Kurt Sansone
Voting for divorce would be a sin but...
A convinced Catholic who voted in favour of divorce would be going against Christ’s teachings and this was a sin, the Curia’s Pro-Vicar said during an interview on church radio RTK.
In a phone-in programme dedicated to divorce on Friday, Mgr Anton Gouder, however, noted that committing a sin did not mean people would be excommunicated from the Church.
“If a person repents and goes to confession, all sins can be forgiven. If someone steals from his workplace and during confession promises to stop doing so and redeem the stolen goods, I will absolve his sins and he will be able to receive communion,” the Archbishop’s right-hand man said when asked by a caller whether someone voting in favour of divorce could be excommunicated.
He also played down a concern raised by programme host Tonio Bonello that the Church could end up in a political-religious battle reminiscent of the 1960s when it interdicted Labour Party officials.
“This is not a problem of one party. It is unjust that everyone can say what they want and the Church is denied a right to deliver moral judgment on the actions of its members,” Mgr Gouder said.
Referring to a survey on divorce commissioned by The Sunday Times, Mgr Gouder said he was concerned with the results even though a relative majority of 45 per cent were against divorce. “The result disappoints me because 40 per cent agree with a serious measure like divorce, which caused damage to marriage and families in every country where it was introduced,” he said.
He said he also could not understand how 15 per cent were undecided about something as important as divorce that could have an impact on their families.
Mgr Gouder did not enter into the merits of whether the issue should be decided through a referendum or in Parliament but insisted that people had to be well-informed on the consequences of their decision.
“The referendum is a political democratic instrument that gives an indication of what people think about an issue. It is not, however, an instrument that shows what is true or good.
It is not an instrument that reflects what the common good is,” he said, adding the more important issue was that the government, the Church, the media and non-governmental organisations provided true information on marriage, family, divorce and its effects in other countries.
Mgr Gouder disputed the notion that divorce was not an imposition on those who did not agree with it. “A spouse who does not want divorce would still be lumped with it if her partner decides to divorce,” he said.
However, his biggest concern was that divorce eroded the permanence of marriage and so it was not acceptable either if both partners agreed to file for divorce.
“Can we have a negative right? Is it correct to allow people to go back on their word? A couple would have given its word to live together until death parts them. If the first word does not count why should the second time be any different,” he asked, pointing out that statistics in the US and Canada showed that the likeliness of a second marriage failing was higher than the first.
Mgr Gouder said the permanence of marriage was not only a moral teaching of the Church but also a tenant of civil society because even civil marriage spoke of a permanent bond to death.
He commented on the argument made by Fr Peter Serracino Inglott that if research showed divorce was beneficial for the common good, a Catholic politician had the duty to vote in favour. “It has to be proven that divorce serves the common good but from research I have seen abroad I haven’t found a country where divorce served the common good,” Mgr Gouder said, dismissing the argument.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
61 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Sera Cutajar
Mar 21st 2011, 12:24
I seriously cannot understand how you can quote from the bible to prove that divorce must be excluded. Even if you're a Christian and you believe that divorce goes against your religion you shouldn't vote no for divorce let alone trying to convince the whole country that voting for the introduction of divorce would be some moral sin. If you're against divorce, don't divorce but who are you to decide for people's lives and who are you to impose your religious beliefs on others? Seems that this country will never change, the important thing is that on the surface everything can be classified as 'morally good' and although aware of the realities that differ from such imaginary state, we choose to remain in a state of denial.
Joe Zammit
Jan 28th 2011, 12:09
Divorce is the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage by a human person. It is always a grave sin. Christ himself has pointed this out to us: “What God has joined together let no man put asunder” (Mk 10.9). The Catholic Church in her Catechism speaks clearly about the evil of divorce and says that “it is a grave offence against the natural law” (Par.2384). So Christ and his Church put our minds at rest about the intrinsic immorality of divorce.
