Friday, 8th August 2008 - 10:09CET
Divorce debate: Bishops urge the faithful to back marriage, without fearing criticism
Archbishop Paul Cremona
The bishops of Malta and Gozo in a joint statement today said that the Christian community may and should give its contribution in the current discussion on the family.
"We hope that many will be those whose choice to give a contribution openly in favour of marriage and the family overcomes the choice to remain silent because of the fear of criticism."
In their statement, Mgr Paul Cremona, Mgr Mario Grech and Mgr Annetto Depasquale said that at a meeting yesterday they had valuated the discussion taking place in the country regarding marriage and the family.
"This situation, which developed after the last general elections, leads us to make the following considerations.
"The Church, in her reflections about the human person, and strengthened by the Word of God, believes that marriage and the family are of fundamental benefit for the individual and society.
"The Christian community may and should give its contribution in this discussion because the human person is the way of the Church. For many years it was the Church alone that offerred formation and accompanied the couples in their experience of marriage and the family. It was also the Church that helped those who encountered difficulties in their married life, as well as their children.
"Whatever weakens and breaks up marriage and the family, such as cohabitation and divorce, even if it may appear to solve some difficulties for individuals, has serious and lasting consequences on the common good of our society. The experiences of other countries bear witness to this.
"Christians and those who believe in this value of marriage and the family should commit themselves according to their responsibilities. We understand that in the kind of culture we are living in this means that one has to go against the current. We hope that many will be those whose choice to give a contribution openly in favour of marriage and the family overcomes the choice to remain silent because of the fear of criticism."
RSS
Comments
Celibate priesthood is a human law, while the vocation of marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman. So marriage is not a purely a human institution as stated. God created man out of Love, also calls him to love, being created in God's image and likeness who himself is Love. [see Holy Bible in the 1st book of John Chapter 4: Verse 8 to 16]
So since God created man and woman, their love became an image of the absolute and unfailing Love of God to humans. God blessed them both and said to them “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.” [See the Holy Bible - Genesis Chapter 1: Verse 28]
This was made mandatory in the 12th Century, but one must acknowledge that it had always been held up as a worthy option. Even as far back as the Council of Trent (1545 – 63), the church made it clear that celibacy is a choice and was a church law, not a divine law, and that although there is a value in keeping clerical celibacy, it did not undermine the value of marriage.
In the book of catechism of the Catholic Roman Church (Ref's # 1579) says that “ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate for the sale of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew Chapter 19: Verse 12). .............see more.
The covenant of marriage made by God between the husband and wife made with each other and God on the Alter [if married in Church]. They Pledges, love, loyalty, and devotion to each other as long as they are both live as husband and wife, accept each other unconditionally, share each other's pain/failures, rejoice in each other's victories & accomplishments. Those that are not taking note of these pledges on the alter, in presence of God Himself.
The kind of love which is necessary for the marriage covenant to succeed, which many young couples in these days have forgotten or being totally ignored from being observed in their marriage success, maybe they are not learning this during their engagement months or years. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, and protects, it always trusts and hopes, and perseveres. [see 1 Corin: Chapter 13: Verse 4 to 7] When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost the oneness which they had known with God and with one another (see Genesis Chapter 3: Verse 6 – 24] Their relationship became marked with guilt, shame, blame and with pain.
Priests was not instituted by God but marriage is an origin divine marriage which had been instituted by God Himself when He performed the first marriage on the sixth day of creation when He brought together Adam and Eve as husband and wife.
God's creative work was not complete until He made woman. God could have made Eve from dust of the ground, but chose to make Eve just from man's flesh and bone. Thus this illustrated for us that in marriage man and woman symbolically are united into one, a mystical union of the couple's hearts and lives.
So God intended marriage to be the pattern for all future marriages relationship and this was confirmed again by His son Jesus Christ. So if one is going to be married, one must be willing to keep the commitment that makes the two of them as one. Therefore, marriage should be more than friendship; it should be oneness. In fact Jesus Christ endorsed the original concept of marriage [see Matthew Chapter 19: verse 3 to 6]and thus marriage was blessed by God as the only chosen human relationship.
Do you want more data on why divorce is WRONG....... I can spend a whole day in supplying you more proofs why divorce is wrong for MALTA..... JUST REMEMBER, THAT WHEN WE DIED WE HAVE TO FACE THE CREATOR AND IF WE WOULD HAVE BROKEN HIS LAWS, NO CHANCE FOR FORGIVENESS!!!!!!
According to Sara Mc Lanahan (American) she described that children that are within the sphere of one parent would later give society the following off-springs:-
1. Try to get married before the age of 20.
2. Would have children before they get married.
3. More likely to discontinue their school studies before others.
4. Have more inclination in their family brake-up.
5. On brake-up of a family, they leave home to live with a new partner at an early age.
Therefore, the Council for Social & Economic Studies stated that in 1991 according to another survey held on 11,500 English persons born in 1958, discovered 24% of the women where from patents without a father before they become 33 years. About 85% came from broken-families and 57% came from parents that were on the state social assistance and had no other income.
The survey also gave them that until they became to be 33 years, more than 20% of the women and 12.5% of men had been from a divorced family. The same trend could be found also in Italy.
A study effected by Dr. Patricia Morgan, a British Criminologist in her most important report stated that after effecting a lot of studies in U.K. and again also in the United States of America discovered a clear link between the braking-up of families and criminality. National Development Study held in the U.K. In the year 1975 on 18,000 young children before they became sixteen years, the majority had already appeared before the court for some criminal offence. The result on boys was as follows:-
8 % those who lived with natural parents (divorced)
16 % coming from single mothers.
19 % coming from women living with another man (divorced or separated)
70 % of those in prison came from families without a natural father (broken families)
As we all know from news on television or newspapers that criminality in the Britain had increased enormously, especially when divorce was introduced. The reason that this year (1975) was quoted because it was near the year when divorce was introduced.
@Saviour Abela
Why wonder? The Church has been editing, omitting, and adding to the Bible for centuries. Further more the same Church added deity to Jesus!
The faithful have every right not to divorce, but cannot deny the same right of those who want to divorce and start a new life!
Let´s hope that this won´t be a similar story of ´Id-Dnub il-Mejjet´ where, if any politician, no matter from which side, will have the courage to introduce divorce, will not become the target of the church!
Person A marries, but finds (and can prove) that a day before the wedding, the spouse had sexual relations with another person. Both church and state see this as sufficient grounds for annulment, and person A can marry again.
Person B marries, but finds (and can prove) that a day after the wedding, the spouse has sexual relations with another person. Both church and state see this as not sufficient grounds for annulment, and without divorce, person B cannot marry again.
I think Jesus was very wise in making an exception for adultery.
Family applies to any relationship in which a nest and children have been created. Co-habiting couples are also families irrespective of whether they have children or not. I have often asked myself why certain co-habiting people I know failed at their marriage after 2-5 years but then have co-habited with the same person fivefold that time. One couple I know have been together for 18 years and have a son together. I concluded that it must be an irresistable desire to live life together and maybe find a shelter in each other.
Everyone has a right to a family and we need to recognise that some families will invarably break up. In those circumstances where one is lucky to find someone else and dare try again to have a family it should be the state's duty to provide that legal framework whereby this would be possible.
At present Malta is irresponsibly preventing persons who may want to regulate their position and that of their children by not permitting divorce.
This miopic viewpoint needs to end.
I won't waste much space, since most of your post has been excellently answered by James Coleiro.
I will only add that:
1. I have not quoted the bible, but in any case, James Coleiro gave you an exact quotation which substantiates what I wrote.
2. Regarding children, can you tell me the difference to children between having separated or divorced parents?
It may come as a surprise to you but the word of God you quote varies according to the gospel you chose.
I am quoting from another blog that I have checked out and found to be accurate.
He said, "that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery," (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).
This is the only exception: when fornication or adultery has already so wounded the marriage relationship, and it cannot be healed, Jesus does not require, but permits divorce
The gospels of Luke, John and Mark all vary between them but not to Matthew's extent. I have said it time and time again. The gospels would not get through the first round of counter-examination were they taken really seriously.
As for your "Gid komuni" it depends if you are referring to the church or the country in general. This status quo is not in the interest of our common good as evidenced by the ever growing cohabitation and children outside marriage. We need to adopt a decent divorce law.
Finally(no offense meant)do take some private lessons in English!!!
Wrong...the bible says "Imma jiena ngħidilkom li kull min jibgħat lil martu barra l-każ ta' rabta hazina, iwaqqagħha fl-adulterju; u min jiżżewweġ waħda mibgħuta minn ħaddieħor jagħmel adulterju." - b'rabta hazina nifhmu li zwieg ma jkun validu ghax ikun hemm xi impediment. At least when you quote the Bible quote it clearly pls,
In the divorce debate I think it is important to always remember "Il-Gid Komuni" and not just your idea and are ideas must be second to God...we always think that what we think is always good when we are seeing just what we like....never thought of what children will suffer, the part who don't want divorce and remains loyal, the divorce idea in everything were no one will be trusted neither if a paper is signed...
I think we must also see the impact on the Maltese Society were the population is not high and were all knows each other etc.
Yes, everyone knows that when marriage brokes its not easy but divorce is not the solution...and this is not just God's law, bible interpretation or the Catholic Church teachings but speaking through facts...I think we must also see the impact on the Maltese Society were the population is not high and were all knows each other etc.
Another point I would like to mention is the argument that Malta and the Phillipinnes only don't have divorce....this is not something to be shy off but more to be pride off...for with the same arguments than we will accept other laws and other ideas...we are easy to speak but forget the complex of it
In spite of what you believe I have been to both countries. I lived in N. I reland for 2 years and witnessed the freedom you speak about. This included a catholic girl being tied in a square, having her hair shaved off and drenched in tar from head down.....only for having dated a protestant british soldier...... I have been to Iran for 3 weeks in 1994. Not the nicest of places (the cheapest) and I am sure you could learn a few things about paranoia towards Iran if you go.
Finally ditch google earth and get back down to earth. From Malta to Belfast you need 4 hrs.....to Iran I needed 11 hours......a long way off....
Dear R Curmi, please note that a fundamentalist does not have to be violent. There are both violent and non-violent fundamentalists.
It would help other readers if you make it clear that you are addressing a reply to me when you are doing so.
You say that I do use it (Christian fundamentalist), as if I ever denied that. As for "racists", I do not call people who are genuinely worried about the immigrant problem so. I only call people who vent hatred towards all immigrants xenophobes or racists (as the case may be). There is a difference between being worried and being hateful.
You haven't answered my question (Are you also offended by people who are not Christians?), so I cannot say for certain whether you are a Christian fundamentalist or not (see, I do NOT use the "word" loosely), although by your refusal to answer that simple question, I do have a good hunch. But to avoid being prejudiced, I will avoid expressing it.
And how am I a secular fundamentalist? Am I imposing my beliefs on anyone?
You may call me a fundamentalist if you like. However, if you do, I would appreciate your definition of what it is to be a fundamentalist. That way, there will be no misunderstanding.
Go to Ireland with your free speech and they will welcome you if they ever will notice you.
Go to Iran with your free speech and they will put a death sentence over your head within the hour. You will taste fundamentalism first hand then.
Ireland is 1600 miles away. Iran is 1650 miles away….sooo far away… (use Google earth, it will tell you exactly). Of course you will never consider going there because you will not have a gram of freedom, it’s why your puny mind thinks it’s so much far away then Ireland, and you have the cheek to compare an EU Catholic country with that Islamic state where true fundamentalism exists
I think it’s you that should be out and about more from your oak greenhouse. Try not to shoot yourself in the foot next time
You started the tread and these are your words!
"Notwithstanding Dr Vassallo's omission, I congratulate him on his stance which reflects his upright, strong moral values".
Or rather, it exposes him as a Christian fundamentalist.
You do use it,as the word racist is used, against fellow Maltese who are worried about the illegal immigrants I might add.
You want to know what I am, so you can brand me as a fundamentalist too. (There you go using it loosely again)
You do have to be careful to what extend you become a secular, the more you write the more you are sounding a secular fundamentalist yourself in the process.
Should we start using fundamentalist so lightly you should not have a problem people calling you one? Or do you?
@Kenneth Cassar
That is the problem with these people.
They quote ancient texts that in many cases contradict themselves (the gospels are a clear example of this) and then they take offense with anyone who questions or refuses to shove them down his or her throat.
Does this make me anti-establishment too?
.... perhaps so, and if this is the case I am proud of it.
And yet, Dr Saliba expects rational people to respect the constitution as it is, which is no different than saying that we should respect a lie just because our ancestors said it. Moreover, he calls rational people who understand this simple fact, "stubbornly anti-establishment".
Wonders never cease, but perhaps this is understandable coming from someone who has blind faith in ancient texts written by fallible humans.
I assure you, first hand, that that certain lawyers themselves are now 'suggesting' such stories and evidence for annulments including church annulments.
It has simply become a big booming business with a high success rate.
Instead of arranged divorces we have arranged annulments-This is a reality and I do not fault either the priests or judges when faced with "beyond doubt evidence"
If there is a "burden" on society it is already in Malta and divorce will not change a thing. Don't reply with the rhetoric that annulments are given under certain conditions. I assure you these conditions are being created with ease.
The only thing we may have in common is that we both do not favour an "immediate divorce" although for different reasons. My reason for inserting a proviso of say a 1 year wait will be to give couples time to examine if a reconciliation is possible.
However if it is not - the state has to allow them to move on.
quote" when the USSR constitution declared the union to be atheist it was atheist in fact and open religious practice emerged only after the demise of communism" INCORRECT!
The fact that the USSR was by definition an athiest country did not make its citizens athiest and this was clearly evidenced after the iron curtain came down. In fact you can include Poland, Czechoslovakia etc in this equation.
However, by the same definition, Malta's constitution declaring us to be Roman Catholic does not mean all our citizens are Roman Catholics. In fact over the last 10 years or so I doubt there is still a 'real' catholic majority in this country.
For lack of space please read my second blog as there is a second point that needs to be highlighted to you.
This is my definition of a fundamentalist. It does not necessarily include terrorist violence, and as far as I know, no one whom I see as a Christian fundamentalist posting here is, or has ever been, a terrorist.
I deny that it is only now that I have discovered that we live in a mixed society. All my contributions to the different blogs about divorce have been based on the respective rights of minorities vis-a-vis the majority.
When the USSR constitution declared the union to be atheist it was atheist in fact and open religious practice emerged only after the demise of communism.
I do not desire that religious beliefs be imposed on anybody. I maintain that divorce is objectionable on social as well as religious grounds. I list the evils suffered by society by opening the floodgates to easy "no contest" divorce, "no blame divorce", arranged divorce by manipulated evidence of "adultery" mental cruelty and incompatibility when the true reason would be boredom with the spouse, the lack, ab initio, of any commitment to make the marriage last, irresponsibility for the children's interests and increasing the burden on society.
Why go to Iran to witness fundamentalism. Its so far away!!!
Take a shorter trip to Northern Ireland....oups....sorry that is Catholic/Christian fundamentalism so it doesn't count.......only other religions can be included!!!!!
If you live in a greenhouse, don't throw stones.
If you feel touchy enough to feel insulted by my choice of vocabulary that is your problem.
If I really wanted to insult you, trust me, I would but I don't.
As I said I respect your blind faith in the bible. However do not try to twist and redefine your rationale as this is your undoing.
Frankly claiming that Malta is catholic because the constitution says so, is like the USSR being branded athiest because the Soviet constitution said so.
Finally you have conceded the we are a mixed society and that is a major breakthough. A mixed society is based on different people having different needs and requirements.
The only thing they have in common is that they are citizens of this country and all our politicians take an oath to serve ALL citizens not just a particular religious faction.
In the light of your discovery that :
1. We are a mixed society;
2. Religious beliefs should not be imposed on anyone who does not want them;
then divorce is a choice solely for those in our mixed society who want to take this route.
Therefore this debate can be concluded with a divorce legislation.
I do not become a "fundamentalist" just because you choose to insult me that way. You resort to diatribe and invective as a substitute for logical argument. These demean those who stoop to use them, not their victim.
I call Malta predominantly Catholic because our Constitution says so. You may disagree but that does not mean that you are right. The safe presumption is that you are not and that is what makes you so mad and intemperate in your language.
I proudly believe in the Gospels and I quote them for anyone who is well disposed towards them but I do not dream to impose them on anyone else. My opposition to easy divorce is not based exclusively on religious grounds but also because it would be harmful to the mixed society of which I form part as has happened everywhere else.
I resist the temptation to repay in kind by using disrespectful language no matter how much I am provoked. It is you and a few others of the same frame of mind who regularly resort to invective and insult as a substitute for logical reasoning.
I do not use the "word" Christian fundamentalist loosely at all. One of the clear indicators of a Christian fundamentalist would be when someone says he is offended by anyone "downgrading" Christ (meaning that one would believe in another religion or none). If you were following the discussion, you know who I am talking about.
I don't need to visit Iran to learn what a fundamentalist is. One question for you: Are you also offended by people who are not Christians? I ask so that I would know whether you too are a fundamentalist.
__________________________________________
@ Dr Saliba:
In your post starting with "Whoever divorces his wife..." you were clearly addressing everyone, not just the predominantly Catholic Maltese community. Why don't you act like an adult and admit the obvious?
