Marriage, separation and divorce (3)

Joe Zammit

Aug 18th 2010, 11:06

Remarriage after divorce can easily be described as another form of cohabitation. In cohabitation there is no bond. Divorce points to no bond because when they want the couple can for some reason or another get a divorce. Divorce opens the way to literally another form of cohabitation.

Marriage and only marriage is serious and beneficial to every human society. The two characteristics of marriage are UNITY and INDISSOLUBILITY. Marriage is for ever.

No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. And if any MP thinks that God is asleep, he is grossly mistaken. Time will tell!

DIVORCE NEVER!

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 17th 2010, 17:32

Again on MPs and personal opinions. All our MPs take oath or make a solemn declaration that they will be faithful to the Constitution. Article 40 proclaims the right of freedom of religion and religious practice.

How can any member of parliament be constrained, either by Hell Eternal or otherwise, to cater for one single religion ? One answer to your question could be "I am Catholic as muc as you are, but I cannot only legislate according to my beliefs to the detriment of others, who do not believe." Immoral ?

In their private personal life they should be guided by the religion they believe in. But as MPs they promised to uphold the Constitution.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 17th 2010, 17:03

After reading your two-part comment we Catholics would still repeat your own question “Where do you want to arrive with this argument?”

You grant that Christ identified marriage as a God-recognized bond between man and woman. That marriage bond was accurately described by him (Mark 10:6-9) as a stable indissoluble union. The teaching of the Church regarding annulments is based on the reasonable assumption that there could be apparent “marriages” that from the very start had lacked some essential element (identified as “impediments”) that negated the validity of that presumed marriage bond. In the sight of God and Church, that man and that woman were never united in the sight of God.

The point you seem to be driving at is that you do not accept any evidence that God really joins anyone in marriage and the rest of us should fall into line behind you in rejecting Mark 10:6-9. We Catholics beg to be excused because we do believe in God. Anyone who does not believe in God is not qualified to give us advice about what God does and what God does not do about anything. Remember? you dot believe that he exists!

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 17th 2010, 16:57

As usual these comments divert from the original opinion to "theological" issues and other rambling. The point of Joe Zammit seems to have been that the public ought to know what is the position of the individual members of parliament on divorce. We know the personal opinion of some (on either side).

But how is he entitled to know the opinion of MPs when there is no bill in Parliament ? The press has already attempted to put such questions, but were politely turned away by expressions such as "we have to discuss". The opinion of a member of parliament is signified by his vote in parliament.

Rather premature to ask now.

If this is veiled threat of votes to those who favour divorce, I think MPs can take it in their stride. Maltese political history is full of instances of MPs who were not on the good books of the majority religion but polled thousands of votes.

Kevin Cassar

Aug 17th 2010, 15:39

cont..........

Before any of you catholics start dissing my comment I would like to bring to your attention that in the cases of Church annumlments, the reason given by the church is that the marriage never took place and the couple was not "joined by GOD".

This means that both the church and the believers/witnesses to the event, all believed that God had joined the couple when in fact it was not so.

So my question to you all is simple. If, as is proven beyond any doubt, we (the people and the church) cannot really tell if God has joined anyhting for certain, how do we then tell people with blatant arrogance of certainty that God has joined them in an indissoluble bind?

Christopher Grech

Aug 17th 2010, 12:28

@ Pulis

Well done to state the "papal divorce", which is an annulment, for want of a better word. As long as the church is in "control", it can do anything it wants, so it seems.

Divorce is done when the man (yes the man NOT the woman) issues a Bill of Divorcement. The church TEMPERS with the Bible, and acts on its OWN accord making a mockery out of the Bible, that is God's word.

@ Joe Zammit

In which Biblical verse is ""what God has joined together, let no man put asunder? " please?

God also permitted divorce under some conditions, and the church also permits "annulment" under its own conditions, which may be very different than that of God's.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 17th 2010, 11:12

@ Joe Zammit. Why not state the position of the Catholic Church, without entering into arguments to prove that it is right ? You are only soliciting vicious remarks. This cannot be a theological debate. Some of your statements are not even precise, however well-intentioned.

B. Cachia

Aug 17th 2010, 10:46

@ Joe Zammit: As you say, divorce is both a civil and a religious issue. However, the State's laws can only cover the civil domain. It is not the State's role to impose a Catholic lifestyle on people (whether they are of Catholic background or not). The Catholic politician does not impose the Catholic way of life by law on everyone, whether they like it or not but focuses his or her activity on being of service to others in the matters that are the appropriate domain of the State.

As for the civil aspect, there certainly is room for a debate as to whether divorce should be introduced or not, and as to what sort of divorce legislation would be introduced. I very much think that it's not a black and white issue as you describe it, but that a 'middle way' is indeed possible.

Daniel Vella

Aug 17th 2010, 09:40

@ C. Cini

So Mr/s Cini, you are effectively denying the youth from making their own decisions. In reality, you, like Mr. Zammit and others, are afraid that people's faith is not as strong as you'd like it to be.

