In the interest of the common good

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 29th 2008, 08:26

@ K Pullicino wrote: "I thought it was an option in the beginning. I like how it evolved to a need now".

It would be an option for those who need it. Elementary, my dear K Pullicino.

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 29th 2008, 08:23

@ Oliver Debono:

Thanks for telling me that "I am not so bad after all". Coming from someone with dissenting views (from mine), I take that as a compliment. I fail to see where I was ever horrid, though, so if you point that out, I could learn from my mistakes.

Regarding the article you read, unfortunately I cannot comment much, since you do not give details (like, was it a local paper, who wrote it, etc). All I can say is that everything in life effects the common good to some extent. But the fact remains that with separation and co-habitation outside of marriage being perfectly legal, I fail to see any further negative effects divorce would bring - and this is from a utilitarian view-point. A rights-based viewpoint would show other reasons in favour of the divorce option.

So, from a completely utilitarian viewpoint, if the evidence in the article is conclusive, it would be a death-blow for divorce. If not, that's another question.

However, no one is completely utilitarian except perhaps martyrs, so rights-based points of view are valid as well.

Jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 28th 2008, 23:23

Actually, I write in simple English. How people like you, who seem to have a good command of the English lingo files to get the point baffles me.

Just for your benefit, I;ll explain my viewpoint YET again.

I do not expect the Chruch to introduce divorce, It is a club and has every right to have its rules. Why Catholics however continnue to put pressure on the state to adher to Catholic rules beats me.

Being good Catholics, if divorce is introduced, I expect that you, or others like you would never dream of exercising that right...Ahem.. You might note that I am not being rude in asking about your present situation.....

The argument is simple, do Catholics have a right to impose their views on others? You've all had your fun in the past, you know, inquisition and such, but now, well, things are different....

As for your side splitting humour, well, I m sure everyone is dying with laughter.....

Did you hear the one about Christ not being able to walk on water anymore? I like that joke, but when talking to Catholics would think that its in bad taste.....

K. Pullicino

Aug 28th 2008, 16:45

@Kenneth Cassar: I thought it was an option in the beginning. I like how it evolved to a need now.

My point is, that more often than not, divorce is an option, which is probably worse than the other options available.

oliver debono

Aug 28th 2008, 13:19

Dear Jeremy, maybe my kind of branding could be v similar to yours. You do brand other 's views myopic don't you! And another thing, if you do not laugh at a joke,pl let others.
Dear Kenneth, you're not so bad after all. You are horrid at times, but at others you do try your best. I tried to follow your argument but am still at it.
There was an article in the paper about how divorce does effect the common good some time back. It was very good, but I do not recall details. And if what was there is for real, all arguments for divorce should drop.

Jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 28th 2008, 11:11

Oliver, it seems that anyone who doesn't agree with the chrche's myopic views on society is immediately branded as an Atheist.....

Now, for the sake of your brilliant attempt at making us all smile with your tombstone joke special, I would like to point out that when atheists or the like rest under a tomb stone today, chances are that it would have been a natural death....

They probably haven't fallen off the horizon of a flat world, and they probably were'nt tortured and burnt up in the name of a loving Christ .......





\

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 28th 2008, 10:18

@ Oliver Debono:

Your claim that "The orphans should be compared with the children in the unsuccessful marriage and of course both these should be helped" makes another interesting analogy, and no one in his right mind would dispute that.

However, when you say that "What you do not do in both the marriage as well as the illicit sex is to pass legislation that all should be forgotten and now both couples can try again", you are ignoring the following facts:

1. It is sometimes necessary (even for the sake of the children themselves) that their parents be separated.

2. Separation and divorce will have the same effects on children, especially if the separated couple choose to live with other partners.

3. Following from point 2, even if one disagrees that separated people should seek and live with other partners, would anyone suggest that this should be made illegal?

4. In view of the above, and especially in view of point 3, divorce would make no difference to children whose parents would choose to live with other partners anyway. And is it not this (and only this) type of parents who would choose to divorce?

