU with a place in the world. When are characters like Dun Gouder going to stop interferring in what is good for us adults to watch in way of films, theatre dramas, in our daily lives and affairs or whatever?
The Church has a place in Malta to simply provide a service for those who are faithful to it. Interference in the daily life of adults will result in more and more people stopping from going to church and to follow its teachings.
In the same way as politicians, the Archibishop would do well to start listening to the people.
The Roman Catholic Apostolic church has a constitutional right and duty to teach what is right and wrong.
Not so secular my friend.
Hence a much needed constitutional amendment.
Not to be pedantic, but you cannot say “Dun Gouder”. “Dun” (like “Sir” in English) is used with the christian name or the full name – never with the surname only..
John II – Apologies to Dun Anton. Please note that the term Dun Gouder was used in the article, hence my repetition.
“Why is it so difficult for the government to cut the Catholic Church in Malta down to size”.
Not only it is difficult but downright impossible. The Archbishop does not tell the Prime Minister who to appoint President or members of his Cabinet. The Prime Minister does not tell the Archbishop who to appoint as Chairman of the Board of Censors.
Malta is a secular state based on Christian principles but the government has no reason to ‘cut the church down to size’ unless the church exceeds its jurisdictional boundaries and interferes with the workings of government.
Whether Fr. Joe Abela was dismissed by the Archbishop or not is immaterial although quite naturally it stirs one’s curiosity and become a subject of public interest and debate.
I know that the church does not exert direct political interferance, but it does exert a lot of indirect and subtle pressure. It is about this that I am talking. Why do you think that Malta is still without a divorce law? Secular my foot.
How the Church acted vis-a-vis Fr Abela is an entirely different issue from the Government’s Board’s decision regarding the play. I notice comments here talking about the “political interference” of the Church or of how (hypothetically) the Church would bring pressure to bear in an eventual debate on divorce in Parliament. The Maltese Church has political leverage but this episode has shown that it does not always work, not even with one of its own.
A fortiori then with the lay people who sit on the Government’s Board. Their decision regarding this play — right or wrong — is theirs and is entirely their responsibility.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090626/local/churchs-film-classification-board-chairman-fired
A fact which is not generally known is that when the (state funded) University wants to employ lecturers in the faculties of Theology and or Philosophy, nobody can even apply unless he/she has permission to do so from the Archbishop.
Those selected, before they can take up the post, have to go before the Archbishop and make a “declaration of faith”.
If, at any time, the Archbishop decides that he no longer approves of any lecturer, all he has to do is to write to the Uni and say so – upon which the lecturer is automatically considered as being dismissed and a new one chosen ….
http://www.education.gov.mt/resources/pdf/CHAPT327.pdf
Just within the faculties of theology I believe. Truly hope so at least.
Still, another proof of how non-secular Malta is. Not sure why we would need more proof, but there is always some nutter declaring that Malta is secular.
Pat, Malta is a secular state. The fact that “Stiiching” has up to now been banned from being produced on stage was not the fault of Father Abela (once again the term used in the above article), but mainly due to that silly woman who is the so-called chairperson of the censoring board.
We do not need a censoring board for either drama, the theatre or the cinema, enough reasons have been given in my post above.
Whether or not Malta is secular, and people seem to do whatever they like are the Church’s own statistics of the low percentage of people that are still frequenting Mass on Sunday, the number of separations and co-habitation for lack of a divorce law, and the number of annulment applications before the Curia’s own tribunal which in themselves are the granting of divorce with the Almighty’s blessings.
Jomar: where is it written that “Malta is a secular state based on Christian principles”? The Constitution says Malta is a republic based on work. The article declaring that the Roman, Catholic, apostolic religion is the religion of Malta is just a pious declaration and no more. If it is removed, no difference in constitutional law will be felt. Malta is supposed to be a secular state but this depends very much on how the government of the day runs the country and how the legislative legislates. If the Executive is afraid or unwilling (e.g. on account of personal religious convictions) to bring bills before Parliament which disagree with the tenets of Canon law (e.g. divorce) or if Parliament, because of the religious persuasion of some members, refuses to enact such laws, then one cannot say the country is really secular. Secular means that nothing is done or omitted to be done purely on account of religious reasons.
I do not understand all the fuss about the firing of this priest. The Church has its own classification board (formerly known as the board of film censorship) which is distinct from that of the State. To me the Church’s board is irrelevant. I remember when, as a teenager, I would use the Church board to learn which were the most spicy movies and go watch them. What interests me is the board of the State and this should be strictly secular. The State has no business appointing on this board persons who let their religious convictions interfere with their judgement but I very much suspect that many key public posts are deliberately filled by persons of a manifest Catholic persuasion because this is what the present powers that be want. The state board of censorship has no right to ban something because it may hurt the religious feelings of anyone. That anyone is free not to see the play or movie or whatever. If Catholics have such sensitive feelings, don’t agnostics or atheists have feelings too? Is sentiment a monoply of Catholics? That any adult (very often much less qualified than I) should tell me what I may or may not read or watch is an insult to my intelligence. While the Church’s censorship does not bother me as it is not enforceable on me, that of the state does because I must obey it. In my view, the Church may teach whatever it likes. It is the State which should totally ignore the Church and give me my rights. If the State ignored the rantings of prelates, theirs would be like a voice crying in the desert as far as I am concerned. And this is where I am at odds with the present administration, much to my regret.
I am afraid there are still too many cobwebs in our laws and administration dating back to the time when Malta was a theocracy under the Knights (with the Bishop and the Inquisitor elbowing for power simultaneously with the Grandmaster) and to the colonial period when the Church was the most valued ally of the imperial government in making sure the docile populace within the island-fortress continued to suffer in silence in the hope of a future heavenly reward.
It seems it will be some time before some politicians will keep their religious convictions out of the administration of the country. They want political glory on this earth and eternal glory in the next. The two are not always possible.
Is this meant to be a clarification:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090627/local/churchs-film-classifier-left-after-common-conclusion
E=mc2
“The Constitution says Malta is a republic based on work. The article declaring that the Roman, Catholic, apostolic religion is the religion of Malta is just a pious declaration and no more. If it is removed, no difference in constitutional law will be felt”.
Exactly my point. So, the Church’s Board of Censors publish a guideline and is fully independent from the government Censors who ultimately decided whether ‘Stitching’ should be banned.
You are critical of ‘the present administration’ as if censorship is its latest creation. So, why not promote the complete removal of the government’s Censorship Board and let those who want to be guided by the Church’s ratings follow their conscience?