Church 'in denial' on question of divorce

Joe Zammit

Jan 31st 2011, 11:02

BORG IN-NADUR: 17 ta' Novembru, 2010:

Uliedi, illejla tajtkom prova ċara. Iva wliedi, għalhekk Ibni Ġesù qed jibgħatni hawn, fuq dil-gżira. Għalhekk għażilt dil-familja kważi ħames snin ilu. Għalhekk ridt lil Angelik u lil Catherine. Iva wliedi, Ibni Ġesù ma riedx jara żwieġ imfarrak. Għalhekk ħames snin ilu bagħatni hawnhekk, nerġa’ ngħidilkom. Ġejt inħabbrilkom minn qabel x’se jseħħ fuq dil-gżira. Kien hawn min fehemni u oħrajn lanqas biss taw widen.

Ftit taż-żmien ieħor se jkollkom għażla f’idejkom intom stess. Oqogħdu attenti x’tagħżlu wliedi. Iġġibux il-gwaj fuqkom.

Fejnhom fil-familji l-imħabba, l-għaqda, il-maħfra, is-sinċerità u t-talb flimkien? Fejnhom? Għalhekk illum kulħadd qed ifarfar minn fuq spallejh mal-ewwel intopp li jinqala’.

Iva wliedi, il-qalb tiegħi u l-qalb ta’ Ibni Ġesù muġugħin minħabba fikom. Jiena muġugħa għax jiena omm li nħoss għalikom.

Akkost ta’ kollox uliedi, jiġri x’jiġri, ibqgħu għidu: “LE GHAD-DIVORZJU, LE GHAD-DIVORZJU!"

U għidu r-rużarju u ġiegħlu lil ħaddieħor jgħid ir-rużarju.

Grazzi talli smajtu s-sejħa tiegħi.

Stephen Spiteri

Aug 12th 2009, 23:19

@ Joseph Meli
Today 's society is not made up of a single, conformist group but of number of minorities that constitute a whole. Those days are over and the church is 'in denial' on question of divorce because first and foremost it is 'in denial' over the facts that for better or worse many people are finding other ways of life not guided by the church.
Soon enough people against divorce will be a minority. Nothing wrong with that. Out of their own free will they can choose to separate and not re-marry.
Its all well and good if that choice makes them better human beings; but I doubt it.

Steve Pace

Aug 12th 2009, 10:37

@Joseph Meli. I would like to see what happens , if Labour come up with an electoral Promise that if elected , they will introduce Divorce.. Will a) The PN say They are against and b) The Maltese Church Party will tell us that whoever votes labour will be committing a Deadly sin . .
Also Another comment to Mr.Meli on a previous comment . I cannot understand your point when you say that people would commit Adultery . Why is this a problem to you ? Granted all the rest are sinners and you seem to think you are superior then us common mortals. But can you at least leave us to rot in sin if we wish to do so . Thank you .

Steve Pace

Aug 11th 2009, 18:06

@A Borg. I particularly quite like your last comment. "Maybe we should think more about prevention to marriage breakages rather than cure - which after all is no cure at all!!"
That is indeed a valid point. And in my view the church is doing very little to stop the damage from happening. There is too little preparation for those who want to get married in church.
I must say that i do not agree with the cure bit you mentioned. The whole point is being missed. People who seperate and do not reconcile after a period of time , say 4 years should be allowed to re-marry if they wish .Many will say , what about the chidren. Yes granted , children will suffer anyway whether their parents live together in hell or seperate. Again what support is being provided by the church to help these children ? By trying to stop divorce from coming in , the Maltese church is only trying to hide the problem. Their focus should be on the preperation and support to children and parents who go through seperation and who are willing to accept that support. But at least there is a choice

Joseph Schembri

Aug 11th 2009, 15:40

@Stephen Spiteri: I agree with you that people should stop barking up the wrong tree. The Church will not be convinced of the need for divorce. Above that I find it extremely demeaning to have to ask the Church for civil liberties as if we lived in a theocracy. It is the government that is responsible.

Remember that the Roman Catholic church does allow divorce though for its closest members. It is called the Pauline exception. Other odd things about the Church is that for example in the Vatican state the age of consent for sex is 12 years of age while for almost theocratic Malta it is incredibly set at 18 years.

