Offensive to Catholics

C. Mc Neil

Sep 29th 2008, 14:35

Maria Gauci: It seems that you did not read the reply given by J. Meli, as I have read his comments many time and maybe because he stated only that such a right is given by law which in fact is also true and through the Maltese Constitution which is a binding fact. So in fact I could not see that he was imposing that right on you, neither insulting you at all, maybe because Malta is a real FREE COUNTRY and you can say what you want. That's nice you can oppose, but please so does Mr.Meli, he has that right too and it was explain why it's wrong or which is right for the country.

It looks that you are against any rules or regulations in Malta! So if Malta did not have any rules and regulations in crime or traffic, I wonder how we all can survive? If the law is made by the gun? So societies without a law and order is a pirate/un-demcratic country. The state has a right to protect its citizens and property, so does members of the Catholic faith, they too have this right and in the constitution.

C. Mc Neil

Sep 29th 2008, 14:26

@J. Zammit A very big majority are very happily married, and because they followed Christ's teaching when still young and kept their lives in accordance to the ten commandments etc. One should know that marriage is for life and when one gets married his vows are “for better or for worse,” and “until death do us part” These vows are stated when one is before God in church and in the presence of the guests and the priest. While in a civil marriage one does not state until death do us part, but when one is fed up of his/her wife/husband?

In the Holy Bible we find that Christ opposed divorce because he said in no uncertain terms that marriage is a lifetime commitment. He also told us “to leave your spouse for another person maybe legal (in civil terms), but it is adultery in God's eye! [139 ]

C. Mc Neil

Sep 29th 2008, 14:24

@J. Zammit If one is married in Civil (not in church), he can separate when ever he wants be separate quite freely, but if he goes to live or marry another person in civil, he is still be doing an adultery in the eyes of God. Because God made marriage to be a permanent commitment. So better one does not enter into marriage with the option of getting out.

Marriage is more likely to be happy if from the outset you are committed to permanence and with God's help one can stay together, but we must learn to forgive, understand and be patient in life, otherwise Jesus condemned this attitude that leads to divorce.

Jesus held up God's ideal for marriage and told his followers to live by that idle. So why can't we too follow this state of marriage in harmony and love. St. Paul told Titus in a message to “teach them the scriptures as well as to live them.” Therefore, are we all do this as Christians or Catholics ? Why can't YOU!

C. Mc Neil

Sep 29th 2008, 14:19

May I explain to you that with divorce nowhere in Europe or other countries had solved their marriage problems but had increased to both partners, because they do get divorced again and again, making more miserable children and unhappy without their original father or mother sometimes.

Surveys and research had shown that due to this action, their children fell into great loneliness of also becoming rebels or either criminals, or when married they too follow these steps of divorce. So the best solution is to learn how to love, understand your partner, forgiveness in all matter is important too and respect. The moderation in one's house and expenses is also important, to avoid a lot of debt and less time among you family. Those who followed these in return they produced a solid and respected family bond for year later and they did not need to be separated.

C. Mc Neil

Sep 27th 2008, 15:08

Dated: 27th September, 2008.
@Maria Gauci: Again It seems that you either did not read the reply given by J. Meli or you wanted to turn it towards your side of opinion, because he only stated that such a right is only given by law, through the Constitution and that's a fact because I verified it.

In fact I could not see that Mr. Meli was in any way imposing or removing that right on or from you, neither insulting you, because Malta is a FREE COUNTRY and in what we say... So you can oppose, so does Mr.Meli have a right to explain why it's wrong or which is right for the country.

It looks that you are against any rules or regulations! So if we did not have any rules and regulations in crime or traffic, I wonder how we can survive, if the law is made by the gun....?

A society without a law & order is a pirate country. A State has a right to protect its citizens and property, so does members of the Catholic faith, they too have this right in the constitution.

C. Mc Neil

Sep 27th 2008, 14:58

While I agree with what Daniel Jackson stated 100%, but on the other hand I wish to inform MARIA GAUCI, that Christ spoke to His disciples against divorce and God gave the ten (10) commandments to Moses for us to follow and not to live in a jungle. Love thy neighbor is on top, yet this is not done with those who put such comments, but showing their hatred to his brother?

