Monday, 8th September 2008 - 15:27CET
Silence not an option in the face of secularism - Archbishop
Archbishop Paul Cremona warned today that the values which Maltese society had inherited could be lost not only when one accepted other concepts of living, but also when one did not defend what was believed to be true.
In a homily during the September 8 Pontifical Mass at St John’s, Mgr Paul Cremona reiterated remarks made over the past few weeks by the bishops of Malta and Gozo that the Church has a duty to make its voice heard in matters affecting society.
“We will stand with society to speak about sustainable development, the environment, justice and other values. We would not be helping society if we accept secular ideology because it is strong, or out of fear that we are not like other countries. It does not make sense that in a pluralist society, only one voice is heard.”
Mgr Cremona said the most important values were the defence of the human being, the unborn child, the elderly, the sick, immigrants, as well as marriage and the family.
“Any decision which proclaims these values, but legislates against them, as in the case of divorce, and in future even abortion and euthanasia, will weaken society,” Mgr Cremona said.
He warned that it would be difficult for young people to build a stable marriage when marriage was seen as being built on weak wedding vows.
Earlier, he said Malta was under threat of the ideology of secularism. Although this ideology was based on personal choice, it was strong enough to influence society, sometimes even through legislation.
“The stronger this ideology becomes, the more difficult it will be for one to live his personal values. It will become more difficult for parents to pass on the values they believe in to their children...it will be more difficult for young people to make free choices when they are surrounded by wrong messages and influences.”
Referring to the need for the Church and the faithful to defend their values, Mgr Cremona warned that silence and acceptance of a value-free society was not neutrality, but a way to strengthen secularism.
The congregation was headed by President Eddie Fenech Adami and included Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, Anglu Farrugia, deputy leader of the MLP, the judiciary, ministers and MPs.
Comments
The archbishop stated on 21September what he means on this question.
if the archbishop is attacking the hard won principle of secularism in society, by definition he is attacking the separation of church and state. He might attack lax morality, the godlessness of modern society, the lack of people standing up for what they believe, whatever he wants, and many would agree with him.
When he says that secularism is wrong, it means that he doesn't like the separation of church and state. Such ideas from an influential member of society need to be opposed. If that wasn't what he meant, then he should clarify… could be he was referring to "Secularisation" and got misinterpreted along the way.
I don't follow what the bishop says, unless it's in the news.
Thanks for that - I thought I was going cookoo with Evarest Saliba's deliberate twisting of what I was writing.
As for whether the church is really behind the foundation of GoL I reiterate that I still reserve judgement. Ultimately GoL's actions such as the protest rosary at Castille hotel will be revealing enough.
I think the best option for the church is to herself advocate the clear distinction between the Church and the State and not interfear. The last time the church interfeared in legal matters we were lumped with the infamous family act and everyone can witness the social disruption that law has led our society to.
You have been more than ethically correct in your approach and choice of words and I fail to undertand why Evarist Saliba chooses to deliberately misinterpret what you have been writing.
Anyhow I think you were too ethically correct on the point about GoL being a front for the church. Unlike you I have no doubt that there is a strong amount of church involvement and I am not alone in this.
Wait and see if - soon we will have the equivalent of GoL with regards to divorce.
I think that there is more than speculation about who is the real force behind GoL.
I have read your contribution carefully.
You built all your argument on your "if" supposition, which you treated like a fact, ie the truth, as you went along.
It is you who put yourself in the group of people who know what is going on around us,ie a knowall.
Evidently you need to re-read my contribution more carefully and ensure your mind registers what you actually read.
You claim that I assume "without any proof, that the church is behind the GoL". I clearly included the word 'IF' and (the note) 'that I reserve judgement on this fact' so please stop 'creating the truth'.
Furthermore I wrote that "GOL now carries the responsibility of having created a pro choice voice when previously there was none" (this is a fact)
Since GOL's 'raison d'etre' is exactly for the opposite purpose (pro life) I beg to ask again - How's that for bad planning? If you feel unable to answer I can understand :-))
Rather that resort to characteristic rudeness by labeling me a 'Mr. Knowall' I suggest you stick to the plain facts. Your outburst just proves that this is not the case of "creating the truth" but rather 'la verita offende'.
If you look for the tendency to 'create the truth' refer to the article below where evils such as immigrants, abortion, divorce etc are put into the same basket when they have nothing to do with each other.
You assume, without any proof, that the church is behind the GoL, expect me to take your assumption for the truth, and then ask me if this was good planning. What sort of perverse logic is this?
But then, I forgot, you are one of those who really know what is happening around us.
I do not pretend to be a Mr Knowall like you do, but at least I am not one of those who follow the advice of Peter Mandelson "to create the truth", something which led to his resignation from Tony Blair's cabinet twice. I notice that this tendency of creating the truth has caught on in certain quarters in Malta.
Considering that over the last two decades we have had is an imposition of church agenda within our laws, I cannot fault those who have had enough of this.
Those who claim that the Archbishop is imposing his views on the rest of us (are those who really know what is happening around us) are just stating a fact that has been present for donkey's years.
You are correct when you claim that the church has an influence in Malta - but we both know it is a declining influence that is now no longer politically sustainable. The fact that the Archbishop is resorting to these public appeals is the most clear sign of the church's decline.
Finally (and I reserve judgement for now) if GOL was actually created by the church to push forward the constitutional amendments, they miscalculated the situation dramatically.
GOL now carries the responsibility of having created a pro choice voice when previously there was none.
How that for bad planning?
Of course the church has influence in this island and beyond, and that is what many resent and want to eliminate. What is relevant is whether this influence can be equated with imposition. May I remind you that some who objected to the archbishop's admonition to the faithful then went on to urge Dr Joseph Muscat to show that he has (whatever the author implied) and to impose discipline within his MP's by not giving them a free vote if the issue of divorce were to come before parliament.
Who wants to impose his views on others?
