Church opts not to centralise its input to divorce debate
The Church will not be centralising its contribution to the divorce debate but its members are being left free to take part in the discussion with all the means at their disposal, according to a spokesman.
"The teaching on the sanctity of marriage as a lifelong commitment is an important aspect of the Church's mission to evangelise. This is not bound to a particular time or circumstance but is proclaimed all the time and in different forms," a Curia spokesman told The Times.
Sources said the bishops have discussed how to proceed following the recent initiative taken by the Żebbuġ parish to set up a billboard saying: "Divorce: God doesn't want it."
Initially the Curia had reacted to the initiative by saying it was not asked for its blessing so "the responsibility falls totally on the parish".
Asked if the Church had taken any decisions as to how they would deal with such individual projects, the Church spokesman said: "As everyone knows, divorce goes diametrically in opposition to its teachings, and the Church will continue to contribute in the discussion with various means at her disposal. There exists no directive to have all initiatives centralised."
When asked for clarification, the spokesman confirmed that parish priests were free to contribute in any way they deemed fit.
"The Church is not a political party. Everyone in the Church knows our position and our mission is to evangelise, parish priests included," he said.
The billboard was met with both support and criticism. Many online contributors had questioned whether it was the beginning of a more structured political campaign by the Church reminiscent of the past.
141 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 7th 2010, 07:05
@Dr Joe Brincat
Many thanks for your expression of comprehension of my stance. I often form the impression that the only readers of my comments are those who deliberately rephrase them and then attack their own distortions as if I had made them myself.
albert muscat
Aug 6th 2010, 18:50
Can the church erect a signboard that reads God curse pedophile priests?
Or God doesn’t want pedophile priests?
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 7th 2010, 01:42
Please make the obvious distinction between God does not want a particular sinful action and God does not want a person who sins. The former is absolutely correct - not so the second. God does not reject the sinner. He wants him to repent.
Miguel Micallef
Aug 6th 2010, 15:55
Our victory is guaranteed! The unicorn says so, and the unicorn created all of you! Therefore you must all be in favour of divorce because if not the unicorn will put you in the field full of thorns for ever and ever!
The unicorn loves you, whatever you may think. And it's pink, by the way, that's why not having divorce is evil, because since the unicorn is pink AND loves you AND killed the bee to show its love, then divorce must be good for sure. Isn't it obvious?
B. Cachia
Aug 6th 2010, 14:08
From a Catholic perspective I find it absurd that the Church should try to play a political role at all, for the outcome of politics is the law, and religious principles cannot and should not be turned into enforceable laws. And, unlike the other monotheistic religions, Christianity does not even have any vocation for political action. Christ himself refused to involve himself in the many political and social issues of his day and left no blueprint for a Christian state or even a Christian political movement.
As a citizen I obviously accept the right of the Church to, in effect, become a political party or an NGO if it wants to, but would oppose it politically in that venture just as strongly as I would oppose any other theocratic movement having its roots in another religion. I think many other rational citizens who value their freedom would too.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 6th 2010, 16:31
There are many economic and/or social problems that are common to both the religious and the political fields - so much so that the local Church is frequently chided because it does not address some social problem or other assiduously enough. In other instances it is chided for daring to address indubitable moral issues that are also the subject of political debate. A perfect situation of "Bil-glekk taqlaghha u bla glekk taqlaghha wkoll!"
B. Cachia
Aug 6th 2010, 17:55
The issues certainly overlap, but the methods that are appropriate for Church and State can never overlap. The Church teaches God's law to those who want to listen, the State passes laws that bind everyone, whether they like it or not. As for speaking out about social issues, Christ himself did not speak out even against slavery, which was extremely common in his day (indeed, the Roman version of it was probably one of the harshest that ever existed) and call for its abolition. Instead he went further and instructed his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, which is obviously much more demanding, but was expressed as a divine law not as something to be enforced by the state. When people misguidedly tried to enforce it a couple of millennia later, the result was the communist dystopia of Stalin and Mao.
Raymond Bezzina
Aug 6th 2010, 13:37
@ Dr. Joe Brincat
Dr. Brincat,
As far as I know, ( please correct me if I am wrong ) civil marriage has been
existing in Malta for about thirty five years.
In all these years, for those people who wanted to enter into a civil marriage,
what did the civil authorities do, to prepare these couples, for this life long
commitment ?
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 6th 2010, 15:35
The Marriage Act came in 1975. Nothing is done to instruct future spouses. Recently I noticed that there are adverts to marry in the Registry in Malta.
Ray, the truth is that young couples are bombarded withadverts and peer pressure to concentrate on the not so essential things in a wedding and in marriage. As to the remainder it is by trial and error. But this is widespread, whether in civil or religious marriages.
In my profession I have not noticed any differences, But what you pointing at is the right direction. We bother (and rightly so) about the breakdown of marriages, and do really nothing to make them truly last. You will be surprised, for example, about how badly women feel in their intimate relations, because a husband thinks he knows it all !! The most common complaint by women is "I feel I am being used !"
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 6th 2010, 16:40
It is difficult to give you a reply in such a multi-faceted problem, in 200 words.
A case I have been handling recently concerns a couple who had even made a mutual vow of absolute chastity until the day of marriage.
Both had been preparing themselves, or so it seemed. At some moment in time, they actually broke up, but then were re-united, as their financil commitments prior to marriage were already substantial. Eventually they went through the marriage ceremony.
After six months, he caught her chatting with a boyfriend and making lengthy long distance calls. Within a fortnight both were back with their parents.
I do believe that "fashion" is having a telling effect. Couples prepare for the wedding and not for marriage. Going to Cana lectures is just an irksome procedure for many, as otherwise they will not be married in white, with flowers, the organ playing and a well-known singer engaged to give prestige to the occasion.
Today it is not always the male who runs away.
Raymond Bezzina
Aug 6th 2010, 17:43
@ Dr. Joe Brincat
Dr. Brincat,
Thank you for the information.
Since nothing is done by the civil authorities to prepare couples for marriage,
shouldn't they embark on initiatives, to prepare couples for this life long commitment ?
Wouldn't this be a good investment by the government, and beneficial to society,
especially to children, who eventually would become parents themselves ?
Otherwise, isn't it obvious, that for those who enter marriage unprepared, it would be
an uncalculated risk, and likely to fail; and which also ends up being detrimental
both to the family and to all of society ?
Wouldn't it be a step in the right direction therefore, that before discussing divorce,
( which I strongly believe is not a solution to failed marriages ) both the civil
authorities and the Catholic church, should first discuss on how to strengthen the
institution of marriage ?
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 6th 2010, 18:38
I agree with you on your legitimate suggestion that there should be more profound preparation for marriages than for weddings. Perhaps this should start in the family itself., though here again there is no guarantee. Now separations have touched all strata of society, even those that were traditionally considered as being the paragon of "exemplary living".
What is really needed is the "walking stick" support as time goes by. The only perfect married is that of a couple who are still romantically contemplating marriage. Problems are bound to arise. The art is how to solve them. And it is here were we fail absolutely.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 6th 2010, 13:12
@Victor Pulis
Whenever any divorcist denounces the Church authorities for carrying out their duty and their right to teach by falsely misrepresenting that teaching as an “imposition” or as a “ramming down the throat”, whoever that person is he would be trying his best to prevent the Catholic Church from preaching its message on divorce.
It is the duty of the legislature to pass or to refuse pro-divorce laws. For religious reasons on top of socio-economic reasons I object to divorce laws that are introduced ostensibly to assuage hardships of irretrievably broken down marriages. This is not true at all. All over the world divorce laws have undermined the stability of marriage by means of a “rabta coff” contract. This is what has happened everywhere else and it will be sad day for all of us here in Malta, Catholics, renegade Catholics, practitioners of other religions and atheists, if we join that herd. All society will have to pay a stiff price.
And please, when you allude to my Christian God show me the courtesy of spelling it with an upper case G if you want me to extend to you the courtesy of a reply.
victor pulis
Aug 6th 2010, 13:37
If you are so finicky as to find offence in a missed capital letter I feel you are not entitled to an answer. besides do you think that your GOD would find offence if HIS name was written with a lower case g? How pathetic. I mean you not GOD in case I'm misunderstood.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 6th 2010, 06:50
@ Dr Francis Saliba. To make matters clear I consider you are right when making your main arguments such as " “Id-divorzju Alla ma jridux” is not the same as the Church “denying” divorce to everybody. It is a moral not a legal declaration. Not everything that is moral is also legal and not everything that is legal is also moral."
