L-E.T. Mons. Mario Grech; Isqof ta' Għawdex
Il-bieraħ filgħaxija [20.8.8], fl-okkażżjoni tas-Sena Pawlina, id-djoċesi t'Għawdex organizzat pellegrinaġġ djoċesan quddiem il-gżejjer ta San Pawl. L-Isqof Grech mexxa quddiesa u għamel din l-omelija:
"F'epoka meta huma ħafna dawk li qed jissiltu biex jiddefendu diversi libertajiet, huwa interessanti li l-Knisja matul din is-sena Pawlina qed tagħmel stedina biex nixtarru t-tagħlim ta' Missierna San Pawl li huwa msejjaħ "l-appostlu tal-liberta". Jekk l-istorja ta pajjiżna ġustament tagħraf diversi ġrajjiet li permezz tagħhom ġensna rnexxilu jikseb libertà politika u ċivili, in-nawfraġju ta San Pawl f'Malta ukoll huwa ġrajja mportanti għax permezz ta' Pawlu ksibna liberta' esistenzjali.
"San Pawl jgħallem li "Kristu ħelisna biex ngħixu ta' nies ħielsa" u li "Kristu fdiena mil-jasar". Kristu mhux biss ħelisna mid-dnub, fis-sens li ħelisna mill-gidba, mid-dlam ta l-injoranza u minn kull forma ta' ħażen; imma ħelisna biex ngħixu ħajja ħielsa biex il-bniedem ikun jista' jgħix ħajja dinjituża billi l-atteġġjamenti u l-imġieba tiegħu jkunu tassew ħielsa.
"Pawlu kien qed jitkellem f'kultura fejn b'libertà kienu jifhmu li wieħed jista' jagħmel dak kollu li jrid mingħajr indħil u restrizzjoni ta' ħadd. Il-kultura ta żmieniietna mhix tant differenti. Kontra dan il-kunċett ta' libertà individualista u egoċentrika, Pawlu jipproponi kunċett differenti ta' llibertà. Billi l-bniedem li huwa dak li hu għax jinsab f'relazzjoni ma' l-oħrajn, Pawlu jisħaq li l-bniedem huwa ħieles meta jagħraf iħobb lil dawk ta' madwaru – "ħobb li għajrek bħalek innifsek".
"Huwa liberu min jaċċetta li jkun skjav għax iħobb u jiddedika lilu nnifsu għall-oħrajn. Fl-istess waqt, jekk fis-soċjetà l-membri jħobbu lil xulxin b'dan il-mod u jkunu disponibli għal xuxlin, fil-gruppi soċjali jkun hemm parita u ħadd ma jaħkem fuq ħadd.
"Dan kollu japplika fil-kuntest tal-ħajja miżżewġa u tal-familja fejn il-bniedem ifittex li jagħmel esperjenza ta' l-imħabba. F'kuntrast ma' min isostni li l-libertà fiż-żwieġ tfisser li tnejn jistgħu jħallu lil xulxin x'ħin ifettlilhom, iż-żwieġ li huwa esperjenza ta' l-imħabba li twassal lil miżżewġin biex jingħataw għal xulxin, huwa ġinesium tal-libertà vera.
"Meta jitkellem dwar il-limitazzjonijiet tal-libertà umana, Pawlu ta' Tarsu jagħti xi eżempji li huma ħafna attwali għalina. Fil-qasam tas-sesswalita, jindika ż-żinà, l-adulterju u l-omossesswalita; fil-qasam reliġjuż isemmi l-idolatrija u s-seħer u f'dak li għandu x'jaqsam mal-ħajja komunitarja, Pawlu jiġbed l-attenzjoni dwar l-ħsara li tagħmlu l-ambizzjoni, il-firda u l-partiti.
"Nawgura li fid-dawl tat-tagħlmi ta' Pawlu, ġensna li jiftaħar li tant b'San Pawl, jagħraf liema huma l-vera libertrajiet u jassigurahom anke b'liġijiet proprji."
Nota minn P. Attard:
Il-kelma żinà, fornication b'Ingliż sa fejn naf jien, tfisser meta nies li mhumiex miżżewġin jagħmlu sess. Naħseb li l-koabitazzjoni u l-masturbazzjoni jaqaw taħt dan id-dnub. (ikoreġuni jekk żbaljat).
Hu interessanti kif l-Isqof, fil-messaġġ tiegħu ma jsemmix atti omosesswali imma l-omosesswalità in ġenerali. Ma naħsibx li dan hu kliem addattat biex il-Knisja tibni pontijiet ma' persuni gay. Anzi l-Isqof għandu jinżamm 'accountable' tal-messaġġ li qed iwassal u tad-dbatijiet fil-familji Għawdxin fejn hemm persuni gay.
---
Tista' taqra wkoll:
Mhux necessarjament jizni biss min m'hux mizzewweg!
ReplyDeleteBarra minnhekk l-Isqof jirreferi biss (u mhux jaghti spjega) ta' dak li jirreferi ghalih Pawlu.