I would not be surprised if there are people who believe that the church is behind the GoP initiative. However, the readiness to believe what is not true is not a characteristic of one side only. The important thing is what the truth is.
If you think that everyone in this country is as naive to believe that there is no church influence within GOL think again. Do you remember the protest outside Castille hotel? The GOL supporters were protesting by reciting the rosary......great way of showing the secular origins of GOL......give me a break!!!!
You may not be aware but there is a section of the public who believe GOL is a front for the church....I am sure that if you speak to people you must have heard this assertion and I believe I saw a letter in one of the papers claiming this.
I will ask you a better one....mention one instance where the church openly disagreed with the constitutional amendment.
The initiative to change the constitution to strengthen the illegality of abortion is totally extranous to the sermon delivered by the archbishop. Can you quote one single instant where the church has asked for this proposed change in the constitution tobe implemented? Again, you are twisting facts to suit your arguments.
The church should make a distinction between preaching it's moral code, to which I mostly subscribe and forcing it on the state.
EG: the GOL wanting to mess with the constitution. They live in a fairy tale. The constitution should not be messed with for such matters: even if GOL had its way now, what would keep a future generation of citizens from introducing abortion, sharia or whatever they fancied? If there's a strong popular support, anything can change, even the constitution. The constitution is not a divine magic document, but a symbol of goodwill that provides a stable state for disparate interests to work together towards a common good.
May I re-iterate, the church is taking the short cut of wanting the law to do its work: force the the dream of a catholic hegemony down everybody's throat. I'm proud of my catholic heritage, don't make me change my mind.
Anything to do with immigration is not going to work because people like me will make far reaching efforts to make it fail at every point. So basically,forget it because it just won't happen as long as Malta exists.
This is my last post here.
I do have a mind of my own based on my experience in life. If you were to read my memoires, "No, Honourable Minister" you would see that for yourself, even in connection with the activity of the the church in Malta. On the question of divorce my opinion and that of the church coincide.
If you were to read my comments with an open mind, you would see that I have simply defended the right of Archbishop Paul Cremona to say what he said during his sermon at St John's co-Cathedral, without being hounded the way he has been. To imply that what he said amounts to the reindroction of the inquisition is outrageous.
I do not brush (whatever that means) the life of any other person. I do not dictate to others what they should or should not do with their life. In the same way I hope that others will permit the archbishop, and those who agree with him, to express the view that divorce weakens the institution of marriage, and this bound to happen also in Malta, where marriage already faces many other challenges.
Some people develop a sound judgement of character late in life and in the mean time they find themselves in abusive marriages. It's comforting to see how you brush their precious life so easily.
Bottom line is: marriage break-ups happen and the state has to deal with it without intruding unnecessarily in the private lives of citizens
I share your same sentiments about the dnub il mejjet.
I believe that the Archbishop is issuing these flashy statements about silence not being an option to gauge what level of support the church has. It is obvious that the church has sunken to a level of circa 47-50% support of her dogma whilst free thinking and speech normally branded as secularism has arisen.
I think that the church leading a 1960's war will lead to a swifter decline - period.
People must contibute or redirect large financial resources to fight against immigration. No more football,festi or parties until this problem is solved. We should have called a national crisis, before Italy but our politicians are not ideologicaly sound.
I leave it to intelligent readers to assess on what constitutes a half-baked opinion.
You write: "In your reply you assume that only one of two parties in a failed marriage may not be capable to shoulder the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. On what grounds do you assume this?"
I do not assume that only one of the two parties is incapable of commitment. I say that it is a possibility. I personally know of quite a few cases. You probably do as well.
You write: "it is more likely that both have a share in the failure, one for not being up to the mark and the other for not noticing this during the time that both should have been weighing up each other as a suitable marriage partner".
Yes, this too is a possibility. However, should we punish the other for not noticing - for a mistake?
You write: "And you speak of a second chance. Again you assume that divorced persons will only marry once again and no more. On what grounds do you assume this?".
Again, I do not assume that this is always the case, but it happens. I know of a few cases myself.
As for half-baked ideas, the feeling is reciprocal.
I am sorry, but I find your arguments very far from convincing, and I find no obligation to go on responding to half-baked ideas, honest and convinving though they might appear to others.
Fofr example:
In your reply you assume that only one of two parties in a failed marriage may not be capable to shoulder the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. On what grounds do you assume this? it is more likely that both have a share in the failure, one for not being up to the mark and the other for not noticing this during the time that both should have been weighing up each other as a suitable marriage partner. And once there is the option of divorce, maybe a quicky one, this period of a serious engagement becomes less and less important.
And you speak of a second chance. Again you assume that divorced persons will only marry once again and no more. On what grounds do you assume this? I have just read of an elderly man who has finally found happiness with his latests ideal partner in marriage. This was after dozens of attempts.
"But I disagree that divorce is a good solution for this dilemma because it only frees these persons to marry legally other persons, thus speading still wider the consequencies of their shortcomings".
A marriage is between two persons, so divorce would free not only the person who is not able to commit, but also his or her unfortunate partner. In this case, when the partner re-marries, he/she will have a second chance at living a married life with someone capable of committing.
That's more like it. We can still be respectful, even if we disagree ;)
Perhaps I should have qualified my remark by writing "any new element of substance". The only 'new' argument I read, and which I felt that I should not waste my time in answering, was that there are persons who are not capable of assuming the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood, but whom one cannot keep from marrying. Agreed.
But I disagree that divorce is a good solution for this dilemma because it only frees these persons to marry legally other persons, thus speading still wider the consequencies of their shortcomings.
Short and direct comments are usually unsubstantiated by facts. I would rather have appreciated it if you cared to comment on my answer, istead of dismissing it for being "long-winded".
I too am capaple of making short and direct comments. How about: Divorce is not evil. But would this add anything to the debate?
I suggest that you re-read my previous reply, because if you really think they add nothing to the debate, then I suspect you have not understood anything I wrote.
