Fr Anton Gouder, Senglea
Divorce is a moral issue too (1)
I would like to comment on the contributions of Georg Sapiano and Fr Joe Borg (The Sunday Times, October 26), both of whom I consider to be my friends.
Dr Sapiano wrote: "I think the divorce debate should not be conducted under the cloud of mortal sin." What is meant by this sentence is most unclear. The issue is not the divorce debate, but the introduction of divorce legislation.
Is Dr Sapiano implying that the introduction of divorce legislation is to be considered as having no moral value? I ask, is it possible to have a human action deprived of a moral value? The answer is no. Subsequently, how can such important legislation that wounds the institution of the family and marriage be amoral?
I deduce that Dr Sapiano is confusing interdett with mortal sin. The former is a canonical sanction while the latter is a moral evaluation of an action. They might be related, but not necessarily so and they are definitely different.
I always prefer to discuss family and marriage issues, and consequently divorce, from the point of view of the common good and what social sciences have researched, rather than from the religious point of view. Dr Sapiano will remember that I did not conduct the divorce debate "under the cloud of mortal sin" but I was asked a straightforward question by Xarabank's presenter, Peppi Azzopardi.
Before answering, I asked Mr Azzopardi whether he was referring to Catholic politicians who heed God's plan and the common good. When the presenter replied in the affirmative, I reiterated that it is a sin - and not only for Catholic politicians but also for those Catholics who may vote in this manner during a referendum.
Fr Joe Borg took his lead from here. Apart from other secondary points, his assertion was that he strongly agreed that it is not a sin for Catholic politicians to vote in favour of the introduction of divorce. He wrote very positively about contrasting ideas by different theologians in general.
I also consider positively a healthy debate among theologians. But this is not the whole ecclesial scenario. There is also the pastoral ministry of the Magisterium who is responsible to give moral direction to the people of God. Theologians are of great service to the Magisterium and the latter is also called to weigh different points of view put forward by theological research and reflection.
Fr Borg refrained from mentioning this pastoral role of the Magisterium. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on November 24, 2002, issued a Doctrinal Note on "Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life" from which I shall quote, so that Catholic politicians and voters will know that this is not a matter of personal opinion.
It mentions St Thomas More who taught by his life and his death that "man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality" (para. 1).
"Citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value" (para. 2).
"It is, however, the Church's right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law" (para. 3).
"The contingent nature of certain choices should not be confused, however, with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values (para. 3).
"The Church recognises that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would non-existent (para.3).
"It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political programme or a law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (para. 4).
"The family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such."
Popular Stories
In Discussion
24 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Gerry Cowie
Nov 3rd 2008, 22:12
William P Flynn please take note:
Follow your own advice - Pay attention!
1/ I never said you denied the ability of any other party to speak - assumption;
2/ The fact that I live in London does not mean I am not Maltese - assumption;
3/ The fact that I basically disagree with divorce and simply point out to you that the Catholic church is bound to give a moral lead to its members does not make me a Catholic - and you even tell me I am a "fervent" one - assumption;
4/ "old" Mr Cowie - how old am I exactly? - assumption.
Your rather childish glee with which you shout for joy that a "fervent catholic" is disagreeing with the Catholic church rather falls on its face!
Surely you should recognise that I am partly agreeing with you. Just be happy with that! What you then go and do, with your ranting, is make your cause look silly. This is not a time for childishness!
I don't doubt that Father Gouder would expect some disagreement even within his own ranks.
The "minority" I referred to your being in is that of your own making! Please
Gerry Cowie
Nov 3rd 2008, 20:42
Mr Flynn,
I see you have tried to make capital out of the fact that I think there are cases for divorce, also trying to make Father Gouder look silly at the same time! Your childish glee at this is not warranted!
You call me "Dear Old" Mr Cowie. How do you know whether I am young or old simply because I write into this newspaper?
You assumed from my comments that I am Catholic because I know a thing or two about that church. But then you have an opinion on everything! Please check your facts and do not make assumptions in order to try to suit your argument. The fact that I have an opinion on divorce does not make me religious!