I for once was raised Catholic like the majority of Maltese. On the other hand, like the majority of my peers, I renounced the religion (in my case when I was about 14), since the more I got to know about it, the less sense it started to make.

Please, Mr/s Cini, don't take us for idiots and say that, since Christians in Italy also opted for divorce, divorce is a bad thing. Sinjal li l-fidi nisranija ma kinitx b'sahhita bizzejjed, u dik, personalment, ma narahiex haga hazina.

victor pulis

Aug 16th 2010, 18:20

The church has never resoted to divorce in 2,000 years. It didn't have to. It invented annullment which is nowhere mentioned in the gospel. Annullment was invented as a loop hole for the rich and royalty to whom the church was ever indepted.

Joe Zammit

Aug 16th 2010, 16:53

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt.5, 31-32).

Christ is not saying 'in case of unfaithfulness' but in case of fornication. Fornication is done between two unmarried persons. Otherwise, what sense do the words of Christ make when he told us "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder?

Otherwise, it would be so easy for all married people to divorce, just be unfaithful! As easy as that!

Christ condemned divorce for all people. There is no possibility of divorce even in the case of unfaithfulness. Divorce never!

The Catholic Church, as the one holy Apostolic Church of Christ has NEVER resorted to divorce in her 2000-year history. Only the other churches which are false have introduced in them the evil of divorce to prove they are not the Church of Christ.

victor pulis

Aug 16th 2010, 14:07

@ Joe Meli
Joe how many men do you know who are married to their own rib?!

Christopher Grech

Aug 16th 2010, 10:18

Many people speak here as though they know it all. The Church does not understand much, if at all, on the subject.

The Old Testament and the New Testament (and the Koran) are in unison, on the issue of divorce. No disagreements in either Book. Whilst it is true that God wishes that marriages remain united, there are exceptions.

I am speaking now from God's point of view, not mine, or anyone's else, as stated in the Bible. The words "put away" in some Bibles means divorce, when seeing this in either Hebrew or original Greek text.

To illustrate, when St. Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant with Jesus, he was to divorce her, meaning that it was good to divorce, when the women was doing something wrong. Of course she was pregnant with Jesus by means of the Holy Spirit and then an angel appeared to Joseph, and explained the situation. Thus no divorce was needed, as this was God's Will.

God has given exceptions to the rule, and divorce is not to be taken lightly either, and not on a whim.

C Cini

Aug 16th 2010, 09:18

You are right to say Divorce is not a civil issue alone since where divorce was introdueced like here in Italy, it effected even Catholics since the mentality enormously was ingected in young generations. Here all young couples co-habite since it is normal for all, even those who think to get marry in the Church (very few get married in the Church). Co-habitation is normal, marriage is an exception, in a country where divorce was introduced 40 years ago. At first glance it looks as a civil issue but in reality it is a big issue. We should'nt make the mistake which others did before us. I want to know who are the MPs in favour of divorce, I don't want to vote for them.

Arthur Soler

Aug 16th 2010, 04:45

@Joseph Meli

Quote "He (God) performed the first marriage on the sixth day of creation when He brought together Adam and Eve as husband and wife.

Out of curiosity, are you still reading books written in the Middle Ages? Adam and Eve did not exist except in the fairytale book called the Old Testament. The Universe is 14.5 billion years old; the earth around 4.5 billion. The first life forms on earth emerged around 4 billion years ago and from these beginings evolved all life on earth including homo sapiens. Our species has been on Earth for about 250,000 years. Given the slow pace of Evolution through Natural Selection, there were hundreds of Adams and Eves. And Eve was most certainly not made from Adam's ribs as the Bible claims.

Now, if you want to keep believing in the tale that God created the Universe in 7 days, then so be it. You will of course be rejecting all the sciences that conclusively prove otherwise. These are the same sciences that have simplified your life immensely...e.g. Medicines, television, mobile phones, airplanes, air conditioners, autos etc. etc. By the way...this instant exchange of views could not have happened without the Internet.

Joe Zammit

Aug 16th 2010, 02:10

Divorce is first and foremost a moral and religious issue. The basic evil of divorce lies exactly in purporting to do what it cannot do. In marriage, it is God and only God who is binding two persons together and Christ ordered (not advised) us not to put asunder what God has joined together!

The State has NO SAY in the celebration of marriage! So, it has no say in dissolving marriage. Pretending to rescind marriage is only an ABUSE of power by the State.

Divorce is grave sin. It is thus the moral issue of divorce. Whoever in any way promotes divorce is sinning seriously. Divorce is not a joke. Through divorce the sinner is separating himself or herself from God and placing himself or herself on the path to hell.

Divorce is primarily a moral and religious issue. Those who love God cannot be in favour of divorce. No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning grievously.