If you cannot follow or obey the church or state laws in marriage, you have other alternative, get married by the state book, but not in the Catholic Church. As I have already stated “The result of divorce in the U.K. was equal to criminality – So who wants this to come among us with youngsters being killed by rival gangs nearly every week and this because of the ever increasing of divorce (see my report on such survey) What I did not say is that more than 84% of those killed had a criminal record. Is this what you want of MALTA?

Daniel Jackson

Sep 26th 2008, 19:31

I think those who are being arrogant against catholics should be careful..
there is something called Libel law in malta...

And another thing nobody, not even the most ardent anti-catholics on this sort of forum, can impose divorce on catholics as they want here.

If you want divorce, don't get married in church at all.
If you get married in church, follow church rules or get out of the church. End of story.

Mc Neil

Sep 26th 2008, 18:15

A study by Dr. Patricia Morgan, British Criminologist stated that after effecting studies in U.K. and USA discovered a link between braking-up of families and criminality. National Development Study held in 1975 on 18,000 young boys and girls before they became (16) sixteen years, had appeared before the court for criminal offenses. The result was:-

8% those who lived with natural parents.
16% coming from single mothers.
19% coming from women living with another man (divorced)
70% of those in prison came from families without a natural father (broken families)

Criminality had increased in UK since divorce was introduced. The Social Justice Commission of UK led by I. Duncan Smith listed 190 recommendations to address such problems of social decay, like high crime rates, low aspirations, low educational attainment, & high dependency on the state. Marriages need to be based on a solid foundation with rules to follow. Without rules to observe, disaster can follow.

Divorce solves problems of our broken marriages, or would it not better to teach from early stages as from 14 years onwards on how to build a solid future in a marriage situation ?

J Farrugia

Sep 26th 2008, 09:04

Mrs Busuttil you should not be offended. Liberals have made images of a frog nailed to a cross to depict our Lord Jesus Christ, they have made obscenities against our Lord Jesus Christ in the name of modern art, why should you worry. They will not even allow you freedom of speech or freedom of worship. They did not reach what they wished and thus they want to take away our fundamental human rights. But remember madam: those who are persecuted because of My Name, are blessed. For their's is the Kingdom of Heaven. Have faith.

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 26th 2008, 07:52

@ Paul Borg:

Who told you that I would not "grant" you the right to stand up for what you believe? But think about this: What grants you the right to deny me the right to stand up for what I believe?

I do not condemn homophobes. I pity them.

John Zammit

Sep 26th 2008, 03:57

Divorce is not a matter for the majority to decide upon, since such a catastrophy only affects a very small number, who experience 'hell on earth' by their mismatch. Although the Catholic Church is uncompromisingly against divorce, it does however approve of 'annulment of marriage', and re marriage in church even in situations where parents had already procreated and brought up a family.
If there are situations on religious grounds for unnulment of marriages, why shouldn't there be similar considerations on non religious grounds?
And is Malta any more immune from marriage breakdowns because the Government does not recognise divorce?
Recognition by the Government would at least make the tragedy of divorce a little less painful by a legally supported equitable distribution of the wealth they had amassed together.
The Catholic Church, in the State of Victoria, subjects intending spouses to a thorough psychological examination as to their compatibility before approving their marriage in Church.

And since a divorce law does not make it compulsory for people to divorce, why should those who, quite obviously, are very happily married impose their will on others who are not so fortunate?

Divorce is not pleasant thing but sometimes necessary.

Paul Borg

Sep 25th 2008, 23:30

@ Maria Gauci: You say " How many times have you read comments accusing people of being heterosexuals? And how many times have you read comments accusing people of being “bad” Catholics?" Where have you been living: Mars? One simple example: Who calls heterosexuals "breeders" whose fertility is destroying the world. Who demands the right to flaunt every type of obscenity of the gay lifestyle at Gay Pride Days purely to affront the heterosexuals? You demand every Human Right and more for yourselves, but haul heterosexuals before the courts, for hate crimes no less, for the slightest criticism of the gay lifestyle: you arrogate the right to call the Pope, the Church and Catholics every vile possible name with impunity. You need to catch up on your reading of gay literature and media. As to calling us "bad Catholics." you do worse because you call us bad people for being Catholics. Just follow the thread on this topic. As to the Temple. you obviously failed to remember that the " evil was taking place in the forecourt and the portico" outside the Temple not inside it.

