Sunday, 16th November 2008
No simple debate (2)
There is a common thread which runs through divorce, abortion and euthanasia although it is not one of 'cause and effect' - it is that many people consider them all immoral, whether they are legalised or not.
Libertarian, irreligious, secularists discount this common aspect for a very simple reason - they do not want to wage their anti-Church battle on more than one front at a time.
The type of divorce that actually results from their efforts is indeed a rabta ċoff (i.e. not binding at all) par excellence because it enables spouses to worm out of their responsibilities towards society, each other and their children by a common consensual arrangement for a 'no blame', 'no conflict' divorce with the law courts becoming involved only to determine the sharing of the spoils.
I am glad that he no longer discredits St Thomas More as a strong advocate for divorce but only after it was pointed out to him that Henry VIII actually beheaded him for his lack of enthusiastic support in securing a divorce from Rome.
RSS
Comments
You pretend that "what is really right or wrong is defined by our legal system". That is a howler of the first magnitude. Laws determine what is permissible at law and what is punishable under the law, not what is "right" or "wrong".
Under the Nazis laws were enacted to enable the regime to solve the Jewish question permanently by the holocaust horrors. It became legal to send Jews (and other monorities) to the gas chambers. This attempted genocide was perfectly legal and according to law - but that does not mean that a "wrong" thing had been changed into a "right " one.
That is positively my last attempt to state the obvious and which you stubbornly persist in denying. Good bye.
You are still having problems with understanding plain English.
The state, in passing laws, decides what is legally permissible and what is punishable at law - not what is right or wrong. There have always been unjust laws and therefore "wrong" laws, as well as just laws and therefore "right" laws. What is legal at one time can become illegal after a law is amended - but what was "wrong" remains wring and what had been "right" remains right.
I never had any problem understanding the difference between the "duty and right" of the Catholic Church to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.
However I repeat in simple English - It is also a fact that what is really 'right and wrong' is defined by our legal system that on occasions is totally separate from the church teachings of right and wrong.
If as you claim "what I (you) expect is that the civil laws of my Republic of Malta whose religion is the Roman Cartholic Apostolic Religion be respected" what are you harping about exactly? It is a fact that other religions and sects teach their principles of right and wrong too in spite of them not having any direct reference (naming them directly).
However, ultimately it is the State that decides what principles are really right or wrong and legislates accordingly.
In today's world, the constitutional reference to the church's right and duty to teach has been eroded from its original intent. This is probably due to the declining importance the church is being given by the (un)faithful.
Please spare me the trouble of discussing our Constitution with some one who is unable to appreciate the difference between the "duty and right" of the Catholic Church "to teach (repeat, to teach) which principles are right and which are wrong" and the totally different function of the state legislature to promulgate( i.e. to pass) laws in parliament.
I have always been aware of the distinction between the two. You are only "now" beginning to show a glimmer of that comprehension.
For once we agree - its Canon Law...although in practice it could be Cannon Law as well(sic)
So now that you acknowledge that we are ruled by the laws of Malta and not Canon law, it means that therefore we are not ruled by the church and its principles of right or wrong;
Hence without any doubt the principles of teaching right or wrong apply to the 'apostolic' catholic religion as they have no real effect on our legal system.....the system that regulates our lives.
Furthermore I would be happy to discuss the freedoms our constitution grants us Maltese Citizens including freedom to personal beliefs (whether religious, agnostic or athiest). Are you up for it?
You maintain that the right and duty to teach what is right and what is wrong in our Constitution "refers specifically to the Catholic religion only". The part between inverted commas is your interpretation and not part of the Constitution.
We are not ruled by any "Cannon" law. Probably you mean "Canon Law". We are ruled by laws as passed in Parliament and I have never intimated otherwise.
You persist in playing around with words and interpretations.
I will repeat in simple English for your benefit:
the principles of right and which are wrong that the church has the duty and a right to teach according to the Constitution are specifically in respect to the Catholic religion.
You did not reply to my rhetorical question: Are we ruled by Cannon law ? No we are not because 'de facto' it is the law of the land (Government) that defines what is right and what is wrong not the church.
Furthermore I remind you to read all the constitution not just the bits you like about it. Section 32 might enlighten you.
Until next time - best regards.
There is no question "if what I said was correct" - evidently you have been checking and you you have discovered that I quoted the Constitution word for word. Either you do not understand its language or you are deliberately twisting it so as to draw the conclusion that if the Constitution means what it actually says then we would be governed by canon law.
It is presumptuous on your part to revise the Constitution according to your wishes, without submitting it for consideration in Parliament according to law and without the need to obtain the support of two thirds of the members.
