Marriage is a social issue

Charles Grixti

Jul 14th 2009, 02:42

@Joe Grima Brussels

Of course Mr. Xerri was a zygote before he was born. If you knew your basic biology you would have know that.

As to who has the authority to interpret the Bible, it is anyone who reads it. I myself to do adhere to any religion as I do not believe in organized religions; they brought a lot of wars and evil into this world. Nevertheless, the Bible does not belong to the Catholic Church, so I do not see why only it has the right to interpret it. Who made them boss, they did it themselves and frankly not everyone buys into the lie.

What you perceive as God or spirituality is a private matter and every individual has the right to seek his own way, or not to seek anything at all. A theologian in my view is someone who has wasted years studying the improbable and the unlikely. What a waste of a good mind..

Theologians should first prove to us empirically and beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is a caring personal God that looks after us humans. Otherwise it is so much hot air.

Joseph Meli

Jul 13th 2009, 17:37

I wonder how many are those that does the sign of the holy cross before starting eating, before they go to sleep. This is also most important for your children to help them as to say their night prayers morning, night and before meals too. The reading of the word of God is also an important factor as this strengthen one's marriage in the future (CCC#2205). This applies also to both parents, so as to pass what they may have learned to their children so that they too would have a solid foundation for a better life in future, but are we as parent encouraging our children to do these things, and newly married couples are they aware of these duties? If not no wonder, we have so many separations.

Guze Xerri

Jul 13th 2009, 15:51

@ joe grima brussels, The Roman church was NOT set up by Jesus himself, the Roman church is nothing more than the Babylonian mystery school religion under the guise of Christianity. You will not find the dogmas of the Roman church in the AV1611 Bible. The Bible is meant for every man and woman to read.

Joseph Meli

Jul 13th 2009, 15:16

One is not to take re-marriage as a good sign, but just remember that ...British Criminologist namely Dr. Patricia Morgan, after effecting an important study in the UK and USA, but in this most important report she stated that after effecting her studies in U.K. and United States of America she discovered a clear link between the breaking-up of families and criminality. In her National Development Study held in the United Kingdom in the year 1975 on 18,000 young children before they became sixteen years, the majority had already appeared before the court for some criminal offense. The result on boys was as follows:- 8 % those who lived with natural parents (divorced) 16 % coming from single mothers. 19 % coming from women living with another man (divorced or separated) 70 % of those in prison came from families without a natural father (broken families) As we all know from news on television or newspapers that criminality in the Britain and in Malta too had increased enormously recently by those connected to families coming from such situations.

Joseph Meli

Jul 13th 2009, 15:07

A survey organised by Xarabank....10/10/08 it was reported...that respondents when asked if you could go back in time, would you marry again in church,...co-habatate or....divorce. The replies where as follows:- 69.1% would marry again, against...28.9% who won't marry again. When asked if the prefare getting married or living with your partner without getting married, the response was....68.4% prefer to get married and only...23.7% would co-habitat with a partner. This indicate the good sense of the Maltese. But what surprised us most was that 71.9% prefered marriage, and only 25% would co-habitant, and these where coming from the age group of 25 to 35 years. While those of the age group of 35 - 40 years had voted 73.2% in favour of marriage, and 24.4% with a partner. As for separation they found 23.1% because they think that they do not understand what was their commitment, or in offering lack of sacrifice and finally they lacked values of their marriage, while for infidility and distractive burdens only 14.4% , then for loans or too much financial burdens this was at 12.7% As regarding separations due to both couples working, or because place of work they find frendships, this was 11.7%

Ramon Casha

Jul 13th 2009, 06:39

Nobody suggested that divorce would solve "all of Malta's social problems", but it would solve some of them. What the church is doing is sticking to its guns no matter what - and refuses to see the people who are suffering as a result.

The church's biggest mistake is to keep insisting that "marriage is intrinsically indissoluble". No, it's not and everybody knows couples whose marriages have dissolved. Despite the best of intentions and the best efforts, sometimes marriages cease to exist whether or not divorce is introduced. Divorce does not dissolve a marriage. It is the formal recognition that the marriage has dissolved.

Of course nobody knows for sure that the second marriage will be a happy one, but then again, nobody knew for sure that the first one would be either.

William P Flynn

Jul 13th 2009, 03:30

I still think an ordinary person with minimal bible knowledge talking about the bible would likely make more sense about the bible than a celibate priest talking about marriage, pregancies etc.

You can read the bible; but you have to LIVE a marriage or with a woman.

Priests are just not part of the equation; nor should they be.

joe grima bussels

Jul 12th 2009, 21:33

My apologies, Mr Xerri, I didn't know you were a Theologian, authorized to interpret the Bible more than the Church (which was set up by Jesus Himself, and authorized by Him to do that!). It's not what YOU think that Jesus intended to say, but what HE really intended.
As to whether you were a zygote before you were born, I cannot say, as I was not there. You exist today, because your parents accepted that 'zygote', so many years ago. Or maybe you are not grateful for their decision? If they had YOUR ideas about zygotes, maybe they could have decided to eliminate such an 'insignificant' existence! You lucky man, having such parents.
And Mr Charles Grixti, according to you, WHO has the authority to filter, interpret, and teach the Bible? Unless you are a Theologian or have a degree in Bible Studies. In that case, I salute you.