This leads to the question of voting for divorce. Morally speaking, voting in itself is an indifferent act. It becomes good or evil according to the object of voting. Voting for something good is morally good, voting for something evil is morally evil. Besides, abstaining from voting against an evil when an evil is at stake is equally evil.
In our case we have no divorce legislation. So, can one vote for divorce without sinning seriously against God? The answer is definitely “no”, because if divorce is intrinsically evil, voting for evil is also intrinsically evil. Abstaining wilfully from voting against divorce is also evil. It is a grave sin of omission.
Christopher Grech
Jan 28th 2011, 10:58
It would be wise if the pro-vicar of the Curia, would not speak for Christ. If he speaks for the church, than that is another thing.
The Bible, has many scriptures that allow divorce, both in the Old and New Testament.
The most famous one, is when Mary was pregnant with Christ, and St. Joseph was to divorce her, proving without ANY reasonable doubt that the option of divorce does exist, even in the Holy Family, let alone for the rest of humanity.
Such religious arrogance is the worst arrogance ever.
Joe Zammit
Sep 10th 2010, 12:30
The Pauline Privilege and the Petrine Privilege are no divorces.
In a divorce it is a human person who is decreeing the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage. In these privileges it is God who is dissolving the marriage. So these are no divorces at all!
Dr Joe Brincat (x lost count)
Aug 21st 2010, 10:39
Joe Zammit, now let's see Canon Law on dissolution of civil marriages. Take the example of a refugee married to a woman who is in captivity or cannot joint him because of persecution. This refugee integrates well with Catholics in Malta, and decides to be baptised. What if he meets a Catholic unmarried girl and they fall in love ? You would say DIVORCE NEVER. I tell you that he can even get married in Church !
CL1149:"Non baptizatus qui, recepto in Ecclesia catholica baptismo, cum coniuge non baptizato ratione captivitatis vel persecutionis cohabitationem restaurare nequeat, aliud matrimonium contrahere potest, etiamsi altera pars baptismum interea receperit, firmo praescripto can. 1141." This means that our refugee friend who cannot on account of captivity or persecution cohabit with his original wife, after baptism he may marry another woman, certainly provided that his orginal marriage was not a valid Catholic mixed marriage, and even if during their being apart she also receives baptism.
This is Catholic Church Law, which I do not discuss. It cannot be changed by a referendum.
Can you change your tone please ?
Joe Zammit
Sep 10th 2010, 12:27
That is NO DIVORCE! As simple as that!
Dr Joe Brincat (x lost count)
Aug 21st 2010, 10:39
Joe Zammit, now let's see Canon Law on dissolution of civil marriages. Take the example of a refugee married to a woman who is in captivity or cannot joint him because of persecution. This refugee integrates well with Catholics in Malta, and decides to be baptised. What if he meets a Catholic unmarried girl and they fall in love ? You would say DIVORCE NEVER. I tell you that he can even get married in Church !
CL1149:"Non baptizatus qui, recepto in Ecclesia catholica baptismo, cum coniuge non baptizato ratione captivitatis vel persecutionis cohabitationem restaurare nequeat, aliud matrimonium contrahere potest, etiamsi altera pars baptismum interea receperit, firmo praescripto can. 1141." This means that our refugee friend who cannot on account of captivity or persecution cohabit with his original wife, after baptism he may marry another woman, certainly provided that his orginal marriage was not a valid Catholic mixed marriage, and even if during their being apart she also receives baptism.
This is Catholic Church Law, which I do not discuss. It cannot be changed by a referendum.
Can you change your tone please ?
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 21st 2010, 10:21
Joe Zammit, now let's see Canon Law on dissolution of civil marriages. Take the example of a couple never baptised, both your friends, and you convert one of them through your zeal. They were married according to their religion or in a civil ceremony. Can their marriage be dissolved ?
CL1143 : "marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs"
This is subject to several conditions, but there is no space to go into such details.
And what if he had several wives ?