Am I "stubbornly anti-establishment"? Well, if the establishment is totalitarian, then yes, count me in.
I address the "predominantly" Catholic Maltese community and a Maltese community that respects our Constitution as it is. I do not know where you stand with reference to that definition and I do not care to find out. It would appear that you are plainly and simply stubbornly anti-establishment.
Any intelligent reader of this blog would understand that what I had warned you about was my intention to "discard your usual irrelevancies". I am carrying out that "threat" as of now!
You epitomise everything wrong with religious fundamentalism.
Here you are quoting and unsuccessfully trying to impose your beliefs on the rest of us. Simply because most of us were baptised as Catholics does not mean we are practicing Catholics devoid of all reason and intellect.
If it has not occurred to you yet although, on paper, an absolute majority of us are catholics in practice I doubt that this figure stands higher than 50%.
Furthermore your blind belief in the bible verses may be sufficient for you and I respect that But do not try to impose them on others through what you claim is catholic voter majority rule because it just continues to compound the disrespect you have for anything you deem as non catholic.
Sir, I encourage you to continue taking your bishop's advice and continue to speak to speak out without fearing criticism. You are proving to be a great champion for the divorce cause.
@Stephen G. Mallia - Well done I could't have said it better - Who cares!!!!
@ Joseph Schembri - Sir, I respect your stand!
You have a habit of using very loosely the word Christian fundamentalist. I doubt you know what that word really stands for. Why don’t you go live for a month, say in Iran. I’m sure you will learn what a true fundamentalist means.
By the way, when you post a Bible quote in a public blog, unless you specify who your post is addressed to, you're not addressing a Maltese community that is predominantly Catholic, but are actually addressing everyone, including (but not limited to) Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Satanists, Hidus, Scientologists, Jehovah's witnesses, Agnostics, Atheists etc. The readers do not even have to be Maltese.
Go ahead and address a Maltese community that is "predominantly Catholic and respectful of the Holy Bible" and who respect an outdated constitution that does not reflect today's reality (see my boys and girls example further down, maybe you will understand if you try hard enough). I'm certainly not stopping you. I will only speak for myself. If you can't accept the fact that it is useless to quote the Bible to a non-Christian, go ahead and waste your own time as much as you please.
I will certainly not intimidate you. Unlike Christian fundamentalists, I respect free speech (which obviously gives me the right of reply), even if what is said does not tally with my beliefs. And I certainly won't be offended by other people's beliefs or non-beliefs. I actually find that to be very childish, just like warning someone (just what exactly did you mean by that?) also is.
I am addressing a Maltese community that is predominantly Catholic and respectful of the Holy Bible and civic minded enough to respect our Constitution. That may, or may not, include you but in any case I will not be discouraged or intimidated from heeding our bishops' advice to speak out without fearing criticism.
Dear Dr Saliba, what you seem not to be able to understand is that it is as much useless to quote the Bible to an unbeliever or a believer of another religion as much as it would be useless to quote the Koran or any other "holy book" other than the Bible to you.
If you understand this simple fact, perhaps you will be less angry at people who do not believe things you choose to believe (for which there is no evidence - except for what is stated in the Bible, which is no evidence at all).
No high opinion of myself necessary. Just a grasp of simple logic and common sense in the case of the constitution, and knowledge of the several contradictions and outdated moral standards (such as the justification of slavery) in the case of the bible.
I did not interpret the Bible, neither. There's nothing to interpret. It's just a product of its age written by fallible humans.
Your or for that matter anyone else's freedom to do as they please stops when they infringe on any of my liberties. So please do not drag fundamentalist Moslems into this issue.
You cannot deny that what you did is much worse than "interpret". I only used that word charitably because what you are doing is to reject the Holy Bible outright as a "2000 year old text" and the Constitution as "outdated" and "should be reworded or removed"!
I did not interpret anything, I quoted verbatim both from the Holy Bible and from the Constitution. Now I feel justified to echo your own words by asking "What gives YOU such a high opinion of yourself" that you feel competent to reject the text of the Bible and the Constitution?
Again I stress that I try to be a practicing Catholic and for ME divorce is a no no but like you I do not demand that everyone should behave exactly as I do.
Your question "Who cares" referring to the Bible.
The obvious answer: Many thousands of really practicing Maltese Catholic voters and, I believe, most members of our parliament
Your words: " ...people who don't hold my beliefs should be given the right to choose.."
The inevitable conclusion: Devout fundamentalis Islamists should be allowed to carry out their Jihad obligation to kill me, you, and anyone else not of their faith.
What sublime logic!
Neither is quoting 2000 year old texts.
Have I given any interpretation of the Gospel or the Taliban?
As for the constitution, I did not give "an interpretation". I only stated fact. Let me help you understand. There are 10 children. 8 are girls while 2 are boys. It is wrong to say that the children are girls as it is equally wrong to say that the children are boys. The same applies to saying that the religion of Malta is the Catholic religion. Do I have to spell it out this way?
And while we're at it, what gives YOU such a high opinion of yourself that you pretend to be qualified to interpret the Gospel, the constitution and the Taliban? We're not debating medicine here. We're on a level footing.
I use "Dr" because it is the title to which I am entitled and because it identifies me from others bearing the same name. If you cannot "stand it" that is your problem but shouting your prejudice is no substitute for logical argument.
Fortunately for us we do not live in a country where a religious oligarchy controls each and every aspect of our lives. Love him or hate him Mintoff was instrumental in bringing about some of these changes. I wish that more people where practicing Catholics but I cannot stand people like Dr. Saliba (Why does he use the 'Dr.' bit in these blogs? Does he think it will add credence to his arguments?), who want to impose their lifestyle on others.
Go on Joseph Muscat - look at Zapatero in Spain and his progressive legislation. Please follow in his footsteps should you become PM. But then again I think that even for you some of his decisions might be a little too progressive from what I've heard you say.
"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery" Matth: 5 11-12.
Frankly who cares!!!!
Stay out of my personal life and go preach to someone else.
If your logic were true we could abolish Parliament as no laws would be necessary and we would be guided simply by Canon Law. Even so the Prime Minister should then refer to the Archbishop for his approval before taking a course of action.
Tut tut Dr. Saliba...If we have any parliamentarians or Ministers who instead of representing the Maltese government act more like church ministers the country is in deep trouble.
By this warped logic you should also call a referendum to abolish civil marriages since Maltese Catholic Parliamentarians should not have approved such a law.
Oh and while you are there the referendum should re-criminalize adultery and gay orientation bringing back to our former glory as a better of a vatican satellite state.
You forget that Malta has freedom of religion and association and that parliamentarians take an oath to serve all the citizens of this country to the best of their ability - not just the practicing Catholic citizens.
If this were the case at present they are serving under 50% of the country.
As for the catholic religion proviso in constitution...its as outdated as the non-aligned provision and should be reworded or removed.
I do not scare anybody. I simply do not want to waste my time on someone who has such a high opinion of himself that he pretends to be qualified to interpret the Gospel, the Constitution and the Taliban.
"I warned you". Should I be scared, or what?
I warned you.
"...whose religion 'is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion'"
Very much debatable. If its the people who make the republic, then that statement is obviously false. Ok, before you tell me, I know its in the constitution. But what if the constitution (written decades ago) said that the religion of Malta is Islam...would you say this is true?
"whose authorities 'have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong'"
Of course. I have no problem with this, as long as the prinicples are not faith-based but rational (by which I mean that arguments may be brought to support the principles - which in effect would not need religious dogma).
How about this for a logical reply?
Of course Malta is not Taliban country. It is a Republic whose religion "is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion" whose authorities "have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong"!
Now, re-read my comment intelligently and give a logical reply if you have any. I will discard your usual irrelevancies.
Were does this leave a presumably Catholic member of parliament, who does not even have a mandate from the electorate, to introduce or to vote in favour of legislation encouraging what Christ himself identifies as "adultery"?
I agree that we should rather concentrate on the civil and social pros and cons of divorce. The religious arguments have more than been exhausted and answered ad nauseum.
Martin Abela's stand should be adopted by those who have misgivings about divorce. If divorce is not for you don't use it.
The social and civil pros are simple. Right now the divorce prohibition has created a situation that is probably unique in the world(I am serious). The longer we procrastinate in regulating this situation the weaker the value of the traditional family becomes. Last Saturday,I was chatting to a 15 year old who was born and brought up in a co-habiting family. He obviously fails to comprehend the value of getting married - obviously perhaps. His parents would remarry if they could (they have been together for 17 years). The ripple effects on co-habiting children are obvious - you reap what you sow.
Our Family Act already takes into consideration most issues such as child support, splitting of assets etc. Therefore divorce should be a simple issue of permitting separated people (who want to remarry) to do so.
I am in favour of a 1-2year divorce wait however.
Prosit I couldn't agree with you more.
Since this debate started I asked myself what was my feeling about divorce. As a practicing Catholic I am prohibited from divorcing and I will stand by my beliefs. To me divorce can come and go because I will not ever resort to it.
I feel that the mistake our shepherds are doing is focusing on the wrong priority as a defense against divorce. The focus should be on preparing the religious family to give divorce the cold shoulder as is now being done in Chile for example.
Personally I hope that no action similar to the 1960's is taken by anyone. The last thing we need is for Maltese families will be torn apart once again. The scars of these actions may never really heal.
Kenneth Cassar and David Gatt are quite correct. Take it from me in our legal system any contact can be rescinded with the agreement of both parties. I will go one further and add that collective agreements (basically a legal contract) between employers and trade unions can be amended/rescinded etc whilst still in force.
So with all respects before writing another poem style reply do check your facts.
So you have it from the horse's mouth (no disrespect meant) folks. All practicing Catholics need do nothing more than simply ignore the law that legalizes divorce.
In my opinion Joe Muscat should go a step further and propose the state's recognition of civil partnerships (including same sex). For me there should be a clear distinction between state and Church and even though I am a practicing Catholic and will (God Willing) never personally need divorce or civil partnership legislation myself, I cannot deny that right to those who feel that they require it.
selling the property back. And they have to pay the tax again!".
Fair enough...in the case of a sale of property, this is the way it works...which is basically the same thing as rescinding the contract (and paying an extra tax for it). I don't think that in the case of divorce, tax is the issue. Also, human beings are not property, which makes the case somewhat different.
If I make a contract with you obliging me (notary and all) to work for you for at a fixed price for a certain amount of years (or for life) and you decide to rescind the contract and free me from any obligation, neither of us have to pay any tax, and neither of us have to reverse the contract.
So yes, in cases that do not involve the sale of propery, all promises and contracts may be broken by mutual agreement. Human beings are not property of anyone, so my analogy applies while yours certainly doesn't. Again, check your facts.
@ Kenneth Cassar &
@ David Gatt
A civil contract of sale cannot be rescinded,
even if both parties agree.
You go and check with a notary.
The only thing that can be done is a new contract,
selling the property back.
And they have to pay the tax again!
I repeat, go and check with a notary.
Which does not mean I disagree with divorce,
as I have already said.
It just means that an argument in favour of divorce
that is based on sweeping statements,
such as that there is some kind of 'right'
to go back on contracts and promises is fallacious.
Divorce should be introduced because it is a necessary evil
not because it is some kind of 'right'.
Every contract in civil law can be recinded, cancelled or amended especially if both parties agree. Check your facts before commenting.
Divorce is not a necessary evil. It is its absence that is evil.
Hmm...you really have no idea, don't you. Go and talk to a notary, and he/she'll explain to you that you are hugely mistaken.
@Kenneth Cassar
No contract can be broken.
Take the example of a civil contract to sell property.
That's a contract between two persons only,
seller and buyer.
No one of them can rescind the contract after having signed it.
Even if both agree, they cannot go back on their contract.
What they can do is enter into another contract,
in which the former buyer becomes the seller and sells back
the property to the former seller.
Even though I tend to agree with divorce,
you have to accept that it's breaking a civil contract and a solemn promise
(the priest is actually a civil official as well in the case of marriages in church).
I believe that breaking one's promises is wrong,
but it's better than having people cohabiting widely
(especially if it becomes the norm even for previously unmarried people)
and unregulatedly.
I dislike people romanticising divorce as if it were something good.
And some arguments for it are illogical and downright wrong,
especially those arguments that portray it as some kind of right.
We have to talk about duties as well - especially towards children.
My point is that divorce is bad, but it's a necessary evil.
.
You write: "Neither do I accept the argument that people have some right to break their contracts. In...every marriage ceremony...the spouses vow to be faithful till death....in front of a whole congregation, a priest and two witnesses...That is a solemn civil contract".
Again, you clearly have no idea. Let's ignore the fact that in civil weddings, there is no priest involved. However, you should note the following.
A civil wedding is a contract between just two persons. The person officiating, and all the witnesses, are only there to witness and make the contract legally binding. It is no different from having a notary legally binding other civil contracts.
I repeat...the contract is between the two people getting married...no one else.
Now, let's say both partners want to break the contract. Nothing should stop them since the contract binds them and them only.
What if one person breaks the contract and leaves the other spouse? What would you suggest we do in this case? Lock him/her up in prison? Remember that marriage separation, which in effect is breaking the contract you so much defend, is perfectly legal and sanctioned by church and state.
In cases such as the one you mention,
I agree with you completely.
My point is that in Malta we have the abrogative referendum.
If 10% ask for a referendum to be held on a law, and a majority
votes against that law, then that law is struck off the statute book.
My argument was that, as we have the abrogative referendum
in our legal system,
it's beside the point arguing against a referendum on divorce
as a referendum must be held anyway if 10% ask for it after divorce is introduced.
I have been arguing that, though inclined towards divorce,
it does not mean that I accept irrational arguments.
I believe divorce should be introduced because
the state should recognise new relationships
entered into by former married persons.
Furthermore,
divorce is better than unregulated and widespread cohabitation.
But that does not mean that I accept ANY argument for divorce.
As I have previously explained,
divorce is not a right.
It is something that might be allowed by the state.
If it were a right, then we have no problem and
all we need do is lodge a court case.
Neither do I accept the argument that people have some right
to break their contracts.
In (my and) every marriage ceremony I attended,
I (did and) heard the spouses vow to be faithful till death.
This is done in front of a whole congregation,
a priest and two witnesses.
Then they sign and we clap!
That is a solemn civil contract.
Divorce should be introduced not
because we should countenance breaking one’s contracts
but for other reasons I have explained before and above.
My appeal is to be rational and to see divorce for what it is –
evil but necessary.
You seem to have no idea of the difference between divorce and annulment.
I know of a woman whose husband turned into a drug user some time after marriage. The marriage degenerated into violence that she put up with following the advice given to her by an elderly priest.
She only left after the husband was finally jailed. By that time she was financially ruined with lots of debts, suffered broken ribs (twice) and some permanent scars made using a scissors.
The annulment case was turned down because the reasoning was that the man was ok when they married. What sheer nonsense!!!
Anyhow this woman is now co-habiting, with a child and would love to marry her single partner. So I ask why should bible bongos have to interfere in this woman's life or call for referendums?
Our Government has the power to take a decision and legislate divorce. The only way to by pass all the fanaticism is to use parliament as the medium. Bear in mind that effects of the 1960 will be nothing compared to the damage that will happen in 2008 if the church (or any puppet organisation) requests such a referendum.
I don't think you understand the grounds for annulment correctly. When people marry, one of the partners may change (sometimes drastically) some time after the marriage (could be months, could be years). However, this is not sufficient grounds for annulment. Also, even if the partner does not change at all, one cannot know the partner fully unless one lives with the partner for at least a few months (and sometimes not even then). This in effect means that marriage is always a risk...how high depending on how well one knows one's partner, and the honesty of both.
To qualify for annulment, one must be in the following predicament:
1. Either one did not know (before the wedding) something about his/her partner which would seriously effect the marriage.
2. Or one of the partners would have been hiding something of importance from the other partner before the wedding.
This, in effect, means that even if the husband/wife becomes a serial rapist/killer/paedophile etc after the wedding, this would still not be grounds for annulment.
I don't know about you, but I've never read two phrases more contradictory than "I am inclined in favour of divorce" and "When people marry, they know exactly what they're in for. They contract marriage freely, and they promise each other in front of witnesses 'till death doth us part'".
Apart from the falsity of the second claim (no one knows exactly what he/she is in for when they marry), it contradicts your first claim that you are inclined to favour divorce.
If your second claim were true (that people know exactly what they are getting into, and that a promise "till death do us part" cannot be broken), then you would be highly irrational if you were to be inclined to favour divorce.
So why not simply say that you oppose divorce, instead of trying to give the impression that you are being diplomatic, just so that you picture those who favour the divorce option as extremists?
But perhaps you are just confused, in which case, its useless arguing with you until you get a clearer picture of the issue.
@Kenneth Cassar &
@Lino Azzopardi:
I am inclined in favour of divorce,
but what I have been arguning throughout is that
arguments in favour have to be factual and true
not emotional and wrongly-based.
E.g., people saying that divorce is a 'right':
If it were a 'right', we could easily introduce divorce by lodging a case before the
Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights.
Regarding the call for a referendum,
people doing so are no "nincompoops".
It is better if a referendum is held on divorce
for one simple reason: that in our legal system,
10% of citizens can call for an abrogative referendum.
