Gone in a flash
I can’t help thinking that tomorrow morning we’ll all wake up and wonder what that was all about – the fuss, the fanfare, the panic stations, the furore about the Luqa roundabout, the cars cleared from roads, and all the rest of it.
The pope came and went and now what?
It is a truism, an old chestnut, that so many of us are more interested in putting on a show of being Catholic rather than in being Christian. But I’m not going into that now. It has been said so many times before, and it’s getting tiresome.
Equally tedious are the resentful lapsed Catholics, seething with hurt and burdened by chips, who have made it their mission to douse this papal visit with bitter sarcasm and what they hope is scathing wit (but isn’t).
Saviour Balzan was particularly infantile in Malta Today last Wednesday, like a sixth former just discovering rebellion against the path his parents chose for him, addressing the pope as ‘Dear Ben’ and wondering out loud whether guests are going to be asked for their marriage certificates at the door.
One wishes that Saviour Balzan and others like him would attain a modicum of maturity and come to terms with whatever religious problems afflict them.
A transitional stage of confusion and awkwardness between the realisation that you don’t want to be a Catholic – that this was chosen for you without your consent – and finally letting go is understandable.
It’s like that period when a marriage breaks up and the spouses just won’t stop detailing all the real and imagined shortcomings of the other. But when you get ‘fixed’ at that stage, when you never grow out of it and move on, then you’re in trouble, and so are those around you.
I can understand teenagers and those in their 20s, even early 30s at a stretch, banging on about the wrongness of Catholicism and how they would change it if they were pope.
But when I find myself stuck in a room with people in their late 30s, 40s or even 50s kvetching on about ending celibacy, allowing remarriage, how long it takes to get your marriage annulled, why there should be women priests, I pour myself a drink and walk off with it in search of more congenial company, to talk about politics or clothes or something relevant.
It’s clear that these people who don’t feel part of the Catholic Church at the same time feel they should be part of it. They haven’t moved on. They appear to be afraid to do so.
If they relinquish their Catholic identity, with what can they replace it? Nothing doesn’t do the trick for them. They need something, and it’s not going to be Buddhism, so instead they try to reshape Catholicism in their own image and fail. They are still angry, cross and bitter, so much like those aggrieved and betrayed spouses that the comparison seems perfectly apt because the mental state is similar.
There are aspects of the approach to Catholicism in Malta that I find silly, sad, hilarious, pathetic, tragic, dangerous, damaging, limiting, and even mind-numbing.
I have mocked and I have criticised, but only insofar as this approach to religion affects people’s lives, society and the workings of our country. The one thing I can’t do is attack the Roman Catholic Church from the standpoint of bitterness and resentment, and that is because I feel none and never have.
I would no more dream of bickering about faith with a devout Roman Catholic friend than I would with a Muslim friend. I don’t think that the fact I was raised a Catholic gives me a special prerogative to challenge others about what they believe in. It’s their business, not mine.
If there is too much zealousness, and I find it irritating, then I simply avoid the over-zealous, rather than getting into pointless arguments as I might have done 20 years ago.
I was fortunate in that, even though my parents are strong believers, my sisters and I never had religion rammed down our throat. We weren’t made to recite the rosary or go to mass every day during the holidays, or sent to confession once a week, or to ‘duttrina’ (we didn’t even know what it was), or raised in a house chockfull of crucifixes (there wasn’t one – we all have a bit of a horror of them).
Nobody ever invoked the wrath of God or spoke about sin and hell and thorns in Jesus’ crown. I went through the motions for a while, and then when I decided it really wasn’t for me, that I just wasn’t interested in Catholicism except as a social observer, that was that.
To stick with the break-up metaphor, now we’re just friends, happy to have lunch sometimes and chat, to tease each other but never do each other harm. I find Roman Catholicism immensely interesting, though not as a believer, and I still find solace in sitting in silent churches and lighting candles to God-knows-what. There’s a serenity about it.
Yesterday I read via the internet a speech given by a prominent Jewish businessman in the United States, sticking up for Catholics and Catholicism and expressing his outrage at what he sees as a concerted attack on Roman Catholicism by the US media.
He argued that many of those going after the Catholic Church are not Protestants but lapsed Catholics. Their motivation, he said, appears to come from deep hurt at wrongs done or perceived to have been done. He spoke from a standpoint of empathy as a member of the Jewish faith, the most persecuted in history.