Guze Xerri

Jul 12th 2009, 20:05

@ Charles Grixti,

In fact I do read the Bible, The King James AV1611 Bible.
And you are right in one respect, my beloved Bible certainly did not come from the Roman Church.

Charles Grixti

Jul 12th 2009, 19:36

@Joe Grima Brussels

Since when are the Maltese reading the Bible unless it was first filtered through the Church?

The Church was always against the reading of the bible by the man in the street and in fact the first person to translate it from Latin to the vernacular was hounded and burnt at the stake by the Church for his efforts.

Only very recently has reluctantly the Church has printed its own Bibles, very often huge impractical books full of nice pictures and paintings. No, pocket bibles for Catholics, God forbid they might actual read it and realize the incongruities that are there in Catholic teachings.

Even today, Catholic can read the bible but are not allowed to interpret it. That is the sole prerogative of the Church and its clergy.

Guze Xerri

Jul 12th 2009, 19:35

@Joe Grima Brussles

In the bible there is nothing whatsoever to back what the Church teaches about these issues.

"Thou shall not kill" is found in the Old Testament& it precisely refers to killing of a person already born. There is no mention of zygotes, stem cells or foetuses. The ancient Hebrews were very practical in this respect. Divorce is mentioned plenty of times in the Bible& was readily available to the ancient Hebrews. As for Jesus saying that 'Let no man etc., the Church has given this its own spin. I do not agree with the Church's interpretation.

To me what Jesus was talking about was frivolous use of divorce in a patriarchal society. In Jesus time, a woman might not have been given equal treatment when it came to property& children, although the Hebrews where usually fairer in their treatment of women than most other societies of that time. Tis not the case with modern Divorce legislation.

The only reason that the Church is against Divorce is because it knows that over 90% of Divorce proceedings are initiated by the women.

joe grima brussels

Jul 12th 2009, 18:27

@Guze Xerri
"There is nothing in the Scripture mentioned that would give credence to their stance on these things...(divorce, abortion....)"
So, according to you, there is nothing mentioned about divorce, abortion (thou shall not kill!!), etc...in the Scriptures.
It is obvious that you either have NEVER opened your Bible, or else yours is in Latin or Greek. I suggest you start reading one in Maltese or English. You'll be surprised!

Emma Xerri

Jul 12th 2009, 18:12

“In fact, from research, we know that where divorce was introduced, the number of marriages went down."

In Malta we have a different situation. The number of Marriages has been reduced precisely because we have no Divorce!

We would have had a lot more marriages in Malta if divorce is introduced.

As it stands now, people who are separated and wish to remarry legally, but cannot because there is no divorce, are just cohabiting.

Therefore, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the Church’s campaign so that divorce legislation is not introduced in Malta, can be said to be having a negative effect on Marriage. The Church is helping to undermine the institution of Marriage, and not saving it as it claims.

What is the difference, if the outcome is the same? It is just like saying that killing someone with a gun is a crime but not if you stab them to death. The result is identical, in this instance, the weakening of the institution of Marriage. Bravo Reverend.

Guze Xerri

Jul 12th 2009, 17:32

The Church seeks absolute control of the family and women’s bodies.

Why else would they be so heavily involved in Marriage, Family Planning, Abortion and stem cell issues and the education of Children?

There is nothing in the Scriptures mentioned that would give credence to their stance on these things. The one and only reason could only be that they want total and absolute control of society.

Charles Grixti

Jul 12th 2009, 17:18

Precisely Rev., Marriage is a social issue, so hands off.

After all, we do not dictate to you on religious issues and the Church is free to chose to preach what it wants and is not dictated to by the people of this country or by the State.

The Church in Malta should have the decency to respect the citizens of this country - like it does the citizens of other countries, by not interferring in secular legislation matters such as divorce. Are we Maltese the children of a lesser God?