You have reduced the level of logic in this exchange of comments to such a low level of inanity that I decline to be involved it any more.
The teaching of "which principles are right and which are wrong" is the duty and a right that the Constitution vests specifically in the Catholic Church in respect to the Catholic religion.
If what you say were correct we would be governed by cannon law.
"Right or wrong" is defined by laws enacted in parliament-a parliament that has the power to amend the constitution of Malta.
I remind you that Section 32 of the constitution states that every person in"Malta is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, the right, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, to each and all of the following, namely --
(a) life, liberty, security of the person, the enjoyment of property and the protection of the law;
(b) freedom of conscience, of expression and of peaceful assembly and association; and
(c) respect for his private and family life,
Right now the church meddling in people's lives is a direct violation of the Constitution especially where private, family life,liberty, freedom of conscience and expression are concerned.
You are absolutely wrong and not at all clear.
Teaching "which principles are right and which are wrong" is the duty and a right that the Constitution vests specifically in the Catholic Church and not in the State. Contrary to what you claim it is not the function of the State to define what is right and what is wrong. The State defines what is legal and what is not legal and it does this by passing laws in Parliament and, to be valid, these laws must not infringe on the Constitution because the Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic. Evidently you do not appreciate the difference and you have the gall to insist that I should accept your misguided interpretation of it!
I thought I was clear enough but alas!!!
If you actually read my numerous blogs it should dawn on you that I am not suggesting that it is the constitutional responsibility of "government" to teach the "principles of religion. Far from that. The church can teach its religious dogma in a free manner, as defined by the constitution, to all those who want to listen to it.
Furthermore 'the principles that are right and wrong' that you mention are principles according to the church not the state. Unless you missed it, it is the State that defines what is right and wrong and these principles are enshrined in Acts of Parliament. The church is limited to right and duty (ie: being obliged) to teach its dogma and there again to those who want to hear it and uphold it...period!
The government is by definition 'lay' and caters for all its citizens not just a declining segment of our society. The pressing need for divorce legislation is such an example where the government caters for a section of society not pertaining to the catholic sect.
If the church really had its way even the sale of condoms in Malta...................
You seem to be seriously suggesting that it should be the constitutional responsibility of "government" to teach the "principles of religion" whereas our Constitution assigns the duty and the right to teach which principles are right ,and which are wrong, to the Church authorites. And most other people believe that Stalinism died with him!
If and when "quicky divorce" becomes the law of the land I certainly would choose not to make use of it. That cannot be twisted by any logical person into a lack of respect for the law of the land. You have absolutely no right to suggest otherwise.
It is my turn to advise you not to try to be funny - "hilarious" is the term you use - to "get real" - and not to make wildly inaccurate assumptions as to which hypothetical civil laws I would respect in the future. You have absolutely no right to question my role of a law-abiding citizen.
Quote – “You have no right to create your own personal vocabulary, to cook up your own personal definition of morality and expect the rest of us to accept it when there is a natural law, over and above you and me, that defines such matters for all humanity. You ignore this basic moral natural law and try to replace it with personal expediency”.
Another example of a gem from Dr. F. Saliba, challenging the right of individuals to abide by their self instituted moral code of conduct in preference over the so called natural law. In his haste to condemn personal expediency, he champions an alternative lifestyle designed to fit Christian mores and principles, as if they were universally acknowledged.
It does not occur to the good doctor that the vast majority of humanity does not subscribe nor admit the existence and teachings of Christ. Even as playing a numbers game might have given him a quantitative unfair advantage, the rights of the minority should not be diminished nor ignored. The First Amendment of the American Constitution protects such rights. Malta should learn by example.
The people and not the church should define civilization.
Distortion No 4. "Civil laws are constitutionally overseen by the Catholic Church".
Absolute nonsense. Civil laws are passed by the people's elected representatives enjoying considerable immunities in the exercise of their parliamentary functions and therefore cannot be "overseen" by anybody outside parliament or outside the office of the President. They are answerable only to the House and, more remotely, to the electorate in subsequent elections. This applies irrespective of the religious beliefs, or the absence of any religious belief, of the voters and the elected representatives themselves. The electoral preferences of the voters are not determined or "overseen" by bishops and their spiritual guidance of the faithful because nowadays they are influenced just as much, if not more so, by other inputs most prominently those from the contesting political parties, the mass media, NGOs and other pressure groups.
Regarding your threat/promise to withdraw your contributions I cannot pretend that I will miss the spiritual and moral advice I have been receiving gratuitously.
@Dr. Francis Saliba.