Joseph Meli

Aug 11th 2009, 12:27

Stephen Spiteri: You stated to S. Pace "Stop barking up the wrong tree and address your plight to those people that you have elected democratically in Parliament." But I say to you that if they want to be re-elected again next term, they cannot just listen to the MINORITY ONLY, but they have also to listen to what the MAJORITY WANT'S, otherwise with the minority votes only he won't make it to parliament again.

It would be wise of him to do the MAJORITY wishes. We do now know those members of Parliament that we have to dismiss when we vote again. They do know that with the vote of the minority they cannot do anything and you know this too.

When some group/groups offers a petition to the Government on something, be sure that if that member / Government do not support those protesting, or..taken into..consideration.their plea, then they would note his or the..party..attitude and give him or party the cold shoulder when voting time comes again.

We know that with one vote only Government can win his majority and with one..vote..against they can still..loose..the..right..to..govern..again.

Joseph Meli

Aug 11th 2009, 12:07

! quite agree with what Mary Borg said and the Church which includes us all as catholics all have a right to speak and give our opinion. Then I also agree with what Mark Roberts said on what we as Christians / Catholics cannot go against what the Holy Bible says on Marriage. If one want's to write 500 words on this blog, you cannot break the law and automatically tells you that you are over the limit of 200 words. There are law and have to be obeyed. And I say, especially if one had originally married in a catholic church.

For All those Against the Church: Example: If you have deposited you money a bank called ABCFGY Bank and had $20,000 in savings account, and the bank is sold to another company, you would still have the right over that amount and 99% would have the same rules. Now if you where a catholic and now became an unbeliever (it's up to you) your marriage being first held in a church with a priest, your vow is until death do us part. If you go to live with another person, you are doing adultery.

M. John

Aug 11th 2009, 11:53

What happens when a mother goes out to work? Several fundamental changes are likely to occur.

She is no longer always available, and gains a certain economic independence. Al-though there are positive benefits to a family from a wife and mother working, the negative effects must also be given consideration.

The the child expert Urie Bronfenbrennen, who is not against mothers working, sees the disappearing parent as a major cause of many family ills.

Mr Justice Coleridge said: 'I am drawing attention to the endless game of "musical relationships", or "pass the partner", in which such a significant portion of the population is engaged."

The nature of divorce are...just..because..one..presses the tooth paste from one side and not from the other, Others because, the man used too much toilet paper, or he or she went very..often..to..the..toilet, or because his wife left the toilet seat open, Other divorced his wife/husband..because..she/he..failed..to..buy his favorite sweets or fruits.

S. Calleja

Aug 11th 2009, 11:36

Ok, then let's think like Mr Aquilina and A. Borg, and focus all our energies on preventing sickness and accidents. If then somebody is sick or happens to be involved in an accident, tough luck on them. "Gabuha b'idejhom!" Very Christian indeed.

A. Borg

Aug 11th 2009, 09:03

I find Mr Scicluna offensive to my intelligence. Honestly, being a teacher myself I encounter the less nicer part of what he is proposing to be the 'ideal' situation for marriage breakages. I would like to let him know that trying to confort an 11 year old or a 15 year old who is crying because his parents are separating is no easy task. Students nowadays are less interested in schooling because they cannot concentrate due to decisions made by their parents often in their own egoistic interest without viewing their children's needs. Introducing divorce will surely give more space for families to separate. It is interesting to note that lawyers will benefit from such legislation and NOT families as Mr. Scicluna is saying. 'Broken' families will have to spend extra money for legal matters maybe to the detriment of nutritious food and basic needs! The church has every right to speak its own version just as Mr. Scicluna is doing so often on local media. Maybe we should think more about prevention to marriage breakages rather than cure - which after all is no cure at all!!

Simon J. Aquilina

Aug 11th 2009, 08:34

PART 1: Where is the “real” problem?

There is a saying that says “Prevention is better than cure” – but unfortunately too few a people still try to understand the real meaning behind sayings today.
All we want is the “easy” way out. Fact is that both sides in this story have that little bit of right and wrong. However the question that should be answered by everyone is not “What do we do now?” but rather “How are we here?”! We should concentrate our energy more on what is happening BEFORE marriage rather than after, because a solid marriage is based on a solid relation and no marriage can expect to last if not based on a solid relation. Are we allowing people to get married too easily? Are we concentrating more on the “wedding date” rather than the “marriage”?

S. Calleja

Aug 11th 2009, 08:16

Why do we need the approval of the Church to pass a divorce law?