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 28th 2008, 10:10

@ K Pullicino: Yes, divorce is sometimes a need.

Robert Attard

Aug 28th 2008, 00:15

i still cant understand why some people think that divorce goes against 'the common good'. The only argument i can think of is that for these people divorce might be a catalyst for the breakdown of marriages. This is utterly an irrational thought and unfortunately this is a 'popular' myth that is being circulated among the population. Divorce should be treated as it is i.e the postmortem of a broken marriage... The fact is that the church is threatened by divorce.. with divorce you ll surely get more [civil] marriages (which is a common good) .

Anton Portelli

Aug 27th 2008, 22:54

I must say that all the comments against the introduction of divorce in Malta just shows how intolerant the Catholic Church and its fundamental followers are. These Bishops and priests are just showing how they want to impose their opinions on everyone and cannot tolerate the existence of a minority who do not agree with them. No wonder that their faithful are decreasing in number all the time. I have believed in them once but now I cannot even bear to see them or hear them speaking because of this intolerance.
Live your own lives and let others live happily, with the introduction of divorce no one is imposing anything on you. And Please stop all this nonsense about "COMMON GOOD".

K. Pullicino

Aug 27th 2008, 22:18

"Need" a divorce, Mr. Valla-Zarb? Divorce is a necessity?

Oliver Debono

Aug 27th 2008, 21:41

Inscription on the tomb-stone of an atheist
ALL DRESSED UP WITH NOWHERE TO GO.

Oliver Debono

Aug 27th 2008, 21:14

I must say that I did find the comparison of marriage with orphans interesting, and I must confess I was nearly going to be had. The line of thought followed however constitutes one of the more common fallacies in basic philosophy- not comparing the premise in one with the equivalent premise in the other. The orphans should be compared with the children in the unsuccessful marriage and of course both these should be helped. What you do not do in both the marriage as well as the illicit sex is to pass legislation that all should be forgotten and now both couples can try again. Legislation should in itself be educational.

Jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 27th 2008, 21:05

Oliver Debono and Charles Demicoli seem to think that anyone who has an opinion on a matter seems to do so for need or personal interests.

Such comments only reflect that these gentlemen seem to have a very limited, egoistical outlook on society in general.
But since they have decided that it is in their interest to imply certain things, I shall oblige them.

I am not married, nor seperated, nor gay, and certainly not lesbian, so your comments were totally pointless.

Are you saying that people who need divorce should not comment on these blogs?

These gentlemen( I use the word loosely) should realise that some people actually care about others who are facing certain difficulties.

Actually, thats a Catholic virtue isn't it?

wally vella-zarb

Aug 27th 2008, 19:31

Well said, Mt Kenneth Cassar!
I am in the same situation as you are, in that I do not need a divorce. If I had that necessity, it would not be a problem: I would simply go abroad and get one. As simple as that - and, our government would legally recognise it!

However, not being a catholic and not being a hypocrite, I do spare a thought for others who are less fortunate than I am. Those that do need a divorce but do not have the funds to obtain one need all the support that we can give them - as a civilised, non-fundamentalist, lay society.

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 27th 2008, 17:08

@ Oliver Debono:

I have as much right to give my opinion as much as you do. So yes, whenever the topic comes up, if I feel like it and if I am not doing other things, I will once again give my own comments.

You sarcastically call us (those who argue for divorce) "gentle men". I wonder what you make of people who suggest that others with different opinions might be writing "out of personal need". Or have you missed that part from Mr DeMicoli's comment?

And by the way, not that it's any of your (or Mr DeMicoli's) business, but I am happily married, so much so that I do not fear that with the introduction of divorce my wife would leave me. Shall I be as kind as Mr DeMicoli and suggest that those who oppose divorce fear their wives will leave them at their first chance?

a.cassar

Aug 27th 2008, 16:54

Can anyone please tell me where annulment is mentioned in the teachings of Jesus or is annulment a loophole invented by the church to make money out of people's misery?

John Camilleri

Aug 27th 2008, 16:35

@ Kenneth Cassar

You missed the Bus! Pull the other one!