And earlier : " The Catholic Church does not "deny" pro-divorce laws to anybody. It teaches that divorce is morally wrong according to the teaching of Christ."
With separation, annulments, divorce moral issues remain. There are also ensuing social and psychological issues, which are not resolved by any legislation. In such circumstances, much depends on the individual or individuals concerned. And individuals need guidance or at least, a good word of advice.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 6th 2010, 05:59
@Dr Francis Saliba. You are right.
What many are missing is the verb used in the report. "Evangelising". Simply put, it means "teaching the gospel". What should the Church be speaking about ? Fireworks and fiestas ? On moral issues the Church has the duty to teach, not simply the right.
Even in countries where divorce legislation has long been established, the moral issue remains. I do not think parents rub their hands with glee because their daughter got married, had a child, and "bless her" she is now also divorcing - the lucky girl !
IN 1997 Pope John Paul II made a very important statement about divorced and cohabiting persons. He did not change the teaching of the Church, but he expressed himself in this way : " How is it possible not to be concerned about the situations of so many people, especially in economically developed nations, who are living in a state of abandonment because of separation, especially when they cannot be blamed for the failure of their marriage? When a couple in an irregular situation returns to Christian practice, it is necessary to welcome them with charity and kindness......."
S. Calleja
Aug 5th 2010, 22:18
"Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her." (Mark 10:11)
We always seem to speak about the abandoner (the leaving partner). What about the abandoned (the victim in the relationship)? Can he/she remarry? Jesus seems to have said nothing about the abandoned partner...
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 5th 2010, 21:28
@BCachia
You give me the impression that you belong to the pro-divorce secularist lobby. In that case you should should be rubbing your hands with glee if you honestly believe that the Church’s “campaign” actually strengthens the hands of your pro-divorce lobby. Your comment would make sense only if, in your heart of hearts, you anticipate that the Church’s anti divorce teaching would achieve its aim.
B. Cachia
Aug 5th 2010, 23:15
@ Dr. Francis Saliba: I must admit that for me the main issue is the separation of church and state. I have no personal interest in divorce as such, although I support the introduction of moderate divorce legislation (and I think it's inevitable, sooner or later, in any case). I would just like people (including myself) to be able to choose freely whether to follow Catholic teachings or not, and not to have aspects of Catholicism imposed on them by the State.
Given a choice, I'd prefer a situation where divorce is rejected on purely secular grounds in a referendum but the principle of the separation of Church and State is finally accepted by all to an alternative and equally hypothetical scenario where divorce legislation is passed now, in the context of a bitter campaign, but this simple and basic principle remains permanently disputed, by a slowly shrinking but influential minority.
As for the the local Church, I think it probably realizes that an active campaign would be counterproductive and would alienate the younger generation in particular, which is possibly why it's not going to have an 'official' campaign at all.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 5th 2010, 21:16
@Vicor Pulis
I do not fear the pro-divorce lobby having its say. I object to the attempt to muzzle our bishops when they try to exercise the same right even inside our churches, when the media are criticized for reporting this teaching by a venomous hateful reaction and stupid accusations of imposing when ther are only teaching.
Speaking as a true democrat I am all in favour of a referendum but I am not so cocksure as you are about the outcome – and neither is the divorce lobby that is on record on The Times blogs as wanting that divorce legislation be introduced surreptitiously without an electoral mandate and without a refrendum.
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 21:59
I am 'cocksure' about nothing and I never said that the church should not preach its opinion on divorce. What i always emphasised is that the church has no right to deny non catholics and non believers of their right for divorce. It has been written here by a certain anti divorcist on more than one occasion that all marriages are bound by god. It would be very interesting to hear what you think of this.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 5th 2010, 20:17
@Joseph Calleja In which gospel did Christ tell St Peter to leave his wife and kids behind? Christ never told Peter (or anyone else) to DIVORCE his wife so as to follow him. I am used to have words put into my mouth but you are the first to do that for Christ. Beyond that, I have no explaining to do! “Id-divorzju Alla ma jridux” is not the same as the Church “denying” divorce to everybody. It is a moral not a legal declaration. Not everything that is moral is also legal and not everything that is legal is also moral. That is not an “understatement”. It is stating the obvious! Your objection is not really to the quotation "God does not want divorce" on a billboard. You object because you fear that that quotation may gain such a wide acceptance that electors will reject candidates who would vote for a pro-divorce law.
Dr. John Zammit
Aug 5th 2010, 20:15
This billboard reminds me yet again how in the 1962 general elections at Haz-Zebbug the same village put a poster reading "Mintoff qattiel ta' l-Erwieh" - Mintoff killer of souls. www.freewebs.com/dommintoff - Are we going back to the sixties again?! The Catholic church never learns! That is why I am an atheist and will never believe in any religion again.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 5th 2010, 21:43
And what about the constantly changing posters with their venomous anticlerical messages hanging out of the balcony of the MLP club in Republic Street, Valletta?
Michael Debono
Aug 5th 2010, 20:10
Divorce is a single theme. It ought to be tackled uniformaly. There is only one policy so the Church has the obligation to clear any misunderstandings officially. It cannot leave it to every individuals to express what they think is the official policy. This would lead to contradictory statements that would need official intervention with regards to those who treat the subject superficially and those who err in showing themselves more catholic than the Pope. This is a doctrinal subject and all difficulties-reasonable- that prop up should be explained professionally.
Gerard Cassar
Aug 5th 2010, 19:58
In the opinion of many it is wrong for the Church to give freehand in the debate about divorce.
There come sometimes questions that need an official reply regarding Church teachings that cannot be given by any individual be he a Priest or a Lay man.
One of these questions is : what wrong will be comitted by someone who gets a divorce but do not remarry. This is a very important question that cannot be left to be answered by anyone except officially in the name of the Church. And cannot remain unanswered.
Such pertinent questions cannot be left to be answered by me and Joe once they refer to Faith. The Church cannot shake off its responsibility and leave it to an individual to answer it.
Gerard Cassar
Aug 5th 2010, 18:03
Divorce is a single theme. It ought to be tackled uniformly. There is only one policy so the Church has the obligation to clear any misunderstandings officially. It cannot leave it to every individuals to express what they think is the official policy. This would lead to contradictory statements that would need official intervention with regards to those who threat the subject superficially and those who err in showing themselves more catholic than the Pope. This is a doctrinal subject and all difficulties-reasonable- that prop up should be explained professionally not by me and Joe.
Jon Attard
Aug 5th 2010, 17:26
Whether centralised or not, hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
M Vella
Aug 5th 2010, 17:10
As I said in the beginning of this blog, Divorce has nothing to do with the church,it has to do with the government (PARLAMENT OF MALTA)
Joseph Calleja
Aug 5th 2010, 15:58
Let's make one thing clear. I assume (pardon me for assuming) but I hope that the catholic church is speaking for catholics only and not in general. The church has every right to deny divorce to it's followers but it has no right to dictate to others. Any other church has it's own rules that must be followed. The one problem here is that the catholic church here in Malta is trying to impose this rule on everybody whether they are catholic or not. That is wrong and the church knows it. The Catholic church in Malta always dictated to citizens how to vote and it seems like it is doing it again, the sixties all over again. There is one difference this time, people are not so narrow minded and so gullible. Most of todays voters are better educated and don't march to the church drummer. People should be free to vote whichever way they want. I think the church made a big mistake with the interdet and I hope it does not make that mistake again. If the church wants to condemn divorce for catholics it has every right but leave the rest of the people alone.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 5th 2010, 17:04
@Joseph Calleja.
Let us be clear in our arguments. The Catholic Church does not "deny" pro-divorce laws to anybody. It teaches that divorce is morally wrong according to the teaching of Christ. What you object to is not the Church's non-existent "denial". What you are afraid of is that the teaching of the Church may reach the local electorate so effectively that they would democratically elect legislators who would not pass pro-divorce laws - on religious grounds as well as on socio-economic grounds!