@ Mark Roberts: "Prevention is better than cure."
Yes but we still have hospitals.

"Marriage is for life!"
Catholic marriage you mean.

"Just want to erase the marriage as though it never took place in the first place."
No that's what annulment (including Church annulment) is all about.

Like you, I am saddened by the fact that so many marriages are breaking up. Unlike you, however, I want a solution that legally protects the parties involved, including the children. Separation, as advocated by you, does very little to help recreate harmony. You end up with spouses cohabitating with new partners with no formal recognition, and spouses who do not keep their alimony responsibilities, causing much distress.

G Busuttil

Aug 11th 2009, 07:36

How come the church allows priests to leave the priesthood and get married and does not allow married couples to leave their marriage and get married again>

Both marriage and the the priesthood are sacraments and are supposed to be for life. Why the discrimination?

Raymond Cachia

Aug 11th 2009, 00:02

Why is Divorce good enough for foreign Roman Catholics or Maltese Catholics living abroad but not good enough for the local Maltese?

I personally know a lot of Maltese abroad who are divorced and still attend the Catholic Church in their parish, even the Church run by Maltese priest for the benefit of the Maltese Immigrant community.

I thought that the Church claims to be universal and its teachings are applicable the same way all over the world.

So why this double standard???

Alistair Attard

Aug 10th 2009, 23:01

Divorce is not a solution! It appears to be but in reality it creates more problems. In my opinion it has a Dominoe effect on the couple's personal lives. For the children it's no different! Many testify how a divorce in their childhood had irreparable damage psychologically. Divorce is an escape and not a solution! Treat such a problem with LOVE and you CAN DO IT WITH JESUS!

Steve Pace

Aug 10th 2009, 22:03

@crusaders. The church cannot allow divorce. Agreed. That does not mean that the church has a right to impose on the state. Seperation exists and divorce is not needed. Wrong ! What this blogger means is that whilst he has every right to be happy, those who seperate should be condemned for life to live in limbo, including all victims who were subjected to physical, emotional and sexual abuse.
Marriage breaks down when one or the other spouse breaks their vows... Ok so does this apply to priests who leave to get married ?? They too take vows... Maybe there are two levels of vows. Or maybe people change and situations change. Who knows ?
@Vincent A Galea. You could not have put a longer nail in the coffin ! Prosit... Well said. And waiting for someone to take your challenge !
@Lina Caruana. Well then maybe you should not go to church and confess. Since there is a big probability that you will commit the same sin the next day. You maybe should not take a shower and wash since with all this heat you will need to take a shower in a couple of hours.

lina Caruana

Aug 10th 2009, 21:22

If missing the point because one sees that the Church cannot change Christ's teaching or it does not remain the Catholic Church, then those who expect the Church to accept divorce has missed the whole view because the Church of Christ cannot change His teaching for a local report.
@Richard Micallef
"divorce and beheadings" does it change much ,speaks for itself. What can divorce do for an extreme liberal mentality. Even now some people kill their vives not because they cannot get divorce but for reasons of their own.

Miguel Micallef

Aug 10th 2009, 20:27

@Mary Borg

What you don't get is that the church can do whatever it wants. No one is asking the church to allow divorce. The church might decide to burn its members at the stake if they mention divorce, and I would be fine with that because I am not a follower. Actually, I'd have fun seeing it happen and wondering how ppl are still so foolish.

But we are not the church. We are citizens of Malta. And we really don't care about what's written in the bible and what Jesus said. If YOU do, then YOU don't divorce if you find yourself in a failed marriage. But we, we want to divorce if it doesn't work for us.

If I told you I have a 3000 year old book written by 'SpaghettiDude' that says 'dont stand up or you go to flame land' will you spend your entire life sitting down becuase SpaghettiDude of my 3000 year old book said so? No, you wouldn't because SpaghettiBible won't mean anything to you, and that's how much what's written in the bible means to us.

The state should introduce divorce right now.

MJohn

Aug 10th 2009, 19:20

What happens when a mother goes out to work? Several fundamental changes are likely to occur.

She is no longer always available, and gains a certain economic independence. Al-though there are positive benefits to a family from a wife and mother working, the negative effects must also be given consideration.

The the child expert Urie Bronfenbrennen, who is not against mothers working, sees the disappearing parent as a major cause of many family ills.

