Mark Montebello says he wasn’t a go-between/intermediary
Published:
November 9, 2014 at 10:56pm
22 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Featured Posts
-
Paltry €50,000 fine for illegal Siggiewi zoo lifted in exchange for state school visits...more
-
Owner of illegal Siggiewi zoo parties with Environment Minister one day before Planning Authority sanctions it...more
-
World Economic Forum index/Malta: public trust in politicians plummets 17 places in one year...more
-
When freeloading Clyde Puli spent 16 days at the Olympic Games in China and made us pay for it...more
-
The leader of the Nationalist Party and Miss Rebecca Dimech...more
-
Well, the Kap tal-Kattolici u l-Latini certainly has a roving eye...more
Hmm the whole story is “fishy” to say the least. Let’s hope the courts sort it once and for all
BIL-FILMATI: Fr Mark Montebello jgħid “Il-qassisin nafu minn fejn għandna ngħaddu”
http://normanvella.blogspot.com/2014/11/fr-mark-montebello-il-qassisin-nafu.html
Fl-opinjoni tiegħi l-għarukaża mhix l-istqarrija li għamel dwar li l-qassisin jafu minfejn għandhom jgħaddu. Ejja ma ninħbewx wara subgħajna u nammettu li għalkemm il-Knisja tilfet ħafna mill-influwenza tagħha fuq in-nies, xorta taf x’għandha tagħmel u ‘minfejn għandha tgħaddi’ biex tkun influwenti fil-kurituri tal-poter.
Fih innifsu dan ma naħsibx li hu ħażin sakemm din l-influwenza ma tkunx abbużata biex tgħatti l-verita’ jew taħbi xturha — biċċa xogħol delikata mhux ftit.
Biex niġi għall-punt, l-għarukaża l-kbira ta’ xi ħadd bħal Patri Mark, li jridha tal-verġni w pur fejn tidħol it-tmexxija tal-Knisja, hi li hu kien parti konxja (anke jekk skond hu mhux direttament attiva) f’din il-bawxata biex jinxtara s-silenzju tal-(allegata) vittma ta’ abbuż minn ministru tal-istess Knisja li hu parti minnha. .
This story is not just fishy.
It stinks to high heaven.
It’s good you published Father Montebello’s version. While I admire his courage and respect him as a man of God, I disagree with many statements and campaigns the reverend friar chooses to uphold. It’s also true he seems to like the limelight.
Nevertheless I do not feel that conveying a message is wrong. Un ambasciatore non porta pena.
Besides why is it illegal to pay money to withdraw a criminal accusation, if withdrawing a criminal charge by the victim is legal and is often approved by the courts? On the other hand this proposal does sound indecent and immoral.
“The editor will examine both versions,” as if the editor is in a position to decide whether to publish Mark Montebello’s rebuttal because Bonnici Cachia “stood by his story”.
Which part of “…Mark Xuereb has stood by his story, in the light of this we cannot publish your reply, at least at the moment…” did you not understand?
X’ma jisplodux it-Twin Towers.
You don’t make much sense, Jozef, but I’ll forgive you that.
As for your ‘Twin Towers’ comment, as Einstein once said, “condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” Keep that in mind to avoid making a fool of yourself with people in the know.
If he wasn’t an intermediary (after all you have to consider the maxim of innocent until proven guilty) they why on earth would he broach the subject on the phone in the first place?
Let us also just assume that people act only in good faith, what on earth was he trying to achieve by that? Egg them on, holy gossip, or what?
Either way you look at it, his behaviour is to say the least, out of line.
Why indeed?
Whether Fr M Montebello was the intermediary in a bribery attempt or whether he was only gratuitously divulging a fragment of gossip over the telephone, a person of his education was bound to know that he was adding fuel to the false allegation being floated around that Dominican ex- Archbishop Cremona had attempted to pay a bribe.
What side is he on?
At the moment it appears that he is on the side of someone who protests that he is “not for sale” now, but who has a history of convictions for defrauding a vulnerable old woman and of being guilty of a foiled political assassination attempt.