A. Muscat

Sep 25th 2008, 22:23

@ anton r borg

‘Only 2% of African people are Catholic; it is a ridiculous myth to argue that the Church's advice causes the HIV ………..’

Bar the North African countries with the majority of Muslims. Over 90% of the rest of Africa’s over 600 millions population is Christians. Get facts rights please.


@ Arnold Galea
It would be interesting to hear what religious people think about the fact that there are hundreds of religions for one God.
This is a very good question. I can really understand, why, Christians have many DIFFERENT and UNCOMPATIABLE BIBLES? Does this mean we have many gods?

This is not to indulge in why The bible has been subject to addition, omission and edition since the year, 365 AD. Today in Europe alone we have too many different Bibles. Which Bible shall we stick too and claim to be the word of god ?

Maria Gauci

Sep 25th 2008, 21:54

K Pullicino, in some cases you find nothing wrong with, I see imposition of beliefs - be them Catholic or whatever - especially those being funded by a portion of taxpayers money.

The argument "If you don't agree with divorce, don't use it" is a stupid one. I always argued for divorce from the point of view that if there is a legal contract there should also be one with which to undo it. To my knowledge, all legal contracts have this "out", so should civil unions. I think that's a very different way of argumentation than ""If you don't agree with the religious symbols, don't look at them." One is a legal matter, the other purely rests upon beliefs. And its precisely because we live in a democracy that these things are viewed as impositions of one's belief upon others.

I am neither criticising Catholicism nor democracy. One is a system of beliefs, the other a form of government. I am only criticising the few hot headed people that come up with such ideas. I did not offend anyone nor felt offended by myself. What cause are you referring to exactly?

K. Pullicino

Sep 25th 2008, 21:20

I do remember the religious symbols debate since I commented on those letters. Nothing wrong with those and, in fact, at the back of my mind I can recall some pro-divorce arguments saying "If you don't agree with divorce, don't use it". I think the same argument applies for the religious symbols and many other things: "If you don't agree with the religious symbols, don't look at them."

All the other cases you've mentioned are, as I said, democracy at its best. You want the Constitution amended? Convince 66% of the parliament and it's yours... you're still allowed the right to convince others so no rights of yours have been lost there.

Divorce: If the majority agree that divorce is harmful to their society and therefore prohibit it, you still insist that they're bigots? In that case what you want to criticise is democracy not Catholicism.

But you should remember that offending others won't help your cause, whatever that is. And when I say that, I'm saying it to everyone: both to Catholics and to those who aren't.

Maria Gauci

Sep 25th 2008, 20:38

K Pullicino: Cases of Catholics imposing their views on others (some of them would like to but some actually manage) are the Jacqueline Busuttils and the Jacqueline Callejas of this island. Just to mention one thing....remember the series of letters about religious symbols in public places? Of course you do. Case in point.
I can think of a few others like...Michael Saliba wanting us to make a distinction between a bishop and ordinary persons and leading us to believe that we should follow church leaders blindly since they are the enlightened elite who know what's best for us; Joseph Meli with his cocktail of Scripture and Maltese Constitution resulting in some divine right to teach us what is right and what is wrong; I don't want to get into the issue of divorce but only time will tell who will be imposing what on whom if it comes to a referendum......
The list is long but we're only allowed 200 words!

André Xuereb

Sep 25th 2008, 18:31

K Pullicino: The reason I used quotes (") is that I do not believe that most conversions were carried out in a fair manner or out of free will; however that is something for the history books and way out of point. I completely agree with you re: tolerance towards people who have other beliefs; but then, are Maltese well-known for their tolerance of anything that's "different"?

K. Pullicino

Sep 25th 2008, 18:19

It's either a conversion or an imposition of beliefs, Mr. Xuereb. As far as Malta goes, I don't see Catholics imposing on others. I do see democracy working at its best where there are laws which are also laws that a Catholic is required to follow but that's not imposition.

What I believe is that in Malta we are far from tolerant to other beliefs and religions and that includes atheists being tolerant to other religions and vice-versa.

If the majority agree to prohibit something by law, it has nothing to do with religion. All you have to do, if you don't like a law is to do like the Catholics and obtain the approval of the majority to remove the law.