I suggest a more grown-up approach, Mr Flynn, rather than pouring scorn, which you always deny, but which is quite clear from your contributions below. Even when somebody agrees with you, you cannot resist poking fun or really "going for the jugular!" Be happy that somebody agrees, full stop!
However as I say again and again, all you do is help to strengthen the arguments of those who oppose you and who use a sensible approach.
Joe Xuereb (London UK)
Nov 3rd 2008, 19:01
@ Fr. Anton Gouder. It is interesting that you should agree with my assertion that 'life is about the agony of dealing with the issues that affect us'. Not surprising since this is very much in line with the life of a good Christian life. The similarity starts and ends there however. As a non-believer, I have to take full responsibility for my angst, what causes it and how to deal with it. As a believer I was not encouraged to take responsibility for my actions merely being told not to do this and that, I confessed and was absolved if I erred, took penance but invariably erred again. This because I was not allowed insight into 'erratic' behaviour. I am talking here of the deeper implications of sin, the psychological aspects, the understanding. And as we know, the Church looks askance at psychology because it gives too much power to the flock. You disagree with the rest of what I said because of negative effects(?). Please elucidate and teach me. I have the strength of my convictions and am prepared to open up and be scrutinised. Do your, by implication, positive effects stand up to scrutiny?
James Coleiro
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:13
@Fr. Gouder
Your quote to Dr Zahra :Are you implying that it is better for the Church to accept divorce so that the Church will hold power over the faithful? Don't you think that this has become your dilemma not the Church's?
Well let me spell it out to you.
Right now it is the church that is in a dilemma of:
1. whether to accept that the state may introduce divorce whilst preaching against its introduction
2. Incite what remains of the faithful to another religious 'war'
The dilemma is clearly reflected in the last public statements from the Archbishop. Both courses of action have their pit falls and option 2 may actually further accelerate the decline of the church even more.
However at the end of the day its the price you pay for the (political) meddling and involvement of the church.
Finally divorce is not a moral matter but a legal one. It is the recognition of a civil status with which the church has nothing to do. Go spread god's word to whoever wants to listen to it but do not continue to lobby for a continued diktat on people's personal lives.
William P Flynn
Nov 3rd 2008, 00:40
Dear old Mr Cowie! You never pay attention. I never denied any church/organization to speak/direct/advise its members.
But I've stated that:
1. no organization has any right to "direct" legally, democratically elected parliamentarians and
2. no organization has the right to impose its rules on/direct the wider democratic community.
3. if clergy give such directions in secular publications, they are going to get hammered. (example:comments to this missive)
As a UK citizen (unless you became a Maltese citizen!), surely you would understand this. I can just imagine the furore if Anton Gouder wrote to a British paper saying the catholic church has the RIGHT to DIRECT British parliamentarians!
AH! So, you believe there ARE cases where divorce is justified! Handy to be a UK citizen isn't it?
I mean, you have access to divorce in case you get, (or someone close to you regularly gets) beaten up, living in constant fear. Just ONE example when we agree divorce would be the only moral option.
Anton Gouder please note what even fervent catholic Gerry Cowie is saying.
William P Flynn
Nov 2nd 2008, 23:57
Anton Gouder, nowhere is the church's power-grab over Malta's democratic processes more evident than in your statement:
"apart from democracy, (the church's) mission is...to give moral DIRECTION to...parliamentary representatives".
MORAL DIRECTION?! APART from Democracy? And the pope wonders why EU legislators wouldn't include "Christianity"?! There's absolutely no place for this kind of theocracy anywhere. This isn't 1508!
How can your church even imagine you have the right to sway/direct democratically elected representatives!?
Yes, this has been tried recently in Australia and CATHOLIC parliamentarians openly defied, distanced themselves and chastised cardinal Pell and every bishop.(A good precedent for Maltese parliamentarians; gooogle: Pell stem cell NSW).
Parliamentarians are sworn to act for the benefit of all their constituents not just Catholics, and certainly not the catholic church. Surely you've heard of division between church and state.