I have some sympathy with this view. The current attempt at portraying priests in general as child-molesters and Catholics as depraved individuals who hand their children over to be molested is uncomfortably close to the historical slander of Jews as poisoners of wells, harbingers of disease and killers of Christian children.
It is a fact that there have been until now no checks and balances in Catholic institutions to guard against the abuse of children. It is a fact that many thousands of children have been abused, and that the true extent of this abuse is still untold. But it is also a fact that child abuse happens wherever children are organised together without a balance of powers to keep out those whose sexual interest is in children and those who are cruel towards them in non-sexual ways.
The Catholic Church happens to be the world’s single most extensive organisation involved in the care of children. By sheer cause of numbers it is obvious that there is going to be more sexual abuse of children in the worldwide Catholic Church than there is in, for example, state-run children’s homes in the United Kingdom.
Next week, I will be writing about this after speaking to some men who as boys were sexually abused while held in care at a home run by priests.
Those who are angry and resentful towards the Catholic religion in which they were raised would do well to examine the source of their bitterness and deal with it, unless they are planning on carrying this psychological cancer with them to the grave. They should work towards the point at which they can consider Roman Catholicism with the same detachment they would any other religion, though of course with a greater sense of familiarity.
If they cannot do that, then they remain involved in an emotional wrangle, leading to loud and angry arguments at parties about popes and bishops and priests not being allowed to have sex. It’s boring, annoying and upsetting for everyone, not least those who are still so angry.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
37 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Hi Daphne, spot on as usual.
Could you give us the link of the article you mentioned please?
[Daphne – http://fratres.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/redemption-comes-through-the-jews-jewish-businessman-sam-miller-whaps-anti-catholic-bias-in-news-media-full-text/ ]
WOW! Well done as usual.
I think you miss the main point: the worldwide outrage at the Catholic Church is not so much due to the abuse, which as you say is bound to happen in institutions which take care of so many children, but at the systematic cover up which followed it.
[Daphne – No, I think it is you who miss the point. There was nothing to stop the victims or their parents from going to the police. So why didn’t they do so? Here in Malta, three priests are being prosecuted because their victims went to the police. What cover-up was there, except by their lawyers (Giannella Caruana Curran and Manuel Mallia) who asked for the case to be heard behind closed doors, to which request the court acceded?]
On the local level, I agree with you that it is pitiful how many people insist on being part of the Catholic Church no matter how much they disagree with its positions, but you also have to understand the resentment of those who, despite having left it for good, still see certain fundamental aspects of their lives being dictated by it through the influence it exerts on our political class.
No cover up? For crying out loud! What about Ratzinger’s letter urging victims involved in such proceedings to be sworn to secrecy on pain of excommunication?
Doesn’t this ‘secrecy’ also involve not informing the secular authorities? I don’t recall reading about any exceptions in favour of telling the police in this letter.
[Daphne – You are misquoting and taking things out of context. I am shocked at some of the deliberate misinformation in the news media. One such was a news story, carried even in the Maltese newspapers, titled ‘abuse in Pope’s brother’s choir’ or similar. It turns out the Pope’s brother led this choir decades before the abuse occurred, but the heading – which is often all that people read – gave the impression that the pope’s brother ran a choir dedicated to abusing children. Then two days ago I found myself speaking to a woman who was convinced that the pope’s brother himself had abused children. I find this offensive from a journalist point of view above all else.]
And what about the conclusions of the Murphy Report in Ireland, that found that the Church was more concerned with preserving its reputation than safeguarding the welfare of the children entrusted in its care?
[Daphne – Everything has to be taken in the social and historic context. In this, the church leaders were no different to those parents, to say nothing of the victims themselves, who had a horror of involving the police because of the public shame they felt it would bring. You might as well ask yourself why the victims and their parents did not go to the police. In constantly focussing on the church, you are overlooking the fact that the victims and their parents had redress via the secular authorities but failed to go to those authorities for a great mixture of reasons. I cannot understand why you find this so foxing. Do you know how many babies were born in England of Maltese young mothers and dumped there for adoption, to conceal the illegitimate birth? Do you know how many girls were sent to a nun’s home in Gozo to sit out their entire pregnancy and return without the baby? And then you’re surprised because the same sort of people, living in the same sort of times and cultural context, did not want to announce to the police and make a show in a criminal trial of the fact that they were raped by a priest?]
Someone, elsewhere, referred to this:
http://blog.panorama.it/italia/2010/04/06/preti-pedofili-la-mano-leggera-di-wojtyla-il-pugno-duro-di-ratzinger/
This is the real Ratzinger: a good man with a not-so-good relationship with the media.