Ghalija messagg sabih.
Ghamiltlu reklam tajjeb hafna sieheb.
Received by email from Joseph Carmel Chetcuti:
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality has rattled the Roman Catholic Church. Since the Stonewall Riots of 1969, gay men and lesbians have discovered the freedom to be who they are. Gay liberation has devastated the Roman Catholic priesthood and emptied the Church’s convents and monasteries. Gay men and lesbians have exposed the Church’s hypocrisy, complicity and duplicity. In the second half of the twentieth century, homosexuality has emerged as the test case for Christian sexual ethics.
I have at hand a transcript of a sermon that Monsignor Mario Grech, bishop of Gozo, is reported to have delivered on 20 August 2008 on the occasion of the Pauline Year. In part, the bishop is reported as saying:
"Meta jitkellem dwar il-limitazzjonijiet tal-liberta' umana, Pawlu ta’ Tarsu jagħti xi eżempji li huma ħafna attwali għalina fil-qasam tas-sesswalita, jindika ż-żina’, l-adulterju u l-omosesswalita ...."
Opinions on what constitutes liberty vary. Putting aside the question of whether St Paul is liberty’s best and most relevant exponent, the Pauline concept of liberty is restrictive and runs contrary to what most men and women of goodwill nowadays regard as basic decent standards of liberty. Put simply, St Paul’s fitness to make proclamations on liberty take a dive given that he had no problem with one person owning another as a piece of property: see Ephesians 6: 5-9; 1 Timothy 6: 1-2, Titus 2: 9-10 and Colossians 3: 22-4:1.
In the sermon, Monsignor Grech repeats the error of the Pastoral Letter of 31 December 1972, an error that had its origin in that Pastoral Letter’s concurrent treatment of homosexuality and adultery. Paragraph 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church slips into a similar blunder: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex” (emphasis mine). (For the record: no, homosexuality is not just about relations.)
Monsignor Grech’s reference to “homosexuality” like that of the 1972 Pastoral Letter and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is off beam. Homosexual orientation is about an individual’s “being and ... personality”, defining him or her in a way that relations, feelings or actions do not. Not all homosexuals are practising homosexuals, and homosexuals do not have ownership of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls “homosexual acts” presumably anal and oral sex and masturbation. These acts are enjoyed by people of all sexual orientations and between persons of the same or different gender, a fact that may come as a surprise to an unmarried celibate like Monsignor Grech.
Monsignor Grech would be well advised to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church [2357] that depicts “homosexual acts [not homosexuality as] intrinsically disordered.” So I ask Monsignor Grech: If the Roman Catholic Church is really concerned with “sinful” sexual acts, why is it so preoccupied with the gender of the “object choice”? And if the Roman Catholic Church thinks it has a right to concern itself with the gender of the “object choice”, I further ask him: Why is this so? Why does anal or oral sex or masturbation between persons of different gender not attract the same degree of Church censure?
The distinction between sexual orientation and sexual acts is fundamental to Roman Catholic moral theology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.” I wonder, therefore, why Monsignor Grech blurs this distinction and whether this is his queer way of showing respect, compassion and sensitivity towards gay men and lesbians.
Most reputable theologians (not those of the Bible-bashing bastard variety) recognize that St Paul’s treatment of some “homosexual acts” occurs in the context of lust, free choice and a possible relationship to idolatry; as such, he says nothing about caring, homosexual relationships. We simply do not know and have no way of knowing what St Paul would have thought of such relationships. Monsignor Grech may speculate on such matters but his speculation is not the “word of God”. The Canon of Scripture closed a long time ago.
The biblical and theological tradition surrounding homosexuality is far more complex than Monsignor Grech and men like him would like to have us believe. Anyone who thinks that “absolute truth” can be located in books written between 2,000 and 3,000 years ago is fooling him or herself and, in the case of an ordinary like Monsignor Grech, pulling the wool over the eyes of the faithful (not inappropriately labelled “fidili” in Maltese). However if Monsignor Grech wants to engage in a rational and informed discussion on homosexuality by quoting Scripture, may I respectfully suggest that he adopts a threefold approach that takes account of:
1. The historical, political, cultural, religious and social context in which Scripture was written;
2. Subsequent scientific developments of which there has been many; and
3. A people of God that has reached maturity.
In his sermon of 20 August 2008, Monsignor Grech fails miserably on all three. Noting Monsignor Grech’s zeal to evangelize, may I respectfully suggest that he next deliver a sermon on pedophilia, particularly that prevalent among the Roman Catholic clergy in his diocese, and how this abuse has destroyed many families. And I wonder what St Paul had to say about this evil? Or was he, too, part of the grand conspiracy of silence?
My final message to Monsignor Grech and other celibate men and women is this: the bedroom of the nation and what homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals do in their bedroom (or for that matter “bedrooms”) is not the business of celibate men and women of unknown sexuality.
JOSEPH CARMEL CHETCUTI
MA Hons, LLB Hons, LTh
Barrister and Solicitor