You needn't worry about my understanding of family and marriage. I've had both for 42 years; needing zero catholic "direction", and entirely in a country which has no fault divorce; you?
Realistic governments accept many different kinds of families in different marital circumstances; that they're just as precious as mine; and that for a dead marriage, divorce is the only moral option.
Lynn Zahra
Nov 2nd 2008, 20:36
Fr.Gouder,
Surely you realise that in real life, separated people expect more than just words of solace from the Church ? People want the Church's empathy at failed marriages in a tangible way , they need the Church to concede their right to find the happiness that eluded them at their first try at marriage. You conveniently ignore the fact that it's just too hard for mere mortals to live up to the Church's harsh stance , that once married, you have to stay married forever , even if your spouse cheats and abuses you.
It is this arbitrary waving away of a person's right to find happiness again , as you do , that I regard as truly immoral on the part of the Church . Tell me, where is the justice in the Church decreeing that people have to suffer for the rest of their life for having put their complete trust in the wrong person ? What God wants them unhappy forever?
People will not tolerate the State embracing the Church's harsh, inhuman stance on divorce , ie to grin and bear it , in perpetuity. No, not even if Bishops insist on it at their Synods!
Charles Grixti
Nov 2nd 2008, 20:31
Talking about whether Divorce is moral is a lot of nonsense.
Divorce is a Law enacted by governments to provide an equitable and fair dissolution of marriages. Most countries obviously agree that this legal instrument is both beneficial and necessary for society.
Who but the State is equipped to handle the enforcement of child support, alimony, division of property and other legalities? Would a woman be able to go to her priest and demand that he send out ‘the church police’ to enforce child support or custody orders? I do not think so. But the State can and does.
The anomaly in Malta is that State or Secular law has fallen prey to Church dictum. This is a grave mistake that the Government should rectify right away. Church decision taken during annulments have been given the force of law, even though these laws are not based on democratic principles and do not represent the wishes of the people.
In short, the State has abrogated its right and duty to legislate in the best interest of the people of Malta, and allowed an undemocratic institution such as the Church to impose its archaic laws on all its citizens.
Emma Xerri
Nov 2nd 2008, 19:09
Fr. Gouder. Divorce has nothing to do with morals. It is morally neutral. If divorce is a moral issue then so is marriage.
Divorce is recognized the world over as the legal means to end a marriage. This debate has long ago been resolved, in the last century for most countries. It is only the Catholic Church in Malta which has one law for the rest of the world and one for the Maltese.
It is amazing to me how a bunch of celibate males can come out with divine pronouncements on Marriage. Preposterous. Take a tip from Jesus, who you profess to believe in and 'Render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God, the things that are God's"
In all States of the world, Divorce is the law of Caesar. It is paramount and trumps all religous edicts on marriage, which have not legal status.
A Hindu, a Protestant, and Wiccan or Catholic can chose to marry by the rite of their respective beliefs, but only one Law regulates these marriages - the secular Marriage Law.
Likewise, only one law can end these marriages and it is the Secular Law of Divorce.
Anton Portelli
Nov 2nd 2008, 19:02
"Whether the Church empathases or not with those who experience marriage breakdown, I would suggest that you ask those who find help and comfort in the Church and its organisations."
Fr. Gouder you can ask me and I can tell how much help I got from the Church Authorities and Its organizations.
I can compare the treaatment I got from the Catholic Church as follows:
A person fell of a cliff, luckily his mobile was still working, he phoned the emergency services and his call was registered - time passed and he phoned again , told to wait, phoned again and again told to wait, however 6 years later no body turned up.
This is why I now have zero faith in the Catholic Church and its authorities and organizations.
I fully agree with Dr Georg Sapiano that the Catholic church is just repeating the tactics of the 60's only in a little more diplomatic way.
