Tag: Catholic Church

Categories
Values

A nation of stone-throwers

The judgement in the case of the two paedophiles Godwin Scerri and Charles Pulis has justifiably leapt to the top of the most talked about news stories on the ether. There is no doubt that any normal human (anybody who does not have a Breivik streak anyway) will have passed through a mixture of emotions when hearing about how these two beings (they do not deserve to be called men) abused of the position of trust and responsibility with which society had entrusted them. Indignation, disgust, anger, sadness (for the victims) and the strong primitive desire to punish that hides the even more primitive need for revenge and retribution surely played a part in all of this.

While there is no doubt that Godwin and Charles deserve society’s strongest of reprimands and punishments that should be meted out in proportion to their heinous crime, it is also true that society – particularly the “instant liberals” need to put a damper or two on their enthusiastic attempts  to throw everybody and everyone in the same basket. Sure Godwin and Charles operated under the guise of (and abused the name of) priests. Does that justify the sudden lynch mob directed towards priesthood in general? Is the institution so base as to suddenly equate it with “assassins” or “necrophiliacs”?

Let me state this differently. Our criminal law contains an aggravation (a factor that means that the crime committed will be punished more harshly) in the case of a policeman committing any crime. If a policeman steals something for example, his punishment is aggravated because he is committing a crime that he was duty bound to prevent. The crime is the same (theft) but the penalty is harsher (aggravated) because of the person who committed it. For a very logical and sound reason (that most people can get to without outside assistance) there is nothing written in the Criminal Code about punishing the whole police force whenever a policeman commits a crime.

Now “the Church” (and not only the MSSP) is a vast institution and I never tire of reminding people that it has an important social role to play within the fabric of many societies let alone ours where it has been a mainstay of society for at least a thousand years. We may suddenly have a lynch mob that has emitted the verdict of GUILTY on all priests and all MSSP members in particular but they conveniently tend to forget that the operation of orphanages in this country of ours (not to mention other social support structures) is entirely dependent on the Church. It is a service that goes on every day unnoticed (and mostly untrumpeted) in  much the same way as your postal service works daily away from the limelight.

There can be no doubt that Malta’s Church requires a period of reflection and introspection : it has to ask itself which parts have gone wrong and why. It is not just the rotten apples that need seeing to but much more. From a lay point of view, the Concordat with the Maltese State has done the Church (and Malta) more harm than good and would best be disposed of as soon as possible. But this is not the time to stone the Church to death. The rotten part of the Church must go. For the sake of the Church and for the sake of our society that still depends on many of its valuable services.

Unleashing the lynch mob of “anti-papists”, “anti-clericals” and “liberal extremists” who won’t rest until they have the metaphorical blood of the Church on their hands will lead us to nowhere. Believers and non-believers might find that they have the same duty and social responsibility to help the Church redirect itself and its flock to living in a more tolerant world where abuse of trust does not happen so easily.

Hopefully it will not happen at all.

Categories
Politics Values

New York's Catholic Paladino

You know you’re growing old when you remember Governor Cuomo Snr. His son, Andrew M. Cuomo is running for Governor of New York on the democrat ticket. In an all-Italian (origin) showdown, Cuomo’s republican opponent is Carl P. Paladino – conservative to the bone and very proud of his Italian and catholic origins. The gubernatorial battle is turning out to be a curious export of the tensions in the old continent as Padalino’s conservatism is pitted against Cuomo’s more liberal (a European description) approach. Padalino is proud of the winks and smiles linked half-jokingly to the implications of having Italian ancestry in this part of the world while Cuomo is wary of the image of political Sopranos.

Back on the campaign trail Padalino’s no holds barred attitude could land him in trouble and yesterday’s speech to a gathering in Brooklyn was of the incendiary kind. Curiously Padalino’s message contained the dilemma that currently has no borders in the western world – from Belgrade, to Valletta to New York, the cohabitation of religious values and liberal rights are suffering the sort of tension that can best be described as dangerous. Here’s the New York Times reporting Paladino’s speech to Orthodox Jewish leaders:

The Republican candidate for governor, Carl P. Paladino, told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year. Addressing Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mr. Paladino described his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,” he said, reading from a prepared address, according to a video of the event.

And then, to applause at Congregation Shaarei Chaim, he said: “I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did, and that’s not the example we should be showing our children.” Newsday.com reported that Mr. Paladino’s prepared text had included the sentence: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.” But Mr. Paladino omitted the sentence in his speech.