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 27th 2008, 16:09

@ M Spiteri:

It is true that not enough is being done to prevent marriages that are bound to fail. But in the meantime what do we do? Take orphans, for instance. It is true that if more people were educated, more people would think twice about having unprotected sex or having sex at all (in the case of minors). This would certainly reduce the amount of orphans. But in the meantime, do we abandon orphans to their fate? Of course not.

My point is that while it is a must to tackle a problem at source, when dealing with people's lives we must also deal with the present circumstances and the needs these circumstances bring with them.
_____________________________

@ John Camilleri:

So do you mean to say that celibacy is optional in the Catholic priesthood? Pull the other one.

oliver debono

Aug 27th 2008, 15:53

Dear Mr Demicoli, your last para hits the nail on the head. Every time this topic comes up we have the same people putting in their bit. We have had Jeremy, Vincent, Kenneth... I wonder when Franco will be making an appearance. He must be indisposed today. Like I said in previous contributions I still do not know what to think about divorce, but the persistence of these gentle men really does set me thinking. And, even about the majority I do not know wherein this lies - ever heard of the silent majority ? And come to think of it I feel that a majority should not dictate matters on such an issue. A truth is a truth is a truth, no matter what any majority says, on whichever side this may be.

Jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 27th 2008, 15:44

John Camilleri...as are civil marriage and the sacrament of marriage.....Isn't that the whole point?

People who have opted not to get married in a church don't really care for the sacrament do they?

Charles DeMicoli

Aug 27th 2008, 15:40

Did this "politician" have a platform, a set of his beliefs, that he put forth before he was elected? Did he make his pro and con views known before the election? I doubt it. Politicians get elected mostly based on their affiliation. I doubt very much if his constituents have a clear picture of what this "politician" stands for (more of a "what's-in-it-for-me" voting attitude). The scenario the good padre is putting forth is reminiscent of former Mayor Giuliani, who, being a practicing catholic and a republican, stated that he was publicly in favor of abortion but personally opposed it - I think we used to call this double-faced in the old days.

By the way, everytime the topic of divorce comes up, it generates a lot of comments. I wonder, all the commentators so vehemently in favor of divorce, is it a matter of principle or a matter of personal need?

John Camilleri

Aug 27th 2008, 14:52

@Mr Vincent A. Galea

Your argument is very confused, misinformed and blurred. You seem not to decipher and "H" from a "B" (as in the Maltese language)!!! A priest is a priest for ever. Within the Catholic Church we have married priests (please do your research well). The oath of celibacy embraced by priests is a bonus to Holy Orders. When a Catholic priest for valid circumstances opts to leave the ministerial priesthood, he is still a priest BUT the Church grants him dispensation from the oath of celibacy so that he can benefit from the Sacrament of Matrimony. With regard to married persons, who for a valid reason opt to leave the marriage-union, there exists the declaration of nullity also granted by the Catholic Churc h. However the Sacrament of Matrimony and the Sacrament of Holy Orders are totally different issues!!!

Edward Zammit

Aug 27th 2008, 14:43

@ J. Farrugia

Your imaginative views can not conclude that the majority of the population doesn't want the divorce legislation passed. I'm not saying that the majority wants it for the simple reason that no reliable poll has been made.

I myself do not favour divorce ( I am not against it but I don't look at it as the light in the tunnel either). but if a couple of people who for some reason or another cannot make it through their union, I shouldn't be the one that over a personal view denies them the chance to start afresh. Personally I strongly believe that, that sort of thinking is quite selfish.

Joe Grima

Aug 27th 2008, 14:43

Fr Cardona says:" By voting against divorce, one is not forcing one's views on other people but rather exercising his/her right of voting in the interest of the common good or what one believes will benefit society as a whole".

If we are accept that school of thought ,then the reverse will be equally true if the following is what one beleives in: "By voting in favour of divorce, one is not forcing one's views on other people but rather exercising his/her right of voting in the interest of the common good or what one believes will benefit society as a whole".