Joseph Calleja
Aug 5th 2010, 19:14
@Dr Saliba, " It teaches that divorce is morally wrong according to the teaching of Christ". This applies to Catholics, because other religions don't seem to agree with you and allow divorce. Look at the sign, "Id-divorzju: Alla ma jridux" God does not want divorce. Most people and most religions believe in God and yet sanction divorce. How do you explain Christ telling St Peter to leave his wife and kids behind and follow him and he shall make him a fisher of men. Maybe you can explain that to me, I don't call that divorce but maybe it was after all abandonment. " The Catholic Church does not "deny" pro-divorce laws to anybody." That is an understatement. Read the above sign again. The Catholic church denies everything that has anything to do with divorce. If not why the big fuss?
B. Cachia
Aug 5th 2010, 19:20
@ Dr. Francis Saliba: This is not very likely to happen. You know very well that Maltese politics does not function that way and, even if it did, a vigorous campaign by the Church would also energise the 'pro' camp, which is substantially larger, going by the latest polls. That would lead to a much more 'pro' Parliament being elected. But that's not going to happen either.
In a referendum, on the other hand, the greatest probability would be of a clear victory for divorce legislation. With 60% in favour and a clear and consistent long-term trend in the same direction, any other result would be rather unlikely. And the more the Church campaigns, the greater that majority would grow, as the whole issue would come to be seen as a contest between theocracy and secularism - with most people knowing very well where they stand on that.
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 19:42
Dr. Saliba I think the fear factor is reciprocal otherwise you and the anti divorcists wouldn't be commenting. There is evidently a fear that should a referendum be called the pro divorcists have as much chance of winning as the anti divorcists. You would be surprised at how many people there are who would vote yes and they are not all followers of the devil as a certain bloke likes to describe us. I reiterate that the church has every right to preach against divorce but it has no right to hinder those who want it.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 5th 2010, 20:39
How can the church deny pro-divorce laws, isn’t that obvious? Personally I would encourage the Church to emphasize all her beliefs and work harder so that all married couples would put in more efforts to make a marriage last forever. With more hard work, love,devotion and understanding our current plague of family split-ups would decrease drastically. That is the State and Church’s mission and we all must support it.
Nevertheless the Church would be wrong to try to reach the local electorate so that they would elect legislators who would not pass pro-divorce laws - on religious grounds as that would be political interference by proxy. In a democratic society an MP is expected to safeguard the rights of the minorities with the same impetus used to protect the majority. During that process MPs must put aside their own religious bias. Imagine having a Hindu MP in our Parliament trying to impose Hinduism on his\her constituency.
Rudy Sollars
Aug 5th 2010, 15:36
According to Prof. Max Wallace, "What France has recognised, which most other countries have not, is that Government temporal authority and church superanatural authority must be serparate entities in a democaracy. The seperation between the two authorities should be seen as on par with the separation of powers of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature within a government."
David Borg
Aug 5th 2010, 18:13
I agree with the concept of separation between Church and State but in the way expressed by the French President and the Pope. President Sarkozy advocates a "laicite' positive" or positive secularism that recognizes the contribution of faith to French culture, history and society, allows for faith in public discourse and for government subsidies for faith-based groups. He also sees France's main religions as positive contributions to French society. Similarly the pope has stated to President Sarkozy that "In fact, it is fundamental, on the one hand, to insist upon the distinction between the political realm and that of religion in order to preserve both the religious freedom of citizens and the responsibility of the state toward them." He also stated: "On the other hand, [it is important] to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring to – among other things – the creation of a basic ethical consensus within society.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9#France
Rudy Sollars
Aug 5th 2010, 21:16
@ David Borg
To speak of Positive Secularism means that there are two kinds of Secularism: one good and one bad. 'Laicite positive' is a trojan horse coined not by President Sarkoszy but by Cardinal Ratzinger, designed to subvert Secularism. However, this is not what Prof. Max Wallace is argueing.
According to Agnes Poirier in the New Statesman (2008), "Instead of speaking of positive secularism, President Sarkozy would have done better to demand in the name of secularism that religions such as Catholicism be less exclusive in their political, intellectual and legal views - or, in other words, more positive.
According to John Rawls, in his book: 'A Theory of Justice' - the state should remain neutral among religions because it is unfair -especially for a Democratic government that is supposed to represent all of the people composing its demos - to intentionally disadvantage or unequally favour any group of citizens.
This is in contrast to the Maltese situation where where the State allows privilages to the Church. Is this the Positive Secularism that you are advocating?
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/09/positive-secularism-france
Charles Sammut
Aug 5th 2010, 15:00
The local Church, in its mad rush to defend illegal immigrants, many of who are muslim, has been preaching that Catholics and Muslims both worship the same one God. So why does this one God allow Muslims to divorce and marry 4 wives while prohibiting that to Catholics?
What is the position of Muslims who marry in Malta? Will the state recognise a Muslim divorce while forbidding it to Catholics? It seems, that in Malta, both God and State want to have one law for Muslims (or Hindus or Buddhists) and a different one for Catholics. If the local Imam recognises a Muslim divorce and remarriage, will the state do so as well? If not, it will be discriminating because it recognises Church annulments.
That's just one issue that demonstrates how important it is to limit Church interference to the church and not beyond. Not even to the parvis. That area is visible to the general public and should not be used for this purpose.
Robert Callus
Aug 5th 2010, 15:24
Part of the problem on this issue is that people do not made a distinction between a faith marriage and a civil marriage. Those of us who are pro-divorce, NEVER said we should there should be divorce, or any kind of interference by the state on faith marriage. In a faith marriage a man can marry a 100 wives if his religion permits it. In the case of a civil marriage one has to abide by the rule of the law not that of his religion.
God only unites people in a faith marriage. Divorce should not be feared by Catholic MP's. God (of whatever religion) does NOT unite civil marriage. Otherwise, atheists would not even be allowed to marry!
jane camilleri haber
Aug 5th 2010, 14:05
forgive me all, but the way this exchange is going will lead us nowhere. the least we need at the moment is friction between ourselves, since unless we are all sober from all our passions of whatever nature they are, we will not be in a position to make sound decisions. may I suggest we stop all this exchange which is taking us nowhere and engage instead on a national search for the truth about divorce. as many have remarked the whole world has introduced divorce so we have the whole world as our parameter to delve into the prognosis of what would be the post -divorce -malta vis-a vis all relevant aspects imaginable. I believe that all experts who in any way can gather information and draw relevant conclusions from it have a duty lead us to such information so that we can then comment knowledgeably, on the basis of hard facts around us. unless this first step is done we will never be able to look divorce in the face and know what we are really facing. who will launch such a study first?
martin saliba
Aug 5th 2010, 14:04
the Church spokesman said: "As everyone knows, divorce goes diametrically in opposition to its teachings, and the Church will continue to contribute in the discussion with various means at her disposal. Contraception using condoms is also ,diametrically in opposition to the church's teachings, Why not put up bill boards on the church pavis ? In any case the church lost the condom issue and it will loose the divorce issue as well , eventualy.
Raymond Bezzina
Aug 5th 2010, 16:24
@ Mr. Martin Saliba
You said that : quote "In any case the church lost the condom issue and it will
loose the divorce issue as well......." unquote.
Mr. Saliba, such a mentality would lead to self-indulgence, and when self-indulgence
is at work the results are : sexual vice, impurity, and sensuality, the worship of false
gods and sorcery, antagonisms and rivalry, jealously, bad temper and quarrels,
disagreements, factions and malice, drunkenness, orgies, and all such things.
Do you think, Mr. saliba, that the negative consequencies of such practices
would spare you, or the members of your family, or your friends ? No, I tell you.
All of society would suffer due to these evil practices.
B. Cachia
Aug 5th 2010, 13:57
This is not a bad policy, but it has its shortcomings. The risk is that the Church's perceived position will now be decided by the parish priest who sets up the biggest and most provocative billboard or the one who gives the most fiery sermon. That is what has happened so far.
Far better, in my humble opinion, would be to recognise that this is a purely political issue, to be decided on secular grounds only, and therefore to state clearly that this is not a suitable subject for intervention by the clergy and by Catholic organizations and movements.