Joe Tabone-Adami

Jul 12th 2009, 16:44

A studied, though very abridged, contribution by a priest with a wealth of experience in family problems - and very intelligent submissions by M Ranier Fsadni, whose contributions in the divorce debate many have followed in the Times. That is what I call a healthy and open discussion of thought-out views. I'm afraid I have still to suggest that one should not mind the 'static' and 'interference' coming from other sources - simply because it seems that, judging from their comments, these hardly know their stuff.

g. scerri

Jul 12th 2009, 16:20

The UK paper, The Telegraph, today reveals that the Social Justice Policy Group, a think tank committed to tackling poverty. will be publishing a new report that calls for marriage to be put back into the heart of the family. Couples wanting to divorce should face a compulsory three-month "cooling-off period" before proceedings could start. This would enable them to "find out the implications" of a split – from how it will affect their finances, to the impact it will have on their children. "The three-month period will endeavour to save saveable manages," says Duncan Smith the founder of the Centre. "Broken Britain" has become a place in which stable two-parent families are becoming the exception; where individual rights have blunted our sense of duty and responsibility; and where successive generations of children face a life devoid of hope or dignity. According to the Centre, there are five poverty ''drivers'': family breakdown; welfare dependency; educational failure; addiction to drugs and alcohol; and serious personal debt. But the key problem is the breakdown in marriage over the past 40 years. Here we are simply advocating divorce as a panacea to our own family breakdown.

p.zammit

Jul 12th 2009, 15:48

I can never get it when people like you rev., insist that a re-marriage waters down the institution of marriage. I believe that Couples wanting a fresh start with the nicities of marriage are actually honouring marriage. It is the present situation of no option of divorce that is eroding marriage because the fact is that people who separate and cannot remarry are cheerfully opting to co-habit . Perhaps it would make sense to regulate these relationships via re-marriage, instead of burying our heads in the sand just because we can ?

Robert Callus

Jul 12th 2009, 15:46

'anyway, who is saying that the second marriage is going to be a happy one?'

What kind of argument is this? If we think that way we could arrive to the conclusion of abolishing marriage in the first place

adrian aquilina

Jul 12th 2009, 12:19

here goes the church interfering in what is a persons right to choose wether they want to remarry or not..safeguarding the family should not mean keeping someone in a bad or abusive marriage or a marriage where people have grown apart and then refusing them the right to marry again..the church has more to say about divorce,gays,contraception then paedophiles,rapists,murderers.as usual the church has its priorities wrong.maybe it is because paedophilia,murder,torture,rape where all part of the church in the past! paedophilia and false information resulting in problems in societies (like ours) is still very much part of the catholic church....

William P Flynn

Jul 12th 2009, 12:13

Joseph Mizzi , likely never had a normal man/woman discussion. He most probably never touched, caressed, planned a life, a family or a future with a woman, cohabitated, married or lived with a woman; of course not. He's a celibate priest.

How this man can possibly have any notion of what goes on between a man and a woman and the complexities of man/woman relationships is beyond me.

I'll tell you, now that is bizarre. How he can be presiding over an organization involved in repairing marriages beggars belief. How does he do it? From a recipe book?. No! Sorry; I forgot; yes, I remember... research.

His last line is cruel, insensitive and stupid. It's saying to someone: Sorry you failed the first time. You don't deserve a second chance. You will fail again.

That is not reality. Sure there are no guarantees; but many people have had incredibly successful married lives after the collapse of their first marriage and subsequent divorce.

All the church offers is a cast-iron guarantee of unhappiness,loneliness and disenfranchisement to those whose marriages fail. Disgracefully the government follow suit.

Topping it all the church hypocritically, demands a divorce as a first step towards an annulment.

Ranier Fsadni

Jul 12th 2009, 11:43

2/2
@Rev Joseph Mizzi

"It is utterly indisputable that no-fault divorce leads to more divorces."

It is true that there is persuasive evidence that there is a causal link between no-fault divorce and significantly and persistently higher divorce rates (although no evidence of a similar link with unilateral divorce provisions). Saying it is "utterly indisputable" may be putting it too strongly but certainly, until proven otherwise, such evidence should be taken to stand and it ought not be ignored.

Whether it means that therefore divorce ought not be introduced requires further argument, however. In my view, in some scenarios it may be prudent to introduce divorce laws nonetheless.

Ranier Fsadni

Jul 12th 2009, 11:33

1/2
@Rev Joseph Mizzi
"In fact, from research, we know that where divorce was introduced, the number of marriages went down."

As stated, this is untrue. Divorce is available around the world, and historically has been widely available as well. Within this framework, in very few cases is divorce correlated to a decrease in the number of marriages - e.g., not in those 19th-century European countries that already had divorce laws then. (In 20th-century rural Muslim North Africa, one can even come across 50% divorce rates, but choosing not to marry remained unthinkable.)

What is true is that the post-1960s liberalised divorce laws (and the introduction of divorce in some countries) in the western industrialised countries are statistically correlated to a drop in the number of marriages. I know this is the society Fr Mizzi means, and that Malta resembles this kind not another, but it is not a quibble to point out the historically restricted nature of the case. Divorce per se is not the sole cause and very likely not even a sufficient one to explain the correlation. It is not implausible that people in Malta may increasingly choose not to marry even if divorce is not legalised.

C.Sammut

Jul 12th 2009, 11:19

"There are some who say that we are without sentiment for those unhappy in their first marriage... ...., who is saying that the second marriage is going to be a happy one?"

Surely its up to the involved parties to make this a possibility and not for the church to bar?