Quote – “What you call "obdurate intransigence" is your exasperated reaction to your inability to "corner me" by any pretentious scientific or historical "fact". I have made it abundantly clear that I do not "challenge" anybody's right to hold any sort of different belief or unbelief. What I do challenge is the deceitful attempt to misinterpret the bible or to invoke "pseudo-science" in order to disseminate that belief or unbelief”.
I quote Dr. Saliba as a clear case of his irritating habit to set himself up as judge and jury of those who dare challenge his entrenched religious beliefs, in spite of saying the very opposite. Who is this man to declare “lesser” mortals as deceitful, guilty of misrepresenting the bible. What gives him the moral authority to promote himself as the final arbitrator on matters of religious conscious?
The indolence he projects in debating theology and other issues of significant moral importance astounds me. In turn it equally diminishes his powers of persuasion. The contemptuous attitude of superiority, shows his true feelings of insecurity. Dr. Saliba is well advised that respect begets respect, in equal or greater proportion, than his impressive professional credentials attract
The opinions ably articulated by both Dr. Saliba and Mr. Flynn are indicative of two genuine, highly informed individuals who are representative of conflicting but equally valid points of contention. There is however a palpable air of arrogance which occasionally surfaces in debate, from those who uphold firm convictions that the powers to be favor their side of the argument. As often happens the real answer lies somewhere in between subjectivity and objectivity.
Any constitutional references advocating the inclusion of Church in the affairs of state should be precisely excluded, even as they relate only to religious teachings.
Distortion 1 - Although the consitution speaks of Roman Catholic religion of Malta you should continue the full sentence that empowers and obliges the representatives of THE CHURCH - NOT THE GOVERNMENT to teach the principles of this religion.
Stop trying to portray Malta as a Vatican Satellite state. My country is still a soverign EU-athough some people are trying to change us to a satellite state.
The introduction of divorce would be an amendment to a civil law-a civil law you will strongly object to. Will your disrespect for this law make you a criminal? No. So stop distoring facts by "stating that anyone adamantly refusing to do so and breaking the law is free to move to pastures new".....get real please!
Distortion No 2. Your claim that "your stance that has always been that of respect for the Republic's official religion and full tolerance of practitioners of other religions as long as they do not infringe our civil laws " is hilarious at best .
You only respect civil law that is in harmony with Catholic beliefs. I will look forward to the day when you will respect civil law that includes divorce in its books.
I don't have to "manipulate" anything you say. Every day you repeat your Catholic-fundamentalist mantra.
The Republic will purge that religion clause - it's just a matter of time.
It's silly to believe people are going to leave Malta because of religion; they will simply change religion (droves of Maltese have). And if the government won't change its religious bias, they will change the government. That's how Catholicism lost Europe and is fast losing Malta.
You most certainly insulted all those thousands who have suffered years in a bad marriage and you do owe them an apology.
I doubt anyone's following this any more and, as of now, that includes me.
There's plenty of letters challenging the anachronistic power of your church; comment on them.
I'll be watching...
Distortion No1. - I do not impose nor have I ever imposed my religion on anyone. What I expect is that the civil laws of my Republic of Malta whose religion is the Roman Cartholic Apostolic Religion be respected. Anyone adamantly refusing to do so and breaking the law is free to move to pastures new - apparently you chose the latter of your own free will and without being "banished".
Distortion No 2. Your atheistic secularism is simply a form of DIY "religion" and you, an expatriate, are continuously trying to stuff it down the throats of the Maltese electorate. My stance has always been that of respect for the Republic's official religion and full tolerance of practitioners of other religions as long as they do not infringe our civil laws.
Distortion No.3. My legitimate criticism of "quickie divorce" is not an insult to anybody but, of course, it would annoy those intending to practice it or to introduce it. I owe them no apology.
You are an incorrigible manipulator of my written words and your comments are full of your false assumptions about what I really believe and you buttress them by a farrago of inappropriate platitudes.
Of course citizens of all religions are expected to obey laws. But law-makers giving, (or religious factions demanding), more than a fair share at the expense of others, will incite civil, political and religious unrest.
I speak only for myself; judging by the comments in this paper, change will continue to come to Malta (as it has for 45years) without my assistance or "aspirations". War;aspirations; what next?
I hate no religion and, unlike you, wouldn't dream of imposing my own beliefs on others. I don't believe my mother-country should have ANY "official religion"; especially Catholicism, which slows the progress of mankind in science, social and other issues.
I don't want religiousness stuffed down my throat. If the likes of you can have a separate section or your own paper, you won't hear a squeak from me.
One final thing. Do the right, honourable and Christian thing; apologise for your insult of "spouses worming out of their responsibilities" as penance and an act of humility and renewal.
Live and let live, DrSaliba; it's a liberating concept.
