Can a Catholic politician vote for divorce?

Joe Zammit

Jul 17th 2010, 12:20

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott is absolutely no authority in the Catholic Church.

No MP can vote for divorce without sinning seriously. Christ orders (not advises) us not to resort to divorce because what God has united let no man, no Fr Peter, no State put asunder!

DIVORCE NEVER!

Karl Consiglio

Jul 16th 2010, 02:30

Like do these so called Catholic politicians ever use the Book of Revelations as some form of guidelines for the people? Hehe

Pule' Carmel

Jul 13th 2010, 20:35

If one wishes for anything, and one is prepared to just lean against the opposition and wait long enough and even longer, then one will get it for free without any opposition from anybody.

Paul Pace

Jul 13th 2010, 15:56

The Prime Minister is too blame for all this fuss and confusion here in Malta. PM complicates things purposely when actually the whole issue is simple. Marriage consists of two "contracts". One in front of the state and one in front of God. Divorce for those who want it for their state marriage is a right. All these blogs in favor and not in favor is that you are all playing in the Prime Minister hands. Those who want to go for divorce it is their choice and no one and no one should stop them. Those who are against divorce, don’t resort to it and stay celibate as your wish. We have a Prime Minister who is a puppet of the church and does not respect the rights of the people. Well you can’t please god and the devil at the same time so ONLY IN MALTA we make a mountain out of a hill. There should be no debate on this issue since divorce is for who wants to use it ONLY. So prime Minister do your duty and not throw camouflage on this issue.

l.azzopardi

Jul 13th 2010, 15:24

I fully understand that Catholics fond of their religion want to avoid divorce as it goes against their believes. I believe this is something which ought to be applauded. These people are consistent.

YET.... I am not a Catholic and my religion does not impose these restrictions on me.

Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and under the European Convention on Human Rights; which Malta is a signatory of, I am entitled to Freedom of Religion.

On what grounds would the Republic of Malta stop me from getting a divorce when my religion allows it?

Timmy Farrugia

Jul 13th 2010, 14:10

@ all ppl opposed to divorce. no one will force you to divorce. If legalised it would only be an option not obligatory for married couples!!!!! and pls stop playing this holier than thou and you're gonna burn in hell crap. not all of us fall for that!!!!

Lisa Schembri

Jul 13th 2010, 12:47

@ Joe Zammit---
We're not scared of the Bogeyman Mr.Zammit....Do you honestly believe that Satan exists--as in an actual physical being?

E. Azzopardi

Jul 13th 2010, 12:40

To. C. GALEA
You seem to be lost in giving me a reply. I am sure you have no idea of what a Catholic Politician means! I am waiting for an answer.

Karl Consiglio

Jul 13th 2010, 12:35

A good Catholic makes a terrible politician, and a good politician makes a terrible Catholic. You can't have the cake.

james vella clark

Jul 13th 2010, 12:08

Once an argument or opinion concerning the debate on divorce brings in God or the Church or religion, that argument or opinion becomes automatically null. Divorce is changing one's CIVIL status from married to non-married. Religion or belief have nothing to do with civil divorce.
Why are all these 'believers' feeling so threatened? Will the introduction of civil divorce in Malta, which after all is just a civil procedure, threaten their belief? Is the morality of these 'believers' so easily shaken? Divorce will be just an item on the civil menu - it will be there for those who need it. The absence of divorce will not save relationships - it will only give an opportunity for individuals to redress their personal situation with the STATE. Not with God. Every individual's relationship with God is unique and how the individual feels with himself and with God (if the individual considers himself catholic and chooses to abide by catholic rules) is only his concern and no one else's. But here divorce is solely a state issue and this is why bringing religion in the formula makes no sense.

P. Borg

Jul 13th 2010, 11:55

The least people who can talk and express an opinion on divorce are those from the clergy in Malta. They are not in a relationship or marriage with a partner so they can never understand the burdens that a couple may face in life. And don't try to tell me that they are married to god and that they have their difficuulties etc. I just might say that IT'S NOT THE SAME AND YOU CAN NEVER UNDERSTAND UNTIL YOU FEEL IT ON YOUR SKIN.

Come one this thing of religion is ridiculous. The maltese church just never wants us to grow and be free to choose. I challenge any clergy person to be placed in continuous humiliation and violence day by day and then I will be prepared to have a chat with them and see whether they will still say no to divorce. Let us be free, that's what Jesus taught us. He never pointed fingers and he taught only love. Love has nothing to do with staying all life with another person that does not respect you. I think those are not family values and not what children should see!!!!!!!

Roderick Micallef

Jul 13th 2010, 11:45

Dear Joe Zammit,
It is only fair that you base your belief, faith and opinion on a book written several hundred years ago. You have all the right to take it literally word by word, however you have no right what so ever to impose your belief systems on others.
With your statement you are trying foolishly to intimidate others with the excuse of sins, I am sure most people will not take you seriously. This system adopted by the church to achieve mind control might have worked back in the dark ages but I don't know if you realized things somewhat changed a bit since that time, wakey, wakey Mr.Zammit.
As I said earlier it is only fair that you still live with the same mentality of the inquisition but don't expect others to believe you or take you seriously!
As a last note, I wouldn't worry too much about sinning as you can easily go to confession and get absolved any ways so why all the fuss? Also, if you believe the idea of the divine plan there is no point in worrying as everything is pre-planned any ways and you have no control on anything, mhux hekk?

H. Meilak

Jul 13th 2010, 11:40

@ Joe Zammit
"Christ told us clearly that what God has united let no man, no State put asunder."

I ask you:
1. Did God unite the couple who have had their marriage annulled by the Catholic Church?
2. Did God ever unite a couple in a civil marriage?

John Carmel navarro

Jul 13th 2010, 11:30

There is no better Catholic Priest that I enjoy listening to than Fr Peter Serracino Inglott. He manages to speak in a language that everyone understands never trying to baffle people with theology! He has this time asked a very simple question ‘Can a Catholic Politician vote for Divorce’ these is a very easy answer the Church’s believes has nothing to do with the Government so therefore yes. One can go round the houses and bring various agreements but the bottom line is any meddling from the side of the Church with Politicians would only end up in tears as it did during those very dark shameful days many years ago.

