Mickey Malta

Notes from the zone where 'normal' things don't happen very often

Posts Tagged ‘Priests

Mass on Facebook

leave a comment »

I will attract youngsters to me thanks to this trendy attire

The smiling bishop has just claimed that “The Catholic Church should examine itself and its methods of evangelisation” according to The Times. I guess that this means that we will be flooded with Facebook churches and “bible reading of the day” tweets.

Obviously, the Church needs to choose a medium that is a one way communication vehicle. No matter how much the Catholic Church talks about changing times, it has to keep preaching and talking down to its followers. It has no other option because it’s a religion. It is promoting a product full of logical fallacies, superstition and fantasy; and blind faith is the only reason why people don’t question and challenge their beliefs. The minute that dogma is challenged, the very existence of the organisation is threatened. That’s why Religions have to resort to indoctrination as opposed to teaching – even though they claim otherwise.

When you teach something to someone, you reason it out, discuss it with the learner, let him or her challenge your claims, and reach a conclusion. For very obvious reasons, no religion can ever adopt this approach. Otherwise there will be chaos together with a whole myriad of mixed messages coming out from different people.  For this reason, no religion can be ‘modern’ and appealing to an intelligent society.

It’s also funny to see the head of Rocker Curia coming up with this assertion, especially when this is put into the whole context of his previous assertions. Only a few months ago, these same heads were on the brink of hysteria to intimidate and control revellers at the Nadur carnival; when carnival is the reign of anarchy.  The smiling bishop is also that same person who lashed out at secularism during his homily on 8 September 2008.

If the heads of our Curia can’t understand post-modern philosophy – which is now passé, how can they ever think of speaking the language of “modern people”?


Written by mickeymalta

18/04/2010 at 10:34

This is not a Hollywood movie

leave a comment »

It seems that Nazinger is surrounded by cover-ups everywhere he goes

This is a report from today’s The Guardian:

As Pope Benedict XVI flew to Malta yesterday for his first overseas visit since the eruption of the latest clerical abuse scandal to rock the Roman Catholic church, it emerged that new claims were to be made of a cover-up operation to clear him of responsibility.

A report in the German news magazine Der Spiegel, to be published tomorrow, will say that a former aide was put under “heavy” pressure to take the blame for an abuse scandal in the pope’s former archdiocese of Munich and Freising. In 1980, while the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was archbishop, a priest known to be a paedophile was accepted into the archdiocese and, instead of being given therapy as planned, he was swiftly assigned to parish duties.

After the case was brought to light by the New York Times last month, Benedict’s former vicar-general in Munich, Gerhard Gruber, accepted “full responsibility” for the decision.

According to Der Spiegel, citing sources very close to the 81-year-old prelate, Gruber received a string of telephone calls in which church officials “begged” him to take the blame. After he agreed, he was sent a fax containing the statement that he eventually issued, the weekly will say. The priest, Father Peter Hullermann, went on to commit an offence involving a boy for which he was tried and convicted.

In Spain, meanwhile, it was reported that a cardinal who congratulated a French bishop on not reporting a paedophile abbot said he had cleared his message of congratulations with the late pope, John Paul II. La Verdad, a newspaper in the southern city of Murcia, said that Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos told a press conference in the city on Friday that he wrote a letter to the bishop “after consulting the pope and showing it to him”.

The cardinal added that the late pontiff “authorised me to send the letter to all the bishops in the world and put it on the internet”.

The pope flew out of Rome after receiving an unexpected and unconditional endorsement from Silvio Berlusconi’s government. In greetings sent to the pontiff on his 83rd birthday on Friday, the Italian government blamed the scandal on an “unspeakable campaign of slander against the church and the pope”.

The statement was one of several indications that Benedict’s supporters were shifting from defence to attack in their run-up to the fifth anniversary of the start of his papacy tomorrow.

A junior minister at the Italian ministry of culture, Francesco Giro, was joined by six other members of parliament and numerous regional, provincial and local councillors in a special prayer service for the pope yesterday in Rome.

Critics and supporters alike will be watching to see if Benedict uses his visit to Malta to comment on the continuing scandal and meet local abuse victims.

Some 2,000 police and military have been deployed by the government to ensure the pope’s security during his two-day visit to the island where St Paul is believed to have been welcomed after a shipwreck on his way to Rome. Tradition has it that he landed on Malta 1,950 years ago, and last night Benedict was due to pray at the grotto where, according to tradition, the apostle took refuge.