I believe that a purely secular analysis of the issue should point most reasonable people towards supporting a very moderate divorce law (even more conservative than the one proposed by JPO) that would leave the special legal status of Catholic marriage, and its legal indissolubility, completely unchanged. But moderation on the pro-divorce side too will wither or be drowned out if the debate is unnecessarily turned into a battle about whether Malta should be a secular or a religious state.
Karl Consiglio
Aug 5th 2010, 13:27
Since we already know the Church's position on the matter and that the church can never change its view on the matter, then that's it, it need no longer be involved in the discussion, because we already all know its view. And anyway we care not talking about divorce via state marriages not church, so religions ought to have very little say in this.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 5th 2010, 12:45
Thank God I never had reasons to consider divorce and appreciate that divorce proceedings are painful and are not to be referred to unless it is an absolute requirement, however,like extreme medical therapy, its necessity can’t be ignored.
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 13:55
L-ebda kattoliku li verament jista jissejjah hekk, ma jista jappogga d-divorzju ghax il-partit tieghu jghidlu hekk!. Id-divorzju huwa hazin, kien hazin, u jibqa haga hazina u mhux dritt civili. Id-divorzju hsara biss jaghmel lill-familji u lit-tfal. Bizzejjed naraw kemm ghandna tfal frott is-separazzjonijeit li tilfu kollox, ruhhom ui gisimhom. Minbarra li jridu jistriehu fuq is-servizzi socjali ghax il-genituri taghhom hallewhom lampa stampa. U tigi inti u tiddefendi d-divorzju. Il-bniedem ruh wahda ghandhu, jew m'Alla jew mal-bniedem zbaljat. U l-kontijijet iridu jsiru m'Alla mhux mal-bniedem. Temmen u ma temminx. Kulhadd irid joqghod fl-ahhar nett ghall-gudizzju t'Alla.
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 14:55
J Farrugia
"Bizzejjed naraw kemm ghandna tfal frott is separazzjonijiet."
Taf li s-separazzjonijiet huma accettati mill knisja?
"Id-divorzju hsara biss jaghmel lill-familji u lit-tfal"
L annullament mhux l-istess effett ghandu?
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 5th 2010, 16:23
@ J Farrugia. Other people have different Gods and if you expect respect you must first respect other beliefs. A divorce legislation will not force you and I to start believing in it . It would only allow broken families to restructure their legal position but only if they choose to take that road. Who are you to deny them that right when they are leaving you and I with total freedom to go on our way.
B. Cachia
Aug 5th 2010, 17:32
@ J. Farrugia: adultery is also bad, and has pretty awful consequences on families. No Catholic could possibly support adultery, and in fact most non-Catholics frown on it too. Yet, it would be inconceivable to make adultery a crime.
Those who support divorce legislation are like those who believe that adultery should not be considered a crime by our legal system: i.e. they understand the distinction between a sin and a crime or, to put it another way, the distinction between church and state.
Oscar Cassar
Aug 5th 2010, 12:30
Il-Parrocca ta Haz-Zebbug missa innotat li la Gesu Kristu u lanqas il-kumplament tat-Trinita Qaddisa, ma riedu jizzewgu... Dan dejjen skon ma jidirli jiena. Bhekk hija ovja li Alla ma ridux id-divorzju. What a news... imnalla kien l-arcipriet ta' Haz-Zebbug biex gibdilna l-attenzjoni fuq dan.
Id-dipattitu dwar id-divorzju hu hafna profond u jidhol f'kumplikazzjonijiet u problemi socjali li zgur hadd qat ma kien ambizzjus li jidhol ghalijhom hlief forsi xi eccezzjonijiet li huma rizultat ta nuqqas ta edukazzjon. Bdana kollu fir-rejalta tal-lum (u anke tal-bierah), id-divorzju huwa necessarju. Izda Malta tirrikonoxxi BISS d-divorzju minn barra u tiddiskriminha kontra kull min ma jistax jaghmel mod iehor.
Johnnie Bowdler
Aug 5th 2010, 12:28
The Roman Catholic Church is a club, and those who seek membership are expected to abide by the rules as in any other organisation. You decive yourselves if you consider the Church will bow to change, so either accept it or give up your membership and join another group. I am no Catholic, but the irony of the divorce and for that matter the celebecy debate is that for centuries the Roman Church allowed marriage amongst the religious, popes included, until comparatively recently. Yes, unbelievable but true. History is also replete with examples of sexually wayward priests, cardinals and even popes who re-married. Peter, the so-called first Pope (although there was no such thing as 'Pope' in those early Christian days) was married as the Gospels refer to his mother-in-law. My point is that the Church will never be a happy place for its followers while we deceive ourselves over these issues. As in the Protestant movement (proprietor Martin Luther), happier lives and better family understanding will only come if the religious who wish it are allowed to marry. It follows that since the Catholic Church won't budge on the above issues then civil divorce must become a human right.
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 13:56
Divorce will never be a Human right.
Miguel Micallef
Aug 5th 2010, 15:56
It already is in all of the world except Malta and the Philippines. And apparently it will soon be in Malta too. You can book a flight to the Philippiines if you don't like it.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 5th 2010, 12:11
We have minorities that differ in, religion, sexual orientations and ethnic origin or culture from the majority population. Attempts by our government to forcibly create a "uniform" nation would invariably lead to discrimination.
The political and moral health of our country will be measured by our attitude toward all minorities. Not the imposition of majority opinions on society but tolerance and respect for minorities are the hallmarks of a democratic society. Democracy itself is threatened by indifference toward minority rights and political opportunism that exploits prejudices and ignorance in the population.
Laws and a legal system that entrench the religious beliefs of the majority and ignore the minority rights are wrong and only accepted in a chauvinistic society.
•
Felix Ebejer
Aug 5th 2010, 15:48
Charles J. Buttigieg with due respect sir, are you suggesting that a Muslim in Malta be allowed to marry 4 wives because he can do so according to his religion and also to declare that he is no longer married to any of them just by saying talaq, talaq, talaq? This is not even being accepted any longer in many Muslim countries. The final outcome will have to be borne out by the State, or rather the other taxpayers who will have to support his wives and children. So yes, regulate marriage and do not allow marriages with more than one wife or husband because of religion or other marriages between partners of the same sex. Those who don't like it can go somewhere else.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 5th 2010, 17:41
@ Felix Ebejer.
No I am not suggesting that a Muslim in Malta be allowed to marry 4 wives because he can do so according to his religion and also to declare that he is no longer married to any of them just by saying talaq, talaq, talaq. We live up to Western standards and our collective culture accepts the natural fact that marriage is between two persons no more, bigamy is against the law. Having said that our laws allow total freedom to everybody who wants to declare one legal wife and share their life with six other women. Moreover, our laws will accept all foreign divorce as long as the degree is legal where the divorce proceedings take place. This includes your talaq, talaq, talaq type of divorce.
S. Agius
Aug 5th 2010, 12:09
Jekk thares lejn kollox huwa ovju li il-fatt li koppja tinfired mhux sew. Kieku ahjar ma jsirx zwieg. Imma hbieb qed ninsew li hafna nies jinbidlu fiz-zwieg u li imbaghad ma jibqax biss li jigi ghalik filghaxija biex tohorgu. Imbaghad isir piz fuq piz x'tiehu hsieb kuljum. Mhux kulhadd ikun iffortunat li jsib xi hadd li kapaci joqghod mal-partner u jaccetta kollox. ghal dawk in-nies tajjeb li jkollhom ghazla.
Kien hemm mara qaltli - jien naqbel mieghu id-divorzju. Jien mghandix bzonnu ghax kuntenta mar-ragel tieghu u zgur mhux se nuzah. Imma min mhux qieghed sew, jkun tajjeb li jkollu ghazla. DAK KOLLOX
alex_ciantar
Aug 5th 2010, 12:03
Everyone quoting Jesus as if they knew him personally (qiskom kiltu il kirxa mighu) this is so sick and pathetic wake up because we are in 2010 so please present a more decent argument rather then shoving the bible in our faces and quoting it however you please............... it is just not on!!
S. Pandolfino
Aug 5th 2010, 11:56
Pilatu hasel idejh minn kristu imma xorta salbuh. Il-knisja haslet idejha milli tipprova timponi imma fl-ahhar mill-ahhar minn taht qed titfa il-bombi taghha u tahbi idejha. Drajna issa kif taghmel il-knisja - jew dak li trid hi jew inkella xejn. Bhala jaghmlu hafna fundamentalisti li jiktbu kontra id-divorzju.