Alex Azzopardi

Jul 13th 2010, 11:20

I am legally separated and unfortunately I have no grounds to obtain a church annulment, so here I am stuck in limbo where our dear catholic institution dumped me. It seems that it is all well and good for a few people to live in sin (since the church says that once separated you cannot even have a relationship) as long as the majority of people live happily ever after. I think the church exists in its own utopian bubble. Sure I am in favour of trying to prevent marriage breakdowns and all that but what happens if that doesn't work? The answer is in the first two lines of this contribution.
It is easy for people who have the good fortune of a happy marriage to speak against divorce but what if, god forbid, one of your children was in the same situation, wouldn't you want him to get a second chance?
Priests leaving the order to marry? That is quite convenient I say.
Anyway I tarry, in short something must be done for the minority who are desperate for a solution and if that solution is divorce, then I welcome it with arms wide open.

Joseph Micallef

Jul 13th 2010, 10:59

Can the anti-divorce brigade her please refrain from trying to equate divorce with marriage break-ups! Marriages are breaking up even presently and divorce would not make them break up more than they do now. It is not as if one ends a marriage on a whim. The financial implications, just to mention one implication, are a great burden. Divorce is not something that will break up marriages but on the contrary it will unite couples - at least legally - who are presently separated and co-habitng!

Roderick Micallef

Jul 13th 2010, 09:34

Of course, a catholic politician can definitely vote in favour of divorce however he/she would only be contradicting himself and the values that is supposed to be embracing. Once this is done then it will be easier for people to shift from one political party to another because let's face it, life is not all Black & White but really a mixture of both.
As I see it life is more some where in between Black & White and this should apply for politics as well, ideas and opinions change and so should the support to a political party. In other words, if there will be a political party that will not implement divorce just because that political party has a particular set of values then that party does not deserve to be in government in the first place.
Times change and so does the way of living, no one wants a political party in government that is stuck with an antiquated mentality and with static ideas that don't change irrespective of what is going on in reality.
Whatever happens on divorce I just hope that the decision of the state is not effected by the church in any way!

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Jul 12th 2010, 23:03

Malta appears to have more than its fair share of busybodies and people who think they have the answers to all questions. I imagine that is the inevitable outcome of insularism and a seige mentality.

Joe Zammit

Jul 12th 2010, 21:59

A simple question and a simple answer: No.

No politician can vote in favour of divorce because divorce is evil and condemned by God. Christ told us clearly that what God has united let no man, no State put asunder. Divorce means putting asunder what God has united.

Divorce is a grave sin and politicians will be responsible for all the mortal sins committed by divorcees on account of their voting in favour of divorce.

Voting for divorce is a grave sin that separates the offender from God and puts him or her on the path to hell. No politician, no person whoever he or she is can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously.

C Mallia

Jul 12th 2010, 20:37

1. As soon as religious principles are applied to divorce, these same principles will dictate and infringe on the rights of the non-believer
2. As soon as scientific statistics are put against divorce, someone else will find other scientific statistics in favour
3. The church has a duty to inform its followers, the state has a duty to legislate for ALL its citizens
4. Divorce is a personal choice, as marriage is a personal choice.
5. In practice the difference between separation and divorce is that the latter gives the opportunity to regularise and start a new life, the former doesn't.

The choice is clear.

Robert Callus

Jul 12th 2010, 20:32

The answer is simple - YES. Maybe the bible says loving someone after your marriage has failed is a sin. I'm not sure about that but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. What it definitely does NOT say is that a human being is responsible to FORCE another human being NOT TO sin. Thus no politician will have anything on his conscience except his own divorce if he comes to need it.

The bible quoters may prove me wrong. I don't think so though.

R. Gatt

Jul 12th 2010, 19:12

A Catholic politician is a politician before he is a Catholic. The electorate voted for the politician to represent them, and thus to act in accordance to the interest of the electorate. If a politician feels obliged to serve his own principles and inhibit the freedom and right of fellow citizens to live according to their own principles, that politician certainly cannot be trusted to represent the electorate in the first place.

S. Lungaro

Jul 12th 2010, 17:56

In reply to Mr dvella, Christ indeed: "reveals himself to the poor in spirit and not to wanna be like professors or geniuses or einsteins!!!" I might add that I believe that God is infallible. However, I sadly note that the higher echelons of the Church are made up of individuals, like you and me, who are not always poor in spirit (obviously one cannot generalise). Earlier, I brought the example of Galileo and his Heliocentric views. More recent events continue to confirm that the Church is not infallible. As a Catholic, I will never endorse the Church's behaviour of concealing child abuse by its members. To me, that is simply immoral. I believe that only (Catholic) extremists would side with the church on such an issue. I believe (and history shows) that the Church is not always right. I am also aware that not everyone is Catholic. The Church teaches tollerance and understanding. Now these are teachings I can relate to. I believe that the lower echelons (us) of the Catholic church who follow blindly (without thinking through) the beliefs of the Church, are being no less extremist than extremists endorsing other religions.

Mario Muscat

Jul 12th 2010, 17:32

Divorce is a civil right ............nothing else to add

Joe Galea

Jul 12th 2010, 16:50

I disagree for referendum there is no need to waist tax payers money.We have already voted for joining the EU.and we should be like all europeans divorce is a human right.Nor Gonzi and nor the church has the right to tell me how to live,once marriage does not work out between a couple both have the right to marry again and get back into society.We are the only ones in europe without a divorce law.

C Cini

Jul 12th 2010, 16:22

I do not agree with Fr Peter's perspective when he said that divorce might be good because it helps coabitating couples to remarry. I would rather ask the media to interview many people who are living in a country where divorce was introduced many years ago, and see what negative impact have left. Divorce by time helps others to cohabitate and gives less importance to marriage since wed lock is not strong as before. This is not a question of being catholic or not but is a fact that happened in other countries and we need to be aware of it.

dvella

Jul 12th 2010, 15:57

Christ said he reveals himself to the poor in spirit and not to wanna be like professors or geniuses or einsteins!!! Therefore what Mr S I has to say simply makes no difference! So one might be a professor in theology etc but still lack wisdom, the 1st gift of the Holy spirit. So simply a true catholic (even politician) can never vote in favour of divorce, abortion, etc or otherwise is contradicting his beliefs!! And the fact that most of us are baptized, makes it even more serious!!