Written by mickeymalta

18/04/2010 at 09:46

The blue penis deceit

with 2 comments

Not approved by the Neo C posse

Fresh from The Times

Luqa ‘phallic’ monument hidden with banner

Members of the Neo Catechumenal Movement hid the infamous Luqa monument with a banner as the Pope passed through Luqa on his way to Valletta.

The large black and white banner carried the words “Cammino Neo Catecumenale” and a colour picture of the Madonna and child.

The phallic like structure in Luqa has made it to the international news in the past days after the mayor requested its removal.

Essentially, the messages that the Neo C sect is sending are:

  • the Pope will interpret the Luqa phallus as a practical joke related to his paedophile subjects’ favourite tool
  • the Pope is not old/mature enough to be exposed to sexual imagery
  • the Pope lacks any intellectual ability to appreciate modern art
  • it’s OK for all other Heads of state and common (Rocker) folk to be exposed to the blue penis, but the Pope is a cut above the rest

If Nazinger is allergic to blue penises, then he should not be allowed to watch Watchmen.

Written by mickeymalta

17/04/2010 at 17:41

God on film

leave a comment »

Oh God! He looks happy. Why is no one talking to him?

It seems that journalists at The Times are consistently failing to do a decent job on week-ends. They failed to follow-up on a story that could answer millions of questions to billions of people; a story that will undoubtedly bring peace and love to the whole world (or floods and pestilence – depending on the main character’s mood). And yet, they do nothing about it.

About an hour ago, The Times updated their website to keep us all informed about the Pope’s visit, and they publish a picture of . . . GOD HIMSELF! There’s no mention of an interview (planned or hastily carried out) with HIM. What is this? Are they afraid that the Pope will be pissed off because he was upstaged by his boss?

Let’s face it. Statistics show that Atheism is the third biggest religion, and God’s presence here on the Rock will definitely put an estimated 1.1 billion people out of their misery. I cannot possibly fathom how our illustrious journalists did nothing about this once-in-a-planet-lifetime event! God reveals himself to us and they ignore him because they’re too busy waiting for the Pope. There are so many questions they could have asked him. They could have also invited him to address the whole world . . . . after Ratzinger’s address, of course.  This is a great opportunity to speak to everyone journalists from all corners of the world will be following Razzie in these next few hours; or shall I say minutes?

But what’s REALLY surprising  is that for the first time in His life, God looks happy. He is ACTUALLY smiling. After decades of drowning people and handing out punishments like Kwiksave gifts, God is finally happy. And he got himself pictured in a miraculous t-shirt with the word “Paulus” written in reverse too!

Written by mickeymalta

17/04/2010 at 16:20

This God is an idiot

with one comment

As the saying goes: an idiot is a genius to another idiot

Imagine that life here on this earth is a small scale reflection of the cosmos. In the same way  that every village here on earth has an idiot – THE idiot – the big guys in the ever expanding universe must have their own idiots too.

If that is the case, then we’re unlucky to be born on THE planet that was created by the Gods’ village idiot. Yeah, that’s right. The God that’s venerated by billions of people on this little planet must be the village idiot in Godworld. Just take a cursory look around you and you’ll see hundreds, if not thousands,  of clues leading to this conclusion.

I don’t believe that we’re alone in the universe. If we will ever be lucky enough to make contact with other civilisations out there in the future, and these turn out to be more advanced than us, they will either be a religion-free (o r free of any other superstitious beliefs at all) civilisation, or believe in Gods that are completely different to the ones worshipped here.

If the latter will be the case, I can bet my head that they won’t be worshipping someone who consistently seems to be making the wrong choices while proclaiming to be almighty and all knowing.

Faith and fear  are the greatest assets that this God could ever have. If people weren’t  brainwashed to fear God and have total faith in his plan since their birth, then he would be cast aside even by the creatures of his own making.

Let me point out a few reasons why I believe that this God is an idiot:

Many religions claim that their God is the creator of the whole universe. This means that he had (and still has) total control over his creations: the looks, the actions, the thoughts, etc. worse still, some religions hold that we’re created in his true image and likeness! Yet, a few hundred years after he went through the hassle of creating Earth and the universe, he was enraged by  the way humans were behaving and decided to (practically) eradicate mankind bar a 600 year old man and his family, and all the animals that this poor old sod could take on his ark.

Since God is all-knowing, he must have known that humans would piss him off in the future, so why did he make man fallible in the first place? And why did he only tell Noah to save animals (that must include mice and insects) but he didn’t save the innocent new born children. This would have at least spared Noah’s family from practicing incest (like Eve and her sons did before them) to multiply the human race.