Rather a long-winded two-part answer to my short and direct comments, and yet they do not add one single new element to the debate.
You seem to be suggesting (in your reply to Edward Scerri) that the main "evil" of divorce is that it permits people to have an easy way out of marriage.
While this may be true, it is good to keep in mind that such people (who take marriage lightly) should not even be married in the first place. But can we (or should we) legally prevent such people from marrying? If not (and I think we can't) then divorce would simply dissolve sham marriages.
What about the children?, you may ask. Well, again, people who are no good at long-term commitments should not be having children in the first place. But again, can we (or should we) legally prevent them from having children? And if not (and I think we can't), then the children will unfortunately suffer (if they do) exactly the same consequences, since people who are no good at long-term commitments will still separate even if there is no divorce. What's more, it is sometimes in the best interest of children to have their parents separate, particularly when the relationship turns violent.
It is the removal of the stigma which makes possible for people to separate when their marriage fails. Separation happens before divorce, and happens even without divorce. Divorce will not remove the stigma simply because the stigma is no longer there. There is nothing to remove.
As for the "sociologists", I mention them because despite so many anti-divorce people mentioning their studies, it seems surprising that not even one of these studies suggests the removal of the divorce option, don't you think?
Sociologists have NOT found that divorces are one of the main sources of the troubled youth of today, although it may seem so. In all countries except Malta and the Philippines, separation is usually followed by divorce, so the "evils" of separation and the creation of new families might be attributed to divorce. Of course, this is not really true, since if one removes divorce, the same problems remain with separation and cohabitation.
To consistently argue against divorce for its consequence on society, one must necessarily argue against marriage separation and co-habitation. And to be truly consistent, one who argues against the legalisation of divorce must also argue for the prohibiton of separation and co-habitation.
I suggest that you re-read your comment on "what leads to other social problems". You seem to imply that it is the removal of "the stigma" which does so. Divorce does remove "the stigma".
No, I am not in a position to say (in fact I never did) that any sociologist has suggested that divorce should be made illegal. But what logic is this that translates this into a denial that
sociologists have consistently found that divorces, and other broken families, are one of the main sources of the troubled youth of today?
@ Edward Scerri
I wonder why anyone wastes his time simplyfying things once this does not lead to greater use of the service or object offered. Is divorce the only exception to the rule?
I have lived long enough to be aware that, yes, there are people who will do anything to get out of a marriage, including murder. This happened even when divorce was available. I do not have to wake up to the sordidness to which man can stoop. But it has also been my experience that the absence of divorce has led to better counsel and saved marriages and families.
Your quote "The easier it is to get a divorce, the easier it is to get out of a marriage. I fail to see how anyone cannot see this link"
The answer is simple - its because the link is mostly fictitious. Anyone who wants to get out of a marriage leaves because they want to IRRESPECTIVE OF DIVORCE OR OTHERWISE.
Wake up to the fact that divorce prohibition does not stop marriages from breaking up.
It is a reality that can be observed all around us.
Let us stop trying to fool around with divorce - its only the church that will lose some of its political grip on people's personal lives....and make no mistake that is a significant positive step for a country who right now has some flawed democratic credentials.
"By the time we taste divorce it will be too late to undo what has been done. Experience in other countries has consistently shown that divorce - which undoubtedly could solve individual problems - has also led to other social problems according to sociologists who show no subservience to the Catholic Church".
Is it really divorce that leads to other social problems, or the removal of the stigma for people who separate and form other relationships?
Have any of the sociologists you mention (without providing references) suggested that divorce should be made illegal?
Before replying, please provide references. It's easy to say "sociologists" said this and that without providing evidence.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. By the time we taste divorce it will be too late to undo what has been done. Experience in other countries has consistently shown that divorce - which undoubtedly could solve individual problems - has also led to other social problems according to sociologists who show no subservience to the Catholic Church.
These are a source of great worry to many governments which are not part of a theocracy.
The number of cohabiting couples in Malta will be reduced when divorce is introduced. There really is a large number of couples (some with children) who are unable to marry because of the lack of divorce legislation. The conservative element of Maltese society is currently working against the civil institution of marriage in defense of religious dogma. The State is also seriously short-changing those of its citizens who are willing to get married but cannot, because there is no local legislation allowing them to do so. Adding insult to injury, the State then recognizes divorce obtained abroad by those Maltese citizens who although sharing the same marital position, are in the financial or circumstantial position to get a divorce overseas! Clearly the situation's unacceptable and cannot be tolerated for much longer if the Maltese State wants to retain its credibility both locally and abroad.
In conclusion let us at least agree that although divorce is not really the ideal tool needed to reduce cohabitation in Malta, it will certainly contribute to reducing the number of cohabiting couples by simply allowing cohabiting couples wanting to marry to do so.
I do not think that I ever implied that divorce is the only, or main, cause of a marriage breakdown. What I contend is that those who argue that divorce leads to a solution of marriage breakdowns, and hence it follows that these breakdowns and their consequencies will diminish, are wrong. What I also contend is that the availability of divorce (on what grounds is another most relevant issue) tends to weaken the will of the partners concerned, or just one of them, to put that extra effort to make a success of his/her marriage. The easier it is to get a divorce, the easier it is to get out of a marriage. I fail to see how anyone cannot see this this link.
Your reply amazed me.
I did go one better because I answered my question and yours together - but you obviously not did understand. There is no direct correlation between divorce and marriage breakdowns whether in Malta or abroad (although anti-divorcists would like you to think so)
Co-habitations (from previously married people) are far higher in Malta than in Europe (I have no stats for outside Europe) because of lack of divorce.
Go to the Eurostat stats and take a look at countries such as Ireland, Holland, Spain vis a vis countries such as the Czech republic or Estonia for example.
Once you peruse these statistics it may finally dawn on you that marriage breakdowns and divorce rates vary from country to country irrespective of whether there is divorce or not (Malta is the only one with no divorce).