M. Spiteri

Aug 27th 2008, 14:03

I feel that a lot is being said about divorce and nothing is being done to prevent it. I feel that the best way to avoid all these interpretations and whether one is for or against one should think hard at what the real problem is. Are we getting married because everybody does and if we don't we are considered as some old maid? Are we getting married to show off how much our parents or the couple themselves can afford a big and beautiful wedding reception? Are the young couples today truly considering what they are going into? Are they ready to be a one partner person and to consider the other person's feelings before his?
Some say that one should try on a new pair of shoes before buying them but are the couples now just seeing how nice it looks and not how many places it can take you? Unfortunately I feel that marriage nowadays is based just on sex and high standard of living and love and respect have become something of the past. Please try to think positive and don't go to the altar thinking that if it does not work one can walk out.

Raphael Vassallo

Aug 27th 2008, 12:45

Yes, but this way the politician would still be imposing his views on other people. It is after all merely an opinion to state that introducing divorce would work against the common good. Who decides these things anyway? And on what authority?

Jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 27th 2008, 12:10

C Attard,

Simplest of misunderstandings. Not to worry.

As I said, before, the venom spread by people like Jfarrugia seems to bring out the worst in people.

vincent a galea

Aug 27th 2008, 11:44

When the Church gives a convincing clarification as to why a priest can leave his Sacrament and marry, while a married couple cannot divorce and remarry, I will commence giving some credibility to the various ecclesiastical contributions regarding this subject.

a.cassar

Aug 27th 2008, 11:34

@ J.Farrugia
We do not accept that a minority, due to its permissiveness, wants to impose on all of Malta and Gozo its shallow ideas of divorce,
Mr/s Farrugia no one is imposing divorce on all of Malta. This is not a tax which everybody would have to pay. Those who are against divorce are free not to avail themselves of it. It is those who are against divorce who would be depriving the pro divorcists from finding a solution(even if in your eyes it is not a good one) to their marital problems.

Maria Gauci

Aug 27th 2008, 11:33

In my opinion, this letter is just another contribution towards the subject of divorce which fails to tackle the issue.

Whilst all the reasons one can think of for or against divorce can, in some way, reflect themselves in a person's decision, I feel that there is one reason (or rather fact!) which is above all these.

Civil marriage is the only legal contract without any measures of dissolution.

Neither religion nor any modern world permissiveness or common good should come up in such an argument. The same applies with regards to referenda. This is a civil matter with no imposition on anyone and it has nothing to do with any minorities or majorities.

I cannot understand were the difficulty is!

C Attard

Aug 27th 2008, 11:32

@Jeremy Camilleri

My use of the phrase 'heterosexual lot' was not meant to divide or denigrate straight people. I only used it to 'go along' with J Farrugia's own divisive world view and in so doing show that such standpoints don't work much to his advantage either. I am aware that many straight men and women support the civil rights and dignity of each and every one of their compatriots, whether gay, straight, separated or happily married.


Having said that, and having read it again, understand that my previous post must have come across in the way it did to you and for that I apologise.

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 27th 2008, 11:08

@ J Farrugia:

Nobody will impose divorce on you. I don't know whether you are married (or intend to be). If you are, would you keep your wife/husband living with you by force, even if she/he no longer wishes to (whatever the reasons). If not, how is separation different from divorce?

Jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 27th 2008, 11:07

C Attard,

Kindly note that in your contribution, you seem to imply that JFarrugia is writing on behalf of all heterosexuals.Whilst I do agree that Jfarrugia's words bring out the worst in people, J farrugia only speaks for himself, and not for some raving, anti homosexual, hetero army.

Calling us a heterosexual lot doesn't really help. It is plain and simple, there is no hetero sexual lot or homosexual lot.

We are all in the same boat, and sexual preferences should not divide anyone.

I am heterosexual but strongly believe that everyone should enjoy the same rights. I do not care who anyone sleeps with as it is none of my business. So lumping me in with some lot was rather out of order.

The us and them mentality harms your cause for equal rights for all,my friend.

Now back to the subject in question.....