Dr BorgOlivier was undeterred; the British couldn't stop him. But when they let it slip that even the Vatican didn't want it inserted, he was bewildered.
The "beneficiary" of the clause, Archbishop Gonzi, couldn't very well go against the wishes of his superiors and insist in disobeying Rome or embarrassing the HolySee.
But a Prime Minister could and did. DrBorg Olivier sent Dr Ragonesi on the next morning's flight to Rome.
Dr Borg Olivier's message to the Vatican as a sovereign nation was clear: "Don't interfere in our constitution, not even in the clause regarding religion unless you can prove that I am harming religion or the church".
This delivered the diplomatic knockout to the Vatican.
Someone had found a way for Archbishop Gonzi to defeat his superiors in Rome; and get his empowering clause.
Who was it? The Curia?Dr Borg Olivier?
Was the Vatican playing the "game" and engineered their own diplomatic "defeat".
I abhor that clause in the Constitution; but cannot help admire the clever Machiavellian machinations involved in its insertion.
It will be removed someday. But not without clever machinations.
Our laws are promulgated by democratically elected members of parliament as an expression of the will of the electorate and not "to make bishops win" or lose! This will of the majority is ascertained by democratic elections and referenda among eligible voters. Law-abiding citizens of all religious persuasions are expected to obey all laws of their country of residence and not pick and choose which laws to obey according to their religious or any other bias. Your crude references to "crucifix or stake" "banishment of unbelievers or of Catholics" and "religious cleansing" are banal irrelevancies - and you know it.
You create the impression that you are an expatriate lapsed Catholic and "enlightened" secularist. If so you are overstepping the mark when you expect that our elected representatives, in Malta's parliament ,should pass our laws to conform with your manifest hatred of the Republic's official religion.
There are legal remedies how our Constitution could be amended to suit your aspirations if you are still eligible and if you command enough support among the Maltese electorate. That would be the real test for your fatuous claim that my argument is in tatters.
It is pertinent to point out that the insertion of a clause defining Malta's official position was never voted on in Parliament in the same manner that other clauses such as the non-aligned state of Malta. It was inserted when the original constitution was drawn up on the personal insistence of George Borg Oliver.
This aside, what this clause does is that it empowers and obliges the representatives of THE CHURCH - NOT THE GOVERNMENT to teach the principles of this religion.
The Government is (or should be) essentially secular and cater for all people of different backgrounds and beliefs / non beliefs. An eye opener could be the manner in which Chile legislated divorce in spite of being a predominantly Catholic country.
First, you "DENY that I have ever adopted "a position that the catholic church's laws in relation to indissoluble marriage should apply to everyone in Malta regardless of their faith ".
Then you immediately contradict yourself, saying "(if passed by parliament) all Maltese residents would be expected to abide by those civil laws "regardless of their faith" - otherwise they would be left with the choice of becoming expatriate unbelievers."
It isn't "the crucifix or the stake" now; it's catholicism or banishment for all non-believers if the bishops win and divorce stays out. By extension it's banishment for catholics if divorce comes in.
Religious Cleansing!That's crystal clear,thanks.
Wouldn't the EU just love another "cleansing"!
Your comments have deteriorated from the banal to the ridiculous. Incredible!
DrSaliba; what year, no, what century does your calendar show?
If any Maltese voter had any doubt about the deletion of any reference to Catholicism in the Maltese Constitution, surely you've just removed it. A thousand thanks.
I finally prized from you precisely your idea of catholic democracy. Your argument is in tatters.
I can now really say, "I rest my case".
I deny that I have ever adopted "a position that the Catholic Church's laws in relation to indissoluble marriage should apply to everyone in Malta regardless of their faith or even if their marriage still exists or not".
My contention has always been that in the Republic of Malta, whose religion is defined in its Constitution as the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion, our bishops have the inalienable right and the duty to teach which principles are right and which are wrong. This teaching may or may not be accepted by the eligible voters and by their elected representatives and this in turn will be reflected in the laws passed by parliament. When that is done all Maltese residents would be expected to abide by those civil laws "regardless of their faith" - otherwise they would be left with the choice of becoming expatriate unbelievers.
When I insisted on my "right to make make own different choice" I was unquestionably referring to which version of the Natural Law to adopt and I clearly conceded that same right to everybody else.
Please, do not distort my written word and do not make unjustified wrong assumptions about my "position"
This is apart from your belief in any version of Bible you wish and your belief in the indissolubility of marriage according to your Christian sect - which everyone commenting here has conceded to you; as well as the Maltese Constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
You have to wait? What are you waiting for? Pseudo-science? What science is involved in divorce? That had to do with your usual red-herring of abortion.
My questions are about divorce
We are down to the wire; no more red-herrings ; no more circular arguments; no more waffle.