So, calling for a referendum
BEFORE the introduction of divorce makes sense
as a referendum MUST anyway be held if 10% ask for it.
And an abrogative referendum is BINDING, Mr Azzopardi.
See section 20 of the Abrogative Referenda Act:
http://docs.justice.gov.mt/lom/legislation/english/leg/vol_5/chapt237.pdf
I also prefer a free vote to the people rather than MPs.
With a referendum, divorce has a sporting chance of passing.
With a free vote in Parliament, it has none.
As to whether people know what they're doing when marrying:
if they didn't, then that's grounds for annulment, not divorce.
.
2 countries out of what 376? Not bad as a reason to hold a referendum on divorce. Also stop fooling people about Italy's divorce law.
A abrogative referendum in Malta has no legal binding on the government so don't waste people's time. Furthermore what happens if it is a 48-52% either way........ You underestimate the way people will vote. I am happy to allow parliamentarians a free vote accross party lines.
What makes me sick is nincompoos calling for a referendum to impose a religious faith on people's personal lives. If you believe so strongly about the fact that any marriage - even a marriage made in hell - is for life enjoy the ride. But don't try and impose it on others.
Finally if you believe that "When people marry, they know exactly what they're in for" you are detached from reality.
Who would enter a marriage destined for misery if they know exactly what they are going in for???? Ahna Ahna jew Mahnix!!! (With apologies to a great Maltese TV program)
So now you write "When people marry, they know exactly what they're in for. They contract marriage freely, and they promise each other in front of witnesses
'till death doth us part'. There can be no 'right' to break one's promise".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you "inclined to favour divorce"? Not that you were fooling anyone.
Hmmm...if true, that makes 2 countries from the whole world. Not bad, not bad. ;)
For the info of those who are saying that no country
introduced divorce by means of a referendum:
IRELAND did so in 1995.
Please check your facts before you write.
ITALY as well held a referendum that could have impugned its divorce law.
So, while not introducing divorce by referendum,
divorce in Italy was actually sanctioned by a referendum.
The same applies for MALTA.
We (citizens) have the right to call a referendum
to strike off a law from the statute book,
known as the abrogative referendum.
Some laws cannot be struck off the statute book
but divorce law would not be such a law.
Thus, even if divorce is introduced by Parliament,
a referendum on divorce might be held and, furthermore,
MUST be held if 10% of registered voters ask for one.
Therefore, even though politicians might agree to introduce divorce,
citizens have every right to call a referendum on divorce.
Furthermore, divorce is no right.
When people marry, they know exactly what they're in for.
They contract marriage freely,
and they promise each other in front of witnesses
'till death doth us part'.
There can be no 'right' to break one's promise.
.
1. Where exactly did Maria Whitehead insult the church or the "Word of God"?
2. The "Word of God" is not as crystal clear as you make it to be. After all, Jesus is quoted (in the Bible) as permitting divorce in the case of adultery.
3. Neither marriage nor divorce have anything to do with "natural law". As for children, to be consistent, you would have to argue for the criminalisation of marriage separations.
4. Regarding Hosea (or whatever), you are ignoring the fact that not all people are Catholics (or even Christians). Divorce is not for Catholics. What's so hard to understand about this? Bible quotes are irrelevant to the question of secular divorce.
5. It is probably true that the church will never accept divorce. However, to bring up "electoral mandate" as an argument against divorce law is little short of saying that all other countries in the world are undemocratic.
Secondly, the divorce goes against natural law and does not make justice...nor with the other side who don't want divorce nor towards children.
From a spiritual point of view if you look to Hosea you will find the answer for why divorce is wrong to God, for God when we sin does not throw us into hell but waits for us to turn back to him...before "love and carnal wishes" there is God for God is LOVE.
The church will never accept divorce, even if the divorce law is passed 100%. And the goverment, this goverment has not the electoral mandate to pass such a law.
@ Maria Whitehead
'At the moment the church is forcing us to live exactly in the opposite manner, co habiting and children out of proper wedlock. Provide the tools! '
You are 100% correct. I have said it before somewhere downhere, its a bout time the church edit or correct the bible..
Sure you 'did not mention referenda in Italy or anywhere else'
Its really the case of 'an inconvenient truth' and a real weak chink in your reasoning.
Of course not. That would have been very inconvenient, seeing that you see the passing of a divorce law without a referendum as being undemocratic (which would make the rest of the world undemocratic).
I did not mention referenda in Italy or anywhere else.
The church have proven to be unprofessional in dealing with some cases of annulments and hurting deeply members within the Christian Community. Among these there are also persons with no children (being the main issue of defence against annulments /divorce ecc), that belong to a category that are frequently left our from debate on annulments /divorce ecc.
Although I understand that the Church does not support cohabitation, I think that people can understand why several persons, even unmarred persons, are opting for cohabitation instead of marriage because of the present legal scenario in Malta. Such scenario is also the answer of an increasing list of children having ‘unknown’ father.
It is incredible how certain citizens persist in ignoring the fact that the present situation is leading to a social disorder and politicians must urgently consider divorce as the lesser of two evils
It is true that everyone votes in a referendum in Italy. But was divorce in Italy was not introduced by a referendum - it was introduced by an amendment of the civil code on Dec 1st 1970.
Divorce has been introduced by an act of Parliament not a referendum practically everywhere from Italy to India from the USA to France to Japan.
You have conveniently by passed this point when replying to Gordon Gatt....I wonder why???
In 2007 Appogg assisted 928 victims of domestic violence while the same government agency providing support services to victims of abuse have already dealt with 226 cases of domestic violence in the first six months of this year. These are fact of cases happening in Malta today.
Can you explain to the very few from such victims who might still be believing in a new life within a marriage, that our politicians that are suppose to legislate and achieving common good within our society, are justified when ignoring the issue of divorce, just because so far, the citizens have not tested this wishes in any electoral manifesto?
In a referendum everyone, be they priests or laity, practicing Catholics or lapsed Catholics, deists or atheists all will have all the opportunity to vote freely with no "trusted person" looking over their shoulder.
Forgive me but your referendum logic is warped in my opinion.
A referendum will be the perversion of doing the right thing. This is because many people will be forced to chose with their faith not their free will. Can the clergy vote openly for example?
This is most unfair since the clergy and faith voters will never need to for a divorce even if it is legalised. So why should they have a say in other people's lives?
The crux of the matter is simple divorce will be there for those who want it only and in spite of so many pointing it out to you you seem to miss it.
A referendum is just a cheap trick to try and maintian a status quo and continue to impose religious morals on others. Don't give me this nonsesne about the majority versus the minority reasoning - thankfully divorce will only apply to a minority. What you miss is the respect for minorities in a democratic society.
FINALLY - How many countries (including the western world) in the world legalised divorce through a referendum ? The answer is NIL.
How sad and undemocratic of them!!! Cheap trick indeed!!!
Whether or not there is "general agreement" that "divorce should be legalised as an act of parliament" cannot be deduced from blogs. Contributors to blogs are only a minute fraction of society and their contributions are not always masterpieces of logic.
A referendum is indubitably the best method for ascertaining the will of the majority and that is exactly why the divorce lobby objects to it . It acts as if its own sectorial interests are paramount and as if there is some justification for imposing them as a ploy behind the backs of a deeply interested general public. A referendum would reflect the freely expressed opinion of all, be they pro or anti-divorce, practicing Catholics, lapsed Catholics, adherents of other religions, atheists, agnostics etc.
Members of the public should not be penalised simply because they have religious convictions. They expect that the state consult their individual opinions whether these are in accordance with, or in defiance of, their religious adherences. Targeting catholicism is therefore nothing more than a red herring and the hobby of those who do not miss any opportunity to mount a hostile campaign against our Christianity.
The lobby raising public awareness for the rights of disabled persons was one that indubitably had the support of the vast majority of the nation. There never was any need to test democratically the general public opinion by any referendum. This would have been only an unnecessary expense.
Divorce legislation is a completely different kettle of fish.
Prosit!
A perfect, objective, summary of the matter.
I fail to see how anyone with a sane and unbiased mindset can ask for more logic than that.
@Philip Borg
I couldn't agree more - and I assume you were referring to Dr. Francis Saliba no doubt.
I think there in general, there is agreement on this blog that:
1. Divorce should be legalised as an act of Parliament;
2. The church should stay out of a civil matter in which she is already prejudiced against divorce through current dogma interpretations;
3. Divorce is a civil matter and anyone feeling otherwise through faith reasons needs not avail themselves of it for matter of conscience,
4. No one should impose their faith on the rest of the country since divorce is after all a personal matter;
5. If both parties agree in principle to legalise divorce there will be no political backlash for anyone and this issue will be finally addressed;
Your fiddling around with what you term as democracy vis a vis a referendum is sheer nonsense. I form part of a minority in Malta that has lobbied for my rights as a disabled person. With this sort of bent rationale relating to a referendum we would have never had our rights upheld because we are a minority. It was only when Parliament passed the E.O. Act in 2000 that we finally got recognised.
Please refrain from your recycled arguments and if you feel so strongly go and get 45000 votes to call a referendum......oh by the way.....a referendum in Malta is not binding on the government...did you know that???
And any referendum is bound to be really close....especially if both party media lobby in favour of it.
Adieu!!!
You are entitled to your opinion and others are entitled to theirs. I could possibly be persuaded to modify mine in response to logical argument but not to cheap gibes about anyone being "holier than thou".
The democratic principle of rule by the majority (with respect, not subservience, to the needs of minorities) could not reasonably be put in abeyance whenever a minority insists on it. That implies a dictatorship by the minority.
It was you, not I, who wrote the string of insults and invective, and I quote you exactly "the blinkered, self-proclaimed crusadres ...mounted on their high horses.....smugly enjoying their holier than thou attitude". I never said anything like that. There is a very eloquent Maltese proverb about prostitues passing on to others what they have got themselves and which is very appropriate in this circumstance.
Through you and other commentators similarly inclined the pro-divorce lobby are making it abundantly clear that they are puting pressure on parliamentarians to discard a feared majority opinion against it and to willfully legislate undemocratically against the wishes of the majority. Our elected parliamentary deputies will have to pay a price for that sooner rather than later.
"Legislating for a minority of "ONE" case is never a wise exercise if there is a widespread opposition to it."
Says who?
Only "swollen headed bigots who believe that they are something special" invoke that argument and seek to make it "applicable to the rest of the nation."
I do agree with you on one thing: You yourself, sir, "devalue yourself and your comment when you feel the need to stoop to a string of insults and invective as an inadmissible substitute for logical arguments."
That is why I normally avoid arguing with bigots; they try to bring me down to their level and beat me with experience.
Divorce is not a majority or minority issue. It is certainly not subject to a referendum especially since it is a personal matter that will effect a small minority in our country.
I see your rationale for a referendum as shallow indeed.
Why people like you persit in trying to prohibit co-habiting people from regularising their position is beyond me. My marriage is 14 years and still going strong but I sympathise with those who were/are not in my same position.
The time when the 'holier than thou' dominated the political scenario and meddled in people's personal affairs is long extint.
Legislating for a minority of "ONE" case is never a wise exercise if there is a widespread opposition to it. I have known it to happen only in the case of swollen headed bigots who believe that they are something special and above the law as applicable to the rest of the nation.
You devalue yourself and your comment when you feel the need to stoop to a string of insults and invective as an inadmissible substitute for logical arguments.
Dr Francis Saliba,
Divorce is "a hot and divisive issue" only because the catholic church considers divorce to be sinful. Had it been otherwise, divorce legislation would have been passed through long ago, probably without anyone noticing, with the exception of those who desperately need divorce to give some form of legality to their social status.
Regarding the possibility of holding a referendum, I'm unsure about that. Divorce is not a fundamental human right, so from that angle, there's nothing which prevents a referendum from being an option. (it would be different if the issue were, say, whether or not to allow a group of individuals from owning property). On the otherhand, divorce will not affect in any considerable way the lives of those who do not resort to it (as for eg, was the case with the eu membership issue). So I don't see why the people should be consulted. Would you favor a national referendum to decide whether or not a piece of land in Kercem should be developed into a petrol-station? You might argue that a piece of land less would, in theory, affect society as a whole, but really….
I refuse to answer questions which I have already replied to in recent comments. Don't be lazy but search for them yourself.
"The opposition to this reasonable ascertainment of the public opinion can only be interpreted as a determination to impose these laws because of the expectation that the majority of the voting public is against it."
Unquote.
Wrong! Majority does not come into it at all.
If the Government / Members of Parliament know of just ONE case - (and let's be honest, who doesn't?) - where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and has ceased to function, then that should be enough justification for passing the required legislation without further ado.
The blinkered, self-proclaimed crusaders who are invoking their brand of 'morality' can remain mounted on their high horses, smugly enjoying their holier-than-thou attitude.
Others who are not so fortunate will finally be able to rebuild a new life in well-deserved peace.
But perhaps that is too much to ask for in 'catholic' Malta that is so proud of its 'christian' values.
Why don't we dismantle Parliament and put every law to popular vote to make sure " we are to maintain some semblance of respect for the democratic principle of rule by the majority with respect for the minorities"?
Exactly how many referenda have we had in Malta over the last 50 years or so? Two to be exact..one on Independence of Malta and one on joining the E.U. If you think that a simple divorce legislation is anywhere at par with these two verges on the ridiculous.
Since no government ever called a referendum on family matters I don't see the need for it now.
If anything the Government should have called a referendum on the infamous family Act in 1995 where civil rights of citizens were sold to the Vatican....come on get real please!!!!
If a referendum is all that anti divorcists can come up with it is really pityful
I am not so stupid as to expect that a referendum be held before any law is passed in parliament. There are many issues for which a mandate from the electorate has been given specifically, can be reasonably assumed or is clearly implied such as fiscal measures that become necessary with the passage of time and the evolving economic situation locally and world wide.
Divorce legislation does nor come into these categories. The problem has been present for a long time and has not arisen suddenly after the last general election. It is a hot and divisive issue regarding which neither of the parties repesented in parliament has sought or obtained any mandate. An "ad hoc" referendum is evidently required to ascertain the degree of electoral support for these laws if we are to maintain some semblance of respect for the democratic principle of rule by the majority with respect for the minorities.
The opposition to this reasonable ascertainment of the public opinion can only be interpreted as a determination to impose these laws because of the expectation that the majority of the voting public is against it.
First of all, I think you coul be surprised with the results of the refernedum you are proposing - make no mistake about that. HOWEVER why not do this for everything.
Was there a referendum on the introduction of VAT for example?
Was there a referendum to approve limiting the hunting season?
Was there a referendum whether we needed to build a new hospital?
Was there a referendum about whether we should continue to take in refugees?
Was there a referendum on whether the government should privatise many of its sectors (Banks, Post, Phone companies etc) ?
Was there a referendum to approve the constitutional changes to the electoral law?
The truth is that the exact function of Parliament is to legislate as it sees fit to ensure a just and poper running of the country. Divorce legislation should be no different. .
In approving a referendum our political representatives will not be abdicating their responsibility to legislate on the divorce question for the simple and evident reason that, so far, they have not requested or even tested the wishes of the electorate in any electoral manifesto.
The insistence on legislation without a referendum and in the absence of a mandate from the electorate to legislate on the divorce question is convincing evidence that the pro-divorce lobby knows that the clamour for such legiclation does not have the support of the majority of the electorate.
Do you remember the story in Greek mythology when Zeus prohibited humans to use fire just because someone in some place had used fire badly? The issue of Divorce is just the same and some are acting like Zeus (most probably in a genuine way) but ultimately divorce will be introduced. The only question is when and how many will be left in “psychological pain” till then?
The state imposed the Civil marriage act in the 70s as a separate act from the religious act and to have a mature debate we must separate completely these two. The Church have every right to discuss the issue but by mentioning social arguments and not religious or theological as we are speaking of a required update of the Civil law by the Maltese Parliament and not the Canon Law by the Vatican.
You say "If their mother then cohabits with someone else, their father can and usually does win custody, as it's only fair that a natural father rather than a stranger brings up his children".
Regarding this claim, I think you got your information wrong. If a couple gets legal separation, then the mother can opt to live with another man without the children being taken away. If this is not the case, I would appreciate references to court sentences in Malta.
Regarding it being fair that a natural father rather than a stranger brings up his children, you are missing the fact that the choice is between the natural mother or the natural father raising the child. If you ask me, it is more likely (depending on the people in question) that it would be better for the child to be raised by a couple (one of whom is her mother) than just with one person (her father in this case).
Of course, usually the separated couple would have shared-custody, which is worked out in court.
Kenneth Cassar:
I am inclined to favour divorce,
but I see it as a necessary evil
on which debate should be rational.
You say:
" the effects of divorce and of separation followed by the formation of new cohabiting couples, are basically the same ".
No they're not.
In separation
(e.g. separated wife with custody of children)
children are brought up by their mother with full rights of access to their father.
If their mother then cohabits with someone else,
their father can and usually does win custody,
as it's only fair that a natural father rather than a stranger
brings up his children.
In divorce, these same children are brought up by
a step-father who is not their natural father.
Surely this is not "basically the same".
As to whether marriage breakdowns increase with divorce,
the maxim is:
availability increases the consumption or use of that which is available.