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 27th 2008, 11:05

Is marriage separation for the common good? I still fail to see the difference between divorce and separation. Perhaps Fr Cardona can explain? Or will he also suggest that marriage separation should be made illegal, out of concern for the common good?

Ramon Casha

Aug 27th 2008, 11:01

By voting against divorce one would be forcing one's view on other people, by denying the rights to a minority to have a happy life.

By voting in favour of divorce on the other hand nobody would be forced to get a divorce, so the politician would not be forcing his views on anyone. Voting in favour of divorce grants the citizen the right to decide for themselves. Voting against divorce prohibits them from making up their own minds.

C Attard

Aug 27th 2008, 10:41

Well, if the common good means having a society characterised by broken families, unregulated cohabitation, adultery and illegitimate children, then Fr. Cardona is right. Because let's be clear about this: the present state of affairs will not do anything to slow down the breakdown of marriages; it will only exacerbate the problems that people in failed marriages find themselves in and make us look all the more hypocritical.


And please, J Farrugia, don't bring gays and lesbians into this - my sexual orientation has nothing to do with marriage breakdown. You heterosexual lot are doing a great job at destroying the institution of marriage with no help from us, who are as yet excluded from participating in it. And with all due respect, we are no 'idea' being 'imposed' on anyone. We are human beings like the rest of you, equal in rights and dignity. Glad to see the true colours of a devout Christian once again. So glad I abandoned all that nonsense in my teenage years...

jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 27th 2008, 10:40

So obviously, what Fr.Daniel Cardona is also saying is that if politicians believe that divorce is for the common good, then they should vote in its favour. Funny how he forgot to say that.

Mr J Farrugia states that he believes that the majority should suffocate the will of any minority they do not agree with. Incredible!

Impose on all of you? So if Gays and other people have individual rights, does that mean he's going to have to lead a gay lifestyle?

Or if divorce is introduced, Jfarrugia will have to divorce?

It seems that people J Farrugia arrogantly believes that whatever he utters is factual, and should be taken as such.

I'm sure that he has done bucketloads of research as to the subject concerned

Now for all those, like JFarrugia who are obsessed with the way of life that his fellow humans decide to lead, its simple really...religious rules for religious folks, civil rights for the rest of us...See..its really simple...

Anthony Mercieca

Aug 27th 2008, 09:54

My belief re the issue of divorce is twofold. On one side analysis of marriage breakdowns are indicating the causes to such. The reaction to this reality is naive to say the least and conditioned by easy solutions - divorce, separation etc. No doubt there is an urgent need to really educate people on the responsibilities of marriage whether it is civil or religious. The other side of the coin is the reality of people who want to regularize their relationship especially those who have formed a family. The state, just as well as the Church, cannot just disregard this reality and are obliged to guide these people and guaranteeing them their rights.
Others, not few, in view of these realities are opting for an easy solution co-habitation, thus overriding not only the common good but the rights of partners and their children.
More thought is needed that leads to action

Iain Sims

Aug 27th 2008, 09:51

Of course, as a Member of Parliament who is supposed to be there to represent the views of his/her constituents, the MP could do just that; listen to the views of the constituents and vote accordingly.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried." - Winston Churchill.

Iain.

J Farrugia

Aug 27th 2008, 08:58

It seems that today's priests have lost all hope in Jesus Christ and His Message. To that politician (sic) I would suggest to clear a bit his views. He will be imposing nothing on anyone. He will be UPHOLDING the Majority view. To that politician I suggest that he either resigns if he cannot take the heat or do what is best for the majority of our citizens. That's his job. We do not accept that a minority, due to its permissiveness, wants to impose on all of Malta and Gozo its shallow ideas of divorce, gays and lesbians, etc. We have to stand up and be counted like the saying goes. The common good is better served by fighting for the majority's rights and for the common good, and divorce is certainly not a common good. This politician must have the guts to fight for a just cause even if he's alone in this battle. And to this priest I say : you are also partly responsible for what's happening in our families, in our country. Where are the priests the likes of our recently beatified saint? George Preca? Where are you priests?