Answer the questions like a man.
What you call "obdurate intransigence" is your exasperated reaction to your inability to "corner me" by any pretentious scientific or historical "fact". I have made it abunduntly clear that I do not "challenge" anybody's right to hold any sort of different belief or unbelief. What I do challenge is the deceitful attempt to misinterpret the bible or to invoke "pseudo-science" in order to disseminate that belief or unbelief.
I will have to wait much longer before before you manage to "corner" me. I will continue to challenge your pseudo-science and your opinions by genuine science and your sophistry by reasoned logical argument, not by "intransigent" opinions derived from my avowed Catholic faith. Obviously that would an exercise in futility when dealing with you.
The longest single compound sentence written by anyone in this whole discussion is DrSaliba's third paragraph of his own letter. The fourth paragraph is haphazard and disconnected; not a gem of syntax.
DrSaliba would be well advised to be less impetuous in criticising others.
And for your final trick - slippery irrelevant waffle! You've lost the debate on substance so you now attack grammar and punctuation. If you can't understand compound sentences don't opine on complicated subjects.
Repeat: Have you changed your position that the catholic church's laws in relation to indissoluble marriage should apply to everyone in Malta regardless of their faith; or even whether their marriage still exists or not?
You said you "reserve the right to make my own different choice" Are you prepared to concede that same right of choice to others?
Two simple questions a child would understand. Answer them.
Keep sentences short and end them with just one punctuation mark, usually a full stop - not an assortment of exclamation and interrogation marks and emoticons. This makes it easier to use the correct verb (singular or plural) compatible with the subject of the sentence. It also identifies more easily the noun to which a distant pronoun refers.
Avoid the concatenation of a long list of irrelevant platitudes. These easily make you lose your way giving rise to bewildering mixed metaphors that make some readers wince and others laugh.
Use upper case singly after a full stop etc. and not for whole phrases in an attempt to alert the readers' attention to the writer's profound words of wisdom.
Choose words for their suitability rather than the number of syllables. Ensure that you are fully aware of all the nuances of meaning otherwise you may find yourself boasting that you are some expert "adept" at some nefarious activity.
I wish everybody many happy hours of fluent writing and effortless, comfortable reading.
There is only one natural law as far as you are concerned, only one set of facts and logic; those of the catholic church and her definition of them.
Whenever you have been cornered by social, scientific or historical fact, you played the faith card. Just about everyone, including I, have conceded your faith as your guide. But you will not concede the beliefs of others.
You will not yield one inch from your position that the catholic church's laws in relation to indissoluble marriage should apply to everyone in Malta regardless of their faith; or even whether their marriage still exists.
The prolixity has been the result of your obdurate intransigence.
You will look in vain for any evidence that I have ever challenged anybody's right to
believe anything he likes. I object to the advertising of those personal beliefs and improperly buttressing them by pseudo-science and misinterpretation of quotations from the bible. I object to this attempted deceit and expose it by quoting facts and submitting logical arguments. In return I get prolix and irrelevant opinions.
I never said, and I will never agree, that we are at liberty to choose a personal standard of morals - that is expediency not morality.
Faith by definition is the belief in something not based on proof. Science is just the opposite.
This is where you and I have a significant disagreement on. You base your life on something that you have no proof exists or exists exactly as you believe it does. That is fine by me, if you want to do so be my guest. However imposing this faith on others is a different matter.
Eureka! Dr Saliba has finally arrived at a point where he actually understands the concept of (his beliefs are)"no concern of yours" and "I reserve the right to make my own different choice."
Great now he can work on the natural extension of, "I have my right to have my sets of beliefs and reserve the right to make my own choice of morals; regardless of what YOURS are".
It is a tiny quantum leap from there to: "If I reserve my rights to my sets of beliefs; I have to allow you (and everyone else) the right to have yours".
THAT dear DrSaliba, is precisely what secularism guarantees.
Apply this to the introduction to divorce; and we're there.
I am consistent in that I never use any book of the bible, Old and New Testaments, as a source of scientific knowledge. I mentioned Leviticus specifically only because you, not I, had tried to use it as a textbook on embryology!
Faith is intrinsically supernatural, not because I term it so, but because by definition it deals with a subject that is beyond the natural sciences.
You still do not understand that by Natural Law I referred to a God-given (pardon the expression) basic ancient unwritten law ingrained in the human conscience and not to any of the various theories about it that emerged much later. You take your pick be it Stoic or any of the others. I reserve the right to make my own different choice and I deny that I ever implied that it was the Stoic version. As I have told you already that is no concern of yours.