@I.Apap
With regards to co-habitation stats - if you peruse those of Italy you will see that over 70% of co-habitations are between people who never married in the first place. Definitely not the case in Malta.
I think the divorce debate has been concluded a long time ago.
Your ramblings still distort my comment, where I said that legislators will decide on the question of the introduction of divorce and no one is going to stop them. This doesnot amount to dictating. To criticise the bishop for reminding the Church followers that silence on this point is not an option for them, while free rein is giving to those who do not feel the obligation of heeding the bishop, is a classic example of what secularism means to some people.
Freedom for secularists to criticise the church while attacking those who disagree with them, even by distorting their arguments.
@ l.apap
So you agree that divorce has not reduced cohabition in other countries. And then you proceed to repeat the common mantra: "Yes, but not in Malta".
Most seperated people in such relationships, especially those having children will doubtlessly move from co-habitation to marriage as soon as divorce is introduced. Reasonable people do not see the introduction of divorce as a panacea to marriage problems. However, it will go a long way in resolving the problems these people face daily.
"It will become more difficult for parents to pass on the values they believe in to their children"
If the values are rational, it will not be more difficult at all. However, I concede that the imposition of religion on pain of death is long-gone. So while the passing on of values may or may not be more difficult, the imposition of values certainly will be.
"Referring to the need for the Church and the faithful to defend their values, Mgr Cremona warned that silence and acceptance of a value-free society was not neutrality, but a way to strengthen secularism".
Secularism is not value-free.
So now, the Church has monopolised these secular values, after centuries of total silence? Interesting.
"Earlier, he said Malta was under threat of the ideology of secularism".
Is the separation of church and state a "threat"? Would the archbishop like us to return to the times when Popes were, or controlled, kings? Is the archbishop opposed to democracy?
"Although this ideology was based on personal choice, it was strong enough to influence society, sometimes even through legislation".
No it is not. Secularism is not synonymous with individualism, particularly when secularists are socialists or at least promote social values.
“The stronger this ideology becomes, the more difficult it will be for one to live his personal values".
How so? If secularism is, as the archbishop describes it, an ideology of personal choice, then it will actually become easier for one to live his personal values. Will the archbishop make up his mind?
Cont....
For reasons which youk now best, you have completly misinterpreted (to put it mildly) my comment. No reasonable reader could possibly claim that I have tried to dictate to anyone else what to believe or how to live.
@ John Saliba
You did not go one better. You simply evaded to answer my questions which were put to elicit (as some defenders of divorce do) whether cohabition in Malta is the result of the absence of divorce, and it follows, basing oneself of the experience in other countries, divorce would elimate or reduce cohabition, and the other social ills that affect modern society.
Your Quote : "Has the introduction of divorce in other countries, led to fewer marriage breakups, less cases of cohabition, better care of the children of broken homes, and led to a second chance only to correct a mistake"
I go one better.
Has the non-introduction of divorce in Malta led to fewer marriage breakups, less cases of cohabition, better care of the children of broken homes, and led to people staying together even when the marriage was obviously a big mistake?
The answer is definitely not. People who wanted/want to leave a marriage do so irrespective of divorce being a legal option or not.
How many times must this be repeated before it click's into some people's heads???
Divorce, if anything, will reduce the number of cohabitations in Malta not the other way around.
It might shock you, but I'm grounded in very good morals and don't plan to divorce or get an abortion, don't fancy gay relationships myself, don't use wheelchairs and plan to stay within the realms of the law and live a happy and fulfilled life--as much as luck throws my way at least. Yet unlike you I don't plan to DICTATE what fellow adult citizens should do with their lives. I have enough on my plate already.
I don't believe in supernatural fairy tales and unlike you, I have no solace in the fact that bad people are going to hell, but I still strive for the common good – until I turn to dust at least.
We are standing on the shoulders of giants who made our life so much better. I only hope to contribute back my little invisible part to society. I'm writing here to balance against myopic, intolerant views. The bishop can say what he wants, but when anybody dictates how civil society should behave, then I have a right to air my views.
We must all be scared only by ignorance !
Honestly I do not see why what the Archbishop has to say should make news.
So Bishop Cremona tells a congregation that silence in not an option for Catholics in the debate on the introduction of divorce. He does not silence others. He does not threaten anyone with moral sancions (as admittedly happened in the past), but he is still severely criticised.
By whom? By those propagating the ideology of secularism, which has led to the ultimate claim that God is dead. Removing God from our life does not mean that other values, which have as much moral, social, human (and divisive) elements do not replace the displaced religious ones. This is why it is wrong to think that the introduction of divorce has a purely state dimension. Yes, the legislative decision will be taken by parliamentarians (most of whom could not be seen in the congregation) and no one is stopping them. The bishop is only informing them, once again, of the teaching of theCatholic Church which he represents.
Has the introduction of divorce in other countries, led to fewer marriage breakups, less cases of cohabition, better care of the children of broken homes, and led to a second chance only to correct a mistake.
Evarist Saliba
Jericho shmericho: at the time of the biblical Jericho the egyptians have left copious records of trade and politics with the Canaanite cities. At that time Canaan was an Egyptian province closely controlled by Egyptian administration. Moreover the archaeology shows that at that time Jericho and most other large cities in the area didn't have fortifications and walls but served primarily as provincial bureaucratic centres for Egyptian control.
I guess you suppose that the archaeology is lying…
May I recommend you the fine book "The Bible Unearthed". It's written by two eminent archaeologists and based on factual and painstaking digging, not glorified hearsay.
I recommend you case your judgement on hard fact and rational thought not wishful thinking.
Secularism is a philosophy where human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact rather than religious dogma or influence -in practice people are free to think.
Secularism has brought about the age of enlightenment, as people turn towards science and rationalism and away from religion and superstition.