With divorce and the possibility of re-marriage,
there will be less effort to stay together and a bigger temptation
to declare a marriage broken down.
I'm still inclined in favour of divorce,
but with much qualification.
And I do not ignore you.
Rather, I respect your opinions
.
Let our politicians provide a serious divorce framework for those who want to use it. For the rest out there nothing is really going to change by such a law.
All they have done is quote bibles and make fictitious assertions such as the fact that divorce will harm children, increase marriage breakdowns etc. I have been there and back. I divorced to get out of a marriage from hell. I remarried 11 years ago and intend to be so for a long time. Naturally I was one of those fortunate people who managed to obtain a divorce from abroad.
I felt ashamed and bitter about the fact that it had to be a foreign country's court to grant me my right to a second chance. However considering the fact that Malta's laws are so brutal as to prohibit Maltese in Malta from getting a divorce I should consider myself lucky.
Its time this situation is addressed for the common good of the country not the Church.
If some Maltese have a problem with this the solution is simple - do not use this legal option.
Since you are intentionally ignoring the fact that to children, the effects of divorce and the effects of separation followed by the formation of new cohabiting couples, are basically the same, from now on I will make an effort to ignore you, more so since you make baseless assertions like "As to whether marriage breakdowns increase with the introduction of divorce - of course they do" without giving reasons why so, and despite my giving ample reasons and arguments why this is not so.
Kenneth Cassar:
I have already said that I tend to agree with divorce.
But I have also appealed for a rational argument.
From many of the posts below, it’s obvious that
the argument about divorce in Malta
tends to turn into a religious (or anti-religious) exercise.
I disagree with religious arguments as they
apply to practising Catholics only.
I have been pointing out the
social research that abounds on the effects of divorce
on those unrepresented in the debate
i.e. children.
There are numerous studies over decades that show
children of divorcees are worse off in childhood and in adult life as well.
Other things being equal,
divorce is bad for children.
Of course, you can, as you did below,
compare the wife-beating husband with the loving step-father.
Rather than arguing that step-fathers too can beat their wives,
and are more prone to beat their step-children than their own,
I would just say that, other things being equal,
divorce is bad for children.
Though I tend to agree with divorce,
I cannot but accept this.
As to whether marriage breakdowns
increase with the introduction of divorce -
of course they do.
We would be naive not to accept this
.
Answers given already. Not my fault if you pretend, or if you actually fail, to realize it. No time to waste on you. Bye
Dr Francis Saliba
You said:
I would never dream of attempting to explain the Deuteronomy to you who,
You said:
You should try and explain the following
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
‘ If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.’
I am full ears and willing to learn. Please explain to me
Dr Francis Saliba
You said: ‘Personally I am under no obligation to accept Sharia law as an expresion of the divine will. I have a much higher opinion of the Almighty.’
Are we here talking about a different almighty from the one who said:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
‘ If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.’
An answer will be appreciated please
You also said:
Speaking for myself, a faithful Catholic, I read the Old Testament in the light of Christ's subsequent teaching as recorded in the New Testament gospels.
Old Testament? New testament? Are we talking about two different gods???
I have more questions (connected with your answer) but I would first like to chose which god of the so many bibles we will stick too!
You say that the question should be "Are children better off with their natural non-wife-beating father or with their mother’s non-wife-beating new partner?". In fairyland, this question would be the only question to be asked. However, we all know that there are abusive natural fathers as there are loving adoptive fathers. So you might consider answering my original question after all.
You speak of social sciences, when there is not complete agreement in the scientific community that social sciences are actually a science. But let's not dwell on this.
You compare marriage (and divorce) to economics. They could not be more different than each other. For more about the falsity of the claim that giving the option of divorce creates more broken marriages, see my other reply below.
Regarding Hans Albert Einstein (and if, as you claim, marriage failures increase with the introduction of divorce, there would be millions of others), he succeded not because or despite divorce, but irrespective of divorce. There is fundamentally no difference between having permanently quarrelling (or worse) parents and having divorced parents. If anything, the latter is preferable.
You say that when a separated mother co-habits with a new partner, her children’s natural father can ask for his children’s return. However, you should perhaps know that the courts rarely if ever concede to his request. Divorce, in any case, is no different. In divorce cases, the father may ask for sole custody of his children too.
To be continued...
Here is another example of what you called the adage that "the exception proves the rule" :
Not all catholics are hypocrites!
As you, quite correctly, affirm, ". It does not prove that the rule does not exist."
However, it has been said that divorce actually encourages people not to try hard enough to save their marriage - hence more broken marriages. Besides the fact that people who would do so would most probably not be good for any long-term commitment, let's explore this from another angle.
The statistics showing that where there is divorce there are a lot of broken marriages tell us nothing by itself, since where divorce is possible, the majority of people who separate will divorce. The only way to test whether it is divorce that adds significantly to broken marriages is to compare with statistics of broken marriages in countries where there is no divorce. "Luckily", we have Malta as a good example.
Now, seeing that the quantity of separations is growing year after year, notwithstanding that divorce is not an option for most people in Malta, the non-availability of divorce is obviously no deterrent. The non-availability of divorce will not save marriages, while good preparation might save most.
Kenneth Cassar:
You know that in the social sciences,
the scientific method is used,
drawing conclusions from large numbers of observations.
E.g. in economics, we know that, generally,
consumption increases with lower prices.
We know as well that there are exceptions:
less of so-called ‘Giffen goods’ are bought
when their price drops.
But that exception does not disprove the rule.
Hans Albert Einstein is one such exception.
You might want to ask yourself:
Did he succeed BECAUSE OF or DESPITE his parents' divorce?
Re separation/divorce:
When a separated mother co-habits with a new partner,
her children’s natural father can ask for his children’s return.
That’s one big difference between separation and divorce.
With divorce, children are brought up by a step-father
who is not their natural father.
You ask: are children better off with a natural father
who beats up their mother, or with their mother’s new partner?
That’s not comparing like with like.
The question should be:
Are children better off with their natural non-wife-beating father
or with their mother’s non-wife-beating new partner?
I am inclined to favour divorce.
My appeal, though is to be factual and reasonable
and realize that divorce is, at best, a necessary evil
.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I would only like to add that being democratic (even in the case of an informed electorate) would not necessarily make a policy right. As Winstin Churchill once said: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried".
The point I have made aeons ago, is that if children suffer at all, it is because of broken marriages and not because of divorce.
I'm grateful that in this case you have used "children of broken marriages" and not "children of divorcees". Perhaps we are reaching some common ground. Perhaps you are agreeing that it is broken marriages that might cause children to suffer, and not divorce. Therefore, if we are really interested in protecting children, we would be seeking means of saving as much marriages as possible. After all, strong marriages do not break up (and so do not require divorce), and children might suffer just as much when their parents' marriage fails, irrespective of whether they have a divorce option or not.
Regarding deuteronomy (or leviticus), there is nothing to explain. It's all hogwash, since it depicts God as a tyrant.
I would never dream of attempting to explain the Deuteronomy to you who, if I understand your comment correctly, are boasting that you are an atheist. Your preoccupation with the Old Testament mystifies me unless this is another instance of the devil trying to quote the scripture for his purpose.
Speaking for myself, a faithful Catholic, I read the Old Testament in the light of Christ's subsequent teaching as recorded in the New Testament gospels. He is on record (check it out for yourself) as objecting repeatedly and strongly against the pharisaic blinkered application of the "law" and to have indubitably revised the law of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".
The Church has other options besides amending the Bible or keeping mum, the most obvious being not to act on the unsolicited advice of hostile atheists but, instead, to continue to spread the Gospell according to the instructions given to it by Christ.
As regards the uncontested fact that some children of broken up marriages grow up to be great achievers this is in conformity with the adage that "the exception proves the rule" . It does not prove that the rule does not exist. These children probably achieved their success in spite of, and not because of, the broken marriage.
The fact that Sharia law is the operative law in Moslem countries could be interpreted as "democratic" but only if there is a well informed electorate empowered to express its opinion and to cast its vote in free elctions. Personally I am under no obligation to accept Sharia law as an expresion of the divine will. I have a much higher opinion of the Almighty.
That quote from Einstein is often taken out of context. Einstein was actually an atheist, and his "God" was actually nature.
@ Kenneth Cassar
May i add something please?
According to the famous physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Albert Einstein, “Science without religion is lame duck. Religion without science is blind faith.
. I would rather prefer to be an atheist than following a blind faith!
Sharia of Muslims
Some where down here, you typed that: "My only interest lies in supporting our bishops'
I have said it before and I repeat it again, the church has two options: either to correct the bible or keep mum.
I also noticed that you were consuming too many arguments around Sharia of Muslims and that reminded me of something I quote here:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
‘ If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.’
To start with, can I have your interpretation to the above please?
Alfred Muscat (as you can see, I have no letters before my name)
A firm atheist
their natural fathers. That's one big difference between separation and divorce that should be noted".
I must admit that I missed this part. However, what does Jonathan Farrugia suggest we do with separated mothers who co-habit with another man and take her children with them.
And does Jonathan Farrugia think that children are better off with a natural father who beats up their mother, or with their mother's new partner?
Albert Einstein and Maric divorced on February 14, 1919, having lived apart for five years.
Hans Einstein received his Diploma in Civil Engineering and his Doctor of Technical Sciences degree from the ETH Zurich in Switzerland. He worked in Dortmund, Germany as a steel engineer before migrating to the United States in 1938. His main field of interest was the mechanics of the transportation of sediment by flowing water. His doctoral thesis was the seminal work on this subject. He joined the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley in 1947 and later became Professor of Hydraulic Engineering.
In 1988 the American Society of Civil Engineers created the Hans Albert Einstein Award to recognize outstanding achievements in erosion control, sedimentation and/or waterway development.
Not bad for a son of divorced parents, eh?
However - and here is the big difference you are constantly trying to avoid acknowledging - people of separated parents are no better off than children of divorced parents.
Someone has taken issue with this quote:
" There is ample proof in many countries that
children of divorced parents are generally worse off "
Of course there is.
They do worse in school,
they do worse psychologically and
they keep doing worse even in adult life
as they are more likely
to separate and divorce.
Even though I tend to agree with divorce,
we cannot look at the issue only from the parents' point of view,
but also from the children's.
Several people ask what difference is there
between separation and divorce.
Importantly, with divorce, children
are brought up by step-fathers who are not
their natural fathers.
That's one big difference between separation
and divorce that should be noted.
I still believe that we cannot really escape
the need for the introduction of divorce.
Civilly, there must be some recognition
that a marriage has ended and there is a second relationship.
We cannot go on with unrecognized cohabitation.
But seeing divorce in terms of black and white
is a disservice to fruitful debate.
We have to take note of the several
non-religious negative points of divorce,
mostly with regard to children
.
It's quite unfair to tell ME to live and let live. That's what I do and that's why I'm pro legalisation for those unfortunate enough to have their marriage wrecked.
Second, you're assuming I've got some problem with people wearing crosses or other religious symbols. No, I've even got friends who wear the Verbum Dei and it does not annoy me at all. What I complained about is their use in public places (not on people's clothes) assuming we all share the same doctrine which obviously is far from the truth.
Thirdly, the 'majority' argument doesn't make sense. It's the reason behind Sharia in extreme places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. By your agrument you're implying that in Iran it is acceptable that a man is stoned in public because he committed adultery since 98% of the population is Muslim.
1. "Maltese Catholics are being targeted and intimidated into remaing silent". By whom exactly? Or is it just paranoia?
2. "because of the proven danger (of divorce) to the fabric of society". What proven danger? Where is the proof? Saying that marriage fails where there is divorce is not valid, since marriage also fails where there is no divorce. Also, if divorce is so catastrophic to the "fabric of society", does this not mean that the fabric of society would have already been broken. After all, no one opts for divorce just to experience it.
3. "If they act on their bishops' recommendation they are slandered and vilified as fundamentalists, compulsive liars, cowards etc". The fundamentalists are only those who would impose religious beliefs on others. As for the liars, these would be people who say that "the likes of me" would ban religious symbols, and who say that I questioned which comes first - separation or divorce, when what I asked was whether it is separation that breaks up families, or divorce.
Yes indeed those words have been said. And to the credit of some of the stauncher Catholics on this blog they are replying with threats of eternal damnation, and levelling accusations that secularists want to weaken the family, are unable to commit and so on :-) If you can't stand the heat etc etc! And in all fairness the Church has been doing the hell-fire thing for 2000 years and its only very recently that some dissenting voices have risen up in protest. Is this perhaps what is bothering you, that the writing is on the wall and the Church's hold on people is weakening?
The cry of fundamentalist means that you want to impose your will on others regardless of beliefs and want to make religion the basis of civil law.
Would you also care to reply to my second point? The research on divorce is far from decisive, suffering as it does from inherent methodological flaws, making your statements such as "because of the proven danger to the fabric of society" at best misguided and at worst intentionaly misleading? Go on, you seem like the sort of man to rise to a challenge!
As Catholics who preach love, the message should not be that of 'imposing others to do what WE want with their own lives', but the message should be one such as 'Leave others to do what they want, but we as Catholics do not see divorce as a solution.'
My question was not which comes first, divorce or separation. My question was whether it is separation that breaks up families, or divorce.
The question is not at all stupid, since if it is separation that breaks up families, irrespective of whether divorce is an option, then, the "evils of divorce" you mention are not evils of divorce at all. If you're honest with yourself, you'll at least acknowledge this. Of course, I'm no longer expecting an answer from you...I know that you agree with me here, even though declaring so does not help your agenda.
I am not suggesting anything. I am stating categorically that Maltese Catholics are being targeted and intimidated into remaing silent and not complying with their bishops' appeal to raise their voices in support of traditional Catholic values regarding any proposal to legislate in favour of divorce because of the proven danger to the fabric of society. If they act on their bishops' recommendation they are slandered and vilified as fundamentalists, compulsive liars, cowards etc. For a complete list just scroll down the comments on this blog by people whom I do not need to name.
i.e. "Yes, there is ample proof in many countries that children of divorced parents are generally worse off."..
Yet...
How better off are the children from thousands of already broken-up families? Whether by de-facto separations, legal separations, children of unmarried/single mothers....and YES ..marriage annulments, with the *blessings* of the church!!!
I did not say that you intimidated anyone. I said "intimidated by the likes of you" - please verify, be honest with yourself and admit that it is you who are the compulsive liar not I. Brak your habit of taking phrases out of their proper context and distorting them relying on the fact that most readers would not take the trouble to check on you.
I assumed that your questions whether divorce breaks up families or vice-versa or whether marital separations unite families or not were rhetorical questions (look that up) not requiring an answer and certainly not meriting one in this case. Either that or that they were too stupid. I still think so.
The relevant question is not which comes first and which comes second as in the question which came first, the chicken or the egg. It is that liberalising divorce has inevitably always produced a flood of subsequent spurious divorces, often by mutual agreement, for pecuniary gain, for the novelty of a change of partners and sustained by contrived "proofs" of adultery, incompatibility and cruelty when the real cause would be sheer boredom and lack of any desire to make the marriage work.
The consequences of divorce from a sociological and antropological point of view is the same as that of marital separation, since marital separation always precedes divorce.
I am not angry at the Church as an institution. I am only angry at the imposition of personal beliefs on other people. If the Church simply ordered all Catholics not to divorce, I would applaud them for being firm in their convictions. But this is not all that the Church wants. The Church wants to impose its religious beliefs on the rest of us.
Regarding robbery, I don't think I need to explain why it is wrong. It is self-evident. If you disagree, perhaps you should explain why it is not.
So it seems you are a compulsive liar, Dr Saliba. Where have I intimidated the bishops or anyone else into not voicing their own opinions?
Great. Then this means that divorce WILL be introduced, like it has been introduced in all other countries.
Don't be silly, K Pullicino! But just in case you are asking in all seriousness, my reply is: Of course not.
However, here's a pertinant question which seemingly anti-divorce people do not have enough wit to attempt a reply: Are you implying that marital separation unites families? If not, should we make marital separation illegal?
Come on, it won't hurt to answer such a simple question. Or are all anti-divorce people cowards?
I thought that Mr Kenneth Cassar would be able to interpret the word "sanctify " in a wider sense more than religious. I have never mentioned religion nor brought any religious arguments against divorce. Waht I meant was invite Mr. Cassar and the like to examine a bit the consequences of divorce from a sociological and antropological point of view but it seem that he is so angry at the Catholic Church (or al that is religious) that he is seeing religion everywhere.
My argument against divorse is that wherever it has been introduced that society has become poorer in what I consider to be good family values apart from the fact that it costs the nation in what is criminality , drug abuse, abandoned, depressed and violent children... all of which are linked to the corrosion of family values.
I do not mean to say that if we do not introduce divorce we will not have any more family problems or that criminality would disappear. Only that we can stop them from increasing unduely.
As for robbery: could Mr. Cassar please produce arguments to explain why it is unquestonably wrong?
Look who's talking!
By the way, you still have not enlightened us lesser beings on the following question: Is it divorce that breaks up families, or marital separation? Is it still inconvenient for you to reply to this elementary simple question?
Enlighten me, please, or should I perhaps not waste my time with fundamentalists?
Are you suggesting that Catholics are not allowed to practice their religion? In Malta? Are you serious?!