M'ghandix dubju li se jkun hemm xi hadd li minn fuq il-pulptu jibda jghid kontra id-divorzju u jakkuza lil min jaqbel mieghu bhala midneb bhala ma hawn xi hadd jaghmel f'dawn il-pagni.
S. Pandolfino
Aug 5th 2010, 11:51
il-ligi t'alla ukoll tghidlek toqtolx, imma ara kemm hawn hekk imsejha kattolici li qatlu. L-istess japplika ghal serq u adulterju. Ma jaghmilx sens li noqghodu nikkwotaw il-bibbja u ohrajn ghax fl-ahhar mill-ahhar dawk l-istess li jikkwotaw ikunu l-ewwel li jikkommettu l-izball li ma jsegwux il-ligi t'alla. Alla jghidilna biex ma niggudikawx u nhobbu lil xulxin hekk kif habbna hu. Billi nimponu dak li irridu u niggudikaw lil min ma jaqbilx maghna nkunu qed niksru kelmtu stess. In-nies ghandhom jkunu liberi li jippruvaw jghinu lilhom infushom ghax rrid tghin ruhek biex alla jghinek. Jekk id-divorzju huwa bzonn biex tehles mit-tbatija ghandu jintuza. Li irridu noqghodu attenti huma minn dawk li jippruvaw juzawh bhala kapricc ma l-ewwel argument li jinqala mal-partner.
Il-knisja ghandha ma tindahalx fil-ligijiet tal-pajjiz imbaghad min irid jaghmel dak li tghid hi, liberu li jaghmel hekk. Pero mhux fair li nippruvaw naghddu lil min jaqbel mad-divorzju bhala xi bniedem hazin. Dan il-moralizmu kollu irid jinqata.
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 12:22
Nigu tajjeb jekk naqtghu il-moralismu kollu. Mela bl-argument tieghek missna naraw lilek hiereg barra gharwien huta halli nnehhu l-moralizmu kollu. Missierek u ommok hekk ghalmuk?
eric saliba
Aug 5th 2010, 11:48
so it is ok for someone to leave the priesthood and get married and start a new life. this person is simply saying i made a mistake and would like a second chance in life. is this different from divorce? apparently for the church it is 'don't do as i do just do as i tell you!'
this is no longer acceptable. why don't the bishops concentrate on solving the paedophile problem and leave the rest of us alone??
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 12:29
It is more serous than that I'm afraid. According to the church it is God himself who calls a man to the priesthood. Therefore either God made a mistake when choosing the person or else the priest cannot leave the priesthood without offending God's trust in him. It is written "Anyone putting his hand to the plough and turning back is sinning in the eyes of the lord."
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 13:58
God calls you to the priesthood, to a mission.. You either accept it or you dont. But it is the human being who goes wrong, as usual. God can never go wrong.
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 15:17
J Farrugia
"God calls you to the priesthood, to a mission.. You either accept it or you dont. But it is the human being who goes wrong, as usual. God can never go wrong."
That's right. God can never be wrong. So that leaves the priest who defrocks and the church who gives him permission to marry. Why not deal with him like she does with separated couples? The church accepts separation but doesn't permit separated couples to marry. Two weights two measures because these laws are made by the church.
S. Pandolfino
Aug 5th 2010, 11:41
Since the church is not imposing on its' members on how to give their message, the same way it should leave other people free to decide for their life.
I hope this is not the usual - 'Jekk int mieghi tajjeb, jekk le inkissrek' because this is the attitude of many people preaching bible paragraphs that do not respect at all others' opinion. If someone wants to get a divorce fine, if someone wants to follow the church fine too, but for god's sake we are a democratic country and not a religion country. If the church held a monopoly there wouldn't be so many religions coming out like mushrooms with the church accepting them left, right and centre.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 5th 2010, 11:27
I do not get it. The Church is insisting on its right to oppose divorce on the ground that Malta today is a pluralist society. Well and good. Let's allow pluralism to flourish. Those who want to secure divorce, let them get it, and those who do not want it, let's leave them to their own devices. Problem solved and everyone is happy. But no, in the name of pluralism the Church wants to stop those who see divorce as a solution for their personal situation from being in a position to apply for it. And with all due respect to the Church and its funny men, since when has the Church been in favour of pluralism? Come on, Cremona, we are no longer fools.
Raymond Bezzina
Aug 5th 2010, 12:32
@ Mr. Joseph Charmel Chetcuti
You said that :
quote "And with all due respect to the church and its funny men......." unquote.
Mr. Chetcuti,
I am a Roman Catholic, and therefore I form part of the Roman Catholic Church.
I do not know whether you practice any religion, and it is not my business,
but, did I ever offend you in any way ?
Is this what your beliefs or unbeliefs teach you how to treat others ?
While you pretend others to respect you, is this the way that you have learned
on how to treat others ? Have you learned on how to treat others from Australia ?
What are you trying to achieve by your insulting remark ?
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 6th 2010, 00:39
Raymond, respect is a two-way street. I respect others' beliefs however absurd these beliefs may be PROVIDED THAT they respect not only my sexuality but all the rights that go with it. If the Church really respected the right of people to run their own lives it would not persist in its determination to place hurdles along the way. By the way respect for others' beliefs does not deny me the right to criticise a religion and its ministers. If you want to have a good laugh, read Casti Connubi (1930 encyclical) or Humanae Vitae or Familiaris Consortio. For a greater laugh, recall Pio Nono's kidnapping of a Jewish boy, how the Jewish boy hid under his skirt, and how the Curia referred to Pius X as 'mummy'. I refer to them as funny men because (a) I do not believe their occupation is a vocation, and (b) I believe the reasons for entering the prieshood and religious life have more with a 'celibate psychosis' than a vocation. Do you deny me the right to analyse the fabricated vocation of the priesthood and the religious life when the Church has been critical of sexuality, homo and hetero, for centuries?
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 5th 2010, 11:03
If the church really doesn’t want to be look upon as a political arm and a despotic institution, her strategy in this issue should be a centralised one barring all personal initiatives of priests and parish priests. She may go out strong to remind its members that divorce goes against her teachings, absolutely nothing wrong with that. The church, however, can’t stop there - she has to recognise her civic obligation and appreciate that our Members of Parliament represent all citizens with different religious beliefs and each member of parliament is in duty bound to legislate in that regard. The second point must be equally emphasized as the first one. Anything short of the second element would render the church’s strategy a political campaign.
True practicing Catholics do not need laws to keep them away from sin. Adultery and cohabitation are legal yet good Catholics have all the freedom to choose a life which respects their Christian beliefs. Why are we treating divorce differently?
Alex Ciantar
Aug 5th 2010, 11:17
Well said Mr Charles J. Buttigieg
Charles Sammut
Aug 5th 2010, 12:43
@ Charles J Buttigieg
Your comment implies the mistaken notion that only Christians lead moral lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Goodness and morality come from within and no religion, holy book inquisition or law can impose them. If you need to refer to a priest or legal code to decide what is right or wrong then something basic is lacking. Even animals instinctively know what's good for them or not.
What we have here is not teaching but manipulation for the benefit of the manipulators. No wonder the Church in Malta insisted on this privilege being entrenched in the Constitution.
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 13:09
Hekk trida l-Knisja sur Buttigieg b'halqa maghluq bhalma riedha dejjem gvern laburista??? Mhu ser ikun qatt iktar li l-Knisja taghlaq halqa quddiem problema bhalma hi d-Divorzju. Nehhiha minn mohhok li l-Knisja ser tibqa halqa maghluq. Jekk tghalqu hi, iqum il-gebel u jitkellem. U ser inkunu anki kontra kull min hu favur id-divorzju hu min hu. Jista jkun il-kap tal-oppozizzjoni jew xi jeffrey Pulicino Orlando. Din mhix kwistjoni politika imma kwistjoni socjali u religjuza. ghax iz-zwieg huwa SAGRAMENT u jappartjeni lill-Knisja daqs kemm jappartjeni lill-Istat.