To be consistent you should not consult the bible or new testaments for ascertaining scientific biological facts
On the otherhand consulting a scientific research textbooks could illuminate you as to making sense (or nonsense) of what you term supernatural matters of faith.
I see you have triggered an 'escape clause' on the natural law issue......one thing you did confirm however is that you are for once not referring to the christian natural law......the natural law that existed since the beginning of time you quote......refers to stoic natural law.........and that is superb as it enshrines the liberty rights that anti-divorcists (amongst others) advocate should never be granted.
Allow me to try to get this obfuscated debate back to the original subject - Divorce.
Perhaps you might wish to compare civil divorce to your catholic church's divorce called annulment.
Or explain why the catholic church is so much against divorce, yet in countries where there is divorce, insists the applicant obtain a divorce FIRST then apply for an annulment?
You are perfectly correct. I would not dream to consult Leviticus for ascertaining scientific biological facts neither would I consult a biology textbook to learn supernatural matters of faith.
Your interpretation of "I rest my case" is peculiarly your very own as any lawyer worth his salt will tell you. Lawyers use it only to indicate that they have concluded their submissions whether or not they inwardly believe that they have won or lost the case for their client.
I referred to a natural law that existed since the beginning of time and which antedated the philosophers' later attempts to advance various theories about this pre-existing natural law. You are wellcome to follow your individual preferences for these various theories propounded later be they classical Greek, Roman, Thomistic and later theories or their relation to the U.S. Declaration of Independence. I have my own preference but it is no concern of yours.
Well said.
If Francis Saliba were guided by the 'original' Leviticus that states that an embryo only lives when "the life is in the blood"(17 1:14) ...........I dare say he might possibly have a different opinion on abortion.....but alas!
As I am sure you are aware, there is no blood in an embryo until many days after conception, and if there is no blood, and "the life is in the blood" (17 1:14), then it would seem to follow that until there is blood there is no life.
If this is true, then a bloodless embryo could be aborted or made available for research without incurring the "wrath of God" since no blood is shed
@Francis Saliba
The original Natural Law was pagan not christian. The christian natural law was a hijack attempt that occurred during the time of the early church fathers (400AD). Are you sure you don't want to revise your stand?
Lawyers usually use it when they have delivered a coup de grace to their opposition's case/argument.
I thank Mr Vassallo for thinking I delivered the coupe de grace to DrSaliba's arguments; but unfortunately DrSaliba has become overcome by a desire for punishment.
The natural law to which I refer is the original one which antedates the later attempts at codifications mentioned by you.
What do you understand by "I rest my case"? It is lawyers' jargon for "I have not got anything more to say"! Mr Flynn could have said that many, many hours ago!
I stumbled on a question you posed in your Belief in the afterlife (3)? I hadn't seen it and think my answer is more likely to be seen here by you and MrJoeXuereb.
I refer to DrSaliba's last comment in Belief in the afterlife (3)," ....WilliamPFlynn who claims that he understood it (the quote) immediately and endorsed it - as soon as you mentioned it. While you are about it why not ask him where exactly you mentioned it?
Here's your answer;it's not vintage Poirot and required just a soupçon (tiny amount) of deduction:
It was Mr Xuereb who in his second comment to Belief in the afterlife (3) referred to another comment in Belief in the afterlife (4) where I found the quote from the Astronomer Rees in a comment by DrSantCassia.
I hadn't been following the comments in (4) so I hadn't see it before MrXuereb mentioned it.
I left a comment there subsequently in response to DrSantCassia's own comment which I would bet you read. I know Mr Xuereb read it.
I guess what you could have added is "I rest my case" because you really did.
James Coleiro
I agree with your point - the clergy always refer to Natural law as though there is only one natural law. I find this to be an exercise in deception.
I have applied the principle of "double effect" and have found that it cuts both ways. So my assumptions were all correct. Thanks.
Please consider this headline from AsiaNews.IT 15September.
"Manila, Catholic vigil against pro-abortion law
The activists of the Commission on Family and Life have called for a three-day vigil at the Philippines House of Representatives to protest the possible approval of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) law, now pending in Congress."
The Philippines Congress considering abortion BEFORE divorce?!
According to UN agencies, Pilipino women have more than 430000 "interrupted pregnancies" every year; 40% of Pilipino women have no access to contraceptive pills(another (catholic)no-no).
This puts paid to the fallacy that divorce ushers in abortion; and may indeed become a case of legalized abortion preceding the introduction of divorce. As I keep pointing out; people and governments are motivated by necessity.
In this case, to the overpopulated, predominantly poor Philippines, with such a high number of "interrupted pregnancies", backyard abortion is a huge health issue and may be a more pressing problem/need than divorce. Technically the Philippines has divorce; but only for the Moslem population.