James Sultana
Nov 2nd 2008, 19:00
Fr.Gouder is like a politician who ready to take anyone on board (or fail to correct) as long as they agree with his cause. He insists that voting for a politician in favour of divorce is a mortal sin, but then he stayed quiet approving the way a person sitting next to him is living. She said that she "wouldn`t use it as I got married according to the law of the church and I want to keep living according to those rules". Fr. Gouder SHOULD have told her that leaving your husband with your (both) 2 children to go and live with someone who also has got 2 children and even have a child together is surely NOT according to GOD`S teachings !!
Also, why does someone who chose a civil marraige, hence not according to the teachings of the church has to obey CIVIL LAWS which are designed according to the teachings of God?
Since we aren`t part of a Christian Order, we have no Pope to sign the dispensa for us to make a second choice Fr. Gouder, unlike some popular ex-priests!!!
Fr Anton Gouder
Nov 2nd 2008, 18:26
@ Dr John Zammit
Thanks for the compliment. That does not bother me. For the records, you know that you are not saying the truth that I want "to bring back the mortal sin of the 1960's as [he] said this on Xarabank last month about divorce. My letter on which you are commenting is a clear proof of this.
Fr Anton Gouder
Nov 2nd 2008, 18:23
@Dr Emmy Bezzina
Your comment is a pure example of what democracy is not and of what an intelligent discussion is not.
Bombastic words and derogatory phrases are very different from solid arguments in favour. Usually these are used by those who do not have arguments. Sorry.
Fr Anton Gouder
Nov 2nd 2008, 18:13
@Dr Lynn Zahra
I am very much aware that the Church's primary mission is to spread God's Word. I am equally aware that the Church has to spread God's Word in concrete situations like this. You can have a look at the various interventions at the recent Synod of Bishops to see how true this is. Whether the Church empathases or not with those who experience marriage breakdown, I would suggest that you ask those who find help and comfort in the Church and its organisations.
Lawyer say "dato non concesso" that "Catholics worldwide continue closing their eyes to the moral aspect of divorce", are you implying that because of this what is wrong becomes good? Is good and evil determined by votes?
Are you implying that it is better for the Church to accept divorce so that the Church will hold power over the faithful? Don't you think that this has become your dilemma not the Church's?
M Vella
Nov 2nd 2008, 16:25
Indeed divorce is also a moral issue. I believe it to be immoral to prevent the birth of marriages (i,e, of two persons wanting to share life together) that includes individuals who have seperated from a previous marriage gone sour.
Fr Anton Gouder
Nov 2nd 2008, 16:05
@ William Flynn
It seems that you et al just cannot get it. Family-marriage is natural and basic to humans. I always discuss it from that point of view. As expected sound social sciences research reaches the same conclusions as my religion. That makes me feel very consistent, because family-marriage is ALSO matter for theologians.
You are right: "The catholic church has no business giving moral or any other direction to a secular state." But apart from democracy, it is the mission of the church to give moral direction to individuals who are parliamentary representatives. Maybe, if you look also at other countries you can easily find the church doing its mission in the same manner.
I don't think that it's right to be a self appointed representatives of all, in order to be able to declare that "The people who matter don't want their gratuitous and unwanted advice." A lot ask for advice. I spoke about morality because I was asked.
If divorce will come to Malta, like in all other countries we would have more separated families outside the protection, recognition and sanction of the law. Might sound strange, but it's true.
Fr Anton Gouder
Nov 2nd 2008, 15:49
@ Joe Xuereb
I agree with you that "Life is about the agony of dealing with issues that affect us." Marriage breakdown brings is an agony that affects life. Research shows that divorce legislation increases marriage breakdown and therefore agony by at least 20% in a permanent way. And for this reason, whoever wants to decrease agony must work to decrease marriage breakdown and consequently to oppose divorce.
With the rest of what you have said, I'm sorry, I can't agree because that causes negative effects.
Dr. John Zammit
Nov 2nd 2008, 15:03
Don't take care of what Anton Gouder says, he even wants to bring back the mortal sin of the 1960's as he said this on Xarabank last month about divorce. I say don't marry at all and do as in other European countries don't go to church. I have left long ago. In the near future the Maltese church will be an empty building.