C.Dimech

Jul 12th 2010, 15:37

The discussion is not whether the Church should introduce divorce and/or accept divorce. We are not asking anything of the Church!! Maltese Citizens are not all Catholics and more importantly not all voters are Roman Catholic. Let us not confuse matters. Practicing Roman Catholics who will never resort to divorce will not be FORCED to divorce. However a state cannot deny the choice!

S. Lungaro

Jul 12th 2010, 14:36

I believe that God made us intelligent in order to be able to make our own decisions, and not to simply follow whatever the Pope or the Bishops say. Following blindly someone else's opinion without thinking about it would actually be an offence against our own intelligence, and against God. There were times when the earth was considered to be the center of the universe by the Church. Guess what. It was not the case. Galileo was actually ridiculed for suggesting the opposite, which was eventually true.

In an IDEAL world there should not be divorce. There should not even be separation. But this world is not ideal. So although being Catholic, I am totally in favour of divorce.

Mark Zerafa

Jul 12th 2010, 14:33

FACT: The official religion of Malta is Roman Catholicism
FACT: Notwithstanding this, citizens of Malta are free to adhere to any religion of their choice or none at all
FACT: Divorce is not available in Malta, as per Catholic tradition

ERGO..

Catholic teaching is being imposed on non-Catholic citizens.

Does this mean that "no divorce" is unconstitutional?

John J. Galea Axiak

Jul 12th 2010, 14:17

Profs, Kristu qal: "Kliemkom ghandu jkun, Iva iva u le le, dak kollu li hu izjed minn hekk gej mill-hazen!" Qabel ix-xjenza hemm Alla, qabel il-politika hemm Alla, qabel il-filosofija hemm Alla, qabel l-emancipazzjoni u l-ugwaljanza hemm Alla, qabel l-istat hemm Alla! Ma nkomplux inhawduh il-poplu t'Alla!

J. Mifsud

Jul 12th 2010, 14:06

"CAN A CATHOLIC POLITICIAN VOTE FOR DIVORCE?".....................................................

Apart from 'can he vote for divorce', a Catholic politician should act as a Catholic also when he is responsible for promotions, in the fight against corruption, that when he helps a constituent he should see that he is not doing so at the expense of another constituent, to be truthful to the vow taken when he is elected to parliament, and to 1001 other do's and don'ts.

Ma' jridux ikunu Kattolici biss fejn jaqblilhom, ghaliex bin-nies tidhak, izda b'Alla hadd ma' jidhak.

Stefan Portelli

Jul 12th 2010, 13:47

Divorce must not be discussed. But how can we have healthier and better married couple. And also how to finish up this co-abitation. In the near future Malta will be catholic just for fun & Marry just for fun. Pajjiz tal-Mickey Mouse: Our lovely Malta as we say in Maltese will be "Nisrani ta' l-isem. Mhux sew li il-poplu Malti jappogja din il-mozzjoni.

charles caruana

Jul 12th 2010, 13:43

part 1
‘If a situation arises where without divorce there would be more cohabiting couples than married ones, this would be more disruptive for society - because it removes marriage as the basis of the family more drastically than the introduction of divorce. In this kind of circumstance the state should not only allow divorce but I would almost say it's its Christian duty to introduce divorce.’
‘Christian duty’ my foot. If PSI had done his research homework, he would have discovered that in countries where divorce exists, the number of cohabiting couples has steadily increased. The Joseph De Giovanni quote from the UK Office for National Statistics below is a case in point. In Sweden, 28 per cent of all couple are cohabiting, and their numbers is on the increase, plus the fact that these cohabiting couples break up in large numbers. By his logic this is a decisive argument against divorce.
But I would have thought that a philosopher-priest would have some inkling of the logical and theological fallacy implied in the statement ‘I would almost say it's its Christian duty to introduce divorce.’ That ‘almost’ is hardly an effective fig-leaf.

charles caruana

Jul 12th 2010, 13:33

I have also heard Fr PSI weightfully reason on a TV programme that since Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce in his time because of the hardness of people’s hearts then , so since modern people have become hard of heart again, that would be one reason for the introduction of divorce. As if Jesus Christ were a mere idealistic interlude in the realpolitik of human history, and His teaching susceptible to changing human fads and fashions.

Where I do agree with Fr.PSI is his statement that ‘For the state to be in a position to decide on divorce… it has to assess the social consequences of retaining the status quo and introducing divorce.’ Even here though, a qualification is necessary. I am no prophet but, human nature being what it is, and the way things are shaping up, divorce will eventually be introduced in Malta, but until then, I would keep insisting both before and after its introduction, both privately and publicly, that divorce has profound and long lasting harmful social consequences. Real Catholic laymen, much less Catholic priests, can never lend, or even be seen to lend, their moral and intellectual authority to a pro-divorce stance.

S.Bonello

Jul 12th 2010, 13:04

Ok it is true that marriage is a serious step to take and it is a very important commitment however no one can judge others since eveyone do mistakes. Did God ever said that if you marry and you are living your life as hell you must live with the same person for life cause you are marred to him/her? I doubt it. Many people pretend that they are catholics to abide by the rules but first we need to learn to accept other people ideas and not to judge them. i am a catholic person but im seriously having my doubts when I see that some people are really brainwashed by the church and priests remember they do mistakes too. Can we face the reality and facts people are already seperating and do cohabitation do you really think divorce is going to do any difference?How can Parliament members take a decission like this. It should be taken by the Maltese population and not by the few that are in the glory.

Paul Galea

Jul 12th 2010, 11:28

The authority of the Catholic Church lies with the POPE and the Bishops united with the Pope. ONLY THEY CAN SAY what CATHOLICS SHOULD DO OR NOT DO.

The Catholic teaching expressed by the Pope and reiterated by the Archbishop is that DIVORCE IS WRONG and ALL CATHOLICS ARE DUTY BOUND TO OPPOSE IT BY ALL THEIR MEANS.

Fr. Peter Serracino Inglott chooses to differ from the declaration made by the Achbishop, who is in union with the Pope, who is the only Authority on Catholic matters.

Therefore, THE OPINION of Professor Fr Serracino inglott on the matter is as good as that of Tom, Dick and Harry.

What is the DUTY OF A CATHOLIC person, wheter he be he a politician or not, DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE OPINION of Professor Fr. Serracino Inglott.