Mr Justice Coleridge said: 'I am drawing attention to the endless game of "musical relationships", or "pass the partner", in which such a significant portion of the population is engaged."

The nature of divorce are...just..because..one..presses the tooth paste from one side and not from the other, Others because, the man used too much toilet paper, or he or she went very..often..to..the..toilet, or because his wife left the toilet seat open, Other divorced his wife/husband..because..she/he..failed..to..buy his favorite sweets or fruits.

JMJ MELI

Aug 10th 2009, 19:00

May I add what Mr Justice Coleridge said: 'I am drawing attention to the endless game of "musical relationships", or "pass the partner", in which such a significant portion of the population is engaged."

The nature of divorce are...just..because..one..presses the tooth paste from one side and not from the other, Others because, the man used too much toilet paper, or he or she went very..often..to..the..toilet, or because his wife left the toilet seat open, Other divorced his wife/husband..because..she/he..failed..to..buy his favorite sweets or fruits.

Others..because..she or..he had smiled to..another person..of..his/her opposite..sex, and the list goes on and on, not forgetting the long..time they spend working..to pay..their..debt, cause..everyone..wants..his..house..a..villa..or..a..palace..like.

Condemning the 'endless and futile quest for a perfect relationship', he said many parents were in 'a complete and uncontrolled free-for-all where being true to oneself and one's needs is the only yardstick for controlling behaviour'.

He added: 'The children are caught up in the conflict of their parents' unresolved relationship issues and it can leave them scarred, sometimes severely scarred, for life.'

POOR CHILDREN !!! SO, IS THIS SORT OF DIVORCE THAT WE WANT FOR MALTA?

A. Muscat

Aug 10th 2009, 18:35

Two millennia had passed and the Church still dwelling in the dark!

Sooner or later divorce will be introduced in Malta and bring Malta in line with the civilized world.

The state of affairs in Malta regarding divorce goes against the European Charter of Human Rights and discriminates against Maltese citizens who have married partners of the same nationality.
Divorce is not a good thing. It is the least bad of two choices. One is to stay with a partner even though the marriage has broken down irretrievably, or one partner is abusive towards the other. The other is two breakaway and start again. With divorce, at least you can get married again if you so wish. For many people this is important because they breakaway completely from an unhappy past.
Divorce is the only way to safeguards women right and dignity which are two issues the anti-women god of the bible doesn’t acknowledge.
The Church has all rights to stick to what the bible says, however if this is the case the Church has two options: either correct or edit the bible and permit adultery (Co-habitation) or keep mum over the issue.

Rocco Cauchi

Aug 10th 2009, 18:10

An old priest friend of mine called divorce "chronic polygamy", especially when one passes on to a second or subsequent marriage.
He used to explain that Holy Mother Church, in her bounty, never lost hope of the resumption of a marriage with the grace of God. Ultimately Hope is one of the virtues the Church basically propounds.
Many marriages are known to have been retrieved after several years of civil separation from bed and board, and spouses remarrying each other, even if only civilly, after years of divorce.
Both from the civil and religious aspects, more preparation is required before binding the marriage knot (and why should we want to unravel everything nowadays, including knots?)
Inasmuch as we may soon be discussing the number of years required before obtaining a definitive decree of divorce, why not on an equal basis discuss the number of years of betrothal required before a civil or religious marriage? Naturally, this would require an updating of the civil laws of betrothal which still exist in our Civil Code.

anthony girard

Aug 10th 2009, 17:34

I have a solution.
All those who wish to get married in the Catholic Church sign a declaration stating that they are against divorce before the Church accepts them. Those who favour divorce can get married civally.
This way, God will not have to put together what the couple may decide to put asunder

Stephen Spiteri

Aug 10th 2009, 17:18

@ Mark Roberts
Unfortunately you are right, Marriage is for life. That is the Maltese version of it. If the Maltese do not like it then they should get real and ignore it; or offer their own version in return.

Until then the Maltese will keep on being blackmailed by people of your mentality; they will keep on imploring to people who just exist for the power game……and for the money.