In the case of the alleged abuses in Malta, I do not fully comprehend why it seems that the focus is being placed entirely on the Catholic Church. The state has a significant part of the responsibility to deliver justice to the victims.
In his address to the Pope soon after landing in Luqa, the President of the Republic told HH “It is therefore the Church and even the state’s duty to work hand in hand to… curb cases of abuse so that justice will not only be done but [be] seen to be done” (BBC website, 17 Apr 2010)
According to The Malta Independent (18 Apr 2010), the alleged cases were publicised in 2003, and the police started investigations back then. But it also reported one of the victims saying that: “Even though court proceedings have started against the three accused, they are moving at “a snail’s pace, which is prolonging our search for justice in the process…”.
Well, it has now been 7 years since the cases were made public.
The President of the Republic is also the Chairman of the Commission for the Administration of Justice. And I understand (but I am subject to correction) that the Chief Justice was present at the Pope’s arrival in Luqa.
We need reassurance that the court case will be concluded soon.
Simply beautiful.
Spot on – OSNA ( sorry your name is too long) I hope many Maltese will read this article. There seems to be a general animosity toward this Pope which most certainly is unjustified.
” I have mocked and I have criticised, but only insofar as this approach to religion affects people’s lives, society and the workings of our country.”
Precisely. In this case what I appreciate is the endeavour of those who want to draw the line between state and church where it comes to children in care in church institutions. Society, by its taxes, and government through its policies, should carry the responsibility for these children. Is this a welfare society or is this Victorian England?
When the state takes on the responsibility for these children, it does not mean they will be completely safe from abuse, whatever the kind, but it will possibly minimise their exposure to one kind of abuse: that of sexual abuse coming from priests and nuns.
I believe that the government has a duty to take care of these children but such a move will not eliminate abuse. It should also be remembered that the majority of priests and nuns and other lay persons who voluntarily take care of children (and adults and persons with special needs) do so with 100% altruism and have these individuals at heart.
Though I believe that there are rotten apples (as amongst other communities), they do not represent the majority.
You have analysed the situation perfectly. A classic example illustrating your point was the case of those two persons who not only excommunicated themselves but felt the need to inform the media and have their photo published in the papers, proudly holding their excommunication certificates. One of them regularly haunts Fr Joe Borg’s blog, taking every opportunity to let us all know how ‘hurt’ he is.
By the way, this article is refreshingly candid and balanced, especially when compared to the other church-related ones appearing on the same pages of The Malta Independent on Sunday, written by two Daphne-wannabes, one of whom should have stuck to lunching with celebrities.
I think you mean non-celebrities or perceived celebrities (ie the writer’s mind, that is).
This gets better by the minute
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100418/local/people-take-pictures-on-papal-chair
I wouldn’t be surprised if I were to read that those who speak/write against illegal immigrants, and that they are a burden on us, were the first to greet the Pope. They are quick to quote from the Bible about being generous in words and actions towards one another (love thy brethren). It is left to be seen if they agree and whether they will be protesting against the Pope’s wish, that we express ”genuine Christian charity”, towards immigrants. It sounds like He agrees, that, although ”charity begins at home, it doesn’t end there”
While you, Daphne, are reasoning things out, read what these two cranks are out to achieve:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7096506.ece
You must have not seen First Sunday yet….. there is a prize photo.
[Daphne – I did see First Sunday, if only to remark on the fact that interview subjects must be anti-government, even if they sit on the government benches, the only exception of late being Vanni Bonello. Next month: At Home With Marisa Micallef. And let’s say nothing about the work undertaken on Marlene Mizzi’s photographs prior to release, causing her to look younger than her daughter and 20 years younger than she does (and with arms a fraction of the size) in the vast majority of her Facebook photographs. Xi dwejjaq ta’ nies. The so-called progressive party and its women seem to be totally fixated on what they look like and how their physical appearance is perceived. Dumbos, the lot of them.]
The Vatican statement that the “‘Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed,” is being distorted (originally by the Agence France-Presse) into “ The Church should always report priests accused of sex abuses to the civil authorities”. Nothing in our civil laws places that obligation on the Church. Moreover any blanket obligation that the Church should always report crimes to the civil authorities would imply the obligation of the Church to denounce the victims of inhuman totalitarian regimes to those authorities for imprisonment and execution!
One would ask: is the non-reporting of a crime equivalent to concealment? Would that be tantamount to an accessory to the crime?
Can the State obligate all of its citizens to denounce crimes they learn of?