Furthermore he evidence on divorce is in fact controversial and not as clear cut as you would make it seem. All the studies to date suffer from an inherent methodological weakness which researchers have not yet found a solution to: establishing the relevant baseline for comparisons. By definition, all divorces are of unhappy couples; meanwhile, those who do not divorce are some mix of happy couples and of unhappy ones who stayed married. Comparisons of life outcomes or well-being along the simple divorced/not divorced axis will therefore always show poorer outcomes for the group which is composed entirely of unhappy couples, demonstrating simply that being part of a happy couple is better than being part of an unhappy one.
Finally why should non-catholics have to live by catholic rules? Especially given that the evidence is at best controversial and at worst seriously flawed. I don't know what yourDoctorate is in but surely you appreciate the importance of methodological validity!
Finally your comments on separation pls.
Thanks
Modern, Liberty, secularism, sexu-lism whatever it’s called. If we are careless about our Christianity. And we choose to trade our Christians values with liberty, sex-based and values-free culture, and still we are happy with the disastrous development in own societies we are: either idiots or ignorant. In case we are any of the latter, we must not presume other confessions are the same, if we do this mean we are arrogant.
---------
I see that you are discussing Muslim laws more than discussing the divorce.
From what I can see around me, Muslim law will soon be a must in Europe. We already started with Muslim banks, and soon we may ban alcohol. Isn’t that good after all?
Muslims laws forbid sex before marriage and condemn adultery. Aren’t we in need for this?
Rests assure, you may not find queues of Christians heading to Muslims mosques to convert at the hand of a Muslim Immam. You may also never see a Muslim asking a Christen to convert at a gun-point. But you would certainly see a great shift in today’s laws that would change dramatically to fit into Islamic values or laws.
By "live and let live" I was appealing for Catholics to be allowed to practice their religion in the same way that atheists expect to be allowed to practice their unbelief (which nowadays is only another "religion").
Referring specifically to pro-divorce legislation you are obviously wrong when you state that this is some "personal" objection. I am in the very good company of our bishops and many thousands of Maltese citizens. Our joint opinion is based on the world-wide experience that such legislation harms society as a whole, undermines the concept of a durable marriage and promotes a lax attitude towards a serious preparation for a life-long committment of married couples to each other and to their offspring and a "couldn't care less" attitude to the strain which facile marriage "breakdowns" impose on society in general.
Can the Bishop tell us what should people who are suffering heavily due to their marriages do? Stay together for the sake of Christianity to suffer all their lives? mmmm...what a Godly solution!!!
I do not know of anyone who would be amused by your facetious offer to be imprisoned, killed or expelled - this is Malta and not Sharia country. Nor am I over-awed by your own personal opinions about divorce (and about most of the other opinions you expressed in other blogs). I comment on them only in the vain hope that you may perhaps eventually re-size the very high opinion you have of your own wit . But there occasions when even the gods labour in vain.
My only interest lies in supporting our bishops' reasoned plea for the faithful not to be intimidated by the likes of you and to make their voices heard so as to avoid the envisaged harm to Maltese society, as has happened everywhere else by liberalising the access to easy divorce, initially introduced as a palliative for marriage breakdowns but eventually expanded to a divorce on demand and by arrangement for flimsy or non-existent serious reason.
I reject with contempt your presumption in judging that I am commiting the sin of lying when I am stating an obvious truth. There are commentators to this blog who are manifestly trying to muzzle the voice of our bishops whom they accuse of being responsible for a non-existent theocratic state in Malta.
Sharia law is objectionable in all non-Islamic cultures not because of any "imposition of Catholic belief" but because it is intrinsically cruel, inhumane and discriminatory.
I stated clearly that the interference with the right to wear Christian symbols etc even in Christian countries is an actual reality and a well established fact known to anyone who listens to the news. Why be trivial and insolent by stating "Presumably your conclusion comes from the direct inspiration from God?" You are not being funny, only ridiculous.
You have no grounds for presuming that Maltese society is different from the rest of the Christian world and that what has happened everywhere else will not happen here also.
You yourself mention "introducing the right of divorce" which implies that even you admit that up to now this is a non-existent and fancied right. This legal right does not exist up to now because our society still has the right to object to its introduction as long as the majority is convinced that it would be detrimental to society as a whole.
I spell "bible" or Bible" as the text demands without any element of disrespect. Those who spell "god" in lower case and when referring to our adored Christian God are being deliberately provocative and insulting.
Dear Kenneth Cassar:
I am inclined to favour divorce, as I have already stated.
But in discussing this issue, we have to look at facts reasonably.
Yes, there is ample proof in many countries that
children of divorced parents are generally worse off.
We are here talking generally and not about the exceptions.
Of course, I agree with you that children are
sometimes better off if their parents separate/divorce.
But those exceptions are no proof that divorce is good for children.
You mention what happens in separation, but separation and divorce are different.
In divorce, children who have been living with one of their natural divorced parents,
and that divorced parent remarries,
are then brought up by a step-parent that is not their natural father (usually, or mother).
We have to consider the implications of this.
Children do not write in blogs,
but we do have responsibilities towards them.
We have to see what kind of divorce we're talking about,
how easy it would be to get,
and particularly how children of divorced couples are to be treated.
I repeat: I tend to agree with divorce.
But divorce has many facets, some of which are quite ugly
.
You say "There is ample proof that they are generally worse off when their parents divorce".
Please note that, as has been explained a million times, this is blatantly false. If anything, the proof is that children are sometimes worse off when their parents separate, and not divorce. Separation comes before divorce. Should we make separation illegal?
In any case, it is a proven fact that many children are better off when their parents separate. Ask any social worker.
I, a secularist supporter of divorce legislation and a clear dividing line between church and state, hereby declare that if I ever utter a word in favour of prohibiting people wearing religious symbols, the state may imrpison me, kill me or expel me from Malta.
Happy, dear Dr Saliba?
In Malta the state has not allowed divorce not because it has been hijacked by the Christian Church but because, in spite of the bleating of a small pressure group, there has been no convincing evidence that the majority of the Maltese are in favour of it. It is only now that an interest is beginning raised to discuss it and the attempt is being overshadowed by a crude campaign of ridicule and vilification of dissenters.
As a self-confessed atheist you admit that the crucifix does not bother you. For many thousands of fellow Maltese citizens it carries a potent message of love and hope. Won't you be gracious enough to live and let others live or must you relegate this majority of Maltese Christians to "second class" citizenship so that others of your ilk would not be annoyed?
"The attempt to impose the observance of Sharia Law, to object to the wearing Christian symbols and to allow the wearing of Muslim symbols all in predominantly Christian libertarian societies are regretted but well-established facts and not the product of my imagination".
Presumably your conclusion comes from direct inspiration from God. Have you missed my point that the imposition of Catholic beliefs through legislation is no different from Sharia law? Or was this point inconvenient to you?
We are talking about Malta and the Maltese here. Saying that Maltese secularists will necessarily oppose religious symbols is slander.
Secondly, I fail to even remotely see how exactly introducing the right to divorce would make it be exalted to "legal precedence" over the right to marry. I must admit it sounds all Greek to me!
I also thought that a true Catholic such as yourself would never spell "bible" with lower case!
The attempt to impose the observance of Sharia Law, to object to the wearing Christian symbols and to allow the wearing of Muslim symbols all in predominantly Christian libertarian societies are regretted but well-established facts and not the product of my imagination. There is absolutely no reason to believe that in Malta events will take a different course. It is not my memory that is at fault but your obsessive-compulsive penchant not to see the obvious.
I find that this is a very complex issue.
Those who are in favour of divorce
(and I am inclined to favour divorce as well)
have to accept that the introduction of divorce
does change the public and civil institution of marriage
even though one might not personally divorce or want to.
The civil institution becomes dissoluble.
On the other hand, Catholics have to accept
that a religious argument against divorce
(divorce is wrong because the Church/religion/the Gospels say so)
is not enough in a state that allows freedom of belief.
The argument against divorce has to be civil and social.
On the one hand, arguing from freedom of the individual,
I find that divorce has to be introduced.
On the other hand, though,
we should argue as well from the point of view of the unrepresented in this debate,
ie children.
There is ample proof that they are generally worse off
when their parents divorce.
Also, the vow exchanged in marriage
(I will be yours till death doth us part)
is a civil promise as much as it is religious.
What about keeping our promises?
Such a complex issue
warrants a non-political-partisan debate
that is decided by a Referendum.
In other words, if it's crystal clear that "Malta is a secular state with a civil marriage law" (@
John Mallia) why is it necessary for people to be reminded that "Malta is a democracy, not a theocracy" (@ Fabrizio Ellul)?
Democracy demands that the government legislate according to the wish of the majority while respecting the rights of minorites. A strident minority is trying to turn this principle upside down. It is trying to suffocate the expression of all divergent opinion by glibly insulting everyone else as "fundamentalists". Evidently, this minority is scared to death of the litmus test of a democratically expressed wish of a well-informed majority as shown by a referendum or a general election. That is the hidden agenda behind the scare tactics, the invective and the insults directed against the Church's effort to send its message to the electorate and to our legislators.
It is slowly emerging that a preponderance of pro-divorce commentators are self-professed irreligious or atheists with a better claim to "fundamentalism". They are demanding not that minority rights be respected but that they should be accorded legal precedence over the rights of the majority justly concerned about the resulting harm to the well-being of society in general.
My, oh my, some people have such short memory.
Same with crucifixes. I'm an atheist but do not bother about them. However the fact that they constantly remind us we are, have to be Catholic must be pretty annoying for non-believers.
Or are we second class citizens
You say that "that today there are cultures where the marriage bond is not considered permanent or sacred isn´t leaving us better off". So do you propose that married people should be forced to stay together no matter what? The "argument" you put forward suggests this.
You say that "It is true that in actuality people are cohabiting but that does not mean that we should send the wrong signal by sanctifying divorce".
Of course not. Nobody is saying divorce is sacred. Divorce has nothing to do with religion.
You continue by saying "just as much as we should not sanctify robbery because it is a state of fact". However, there is no parallel between divorce and robbery. Robbery is unquestionably wrong while you only assume divorce is so without giving any non-faith-based reason showing it to be so.
People seem to be forgetting that non-religious reasons against divorce would be reasons for prohibiting married people from separating. Tell that to the beaten-up housewife.
Christianity is about personal choice, from the very beggining all religion teachers, priests and nuns will tell you, "*you* have to accept god", "*you* have to accept the teachings" as it is all a matter of personal choice.
So Alfio (and the rest), logically, denying a person's right to free will (which is "a gift from god"), means that by definition you, are denying your own god's will
No, but not by laws pushed by noisy religious fundamentalists, and which is not acceptable to modern secular states. Fundamentalists who declare that divorce is harmful for society must show that it is really divorce that is harmful, and not marriage separation. Dr Saliba, you have as yet failed to do that.
It's also good that you mention Sharia law, since it is a Christian version of Sharia law that you are trying to defend. Sharia is in essence law dictated by religious belief, and not supported by reason.
Could anything be more absurd?
The last time I addressed you was to ask if your "god" in lower case is an indication of an unbelief in the existence of the God of Christianity because this would be a complete explanation for your attitude towards our bishops' message and your mockery of the bible. You do not answer that question and, on top of that, you pretend that you have checkmated me! One more illustration of your lack of logic.
"To this any reasonable well informed democrat would add " but not by laws, pushed only by a noisy minority, and which is not acceptable to the majority of the electorate because this majority believes that the proposed legislation would be harmful for society in general."
In a democracy, it is not sufficient to invoke the part that accepts the will of the majority. Equally - if not more - important is the safeguarding of the minorities. But then, being a 'devout' catholic, you would probably not accept that concept.
Presumably, your religion works for you. If it does, then I am happy for you; just do not attempt to force it on me.
Believing that nobody has a monopoly over what is good and what is right, I do not belong to any formal religion. However, if I were made to chose, I assure you that your religion would not even make it to my shortlist!
Dr. Francis Saliba
I guess a civilized debate should never get personal!
I am awfully sorry to have checkmated your logic.
More "basics":
Your contention is that "The state is there to provide for the needs of all citizens including believers in other religions, or none"
Your hidden message is that our government should next introduce the Sharia law to accomodate Islamists and to order the removal of the crucifix from public buildings and public observance of all Christian manifestations so as to cater "for the needs of "believers in other religions or none".
Could anything be more absurd?
You state the obvious: "The state is there to provide for the needs of all citizens...." To this any reasonable well informed democrat would add " but not by laws, pushed only by a noisy minority, and which is not acceptable to the majority of the electorate because this majority believes that the proposed legislation would be harmful for society in general.
It crossed my mind that your absolutist attitude is ok when debating with people of liberal persuasion. If however you were to make these sort of claims with someone of similar inclinations but of a different faith...well then it quickly escalates to violence and even war. You see all the major religions make the same claim as Catholicism, and they are all super sure because its written in whatever book they hold dear. Not even the Christian's managed to avoid it amongst themselves....
Is it so hard to accept that there are others of different opinion? Must you resort to heaven and hell to make a point?
@Joe Tabone Adami: you also said quite explicitly that the church is not a democratic institution.. you are playing with fire here because by saying so you relinquish your right to be heard in a democratic forum and are basically saying that if you had the power you would impose your will on others, because its written in your book. It is therefore my democratic right to treat you as I would any other potential dictator.
Back to basics. The Church is not a democratic institution, but the state is. The Church is constrained to follow the teachings of the bible as interpreted by the Pope. The state is there to provide for the needs of all citizens, including believers in other religious faiths or none.
__________________________________
@ Alfio Catania:
The debate is on divorce, not heaven or hell. If you believe that people who divorce go to hell, suit yourself. God will not stop such people. Do you consider yourself better than God.
Do you know that in malta there are over 11,000 separated people? Now tell me how are these different from divorced couples??
Do you know that technically separation means living seprately from you ex-husband/wife BUT still under marriage vows?? Do you think this is fair??
Do you know that in Malta on the 9th of August 2008 there are 3,000 DIVORCED people?? Do you think its fair that those who have the money to go abroad can divorce and those who are on social benefits have to live with their broken marriage??
Do you know that divorce laws are different everywhere and so it is a big lie ,which I'm sure will be makin the rounds soon, that divorce is easily "accessible"??
Do you know how horrible life can be for these unfortunate souls who have to carry this huge "psychological burden" all their life??
Yes dear Alfio there is heaven and hell....................step into the shoes of one of these separated people or into broken families and you'll find hell!!!!!!
However, for those that are not Roman Catholics or just Catholics because they were baptised, divorse must be a civil right. All MP's should be given a free vote on this issue. The PN is still not comfortable with debating this issue and it is highly unlikely that with Dr Gonzi as PM divorce will every be introduced.
Who's catholic dont need divorce because they stay happy as a couple for all their lives!!
For all the others that their marriage was a disaster they have the right to get married another time, it's simple my friends, if you want to follow the bible just dont use divorce, for the others they will have choice.
No one can impose anything on anybody not even the church!!
The Church is not some democratic institution created by man to govern according to the whims of the majority. It was not founded by Christ to seek popular human assent. It is a divine institution created by the Messiah to teach and spread the gospel.
Christ himself knew that his teaching would not be popular with everybody and that it would create friction. When some of his followers decided that it was too hard to follow He did not adjust his message to accomodate them but He asked the rest if they intended to leave too.
Our bishops are in the same quandary. They do not have the option to choose between Christ's message "as is" or to tamper with it and to jump on to the bandwagon of progressive modernity "to go as you please".
The truly faithful are in duty bound to listen respectfully to that message, to form their own responsible judgement and to use their democratic right to vote according to a well-informed conscience without being intimidated by the accusation of supporting theocratic state.
I believe it you need to realize how simply unethical it is to force all and sundry into beliefs of your own religion; this country is a democracy, supposedly catering to anyone of all walks of life and beliefs - in that respect it is entirely unacceptable that divorce should not be allowed because you feel it goes against your religion.
The biggest point of divorce I can see as it affects the catholic faith is free will; I can only assume by this vehement anti-divorce stance, that you fear that practisioners
are so weak in their own faith that they would ignore the teachings of the church - which more than anything indicates how necessary divorce actually is (especially after Kenneth Cassar corrected me on how what I would consider extreme cases of bad marriages - mental/physical abuse, cheating, etc, is not acceptable for annulment).
THAT is the point of freewill, from what I've been told by endless religion teachers, that our faith outlines how we should live our lives but obeying it is a personal matter - not law.
Let us not forget that divorce is a 'facultative' right. No one is forcing anyone to file for divorce. It is a right that can be taken by those wishing to terminate their respective marriage.
Like it or not, this is also democracy.
God did not create marriage. Humans did. Quoting the bible is irrelevant since marriage precedes the bible.
Of course, a believer would insist that since God created everything, God must have created marriage (through humans). However, this reasoning creates a dangerous (for believers) slippery slope, since it would suggest that God created evil.
To the opposition of divorce I say, you live in denial and by opposing divorce you're breaking a bunch of other rules written in the Bible. The Purpose of the Bible marriage is surely not suffering, physically/emotionally by an abusive spouse. Would Jesus be calmly watching that beaten spouse, who's life is being threatened on a daily basis?