Robert Cilia

Aug 10th 2009, 16:36

Let us stop being naive. The church cannot ever accept the arguments in favour of divorce. On the other hand the State could and should listen to those who are asking for the introduction of divorce even here in Malta. With or without the possibility of acquiring a divorce there is no denying the fact that the number of marriage breakdowns is increasing rapidly. What I would like to know is if any statistics exist to indicate why this is taking place. This I believe should form the basis of discussing the pros and cons of divorce. There is no denying the fact that there are thousands out there who deserve to have the option of a second chance but at the same time understanding the nature of why marriages are failing could also be of value to divorcess themselves. I also believe that the argument that divorce could be more of detriment to children of seperated parents does not hold ground if adequate measures are taken to protect their interests. The many cases in fornt of The Family Court testify to this argumnet. parents must be mature and responsible enough not to risk the well-bieng of their children.

Dr. John Zammit

Aug 10th 2009, 16:35

I cannot understand how the Maltese till today did not understand that divorce has nothing to do with the Catholic Church or Catholic faith. It has to do with those who want it and especially are not Catholics. The Catholics have the right not to divorce, nobody is ordering them to divorce, but those married civilly or foreigners living in Malta have the right to divorce. Even those like me who are not anymore Catholics have the right to divorce. So please Catholic citizens of Malta and Gozo understand this for ever!

Mary Borg

Aug 10th 2009, 16:09

The Church can never allow divorce as basically Jesus didn't want divorce either (written in the bible). Since the Church does not allow it and does not agree with it, the Church has every right to defend what, in her opinion, is right. Although many married couples are already leading seperate lives, the word 'divorce' just has to be written on paper, the Church just cannot allow it.

Mark Roberts

Aug 10th 2009, 15:47

There is seperation for people who cannot resolve their differences. There is no excuse for divorce. Maybe we find out why there are so many unhappy marriages in Malta today. Prevention is better than cure. I put most of the problems with marriage down to the permissive sexual behaviour of people today. Infedelity usually committed by men is the biggest cause of marriage failure today. Most of this has been caused by an unhealthy addiction to pornography on the internet, but nothing get said about addiuction to porn in the media. Every where you look in Malta you see ill glad posters of women! bill boards projecting sex and women in the most provacative sexual positions and then you wonder why so many men can not remain faithful and marriages and familys are destroyed! You say nothing about it! I guess theres not enough evidence!

Mark Roberts

Aug 10th 2009, 15:38

Marriage is for life! That is the definition of marriage! If you don't like it don't get married! Till death do us part
is what you agree to when you get married and for better or worse. Let no man put asunder what God has joint
together! The hypocrisy of people who demand divorce in this country makes me sick. Is it possible that you cannot
understand that life means life. Yes I do realise that some spouses can become physically or verbally abusive, or
unfaithful but there is seperation for those people! You are trying to redefine the meaning of marriage. Its not a
temporary union! Just want to erase the marriage as though it never took place in the first place. The church can never agree to divorce. Its about time you learnt to undersatnd your own religion. To think that the church could ever cave in to the contemporary whims of liberals!

Anthony Roberts

Aug 10th 2009, 15:25

Divorce itself does not cause the breakdown of marriages. Breakdown of marriage is created when two married people break their marriage vows to each other and bring pain and disaster to their relationship. Divorce is the solution to the breakdown of marriages and is an escape route for children living under duress. What is worse - children caught up in a battle between their parents and then having to leave one parent to live in co-habitation with some one else's husband/wife or children being brought up in an environment that is free from the pain of seeing their parents continually at loggerheads. Children must be protected and divorce, can be a solution for them. Marie Roberts

vincent magro

Aug 10th 2009, 14:57

Qrajt b'attenzjoni li qal is-Sur Scicluna, u ma nistax nifhem il-logika tieghu fejn jidhlu l-istatistici li qed isemmi. Jghid li l-knisja qed tibbaza fuq premessi zbaljat u mkien mhi taghraf id-dbatija li jikkawzaw iz-zwigijiet imkissra, izda fl-istess hin naqas li jurina li bid-divorzju, il-familji se jissahhu u mhux jiddaghjfu. Jien ma nistax, almenu mill-figuri tieghu, nikkonkludi li z-zwigijiet f'Malta qed jitkissru aktar ghar-raguni li m'hawnx divorzju. Hu veru li ghall min hu separat, bhali, jekk jidhol id-divorzju se jkollu possibilta ohra li jekk ma jgibx l-annulament, jiddevorzja u jibda hajja gdida billi jerga jizzeweg, izda fil-fatt ma jkunx it-tieni zwieg ir-raguni li jista jkun kuntent, imma r-relazzjoni li jkun irnexxielu jibni mas-sieheb/siehba tieghu li l-kumlament ta hajjithom se jghixuha flimkien fit-tajjeb u l-hazin, u li kull decizjoni li jiehdu trid tkun tajba ghat-tnejn flimkien mhux ghal parti wahda biss. Dan jista jsehh jekk it-tnejn jigbdu habel wiehed, u la l-ewwel zwieg u l-anqas it-tieni m'ghandu dan ir-rekwizit, izda l-impenn u r-rieda li minkejja b'sagrificcju, trid tghid jien s'hawn nista nasal ghax jien hadt decizjoni li nhobb sakemm il-mewt tifridna, u m'hux sa kemm taqbizli c-cinga.