CL1148 :" When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one." So JZ apart from dissolution the newly baptised is a given a choice. He is not bound to the first one.
Dr Joe Brincat (3)
Aug 21st 2010, 10:03
CL1134 says "Ex valido matrimonio enascitur inter coniuges vinculum natura sua perpetuum et exclusivum; in matrimonio praeterea christiano coniuges ad sui status officia et dignitatem peculiari sacramento roborantur et veluti consecrantur." In Latin to quote source. In a valid marriage (naturally according to the rules preceding) the indissoluble and exclusive bond arises, and moreover strengthens and consecrates the Christian spouse is a special sacrament.
Joe Zammit speaks of absolute indissolubility and only God can break the bond. CL1142:
Matrimonium non consummatum inter baptizatos vel inter partem baptizatam et partem non baptizatam a Romano Pontifice dissolvi potest iusta de causa, utraque parte rogante vel alterutra, etsi altera pars sit invita. This means that the Pope can dissolve marriage if inspite of consent, there was no consummation of marriage, (a couple using only rubber contraceptives). If one of the parties does not agree to the dissolution, he/she has to lump it. - etsi altera pars sit invita.
Under the Title De Dissolutione Vinculi (Dissolution of the Bond) Canon Law of the Catholic Church does not stop here. It carries on with purely civil marriages.
Dr Joe Brincat (2)
Aug 21st 2010, 09:23
Canon Law (CL from now on) 1059 says that when even when one party is Catholic is regulated not only by divine law but also by CL, and by civil law for other effects.
CL1061 - Consent in not enough. Even if two had given their consent at the altar, that is not enough. They must consummate the marriage. If use rubber contraceptives for three years, their marriage is still in suspense. (actum per se aptum ad prolis generationem - an act which can make a woman pregnant).
Now let's say a priest and a nun decide to get married. They opt for civil marriage. Is their consent enough to God ? CL1087 and 1088 say no. Joe Zammit would say yes.
Two have a Gozitan priest as their spiritual director. Is the consent valid is the priest does not get a piece of paper from the parish priest to celebrate their marriage. CL1108etc say that it is not. What if the consent is expressed before a priest but no witnesses ? "God is not asleep" Joe Zammit says. So He knows.
Dr Joe Brincat (1)
Aug 21st 2010, 08:49
@ Joe Zammit. I am not going to say that you are a fundmentalist. I simply say you are wrong, even on the Catholic law on marriage. You have your own religion.
I have read so many of your cut and paste contributions here, and always repeating the "let no MAN put asunder" slogan.
Another statement is that the spouses give their word to God. It is their consent that creates marriage, so not even in civil marriage is civil divorce permissible.
Elsewhere I have written that the Orthodox Church (the "separated brethren" from the Catholic Church if you remember the embrace of Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem) allows divorce "on account of the fraility of man". So I presume that you refer to the Roman Catholic Church. I think you mentioned it a couple of times. Correct me if I am wrong (which you will not do as you do not answer arguments but simply shout out slogans).
In the following parts, I will quote chapter and verse, to show that you are wrong.
david debattista
Aug 20th 2010, 00:39
Joe you are wrong, You should not concentrate on pleasing God but rather you should give God what he wants! Evolved souls That is why he sent his son. A healer and a teacher and is not teaching a form of healing. You will burn in hell for presenting God as some form of a universal dictator. When his son was among us he never told the sick, you are blind, if my father brought you in this world blind then this is how it shell be and i cannot help you. This is your cross and you must carry if for the rest of your life. WE all know what Christ did and above all what he loved doing, healing. Call it what you want , but the church and the state must make it possible for people in a loveless and dysfunctional marriage to leave this enslavement of the soul and spirit or may you all burn in hell for depriving God of what he want , spiritually evolved souls. This is only attainable in a loving relationship when concerning marriage. STOP GENERALIZING !
Joe Zammit
Aug 19th 2010, 20:25
A simple argument:
The end does not justify the means.