C Gatt

Aug 15th 2010, 22:56

I fear Joe Zammit may regret getting what he wished for. Assuming the law is not changed before the next election ( probably but not 100% confirmed), what does Mr Zammit think he will achieve by the politicians declaring themselves. As things stand with roughly 40 % each way yeay and nay and 20% undecided, politicians have nothing to lose. The yeays will go with the yeays and the nays with the nays. So what?

Joe Xuereb

Aug 15th 2010, 19:11

@Joe Zammit. I believe a few days ago you stated on these very pages that God supercedes the Church. In that case what follows does not apply to you. But thanks for affording me the opportunity to write this comment. Have a holy day Joe. And don't speak to any strange men or accept sweeties from strangers.

The Church in Malta is confused (or merely tripping over itself).
It sees Catholic marriage is the backbone of RC Religion thus rubbishing marriages under different religions or none. It condemns same-sex civil partnerships finds a common enemy in Islam to silent the homosexual community. Bad move if ever there was one. Especially in view of one of its stalwarts, a Fr. Joe Borg publicly claiming that Islamists may built in Malta as many mosques as they see fit. See link:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta
The Constitution upholds freedom of religious worship on paper but the Church negates this(see above). Against divorce, it sides with an alien religion that allows the same. plus multiple wives. Against homosexual marriage it aligns itself with the same alien. The two religions friends at last on this point alone. As I was saying, the Church is relegating itself to www.confused.com-as-in-mix-messsages.

Joseph calleja

Aug 15th 2010, 19:08

" Let no MP hide behind their party line!" Who are you kidding? Look what is happening to the Pollicinos because they did not hide behind party lines. Only the AG Party favours divorce outright. It took guts and stamina for the Pollicinos to come out the way they did apart from party lines. I agree each MP should come out and show his or her colours and fight for the people they represent, instead of putting party and church first, but that is asking for too much. Mr Zammit I thought you were in favour of a referendum but it seems that for some reason or other you changed your mind and you are going after the MPs, doesn't the referendum suit you anymore? Isn't it enough you already threatened the MPs with damnation and hell if they favour divorce? We already know that the church is anti divorce, so now it becomes a civil issue. The catholic church can only dictate to catholics but what about those that are non catholic? Do they all have to emigrate to file for divorce? And what about those that cannot afford to emigrate? Maybe provide them with a round trip ticket?

victor pulis

Aug 15th 2010, 14:08

You have quoted one of Pope John Paul II's enciclicals regarding divorce. Now why don'tyou read what the same Pope said about other religions?

Charles Sammut

Aug 15th 2010, 13:44

Joe Zammit, the Maltese Constitution might elevate the Catholic religion above other religions, and undemocratic as that might be, it is our Constitution. But it is not the ultimate law. The EU Constitution, marketed as the Lisbon Treaty, makes no mention of any particular religion or god. When the Maltese parliamnet ratified it without asking the people in a referendum, it also accepted primacy of EU law over national law.

So quit quoting what the now redundant Maltese Constitution blabs on about. It does not count any more. Our MPs will be able to pass laws only if they comply with EU law, in other words they are just a very expensive and inefficient rubber stamp. The prime minister is little more than the Mayor of Malta now.

Karl Consiglio

Aug 15th 2010, 13:32

@Joe Zammit,

By saying "Divorce is not a civil issue alone, but it is first and foremost a religious one" you are first and foremost offending our intelligence, to non believers that is on a par with say us offending your religion.
A Civil marriage is a civil marriage in an office and not a religious one, that is the whole idea behind a civil marriage, there is no priest, there is no concept of a God who later hates divorces. A Religious marriage is for those that want to marry in the eyes of their God and should abide. But neither one of these rites should come in the way of the other.

Lynn Zahra

Aug 15th 2010, 13:31

All those who believe, as JZ appears to do, that God is unforgiving and that He wants separated people whose marriage has failed to be miserable all there life, without a second chance aat finding happiness, vote no to divorce - Divorce Never!

rgalea

Aug 15th 2010, 10:53

Divorce is primarily a civil issue.

It is a non issue for the religious because they would ignore it so as not to incur the wrath of their God, just like they would never use contraceptives because of their faith.

Are the tenets of Buddhism of any relevance to you?
Absolutely no offence to Buddhists....it's just an example :)

So, your basic argument is nonesense.

However I do agree that MP's ( and the parties they belong to ) should make their position clear.So far only AD have a clear position on the issue.

Joseph Micallef

Aug 15th 2010, 10:26

I correct you Joe. Whoever - anyone baptised as Catholic - chooses to divorce will obviously dissassociate himself/herself from the Catholic church and therefore it will simply be a civil issue. Moreover, and if you were looking at me I would say "r e a d m y l i p s" - NOT ALL MALTESE CITIZENS ARE CATHOLIC. There may be some Maltese Citizens who's religion permits divorce. What will you tell them? Maybe insult them by telling them that their religion is rubbish?!