Unfortunately, as things stand and even by comments I see on this website, I feel I have to correct Ramon Casha and say that: "You live in a world where you have the right to offend someone else."

André Xuereb

Sep 25th 2008, 17:54

K Pullicino: In another letter in today's edition of The Times:

"He didn't say that this law applies only to Catholics or that it has an expiry date. As far as He is concerned, His moral law is binding on all."

That is a case of a Catholic imposing her belief on others.
As for other examples: the "conversion" of peoples in large parts of the world was just that: an imposition of beliefs; and this "conversion" is an ongoing, and encouraged, process.

s.bugeja

Sep 25th 2008, 17:51

@ John meli
Do you believe that only Christians can reach heaven if there is one?

K. Pullicino

Sep 25th 2008, 17:36

And a case of Catholics imposing their belief on others, Maria Gauchi, is...?

"Accusing heterosexuals"? How can one "accuse" someone of being a heterosexual? Likewise, how can one "accuse" someone of being homosexual/Catholic/Atheist/Non-religious?

John Meli

Sep 25th 2008, 16:46

If all religions are based on blind faith, that belief is without evidence, do not agree, because the Holy Bible tells us that we have no excuse not acknowledging it. For the wrath of God is reviled from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God was plain to most of them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, and eternal power, divine nature, have been clearly perceived, since the creation of the world. So you are without excuse of not believing in Christian faith.
If your statement that all religions are based on blind faith is true, then it show the sad state of our Christian Education in our schools, Churches, homes etc. But if you believe that the vast majority of Catholics who actually believe that God requires blind faith then, at best, they have been misled and at worst, they may not be Christians or Catholics at all, but because of this fact we find well over 2 billions believers of our faith!

Maria Gauci

Sep 25th 2008, 16:38

Ramon Casha: well said!

Michael Saliba: are you serious? How about your dear bishops sheltering criminals under their Episcopal veil? I am here referring to the cases of sexual abuse we read in the news earlier this year – priest and nuns. The silence is deafening. Sure they know what’s wrong!!

Joseph Meli: how very convenient of you to have “the right” to teach us what is right and what is wrong! The problem is that several Catholics impose teaching on others, not teach others. That is what I call arrogant and insulting, not one’s expression of his/her opinion.

Paul Borg: the difference you fail to see is that minority groups like gays and transsexuals do not impose their views on others. How many times have you read comments accusing people of being heterosexuals? And how many times have you read comments accusing people of being “bad” Catholics? Who’s prejudiced now? I hope you can reach your own conclusions…

John Camilleri: probably not as low as some “good” Catholics can…..

And by the way, Paul Borg, where did Christ find “evil”? In the TEMPLE. That says it all.

s.bugeja

Sep 25th 2008, 16:30

The popes and bishops have made mistakes in the past and when they did people like jacqueline remind us that they are humans and humans are known to err. so where's the problem?

Jeremy J Camilleri

Sep 25th 2008, 15:37

Does arrogance bother Ms. Busuttil and other Catholics?

Very surprising!!!!

QUote:"One of the letters published in this newspaper was very offensive to us, practising Catholics."

Who exactly are us? EIther Ms. Busuttil has now adopted the royal plural, or she is writing, unsolicited, in the name of others.

Paul Borg

Sep 25th 2008, 15:04

@Kenneth Cassar: You are so "holier than thou" but you would not grant me the right to stand up for what I believe in. But: Remember when Christ found "evil" in the temple, he was not reluctant took a rope to those involved or and he was not reluctant to call Pharisees "hypocrites" and "white washed tombs trying to hide the putrefaction inside them" exactly because they were "holier than thou" Go on: go mincing down that street!!!.

André Xuereb

Sep 25th 2008, 14:58

John Camilleri: Please quote me one line of scripture (or any other official text) which states that Bishops are infallible.

K. Pullicino

Sep 25th 2008, 14:52

"You live in a world where you do NOT have the right not to be offended."