The church has always been an opponent of secularism because it undermines its already precarious position.
To find out the answer to Monsignor Semprione's VERY important question about what Christ would, and does, say about The Vatican, along with CONFIRMATION from Holy Scripture and the Testimony of the Apostles.
The first 20 pages of the pope's book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope", are, according to Christ, (yes Christ, read on for the PROOF) filled with blasphemy and extremely bad advice, that, if anyone takes it, will lead them unavoidably to "the Lake of Fire and Brimstone". If it takes a grip on anyone then they will BURN. The rest of his book is filled with absolutely nothing of any help and is empty of everything of any VALUE, just like all of his teaching - filled with "hot air" to fan the FLAMES.
We are not with you Sur Cremona! We want divorce! And no wonder why that the church is looing its people! Wewillsupport those politicians who will stand up and have the courage to fight for this right!
Leave governance and the gauging of liberties to society at large, your Eminence, and stick to what you're qualified to do - teach the Bible to those who believe in it.
A bit like Roman Catholicism, then? Oh, the irony....and this is meant to be the best the non-secular camp can offer?
The Church should just shut up and let people live their lives according to their own choices, and, in the same vein, the secular camp should calm down and not treat every believer as some sort of imbecile. Whatever happened to live and let live?
How low can I go? just because I point out that there are different versions of Christ and that Christ's supposed teachings vary so much in the gospels that they would not last one session of counter questioning in court?
When you wake up to the fact that the apostolic succession is just revision carried out in Origin's time. It is a fake just like the (now proved to be a 7th century fake) Inheritance of Constantine.
Wake up sir. Your mind is so closed to anything except what you have been indoctrinated at school and home that I could say its ossidised.
Its sad people like you that the church is looking for to fight its political battles.
As for being a spokeman for Sinclair Calleja I can simply reply that 'la verita offende' especially intollerent people who uphold no one's opinion but their own.
Quote : if you're a Christian, you can't agree with divorce.
Singularly Incorrect.
All the couple of hunderd plus Christian faiths I know of (including not least Ortodoxy) tollerate forms of Divorce.
It is only the Catholic version of Christianity that closes the door to divorce (keeping it open to its 'faithful' through annulment).
Catholics, no one is suggesting that your faith should come in line with Christianity on matters of Divorce. You can very much stay in your corner and play at non-divorce, annulments etc.
But please, do not keep insisting that this confused attitude should remain state culture. Please let us move on to join the real world.
I have no trouble with stable, productive religions, cultures and sub-cultures. Being a very tolerant and inclusive person, I appreciate the good work they can do in society. I however feel obliged to criticise intolerant, exclusive and bigoted ideas about how society and a state should function, no matter from which pulpit they are preached.
The church now says that the bible never intended to describe science and nature: God's divine wisdom saw otherwise. Now we know that it doesn't even represent a decent historical model. It is wildly inaccurate, bigoted against other cultures (nothing new here) and extremely intolerant of others - something still visible today with the belligerent fundamentalists still blighting our lives.
The bottom line is: the church can dictate all the mores and morals it wants for its adherents, but it cannot force the rest of society to follow. I think the church still misrepresents the laws of a secular state with the laws of Moses - an Arthurian fable…
@ Lina Caruana, no one is claiming the right to form a conclave to moderate the Church's teachings. I have no quarrel with the fact that the Church is against divorce, it is its imposition that is odious. And please tell me what this entity called "the common good" is in your eyes. Who should determine its nature? The Church? We are back to square one..... what our bishops are advocating is a de facto theocracy, at least as regards legislation and policy touching on morality, ethics and the like
In his zeal to solidify State and Church, the good Archbishop gives no hint that moral behavior is not a monopoly of Christendom, or for that matter religion as a whole, regardless of denomination. Acceptable social conduct is in fact as applicable a virtue within secularism, using a different yardstick.
The extraordinary reaction of so many TOM readers to his homily serves as a reminder of the growing enmity to church hegemony in Maltese affairs. The day of posturing without encountering opposition from an elaborate pulpit is over. Henceforth and with increased forcefulness the voices of secularism will be heard. Dissent leads to intelligent discourse and social progress. Let each side of the debate state its case for the people to decide. In the end secularism will prevail.
This religious recalcitrance is reminiscent of those poor old Japanese soldiers abandoned on deserted islands, and who maintained their posts well into the 60s and 70s, and in any case into their infirmity.
re: the gentleman in question being "the voice of Christ", the record is inconclusive as to what that may have sounded like. However, one hopes he has the ability to turn the thing off for more mundane communications like ordering breakfast items.
re: enjoying an Apostolic Succession, this has been banned in several US states, unless both parties are consenting adults, although I'm less surprised to see this archaic practice still going on in a country which, it would appear, has yet to be told about the Enlightenment.
There is not an iota of proof that by "they" and by "some Catholics" in your quotation, Fr J Borg himself was referring to to our bishops. That is your personal and unsupported presumption. You are gratuitously applying Fr J Borg's statements to the bishops and I am sure that he deprecates the misuse you are making of his written words.
Some say - but that's islam. The difference is not so great. In less than a century ago, a bishop a mob of people (ironically many of them females) to stone Manuel Dimech for saying women and men are equal.
Probably some people are against secularism because they weren't here at the days of the Inquisition
We need a tolerant State that doesn't dictate the moral lives that people conduct, but a parliament that legislates purely to keep the State functioning efficiently for the common good.
I find it hilarious that there are many people still peddling these old books used to prop up failed states: the old testament was mostly invented c.600bc to prop up the husk of an obliterated nation. Moses, David and Solomon are little more than Arthurian fables to create a common identity. The New Testament was heavily edited in the third century to shore up a failing Roman empire.
"In God’s name they showed utter disrespect for the proper distinction between Church and state which is a very important and innovative tenet of Christianity. Even to-day the way some Catholics speak and write betrays the belief that the state should behave as if it was a theocracy. Malta is no exception to such ways of thinking.