An hour after the speech, Cuomo’s team denounced the statement as being “stunningly homophobic” and that it was a glaring disregard for basic equality. Paladino’s campaign manager duly responded by denying assertions that Mr. Paladino was antigay, and noted that Paladino employed a gay man on his campaign staff. (Isn’t that charitable of him?)

“Carl Paladino is simply expressing the views that he holds in his heart as a Catholic,” Mr. Caputo said in a telephone interview. “Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church.”

I’m beginning to think that the problem is not the catholic church (or God) in whose name these obscenities are regularly perpetrated. It’s ignorance. How, for one minute Paladino could believe that the phrase “dysfunctional homosexual” could be seen as anything but a homophobic statement is beyond my ken. His taking refuge behind the hazy notion of “the Catholic Church” to justify his attempt at fuelling the conservative vote is pitiful and – here’s the word again – medieval.  Caputo (Paladino’s campaign manager) worryingly appended the following sentence to his justifications: “the majority of New Yorkers agree with him” while adding that the campaign had done its own polling. That’s ok then is it? I mean this is not San Francisco but hey,  waddayaknow?

While Andrew Cuomo polled voters to get an insight on how far the Iti-Mafia-Pizza stereotype is stuck in the New Yorker mentality (and this with the aim of getting rid of it), Paladino was busy checking whether New York really likes its poofs. It’s his Catholic duty (God bless his soul) and he told the Orthodox Jews that he is on their same wavelength (for heaven’s sake) – he’d never march in a gay pride event and he criticised Andrew Cuomo for doing so.

If that’s what a Catholic Heart can contribute to a community then bring on the infidels…..

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch

Sacred Rights

So cohabiting couples should strictly speaking not be allowed to take part in the sacrament of holy communion. We were reminded that recently and suddenly there is a furore, a raising of the metaphorical ruckus and more by an indignated part of the populace. What do our Bishops think they are doing? Don’t they know that there are people who traipse up the aisle and swallow the wafer who are much less deserving than the poor cohabiting couples whose only crime is to love each other?

Say what? I could not believe my eyes as more and more people jumped on the anti-church bandwagon once again. Suddenly people were pontificating on a virtual classification of “communion merit”. Soon enougha ritual of a specific denomination on the island was discussed in the same manner as one would a universal human right.

Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter by Pietro...
Image via Wikipedia

Have I got news for the pseudo-libertarians: there is no universal human right to communion. On a scale of human interpreted religious ritual – one that strongly believes that what the earthly representatives of a divinity say is truly inspired by the aforementioned divinity – whatever anyone else has to add is pure balderdash. Communion is a religious ritual that has quite possibly existed ever since the man from Nazareth chose to ask is apostles to break bread and eat it in his remembrance. True, at that point in time there were no postillae or qualifications as to who could partake of this commemorative meal whenever it happened (neither did Haysus mention anything about wheat intolerance – something the Catholic Church would only solve in early years of the 21st century) but we must perforce presume that he left such work to Peter “the Rock” and his followers.

That last presumption is also crucial since the Catholic Church is now the supreme authority of what is kosher in communion. Which is why the sudden jumping and yelling when it was made clear that cohabiting couples should stay put on their church seats while the purer folk go about their queuing and communing is all very out of order. And what is all this nonsense about the Church being picky and hypocritical when it spares the more obvious candidates from wafer deprivation? I do not recall the church or any pointy hatted representative say that liars, thieves etc CAN have communion while cohabiting couples CANNOT. The rules are quite clear for everybody and there is also a mechanism for the repentant and the contrite – it’s another ritual which involves a sort of skype with God via his earthly rep.

Do we really need to get into the ritualistic details of Roman Catholicity to understand the difference between a rite and a right? But, they protest, the Church also has a social role and is a social example. Bollocks. Let the church deal with its own contradictions in its own time. Let it explain to its flock how sex before marriage, cohabitation, adultery, theft and murder are all on the same level in the “Does Not Qualify for Communion” point system. What the church also does is something very sly. It does not police its aisles with lie detectors and identifiers of premarital fornicators – it simply and very calmly puts it on your own conscience. It does not need a reminder from Mario & Cremona for a good catholic to know that sins and contrition are all part of the mechanism of personal development. Religion and spiritual development is all about rites in this case – and about the relationship between you and God – should you believe in her of course.

It’s a rite, not a right so stop harassing the catholic flock and if you don’t like it just do not go in there.

The Times of Malta. Debate rages on communion to cohabiting couples.

Not Only in Malta. In Holland controversy over a priest who refused to give communion to a gay person.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]