
Thursday, 14th August 2008
Editorial
Common ground on divorce
Archbishop Paul Cremona and Bishops Mario Grech and Anton Depasquale released a short statement in which they made a number of reflections evaluating "the discussion taking place in the country regarding marriage and the family".
The statement is too short to do justice to the number of points raised in it. It could be better understood if read together with the long letter Archbishop Cremona had sent to Malta Today published on June 1. The letter can serve as a sort of commentary on the issues raised and summarily treated in the statement.
It is positive to note that the tone of both the statement and the letter is neither polemical nor condemnatory. The bishops make their position clearly and assertively without giving even a hint of launching some latter day crusade on the issue. But they clearly express their wish that there should really be an open discussion on the subject that would not exclude the Christian community. This yearning of the bishops is shown in two out of the four points made in the statement. In contrast to those who say that the Church and the Christian community should stay out of the debate, the bishops quite rightly assert that "the Christian community may and should give its contribution in this discussion".
It seems the bishops feel that due to this leave-the-Church-out-of-it attitude, some may be holding back from expressing their opinions. They voice the wish for a different attitude: "We hope that many will be those whose choice to give a contribution openly in favour of marriage and the family will overcome the choice to remain silent because of the fear of criticism."
In the letter, Archbishop Cremona had strongly advised having an open discussion which would be carried on in full respect of all opinions and without assuming that the only result should be a yes to divorce. The discussion about the legalisation or otherwise of divorce should be characterised by an open and free attitude. All sides must avoid religious or secular fundamentalism, while mutual respect should always be paramount.
The bishops say that "the experience of other countries" bears witness to the negative effects of divorce. It is not enough, however, to make this statement without amplifying it and demonstrating it. Quite naturally others may point to different experiences and studies as well as give different interpretations to statistics and research on the subject and arrive at a different conclusion.
This is another reason why dialogue is the way forward to gain a better appreciation of the myriad consequences of divorce legislation, whether positive or negative.
The first point of the Bishops' statement is by no means controversial. "The Church... believes that marriage and the family are of fundamental benefit for the individual and society." There is widespread support in Malta for such view. The Times had made the same reflection: "There is no doubt that healthy marriages and strong families are a must for society."
We propose that the debate about divorce be enlarged to a debate about how all families and marriages, especially problematic ones, should and could be helped. We made this appeal in a previous editorial. We are certain that both the pro- and anti-divorce factions will agree with efforts aimed at strengthening family ties, even if they disagree on the wisdom of introducing divorce.







RSS
Comments
I mean, wouldn't they advocate the prohibition of condoms as well if there ever had to be such a debate? My point is that their opinion (at least those who follow their religion ad literum) would be based on Church doctrine - implying no bending of rules.
I truly respect those Catholics who uphold their religious values WITHOUT imposing them on the rest of society. You don't agree with divorce? Don't make use of it!
1 point perpetrated by the new MLP leader should not be overlooked...Maltese couples divorcing abroad and having that procedure recognised in Malta. That is so unfair to Maltese couples who don't have the same financial means.
Since you asked, I am an atheist. Still, having been brought up as a Catholic in Malta I think I'm quite familiar with church teachings. Do you think I'm pontificating? I just said I don't think it's even POSSIBLE to exclude Christians from such a dialog in Malta. I also pointed out that for a truly open dialog, which the bishops say they want, they should invite their followers to speak their mind freely. Instructing the faithful in what to say doesn't lead to an open discussion. I absolutely agree that Christians should not stay back in fear of being ridiculed, but neither should they hold back their views for fear of going against the bishops' instructions.
Oh and by the way... one does not need to be a Catholic or even a Christian to point out a verse in the Bible which appears to contradict the teachings of the church. Mario Azzopardi did just that, giving the exact verses. If you have a complaint about them, take it up with the author.
Please can't you stop interfering in the private lives of the Maltese citizens!?! I don't care about the Catholic faith, I left so long ago when the priests used to tell me: "How are you! Are you winning against the church", and this was a priest who at Birzebbuga there is a street named for him as a missionery in Brasilia where he used to eat very well and give some rice to the poor. By the way the bishops are all eating well and enjoying themselves in their palace!!!
The whole issue from a Christian standpoint is constantly ignoring that the case for divorce is endorsed by Christ himself in Matthew 19.9. The Bishops and indeed, the Christian community engaging in the divorce debate should honestly consider the famous exceptive clause made by Christ himself: "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity (me epi porneia) and marries another, commits adultery".
And like Matthew, even Paul reiterates absolutism on the matter. Even in Paul there is trhe introduction of a qualification. He asserts the freedom of the Christian partner in a mixed union to divorce, insisting that in such a case, the Christian is not bound (Cor. 7:15). In other words, like Christ, Paul makes an exception to the indissolubility of marriage.
I wonder why this argument is completely ignored in the local debate. It is clear that using this very solid testimony from the Scriptures will upturn the position of the Church on the divorce.
The real issue about divorce from a secular position is that it is a human right and that no theocracy should impose its doctrine on those whose conscience dictates
dissent, especially when that doctrine is based on fraudulent intrerpretation.