The Church misses the biggest picture (as usual):marriage NECESSARILY must be a MUTUAL exchange of good. When this basis disappears from a marriage then the purpose of its existence ceases too; it's no longer that Bible marriage! Simply put marriage can't be suffering and fearing your spouse!
When people stop sinning I'd be the first to oppose divorce, and then and only then it wouldn't be acceptable!
I invite the anti-divorce bunch to state the purpose of marriage!
You are still conveniently ignoring my question regarding prayer, so let me repeat:
Praying does not save marriages, like praying does not stop natural disasters killing innocent people. But let's say praying alone does save marriages. A couple may choose to pray together, but any of them cannot force the other to do so.
But let's say that prayer does save marriages, but the husband (or wife) is unwilling to pray. Then what? Should the practicing Catholic force the other to pray because prayer "saves marriages". And how does one go about this? Does one threaten the other with death if the other will not pray?
But, to answer your question, even though you are avoiding mine, I would strengthen marriage, but one does not strengthen marriage by forcing people to stay married. Married life is much more complex than that. You can force people to stay together physically, but you cannot force them to love each other (mentally).
Marriage is between two people. The best intentions of one are not enough.
my point exactly
I don't believe that seperated people living with someone else are being discriminated against, but IF THAT IS THE ISSUE (and i truly believe it is) in this country divorced and re-married people will still face the same dicrimination (very unchristian although I believe few of these people if any are left since everyone has friends or family in this situation). Therefore divorce and re-marriage WILL NOT ENDORSE ANYTHING.
i have loads of friends who are seperated and live with someone else - I have never heard one of them say they felt disciminated against . Marraige is no fun fair, it is tough, very tough, and if you give it a very good shot once, I doubt anybody has the energy to go through it again. Not one of my seperated friends would ever ge married again, and I repeat, I have many, even because seperation procedures are also a nightmare..
Divorce gives the peace of mind to enter a committment with a back door open, and having such a JOKER in your hands it is very likely that when you are going through a difficult time in your marriage, you will play that card.
Prayer is the intimate relationship that a person has with His Creator i.e.God. The problem is, as I’ve said before, that we are leaving God out of everything. Out of law, out of relationships and marriages. And Jesus promised us, that without Him, we can do nothing. Look a bit around you, and you’ll see sad people, fights, envy..etc etc. When you remove light, there will be darkness, and that is what is happening, we are removing God, light, and darkness and sadness are governing. I ask both of you, what are you seeking, to strengthen marriage or to destroy marriage?! if you are seeking to strengthen marriage, than learn what the creator of marriage said. Who created marriage? God.
However the free capitalist economic drive that never ends took us far away from the ideal – Our Lady, a women that provided love and care to Jesus and Joseph, that worked all his life to provide. I still have the US Chief Executive magazines. Dad used to bring them home some 20 years ago.
“The changing face of Labour and Family” in USA. It mentions how USA encourage wives to work full time while teachers continued working till 2pm – Kids alone get bored and learn to do what they WANT. A host of bad practices are mentioned. Wants are MANY.
Meanwhile Drug Pushers, Capitalist Marketing Companies, Politicians bombard society everywhere we look & everywhere we go. Mum & Dad’s targets are now a big house car boat holidays parties and little time for kids.
Sine 20 years, this “enjoy” culture has caught up with us too. Perhaps it's the Evil content of progress! And when a partner decides to join the “evil” bandwagon, you need something to disassociate oneself.
Unfortunately, now, Divorse is a necessary EVIL.
The political parties are divided on this issue.
Joe Muscat is personally in favour, yet his MPs
Adrian Vassallo and Marlene Pullicino-Orlando
have declared themselves against (adamantly).
The same applies to the Nationalists.
They have no official position as a party but there are
PN MPs known to be in favour and others against.
That's why we need a healthy debate that cuts across party lines,
engaging the Church
and all other organisations that have views on this issue,
then someone should have the courage to come out with a clear proposal,
stating:
who awards divorce? a court? a registrar?
what would you have to prove (if in court) to get a divorce?
would agreement by both partners be necessary?
or would you be able to get divorce even if one partner opposes it?
after how many years would you be able to get a divorce?
what happens to the children when the parent they're living with remarries? do they go with their other parent? or do they stay with the remarried partner and be brought up by someone who is not their natural parent?
and other clarifications.
Then we vote in a REFERENDUM
and let the people decide
.
Especially, since we have a prime minister who is against divorce and the leader of the MLP who is pro-divorce.
I am with you in frame of mind. :) What I meant to say is this:
The Church seems to be OK with *imposing* that once they've been married in church, two people should stay together no matter what, irrespective of a nightmarish marriage for reasons specified in my earlier post or otherwise. (in the case of desertion, how is that even realistically possible?)...
yet...
it is totally against divorce, which could humanely allow for a second marriage to take place. If the non-guilty party would have found respect and true love...why not legalize a union which indeed and truly feels like *marriage* in actions and deeds!
My point is... which is the lesser evil? I bet people who co-habit after their first marraige ends, and are happy and feel truly loved and respected by another man/woman.......would still choose to be discriminated against (unless something is done and they would be able to legalize their position) in favour of staying in a nightmarish situation of a *pretend* marriage just because it's been scribbled on a piece of paper!
Let's have a R E F E R E N D U M
.
Your contributions are so devoid of any element of logic or the faintest acquaintance with modern Biblical exegesis that it is quite impossible to answer your questions within a limit of 200 words. It is a clear case of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread. I can only recommend that you first devote some of your time to acquiring an elementary proficiency in these subjects and to resolve to start typing God with a capital G. Unless, of course, you are actually dropping a hint that you are a convinced atheist with no genuine interest in God, his omniscience and his relationship with the Bible. If so, please do not waste my time.
Infect St Paul wrote:
"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (Corinthians)
Our politicians must act and not simply continuing to ignor the issue and its victims. A healthy discussion with no sensationalism is surly needed to prepare the nation for the introduction of divorce in Malta. I think that everybody acknowledges that divorce consequences are not the ideal situation for our society, but unfortunately for some, divorce is the only thing that can offer a few supports and ideally a new beginning in life. Divorce is the lesser of two evils in order to help in achieving the most ideal political scenario within certain social problems.
Baptism is just a little water,etc etc..Whats your point?
In our laws, seperated people living with partners are still discriminated against...so yes thank you, that paper matters very much!
"Inspired by God" is the key-word. It gives the necessary leeway to the person/s in power to attribute words directly to God when what is claimed is not proven to be false, while giving human error as the reason for blatant mistakes.
Of course, what constitutes God's unmistakable word and what is human error in interpretation changes over time.
Marriage breakdowns happen for a multitude of reasons, and NOT ONLY as Mr Buttigieg said, *because two persons are not capable of love*!
* physical violence
* mental/emotional violence
* selfishness
* desertion
* adultery
* one or the other changes over the years
are another *few* reasons! And what about the non-guilty party?? Is there anyone who is SO anti-divorce have any compassion for such people?
Let's be real: divorce or not, there are thousands of families who are already *divorced*. Some separate, some for the above reasons. And some stay together and *play* happy families! I'm all for love and family when it is REAL, marriage decree or not!
In my opinion if some person’s particularly church authorities sincerely believe in marriage and want to help in protecting the values of the act, they must first help in providing less stressful (psychologically / financially) procedures for annulments as Mgr Paul Cremona gave the impression of doing in his first days as Bishops of Malta and not having a burocratic system dealing with such cases unprofessionally and increasing more red tape by time.
The church is full of contradictions; it has no problem granting annulments (pretending the marriage never took place) but is totally against divorce. If it is not a case of playing the ostrich then I do not know.
I hope we will not see a comeback of the sixties.
wake up people, it is 2008!
Good morning sir,
I agree with you that the bible is not, and will never be a science book (due to inaccuracy of the author). Here I must ask, who the author of the bible is?. If the church says, the bible is god’s words, and same church keep telling me that earth is flat and does not move, and I also can drink acid ….etc… this simply means god is wrong and lack the knowledge about the universe.
‘It is an attempt to enunciate God's message in the language of the people of the day.’
Does that mean god lacks knowledge?
According to the famous physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Albert Einstein, “Science without religion is lame duck. Religion without science is blind faith.
. I would rather prefer to be an atheist than following a blind faith!
Mr Buttigieg wrote: "What are the benefits of divorce if not simply that of allowing two persons who are not capable of love to enter into a legal marriage another time and double the number of unhappily married? Allowing divorce does not solve problems. If a couple is not able to live together anymore allow them to separate but not risk that the society be burdened with another two broken marriages".
So Mr Buttigieg is assuming that people whose marriage fails are incapable of love. It is truly wonderful to see the depth of compassion of Catholics Maltese-style.
Joseph Buttigieg is wrongly assuming that a divorced person will seek a happily married partner, and cause him/her to divorce (thereby breaking another family). Though this does happen, I am more inclined to believe that someone who passes through the trauma of a marriage break-up, would not look for trouble by seeking to date a happily married man/woman. Those who do so usually have no interest in getting married or getting divorced.
Is this what god says? If so, the church must correct what the bible says about marriage and divorce then
Here is the funniest interoperation of Mark 16:16-18 (the verse I quoted before)
5) Once again. Have you (a)been baptized and (b)do you believe?
a) If NOT then you WILL NOT BE SAVED BUT DAMNED.
b) If a Christian has been baptized and believes then they should exhibit the "signs" mentioned above, such as being able to drink any deadly poison (such as battery acid, etc.) and not be harmed. How about the other signs? Can all believing and baptized Christians lay their hand on any randomly selected terminally ill cancer patient or paraplegic and have him rise completely cured? Does this not require that the Christian world be completely free of all illness, doctors, and hospitals? According to this verse, should not all believing, baptized, Christians be able to do this if they truly believe are to be saved? If a Christian does not exhibit these signs, then does this not prove that they do not believe, and thus will not be saved but damned?
So no, the Church would not give annulment in the cases you mention...not unless it can be proved that the cheating started before the marriage and the cheated person did not know what was going on. (Violence before the marriage most probably would not count, since the person beaten up would have known what she was going into)
And even in this case, an annulment case would take years of humiliation, where every type of personal question is asked, and of course, with no guarantee that an annulment would be given.
You are making the same mistake today that the Rome Inquisition made 400 years ago. The Bible is not a scientific treatise. It is an attempt to enunciate God's message in the language of the people of the day.
That divorce does not save marriages is a no-brainer. But divorce is a means of starting a new life when marriage has failed. As a "Dr", you should understand this simple point. Of course, you may say that divorce makes matters worse, but saying that "experience" has proved that divorce is no solution for marriage failure is irrelevant. Of course it is not. If it were, people who divorce would stay with their partners of the first marriage.
You say that "If you have a problem with rats eating your birds you do not throw in a cat to solve the problem". Of course not. But if, no matter what you do, rats keep eating your birds, you move your birds elsewhere.
Regarding intimidation, who's intimidating whom? We are not forcing anyone to divorce. It is fundamentalists like you who wish to impose their beliefs on others.
1. Before the election none of our politicians in favour of divorce was allowed by their party to make any statement to this effect as it would have spelt the end of the hopes of the party of winning the election. The church has such a power over the older generation - most of whom still think that if they go against church teaching they go to hell where humans are barbequed alive by entities with horns on their head - that it actually holds the whole political class to ransom. Because of this distortion of the democratic process any referendum in favour of divorce is doomed.
2. At the moment the church holds such behind-the-scenes power that most of the top government jobs have been given to pro-church 'activists'. If you do not promote yourself as church-friendly you do not get any top post - which explains the multitude of holy pictures and 'I am a nice family man' pictures adorning government employee offices.
What on earth makes you think that prayer has anything to do with a healthy happy marriage? I know that with this comment I am going to go into extremes of bad marriages but they have to pointed out because they do occur:
- Physical and/or mental abuse in a relationship (you think that a family full of violence and hate is better than a divorced marriage?)
- Constant infidelity; do not attempt to say that the family should stay together and pray or hope for the cheating spouse to stop on the off chance that it will
On both these I would like an honest answer but do not offer me the explanation that the church would provide annulment - which is EXACTLY like divorce but with a different tag ("marriage never happened" - like that makes sense)
Also as a side not, doesn't Catholicism preach about free will and all that; even if only a handful of people wanted divorce, how is it anyone else's right to deny them that choice?
The Bible claims Earth is flat, and also has four ends and four corners. Nobody can ever think a ball or a cycle to have corners and ends! Only flat items can have corners and ends.
The bible also says; the flat Earth is established and can never move?! The Sun hurries back to where it rises?
Please read
Isaiah 11:12
Revelation 7:1
Job 38:13
Matthew 4:8
The Psalm 104:5
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. ( Psalm 104:5)"
Is this enough? When it comes to scientific claims, the bible has the dumbest claims, with all due respect to the church.
The bible also says that I can drink acid! please read Mark 16:16-18
I quoted from the bible since the Church stance on the divorce issue is based on what the church claims to be the word of god. (please read above).
Do you remember what did Galileo say about Earth and how the church acted with him?
My view is that, with all this uncertainty we should not stick to what the bible says about marriage and divorce.
Do children have to "enjoy " or be brought up in a hostile environment?
Do they have to bare repeated scenes of violence - verbally and phisical at times for the sake of family unity ?
Do we not all have a right to live the life we choose and in a best harmonous way possible.
Good families and marriages do exist and those who think that these will obliterate once divorce is about is pure nonsense.
Those others who think divorce is something as easy as filling up a form and getting some sort of social benefit are by far from reality.
There are of course those of us who take marriage very lightly and as a simple signature on a form.
All kinds of everything, but by no means should there be no way out of a mistake or things gone drastically wrong.
Obviuosly divorce courts will judge each case individually.
The church in the rest of Europe opens its arms to all.
After that in their recent past some had been living in hell with there partner under the same roof, being physically or psychologically hurt, now they are still being hurt / punished by our legal system apart from the stigma upon them by certain members in society particularly church fanatics that does not make life easy for these people.
A healthy discussion with no sensationalism is surly needed to prepare the nation for the introduction of divorce in Malta. I think that everybody acknowledges that divorce consequences are not the ideal situation for our society, but unfortunately for some, divorce is the only thing that can offer a few supports and ideally a new beginning in life.
The faithful should support their bishops in their endeavour to strengthen whatever survives of the type of marriage union approved by Christ . We should not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the verbal diarrhoea of nominal Catholics, lapsed Catholics, anti-Catholics, agnostics and atheists. We have as much right as they have to put forward our own point of view, to cast our votes as we believe is morally correct and to vote for candidates who meet with our approval in this as well as in other matters.
Do you people honestly think that successful marriages are the sole domain of god-fearing bible-thumpers who bury their heads in the sand to all that is going on around them?
Do you not realise that there are millions of people all over the world who belong to other denominations - not to mention the billions of atheists - who still manage to raise a normal, civilised, educated, well-adjusted and happy family without the intervention of deities or their (self-) appointed earthly representatives?
When I look around me on this island of ours, I do not see catholics; I see hypocrites. Is there really any difference?
You make as much sense as someone who 'reasons', "I am healthy, my heart works perfectly, so I don't need a bypass. Therefore, nobody should have a bypass or a transplant. In fact, bypasses cause cardiac problems; why, look at how many people there are with cardiac conditions in countries where they have heart surgery!".
Yes, Jack, I'm all right!!
No one is obliged to get married in Church.
Thus, one can get married without the Church being involved.
One can choose to get married in Church.
The Church itself can decide not to marry you.
No one is obliged to get married.
This law is there for the use of those interested.
The issue is that it's high time that the secular state provides for a divorce law.
No Catholic adherent would be obliged to use it.
The Church, by default, cannot sanction divorce.
No one is obliged to get divorced.
The law will be there for the use of those interested.
Those interested can be divorced without the Church being involved.
What's all the fuss? :-)
There is also a marked difference in attitude between the liberals and the Church. The liberals are perfectly happy to let everyone do their own thing, get married in Church, reject divorce personally and so on. The Church on the other hand wants to make decisions for others and decide on what an appropriate life is, because they think they know better. So to be perfectly honest I have no interest in defending the democratic rights of an institution that happily trampled roughshod over the rights of all and sundry who did not agree with them. Why should I defend the right of someone who wants to impose their wishes and lifestyle on me?
Would you grant me the right as a non catholic to get a civil divorce in this country? Or do you all scream democracy in order to practice theocracy?
For first question, he should ask people who leave their husbands/wives, not me. Sometimes they leave for trivial reasons, sometimes for other reasons.
Regarding the second part, praying does not save marriages, like praying does not stop natural disasters killing innocent people. But let's say praying alone does save marriages. A couple may choose to pray together, but any of them cannot force the other to do so.
Regarding "happy parents??!! why? because they divorced?". No. Not just because they divorced but simply because people who can't stand the sight of each other cannot live together happily. You should speak to people who have been through marital problems, especially ones where one of them is abusive. Would you say that a child would rather live with both his father and mother in cases where the father beats the mother, than he/she would live with a complete stranger? Things are not as simple as you make them to be.
The bishops also rightly urge catholics not to remain silent during pro-divorce discussions because they know that EMPTY VESSELS MAKE MOST SOUND and they also know that instead of a discussion it might end up that decisions are taken on the basis of where the media is inclined. An example has just shown up in the comments below!