Now there's an idea! Cohabiting spouses are considered living in sin by the catholic church anyway.
Who exactly are you to tell me what I define as immoral or otherwise? I do not try to impose my views on others and make no mistake many share my views.
You constant referrals to Natural law lack substance - which 'lex naturalis' are you referring to exactly? Is it the:
- Liberal Natural Law?;
- Islamic Natural Law?;
- Christian Natural Law?;
- Stoic Natural Law?;
- Hobbs Natural Law?;
What I can say is that natural law as defined in the US Declaration of Independence refers to equality of all men with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.......two rights that both make a case for the introduction of divorce in Malta......two other rights you could include with the immoral charade.
Your perception that your church is under attack is exactly because first it tries to impose its will on everyone - believer or otherwise. Then it does not accept the fact that people do not want the church (or church approved law) to be imposed in their personal lives.
You may assume what you like but do not expect me to agree with you.
I have answered your query by advising you to apply the principle of "double effect" to your hypothetical question. If you are unable to do so don't blame me and don't expect me to give you lessons. I have more important and more rewarding things to do. Sorry.
I am not ".... fallaciously using selective (mis)quoting" .
Here is what you wrote exactly while, metaphorically, rubbing your hands, with glee:
"It must gall catholic-apologist Dr Saliba seeing divorce/abortion/euthanasia legislation voted-in democratically in country after country WITH the support of lay-catholics ..."
That entitles me to write with precision that, in so far as as you are personally concerned, you did "taunt unashamedly that this (i.e. the escalation of legislation from divorce to abortion to euthanasia) is already happening in country after country abroad..."
Where is the fallacy? Where is the misquotation? Why not admit that in your own verbosity you managed to hoist yourself with your own petard? Don't bother to answer these rhetorical questtions because I will not bother to reply.
I will also concede that "no questions asked" divorce would not only help what you call "genuine marriage breakdowns", but would give free-rein to anyone to divorce at will.
The difference between me and you apparently is this: I would safeguard the rights of the deserving even if this means that the "undeserving" will benefit as well. You, on the otherhand, would apparently sacrifice the rights of the deserving just so that the "undeserving" do not benefit. It's like having four thieves and one innocent, all five being suspects, not being able to determine who are the true thieves, and so imprisoning all five just so that the guilty are not freed.
I apologise for assuming the above about you, but this is because you have not answered my very direct question, which was: Would you be in favour of divorce only for distressful cases of genuine marriage breakdowns?
Obvious ditortions in your comment before I sign off.
That the local Church is under attack is not just my own personal obsession. It is a widely accepted fact.
You have no right to create your own personal vocabulary, to cook up your own personal definition of morality and expect the rest of us to accept it when there is a natural law, over and above you and me, that defines such matters for all humanity. You ignore this basic moral natural law and try to replace it with personal expediency.
Apply the principle of "double effect" to your hypothetical question about a pro-divorce legislation that would produce solace to a minority of genuine marriage breakdowns but would also simultaneously open the doors to widespread abusive "mock marriages and divorces". There is no need to report the result to me. I know it already and I have already decided not to prolong this futile exchange of facts for opinions.
If you look at "No simple debate (1)", I wrote, " As (the Divorce/Abortion/Euthanasia trio) 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".
You are doing precisely that.
Malta may or may not adopt any of the trio of (catholic)no-no's;but if it adopts divorce, remember, the cock's predawn crows don't bring up the sun.
It is democratic progress/pragmatism/local social need that drive countries; not your ridiculous suggestion of a plan or agenda by some expatriate Maltese.
The lack of forethought and preparation in your comments is embarrassing.
Let me grant you that "The distressful case of genuine marriage breakdowns is abused by (some of the) pro-divorce lobby as a Trojan horse to pave the way for the introduction of liberal divorce laws promoting unstable marriages ending in 'no contest' 'no blame' divorces".
But here's my question: Would you be in favour of divorce only for distressful cases of genuine marriage breakdowns? The question is valid, regardless of the agenda of Trojans. If the cases of genuine marriage breakdowns are used as a Trojan horse by some pro-divorcists, the same genuine marriage breakdowns are by the same token seemingly cast aside to be sacrificed by religious totalitarians just for the sake of utopian puritanism.
Regarding "Vociferous, libertarian promoters of pro-divorce legislation (being) well known to escalate their demands over time for the legalisation also of abortion...and ultimately for euthanasia", like I wrote elsewhere, "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".
The distressful case of genuine marriage breakdowns is abused by the pro-divorce lobby as a Trojan horse to pave the way for the introduction of liberal divorce laws promoting unstable marriages ending in "no contest" "no blame" divorces by mutual arrangement with the law courts becoming involved only in the division of the spoils.
