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."
Comments
@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".