The Times of Malta is duty bound to publish the letter and then let the readers judge.
Do they have some hidden agenda?
Thank God for FB.
You mean thank God for DCG.
If Fr Mark Montebello was not a go-between in the attempted bribery case it has still got to be explained why he was so prompt to admit the damning gossip on the telephone.
That admission served only as some sort of confirmation that someone with a proven record of an attempted political assassination and of defrauding a vulnerable old woman was now the recipient of bribe efforts to protect a much younger “vulnerable” lady from a fellow Dominican priest.
I find it strange that Mark Montebello uses the FULL name and title of Fr Charles Fenech, a religious companion of his, with such gusto, but only speaks of “the ALLEGED” victim who remains nameless. Is this a personal vendetta against a fellow priest?
Is he assuming that the priest is guilty even before he is tried?
I thought Mark Montebello had set himself up as a Prince in shining armour in defence of deserving causes. Charity begins at home, Mark. That means family members as well as fellow religious brothers.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-11-10/local-news/Fr-Mark-Montebello-says-he-was-no-intermediary-in-Fr-Charles-Fenech-case-6736125316
He says it wasn’t him, but he also says he knew about it, so does he know who it was?
At a glance, I thought I was seeing His Holiness Pope Francis.
We have a bunch of people in Malta who have excelled at double standards, for quite a long time. They are now exposing themselves, but what a high cost for us.
The signs were always present and visible. In many cases the evidence too.
It is the maturity of the Maltese electorate in general, if we get that far, that is coming at a high cost.
That they twisted the truth, we knew.
That lying was the norm for Joseph Muscat, he said himself before the nation.
That they were directly involved in drugs and use technicalities to get off the hook, we knew.
That they intended only working with Taghna Lkoll, we knew.
That the granting of the tender to the Gasol, Electrogas Siemens (HSBC, BNP etc.) consortium was a done deal, we knew and we know.
That voters were courted, with favours for votes, methodically and systematically, we knew.
That they hounded, pre-election, with intent and misconstruction, we knew and we know.
That they totally misrepresented their electoral mandate, we know.
Democracy was not even present en route to ballot box, let alone afterwards.
And yet, what checks exist for what is happening?
Isn’t there a huge failing of the system – right before us – if this is allowed to happen and persist?
Is there nothing upholding a sane state of affairs that is guaranteed by the Constitution?
Is this right, in this day and age, and in a European Country?
_________________
I have been thinking about the tolerance levels and non-resignation of ministers.
And this is where the real specific value of JPO and Franco Debono to the Labour Party lay.
There was no catch 22 situation for the NP in Government. With such traitors in their midst, the situation called for their immediate resignation, with no exception. Once the electorate witnessed the NP tolerate any such behaviour over any extended term, the scene was set for the tolerance levels to be stretched for any future scenario.
When they say:
“Man’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions”
this counts in the negative as well as in the positive.
_________________
It’s going to take a hell of a lot of time for a tolerance readjustment to manifest desperation levels with this state of affairs.
Anyone who is just under 60 in 8 years time is going to have had half of that time ruined by Labour, and the rest of the time recovering from the damage.
It’s all proportionate to exposure, but the truth is that every taxpayer – and every child of that taxpayer – is exposed.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20141110/local/transcript-published-after-fr-mark-montebello-objects-to-the-sunday-times-of-malta-story.543418
This saga simply proves that (a) there was some form of telephone contact between Fr Mark and Edgar, (b) that as one point Fr Mark was fully aware of the bribe and he either acted as an intermediary (first The Sunday Times story version) or otherwise (Fr Montebello’s reconsideration that informs us about his ‘change of mind’ regarding the truth behind this story), and (c) that Fr Mark’s direct or indirect involvement in this story deserves better scrutiny by his order, the Curia and civil authorities.
Is Mark Montebello trying to pay back Archbishop Cremona for temporarily exiling him to Mexico? That is a legitimate question to ask at this point.
Just like the great leader: first test the public opinion then act. The church doesn’t need enemies with priests like Mark Montebello and his like.