|
Not for the first time I found myself reading parts, rather than the whole of lawyer Anna Mallia’s articles, and finding much of interest. However, in reaction to her article in MaltaToday of 19 February 2006 entitled “Thank God I’m a Catholic” in which appeared the following: “Oh how I wish that John Paul II was still with us! Although he was a conservative as ever, he was a witness of how to put our religion into practice…”, is not our beloved present Pope the beloved Holy Father Benedict XVI not ordained by the Lord to fulfil his designs in the present time? Otherwise if one does not share this belief in Divine Providence how can one claim to be thankfully a Catholic?
Pope John Paul II suffered a physical gun shot and forgave, besides having been a very prayerful and active Vicar of Christ on the world scene. Yet has Joseph Ratzinger not suffered great anguish especially during the Nazi reign in Germany?
Turning back to the abovementioned MaltaToday article, amongst others, it was stated that “If the governments in the Western world are arguing that freedom of expression precedes reverence to any religion or religion figure, then the argument cannot be entertained by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, which preaches respect for all religions and that every now and then holds ceremonies in Assisi to remind us about this, should condemn these cartoons as they undoubtedly try to ridicule a prophet and a religion. I must say that I am very disappointed at my religion for playing the three monkeys in this delicate issue”.
And I must say that I am very disappointed as such comments, coming from a self-confessed journalist, as also mentioned in the above mentioned article, who should first research the facts than put pen to paper! To quote from the weekly English edition of L’Osservatore Romano, of 8 February 2006, page 8 which carried a “Declaration of the Holy See Press Office” titled: ‘Free to Offend?’ was stated the following:
1. The right to freedom of thought and of expression, sanctioned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiments of believers. This principle obviously applies in reference to any religion whatsoever.
2. Moreover, human coexistence demands an atmosphere of mutual respect in order to foster peace among peoples and nations. In addition, certain forms of exasperated criticism or the derision of others denote a lack of human sensitivity and in some cases can constitute an inadmissible provocation. The interpretation of history teaches that this is not the way to heal the wounds that exist in the lives of people.
3. However, it should be said straightaway that the public institutions of the country concerned, whose Authorities will and must eventually intervene in accordance with the principles permitted by the national legislation, cannot be blamed for offences caused by an individual person or by the press. Violent actions of protest are, therefore, likewise to be deplored. Indeed, in reaction to any offence the true spirit of every religion cannot be lacking. Moreover, physical or verbal intolerance as an action or reaction, regardless of its origin, is always a serious threat to peace.A Declaration issued 15 days prior to the particular article in the MaltaToday of 19 February 2006.”
Many more comments could be added but I will stop here.
J Bonett Balzan
Balluta, St Julians
|