Divorce is evil condemned by God.
Therefore, no end can justify divorce.
No MP can vote for divorce without sinning seriously against God. Christ condemned divorce for our own good. Divorce is evil and cannot be accepted for any reason whatsoever.
Mark Piscopo
Aug 20th 2010, 01:36
"Divorce cannot be accepted nor voted for even if it is proved that it is beneficial to the whole society".
The essence of a true fundamentalist.
I am sure that the MAJORITY of Maltese still believe that we will have another chance if a marriage have gone wrong. DO NOT TRY to say that who will vote in favour of DIVORCE are sinners because WHO ARE YOU to judge the people. Hope that you will change your attitude and accept the wish of the majority of the PEOPLE not try to scare them because WE are mature!!
Paul Barrett
Aug 20th 2010, 01:54
Intransigence and outdated superstition is not going to solve the current and increasing social mess that exists for more than a few members of society.
Divorce does not effect a Catholic true to his/her faith should they not wish to apply for or accept it.
I cannot see therefore what personal interest you have in denying others (thats the population of the rest of the world) the chance of happiness and children the chance to be born and grow up in a legal and stable civil marriage.
Claims of sin and of evil mean absolutely nothing unless you are a total brainwashed slave unable to think for yourself outside the box.
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 20th 2010, 07:15
Do you ever get tired of copying and pasting your own illogical posts, even after they are debunked over and over again?
J.Pace
Aug 19th 2010, 18:22
Isn’t there divorce in Italy? Where there is the centre of the church? Why here in Malta we cannot have it, because the church is against it? Just introduce it, it doesn’t mean that a married couple can divorce in few seconds; it is just there for special cases.
Charles Sammut
Aug 19th 2010, 17:36
“If a person repents and goes to confession, all sins can be forgiven. If someone steals from his workplace and during confession promises to stop doing so and redeem the stolen goods, I will absolve his sins and he will be able to receive communion,” That is exactly what is undermining our society. People have now realised how God works. You don't pray to God to give you something. You steal it and then ask God for forgivness. Promises to stop are always broken and the redeeming bit is inevitably postponed.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 19th 2010, 22:30
God does not work in the way you suggest. He demands true repentance as a condition before He forgives. It is easy to fool the priest about any genuine repentance and about any firm determination not to sin again. It won't be that easy to fool God! And He is the ultimate judge.
victor caruana
Aug 19th 2010, 17:02
do you remember during the dark ages when even wishing or dreaming something illicit was a mortal sin. at least all can be rubbed off by confession, otherwise there would not be a single catholic member who is heading for heaven.....jahasra
Dr.Geoffrey Schembri Adami Med.Vet
Aug 19th 2010, 15:50
Part2...yet still persisted in their self-pride&selfishness,refusing to repent,convert&change their ways rather than recur to God’s infinite love&mercy.Jesus who taught:“Blessed are the poor,for they shall see God”,on the morning of His death&passion,refused to look at or speak to the lustful Herod who persisted in his evil.For as St.Peter wrote:”God vomits the proud&the lustful.Those who are in favour of divorce being introduced in our country,especially those who are living in a relationship outside marriage that displeases God,infringing His Commandments,should keep in mind the following words from St.James’Epistle:“Whoever breaks one Commandment is guilty of breaking them all.For the same God who said:‘Do not commit murder’&‘do not steal’,also said:’Do not commit adultery.’Even if you do not commit murder or steal,you have become a breaker of God’s law if you commit adultery,just as much as one who murders or steals.”No one has the right to infringe any of God’s Commandments.That is why divorce is not a civil right,&whoever is in favour of its introduction in our country displeases God.Thank you Msgr.Gouder for living up to your duty,&stating that what is infringes God’s Law is wrong&evil&displeasing to God is,& always shall be,wrong&evil&displeasing God.
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 20th 2010, 07:17
A friendly advice. If you expect anyone to read your posts, use correct word and paragraph spacing.