I also hope that whatever decision is taken; it should be endorsed by a referendum!
where casual sex even at a young age is the in thing to do,
where pornography is available at the click of a mouse and
where forgiveness is an unheard of attitude, equated with weakness.
Then, you expect marriages to last?
The antidote for marital breakdown should start by tackling the source of the problem.
Too late, the harm has already been done when all these poisons run in the blood.
Divorce is moreover made available by all the nations of the world (except by Malta).
So what is it exactly that we are discussing?
Should I argue for the Catholic Church to join the rest of the Christian World and embrace the Dovorce option?
Of course not.
Similarly, the catholic Church should guide its faithful but stay away from our secular state.
Real religious fibre......as in bran!
Please enlighten us -
"The Church, either stays mum and keeps away, or corrects the Bible" - how and when?
"Science and the Bible. The former constantly prove the invalidity of the latter." Give us some examples.
"Is the earth flat? Yes, according the bible" - where does it say this in the Bible?
"Mark 16:16-18" - if science "invalids" the Bible, why quote from it?
Voltaire criticised the Church and Christians in a very harsh way as quoted by you. HOWEVER even my quote is attributed to him and I am certain that being such a great mind he practiced what he preached. Therefore as you may well deduct from your quotes although he was highly critical of the Church he DID NOT tell her to shut up.
so what is the big deal???? does one really need a paper from the state to restart his/her life?? what does that change??
Let's have a Referendum and get it over and done with.
This issue cuts across party lines, so give a free vote to the people.
As most comments here show,
a Referendum on whether we sould introduce divorce would pass with an overwhelming yes.
This is not a decision for politicians or bishops, but for the people. Let the people decide.
He's certainly not practisiing what he preaches!
Yes, I do believe that children can benefit more from having happy parents (even if one of them is not actually their parent) if you compare this to the environment created when parents are constantly fighting. Nobody is saying that marriage failure is not hard on children, but it is not divorce that brings this hardship. It is marriage failure and parent separation.
I also disagree that the main problem of marriage failures is financial. However, God has nothing to do with it either. After all, husbands may leave a perfectly devout Catholic wife and vice-versa. Catholics do not hold a magic spell on their spouses, and the Church teaches that God does not have a habit of controlling our lives (or nature), which is what would explain human tragedies like marriage failures, natural disasters like tsunamis, etc, etc.
Luciano busuttil said that the problem of marriage failure is the financial burden, i am convinced that the real problem is that we left God out from our lives..and, WITHOUT GOD WE CAN DO NOTHING!!
What the bishops fail to recognise is that It is perfectly possible to be pro-marriage, pro-family and still be in favour of allowing for divorce legislation. The church has created a polarised atmosphere where, as soon as somebody expresses a view in favour of a divorce law (which is NOT the same as being pro-divorce), they are immediately accused of being anti-marriage, anti-family etc.
As for safeguarding marriage... I think there is plenty of evidence in Malta to show that the absence of a divorce law does absolutely nothing to safeguard marriage.
Not recognising legally that the fact has already occurred, ostrich fashion, does not make the situation non-existent; it will not go away.
The church, through its bishops, has every right to express its opinion, even to require that its followers do not make use of divorce; nobody is denying that right.
However, it has absolutely no right to deny the facility to those citizens who are not its followers, no right to impose its requirement onto the entire population. That smacks of fundamentalism.
The various quotations that have been invoked regarding all the evils of the world being attributable to the breakdown of marriage do not impress. Nor can they be logically extrapolated to shift the blame onto divorce. Independently of whether divorce is available or not, the respective marriages have ALREADY broken down.
As for the assertion that divorce will put a strain on the country's resources and finances, this stance is so puerile that it makes one seriously wonder at the intellectual honesty of some professional people.
There are families in Malta and Gozo where it is much, infinitely much better for them to break up and each partner goes his/her separate way than to stay together, stay married, and make each others' lives miserable, as well as destroying the lives of their children.
It is useless to pontificate: people like Dr Saliba, The Times, Roamers, A Christian Outlook can make declarations to their hearts' content but the facts are there for all to see - marriage breakdowns are the order of the day and cannot be stopped, because we are what we are, defects and all. We make mistakes, even on the altar (well, not I, but anyway!!) and there must be the necessary mechanism for those mistakes to be rectified BY THE STATE! And for people to be given the possibility to start again.
@ Joseph Huber: Voltaire also said "Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror." and "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." His words not mine so don't flame me :-) Choose your back up quotes with more care!
@ C. Busuttil: I may be wrong but I don't think people who get divorced are going to care much about getting an annulment.
That is exactly what I meant when I said that we are immature debaters. The church has a right to voice its views and has a sacrosanct right not to be shot down for exposing them. Aggressive language (all aggressiveness for that matter) is the weapon of those who cannot hold an argument through serene discussion and respect for other people's opinion. May I remind that Voltaire once said 'I am ready to give my life to defend your right not to agree with me.
Try reading others contributions before contributing..It helps
Marriages are broken down by the individuals separation is the result of such action. After which both parties will feel the consequences of the action. At present that is the final step, maybe some time in the future the law will permit a return to single status, after all this is what the fuss is all about!
Since both separation and divorce (dissolution of marriage) are not dependant on each other to apply, unless otherwise stated in the divorce decree, then legal separation will be on the cards for religious consideration or to continue to take advantage of tax laws or with the hope that the parties may reconcile in the future. And divorce will make reconciliation so much more difficult, in fact only by re- marriage.
Mr Vella you have your wires crossed again, most of the legal protection would have been already established if the couple were legally separated!
The Church, either stays mum and keeps away, or corrects the Bible.
Science and the Bible. The former constantly prove the invalidity of the latter.
Is the earth flat? Yes, according the bible
Can you drink acid and live? According the bible yes.
Mark 16:16-18 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; (a) In my name shall they cast out devils; (b) they shall speak with new tongues; (c) They shall take up serpents; and (d) if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; (e) they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Does God err? If so, forget about this god then. On the other hand if you stick to what has been attributed to god in the bible/s, it’s sort of, blindly following the uncertainty.
Same logic applies to every thing including marriages and divorce. FULL STOP
1. If victims of failed marriages are already leading separate lives and cohabiting, what pejorative difference will divorce make?
2. If people are already separating with "variable degrees of justification", and divorce would be, according to Dr Saliba, rewarding this state of affairs, would not refusal to introduce divorce be punishing those who separate with justification?
3. What is this "terrible cost to the rest of society" that comes with the introduction of divorce, seeing that those who would divorce would be the same people who would separate and lead separate lives in any case?
I've heard this countless times when talking to Catholics about the viability of allowing divorce in our country. All I want to know is, what examples can you give us where a nation is suffering because they allow people to admit to making a mistake in marrying someone, and not have to live with it the rest of their lives?
The Catholic Chiurch in Malta would do well to learn from the mistakes it made in the past when it made good, practicing Maltese Catholics choose between their Party and their Church. 51,000 Maltese chose their Party and gave up on their Church.
This time round, don't give long-suffering, practicing, separated Catholics a choice between their Church and their right to happiness on this Earth because, for most, the choice will be much too obvious. For the rest, with peace in their hearts, a direct dialoge with a kind, understanding and omnipresent God will easily replace, once and for all, their belonging to an absent, outdated, dicatorial Church that has ignored for much too long, the pulsating pain of its sufferring children.
Instead of attacking divorce aqs a cause of failures in marriages, the church shoud attack the real reasons why marriages fail, mainly financial burdens!
Luciano Busuttil
The question is not about allowing the victims of failed marriages to lead separate lives or to cohabit. This is already being done on a large scale and with variable degrees of justification. It is about rewarding this state of affairs by according it the same status as a true marriage at a terrible cost to the rest of society and to the concept of a stable and durable Christian marriage.
Once again I state that this is a very straightforward issue.
Why it ends up bringing all this catholic and anti catholic rethoric beats me.
The Church, and Catholics do not believe in divorce. That is their right and in no way do i expect the Church to be forced into introducing divorce.
You are in a club, and you accept the club's rules.
On the other hand, non-catholics, non practising catholics, and even catholics, who in the Church's eyes decide to live in sin, have every right to avail themselves to a civil divorce.
The Church has no right to decide for all society, although it DOES have a right to air its views!
If the Chruch expects that it should affect civil laws, then it would be illeagl to sin..Imagine imprisonement for not attending Sunday mass...
Then again, if the Church was able to decide for all of us, I wouldn;t be too surprised at that!! ....
As I said before...CIvil laws effect civil society, catholic issues affect members of the Church.What bothers me about Catholics is their need to save us all...Thanks but no Thanks
Once again..Simple isn't it?
__________________________________
@ K. Pullicino: Most people commenting here have not stopped at reading the title. They have gone on to read the whole article. I have already commented on the part where the Archbishop says that divorce breaks up families (which is demonstrably false). It is people whose marriage has already failed who resort to divorce, not the other way round. What's so hard to understand about this simple fact?
______________________________________________
@ Stefano Cremona: What you wrote is "Those who think that divorce/seperation/annulment is a solution would better look at the children who have experienced such situations and then make judgement".
Divorce/separation/annulment is not a perfect solution, but a means of making a bad situation better.
For the attention of Mr JP Aquilina. They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.And here we go - the Church never ( and I REPEAT NEVER ) dissolve a priest from Holy Orders,but the Church dispense a priest from carrying out the adm. of sacr.etc.The priest is a priest for ever.
To Paul Barrett
It is good to hear that your parent's divorce was a 'blessing' for the members of your family! I have no doubt that that is the truth and agree that in some cases this is what happens.
In other cases, sepration/divorce/annulments, when there are children involved, bring about psychological problems for the children. Nobody can dispute that! There is no hard and fast rule!
To Kenneth Cassar
You missed the point where i specifically mentioned divorce/seperation/annulment! What is the difference (in this case vis-a-vis the children) between the three except for the facility to re-marry!
This subject is extremely delicate and should be taken very seriously! Unfortunately those in favour are very vociferous and make those against sound as though they are in the middle ages!
Valid arguments are won by their content!
FINAL NOTE : News Headline stated 'Bishops urge the FAITHFUL to back marriage'
What is wrong with that?? Those who do not follow the Christian Religion need not worry, they chose not to be part of the group!
:-)
I do not know from where to start, first of all the comparison is not that adequate. So, Mr. Fenech is telling us that test drives are useless because a car can still end up damaged within months. Fair enough, but a test drive is also done to get the feel of the car and how it performs in certain situations, not only to check if it is going to break up in those few hours you drive it. So cohabitation should be the first steps of the marriage ladder, whether priests like it or not.
Please Mr.Fenech and the many others, do understand the difference between divorce and seperation. It is seperation and not divorce that breaks up marriages. Divorce simply brings the complete detachment of a couple, as they were before they married. So compared to seperation divorce is a mere formality or detail. People will still seperate and live with whowever they want, with or without divorce. Divorce just gives legal protection to all parties.
"Bishops urge the faithful to back marriage, without fearing criticism"
And woah and behold:
"Oh no. The Church is imposing it's beliefs on us."
No, the verse you quoted is not about "illicit marriage". The actual verse (Matthew 5:32 - NIV translation) says "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery"
The words "illicit marriage" were only added in relatively recent Catholic translations such as the New Jerusalem Bible, specifically in order to alter the Bible to match the Vatican's teachings. The Douay-Rheims and Clementine Vulgate translations (both Catholic) translate this as "fornication". Others use unfaithfulness, unchastity etc.
Seriously, you still haven't looked around you and seen marriage breakdowns taking place, without Divorce??????? Families will continue breaking down, whether you like it or not. It is a fact. It is useless to deny what is reality.
Also there is a substantial number citizens that now do not believe any more in the Catholic Church. Are these individuals going to continue to be oppressed as in the days of the Inquisition. Where is the freedom of association that we speak about? Where are human rights? Where is the tolerance that the Bishops preach? Are we going back to the time of the Crusades when the Bishops rallied their "faithful" against the infidels?
Everyone is entitled to his or her views on divorce and the Archbishop is addressing those of us who are Catholics. I don't see anything wrong in the Church taking a position and guiding those of us who accept its guidance.
All faiths have their own rules and, of course, the leaders of the individual faiths try to guide the followers to project these rules into their daily lives. It is up to each and everyone's conscience to do what he or she considers the best.
Also there is a substantial number citizens that now do not believe any more in the Catholic Church. Are these individuals going to continue to be oppressed as in the days of the Inquisition. Where is the freedom of association that we speak about? Where are human rights? Where is the tolerance that the Bishops preach?
Are we in 2008 or not?
When taking the marriage vows one says:
"..................fir-rizq it-tajjeb u l-hazin, fil-mard u fis-sahha, nibqa' nhobbok u nirrispettak tul hajti kollha".
Does "hajti kollha" for you mean till all is plain sailing, or till my soul leaves my body hopefully to go to a better place?
Let us keep the argument in perspective. Divorce although not the solution, at times it is inevitable, but it should not be intended as a reserve escape clause before commitment! And I think that some of the comments mean just that!
Separation will be a second hand option once divorce is legislated. Cohabitation will be outdated since the escape clause is at the back of the civil marriage contract. And stop beating about the bush, if you wish to go, go for the whole hog! By the way it’s not the law that cover all aspects but human disposition- whether the ex partner, for instance, is willing to let you see the children!
One last thing, at last re- marriage has surfaced, could the divorce rules be similar to the regulations for fouling in a football match! Two yellows and red carded for life!? If you cannot make it happen don’t look for excuses.
Then I get C Sapiano calling me less smart than the bishop. That is a pretty serious statement.
Then I get people quoting the scriptures at me, as if some old book can dictate my life.
My whole point was for tolerance and catering for other beliefs. Not assuming a monopoly.
And after all this, I haven't even stating my believes.
Does all this anger toward me represent doubt in your own faith?
There is one question I would like to put forward: Why does the Church allow the dissolution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders but not that of Marriage? In the former it appears that the Church acknowledges that one may have taken the wrong decision or is no longer committed to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But it does not seem to understand that the same may happen, and does happen, to married couples.
One final note: A successful marriage is based on love and not laws or imposition of beliefs.
Typical catholic brainwashed stereo type! Joe can you expain to us how exactly will the rosary and eucharist make malta a better place? Malta has been catholic for centuries but we're still in the same boat as all other countires. Relgion has only caused suffering in this world.
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours" - Aldous Huxley
Pro-divorce: Marriages break down naturally. Divorce allows for closure and remarriage. I'm not a catholic anyway, so I don't see why you are telling me that I shouldn't be allowed to divorce.
Catholic 2: Is it only pro-divorce lobbyists who can speak then??
Pro-divorce: Umm, no... everyone can speak, I never said...
Catholic 2: Is that how it's going to be then? Only you can speak about divorce, and I can't??! Are we just going to sideline catholics altogether??
Pro-divorce: No no I never said that. You do what you want. And I do what I want. I want to be able to divorce. You don't.
Catholic 2: What is Malta coming to! This is not a democracy! There is no freedom of expression. Why are we letting pro-divorce lobbyists speak like this?!?!
Pro-divorce: You started it. I just said, you should stay out of it and let me divorce if I want to...
Catholic 2: Typical, what's next, burning feotuses in our streets?!?! This is an outrage! No to divorce!!
@ K. Pullicino: maybe the fact that the church does not get its way, for once, in the face of such public opinion against it will actually serve to teach it a lesson that people are no longer willing to just believe and that they better come up with more valid, consistent and coherent arguments. There has not been one developed anti-divorce argument other than the same old platitudes.
Re: "Those who think that divorce/separation/annulment is a solution would better look at the children who have experienced such situations and then make judgement. "
Having experience my parents breakup and divorce I can tell you that pre divorce was hell for us children. Divorce was a super clearing of the air for us - no more tension or stress.
The lesson learned was to be super careful in selecting a spouse, looking at all aspects of living with the one chosen, discussing our hopes and plans for the future before taking the plunge into marriage.
Marriages can, do and will continue to go wrong. It is better for everyone concerned and especially the children if Divorce is an option; a clear and clean break and thus a chance for one or both of the parents to set up a new, happy and stable family environment.
Fudged relationships as they exist at the moment just cause massive unhappiness, confusion for the children and indeed confusion for everyone else.
There were at least 2 priests in the public eye who left the priesthood to get married, and I know of at least another 3 who did so too ... one of whom was in a position of authority when we were at 6th Form, and yet produced child with a woman almost 40 years his junior ... whilst still a priest! Likewise another priest at that same school who went on a mission to another country, only to shack up with a girl a few decades his junior too.
I am not against them having done so - I actually find it hilarious in a couple of the cases - but feel it unfair for the church to try to dictate the lives of many, whilst a loophole obviously exists for them should their views of priesthood change. (See my previous comment.)
Interesting how the bishop identified co-habitation and divorce as threats while happily ignoring seperation! Does anyone really think that divorce is more harmful than separation? If so why? How do you explain the difference to a child? Anyone from the anti-divorce lobby care to answer because to be honest I have been asking this question on lots of blogs and nobody has answered, not surprising really . I am fed up of rhetoric and would really appreciate it if someone actually answered this rather than spouted lots of platitudes although I must say the "satan will have his head crushed" comment does have a certain medieval charm :-)
Nobody is saying divorce is a cure all but its got to be better that the half world that is separation...
