Which Carbonara recipe sounds superior?

Probably not our first go-to dish in the hot Maltese weather, but celebrity chef Nigella Lawson recently launched her own version of Spaghetti Carbonara on Facebook, and had not only her fans but also many grieved Italians lamenting the liberty she took i

Rachel Borg is an independent columnist based in the tourism industry t may be good, it may be tasty and it may have all the flair of Nigella’s indulgent recipes, but to call it by the name of Carbonara was simply taking advantage of the flavour and name associated with a well known good plate of pasta, and passing it off as a legitimate version when it was not.

Comments ranged from: “It is dee-licious, really. Heavy but heavenly tasting. But it is not Carbonara. Using a name of a well known recipe, adjusting the original ingredients to one’s own taste and even adding others just creates confusion and wrong taste expectations. Yes, we take food very seriously.”

Another Italian fumed: “This is a recipe of yours, it’s not Carbonara. No wine, no cream and egg yolks only in Italian real Carbonara”.

Now, we too may be guilty of having tampered with the bacon and added a dollop of cream at times, but this one seems to have gone right over the edge and created some serious controversy.

Which is very much what we have had on our plate recently, with the ongoing debate for the passage of the Marriage Equality Bill.

Can we all be fair and honest and say that whatever the intention of the bill is portrayed to be – setting out equality in marriage – the outcome of the law departs completely from the original intention, and presents a version which may or may not be people’s dish of choice and which definitely does not taste like the title it holds.

The semantics issue with dropping the legitimate titles of mother and father is a complication too far and was absolutely unnecessary. It distorts the issue and creates so much controversy when it need never have if they just stuck to the centuries old, God given recipe.

Even the Opposition are being penny wise pound foolish into voting it off as the real thing when in truth it is clearly not.

Indeed, it has been my opinion that the desire for equality in marriage shows an appreciation by any participants, of same gender or mixed, that they value the inherent status of becoming wedded because it elevates their love and commitment. By wiping out the status of parenthood, the State has also wiped out the very institution that they seek to make equal for all and that is marriage. If the bill is approved, as it is likely to be, without the amendment to amend the amendment on the legal terms of parent-hood, then the same value that same sex couples seek to attain in becoming married partners, is simply tossed out of the window when they, along with heterosexual couples, are deprived of the meaning afforded to their union.

Was it ever the intention of homosexual couples to trade in their desire and love for unity as a family unit, for an artificial concoction of the same unit? As adoptive parents they have the same intention towards their custody – that of raising the child in a united unit and assuming the roles that society has evolved in creating a stable and identifiable family unit – having two parents in a way that there is no more discrimination between one traditional family and another which is not traditional. Even a single parent family should be allowed the same non-discrimination in that it still has its objective to be a traditional unit in its natural difference.

So why should anyone feel threatened or discriminated against by being given the title of mother or father? Somewhere there is a disconnect which is the actual threat to the raison d’etre’ of this bill. Will the gay couples now be offended to call themselves parents? Has the discrimination gone full circle to bite us in the back?

All of this smacks of a fateful overplay and plagiarism of the worst sort.

This week also stirred controversy with the court ruling on baby Charlie Gard’s case in the UK.

Charlie Gard has become a victim of more than his own tragic illness. Barely alive, blind, deaf, unable to cry, his every breath taken by a machine, the baby is fought over by doctors and judges, pontiffs and presidents.

The Pope and Donald Trump have both stepped into the controversy surrounding his fate, albeit with good intention.

But renowned scientist and genetics expert Lord Winston criticised attempts to transfer the 10-month-old from the central London hospital.

“I think, first of all, one has to accept the loss of a child is about the worst injury that any person can have and, secondly, I think the autonomy of parents is probably sacrosanct because a child can’t give approval, can’t give consent,” he told ITV’s Good Morning Britain.

Lord Winston agreed with presenter Piers Morgan that courts and doctors should not be interfering with the parents’ wishes.

But he added: “I think the end result is still an unhelpful interference because the probability here is this will be even more tragic and even more disturbing for this child to be travelling to Italy, or wherever it goes.”

What sort of future are we looking at here, where the title by which one calls a parent is even in dispute?

How would it help a sick child to be considered as having rights when we do not even dare recognise its protectors as a mother or a father?

Isn’t what is being done here in the case of the marriage bill equally tragic and disturbing for the children?

The problem in Malta is that we do not know our limits. We are drunk on status and power, on getting what we want at any cost and at any price. We reach beyond the sane and normal to boast about our excesses and audacity in fulfilling every fantasy.

Do we even know the boundaries between reality and fantasy? I admit it is very hard to always know where that boundary lies but surely centuries of civilisation, Church teachings and political evolution can direct our thoughts and shed light on this sensitive issue.

The more time passes the more we are growing into irresponsible behaviour, legitimising it – even honouring it - and throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is both ridiculous and tragic.

As a country we are facing a crises, not just of morality, but of indulgence and selfishness on a scale never seen before. And it is embedded in a wild and uncontrolled pride that will lead to a significant degradation of our society.

According to the eminent Catholic thinker Prof. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, the decline of Christian Civilization began at the end of the Middle Ages with an outburst of pride and sensuality. Nepotism and worldliness became rampant.

Nepotism is alive and thriving as we well know and can see around us. Sensuality does not have to be seen literally. It is evident in the paths we are pursuing to put ourselves first and before even the status of a little defenceless child.

Many people feel disorientated these days and confused by the change taking place around us, in our localities, in our homes, at work and on a superficial level.

What is most disturbing is when that superficiality is depicted as deep and wise. The only thing deep these days is the pockets of those who profit from ignorance and the only thing wise is the schemer who gets away with deception.