Gerard Cassar
Aug 5th 2010, 19:24
Lets leave the debate out of politics! Go and tell it to the Marines. Mr. J.Farrugia has already started to refer to the Labour Party as being against the Church, and this in the debate considering divorce. This just a spark that will lit and produce a whole blaze. The P.N. like this J.Farrugia don't know how to do differently. There are parish priest and others that would not abide by the rules. Politics will surely surface. It is not the well being of Malta they cherish but power at all cost. They have got used to it as if of right. I am referring to the P.N. and those that follow it be they lay people or responsible ones.
D. Grech
Aug 5th 2010, 11:02
The Church job is preaches the way in favor of the Bible
The Nadur Church should see the big mistake that She is doing to Ghajn Qasab landscape befor protecting the divorce debate
Oscar Cassar
Aug 5th 2010, 12:21
ma kkummentatx il-Kummissjoni Ambjent dwar dan ? Bilhaq forsi d-djocesi Maltija tirfes hafna kallijiet izda mhux tad-Djocesi ta' Ghawdex.
David Caruana
Aug 5th 2010, 10:58
The Church has every right to voice its opinion, but so does everyone else....
Divorce: God doesn't want it, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster does.
If you follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then sign the PETITION, NOW!
http://www.divorceinmalta.com/signpetition.php
Ramon Casha
Aug 5th 2010, 11:09
Will I be forgiven if I use grated cheese?
Chris Reiff
Aug 5th 2010, 11:19
YES to Divorce! Fight the good fight, followers of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster. Our victory is guaranteed!
Miguel Micallef
Aug 5th 2010, 15:54
not having divorce is EVIL
Secular malta first and foremost!
the pink unicorn too demands grated cheese and divorce!
our victory is guaranteed! follow the unicorn because it loves and and it killed the bee to show its love to you! how can you not want divorce?!
E Camilleri
Aug 5th 2010, 10:29
Since when is allowing the Church to air its own view considered "dirty" as some have referred to it? How sick. Every individual and/or institution has a right to voice their opinion, especially on important matters such as divorce!
In reply to those using Matthew 5:32 to suggested that Jesus was actually in favour of divorce. In that particular case Jesus was referring to what constitutes an invalid marriage (through 'porneia' as opposed to 'moicheia'). Annulments are granted in this case. Jesus was not in favour of divorce, as the Bible clearly shows.
Alex Ciantar
Aug 5th 2010, 11:20
So did Jesus also stipulate the high fees, corruption and bribes to get and annulment?
E Camilleri
Aug 5th 2010, 11:51
Man's greed has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. And the fact that bribery exists when it comes to annulments does not automatically mean that we should introduce divorce in Malta.
Alex Ciantar
Aug 5th 2010, 12:25
Tell that to the Church not me Mr E Camilleri .......as it seems that Money and greed for it makes the church go round.......
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 14:02
@ Alex Ciantar.... dont continue showing your bias and hatred for the catholic church. Money money money. What do you work for? Isnt it money? COrruption. How many times have you corrupted yourself in not doing your duties. Pointing fingers at the church will do you no good.
Mike F Abbot
Aug 6th 2010, 10:22
@ J Farrugia - considering what the church is supposed to stand for Alex is very right to make the points he does. How you can defend the church on these points and compare it to an individual person is pathetic.
alex Ciantar
Aug 6th 2010, 10:46
Exactly I work for my money not rip out of peoples pockets and as for being bias and hating the church I just do not agree with the pain it is inflicting........... and trust me it is inflicting a lot of pain on people who wish to start a new life........
Alex Ciantar
Aug 5th 2010, 10:20
In a democratic country and like everyone else the church has a right to voice its opinion, but it has no right to impose, dictate, interfere, force its opinion and terrorise and scare onto the state and people its beliefs. This is a state and people issue and does not involve the church.
Not everyone in this country is a catholic, and not to mention a high percentage although catholic do not agree with the church. So what the church preaches and what it sees in its eyes as a wrong does not necessarily apply to everyone else.
Last and not least if the church wants to be truly credible it should use its energy on fixing its internal state of affairs first and foremost and before any other issues.........
S. Pandolfino
Aug 5th 2010, 11:44
Very good comment.
Paul Barrett
Aug 5th 2010, 10:17
Quote: "The Church is not a political party. Everyone in the Church knows our position and our mission is to evangelise, parish priests included," Unquote.
Evangelise = convert. (Power play - Do it my way or else).
The gloves are off and the army for the battle to control Civil law v. Church law has been unleashed.
Not "everyone" is "in the Church" and indeed not everyone that is "in the Church" actually follows every full stop and comma in the Book.
I can (to a degree) understand the Church not accepting divorce as it needs the income from Church annulments to allow members to re-marry. What I do not understand is the acceptance of so many that the Church law should apply to everyone - i.e., those not belonging to the Church and indeed it's interference in opposing a civil law allowing divorce as an option for those that wish it.
God, Religion and belief are personal matters for the individual and should not be imposed on others. May your God be with you.
Alex Ciantar
Aug 5th 2010, 11:22
what you said is so true Mr Barrett
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Aug 5th 2010, 10:07
IF ANYTHING IS SYMBOLIC OF THE SHAMBLES THAT THIS ECCLESIASTICAL FREE FOR ALL IS GOING TO CAUSE ITS THAT 'KANTUN' PLACED ON THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND GRACIOUS CHURCH PARVIS IN MALTA. TODAY'S CLERGY ARE NOT WORTHY OF BEING GUARDIANS OF OUR COMMON ARTISTIC HERITAGE ANY MORE THAN THEY SHOULD BE PRIVELEGED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
P. Bezzina
Aug 5th 2010, 11:00
Going only into the issue of protecting our common artistic heritage, I think that it is better to inform oneself before posting comments in caps lock of what one is worthy of guarding.
Anthony Tonna
Aug 5th 2010, 10:04
The question of divorce is one for individuals to make. That a State law allows divorce for a whole range of property and custody issues does not mean the Chruch should circumvent such, but extol the faithful to work hard to keep in marriage. However there are times when one party or both in a marriage cannot remian in a relationship, love which is the essential element in marriage may have not been nutured and is lost ( or there is violence towards each other etc) In these cases it is up to the individuals to seek a divorce or not. And they will make a decision to remain together or not. At the end of the day irrrespective of State Law or Divine Precepts or Canon Law the individual is responsible, not the State or the Church. That the State are pondering the issue does not in any way reduce the value of marriage, the value of marriage is with the couple not the Chruch or the State.
Joe Grima
Aug 5th 2010, 09:58
Th Church will have us belive that it will take a back seat in the divorce debate. How gullible do the bishops think we are? The Church has already unleashed its religion-defending rotweillers on the pro-divorce movement.. The best thing the Church can do is to hide itself somewhere while the country embarks on a serious civil debate about the manner in which divorce will be introduced. The church has nothing to do with that debate and should keep its silence while holding its current Torquemadas on a short leash.
Frans Sammut
Aug 5th 2010, 09:53
I reckon the Church is doing the best thing she could do in the circumstances. She is stating her position, to which she is fully entitled, at the same time keeping away from partisan politics which she rightly views as a possible quagmire, particularly since at least one side seems intent to use the issue for diversionary purposes. Let's face it, folks, which is the more urgent issue at the moment, the dire economic state many families are finding themselves in or divorce? And why should the Church entangle itself in such political shenanigans if her primary if not sole purpose is the welfare of its members? Needless to say the role of politicians is something else altogether, and THEY certainly do not need the advice of the Church or of other individuals or organizations to determine what is in their best interest.
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 09:25
The church's role in the debate should be to instruct all catholics not to avail themselves of divorce once it is introduced. But it has no right to impede those who want divorce.
That is the problem with the anti divorcists writing in these comments. They want to impose their beliefs on everyone irrespective of their opinion.
Miguel Micallef
Aug 5th 2010, 09:51
This would be the rightest thing to do, of course. Everyone with a sane mind knows it. Alas, the church rarely manages to see the right way forward. Even when preached to, they choose to not listen.
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 10:22
and you want to impose your will on us who dont want divorcce to be part of our legislations. What goes for the goose has to go to the gander. What's sauce for you is also for me otherwise you are trying to discriminate against Maltese Catholics and this is not on. We will never accept your dictats. The Church has every right to preach what is right and what is wrong so that it can form our citizens' conscience even if it is dead. And no one will stop this. This is our constitutional right to salvage Malta from your type of destruction. It's far easier to destroy than to build a family.