Jesmond Mifsud

Jul 12th 2010, 11:28

I'm a staunch atheist and a Secular Humanist, but if it helps you religious people put your mind at rest: divorce is advocated in both the old and new testament so the opposition of divorce from so many Maltese people is just a direct result of brainwashing and indoctrination. It is nothing more than Maltese tradition; and like all traditions it will eventually come to an end. Deal with it.

Charles J. Buttigieg

Jul 12th 2010, 11:23

@ Henry Mifsud.

The church does not recognise a marriage unless it was officiated by the church. When Civil marriage was introduced in Malta it did not impose that Catholic Citizens were not allowed to choose a Civil marriage, a church wedding or by both in order to follow their religious belief and the state recognition at the same time. Nobody, at that juncture accused our MPs of breaching their religious beliefs, because they left the choice to their constituents.

The divorce legislation is not different because it allows all citizens to follow their spiritual instinct.

C. Muscat

Jul 12th 2010, 11:07

Everyone has a right to express his opinion. My opinion is that I am Catholic; but my opinion on divorce is not coming from religion or religious belief. I am convinced that divorce will continue and increase the landslide of family values in this country and for my children sake I am against the introduction of divorce. I think that I should have this right to express my opinion. Also as a citizen, I would like to vote for someone with my ideas to represent me in parliament. This is crucial and fundamental and if any candidate of any party spells out that he will vote in favour of divorce, I will not want him to represent me. A politician is in the parliament to represent the people and not himself.

Jesmond Mifsud

Jul 12th 2010, 10:33

when will religious zealots in this country understand that not every person living in Malta is Catholic? Therefore Catholic laws should not be forced on everyone. Does that seem fair or what?

Adrian Archer

Jul 12th 2010, 10:26

As a catholic deciding whether or not divorce is a little bit of an issue as Bishops and Popes get to decide for us. However, not even one Catholic is speaking at the failed seperation system we have in this country (that is mostly in the hands of the church).

Mind you divorce have their own problems and even if regulated correctly (which I doubt it in this country) it will have immense problems.

Perhaps the question that we should ask is which system will be most beneficial for our country and more importantly the people who will get to be using it? After all being catholic is about doing the best for your fellow people. I'm not all in favour of divorce and if we could live without it, it would be far better but the current systems leaves a lot to be wanted.

Mind you, if divorce will be chosen, church marriages will fall drastically and so will church revenues. I'm not implying anything but this is just food for thought.

Whether catholic or not these are the questions one should be asking.

Henry Mifsud

Jul 12th 2010, 09:28

Intentionally or not, Part 1 and Part 2 translate to the 2 sides of Fr. Peter's coin! 1 the analyst; 2 the staunch PN supporter trying to give advice to the PM from this forum (obviously unable to do so otherwise). And this to the detriment of his own position as a Catholic priest.
The simple question is: Can a Catholic person (politician or not) ever vote for divorce.
To my book the answer is also very simple: NO.

David Captur

Jul 12th 2010, 08:15

Yes a politician may vote for divorce, but only if he/she is a vegeterian. And even so, it must be a full moon. As god intended, ofcourse.

S. Degabriele

Jul 12th 2010, 07:40

If someone is not happy in marriage has all the right to try to change life for the best. Ask those people who are living marriage as hell being violated all the time. To all of you who are trying to get this as something wrong I would like to ask a question - Would you stay with someone who beats and offends you all day long? I would suggest you watch 'Amore Criminale' on an italian channel and you would understand. The same stories portrayed from real life happen in Malta too. Come on, no one would stay in a situation that produces suffering. Everyone has the right to decide for a better life. I am catholic but I say YES and YES to divorce. Dear people quoting the bible, I hope you never have bullying and other suffering in the relationships with your partners. GROW UP and let others be free to choose!!!!!!

Ramon Casha

Jul 12th 2010, 05:53

1. Those who are quoting the Bible should keep in mind that other Christian denominations, using the same Bible, accept divorce. They wouldn't do this if there were a clear prohibition against it, and in fact, Jesus allows for divorce in the gospel of Matthew.

2. Where there are children involved, there is no difference to them whether it's called divorce, annulment or separation. When their parents' marriage has broken down irrevocably, the best way forward for them is for their parents' separation to be as amicable as possible, via no-fault divorce, rather than a protracted legal battle which harms all parties.

René Micallef

Jul 12th 2010, 02:56

Official Papal Teaching from Libertas praestantissimum 33:

"God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence. But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good, human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. In this, human law must endeavor to imitate God, who, as Aquinas teaches, in allowing evil to exist in the world, "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills only to permit it to be done; and this is good."

René Micallef

Jul 12th 2010, 02:32

From a Theological point of view, Fr Serracino Inglott is most probably correct, and is also representing the Catholic Tradition (not simply airing his personal opinion.). Many people who commented do not have enough knowledge of Moral Theology and Canon Law to understand that the position of the Catholic Church on this issue is far more complex what most people (including priests) think it is.

- First of all, the Catholic church dissolves marriages (in certain cases) using the Pauline and Petrine privileges. This is not annulment, but a form of divorce. The only caveat is that 'papal dissolution' benefits Catholics only. The pope can divorce two Maltese persons married validly by civil law (say, two unbaptised persons) in favour of a third. The Maltese State cannot. This canon law procedure is usually kept secret.
- Secondly, the standard Catholic teaching on civil law (including civil marriage or remarriage laws) going back to Augustine and St. Thomas, is that the purpose of law is not to stem out all social evils, but to promote the overall common good. If a legal change promotes the common good better, then it should be done (LIbertas praestantissimus 25).

O Farrugia

Jul 12th 2010, 01:42

I do not care about the beliefs of the politicians! But I agree with and I am in favour of divorce!

It is a farce how in this country of ours a divorce obtained abroad is acknowledged for all legal matters and re-marrying purposes, and yet in this country of ours we are being refused this legal right!

This farcical situation is yet to be explained by our Maltese Parliament !!!!!!! Divide and rule will not work on this one! And sheer arrogance will cost votes!!!

I wonder how the law of Civil Annulment will actually differ from Divorce in this country of so many laws that always leave so many loopholes!

The politicians better do their job right ! They owe it to the children. If their beliefs come before their job, then their loyalty is not to politics at all. Neither to the people and nor to this country's future! And Profs Iglott being a priest and all, may have got confused here with 'if it is scientifically proven". He can get reality if he asks the children of abusive and irresponsible parents, whatever age they are!