Can the State obligate non-citizens resident on its territory to do likewise?
Can the State obligates its own citizens not to denounce crimes while in the territory of other States?
And if yes, which types of crimes? All crimes? Crimes committed by private individuals only? Crimes committed also by the State?
Wouldn’t the last be an example of sedition or treason?
And what is a crime? According to whom?
Is the death penalty in the US a crime? Is the assassination by a State’s secret service a crime?
This might be interesting:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1p2526t27g4l40g0/
I find Roman Catholicism interesting too, Daphne, much like a bumblebee finds a can of Shelltox interesting.
Time to take the scenic route, little bumblebee.
Buzz buzz.
“The one thing I can’t do is attack the Roman Catholic Church from the standpoint of bitterness and resentment, and that is because I feel none and never have”.
This sentence sums everything up in this excellent article. If only some commentators to your blog follow the meaning of this sentence.
She won’t admit it but deep down she does feel a little bitter/resentful about the Catholic church because its run by a bunch of dumbos who can’t multitask, who can’t control what’s in their pants, who can’t run a household, who can’t communicate, who have no subtlety, who can’t suss out the competition . . . men, in other words.
Ooooooh, now here’s a ‘man’ with a problem(s).
To Harry Purdie:
Where?
Despite the plaudits for your article, it seems a bit off to me. There is something not-quite-right with it, and I will now attempt to qualify precisely WHAT.
You seem to be skewered on the horns of a dilemma, trying hard to critique Catholicism whilst making light of its detractors. By trying to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody. You say that:
“Those who are angry and resentful towards the Catholic religion in which they were raised would do well to examine the source of their bitterness and deal with it, unless they are planning on carrying this psychological cancer with them to the grave.”
Oh, I am angry and resentful, but my anger and my resentment are separate from my being. They are an externality, and if there IS indeed a cancer, then it has been implanted into my brain as a foreign body. Allow me to elaborate.
As the Pope’s visit has shown all too clearly, the Clergy’s tone is distinctly worldly. You talk about the beauty of cathedrals; I find them futile monuments of vain men’s desire for notoriety. How many lives have they ruined? One, at least, we know. How many evil passions have they inspired? The passion for advertisement by means of the yellow journalist, the critical passion which is destroying people’s creative faculties, the passions of envy and covetousness, the passion of competition, the passion of derision – for you know that the world is mocking the ugly veneered pretentious monstrosities even now.
The clergy do not act as though they trusted the Divine Disposer of Events. They mean well, but their whole aim and object seems to be to serve God by conciliating Mammon. There is nothing more criminally futile. Do they rise above the world? Hell no. They have become tradesmen, variety-entertainers, and entrepreneurs, and it seems like the much vaunted separation of Church and State, at least in his country, has become a gummed-up mess. The perineum did not hold.
Oh, resentment against the Catholic Church IS justified, whatever the age of the one exhibiting the resentment. They are not the whines of whimpering cowards. They might not be elegantly articulated, and their tone might be abrasive and irritating, but they signify very real grievances which should be taken seriously.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. There is to be no plenary indulgence for people who toe the middle of the line, trying to please everybody. Indeed, they risk being run over.
Karlumanju
“By trying to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody.”
What you really mean is that she did not please you.
I think I’ve made this point elsewhere, Karlumanju, but here goes, in powerpoint form (for I unashamedly serve Mammon):
1. The Catholic religion is not the same as the Catholic faith. It’s a collection of rites and customs and imagery, meant to represent that faith.
2. Beyond the Catholic religion is the Catholic (or, in this case, Christian) cultural milieu. Whether we like it or not, many of us were moulded in that cultural space. The cathedrals belong to this cultural sphere, which has nothing to do with faith, and little to do with religion.
3. Then there is the Catholic church, or the institution. Now resentment against the Catholic church is indeed justified. But most of the time it takes the form of resentment against the Catholic faith. Vide that pompous buffoon Richard Dawkins. It’s like me conducting a media campaign against cricket because I find its rules ludicrous, because I don’t practise it, and because I think everyone should play rugby instead.
I love cathedrals (the right sort). And I love Old Roman/Byzantine/Beneventan chant etc. But I absolutely abhor “light Christian music”.