Stephen Spiteri

Aug 10th 2009, 14:23

@ Steve Pace
I agree perfectly with you but follow my argument.
The church is in complete denial over the rising incidence of annulment and separation. So what! I think this has been established ages ago. People who ignore research are as dangerous as generals who ignore decodes of enemy signals. But we are not a theocracy! The church does not pass any laws and it should not interfere with contracts between adults. Any comments or arguments addressed to the church are superfluous and continue to shield the main culprit of this situation, the Government.
I feel ridiculous debating the introduction of divorce as if we are a morally superior nation. I feel even more ridiculous wasting time trying to convince a bunch of unmarried men about the hazards of not having divorce.
To all separated people out there:
Stop barking up the wrong tree and address your plight to those people that you have elected democratically in parliament. These people will make decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore.

Paul Borg

Aug 10th 2009, 13:49

I understood that Mr. Scicluna's thrust is that the Church is in denial when it opposes the divorce legislation, especially when it claims that divorce actually causes marriage breakdown: . In my post (second from bottom) I pointed out some current evidence which supports the Church's position. None has as yet even tried to dispute the points that I raised. It is also a fact that marriage breakdown causes serious problems for the community as a whole, particularly its effect on children of divorced or unmarried mothers, arising from the poverty of single parenthood, the psychological effects on children of the absence of a parent, particularly the father, etc. Start with England, where dealing with the problems has and still is absorbing vast sums of public funds, solutions have NOT been found despite this expenditure and the breakdown of society generally, proceeds with a seemingly unstoppable force. The church may be the sole institution in the world that opposes divorce, but it would appear that its position is very supportive of the interests and well being of the State as a whole and the community within it. .

Galea. L

Aug 10th 2009, 13:47

A Cassar
When he referred to false foundations he was indirectly referring to Church Law and was therefore trying to interpret its law.

David Buttigieg

Aug 10th 2009, 13:45

@Richard Micallef,

Further correction, Henry VIII NEVER divorced, he had the marriages annulled! In fact the church of England STILL does not accept divorce.

Ofcourse people can still choose to divorce in England which is as it should be here too!

Joanne Micallef

Aug 10th 2009, 12:39

Everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, the church has no right to hinder the introduction of divorce, it should limit itself to voice it's opinion and preach against it FULLSTOP.
Those that ‘sin’ and get divorced will be judged by our Lord, the ONLY entity that we Catholics answer to.

C. Farrugia

Aug 10th 2009, 12:13

Divorce does not *break down* marriages. A marriage is already broken down BEFOREHAND, and that is why there is a need for divorce.

NO to divorce but YES to annullment! Farcical.

And as for the reasoning that * dak li jghaqqad Alla ma jista' jhassru hadd *... why is it then OK for a priest to be allowed to *divorce* God and be free to get married??!!

A Cassar

Aug 10th 2009, 12:09

@Lina Caruana, L Galea
You completely miss the point!!
Mr Scicluna is NOT saying that the CHURCH should introduce or accept divorce.....He is saying that the STATE should! He is criticizing the church because it is denying that there is a problem, the church is denying that some people's life would be happier if they remarried. The church should be preaching in favour of a stable marriage and against divorce...but not imposing its views! And most important of all, people in Malta should have the right to choose whether they want to abide by church's teaching or not.

@L Galea Where exactly did he mention church law? He is talking about state law! If you need a PhD to speak about something, then you should stop making comments on the timesofmalta.com, unless you have a PhD on the subject!

William P Flynn

Aug 10th 2009, 11:34

One representative of one prophet says "no divorce under any circumstances".
The representative of another prophet says "all you need do is say 'I divorce thee' three times and walk away from your spouse".

