Jo Said, Mistra
Marriage covenants and contracts
PN moralists keep asking: How can one forget God in a marriage contract?
Forgot God in a contract? I am a Christian and am all for the marriage in God. That is called a covenant and it can never be a contract. How can one sign an agreement with God? God is love, eternal love and, as such, all couples who marry in the name of God (they say "by the Church"), promise God a pact. That is something else and nothing to do with a civil contract. One can marry another in the jungle, no priest present, and if both marry in the name of God, their marriage is lifelong if not also eternal (in God). If they default, their spiritual belief, hence their faith, would be, to say the least, on their conscience.
A civil marriage is purely a contract, an agreement that can (may) be mutually rescinded. This is precisely why we mortals should never interfere with the defaulting couple's life and happiness. We should not play the judge on others, no matter how deep-rooted our faith is in God.
We should learn to start loving, empathising and caring for others. The state (the people) has no hold on anyone as long as anyone does not break the norms of social behaviour.
What man enacts, man may repeal, especially where injustices cause so much pain as in the lives of victims of broken civil marriages.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
4 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Jo Said
Aug 10th 2008, 09:49
I agree with Joe Psaila Savona that we all should have some reservations when their are young children involved. And that is precisely when society should intervene, by means of our Law Courts, to ensure that the young ones get the best out of the grim scenario. I also concur with Rachel Galea's contribution which, in itself, is the crux of the matter. How are we, Christians and all, to expect a discordant couple to live together, under the same roof, when this same couple cannot see eye to eye any longer? Are we so immune to the suffering and the negative effects on their offsprings? Should we cite the catholic hard-line teachings to them and walk the streets high-nosed as if we won the day? Should we also glee triumphantly when walking up the aisle to receive Holy Communion? Please bear in mind that I am referring to civil marriages here. Who is living in Utopia? The ones that preach how others should live would do well to take a good look at themselves, first. To discuss is one thing, but to patronise is another. And quite unacceptable too, Ms Farrugia. Jesus never condescended anyone.
Rose M. Farrugia
Aug 9th 2008, 09:50
Living in Utopia. if you aren't good to maintain what you freely promised before God and Man, then how can we take this guy and others like him, seriously? Who God (and we are not talking of men here) had put together let NO MAN destroy. Lest he be destroyed himself, as we are seeing right now before our very own eyes. broken families wherever you look. But let's not loose hope. there are many many many happy families. The secret is very simple. Love, sincerity and sacrifices.
Rachel Galea
Aug 8th 2008, 21:08
@ Joe Psaila Savona
Regarding your last point, I do have my reservations as well. Each case has to be dealt with under its own merits. Sometime more harm can be done to the children if the couple stay together than if they separate. A separation may lead to any of the parents meeting a new partner and forming a lasting and loving family unit which gives the children the security they need. One should always be given the possibility of a second chance when it come to marriage. We Catholic's have it through an annulment. As far as I know, those married civilly do not have this chance as legal separation does not give you the right to re-marry in the eyes of the law.
J Psaila Savona
Aug 8th 2008, 17:53
What an improvement to the last contribution I saw of this gentleman! To the point and correct.
It is about the norms of social behaviour that I would like to comment. In my humble opinion one of these norms is to offer protection to those in society who are unable to afford such to their own selves. Children are brought to this existence without their request by a couple that has made a civil contract that could bring this about. I feel that the state should have a hold on this couple in the interests of such children. It is unfair to beget children under the umbrella of a father and a mother and then for one's own selfish reasons, relieve them of such a basic requisite as parenthood.The state should ensure that no one without the right credentials contract such an underrtaking - after all this is what happens with other contracts.Before a couple buy a house, before they take a bank loan, questions are asked, ricerki are made.
A childless couple, a couple whose children have reached independent age, can repeal what they enact if both so desire.When helpless children depend on them, I do have reservations.