I don’t resent the Catholic church. It runs its own shop, and it makes its own rules. I do, however, resent its agents in Malta: MUSEUM and the Maltese church and the government. All of which have acted beyond what was required of them by Central Office. Our politicians, of course, are acting far beyond their purview in European political terms, and we’ve seen some sickening examples this past week: Tonio Borg’s “Christian Malta”, the president’s speech about Christian values, etc. Secular my arse. When you’re president, you’re acting in a presidential, not personal capacity. Ditto for any government official. As for MUSEUM, it should be disbanded by the Bishop. It has ceased to serve a purpose.
Good stuff, Baxxter. Love it when you go on a rant.
I was just thinking of all the hours wasted at ‘duttrina’, after a day at school inc. religion lessons, because my parish stipulated that no MUSEUM attendance = no holy communion or confirmation. Ridiculous. Where is it written in canon law that children should be sent to MUSEUM? Only in bloody Malta.
Then I caught a few ear-mauling moments of “Christian gospel choir” music at the Waterfront. Epic fail. Those “youths” (unfortunate word) will then promptly go off and do their own business, regardless of whether they find strumming guitars and “light” music in church.
As do the faithful of all other religions. Except that they have stuck to their traditions and are respected, even when the faithful, as in Malta, completely ignore the rules. Have you ever seen a clapping, hand-waving, “gospel” choir in the Russian, Greek or Serbian Orthodox Church? And then Catholic clergymen are puzzled that people are fascinated by Buddhism and assorted mystical religions.
I mean, this is just like running a corporation. The aim is to get people to “embrace Catholic life”, with its myriad implications. It’s not working. The “cool Christ with hair gel” image hasn’t worked. So let’s try something else, shall we? Maybe the whole 4/4ths guitar beat services are no longer cutting edge. The alternative is either a Black Eyed Peas mass, or a leaf out of the other European churches’ book. Notice that I say European. Not US televangelical da lordah! type churches.
By way of an anecdote, I was doing the usual futile tour of Paceville a couple of weeks ago, when I looked up at the big screen above Plush (a nightclub) running adverts on a loop. There were advers for parties, with gyrating bodies and hip DJs, more parties, a strip club, another gentleman’s club, then all of a sudden this advert for the Papal visit comes on, complete with episcopal message, and smiling “zghazagh” trotting along in slo-mo to the Waterfront. Right after that was an advert for a strip club.
Get my point? It doesn’t make sense. How in god’s name does the Catholic church expect to be taken seriously?
Right across the road is another nightclub, Browns. Next to the bar is a brass plaque, marking – wait for it – the blessing of the nightclub by Archbishop Paul Cremona.
I mean double-you tee eff? To top it all off we had the man himself visiting Paceville. Oh yes, the monsignors must have thought, “youths” will flock to their churches when they see a “hip” archbishop pretending to party along with them.
I don’t want hip clergymen. I want respectable clergymen who do their job well and can provide some answers in this mess of a world we live in. The archbishop doesn’t need guided tours of Paceville to see how the other side lives. He knows. And if he doesn’t, he’s not fit to lead his flock. Paceville is Sodom and Gomorrah, exponential. That’s all he needs to know. Just about the only commandment that is being obeyed is “Do not kill”, and to a certain extent, “Do not steal”.
It’ll take more than a blessing bestowed upon a nightclub to turn the tide. And I’m not even sure the tide ever did turn. People were stealing and coveting and fornicating since Adam though “That Granny Smith looks delicious”.
I’m not the man to provide the answer. Hell if I could, I’d be Pope. But the Catholic church has to decide once and for all what its objectives are, and spell them out in plain language.
——–
Now that’s a heartfelt rant.
” Oh, I am angry and resentful, but my anger and my resentment are separate from my being”
Without entering into Cartesian ontology, how exactly does that work?
Your emotions are not something detached from you, they affect the way you think and reason, the way you act and the message you choose to write (and might i add very clearly indeed).
From what you’ve written I seem to detect a hint of pride when stating that you foster this resentment, this anger. You seem to think it’s justified, you seem to think your wrath makes your opinion more powerful.
You couldn’t be further from the truth! This is (in my opinion) the exact behavior Daphne was referring to in this blog post. Regurgitating the age old perceived flaws of the Catholic church, with the same old bitterness and the unmistakably arrogant overtones, of a person who has formed his opinion on biased misinformation found all over the internet.
”Anger dwells only in the bosom of fools. ~Albert Einstein”
Re cathedrals: you clearly have no knowledge whatsoever about (the history of) art, culture or the Catholic Church. I won’t even bother going into the allegations you made about the ‘evils’ which cathedrals bestow on our society.
