Sunday, 16th November 2008
No simple debate (1)
Having commented online to my letter (The Sunday Times, October 26), and seeing his irrelevant side-issues countered in the same manner, William Flynn now (November 2) has recourse to the printed page, editing his comments in the light of the criticism he faced.
He is very generous, or cavalier, with his attributes to those who do not share his views, and I am not sure under which category I fall. Indeed, I could not care less, but I refute his gratuitous accusation that I was disrespectful to any person by claiming that divorce, in particular divorce on demand, renders marriage a rabta ċoff.
I also object to his twisting my argument about the introduction of divorce in Western Europe being a protest against the Church. Henry VIII was only mentioned as one of those in power who found the introduction of divorce convenient. Nothing that Mr Flynn has written belies what I have said, and his references to illegitimate children, the lineage of a Pope, and the views of Charles V, are just red herrings.
The historical fact relevant in this case is that Henry VIII, having failed to obtain an annulment from the Pope, for whatever reason is also irrelevant, followed the trend in Western Europe and introduced divorce so that he could marry again and again. A classic case of rabta ċoff.
My remark about the philosophical link that exists between divorce, abortion and euthanasia was very explicit, and Mr Flynn's accusation that I was trying to fool anyone is as baseless as the other claims mentioned above.
May I take the opportunity to point out that when divorce was introduced in Italy, following a campaign by the Lega Italiana per il Divorzio led by Loris Fortuna, this same person answered those who congratulated him in parliament by saying "Ed ora per il prossimo passo, l'aborto" (And now for the next step, abortion.) Fortuna also led La Lega Italiana per l'Aborto which had its offices across a corridor from its sister league in favour of divorce.
RSS
Comments
I wanted readers to understand neither protest nor "church-holiness" were in HenryVIII's divorce equation; but a scheming/corrupt pope, a corrupt church, and mighty CharlesV, Catherine's nephew, holding the keys to Castel StAngelo where he imprisoned the pope.
Pity you missed the Thomas More link, which provides an excellent comparison with certain Maltese politicians who understand the morality/necessity of divorce, as Thomas did (refer "Utopia"); but struggle, like Thomas, with their catholic-religiousness unable to reconcile their dichotomous conscience; civil/secular vs. religious.
Like Thomas, who cried, "qui tacet consentit" (silence is consent) at his trial, these politicians choose silence. But Henry wanted Thomas's "yea-or-nay", and, eventually, so will the Maltese electorate.
Nowadays political leaders unable to separate their civic/secular from their religious duties lose their seat. Thomas lost more.(pun unintended)
You should honourably concede my arguments/comparisons aren't red-herrings but valid,legitimate supporting explanations/comparisons.
I would concede obsessed Henry's own marriages were a "rabta coff"; but to compare a panicked Tudor king desperate for an heir, with today's Maltese cohabiting couples and their families in legal-limbo desperately wanting the blessed relief of closure/cleansing divorce, is unacceptable.
Do the right thing and apologize to them.
"I do not see why any person SHOULD support all issues which have a common philosophical underpinning. Why are you so dogmatic?".
Moral consistency demands that a person should support all issues which have a common philosophical underpinning. In fact, the "battles" for the recognition of all basic rights (like women's rights, racial equality, etc) were all "fought" using the same philosophical underpinnings (basically treating persons as individuals, and ending unjustified discrimination).
As for being "dogmatic", I am not being dogmatic at all. I am only voicing my opinion which I believe is backed by reason and logic. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. Anti-divorcists, on the otherhand...
You have not impressed me, and I have better things to do than trying to follow your reasoning, and still less to bother to answer it.
@ William P.Flynn
The red herrings which I have clearly indicated were raised by you and not by me. They were your own creation as anyone who has read my letters and your online comments can see for himself. I did mention Henry VIII, and I never claimed that he was brought in as a red herring in the arguments. On the contrary, he was a classic example of
a person who rendered marriage a 'rabta coff'. The red herrings were your introduction of royal illegitimate children, a pope's illegitimate birth and Charles V. The introduction of Henry Moore who was beheaded by Henry VIII for not following his directives was another of your red herrings.
To deny all this is to distort the written truth. It reflects on you, not on me.
@Kenneth Cassar
I do not see why any person SHOULD support all issues which have a common philosophical underpinning. Why are you so dogmatic?
So what if the same lobby in neighbouring Italy is for both divorce and abortion. The only thing this proves is that the same lobby in neighbouring Italy is for both divorce and abortion. It does not prove a necessary link.
Was I unfair calling "rabta ċoff " disrespectful? Many father-confessors, and readers, would know spouses putting up with years of infidelity, physical, sexual, mental assault, terror, irreconcilable differences, financial difficulties, substance-abuse, gambling, neglect, desertion and other pain before resorting to separation/divorce. To protect their children, spouses often endure an unhappy marriage, sacrificing their own happiness. Call this "rabta ċoff "?
MrSaliba, cries foul, and again distances himself from linking divorce, abortion, and euthanasia.
Then, incredibly,(quoting LorisFortuna), immediately throws back the purulent herring, "poisons the well" with a sample of 1; quadruply compounding and perpetrating a non-sequitur fallacy. MrSaliba!
The catholic church is the only religion that links and opposes the "Divorce,Abortion&Euthanasia" trio. As these become individually progressively recognized as rights and democratically adopted by civilized countries, opportunistic (catholic)apologists promote the non-sequitur fallacy that divorce, not social progress/pragmatism, ushers the other (catholic)no-no's.
The choice is divorce vs.cohabitation with (possible)catholic-annulment, which turns previous marriages into concubinages.
It's the Maltese people's choice not the catholic church's.
"Neither did I say, or imply, that all those who wanted divorce necessarily favoured abortion and euthanesia as well".
It's implied in your claim that there is a "philosophical" link between divorce, abortion and euthanasia. The (false) implication is that even though it is not necessarily the case that those who favour divorce also favour abortion and euthanasia, "philosophically" they should. The implication is that all three are the products of the same justifications, which is basically false.
To dismiss Loris Fortuna as just one Italian politician, overlooking the fact that he also led two movements, one of which was able to persuade the Italian parliament to introduce divorce, and that when credited by his fellow parliamentarians for this achievement declared openly that the next step was for his other movement and the Italian parliament to introduce abortion, as utter nonsense, simply because he does not speak for the whole world, you must have a very poor sense of judgement.
Before you rush to answer me, please note that I never claimed that Fortuna spoke on behalf of anybody except his own movements and what he expected the Italian parliament to do next. Neither did I say, or imply, that all those who wanted divorce necessarily favoured abortion and euthanesia as well.
What does one Italian politician have to do with the debate of divorce everywhere else in the world. Just because Loris Fortuna said so, does it follow that those in favour of divorce will be in favour of abortion?
U hallina, Sur Saliba!