Dr.Geoffrey Schembri Adami Med.Vet
Aug 19th 2010, 15:49
Part1.“As St.Paul reminds us,all Christians are called to become another Christ,Christ Himself.This means that you have to see things as He sees them&live as He did.Your thoughts,your views,your words,your actions,have to become like those of Christ Himself.In everything you say&do,think:‘If Christ was in my place,what would He do?What would His position be?How would He have done?What I am thinking,saying,doing,does it displease Him in any way?”ST.JOSEMARIA ESCRIVA.Let’s apply these words to what Christ said about divorce:“In the beginning,God created male&female.For this reason a man leaves his parents&unites with his wife,&the two become one body.So they are no longer two, but one.So then,what God then has joined,man must not separate.”(Matthew19:5-6).“A man who leaves his wife&takes another woman commits adultery.In the same way,if a woman leaves her husband&takes another man,she is guilty of adultery too.”(Mark10:12).“The man who takes a married woman whose husband is still alive commits adultery which she too is guilty of.”(Luke16:18)When Herodias abandoned her husband Philip who became insane,&married his brother Herod,whenSt.JohntheBaptist admonished the tetrarch,Jesus praised the Baptist.On the other hand,Jesus did not hesitate to be insolent with Herod,just as He was with those persons,such as the Pharisees,who knew very that what they were doing displeased God greatly....
C. Bonello
Aug 19th 2010, 15:13
Ma noqodux nsibu skuzi li d-divorzju ha jgib iktar firda fiz-zwiegijiet. Nfakkarkom li kopja sugget li tinfired kemm jekk ikun hawn divorzju u kemm jekk ma jkunx hawn divorzju.
Joe Zammit
Aug 19th 2010, 21:21
Hekk hu. Mela divorzju QATT!
Mark Piscopo
Aug 19th 2010, 13:53
@ John Zammit
I am sorry to say that you are living in a blinded way.Kindly note that currently the children are suffering because DIVORCE is not introduced.My family friends and I WOULD VOTE YES for the introduction of DIVORCE because a man or a woman who are separated and are living with other partners who really agree with and love will have another CHANCE and can marry each other, would also be beneficial for their children. VOTING against DIVORCE will be a very drastic thing for future generations!!
Philip Hili
Aug 20th 2010, 09:42
Sur Piscopo,
Mela zwieg hsibtu xi loghba tas-Super Five. Laghabt is-Super Five, ma qtajtx in-numri u allura ma rbahtx u TIEHH CANS IEHOR? U hallina Zep!!!!!!
U jekk terga tilghab is-Super Five biex tirbah u terga ma tirbahx, TERGA tiehu cans ierhor!?????
Haga hi zgur. Li il-fehma tal-ftit ma ghandiex lghelb il-fehma tal-hafna, ghax allura nkunu qiesna annimali, kulhadd jaghmel li jrid u kulhadd jigi jaqa u jqum minn kulhadd.
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 20th 2010, 12:14
Sur Hili,
Mela hsibt li l-hajja tan-nies hi xi loghba, tindahal fejn ma jesakx u tippretendi li tikkontrolla l-hajja ta haddiehor.
Qatt hsibt li fid-dinja (li Malta tghamel parti minnha), hi l-opinjoni tieghek li hi l-fehma tal-ftit? Allura biex nuza l-argument tieghek stess, "Haga hi zgur. Li il-fehma tal-ftit ma ghandiex lghelb il-fehma tal-hafna, ghax allura nkunu qiesna annimali, kulhadd jaghmel li jrid u kulhadd jigi jaqa u jqum minn kulhadd".
Prosit, xbin. Argument tajjeb favur id-divorzju.