"You" as in Catholics, Ramon Casha?

ivan camilleri

Sep 25th 2008, 14:28

@michael saliba
I hope you are not serious!!! So you think that we follow like sheep? in what the bishop believe is right??

anton r borg

Sep 25th 2008, 13:30

Arnold Galea: the only way to prevent HIV infection is by sensible sexual behaviour, not by use of condoms alone; condoms do not provide reliable protection against viral infection; advising people in Europe on "safe sex" has failed to stem the growing epidemic of sexually transmitted infection (75% of UK adults have evidence of genital wart infection at some time or another), despite freely available contraception. Only 2% of African people are Catholic; it is a ridiculous myth to argue that the Church's advice causes the HIV problem; anyone who has been to Africa will know that the problem there is a direct result of deep-rooted cultural sexual behaviour. The fact remains that abstinence is the only way to guarantee safety. Given that everyone ignores that, monogamy is the only other way to safely reduce risk.

Franco Farrugia

Sep 25th 2008, 13:00

@ J Busuttil - I think that you are attacking freedom of speech and of opinion in this country. You will want the country to revert back to old times, with a Prince-Bishop in authority. Luckily, things will not be so and everyone is prone to criticism, mitred or not.

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 25th 2008, 12:34

@ Michael Saliba:

I would suggest you read: Vicars of Christ - The Dark Side of the Papacy.

All humans err, no exceptions.
__________________________________

@ Paul Borg:

Very "Christian" of you.

Tony Borg

Sep 25th 2008, 12:33

@Arnold Galea. Why do we have allow against murder " when realistically many people do just that?" Why don't we all give such people permission to use high calibre guns. They are just so much more effective than garrotting, stabbing, poisons etc.. If you are claiming that condoms are such a secure 1000% guarantee against the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases or prevention of unwanted pregnancies you are making greater claims for condoms than than their manufacturers. Would any responsible person who values his or her health deliberately have sex with an HIV carrier using a condom?

John Camilleri

Sep 25th 2008, 12:28

@ Andre Xuereb

How low can you go?

Arnold Galea

Sep 25th 2008, 12:17

The problem with Religions is that all of them are not based on facts but mostly on blind faith and that is already a bad thing enough for humanity.

It would be interesting to hear what religious people think about the fact that there are hundreds of religions for one God.

If we take the HIV problem for example, why do they insist on people not to have sex before marriage when realistically many people do just that?

It would be better if the religious people advise people to be responsible in having sex, however, at the same time it should be practical and advise people that at least they use condoms instead of opposing it.

Humans and all other living creature are part of nature and that is where we all are from, the earth is a result of evolution and this makes more sense scientifically.

Paul Borg

Sep 25th 2008, 12:10

@Ramon Casha especially if you are Catholic. Anti Catholicism is the last remaining acceptable prejudice. However if you are gay, transsexual or some other acceptable minority group regardless of how bizarre your lifestyle or beliefs are, then it is a different story.

Joseph J. MELI

Sep 25th 2008, 11:38

Leaders of the Catholic Church and followers are all human, and YES as Catholic we all can quote what is right and wrong and not from our mind, but what Jesus Christ told us and are quoted in the Holy Scripture.

If you or others are no longer of the same faith you can write and express your mind, but that is not coming from any scripture! Therefore, this makes alot of difference.

Church leaders can express their teaching or opinion from scripture by right as given to us in the Constitution of Malta and I am referring to Chapter 2 verse 2, which states:-

"the authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong." So what's wrong and won'ent be offensive if you try to impose some thing against our principles?

To impose on Catholic your opinion that goes against our principles as written in the Holy Scriptures, then this is rather arrogant and insultive. So who is offensive since we have this right to teach others what is right and what is wrong?

michael saliba

Sep 25th 2008, 11:38

It seems to me that A Xeuereb is not making any difference between an ordinary person and a bishop. I hope he knows, that bishops are the representatives of OUR Lord on earth. To us catholics, they are very dear, and we are more than sure that they Know what is WRONG and what is RIGHT for us.

Ramon Casha

Sep 25th 2008, 10:47

You live in a world where you do NOT have the right not to be offended.

TRW O'Neill

Sep 25th 2008, 10:27

What about the head teacher at a Catholic school in the U.K. forbidding the girls at the school for having a preventive against Cervical Cancer? how about the Pope forbidding the use of Condoms as a preventative against HIV & AIDS ? helping to spread it rather than helping to prevent it. , I would call those decisions evil.

André Xuereb

Sep 25th 2008, 10:05

Well the leaders of the Catholic Church are human and they may be wrong in their judgement of what is right and what is wrong. Maybe it is you who are being an arrogant Catholic!