Gerry Cowie
Nov 2nd 2008, 14:37
Thanks to our resident secularist, William P Flynn!
The church has a duty to provide a lead to its members on all moral issues, so you can just ignore it since it does not suit you, being in the minority.
The Church has as much right to speak as you do, Mr Flynn!
I am not however disagreeing that there are cases for divorce, such as where one partner is regularly beating up their partner and putting the whole family in fear.
Dr Emmy Bezzina,LL.D.
Nov 2nd 2008, 14:00
The Maltese Catholic Curialists have long lost the credibility of the less manipulated Members of our pluralistic and cosmopolitan State. Anton Gouder has no right to comment on Divorce or the lack of it as he has chosen - voluntarily and freely I imagine - a way of life that dictates that Divorce is not on the Agenda.Well he chose that way of Life - Good Luck to him and to his colleagues men-of the cloth!
However we the free and unmanipulated have determined that we regulate our way of Life in terms of a lay legal system that recognizes that much as there is Marriage equally there is Divorce or the dissolution of that Marriage. No one can dictate to us otherwise as that would amount to fundamentalism and discrimination which is in violation of our Constitution
and Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta,that is the European Convention.
Lynn Zahra
Nov 2nd 2008, 14:00
Fr.Gouder, you seem oblivious to the fact that the Church's primary mission is to spread God's Word - why isn't that enough ? The Church's harsh stance on divorce, with priests quoting St.Paul, reminds me of the Pharisees who quoted the law to Jesus to trap him : " Jesus, should we pay taxes to Caesar ?" I feel that it is the Church that ignores the moral side to divorce actually. The Church refuses to empathise with those men and women whose spouse physically or morally abuses them and expects them to grin and bear it all their life, by saying to these people : " well, you've made your bed, now you must lie in it, you have to stay in the marriage till death parts you" Now , how moral is that? It's the Pharisees all over again - No wonder Catholics worldwide continue closing their eyes to the moral aspect of divorce .
And therein lies Church's real dilema , because if its faithfull continue ignoring its teachings (as they do with that on contraception), the Church's power over the faithful will dwindle fast. It's a shame the Church remains so myopic over the divorce issue.
William P Flynn
Nov 2nd 2008, 13:25
(St) Thomas More hunted and cruelly burned at the stake Lutheran " heretics"; YET he was in favour of divorce when a marriage became untenable.
william P Flynn
Nov 2nd 2008, 13:21
Anton Gouder et al just cannot get it. Divorce is not a matter for catholic theologians; nor is it about catholic mortal sins; nor catholic anything.
The catholic church has no business giving moral or any other direction to a secular state and its parliamentary representatives. The behaviour of the catholic church in this issue is an anachronism, a disgrace and brings scorn and ridicule on the Maltese people and Malta.
The people who matter don't want their gratuitous and unwanted advice.
The catholic church has no democratic right to speak for all Maltese; and for it to put limitations on democracy.
This is a secular matter whether ordinary people whose marriage has failed can make a new life in a new legal marriage for themselves and their families.
Divorce will come to Malta. It would be immoral and inhumane to leave all those separated families outside the protection, recognition and sanction of the law.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 2nd 2008, 13:12
A marriage is only worth pursuing as long as the partners concerned are not struggling with it. Keeping in mind that it is no more than a legally binding social construct, tangibly recognised by a scrap of papers, once a marriage is on the rocks, try and retrieve its flotsam and jetsam if one must and can. As a mere humanly constructed contract, it is wholly dissoluble. It (marriage) only becomes a thorny issue when viewed within the parameters of religion. Take this away and the whole issue of marriage and its dissolution, and consequently these issues' objective view becomes crystal clear and all one has to deal with is the agonising aspect of dealing with the breakdown of the marriage. Life is about the agony of dealing with issues that affect us. Every cause has its effect. Preserving a marriage that has gone haywire also has its effect and there is a lot of agony in dealing with that. Given the choice of dealing with the agony entailed in resolving an issue and dealing with agony while still staying in the mire that is a hypocritical marriage, i know which option I would choose.