Robert Scullion

Jul 12th 2010, 01:00

"Divorce should be permitted if it is scientifically proved that society is better off with it than without it."

Given that the standard of living is higher in Norway, Sweden and Denmark (where even Gay Marriage/Partnerships are legal) than in Malta. While the standard of living in the Philippines is somewhat poor .. would this be sufficient scientific evidence?

Andrew Farrugia

Jul 12th 2010, 00:09

I sometimes wonder about the use of having principles which are deemed to be universal and then, using a partiuclarly artful form of sophistry, we hedge, fudge and twist these principles. And what is worse is that this is done by those who swore eternal allegiance and loyalty to these principles. Seems like we are becoming more clever and less wise. Signs of the times.

l.azzopardi

Jul 11th 2010, 21:50

We vote for politicians according to their electoral programm.
We dont vote for them cos they go to church or not. The Maltese MPs have a responsability towards the Republic and should act accordingly.

Anth Attard

Jul 11th 2010, 20:05

My thanks today go to PM, Presidents Emeriti and Prof Peter Seracino Inglott (PSI) who spoke to the media on divorce.
I thank also those who emailed their opinion. Let's have more and more. But we should stick to the subject without being personal when presenting arguments/opinions in favour or against..
We're lucky to have PSI, we'll be luckier if we have more PSIs who speak out, along with us, on national issues which can hit us hard.
Listening and understanding what is said and is written, will enhance our knowledge which, coupled with our experience on the subject, will enable us reach a more informed opinion.

Yes, there are women, men and children who presently are suffering as a result of marriage breakdowns. As a quick measure, Govenment promised to cater more for them in the coming months. Government's added support, along with that already being given by parish priests and voluntary organisations, will be of benefit to families in need.

Mario Zammit

Jul 11th 2010, 18:32

Is it not mind boggling (coming from a so called 'homme savant and a priest to boot), to declare that 'The Archbishop is not the ultimate authority on these issues and nor does he himself carry moral responsibility for such decisions'? Such a statement is tantamount to arrogating upon oneself an attitude of 'I know it best and no one knows it better than me'

But then we've grown accustomed to PSI's omniescence on all subjects under the sun. He is a self proclaimed 'sabe tutto' on subjects ranging from cinematography to implementing the scheme 'a doctor of your choice'. You name it and he is the non plus ultra!

If you perceive as a matter of the state, just remember that you are a man of the cloth; so let others pontificate on divorce.

Some may perceive divorce as being good or as being bad. What nobody has said up till now, is that once again it will be a question of whether those opting for it, will be able to afford all the expenses involved.

Once again, this hot potato finds its roots in the old evill: MONEY. Divorce is a lavish dinner for the legal profession!

R.Borg

Jul 11th 2010, 18:29

Can a catholic politician vote for divorce?
Can a catholic politician vote for abortion?
Can a catholic politician vote for euthanasia?
Can a catholic politician vote for the liberalisation of drugs and pornography?
Can a catholic politician vote for homosexual legal marriages?
Can a catholic politician vote in favour of laws that go against God's commandments, ethical values and against the common good and THEN FACE HIS GOD?

THE SIMPLE ANSEWER IS NO.

Frans Attard

Jul 11th 2010, 17:53

I wish to express my personal view about the issue of divorce.
I have my personal opinion about this issue, but I am not ready to share it with someone whom,I feel, might be influenced by it. I feel that a person has to form his opinion about this issue strictly through his conscience, without any influence from somebody else, especially if this somebody is one who can surely effect his final decision. I cannot accept the fact that someone would arrive to his final decision about this important issue just because Mr.X said so. And this makes me agree with the fact that, if ever a vote would be taken in parliament about this issue, it would be a secret one. I am sure that there would also be abstainers, whose decision to abstain might also be influential.

Chris Grillo

Jul 11th 2010, 17:48

Divorce = Legal for EU member States.
Malta = EU member State
------------------------------------------------------------
Q.E.D. Divorce = Legal for EU states = Malta.
------------------------------------------------------------
Don't see what all the fuss is. As a full member of the EU I am entitled to divorce if I ever need it. Hopefully I won't , but it doesn't mean I can't.

Fr.Serracino Inglott is a priest!!!! What do you expect from him?

Joseph DeGiovanni

Jul 11th 2010, 17:45

Telegraph.co.uk
By Martin Beckford

Published: 8:00AM GMT 26 Mar 2010
Part of a report from the UK Office for National Statistics

Marriage rates are already at their lowest level since records began in 1862, with just 232,990 weddings taking place in England and Wales during 2008.
But despite the greater instability of cohabitation, the ONS believes even fewer couples are likely to tie the knot in future.
Its report said: “There have been notable changes in UK partnership behaviour over the last 40 years. Divorce rates rose considerably during the 1970s, remained broadly stable after the mid-1980s, and more recently have fallen since 2004. At the same time, there has been a long-term fall in marriage rates since the beginning of the 1970s, and a steady increase in the proportion of adults cohabiting. For unmarried men in Great Britain aged 16 to 59, the proportion cohabiting increased from 11 per cent in 1986 to 27 per cent in 2007. There was a similar change for equivalent unmarried women, from 13 per cent to 28 per cent.

Was divorce providing a solution to marriage problems.
Refer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7523186/Marriage-more-stable-than-living-together-Office-for-National-Statistics-finds.html

Victor Vella

Jul 11th 2010, 16:32

The answer to the question is No. Divorce can be only the means and not the end in itself and scrutinized by the church and not by the government. Christ had made it all clear-Dak li ghaqqad Alla ma jhollux il-bniedem. Marriage is a serious state of life and not an easy affair. Those who take marriage by the Catholic church have to keep in mind that marriage is not a convenient way to satisfy our whims and bodily apparatus. Those who have in mind to take marriage by appearances and sexual bodily satisfaction only can take another way other than marry through the catholic church. Yes, the government has no right to pass regislation on divorce for those who get married through the Catholic church. Those who choose to marry through the register then the government can regislate for this segment. Now that we are living in a world of choices one has to choose. For sure the hardest way could be marriage through the Catholic church.

