Meta twelidt, ommi ddecidiet li taghmmidni. I had no say. Issa ma jfissirx li ghandi nibqa ghal ghomri Kattolika. Ghandi d-dritt li niddeciedi jiena. Dak is-sabih tal-knisja, li thalli lil kulhadd fil-liberta’.

I came across an article on an Italian magazine showing a picture of Berlusconi receiving holy communion from Pope John Paul II.

The accompanying article asked, in large letters in the title, how a divorced person could receive the Eucharist, and from the pope.

Dear Pat, I didn’t quite understand what you meant, but if you meant that the Catholic Church should move with times in the sense that it should pander to societal whims just as civil governments do, I am sorry to disappoint you because wrong can never become right or acceptable just because a libertine and permissive society would like to adopt a certain lifestyle.

The Catholic Church’s doctrine, moral teachings (what is right/wrong) and interpretation of the divine natural law is never mistaken and invariable till the end of time.

The Catholic Church, not for it’s own sake, but for the sake of the salvation of her members, is not happy when some fall away. However, if you disagree, you are free to leave.

Moreover, why worry, about the Catholic Church rules and regulations and about their archaism, if it is ‘true’ that, those against, don’t give a damn about its teachings.

@ MikeC:

Unwittingly, you perfectly proved my point. A person who is ignorant of theology will consider the Bible to be a confusing book. The reason that it seems conflicting/confusing is because each book is a different ‘genre’ so to speak. So in the Bible you have a wide range of genres of writing which range from poetry to epic sagas, to odes, to reportage and so on.

You are right that at face value the book of Genesis will seem to be both conflicting and absurd, but the reason is that the Bible is not to be read as a Scientific text book and the book of Genesis (in particular the first two chapters on Creation) are written in the form of an ode, and in symbolic language which can be best understood in the context it was written. That is what theology will teach you.

”Christianity itself is an a la carte religion, picking and choosing from the bible as it suits it. ”

Here you are playing with words (deliberately or not). Firstly I shall refer to Catholicism rather than Christianity. In Catholicism, one may trace the line of Popes back to the early Apostles and Disciples of Christ (hence the term St. Peter’s successor).

For this reason, the Catholic Church claims the right and duty to pass on Christ’s teachings and to offer the apt interpretations of it (so as we should not fall into problems such as that put forward in the video Mr. Buckle posted).

I don’t see this as an a la carte religion at all. Also your view of Christianity is rather superficial, as you seem to consider it merely on an intellectual rather than personal level which gives your argument a superficiality in its implications.

”The Old Testament advocates child rape, slavery, genocide, oppression of women, murder of gays and other atrocities. ”

Oh, a Dawkins fan. No wonder.

”Yet they are not part of official Catholic policy are they?”

The reason being, that unlike Jews, Christians acknowledge the life and teachings of Jesus, hence why the Bible does not end at the book of Chronicles as with the Jewish Tanakh.

”I don’t see the archbishop rounding up adulterers and having them stoned to death. Is that not a la carte as well?”

No it is not. Mosaic law was replaced in the New Testament. Its tiring sometimes. It is precisely if the Archbishop were doing such things that it would become a la carte. Reading Dawkins alone is no good sir. As C.S Lewis once remarked: ”A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. ”

Oh Christ. Having to explain it for the zillionth time: I admire nuns and priests for their brave choice of career.

Do I really come across as someone who despises the clergy?

The tradition of the early Christian church put the emphasis very strongly on two related points: firstly, the “uniqueness” of the authentic Christian marriage and secondly, its permanence.

In spite of this, the Orthodox Church does permit divorce and remarriage on the grounds of interpretation of what the Lord says (cf. Matt. 19:9).

In the words of Bishop Kallistos Ware, divorce is an action of “economia” and an “expression of compassion” of the church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account, allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception”.

In the tradition of the early church fathers, the unity of a married couple is not maintained through mere juridical obligation but through a unity that is “consistent with an internal symphony”.

The problem arises when this symphony is no longer possible (even if it at one time existed). Therefore “the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect”.

The Orthodox Church also recognizes that there are cases in which married life has no ‘salvation’ content or may even lead to loss of the soul. According to St. John Chrysostom in such cases it is “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.

(Excerpts from a presentation by his Grace Mgr. Athenagoras Peckstadt, Bishop of Sinope, Hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate made before the International Congress at the Catholic University of Leuven on 18-20 April 2005).