Nahseb li int tahdem u toqghod f'xi post komdu milli jidher> Mela jekk forsi ma tafx, f'hafna postijiet tax-xoghol u postijiet ohra f'Malta, kemm ta' divertiment, residenza jew postijiet ohra li tkun Kattoliku jfisser li int bahnan, antikwat, stupidu, ta klassi inferjuri, etc, etc... Mur ara fil-fabbriki u f'hafna ufficini x'martirju trid tghaddi minnu ta' kuljum persuna li tkun trid tipprova tghix ta' Kattoliku...
Forsi li jghadduk minn martirju fiziku ghadna ma waslniex, pero, jghadduk minn martirju ta! Martirju psikologiku u emozzjonali. Forsi m'ghadomx jitfghuk go l'ijluni mwegwhin u jaqtghulek rasek, pero' xorta jghadduk minn passjoni bil-kliem iebes, bojkotts socjali, pressjonijet biex taghmel bhal kotra, bi kliem ta drittijiet socjali li ma jfissru xejn u ma jarawx ukoll id-dmirijiet lejn is-socjeta, bullying socjali u mentali, etc, etc....
Tidher li qatt m'ghaddejt minnhom siehbi!
ha nghidlek ahjar martirju li jwasslek lejn it-tmiem f'qasir zmien, milli trid tghix ta' kuljum ma' nies li jaghmulek hajtek infern! u dan kollu ghax tkun Kattoliku (nisrani).
Ghalik forsi jiena ta' klassi baxxa... heqq m'hemmx x'taghmel!
have a nice day
;)
May God help HIS church in it's war against evil such as abortion and family breakdowns!
Note: At the same time we should respect and befriend each other irrelevant of the choices one makes! Catholics must be careful NOT to condemn the person who the wrong (which could have been done unintentionally) but to condemn the sin.
Furthermore and is most important, "Think of the children!" Each policy should protect the children first - the most vulnerable in society after the unborn babies. I don't think it will do them good to be seperated from the biological parents as happens in case of a divorce.
I'm still as yet undecided on the divorce debate but, I'm sorry to say, many of the destructive comments coming from the ones who are pro-divorce are doing nothing to convince me that divorce is beneficial to our society. From these comments, it's more seeming that divorce should be introduced so that we feel good about ourselves that the Church didn't get what it wanted.
May God help HIS church in it's war against evil such as abortion and family breakdowns!
Note: At the same time we should respect and befriend each other irrelevant of the choices one makes! Catholics must be careful NOT to condemn the person who the wrong (which could have been done unintentionally) but to condemn the sin.
I agree that if you are a practising Catholic, then divorce isn't even valid in your eyes, by why should the fate of so many individuals be left in the hands of unmarried men who can themselves leave the priesthood at will?
Worse still, why should the fate of all and sundry (whatever their religion may be) be left in the hands of people with absolutely no first-hand experience of marriage less so of an unhappy one?
Saying that divorce will only destabilise marriages is ridiculous. A look around will show many a philandering spouse, and many a "new" family composed of assorted parents. Divorce will not make a difference to that, but cold simply make life easier for the ones who want or need it.
"Those who think that divorce/seperation/annulment is a solution would better look at the children who have experienced such situations and then make judgement".
Nobody is saying that divorce eliminates the hardship children may go through when their parents separate...but this is the main point...the hardship comes from marriage separation, not divorce. It could be argued, however, that sometimes it is more beneficial for children to live with one parent or the other (with visitation rights) instead of living with both their parents who constantly verbally (or worse...physically) fight.
____________________________________________
@ J Micallef:
Thanks! At this stage we could use a little humour ;) You remind me of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.
Although I do not think this is the place to compare and contrast Bible citations, I cannot think of any New Testament quote that shows Jesus' acceptance of divorce on grounds of adultery. Rather, on commenting on Moses' introduction of divorce, he says (see Mark 10 line 5 and Matthew 19, 8) "It was because you were so hard hearted that he wrote this commandment for you."
On the other hand, in Matthew 5, 32 Jesus speaks of divorce in "the case of an illicit marriage," these being those unions made but are nevertheless null due to some condition or reason that goes beyond those for which one should marry, the roots of which already exist before the marriage. It is these these the Annulment courts investigate...
Surely Jesus never advocated "No Fault divorce", which is the practise nowadays, and that everyone is envisioning Dalli or anyone else for that matter would set up, as, for him to limit reasons for divorce would only mean a promulgation of the Annulment act that is already in existence.
They do say that co-habitation laws need to be amended and we all agree with that...but what I fear is that the ARGUMENT for divorce is being made by the people who have not suffered a real marital breakdown but those that want to leave the door open in case their marriage goes down hill - that is if they are married at all! Most people in favour of divorce seem to be those who are still battling with the idea of entering a commitment for life and would love to have the peace of mind of being able to UNTIE the knot.
And if anyone knows any advantage of DIVORCE over SEPARATION AND AMENDED CO-HABITATION LAWS please enlighten us.
I wasn't talking about all the people but about Mr.Bartolo.
Our Catholic church many times claims persecution; but isn't it time for it to also examine whether she too 'persecutes' individuals in certain situations by not giving them an alternative to their material life? Man is body and soul, material and spiritual, reason and faith, and both are equally important. That is the uniqueness and beauty of the human nature.
It is true that divorce can be devastating to a society, but only if one allows the notorioius "slippery slope" to the original laws.
Suppose we study two families. One subsists on a vegan diet and the other on a meat-based one. Both families mysteriously die (let's say) five weeks after the commencement of the study. Now, diet could have been the cause of death of any of the two families, but this could not be shown to be true before further studies (after all, both groups died even though they subsisted on completely different diets). The reason for their death in all probability would be something other than diet.
Compare this with a study of two countries. One allows divorce (any country except fundamentalist Malta and the Philippines), while Malta does not. Both have high percentages of marriage failure. Therefore, one cannot conclude that it is divorce that makes marriages fail. The reason would have to be something other than divorce.
May I with respect also refer the Bishops to yesterday's comments attached to the Letter by Rev Mizzi, which also contain a lot of food for thought. Maybe they can give us a convincing answer as to why a Priest may cease to be a Priest (TU ES SACERDOS IN ETERNUM); but not a married couple. (comments on this point also refer)...
Gone are the days, I am afraid, when one is told that one has to believe 'because I say so'!!
Person A: But father, my sister wants to get married, but she is in love with another woman, and that is not permitted.
Bishop: Not her, speak to OTHER people!
Person B: But father, my friend wants to get married to the person he loves, but, she has already been married. Her husband left her, and now, she cannot marry my friend!
Bishop: Not them, speak to OTHER people!
Person C: But father, all the single people I speak to have not yet found a person who they are willing to commit their whole lives to.
Bishop: Not them, speak to OTHER people!
Persons A, B and C: But father! Everyone else is already married..... except YOU!
Bishop: No, no, don't speak to me. I'm not that into marriage myself... Umm... umm... Tell you what, go to everyone and tell them not to use condoms instead...
My two pence worth -
I agree that the state should discuss divorce but please let all citizens of Malta voice their opinions without being rubbished or ridiculed!
After all, the teachings of the Church are based on Love!
My worry is not for the married couples who wish to seperate/divorce/annul!
We have to take into account the children of this relationship.
Those who think that divorce/seperation/annulment is a solution would better look at the children who have experienced such situations and then make judgement.
I am tired of hearing children becoming the ball in a game between the 'spouces' and their respective lawyers!
Unfortunately there is no easy solution since i am sure that it is horrible to live in a house where the relationship between the parents have crumbled
I liked reading your comment particularly the last phrase " simple isn't
However it is not that simple since some of the people who are so much against church marriage still want their children brought up as Catholics. It is ironic really.
One has to accept the Catholic church teachings to the full. Divorce is not allowed by the Catholic church . So those who are in favour of divorce have every right to divorce but they have to accept the consequences of their decision and stop being a Catholic.
You cannot have it your way all the time.
One last comment re cohabitation. It is my opinion that many people are resorting to cohahitation rather than marriage simply to exploit the benefits being offered by the government to parents who have children outside marriage. Nice one taxpayer. We are all being taken for a ride thanks to so many young couples' greed. To top it all up we now have the problem of illegal immigrants and the financial burden this brings along. No wonder our economy is suffering.
Secondly, please stop referring to divorce as a right...plainly, when stating such, one shows little knowledge of what distinguishes a right from any other "claim" that is seen to by a country's legislation.
A Human Right is one which *is not dependant* on anything else *except being human*. Hence the right to life-the right to an education-the right to marry-the right to work etc... The "right to divorce" relies on another situation-marriage-and therefore cannot be referred to as such.
I think the government should first see to improving the present system of annulment before considering the introduction of a new measure in a country that is totally unprepared, this surely leading to disillusionment and abuse, as has happened in the case of social welfare, which, given to immature crowds that equated it with easy income, has now gone out of hand.
When voting for the general elections I seem to be unable to recall anyone voting for the church. How is it that they have a say in our country's politics?
M. Depasquale, when you are trying to be scientific and quote studies, it is also the norm to give references. It is well known that 89% of all statistics and surveys are invented on the spot ;)
Carmelo Zammit, you say that divorce creates problems, and that past experience has shown this. Can you be more clear? Can you give examples? Or is it just your impression based on gut feeling? Also you say that Jesus made marriage. So how come he was at the wedding of Cana? Please be tolerant, and accept other people's right to their lifestyles.
Din hija vizjoni tieghek - forsi issa ha nibdew naraw xi tip ta' kumpless (complex) ta' martirju ... u nibdew naraw martri foloz jigru mas-saqajn, sempliciment ghaliex ikun hemm min jikkritika.
Tinsiex li l-Istat huwa ta' kulhadd u mhux ta' l-'Insara' (kif issejjah lilek innifsek int) biss. Allura, kulhadd ghandu dritt li jsemma' lehnu. Sakemm, ovvjament, ma jkunx hemm min jipprova minn wara l-kwinti, jahdem biex jhedded lil min imexxi l-Istat biex jittiehdu decizjonijiet bil-mohbi u arbitrarji li ma jkunux ta' gid ghall-membri KOLLHA tas-socjeta.
(I don't think this is a situation of wanting to kill and shut people's mouths - especially those who speak for the RCChurch. We shouldn't have false martrys around.
The State belongs to all, so everyone has the right to voice his/her concerns, as long as nobody tries to work from behinds people's backs so that the State does not cater for the needs of all in society.)
"The report you're mentioning was based on incorrect information divulged in Parliament by Minister Austin Gatt, over which the same Minister had subsequently apologised to the House already".
Does not change anything from the point I made. Unless you have blinkers, you will know that in Malta there is a comparatively large number of separated families and single parents - despite having no divorce.
if we really wanted to save marriages, we should tackle the problems couples encounter BEFORE they reach the decision to split up. I think that, for the couple, focusing our efforts on not legalising divorce is too little, too late!
If divorce is ever an option for broken marriages in our society, which in my opinion it should, the Church could continue to voice its disagreement and urge practicing Catholics against its practice. The Church could persuade people not to choose divorce as an option within a democratic society, which is tolerant towards all views and, which allows individuals the option to choose rather than get coerced by a Church that fears all contending points of views.
The church does have every right to make its voice heard in this debate. And we have every right to shoot down what the church says if we disagree with it. That is a democracy.
I take that statement as an invitation to comment although I fear that it may cause criticism.
Having been married for over 37 years, I am all in favour of marriage and staying together but not because we have to but because we both want to.
Marriage does not work for everyone - it can at times be extremely difficult to live with another person and it needs a lot of give and take.
I have many friends who are suffering tremendous and confusing problems because their marriage has failed and they are unable to regulate their position with their new partner. Many are separated and some have taken the long, painful and expensive road to annulment.
Perhaps it is the power and the income from annulments that the Bishops are protecting here rather than the care and welfare of their flock.
Each to his own - Domination out, Divorce in but be warned, Divorce will still be bureaucratically difficult and expensive - legal fees will no doubt be crippling.
We have many many of these *de facto* families in Malta thanks to the Church's insistence on keeping Malta a divorce-free dot on the map . Never mind that Catholics in this tiny land of make-believe still resort to divorce-by-the-backdoor by getting their married existence in suspended animation through painful Separations - yes lives are wrecked even in Catholic Malta - or in hundreds of cases rubbed off the board by the Church/State's magic eraser by declaring it ANNULLED. Dear Bishops perhaps your anti-divorce policy is further ENCOURAGING cohabitations???
The report you're mentioning was based on incorrect information divulged in Parliament by Minister Austin Gatt, over which the same Minister had subsequently apologised to the House already.
Why are they so afraid of the introduction of things like divorce and same sex marriage? Can't they just say no to them and let others be?
2. why you keep imposing your beliefs on others? Give people a choice. Not everyone is a devoted Christian.
3. stop trying to control this country as other bishops did in the past
Do you need to be a footballer to comment about football?
Do you need to be a politician to talk about politics?
Do you need to be a lawyer to cooment about an unjust law?
So do not judge the Archbishop, regardless of whether you agree with him or not, since he is much more intelligent than you are
Ikkritikajna tant lill-knisja li fil-passat ma kienetx thalli l'hadd jghid kontrieha.... Issa bil-maqlub, jekk xi nisrani jew xi haddiehor jghid dak li qal Kristu, rridu noqtluh, naghlqulu halqu, nghadduh biz-zmien, inzommuh bhala xi hadd injorant u baxx, etc.... ......
Eh ijwa bilhaqq ghax il-Kattolici huma ta' klassi nferjuri u issa ahna sirna bhal Ewropej - Ta' klassi gholja! Din x'gharukaza hi hux li l-isqfijiet jigu jghidulna li d-divorzju jaghmel hsara s-socjeta"... iiii x'gharukaza....... din x'gharukaza hi......
Eh kif jinbidlu z-zminijiet! ;)
What statistics show that divorce has worse effects than just marriage separation? Have you read the recent report on Malta having one of the highest single parent percentage in Europe, even though we have no divorce?
Catholic marriage is one thing.
Civil marriage is another.
Married Catholics...Your church and religion prohibits divorce, if you are really Catholic, don't avail yourselves of it.
Thos who are not Catholic, or even do not lead a Catholic lifestyle should have every right to divorce. SImple isn't it?
Mgr Cremona says: "Whatever weakens and breaks up marriage and the family, such as cohabitation and divorce..."
Cohabitation and divorce do not weaken and break up marriage. Mgr Cremona has got things the other way round. If people resort to cohabitation and divorce, this means that the marriage has not only been weakened, but has actually already been destroyed.
I am in favour of marriage and the stability of family life. That is why I support the introduction of divorce which would give some stability to families whose marriage has irrevocably failed.
Research studies done in countries where divorce is legal show the bad effects divorce has had in these countries, especially on the children of the divorcees.
in the name of JESUS. I shall pray for all my brothers and sisters who find themselves
in difficulty and ask all who reads my comment to do the same. God bless all marriages.
http://patrickattard.blogspot.com/2008/02/gay-partnerships-and-divorce.html
Cohabitation does not break down marriage. Cohabitation is what some couples choose to do when they are not allowed, or choose not to marry.
The choice is not between marriage and divorce. If a marriage breaks down and the two adults decide that they cannot live together anymore, for whatever reason, the choice is between separation, divorce and annulment.
Divorce is the only sensible option that allows for remarriage.
In short what the bishops have said is totally redundant.
All those faitfhul who want to follow the teachings of the Church, should be given the space and the environment to practice said teachings.
However, the State has to cater for one and all.
All those who do not want to follow the teachings of the Church, should likewise and in similar fashion, be given the space and the environment to breathe and live.
They say: "Christians and those who believe in this value of marriage and the family should commit themselves according to their responsibilities.
I agree totally. Marriage and family should be held by society in the highest regard.
They also state: "Whatever weakens and breaks up marriage and the family, such as cohabitation and divorce,
This is very confusing because:
1. What weakens marriage is inability to manage relationships leading to incompatibility, a liberal economy where individuals are considered to be a source of labour that can be squeezed to death, a culture of extreme consumption supported by the establishment, a culture of gambling, easy borrowing that ties nooses around so many necks of families, etc etc. Surely, the issue of seperation/divorce is a result of these factors and are not a factor in themselves.
2. If the Bishop believe that divorce itself weakens marriage, than are they are saying that the state should not introduce divorce? I recall a statement saying that the regulation of a secular society is the responsibility of the state.
They therefore need state if they will oppose the introduction of divorce by our secular state.
This is hilarious at best, and very very irresponsible at worse.Why on earth are the bishops trying to depict a picture of marriage and family being mutually exclusive to cohabitation and divorce? Who is so stupid to fall for this?
The ideal way of heading for marriage is to cohabitat first, so that you really get to know your partner, not just meeting up in weekends or meeting up at tthe parents place where everything is served on a silver plate. Couples need to go through and realise the hard parts of living with their partner and how their partner will behave after a long day at work and having to shop, cook, clean, wash ... Most especially since if it was up to the bishops they only have one go at marriage.
And why is divorce bad for the family? Divorce comes after seperation, seperation rarely comes because of the divorce option. So after realising this everyone needs to ask what is best for two seperated parents uniting? Cohabitating or be allowed to marry where all parts are protected by law?
what next?
A deaf music critic?