Claire Busuttil

Jul 11th 2010, 16:10

Politiku ma ikunx qed jirapresenta lilu inifsu biss, imma anke lil poplu. Allura ma ghandiex lanqas biss tigi mistoqsija did domanda!!

Joe Bugelli

Jul 11th 2010, 15:01

" . . . If it can be scientifically proven that it is good for society". I suppose it's better to say that the cup is half full rather than half empty. Can it be scietifically proven that marriage is good for society in ALLcases? Can it be scientifically proven that there is a heaven, a hell or even God for that matter? Of course not! It is a matter of personal belief and faith. Having a "faith" provides an ethos whereby morals, and a code of conduct benefits society as a whole, absolutely. Having the availability of divorce as a remedy for wronged individuals, in cases where neglect, abuse, infidelity and disregard for the "vow of marriage" is proven, is also good for society. So, enough smoke and mirrors, enough red herrings, and lets get to the heart of the matter through honest and intelligent debate, and leave the "moral obligation issue" out of the equation, thereby creating a level field for a just an equitable disposition of the issue, without unfairly "skewing the final outcome".

E. Azzopardi

Jul 11th 2010, 14:23

Please may I have the description of " A Catholic Politician?"

Charles Sammut NY USA

Jul 11th 2010, 14:20

In the USA we have what is known as "No Fault Divorce". Which means that if both parties agree that both want the divorce it is granted without any need for legal intervention. This will cut lawyers ' fees and speed things up. Something to be considered by Maltese legislatures.Of course no one will have a gun put to his head and rushed to Family Court. It will of course be voluntary so those that prefer to stay in the relationship will not be forced to do anything against their will. But those that oppose Divorce do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

ms g hoare

Jul 11th 2010, 14:11

Can a Catholic politician vote for divorce?" ofcource he can , just because i am catholic and strongly beleive in marriage doesnt mean that everybody else who is liveing in hell and wish to divorce and move on with thier life why not ,there is alot of good people out there that are in a marriage with no love and children are suffering as they don't see the meaning of love and they are growing up cold , children do what they see, children that are brought up in a troubled marraige suffer alot , they are the future ,it is better to have 2 seprate loving parents then living under same roof with angry abbusive parents.
Iwas allways selfish and said no to Divorce but now older and wiser I think about it diffrent .
VOTE YES FOR DIVORCE

J Farrugia

Jul 11th 2010, 14:05

The answer is very simple, not what Profs Peter Serracinto Inglott says, bu twhat our catholic pastor namely Archbishop Mons Paolo Cremona says. No catholic Politician or human being can approve divorce. It is against God's comnmand, what God has united LET NO ONE DESTROY. ANd no priest can go against God unless he resigns from his position. No one is considered a catholic priest unless he abides by GOD's commandments and His representatives here on earth which are the Pope and his bishops. That is that.

J.Debono

Jul 11th 2010, 13:54

I personally, do not think that there can be any half measures in the divorce issue. One can be in favour or against it. St. John the Baptist was beheaded because he had the guts to speak out the truth, no matter how upleasant and upsetting it was to Herod.

C Galea

Jul 11th 2010, 13:41

Good On Ya Mate , I could not agree with you more. In Fact the answer could even be reworded to say DIVORCE IS CHOICE , SO LET IT BE (trust me this can only be good, real good for all, as we can all make mistakes in life ). LETS HOPE MALTA'S MAJOR POPULATION WILL ADOPT THIS ATTITUDE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

Frans Attard

Jul 11th 2010, 13:38

Sincerament kont nistenna minghand Profs.Seraccino Inglott, bhala professur tal-filosofija, provi jekk is-socjeta tkunx ahjar bid-divorzju jew minghajru.
Jekk ma jafx hu...........................?

Mary Smith

Jul 11th 2010, 13:20

While it is refreshing to see Fr. Serracino Inglott talk honesty about divorce, I cannot see what sort of 'scientific' research will show that divorce is beneficial.

With all due respect, this is not a matter of science (or religion for that matter) but a matter of necessity and common-sense. If there is a need, then one has to fill it, in the same way that if one is hungry, one has to eat or if one is tired, one has to rest. Simply put there is nothing to debate, once a marriage is over, the legal contract that bound two individuals together has to be dissolved in Civil law. It matters not if the same couple also went ahead and celebrated that marriage in the rite of their religion - this does not hinder or in any way impinge on the civil authorities to declare the couple divorced. If then the now ex-couple also wish to pursue the dissolution of their spiritual/religious marriage, they can do so as well. In fact, in many countries, one can only proceed to obtain a Church annulment after the Civil Divorce has first been obtained.

Rudy Sollars

Jul 11th 2010, 13:05

Fr. Peter's premise is an unnessary decoy. The Treaty of Lisbon and in particular the European Charter of Fundamental Rights - which is now legally binding - guarantees the freedom of conscience of the individual. In this respect, this matter is the right and prerogative of the individuals concerned, and has noting to do with the State, popular rhethoric, consensus or other forms of interference.

In a referendum the electorate has already voted for the European Union and another referendum on this issue is therefore unacceptable. Even if it is embarrassing, Democracy demands that the State is responsible to honour and implement the European Constituion in all its entirity which Malta has ratified in 2005. Violations of individual rights should be contested in the Law Courts, and if neccessary in the European Court of Human Rights.

It is much better to empower all the citizens with their legal and indivdual rights, then continue to engage in ploys to set them off track...

Joseph Micallef

Jul 11th 2010, 13:02

The problem with some commentators here is that not even if God himself had to come and physically visit us and tell us that for the state to allow divorce is a good thing - they would still say that it is bad! That's how closed minded they are!

j attard

Jul 11th 2010, 12:59

and the spinning machine is set to ON.

Marius Zulgis

Jul 11th 2010, 12:52

Divorce must never be taken lightly, but the undeniable fact is that marriages fail, and they sometimes fail irreparably. This is a bitter pill to swallow, and the idea of a marriage being dissolved is never pleasant no matter what religious or other beliefs you hay have.

This is not about words or promises or sacraments or heresy or the church. This is about PEOPLE. There are times when people should be given the opportunity to make a fresh start, especially when there is violence or abuse or alcoholism or drugs and women or children are suffering as a consequence.