I personally picture God, like I do any loving parent, always forgiving and loving to his/her children. Thus, if your relationship has gone sour and you’re living with somebody who truly loves you and respects you (and you do the same) I doubt you will have any problems when you’re at the heavenly gates.

I tend to believe (or hope with conviction of a loving God) that you will be received with his/her hands wide open and loving hug from our heavenly father or mother. Irrespective of what the earthly (sometimes mistaken) church rules say or preclude you from receiving.

One has to remember that God is not some sort of monopoly of this or of that group.

Up to now I have been blessed and fortunate to have a long and (quasi – because everyone passes through bad patches) stable marriage, but for the other people who were not as fortunate as I am so far, and are genuine in their failed relationship and starting another one (with genuine intentions) I am sure that our creator loves you and is eager for the time when you meet up (for those that believe in God of course – those that don’t, I apologise if I hurt you in some manner with this note).

The subject matter is rich and complex even if you don’t believe in God. Council of Nicea, ousia, free will, there is so much to study and yet many Catholics think the Immaculate Conception is talking about Jesus’ creation.

I am humbled by the collective dedication of the clergy of today and all of those who have gone before them in their studies, prayers, and writings. If you want to understand, really understand, a particular teaching of the church then ask your priest about how you can learn more.

Don’t just sit at home and make up your own version to fit your own world view.

My apologies for the late reaction to your comments which as usual I appreciate. Yes you are right in pointing out that the greater difficulty lies with having sex outside marriage rather than separation itself. However there are issues with some purists even with separation as this goes against the grain of “what God has joined let no man put asunder” paradigm.

I take exception to your hasty conclusion that I was trying to find a religion that accommodates my needs. As related at the end of my modest contribution, the issue does not interest me directly but I am more interested from a philosophical point of view.

And how did you reach the conclusion that I believe that there is only one religion in the world. Whilst far from being an expert on other religions, I know a thing or two about some other religions and which in spite of many people’s beliefs, there are many commonalities.

The issue is not what the religion teaches but its interpretation. There is interpretation in each religion that has has more than one adherent. It is interpretation that has led, for example to the rift between Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox Church. That interpretation varies within the same church over time is well known.

In the earlier part of the last century, for example, it was considered sinful to participate in Holy Communion after having eaten less than an hour before Holy Communion. It was considered sinful not to fast (something to a similar effect is also narrated in the new testament and in a way Jesus rebuked it). It was considered most inappropriate to hold the Holy Host in a layman’s hand (a commonly accepted practice nowadays)

Therefore I have no problem with the religion, but I have some difficulty with the way it is sometimes interpreted. There are no efforts on my part to change the religion, my only intervention is to spur thinking on its interpretation. After all we must recall that the controversy and the bishops’ reaction was prompted by none other than a priest and not a layman like myself.

From all the religions that I have come across, the Christian faith is one of the most difficult to practise. Which is easier, to adore a deity of whatever shape of form or to bear one’s cross with dignity and turn the other cheek when savagely slapped?

What inspires me most about Christianity is that the Creator was humiliated to the extreme but in spite of the adversity and the power to have it otherwise, managed to forgive on the cross. Nowhere near easy to practice in real life. Christianity is a humane religion which indicated forgiveness towards the unacceptable behaviour of the adulteress and the tax collector.

It is a religion of hope to those who face adversity, whether self inflicted (like the prodigal son) or otherwise (the sick daughter of the centurion). It is a religion of love and tolerance. Intolerance was only exceptionally expressed by Jesus Christ towards hypocrites and those who exploit others, especially those who do so in the name of righteousness. He was a victim of such behaviour.

So yes, in the way that others have striven to adjourn practices to be more in line with the real Christian message, there is still scope for improvement within the church.

And whilst I would tend to agree that there are quite a considerable number of Maltese who in spite of professing to be Catholics, practice despicable behaviour, I think it is wrong to pigeon hole the whole Maltese Catholic population. I know quite a few people who are good Catholics and do their utmost to quietly and yet effectively practice the Christian faith.

If they genuinely love their neighbour and help out in all sots of dire adversity. I think that they go quite a long way to adhere to the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

I suppose no one who receives communion has ever used contraceptives and intends on continuing to use them? This discussion is a lot of bunkum – which is why Daphne liked to get involved in it!! Of course I agree – why should one care anyway – but my point is that if one argues down this path not many Catholics (priests and nuns included) should line up for anything!!