Vociferous, libertarian promoters of pro-divorce legislation are well known to escalate their demands over time for the legalisation also of abortion (notoriously in nearby Italy) and ultimately for euthanasia. "Enlightened" expatriate on-line contributors to The Times taunt unashamedly that this is already happening in country after country abroad. They cannot pretend that this is not the scenario they envisage for us also in Malta or that they will shut up as soon as divorce legislation is intrduced.
You are obsessed that your church is under attack simply because an increasing number of people do not share your views.
Immorality in your vocabulary is different from mine.
In my vocabulary, immorality is defined as religious fundamentalists who strive to force their beliefs down everyone's throat whether they like it or not by whatever means they have at their disposal at the time.
Divorce prohibition is a classic immoral trend where one does not require simple logic to understand that is a classic example of religious fundamentalists meddling in people's personal lives irrespective of whether those people share their religious beliefs or otherwise.
Religious fundamentalists lump together three very separate issues for a very simple reason - they know they cannot win the argument on divorce, and so prefer to wage their anti-secularist (anti-democratic) battle on the easiest front - abortion - and try to convey the message that the others (divorce and euthanasia) are "guilty by association - no debate necessary".
Already dealt with? How many of the readers below do you imagine you have convinced?
I do not detect any new comprehensible, logical or relevant argument that has not already been adequately dealt with or that is worth the loss of my time in repeated rebuttals.
You can read all right ,and you may have two degrees, but you can still pretend not to understand. Divorce, euthanasia and abortion share one common feature of immorality but in accordance with simple logic any one person could be in favour of just one, two or all three of them.
DrSaliba SAYS there's no cause/effect between divorce and abortion/euthanasia. But after the fullstop, he immediately threads them back together in his imagined anti-church war. The church is doing fine warring upon itself.
Many father-confessors, and readers, would know spouses putting up with years of anguish before resorting to separation/divorce.
DrSaliba's description of this human tragedy as "spouses worming out" is disgusting; and worse, cruel.
Who's "he" in paragraph4?I guess that'd be me!
Repeating:In his Utopia, Thomas More stressed the importance of the marriage bond, but held that if a husband and wife could not live in harmony, by mutual consent of both, they should be allowed to divorce and marry someone else. This IS fact.
Paradoxically, More, a fanatic, fundamentalist, catholic ex-monk hunted reformists and burned them mercilessly at the stake. He backed his pope against his king. His tactful "qui tacet consentit" (silence is consent) didn't save him.
DrSaliba exalts himself presuming he taught me why Thomas More was executed.
DrSaliba might exercise his own keyboard caution and refrain from merely paraphrasing MrESaliba. It's unoriginal, plagiaristic and full of pitfalls.
Your point about abortion is precicely why the letter by F.Saliba verges on the ridiculous.I am in favour of divorce, I am not killing anyone or putting someone out of their misery. However the church dogma wants to dictate my personal life whether I form part of the church or not.
Putting divorce, abortion and euthanasia together is like putting the Berlin Philarmonic orchestra together with Motorhead and ask them to play Rap music.
This is an old fundamentalist trick of combining 3 different issues as though they had a common denominator. They don't and the trick doesn't work any more either.
Your quote "Libertarian, irreligious, secularists discount this common aspect for a very simple reason - they do not want to wage their anti-Church battle on more than one front at a time"
VS
Your quote "Although divorce, abortion and euthanasia are all of them well recognised battlegrounds in the war against Christian morality your personal involvement in one of these battles does not necessarily mean that you are involved in all three"
Maybe, in spite of my two degrees, I don't know how to read too.
The truth is that you are totally inconsistent in your writings.
I suggest that you wake up to the fact that the crusades took place 900 years ago!
The problem with abortion is that even you though you are taking a decision that affects your life, you're also affecting someone else's life greatly (you have the choice of essentially killing another human being). Unfortunately, this other human will never point out that he/she most likely disagrees giving us the impression that we can do whatever we want.
Although divorce, abortion and euthanasia are all of them well recognised battlegrounds in the war against Christian morality your personal involvement in one of these battles does not necessarily mean that you are involved in all three!
I agree that you have no idea what I was writing about. I suggest that next time you find out before hiting the keyboard.
So, Saliba puts me also in favour of abortion and euthanasia.
I am humbled in front of such wisdom (sic)!!
So, I am 'libertian, irreligious, and secularist'. Secularist, yes, thank God. But libertarian and irrelgious, I doubt.
Dr Saliba, may I suggest, very humbly, that you look after the cross that God has given you and let others look after their own? You have no idea what you are speaking about.