The list of the obscenities because “God said so” – the ultimate blasphemy - goes on; but will we let it keep going on?"
Fr. Joe speaks of the utter disrespect of separation between state and church and our bishops on the other hand speak about the ills of such separation and the "mission" of all faithful to resist it.You keep saying that Fr. Borg's blog does not apply to our Bishop's drivel, but it is pretty plain to see in my eyes.
Please do concede this one.... your failure to concede to the obvious is becoming painfully embarrassing
Are you Mr Calleja's Spokesman?! How low can you go! The Catholic Church is the Only Church to enjoy the Apostolic Succession...
Did I say I disrespect people who do not agree with me? Who can blame (or disrespect) the poor child who eagerly awaits the coming of Christmas with the full hope and conviction that Father Christmas will come around and inundate him with gifts?
I thank you for supporting the OT as the way. However I should point out to you that the Old Testament (OT) , the new and the Koran are all the words of God, using the prophets. The OT, is not what the Jews say, but prophets of God. True the laws of God are harsh, BUT the beauty of Gods laws is that NOBODY gets to be poor and suffer as in todays world. Such is the reward (doing Gods will) and the curse (ill health and punishment if you do not). The Holy Books are NOT, and I repeat NOT religious books. These are supposed to be the way of the Isrealite people (Gods demonstration people, meaning Champions of God) and has NOTHING to do with the physical state of Isreal today. With so many false teachings, it is so easy to be astray.
What Christian sentiments!! Are you really saying "You made your bed, now lie in it"?? You smugly sit in judgement, deciding who should be allowed happiness and who shouldn't. Nice.
Let the Church be anti-divorce.. no one expects the Church to introduce it. Let it keep its arguments that marriage is a sacrament and hence indissoluble (although then again, what is Holy Orders?) Let Catholics continue to spurn divorce. Nobody is going to ram divorce down the throat of good practising Catholics. So why the fear? Why the panic? You bring the children's happiness as an excuse. What is the difference between children of parents who are separated and of those who are divorced? Is it possible that you are labouring under the misconception that just because people are separated they will not start up a new life with someone else? Open your eyes and look around you. And why do you say that by wanting divorce one is declaring that they will betray their spouse? Wouldn't it be far better to have marriages that succeed in spite of divorce? And not just because divorce isn't available??
So this Archbishop was the voice of Christ today? Actually the Christ ? The Roman Catholic Christ, the Orthodox Christ, Protestant Christ??
Historically the church has always been against a position that weakens its teaching. A certain Bruno Giordano and Galileo immediately come to mind. These persons had the holy book thrown at them and they were persecuted by people who claimed to be the voice of Christ.
Therefore before feeling sorry for Mr Calleja I suggest you start with yourself because you are the one with childish antics in my view.
Thanks for your posts. Yes if one believes in the Holy Bible is it either log stock and barrel or nothing. I believe in it yes! Death sounds so horrible to us, but that is what God wants! He will then give us a fresh body to begin with and start life lessons once again.
@ Ian Sammut Dacoutros. What the bible said is true. It is only man that can divorce a woman, and not vice-versa. Understand now? Of course women would always call the bible sexist and what not. This is why God made man physically stronger, to control her, with love not undue punishment. He should love her as himself too. Man having a higher spiritual standpoint, (from Gods point of view) is the master of the household, according to St. Paul, and it is for this reason, and also why Man must be the custodial parent in case of a seperation.
Now, let's clarify something for Sinclair. You quoted the Old Testament. The OT is there to manifest the old law and the NT is there to manifest how Jesus changed the harsh laws of the Jews.
Now, to make matters clear, if you (anyone) believe in God, you are against divorce. In Malaciah, the last book of the OT, it is clearly said; "For I the Lord God, I hate divorce". And we all know what Jesus said about divorce. A big clear unequivocal NO.
For those still smarting from the politico-religious crisis in the 60s, there won't be a repeat for it. Both the politicians and the Church know it's not healthy for their own interests.
Last lesson in democracy: The bishop has every right and obligation to speak out his mind as anyone else. Those who do not agree with this right, can all go to some arab country, china or russia.
You are distorting Fr J Borg's blog when you insist that this blog is a "direct criticism of the way the bishops have conducted themselves" in the divorce debate.
No amount of re-reading the blog would support your version of what he actually wrote in his blog. There is only a single incidental reference to divorce and to some "members of the church" (not even the "clergy" let alone the "bishops") countering the fundamentalist secularist approach by adopting similar fundamentalist methods.
Some more excerpts from your Holy book:
"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. [Leviticus, chapter 20]"
So do you really believe this stuff literally?! Stop this nonsense please, and welcome to planet Earth.
The words of the Archbishop are clear and concise. It is obvious that the church is weighing its options including whether to plunge into another (un)holy war to prevent the legislation of divorce.
Maybe it will be reminiscent of the 1960's but with far different results
Potentially they MIGHT win the first battle but the consequences of such a win (if they win) will be simply that of splitting society down the middle and in turn simply accelerate the Church's decline and eventual defeat.
I think it may be more astute for the Church to stay on the sidelines and preach that those who believe should never opt for divorce. If lawmakers want to legislate divorce let them do so. After all those who will opt for divorce are certainly not part of the remaining catholic flock.
On immigration I think the Church is really out of sinc with at least 70% of the country however.
Sorry, Christopher, but I don't see a big difference at all. That's also what the Catholic Church teaches as well. You can "converse" with God 24hours a day (without wanting to sound like I actually believe speaking with oneself is really speaking with the invisible man). So no, the Way of Christ is just like any other religion.
You asked which reason I am employing. The reason I am employing is scientific evidence for the supernatural, as opposed to blind faith. Some children have blind faith in Father Christmas as well, but they will soon realize that faith alone does not cause his existance. From a scientific point of view, God is just another hyped up Father Christmas, who occasionally gives us the impression of listening to our prayers because we happen to get lucky, or otherwise. It is science that is moving humanity forward, dear Christopher, not superstition aka religion.