I say keep the prophets and their representatives out of the divorce issue completely. This is a secular problem requiring a secular solution.

The faithful don't have to use divorce or stop using it the way they do now. The rest will have a civilized solution for a failed marriage.

Vania Lamanna

Aug 10th 2009, 11:33

to everyone who keeps saying a Catholic cannot and should not get a divorce-great, but where does it leave every other religious denomination???!!! that arguement holds no water. Give everyone the right to a divorce, if the couple manages to work through their problems, good for them, otherwise, why should they be miserable and legally married for life because someone else's religious beliefs were imposed on their own?

Richard Micallef

Aug 10th 2009, 11:30

Just a historical correction to Ms Lina Caruana's contribution. Henry VIII was married six times. He divorced two of his wives (Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves), had two beheaded (Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard). Jane Seymor died a natural death and Catherine Parr survived him. Divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived.

vincent a galea

Aug 10th 2009, 11:25

Without apologies for repeating myself over and over again, I strongly implore the Church Authorities to find a solution similar to the one that freely allows priests and nuns to untie their KNOT of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. They are allowed to get married in church even after a nun is informed that she is now " married to Jesus" when ordained; while a priest is proclaimed, "TU EST SACERDOS IN ETERNUM" ("YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER") !!!

Richard Micallef

Aug 10th 2009, 11:24

It seems that only the Phillipines (where crucifictions take place to remember Good Friday) and Malta are right about the divorce debate while the rest of the world is in the wrong. The Church has every right to oppose divorce but the state has a duty to look at the situation through a lay perspective and not through the eyes of the Church. Civil marriage is a contract and every contract can be rescinded if both parties are in agreement. All one has to do is sign another contract reversing the previous one. Divorce is nothing more and nothing less than two people freely deciding to rescind a contract.

Times change and eventually opinions evolve. The Church will one day recognise that divorce is an essential part of an ordered society. Unfortunately we will probably not be around when that happens. I remembered being taught as a child (by priests in a church school) that it was a mortal sin to eat meat on a Friday. I also remember being taught (by the same priests) that it was a mortal sin to touch a consecrated communion host. Yes times change and opinions do evolve,

Alexandra Busuttil

Aug 10th 2009, 11:21

Hi Steve,

wrt your comment,'Coming back to your quest for people to pay for the consequences of breaking a contract , i wonder if what you mean is actually making that person leaving, a complete misery and draining him or her of every cent .

It does not matter whether it is hefty fines or a jail term, but society has to realise that there is a harsh consequence to pay becasue that is what there is in store for the NON GULITY party.

Divorce AS WELL AS annulments allow society to believe that it is ok, marriage breakdowns happen and so the guilty party is correct in leaving his/her unhappy marraige after all it is happiness we are all after.

WRONG ...it is carrying responsabilty which you have entered into together with your whole family which secures peace, that arises from the concept that whatever happens, your father , your mother and your spouse will always be there for you. That is home and that is what creates it. Anything less then that is hell and anyone who caused is guilty of a crime.

Happiness is not getting what you dont have, but being happy with what you do

Steve Pace

Aug 10th 2009, 11:10

@Galea L.. Mixing State affairs with Church affairs is a very dangerous. The imposing of church opinions on the state is extremly fundamentalist to say the least. The State and politicians are representing everyone and not just the chuch . The current situtation in Malta is hilarious . A divorce obtained abroad is recognized. The current seperation deeds are just short of allowing seperated couples to re-marry.

Lina C aruana

Aug 10th 2009, 10:55

Arguing with the Church for divorce is a historical reminder when Henry the xiii argued for his own divorce(s).He got eight divorces but there was a split with the Catholic Church. One cannot be a Catholic and accept divorce and that is universal not only in Mata. The Church and its social teaching are 2000 years old. Does the Martin Scicluna report aim at forcing the hand of the Church in Malta to liberalise divorce and create a Maltese Church . That cannot be done or the Church in Malta will be cut off from the Catholic ( Universal ) Church . We are thinking big . Where do you want to go How do you explain the fact that divorce will do away with all suffering ? Do you mean to say that who has been unfaithful, violent, irresponsible will be cured with divorce ? Or that he\ she will do it again to another man or women of their choice so long as it lasts,

Galea. L

Aug 10th 2009, 10:54

"The Church's argument that the availability of divorce causes marriage breakdown is based on false foundations, Martin Scicluna, the lead author of a report calling for urgent legislation on divorce, has said."