Speaking about man’s fallibility, instead of creating his mistakes in “take two”, the post-flood humans don’t seem to be any different from those who lived in the pre-flood era. So why go through all the trouble of destroying the planet when after some time humanity would go back to that same point that irked him so much? This genocide must have been a total failure. Only an idiot would go through such a hassle when he knows that it’s not going to yield any desired result.

But it gets worse. He wanted to communicate his love to us, and he wanted us to know that he has a divine plan. Instead of doing something about it himself, he chose humans to do it. The result of God’s laziness: different religions and peoples killing each other in God’s name through all the different ages. In his wisdom,  God also promised a holy land to his people. One would expect The Holy Land to be a true example of heaven on earth. Ironically, it’s the complete opposite. It’s literally hell on earth.  This is the single most violent region on the whole planet; and it has been like that for centuries and “God knows” when or if this holy war will ever end. Excellent work indeed.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I didn’t go into the old testament’s claim of God causing people to sacrifice their children or allowing Lot to offer his daughters to the mob to gang rape them. I didn’t mention how the Bible promotes xenophobia; homophobia and hatred towards women; or how Jesus spoke about the need for salves to respect their master and did not utter a single word about womens’ rights. I also left out God’s (ethically-challenged) deals with people – especially locally – where he is willing to tweak his divine plan in exchange for prayer, a gold ring, a bracelet, and other material items.

Only an idiot can be easily bribed by people who will then spread the word tall all and sundry accompanied by pictures of the statue which is then adorned with the  golden watch, necklace, or earring. Wise people take bribes in private and they make sure they cover all their tracks. And why do statues need jewellery anyway?

Closer to our time, I’m deeply concerned about his choices. He is supposed to handpick people to act as his ministers. His preachers. One would expect priests to be a shining example of how God would like man to behave. Unfortunately, it turns out that a huge number of the people God himself has handpicked (remember?) throughout the years were anything but. The Catholic Church’s history is inundated with priests who would have been more suitable for Alistair Crowley’s role (in the divine plan?) than the one they actually played. Just think about the inquisition, the missionaries, paedophile priests, high ranking Church officials connected to various secret organisations . . . .  The list goes on and on.

Islamic suicide bombers and other Jihad fanatics choose to do what they do because they believe that they’re God’s (or Allah’s) soldiers. They’re simply the messengers of the supreme being, and are acting on his behalf. Obviously defenders of religion will say that this is the wrong interpretation of the Quran. This takes me back to my original point: why did he deliver his word through humans? Is that wise? Look at the consequences.

I’m really not impressed.  There are loads of other examples that I can bring. In fact, I can write a whole book about God’s idiocy. However, I still won’t manage to do it as eloquently as George Carlin described the greatest bullshit story ever told: “Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong in the résumé of a supreme being. This is the kind of shit you would expect from an office temp with a bad attitude………. In between you and me, in any decent run universe this guy would have been out of his all-powerful-ass a long time ago.”

I don’t know if there’s some form of energy or supreme being out there that is the prime moving force for creation. It doesn’t really make a difference to the way I lead my life. I can only be sure of one thing: the idiot projected by religions cannot possibly be true. It simply just cannot be. No creature can be so self-contradictory, extremely violent and utterly stupid, let alone a supreme being.

Written by mickeymalta

29/03/2010 at 16:37

The real Ratzinger

with one comment

Religion's most powerful not-so-secret weapon

Last Sunday I wrote about Josef Ratzinger’s way of dealing with the Catholic Church’s biggest challenge: paedophile priests. It has now been revealed that in the 1990s he had failed to take action against a priest who allegedly abused of more than 200 boys in his care. Worse still, these boys were disabled.

Three successive archbishops in Wisconsin said that the priest (Rev Lawrence C Murphy) was sexually abusing children. However, in a true Catholic fashion, they failed to report him to the police. Instead, they moved him quietly to another diocese in 1974. There he continued to work with children and young people.

In the 1990s, local church authorities sought guidance from the Vatican’s ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, the office which still decides whether accused priests should be defrocked – headed from 1981 to 2005 by none other than Ratzinger himself.

Two of the letters to the man who is now Pope, dating from 1996, went unanswered. Eventually, his second-in-command advised that Rev Murphy should face a canonical trial, and be defrocked if found guilty. Murphy himself then wrote to Ratzinger pleading illness.

“I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” he said. “I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” The trial was duly stopped, and Murphy remained a priest until his death in 1998. How can this monster speak bout his dignity? And how can the Vatican authorities buy into his bullshit?