When I get sick though, I'd rather go see a doctor and comfort myself in medical breakthroughts rather than stay home praying (and eventually go see the doctor nonetheless since we all know prayer alone will not heal anybody).
@ SINCLAIR CALLEJA
Dear Mr Calleja,
I pity you for having renounced tha Catholic faith...! You are full of anger and frustration. Your arguments are based on childish thoughts. For us Catholics, Reason and Faith go hand in hand. I pray that before you depart fromn this world you'll be back in the fold. God bless you.
1 Cor 7:10 & 11
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
And for the record - it is not a matter or biblical interpretations - I could give you quite a few, the point is not to try to define marriage in a biblical manner but rather a vow in a biblical manner.
Lets just get our conversations straight. The problem is that the bible is so cristal clear about this topic that people are trying to micro interpret a marriage and not looking that the fact that it is not that but a VOW and a vow made before GOD no less!!!
Perjury is a criminal offence - what is it? A VOW BEFORE GOD TO SAY THE TRUTH. A VOW BEFORE GOD!!! A vow is not something that can or should be taken lightly! It is not a joke!
To be complete please read 1 Cor 7:10-11, Mat 5:32, Mat19:9. I could go on and on.
Just a thought for you. I was a Catholic, and now abiding by the Way of Christ. As I told you, Christ is to throw out forcefully (and soon) all religions on earth. I am NOT religious, and being religious does not show you the way of God. You can converse with God 24 hours per day, and not 45 mins in Church on Sunday... see the BIG difference!?
What reason are you employing please? Can you give me an example of what you mean?
No, I am not being ironic at all. I just want to show to all, just how bad we all are, including myself. We have now made a mockery of anything God said to us. The second commandament says:
2. YOU shall NOT create an image or likeness of ANYTHING that is IN HEAVEN, or on earth, or under the sea and YOU shall NOT worship or BUY such things. YOU shall NOT bow down to them or serve them for I the "I AM" your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate (or disobey) Me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love (and obey) Me, and KEEP My COMMANDMENTS.
Then the picture above show people who bow down to an alter etc...Commandament breakers! I have several other proofs of this too, should you wish to know. What makes you think that in this 21st century we are better off? We are living in the times of Noah, and Sodom and Gomorrah, and things running riot. God word is more in advance of current newspapers!
So now we're going to start blaming the devil whenever we employ reason? What happened to reason? Shall we throw it out of the window, and together with it, humanity's progress? Christopher, rationality has brought humanity this far, and rationalising religion is a natural thought process employed any intellectual capable of common sense. Do you really believe that rationality is the work of some invisible monster which some obsessed preacher is frightening you from? Might as well believe in the boogie-man while we're at it!
Are you serious saying those things? Or are you just being ironic? I hope so... check the calendar please, we're in the 21st century.
Don't even try to go there Christopher! You'd be attacked by a plethora of amateur theologians peevishly trying to explain the ways of divinity as it suits their faith-blinded "reasoning", such as the recent miserable attempts to fit the Church's teachings with science (e.g. evolution), which served nothing more than to demonstrate the Church's fallibility as happened time and time again. But let's not go there; please... you can't really argue with "faith" can you?
Yet, I do foresee a time when Malta, just like other countries on the forefront of civilisation and human progress, will embrace complete secularism, and religion will be nothing more than a personal conviction possibly organised in social circles, where people respect each other irrespective of their beliefs or their non-beliefs, and where scientific progress, technology, medicinal sciences, art and culture prevail. It will be a new chapter for Malta indeed, and as was said earlier, a breath of fresh air catapulting us years ahead, to a life whereby we take responsibility of our own actions rather than blaming some supernatural entity for anything that happens. We'll get there, I'm sure. How? It's called natural selection. Never fails.
Thanks for your comments. Christ came to uphold the Law (meaning also Old Testament, is still in vigour). Do not let the ego tell you otherwise. If you also quote Matthew, here goes:
5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
5:32 But I say unto you, 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.
There is absolutely no contradiction to ANY of the biblical readings, but only the devil seeking to create conflict in our minds which is his domain.
Another thing that you should know is that when God breaths life into a child, and is a woman, then she is seen as of a lessor being than man. I can prove this to you with biblical scripture. True it creates a hard throat for women, and men, but then that is the reality the way God sees it, and not OURS! Judges now give preference to women having child custody. They go against God's will. Such is the perversity of man!
If you did not find Fr. Borg's blog a direct criticism of the way the bishops having conducting themselves in the divorce debate, I invite you to read it again. In any case, withdrawing your endorsement of his blog could mean one of two things:
1. You endorsed Fr. Joe's blog without even reading it;
2. That you obediently endorse any piece written by a priest, and are now obediently endorsing the bishop's view due to their seniority over Fr. Borg
Divorce should not be included with subjects like abortion because they are two separate issues which are not related in any way, other than that they are both not permitted by the Church. The subject of abortion gives rise to feelings of repulsion and disgust which do not manifest themselves when discussing divorce, therefore it is in the Church's interest to mix the two!!
And yes, you do have a right to your opinion, just as I have the right to criticise it.
One must also not forget to totally conflicting passage: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." - Matthew 19:6.
This is one example of those numerous instances whereby "divinely inspired" text is in conflict with its own teachings. One might argue that the old testament no longer applies. I wonder then, what it is still doing there in the first place, given that many faithful read passages from it daily and take it as the word of God. All the ambiguity in the Bible has time and time again thoughout history proven confusing, and indeed many of the passages are nowadays considered as being mere legends that passed from generation to generation by word of mouth. But, as you hinted Christopher, if we were to look at the scriptures for inspiration we'd be surprised at what it has to say about various topics, such as slavery and gender (in)equality, far from the awe-inspiring and truth-revealing message one would expect from a holy book.