Without entering into the merits of whether divorce should or should not be introduced, does Martin Scicluna have a Doctorate in Church Law to be able to interpret it?
Can he give us the allegedly false foundations and supporting evidence to support his arguments?
Does Martin Scicluna know that Muslim States have been tightening the rules on marriage and divorce when previously a Muslim could simply divorce his wife by simply saying telaq three times?

Steve Pace

Aug 10th 2009, 10:52

@ Alexandra Busuttil. Yes agreed . Its painful. People who go through it should know more then the others. But simply not allowing seperated couples to re-marry is no solution. Forcing a person to stay in a relationship which is beyond repair is no solution either.I have asked for a statistic of people re-uniting after seperation . It does not exist .Support for people who go through the pain should be more. The fact that the number of marriage failures is on the rise, and that the church annulments are also on the rise is a sign of failure on the part of the church. The church is not interersted in making sure that whoever gets married is really concious of the commitments . It just wants to hide the bleeding by trying to stop the inevitable Coming back to your quest for people to pay for the consequences of breaking a contract , i wonder if what you mean is actually making that person leaving, a complete misery and draining him or her of every cent .

alexandra busuttil

Aug 10th 2009, 10:40

It is so obvious that people who speak about this subject have not gone through the pain and agony of a BROKEN MARRAIGE. The reasons of each are so complicated that only the couple can talk about a marriage which was theirs alone. Having gone through it myself today i still dont believe divorce is a solution, after all which partner from a broken marriage is interested in getting into another . I know many seperated people and I know no one who is interested in another marriage. Other relationships yes, marriage no!

I would dare to say that not only do I firmly believe that divorce is no solution to either safegaurding marriages or society. Today I firmly believe abandoning a marriage causes so much pain and brokeness to direct spouse, kids, and even indirect family and friends that it should be a crime. After all if you think about it every other crime is classified a crime becasue it hurts others and takes what it has no right to take.

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SIGN CONTRACTS WHICH THE OTHER PARTY BUILDS THEIR LIFE AROUND, AND WITHOUT CONSULTATION THE CONTRACT SIGNED IS BROKEN WITHOUT PENALTY

Miguel Micallef

Aug 10th 2009, 10:36

Even though I am a firm believer in discussion and hearing everyone's opinion, I would have to say that in this matter we should proceed as a people and a nation and totally disregard whatever the Roman Catholic Church and its followers are saying.

There are wrong, period. The time for discussion is over. We have tried and tried of making these people understand but all that they are interested in is the perpetuation of suffering. They have NEVER brought up any argument worth discussing, and their reasoning sometimes borders on the sick.

If they so much believe in what Jesus, or any other deity tells them, then let them do so and not divorce even if their marriage failed. But this is no reason to hold all others with them.

Paul Borg

Aug 10th 2009, 10:19

Mr. Scicluna: wherever divorce, particularly "no fault" divorce,. has been legislated, two phenomena have emerged simultaneously: the number of divorced couples has exploded, (USA 40/50% of marriages ending in divorce) and the number of couples living together without formal marriage has exploded. Many UN or inter/intra-country reports on the status of marriage demonstrates this. In the Nordic countries, legal marriage is becoming the exception rather than the rule. Why? Because divorce is seen as the easy option: once difficulties emerge in a marriage few couples, especially in this selfish "me first generation" age, are willing to work to resolve their matrimonial difficulties but seek the easy way out of the difficulties through divorce. The presence of children in the relationship makes little difference and it is they who suffer the most, another negative of divorce. Simultaneously, as people see the rate of divorce explode, and the importance/value of the marriage bond or contract (ROLF: what does that mean in this age?) devalued, they see no point in entering into one. Remember the church's position is based on 2 millenia of experience in these matters. The one in DENIAL may be you!!!! .

Jon Shaw

Aug 10th 2009, 10:18

It is obvious that we will never have the Church or any of it's related organisations talk favourably about the introduction of divorce.

In my opinion, the pressure and discussions should be held with the state and not the Church. We argue that there should be a distinction between State and Church and that the State has to act. If this is so, why waste energy and aggrevate the discussions by going against a body which eventually is not the one to introduce divorce?

If divorce is not introduced, then I would just point fingers at the State and the MP's that represent both parties.