How can people keep following the teachings of an organisation that fails to condemn the worst kind of harm man can bestow on another person? Coming to think of it, the Catholic Church isn’t so fond of children. It teaches that babies – the most innocent of creatures – “need to be cleansed of the original sin”. How can people be so gullible to believe such nonsense?

I would like to ask a number of questions to those people who follow the Catholic Church’s teachings blindly:

  1. If high ranking officials of a political party, a school, a trade union, or any other organisation were to ignore reports alleging sex abuse on children performed by their members, would you still support that organisation? Would you still have trust in it?
  2. Did you ever think about the thousands of children that God killed according to the Bible?
  3. Did it ever occur to you that God ordered Noah (a 600 year old man by the way) to save the animals but he didn’t ask him to save the children?
  4. Isn’t it blatantly obvious that, like all other organised religions, the Catholic church has no interest whatsoever in the souls of its followers?
  5. Can you think of anything more sinister and evil than the protection of paedophiles or, worse still, moving them from one place to another (exposing more and more children at risk) just for the sake of cover-up?
  6. How can a priest who has just molested an innocent child claim to perform the miracle of turning wine into blood?
  7. Isn’t it clear enough that the only thing that this institution believes in is power?
  8. Don’t you think that you’ve been taken for a ride ever since you were born?

Written by mickeymalta

26/03/2010 at 00:51

You ain’t kidding me

leave a comment »

I'm Josef Ratzinger: a fomer member of the Hitler Youths and a supporter of Crimen Sollicitationis. I'll do my best to ensure that you're protected . . . . or will I?

One of the leading news stories these last two days must have been the Pope’s apology to the victims of child sex abuse by clergy in Ireland and his subsequent order for an official inquiry. Good. Brilliant. This is the kind of behaviour we’d like to see from any leader.

However, if you thought for a second that Josef Ratzinger aka “The Pope” strongly feels that the rife child abuse within the organisation he heads needs to be eradicated, you are clearly mistaken. Josef Ratzinger is the same person who, on the 18 May 2002, reminded bishops around the world about a document issued in 1962 consisting of clear instructions and procedures instructing Church leaders to hide any reports on acts of paedophilia performed by clerics from the authorities and report them only to the Vatican instead. The objective of this document is to bury these claims as fast as possible and get rid of the evidence.

Paedophilia is the most serious of crimes. It’s utterly revolting and highly immoral; so you’d expect the Church to take serious action against its own Ministers who are found guilty of such atrocities. The least they could do is excommunicate these monsters and report them to the Police in order to make sure that no further harm is done – to protect other children from the preying paws of these ‘people‘. By the way.  I have two supplementary questions to make: 1) these same people were created by God in his own image, right? and 2) is it part of God’s divine plan for the poor victims (innocent children) to suffer from that abuse?

Back to the Church. Instead of taking concrete action against paedophile priests, the Church simply transfers them from one diocese to another. This is no punishment. If you think about it, this is a dream job for any paedophile. If you’re a paedophile, priesthood is the best job for you. Many parents tend to respect you by default and they trust you blindly with their kids. This will give you full to innocent kids, you get to abuse of them, and when your cover is blown you get to move to a different location to practice your favourite sport. A new cycle kicks off. What can be better than that?

So what did Ratzinger instruct bishops to do exactly? The document he referred to is called “Crimen Sollicitationis, and it has consistently achieved its objective to act as a huge stumbling block for anyone trying to probe into allegations of sex abuse within the Church. Inevitably, one has to ask who is the real Ratzinger? Is it the one encouraging bishops all around the world to follow Crimen Sollicitationis,or the one launching an official inquiry (because he has no other choice)? Do I even need to think about an answer?

Back at home, our Commissioner for Children has been very conspicuous by her absence. Her silence is deafening. She should have been lobbying the Curia to make sure that Crimen Sollicitationis is not put into practice. Recently, The Malta Independent on Sunday ran a number a stories about Fr Felix Cini who is a “Coespicua-born Maltese priest serving in Italy implicated in and condemned on paedophilia charges”. Both The Curia and Mrs Carmen Zammit have nothing to say about this issue. I reiterate. This is not a petty crime we’re talking about. It’s the most gruesome act a person can ever perform. But in reality, who can expect a strong believer to challenge his or her religious leaders? What if she’ll be condemned to eternal damnation by her all loving God for doing her job?

The only way parents can ensure that their offspring are sheltered from peadophile priests is to treat the latter with utmost suspicion and care as opposed to . . . . . . . blind faith.

Written by mickeymalta

21/03/2010 at 17:15