Priests may well preach about the evils or divorce, but the clergy is far from perfect so it is logical to understand that what they preach is also sometimes mistaken on occasion. If a marriage is over, it's over and no amount to "trying again" will help anyone and, difficult as it may be it is sometimes time to move on.

The sooner these facts are understood the sooner people can get on with their lives. It's hardly "rocket science".

Anthony Roberts

Jul 11th 2010, 12:50

Of course a politician can vote in favour of divorce - he is human after all.

Gerard Cassar

Jul 11th 2010, 12:35

The die has been cast. Voting for divorce is already seen as being a mortal sin.
Including it in an electoral program will condemn the party to be defeated. Mortal Sin to vote for it, Freedom of conscience, my eye!

john borg

Jul 11th 2010, 12:22

Divorce should be permitted if it is scientifically proved that society is better off with it than without it.

we say "science has been proven wrong many times" which is not completely correct. science is "a works in progress" which means there might be better solutions!!!!!

P. Mifsud

Jul 11th 2010, 12:10

Why on earth can't a Catholic politician vote for divorce?

I believe that a practicing Catholic wouldn't remarry civilly after being divorced if the first marriage was validly contracted in Church and is (or was at the time of the exchanging of vows) an image of the eternal love that Christ has for his Bride, the Church (which he incidentally gave his life for).

Divorce is a necessary evil as a remedy to the hardness of heart as Christ himself said when asked why Moses allowed divorce. But who on earth am I to decide whether or not other people may or may not divorce and remarry? Please remember, all you righteous ones clamouring against the introduction of divorce, that (a) not all people who want to divorce and remarry were originally married in a Catholic Church; and (b) even if they were, by choosing to divorce, and remarrying CIVILLY, (since a Church marriage is automatically excluded) they are most probably only legally regularising an existing state of cohabitation.

There are many 'bad' things available (pornography, prostitution, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, sweets, food, etc) on the market but their availability doesn't mean that I have to make use of them!

Edric Micallef Figallo

Jul 11th 2010, 12:05

A "Christian duty to introduce divorce from the point of view of the Christian view of the State"? I'm open to ideas if they lead to positive results. This sophistry does not. He speaks well of Christian Democracy, which I reject because I see the mode of thought which leads to certain results inimical to Catholic values. He was one of the main motors to move PN towards such a line of thought, thanks. I've heard his arguments before, they seem cautious but they're really dangerous. Christian Democracy in Italy led to divorce and abortion with intellectuals and priests such as him giving the ideological background, contrary to the Catholic Church's positions.

This man seems to be keen to continue the process towards a leftward drift within the party. I wonder what school of theology he subscribes to. Modernism? A Catholic politician can vote in favour of divorce in certain circumstances? Well, why not say the same for abortion, euthanasia et cetera? According to his method of thought, it can be. L'abito non fa il monaco.

victor rodenas

Jul 11th 2010, 11:41

Perhaps there are more priests who think the same as Fr. P.Serrachino Inglott ,but they are not bold enough to express themselves because of repercussions.Do not worry that you will be perseguitated if you honestly thing that you are right.....remember that many Saints were perseguitated by their own kind for what they beleived...The Church will first perseguitate you, afterwards it will make you a Saint....thats how the norma goes..If you are not perseguitated you should worry, because you will never be made a Saint.

JOSEPH ZAMMIT

Jul 11th 2010, 11:36

@Joe Zammit, according to your argument, Christians are obliged to obey these Bible laws too:

Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.
Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”.

Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?


Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

JOSEPH ZAMMIT

Jul 11th 2010, 11:29

In a general sense, God allows only three reasons for the dissolution of a marriage.
•The first reason is obvious—death of one of the individuals in the marriage. See Romans chapter 7, verse 2 (Romans 7:2).
•The second reason is adultery or immorality on the part of one of the individuals (Matthew 5:31,32 19:9, and so forth).
•The third reason appears in First Corinthians 7:12-16. Here Paul states that “if the unbeliever departs” the Christian is not “under bondage.” The same concept is used again in verse 39 where the clear context of being “under bondage” was that you could not remarry. As a rule of hermeneutics, you allow the author to define the terms by what is stated in other areas of the same document. This is the author’s intended meaning. Thus, a Christian is not bound to their marriage if the unbeliever leaves them.
In each of these cases, it seems that God is trying to protect the innocent party that is left to live their life after the marriage ends. Please understand that this is a brief treatment of this subject.

Vincent Galea

Jul 11th 2010, 11:29

It all sums up that if you are having good regular sex you don't need any divorce or anybody's advice.

sciortino m

Jul 11th 2010, 11:24

@ Joe Zammit et al.

To all those of the "what God has united, let no man put asunder!" line of thought what is your thinking with regards to civil marriages which are not united by God. The Church does not recognise them as valid as they are united by the State and not by God. Therefore what is the objection to having the State putting them asunder?

S.Scicluna

Jul 11th 2010, 11:21

"Li jorbot Alla ma jista jhassru hadd"...

Xi nghidu ghall-ordni sagri ? - mela qassis xhin ma jhossux iktar komdu qassis - ma jibqax u jista jizzewweg- imma min iz-zwieg ma rnexxiex ikollu jibqa jbghati - Dik gustizzja, dik interpretazzjoni!

Hemm hafna interpretazzjonijiet li taghti l-knisja li ghalija ma jaghmlux sens ta' gustizzja - Alla = gustizzja, L-istand li tiehu il-Knisja fejn jidhlu omossesswali, nies separati, koppji li jikkoabitaw, ma nahsibx li turi gustizzja lejn hutna. Alla jghid "tiggudikax ghax tigi iggudikat" Il-Knisja x'inhi taghmel fil-konfront ta' dawn in-nies?

Il-Knisja m'ghandix tindahal fl-affarijiet ta' l-istat - sta ghal kuxxjenza ta' dak li jkun li jiddeciedi x'jaghmel b'hajtu.

Ovvjament, il-ligi fuq id-divorzju ghanda tkun mod biex ma nispiccawx qisna 'Dallas' jew 'Dynasty' - imma min veru ghandu bzonn, ghaliex le?

U min qal li jekk jidhol id-divorzju kulhadd se jiddivorzja? Possibli ahna tant insecure mill-partners taghna li nibzghu li jitilquna? Min ghandu zwieg hieni - li huma hafna - xejn mhu se jinbidel ghalih.