Deuteronomy
24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of HIS house.
24:2 And when she is departed out of HIS house, she may go and be another man's [wife].
24:3 And [if] the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of HIS house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife;
24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the "I AM": and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the "I AM" thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.
Not to mention the fact that in a small nation like Malta having second, third and fourth marriages may even potentially mean that children later will actually be somehow related when copulating in marriage giving rise to a whole host of biological problems.
Ultimately it is simple; if you do not believe in the sanctity of marriage, the duration of vows or the authority of the Church then do not impose onto the Church. Ultimately your freedom ends where mine begins - freedom is a very relative philosophy and its definition very non linear. It is not simply doing what you want, but taking responsibility for doing it. Taking lifelong vows before God and man to then break them is not freedom but self slavery!!!
I fear the Archbishop is painting himself into a corner here.
If the church is so in favour of welcoming immigrants they should have a special arrangement with Malta to transfer all the immigrants from Malta to the Vatican.
As the years pass less and less people seem to care about what the Archbishop says any longer - but thinking of condoms, divorce and now accepting what is engineered immigration - its small wonder why.
2. by attacking secularism on issues such as divorce he reinforces the point that the Church represents no one's cause but her own (clinging onto power)
Having lived 17 years in various countries abroad I assure readers that a more secular Malta will bring a refreshing breath of oxygen this countries so desperately needs.
A healthy discussion!
Unfortunately there are some who, in trying to put their ideas forward, attack those who oppose their views.
Arguments are won with valid points and not by demonising the opponent!
For any true and convinced Catholic, Divorce should never be the solution, becasue as a Catholic one believes that she/he took marriage as a Sacrament.
One should also consider that only 50% are church-goers, and out of them there are those who are not confinved Catholics.
The church has its Canon Laws and on their bases she is authorised to annual RELIGIOUS weddings.
The State has its Civil Laws and on them it shall has the right to annaul CIVIL marriages.
But lets be honest, most of you who criticised the Archbishop did got married on the Altars of the Catholic Church. Therefore I conclude that in this case most of the Maltese are hypocrats, want to use the Church Altars for status and public opinion and do not want to abide by its Laws.
You will have the right to argue when each one of you should have the guts to state that you are a non-Catholic, if you stay in the club you must stick to its rule.
One can say that the Local Church should have spoken long time ago, not now.
Too late!
The reality demands a good discussion on what is really breaking up marriages. Why so much cohabitation. Why everything has a relative meaning with no consideration of what is objectively good or not. It is no easy job and while the discussion on divorce becomes more emotive, I think that we as a society are looking at a non-solution to our problem of a stable family. Obviously, as quite evident, if we hardner our hearts, than divorce will get in. However before we arrive there lets give a good try to really try to solve part of what is breaking up such an important social unit in our society.
Yes silence is not an option. I plee to Church authorities to first set up the example by being dynamic not only in its institutional organization, but by being more authentic in its normal contacts with the people. May I say that Christ also used the samaritan divorcee to give witness to him.
Mr George Caruana wrote that 'Personal Choice’ is the most precious value people cherish. Does he know what are the consequeces of this statement? Should I be given the freedom to act according to my "personal choice" if my personal choice goes aginst the wish of the majority? Let`s say my personal wish is to eliminate a person who does not agree with me, should I be given the right to proceed and eliminate such a person?
Guys get over it.. we should not even listen to what these clowns have to say.
For me to believe them they should 1st sell all the gold that have in their churches and give back the land that they stole from the people in change of redemption!
The idealogical gap between us is not bridgable. In the end the force of reason will determine if old style religion with all its theatrical trappings, rituals, and lavish places of worship, or the freedom of folks to think and act for themselves as free agnets, will prevail.
Meantime secularism in Malta and elsewhere is here to stay. There is no going back to bullying from a pulpit, when the fulcrum of knowledge has decisively shifted in favor of hard science, emperical evidence of the origin of matter, and our rightful place within the infinite cosmos.
Mgr Cremona has an uphill if not unattainable battle in his crusade to reverse human progress.
The Christian religion tells its followers to love everyone. Therefore the Christians should not IMPOSE on others, non-christians what and what not to do.
Especially when the Archbishop is part of an institution which still discriminate against women by considering them as inferior by not allowing them to become priests, and against the use of condoms in Africa where it could save lots of lifes.
The message of the Archbishop should ONLY be directed to the Christian part of the society and not the society as a whole.
Even if divorce, euthanasia etc have these negative effects you mention, well allude to rather than mention; liberal countries would still be far better places to live in than non-liberal ones. Would you prefer living in The Netherlands or Iran? The United States or China? The negative effects of allowing people freedom will always be less than those of denying them freedom. History has proven this time and time again.
And by the way nowhere in the world is the use of addictive drugs such as heroin considered a right. You may also be interested to know that the Netherlands with its very liberal drug laws has one of the lowest rates of hard drug use in the world. Half as much as the US with its zero tolerance policy in fact! Scandinavia with its liberal sexuality has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancies and sex crimes in the world, and so on it goes.
You are evidently wrong. The Church has no means to impose its will on the State. In our democratic society it is the sovreign electorate that imposes on the State by re-electing political parties it approves or by removing them from power when they fail to satisfy. That is why pressure groups of all sorts legitimately woo it. Religious adherence is only one of these pressure groups.
I endorsed Fr J Borg's blog because, unlike you, I do not believe that the blog is "a direct criticism of the way our bishops have been dealing with the divorce issue". If Fr J Borg agrees with your interpretation then I unreservedy withdraw my endosement.
The Archbishop's sermon dealt with the many issues plaguing to-day's society including abortion and euthanasia and I added drug abuse. You claim that the harm being caused by these scourges are "unsubstantiated" in your own estimation and that in any case, divorce must not be included with them for reasons which we can only guess. You are entitled to your