Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/163731
18 Letters maltatoday, SUNDAY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2013 Send your letters to: The Editor, MaltaToday, MediaToday Ltd. Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the Editor should be concise. No pen names are accepted. Church ignores Jesus' teachings Contrary to what Cardinal Prospero Grech told his fellow cardinals before the election of Pope Francis, the real reason why "many people do not believe in Christ" is not because of the lack of "transparency" in the Catholic Church, but simply because the Church does not follow some of the most memorable teachings of Jesus. Pope Francis himself said in a homily, "Inconsistency on the part of pastors and the faithful between what they say and what they do is undermining the Church's credibility." The Pope's claim that he wants to revert to the spirit of poverty of St Francis cannot be taken seriously as long as the Church holds on to its vast wealth in real estate, investments and art! These worldly riches of the Church are incompatible with the teachings of Jesus and the way He lived. Jesus told His disciples that He did not have a place to lay His head, whereas His present-day disciples – the Church's cardinals, nuncios and bishops – lead comfortable lives in their well-appointed homes and mansions. In his religious writings, Tolstoy highlighted the inconsistency of Christians who believe that Jesus was divine and infallible while ignor- ing putting into practice what He preached. Jesus disapproved of the repetition of prayers. Yet, Catholics seem oblivious of His disapproval whenever they repeat 50 "Hail Marys" in the rosary! Jesus forbade his followers to take revenge for evil done against them. He told His disciples to forgive their enemies and to bless those who persecute them. This is an unquestionable part of the Gospel teachings. As AN Wilson writes in his biography of Tolstoy, "Equally unquestionable is the fact that the Church does not hesitate to disavow the plain tone of Jesus' pacifist teaching... Tolstoy conceded the force of arguments against pacifism – usually based on patriotism or the desire to protect the defenseless – but what the anti-pacifist arguments can never be based upon is the teaching of the Gospels." In his novel Resurrection, Tolstoy writes about a priest who administers oaths during court trials (as was the custom in 19th-century Russia). "It had never occurred to the priest that his work in the courtroom, which consisted in having people take an oath over the Gospel, in which the swearing of oaths is directly prohibited, was not good..." In a chapter entitled 'Thoughts About The Mass', Tolstoy writes, "It did not occur to any one present that Jesus had forbidden prayers in temples and had commanded each to pray in solitude, that He had forbidden the temples themselves, saying that He came to destroy them, and that one should pray not in temples, but in spirit and in truth... It never occurred to any one that the gilt cross, which the priest brought out and gave the people to kiss, was nothing else but the representation of the gibbet on which Christ had been executed for prohibiting those very things which were done here in His name." A recent front-page article concerned saving six lobsters from certain death rather than life in a glass cage to be stared at. Though I am quite sure the said lobsters far prefer this to being boiled alive for the enjoyment of someone able to afford the luxury, no one even uttered a word. With 216 chicken farms on the island of Malta and 52 on Gozo, millions of eggs laid and millions of chickens slaughtered annually for local consumption, still no one utters a word. The production of meat and the landing of fish annually runs into tons and yet, apart from those amongst us that are queasy about eating meat, all are satisfied with the convenient status quo. Do we object to animals we have "domesticated" or the fish we eat not being given the chance to reproduce? Apart from our interest that such animals are not eaten to extinction, everyone seems complacent, and few if any ever go hysterical about the issue or attempt to put an end to such industries. However this is not so when it comes to our birds, or rather to those two species of wild birds that can be legally hunted in our little island in spring, thanks to a concession granted by the European courts. Our local bird protectionists BirdLife Malta, which deceitfully claims to tolerate hunting in autumn, state spring hunting is "not ethical". After what it terms "government indifference", it has joined a coalition of like-minded societies in order to put an end to this legal practice, which any unprejudiced government rightly permits. Concealing the fact that within the EU the shooting of birds, destruction of nests and the taking of eggs is common practice during spring, justified under derogation, they attempt to indoctrinate the Maltese public with pure fabrications aimed at suiting their own anti-hunting purposes. Asking for support on the basis that "spring hunting is just unethical to say the least, because you are killing birds before even giving them the change to reproduce". Why should the public differentiate between the domesticated animals consumed that are not even given a chance to breed, the fish we land that are bursting with roe and the few turtle dove and quail we hunt? If anyone's decision to ban spring hunting is based on ethics due to birds being on their way to breed, the justification for this concession, which only BirdLife contradicts, was given by the European courts after due consideration to Malta's bird migration peculiarities and the fact that six million possible breeders of these same two species are shot annually throughout the EU, making the maximum of 16,000 conceded to Malta during spring hunting insignificant and sustainable. If on the other hand some are influenced by all the hogwash aimed at discrediting hunters that BirdLife Malta so gladly disseminates, then all who object to my quota of four birds for the pot every spring season and yet feast on the meat and fish provided by our industries are nothing but hypocrites. Since whether shot, butchered, decapitated, hooked or netted, the matter of ethics still remains the same. Ethics and spring hunting This is the end of Alfred Mifsud EDITORIAL – 31 AUGUST 2003 Yesterday, the Labour party Vigilance and Discipline Board issued a statement. In itself it was a rare statement. It warned the high profile, but little-loved Alfred Mifsud to desist from writing in a way that causes harm to the party. In taking the initiative, the board once again provided fodder for the 'divide and conquer' Nationalist media. When this newspaper and others hammered home stories about Labour MP's Joe Cilia and Louis Buhagiar, the board insisted it was not in a position to judge the cases because there was no formal complaint. The Vigilance and Discipline Board was born in an age when the Labour Party was suffering from the bad publicity of one of the uglier episodes in its history. The board was born out of a concept conceived by Drs Wenzu Mintoff and Toni Abela in reaction to serious allegations about corruption in the eighties. Ironically the first people to experience the wrath of the Vigilance board were the ones who had conceived it. Indeed a remake of the Bukharin trials. Today the board may have lost its relevance and probably does more harm than good. Now, as is the case with most politicians, I have had my tiffs with Alfred Mifsud. He is a man that one can easily like or dislike. His relevance to the Labour Party has been limited to his prolific contributions in the media that have increased their dosage of criticism of Labour and its leadership. If the Vigilance Board is worried about possible harm to the party that could be caused by Mr Mifsud's writings, it should wait and see just what harm their little statement will stir up. The statement, I assure them, will be di- gested, defecated, eaten again, regurgitated and reproduced a hundredfold to underline one simple untruth – that the Labour Party is not a democratic party. It will also be used against the party for halting the 'useful' contribution to democratic pluralism. It is essentially a lame claim, but one that will be believed and used against Labour. At times the Labour Party gives me the impression that it is a remake of the Terminator, programmed to shoot itself in the leg. And if Alfred Mifsud has been living under the illusion of trying his luck for some high-up post in the party, the simple letter from Tommy Roberts has effectively erased his chances forever. It is rather unfair and unkind. *** Karmenu Farrugia is a man with a smallish build, but his body comes with a brain that is worth respect. In a newspaper yesterday he dismantled a Frank Salt contribution, wherein the man from real estate has offered the government some heavenly advice on how to improve the tourist industry. Fork out 30 million, said Frank Salt. Karmenu Farrugia, an aging economist with the outlook of a futurist, suggested that Mr Salt start looking for money in other quarters. His message, if I understood it correctly, was simple. If you believe in private enterprise then stop depending on government for developing your business. He went one step further, drawing up a specific roadmap for raising funds to promote tourism. It is a pity for all of us that this bright economist does not find more time to preach his wisdom. John Guillaumier St Julian's Mark Mifsud Bonnici President Saint Hubert Hunters