J Micallef

Jul 11th 2010, 11:19

Lol tal-genn dal-pajjiz .... bil-kemm ma tahsbekx qieghed go genna tal-art mimlija qaddisin mixjin fl-art.

Id-divorzju ma HUX xi haga tal-Knisja - tal-Istat.... Jekk isir referendum se tivvota bhala cittadin mhux bhala nisrani jew musulman jew buddist. Min irid stat fundamentalista Nisrani jista' jaghmlilna pjacir u jmur jghix il-Vatikan. Jien se nivvota favur u mbaghad jiggudkani l-Mulej mhux in-nies tad-dinja - kif se jiggudika dawk kollha li nghataw Annullamenti skond kemm jifilhu jhallsu, kif se jiggudika lil KULHADD.

Alfio Catania

Jul 11th 2010, 11:19

Neither a politician, nor a Catholic citizen can vote in favour of divorce. Never! Fr. Peter, if we will be better off with divorce, than God should have allowed it. Because God gives good things to us, and not bad things that makes us worse. I hope that you are convinced of this!

Mark Piscopo

Jul 11th 2010, 11:15

Huwa importanti li jidhol id divorzju ghax hawn hafna family qeghdin ibatu!!

M Pace

Jul 11th 2010, 11:11

Please most of you are confusing state law with the canon law. If divorce passes it concerns state law and all the legal benefits with respect to the state law of the country. Any good catholic could remain so even if one divorces so long as he/she remains celebate after. If one sleeps with his divorced wife/husband one is not commiting adutry within the catholic church but only within the state law. One cannot prohibit divorce as cohibiting couples are increasing year by year at least divorce will bring some order it is better then cohabitation its only the pocket that will suffer and the lawyers getting richer.

martin saliba

Jul 11th 2010, 11:05

Of course he / she can. Priests ans especially nuns have to put the church first before their families. So polititians must put the people before religion. I have a cousin that was only allowed to go to the mass of her brothers marige she was not allowed to go to the reception. She has to ask permission to do anything that concerns family and there have been instances where permission was denied because she belongs to god. Our Must forget that they are christians as they belong to the people and not to the church. I am sure that if they go to confession ,after voting for divorce , god will forvive them .

Peter Murray

Jul 11th 2010, 11:00

Dear Joe Zammit,

What a horrendously narrow-minded and blinkered viewpoint.You make such ridiculous accusations and allegations against divorcees or anyone who does not subscribe too or conform with your unilateral diatribe on divorce.DIVORCE NEVER!Here is a newsflash for you in that divorce is here and here to stay and whether you agree or not it enshrined in legislation throughout the world-the only notable exceptions being Malta and the Phillippines and one does not get divorced in any church -as it is a civil matter with the cathoilc church having no jurisdiction regarding such.Are we more catholic than Italy,Spain,Ireland et al who all have accepted this fundamental freedom to have another chance at happiness,or are we denying our citizens a basic freedom and merely delaying the inevitable?Don't be so judgmental and embrace tolerance or let him without sin cast the first stone.Are you really that much of a saint?

nicholas coppini

Jul 11th 2010, 10:47

Words of great wisdom from Fr Peter. The eventual and inevitable introduction of divorce should be carried out on the specific basis and reasons given in this interview. Divorce will regulate lots of irregular situations; divorce will stregthen families as people will be extra cautious before tying the knot and also cautious during their married life never to have to resort to or give their husband or wife the reason to resort to this final and drastic way out. A decision whether or not to introduce divoce based on a referendum will only throw the debate 100 years back into limbo. I agree with a scientific approach based on research and reality. One could consider divorce to be the lesser evil compared to hundreds or irregular cases. The non intruction or indeed the procrastination of the introduction of divorce will lead to greater problems in the long term.

Albert Critien

Jul 11th 2010, 10:46

Father Peter, it would never have occured to me that you are superior to Christ

john borg

Jul 11th 2010, 10:34

ma nafx kemm jista nisrani, politiku jew mhux, jivvota favur id divorzju!! .....li jghaqqad Alla mghandux jifirdu il bniedem...... anke fl antik testament kien hemm din il problema fejn Mose ippermetta il kitba tad divorzju, izda meta staqsewa lill Kristu qallhom li dik il kitba gabuha bill hzunija taghhom.

jiena nifem u jiddispjacini li hemm zwiegijiet li trid tinstabilhom souzzjoni adekwata u anke f certu limitu ta zmien, izda zgur li il ligi favur id divorzju ser izzid il problemi!!!!

tahsbu li kieku id drogi ma kienux illegali isir uzu inqas minnhom!? ftit taz zmien ilu rajt sticker fuq karozza li bil malti kienet tghid hekk:

Ir religjon nisranija ghanda probabilment l-aqwa soluzzjonijiet biex tghix fiz zmienijiet tal llum.

ghaliex inhallih ghall l-intelligenza taghkom!

Joe Zammit

Jul 11th 2010, 10:30

Catholics are obliged to follow the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church and never the mistaken advice of any of her diverging priests.

Whenever the Church speaks of divorce she always condemns it as grave sin. And according to Christ's words, those who divorce and enter into a second (of course invalid!) marriage are adulterers and adulteresses. Adultery is grave sin that separates the sinner from God and puts him or her on the path to hell.

Fr Peter, do you want to be RESPONSIBLE before God for any mortal sins any one can commit through divorce following your grossly mistaken advice? Be careful because you are pleasing the devil! The devil, not God, is in favour of divorce!

DIVORCE NEVER!

Joe Zammit

Jul 11th 2010, 10:11

Fr Peter, you are wrong! Christ has clearly told you and us that "what God has united, let no man, no State put asunder!"

This applies also if to any politician divorce appears to be good (sic!) for society. Christ knows more than you, me and any politician what is good for society, and commanded (not advised!) us not to put asunder what God has united.

Your opinion, Fr Peter, clashes seriously with the doctrine (not judgement!) of Christ and his one holy Catholic Church.

Alison Bezzina

Jul 11th 2010, 10:05

Would you go to a criminal lawyer for advice on your tax returns?Would you go to a mechanic for advice on your second stage melanoma?Would you go to an economist to baby sit your child?So why, oh why, do we go to the Church for advice on marriage and divorce?
http://www.timesofmalta.com.mt/blogs/view/20100710/alison-bez...zina/unhappily-ever-after