‘’ They mean well, but their whole aim and object seems to be to serve God by conciliating Mammon. There is nothing more criminally futile. Do they rise above the world? Hell no. They have become tradesmen, variety-entertainers, and entrepreneurs’’
I think your comment is risible at best, when you take into consideration the fact that the Catholic Church alone has been, for nearly 2000 years, the largest charity worldwide (as Daphne also rightly pointed out with regards to the Church’s work with children).
‘’ but they signify very real grievances which should be taken seriously.’’
‘Sorry Miss, but unfortunately I couldn’t complete my assignment… you see St. John’s Co-Cathedral was impeding my creativity…’’
I think that blame for the general [negative] perception of the Catholic Church should be borne exclusively by the Catholic Church itself. I say this as a practising Catholic and out of a genuine desire to see things change for the better.
The prevalent message perceived by the population at large is one that we should follow the teachings “or else”.
Two reasons why this approach was doomed from the start: a) if you’re going to threaten with punishment you have to be beyond reproach; b) the punishment/prize must be swift in coming – conversely, the stick can only be so long if you want to be believed that there’s a carrot at the end of it.
The Catholic Church is not in the punishment business, of course. It’s about love for God, neighbour and self. Emphasis on the consequences of failure is important but not essential. Just as in the penal code the law is of the essence, not the punishment.
This hullabaloo about a few paedophile priests, in my opinion, is a reaction stemming out of smugness that “despite your being on the high horse, you’re still as bad as I am”.
It’s myopic. The essence of the church is its message. The messengers are not perfect, but what does that change of the message? If anything having the message survive two millenniums despite the messengers should really make us sit up and take notice.
A clarification about “punishment”. Punishment is not as we understand it “If you do this I will retaliate by doing the other.”
It has to be understood more as when you’re hungry and you refuse the only thing on offer, so you remain hungry. It’s not as though someone is enforcing your state of hunger, but you are hungry because you choose to remain hungry. Same with heaven and hell. Going to hell is like refusing to eat what’s on offer… if you’ll allow the poor comparison.
@Norma Borg
Do not be so sure about what you recommend. Look at the following and I give you the link too below.
“It is also of interest that in the 1980s in the London borough of Islington, the entire childcare system was virtually closed down due to sexual abuse by social workers”
http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/may/31/truth-on-child-abuse-more-complex-than-depicted/
Malta Today 14-04-10
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2010/04/14/sbalzan.html
Wara li kiteb dan, Saviour issa ser imur jizzewweg fil-knisja w jitla jitqarben, qiesu qatt ma kiteb xejn. Forsi hawn minn huma mhawwad fit-twemmin, imma huwa certament haqqu l-premju ghal-ipokrezija.
99.9 % are introduced ot the Catholic faith at birth. A large percentage of compatriots find it difficult to conform. Quite a few of even those who attend religious functions are equally confused about their religious convictions.
Meanwhile our prime ministers and presidents preach from the pulpit, as though their office obliges them to convince us that they are perfect Catholics and that every Maltese ought to be exactly the same.
Pathetic!
As for Saviour getting married in church, it’s obvious – he wants a complete invitation on the next Pope’s visit!
[Daphne – He’ll get that even with a civil marriage.]
Hi Daphne
You didn’t post my comment. I hope it reached you.
Much love
Roger
[Daphne – I did, Roger. I even replied. But it’s under another post. I thought you might have wanted it here. I’ll move it.]
This is an excellent piece, Ms. Caruana Galizia. Should you be interested in an American perspective on this whole matter (I have been living here for 19 years), I’d be happy to oblige.
Hi Daphne,
I agreed with most of what you said on the abuse of kids by priests etc. I think it’s time the matter was laid to rest: the state must assert itself.
Abuse of minors including sexual abuse should be a reportable offence. That means that any body in a position of authority over some one accused of abuse of a minor must inform the police immediately.
[Daphne – Roger, the Vatican has laid down these rules already and announced them through its official website. This has led to retired judge Victor Caruana Colombo, who heads the Curia’s Response Team (investigative body) here in Malta to tell the press, last week, that in his view his position and the role of the Response Team are now redundant, because they are bound by confidentiality whereas the new rules dictate that they must immediately make a report to the police.]
Those who do not may find themselves accused of being accessories, and if found guilty they may face civil and criminal penalties including imprisonment and being named in public.
The church of course can and should apply canon law – though that has no legal standing in any sovereign country that I am aware of.
As for the backlog a truth and justice commission could be set up in each country to examine past cases and make recommendations to the governments concerned. Enough is enough.