Karl Muscat
Aug 5th 2010, 11:09
@ J Farrugia,
Why are you assuming that ALL Malta is catholic?
How are you defining what is right from what is wrong?
If you don't want to get divorced, just don't! Just let the others do it! Compare divorce with cigarettes or gambling...both destroy individuals and families, however I suspect that you chose not to engage in any of them.....same reasoning goes for divorce.....You have a mind to think for yourself, just don't try to impose your Christian values on everyone cause not everyone likes those values.
Ramon Casha
Aug 5th 2010, 11:13
@J Farrugia: No, that makes no sense. Just because the law allows me to play football doesn't mean that football enthusiasts are imposing football on me.
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 11:45
J Farrugia. Divorce is not a tax which everybody is force to pay. If you are against divorce no one is forcing you to use it. There are many separated couples who wouldn't think of applying for an annullment. The same with divorce. The church has every right to preach against divorce. It does not have a right to impose its teaching on others. Can I be more specific than that?
L.Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 09:09
Il-kurja haslet idha min dak li se jigri, ħ dwar id-divorzju, hallit lil mexxejja tal-merhlit ghal rashom, u qed tonqos mid-doveri taghha. Il-poplu jisma aktar milli jghid l-Isqof u ta ma dwaru milli l-kappillani. Dawn l-affarijiet ifakkruni f'dak li kien qieghed jigri fil-Vatikan fis-70ijiet dwar il-finanzi u ta' madwar il-Papa (konsulenti) jahbu is-sitwazzjoni biex ma nghidx jiehdu sehem fiha.
g.c.Forte
Aug 5th 2010, 09:02
Il Knisja ghandha id dover li tghallimna u tghejdilna x`irid Kristu, u mhux tiprova tintoghgob ma kullhadd. Ma nistax nifhem kif ghaqda, moviment ,partit, socjeta, tinsa il kuncett, il principji jew ahjar l-agenda jew l-istatut taghha u thalli lil membri jiddecidu dak li iridu individwalment, specjalment fuq haga tant importanti bhal ma huwa id divorzju. Issa, jekk Kappillan jghejd mod u l-iehor imur travers, x`ser jigri. Ma nixtieqx immur lura ghas snin sittin, pero waqt li qeghed nixjieh qeghed ninduna li veru li l- knisja qatt ma ridet tmur kontra l- partit nazzjonalista. Qeghed nghejd hekk ghax waqt li l- poplu, l- partiti u kullhadd qeghed maqsum wahda sew f`din il kwistjoni, il knisja f`lok qeghedha tiehu pozizzjoni soda, tghati l- liberta lil kleru li jghamel u jghejd li irid ghanke jekk f`ahhar mhux ser jaqblu. Ghalija dan huwa nuqqas, ghax irid nifehem kif tar rahal ta fuq jeghjdilhom mod u ta isfel mod iehor. Min jaf li kieku kien hemm il partit l-ahmar, " dak tan nar li jahraq " kif kienet taggixxi il Kurja.
Joe Cassar
Aug 5th 2010, 08:59
This is an attempt by the church to have its cake and eat it.
It will make sure (as it has every righ to do) that its voice on this issue is heard loud and clear.
However, if anything is seen as not going down too well with the people, it will be able to wash its hands of it and shove responsibility onto the individual/organisation who came out with it.
Pontius Pilate could have taken lessons from them.
Ramon Casha
Aug 5th 2010, 11:07
Not to mention that, although it might not centralise its input, it can still order its more liberal / modern priests to stay away from the media or pulpit, so that it appears to be having a frank and open discussion while in truth only the ultra-conservatives are being heard.
MBusuttil
Aug 5th 2010, 08:56
MHUX ID-DIVORZJU BISS MA JRIEDX ALLA, ANKE LI TITLAQ MINN QASSIS U TIZZEWEG BIL-BARKA TAL-KNISJA.
patrick zammit
Aug 5th 2010, 09:51
If i'm not mistaken, he neither wants peadophile priests.
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 10:23
Ikun iktar jaqbillek titghallem ftit id-duttrina kristjana.
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 11:57
J Farrugia forsi tista' taghtina ftit lezzjonijiet int. ghidilna fejn GESU' qal li qassis jista jitlaq mill ordni sagri u jizzewweg. Gesu' qal li min imidd idu fuq il mohriet ma jistax ihares lura minbarra l-fatt li qassis (skont il knisja) u maghzul u msejjah minn Alla nnifsu ghal vokazzjoni. Issa sirt naf minn Joe Zammit li hemm kazi fejn qassis jista jizzewweg u fl-istess hin jibqa jaqdi d-doveri tieghu ta' qassis. Vera kaz ta' min jikkmanda jaghmel il ligi u l-inglizi jghidu (Have the cake and eat it too)
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 13:52
Victor Pulis, ghall-informazzjoni tieghek, il-Knisja qed iddahhal lil dawk is-sacerdoti Anglikani li huma mizzewwga u qed thallihom jamministraw is-sagramenti daqs li kieku kienu sacerdoti taghha. Il-Knisja hija hanina, ma tistax tghid lil dawk l-anglikani li jridu jinqatghu minn mal-Knisja taghhom biex iwarrbu lil marthom, ghax dik kienet l-uzanza tal-anglikani. Allura bilfors li ser issib sacerdoti anglikani llum kattolici li huma mizzewga u ghandhom it-tfal u jaqdu doveri ta' sacerdoti kattolici. Dan huwa ammess illum minhabba l-krizi kbira u l-iskandli ta' nisa Isqfijiet, ecc., li ghandha fi hdana l-Knisja Anglikana.
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 15:25
@ J Farrugia
" Il-Knisja hija hanina, ma tistax tghid lil dawk l-anglikani li jridu jinqatghu minn mal-Knisja taghhom biex iwarrbu lil marthom, ghax dik kienet l-uzanza tal-anglikani. Allura bilfors li ser issib sacerdoti anglikani llum kattolici li huma mizzewga u ghandhom it-tfal u jaqdu doveri ta' sacerdoti kattolici. Dan huwa ammess illum minhabba l-krizi kbira u l-iskandli ta' nisa Isqfijiet, ecc., li ghandha fi hdana l-Knisja Anglikana."
Ir-ross jien nieklu bil furketta mhux bil labra J farrugia.
Il papa accetta lill qassisin anglikani fil knisja bhal dak il club li jaccetta membri ta' club iehor biex jisraqlu l-membri. Tajjeb, il knisja hanina mal anglikani u mal membri taghha kattiva.
mela fejn trid tghawwighom il ligijiet.
Ronald Cauchi
Aug 5th 2010, 08:54
So no frontal attack. No massing of the troops. Guerilla warfare. Should be interesting to watch the devious ways the battle shall ensue.
leonardo vince
Aug 5th 2010, 08:40
If parish priest intend to make us go back to the dark ages, a movement should be set up to denounce the church as harbouring criminal priests who molested young boys.
Mark Galea
Aug 5th 2010, 08:39
Wake up everybody - we are in a democratic country. EVERYBODY has a right to speak, both in favour and against. When I say everybody, I include instituions, the Church, political parties, and everybody else. If somebody is denied the right to speak out on this issue, then this would not be a democracy. And if somebody will be persecuted if s/he is in favour / against divorce.
M Chetcuti
Aug 5th 2010, 08:35
Reminds me of washing hands whilst at the same time giving the nod to Church terrorists to use whatever means they have at their disposal.Won't be long before we hear the sound of church bells once again.History repeats itself. Desperation calls for desperate measures,not that it will get them very far in the long run.
Pierre tonna
Aug 5th 2010, 09:04
Hope not, as I remember the 80's my friend. When lots of my friends suffered simply because they wanted to go to university, get a job, read a news paper etc etc.....
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 08:33
The Church does not indulge in political campaigns. The Church only has the right to preach what is right and what is wrong. It is the morally sound conscience of people of goodwill. And as much as I a common citizen have a right to voice my opinion, so has the Church THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO PREACH WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT IS WRONG AND MORALLY WRONG AND PERVERSE FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. And no one will trash this right of the local catholic church for his own vulgar and immoral and obscene hidden or otherwise, agendas for our country. Divorce is a human wrong not a human right. Divorce works against women and children and will be a disaster if ever the government, any government legalises divorce. It's immoral.
Ethelbert Schembri
Aug 5th 2010, 08:46
That is new, the church defending women and children !!!
Imoral was what the church did in the 60s!
Jason Fenech
Aug 5th 2010, 09:03
The church has every right to voice its opinion. Likewise you enjoy the same right. People who do not share your views also enjoy the same right.
That said , through your proverbial judge, jury and executioner comment you have shut the doors on any meaningful debate, as has the priest with his infamous banner and all.
Consequently you cannot speak of any rights but only of imposition through clouded judgement.
Franco Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 09:48
Int ghandek il-wicc titkellem fuq id-dritt ghall-Knisja li tghallem fuq dak li hu sew u dak li mhux? Int? Fost kulhadd? Mela ma xbajtx tikteb u titkellem kontra l-immigranti f'pajjizna? Fejn hu t-taghlim ta' Kristu ghalik? U hallina!
patrick zammit
Aug 5th 2010, 10:04
Is it immoral to:
protect peadophile priests?
let defrocked priests marry?
rob a dying person of his property so that prayers can be arrainged for his salvation?
to bury people in the "mizbla" section?
order them how to vote under the threat of eternal damnation?
to put preasure on a poor family to have as many children as the number of years in marriage?
etc etc etc
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 10:18
There is no meaningful debate in Divorce. It just breaks down families, and for what??? for the egoism of the few? for the perversity of the few? for the benefit of some moneybags? Divorce is not for the small fry, keep that in mind. No there can never be a meaningful debate with those who have broken their own families for whatever reason and now want to break down other people's families. This should never be allowed. Divorce destroys children and women. No wonder the suicide rates in foreign countries. Instead of trying to mend ties with those whom we loved for years? Is this the word of a man? It means nothing today! As for Ethelbert Schembri. Yes the church was right in the 60s with those who tried to suffocate it and its-teachings by wanting to follow communist-tactics against the will of the people. We all remember what Castro did in those years. And we all know what happened after the monster-was enthroned. And this-Schembri should know that Malta in the 60s is not Malta today. And stop bringing up the 60s. The church has nothing to be ashamed of even if it apologised for those times.
Robert Callus
Aug 5th 2010, 10:58
@Franco Farrugia & J Farrugia
Good comment Franco. In fact this is something about SOME Catholics that has been bothering me so I wrote a blog about it. I've asked many times people like J Farrugia to give me an explanation, to no avail. Probably they didn't find the right quote from the bible.
http://robertcallus.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/flaunting-christianity/
Ramon Casha
Aug 5th 2010, 11:05
"The Church does not indulge in political campaigns."
You mean like telling MPs that they HAVE TO vote against divorce?
Divorce is a fundamental human right - in fact, marriage in any place without divorce is meaningless, since it consists of nothing more than a piece of paper which says A is married to B while in reality A is with C, B is with D, A+C and B+D have children, and A and B actually hate each other.
Divorce is positive step for men and women whose marriage has failed, and neutral or a positive step for any children involved.
S. Pandolfino
Aug 5th 2010, 12:04
@ J Farrugia
M'ghandiex biex tisthi il-knisja mis-60s? Mela vera mghandek rispett lejn hadd. Skond int mela tajjeb li tarmi bniedem fil-mizbla ghax ma jaqbilx mieghek. Mela issa lil min irid id-divorzju narmuh fil-mizbla ukoll.
Ahjar ma tghid xejn aktar. Il-knisja ghandha hafna biex tisthi ibda minn nies li ramithom fil-mizbla ghax kienet l-aghar istituzzjoni dak iz-zmien u kompli bit-tfal li kissrulhom hajjithom certu qassisin u membri taghha illum il-gurnata. Qas qatt mghadni smajt b'religjon li waqghet daqshekk fil-baxx. Hallina. Min jaf kieku kienet ommok jew missierek li difnuh fil-mizbla x'kont tghid. Bla rispett u ghalhekk sejjer lura dan il-pajjiz. Ghandi nies tal-familja li dak iz-zmien keccewhom mill-knisja ghax ma kienux ta l-istess opinjoni. Trid thoss fuq gildek biex titkellem.
J Farrugia
Aug 5th 2010, 12:20
Franco Farrugia - Iva ahna kontra l-illegalitajiet kollha. U hekk ghandhu jkun kull cittadin li ghandhu rasu fuq ghonqu. Ma jistax ikun li nuiddiksriminaw ma min jimxi bis-sew mal-ligijeit ta' pajjizna. Inti kontra kull ordni u dixxiplina.
victor pulis
Aug 5th 2010, 13:24
Jekk il knisja ma ghamlet xejn hazin fis-sittinijiet ghala ghamlet apologija? meta xi hadd jaghmel apologija ghax ikun zbalja. Qed ninnota sens ta' isterizmu fil kitba tieghek. Paniku ta' wiehed li tilef l-argument jekk qatt kellu. L-annullament ikisser il familji? taf kemm jigi jiswik annullament? Qassis imsejjah minn Alla nnifsu kif jista jitlaq u jizzewweg u f'certi kazi jibqa qassis prattikanti?! Dan ghandu jkollu second chance? min jikkmanda jaghmel il ligi. Il knisja hasbet ghal taghha.
D Attard
Aug 5th 2010, 08:25
They're losing the argument and they know it,so it's down to dirty tactics once again. Just wait and see.
Miguel Micallef
Aug 5th 2010, 09:48
They are not losing the argument... they don't even have one to begin with.
patrick zammit
Aug 5th 2010, 08:25
According to The Bible, divorce is allowed.
B Portelli
Aug 5th 2010, 08:33
Then you simply can't read!
Ivan Vassallo
Aug 5th 2010, 08:44
"Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:11, 12)
Moreover Christ criticized the Jews for their hard headedness in imposing divorce
"Moses by reason of hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives": but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8) ... the story repeating itself
patrick zammit
Aug 5th 2010, 08:59
Try Matthew 5:32.
m vella
Aug 5th 2010, 09:18
Divorce has nothing to do with the church,it has to do with the government (PARLAMENT OF MALTA)
patrick zammit
Aug 5th 2010, 09:48
Mathew 5.32 clearly states that if a wife is unfaithful, divorce is ok (sorry women, nothing about the unfaithful husband here, so no divorce for you).
Also try 1 Kor 7.15 where it says that when one of the spouses is an unbeliever, divorce is ok.
But if you want some truly Holy women bashing, try 1 Kor 11.3 where women are told (since they are considered by The Bible as being a lesser form of human) to either cover their head or else cut their hair short or shave it. The Bible justifies this by explaining that man is the image and glory of God whilst a woman is the image and glory of man.
E Camilleri
Aug 5th 2010, 10:09
In that particular case Jesus was referring to what constitutes an invalid marriage (through 'porneia'). Annulments are granted in this case. Jesus was not in favour of divorce, as the Bible clearly shows.
Carmel Garcia
Aug 5th 2010, 10:14
Qrajt biss dak li jaqbel lilek Patrick. M'hemmx ghalfejn nurik fejn ghandek issib dwar id-divorzju ghax ta' qabli ga urewk fejn tista ssib dak li kkundanna Sidna Gesu' Kristu.
Ramon Casha
Aug 5th 2010, 11:00
E Camilleri: Nope, that's a very clear reference to a marriage, and the word used is divorce, not annulment.
The church is caught in a modern-day Galileo moment. Having declared that Jesus was against divorce, it's now digging in its heels until its position is no longer tenable. Probably in a couple of hundred years the church will accept that divorce had been right all along, as they did with Galileo's insistence that the earth orbit the sun.
patrick zammit
Aug 5th 2010, 11:43
E Camilleri
C Garcia
It is not a question of "x'jaqbillek".
The point is that The New Testament (the old testament is worse) is riddled with inconsistences and illogical assumptions.
You chose not to reply to my comments re 1 Kor 7.15 where women are told to either cover their hair or cut/shave it.
And what about Matt 16.28/Mark 9.1 where Jesus comforts his disciples by telling them that in their lifetime, they will see him return to them after his death?