Philip Hili
Aug 20th 2010, 14:01
@ Kenneth Cassar
"Mela hsibt li l-hajja tan-nies hi xi loghba, tindahal fejn ma jesakx u tippretendi li tikkontrolla l-hajja ta haddiehor." Min qallek li l-hajja tan-nies hija xi loghba? Dak inti qieghed tinterpretah hekk, ghax hekk jaqbillek. Bhal ma kienu jaghmlu l-farizej meta kien jigi ppriedkat lilhom xi haga li ma kienitx iddoqq ghal widnejhomm - idawruha kif jaqbel lilhom. Anzi, propju ghax il-hajja tax-nies mhix loghba bhal ma pprova jinterpreta is-Sur Piscopo meta qal "tiehu chance iehor"jien staqsejtu jekk iz-zwieg hasbux xi loghba tas-Super Five. Propju f'dak il-kuntest jien xebbah l-ghaqda taz-zwieg ma' loghba tas-Super Five.
"Qatt hsibt li fid-dinja (li Malta tghamel parti minnha), hi l-opinjoni tieghek li hi l-fehma tal-ftit? Jien f'Malta qieghed nghix u xi jsir Malta jimpurtani u mhux xi jsir barra minn Malta. Allura, bl-istess argument tieghek, Malta ghanda tillegalizza l-piena kapitali, l-abort, l-ewtanasja, id-droga u hafna affarijiet ohra ghax dawn diga' jezistu f'hafna partijiet tad-dinja - ghax Malta tghamel parti zghira mill-postijiet???? U hallina XBIN.
JJ Creg
Aug 19th 2010, 12:21
"The Gospel Of Matthew" - The Treachery Of Divorce (5:31-32)
http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/matt/mt5_31.htm
I. THE "TRADITIONAL" INTERPRETATION
A. "WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE" - Mt 5:31
1. This was the "traditional" interpretation of Deut 24:1-4;
handed down orally
2. In applying the Law, they had focused on the idea of giving
certificates of divorce
3. They concluded divorce was permissible as long as a
certificate of divorce was given
Philip Hili
Aug 20th 2010, 10:00
How clever you are Mr Creg!!
It is very easy to quote from the bible or from "The Gospel Of Matthew" the verses and interpret them according to your LIK'INGS.
Now, that you are well versed in the quotes of the GOSPLE, can you quote a verse and chapter from the Gospel that says that divorce is not permitted according to God's law?
Thank you
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 20th 2010, 12:17
@ Philip Hili:
"Now, that you are well versed in the quotes of the GOSPLE, can you quote a verse and chapter from the Gospel that says that divorce is not permitted according to God's law?"
I would leave that to those who argue against divorce ;)
Philip Hili
Aug 20th 2010, 14:52
@ Kenneth Cassar
Those who argue against divorce there is no need to quote verses from the gospel to sound their argument, although there are many quotes in the gospel to which I am not well versed like Mr Piscopo sounds to be.
No Kenneth, if you are in favour of divorce and I respect your opinion do not leave my question put to Mr. Piscop to be answered by someone who is against divorce. Prove your argument by answering my question put to Mr. Piscop.
Thank you
Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi
Aug 19th 2010, 12:16
Here we go again.. the papist church with its guilt trip technique .
Joe Zammit
Aug 19th 2010, 12:04
“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). ‘Fornication’ means the man and the woman are not married together but are cohabiting.
We are living in the New Testament. We follow Christ's words are taught to us by his one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This one true Church of Christ in her 2000-year history has never resorted to divorce because her founder taught her divorce is evil, condemned by God.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without offending God seriously. God does not want divorce for our own good. Let no MP slip on divorce!
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 19th 2010, 15:52
"Fornication’ means the man and the woman are not married together but are cohabiting".
No it does not. Stop "lying for Jesus". If fornication meant what you expect us to believe, Jesus would in effect be saying "No one may divorce except those who are not married". People who are not married cannot divorce, so if anybody ever said that, one would call him crazy - and you would have us believe that Jesus is implying that?
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 19th 2010, 16:23
"‘Fornication’ means the man and the woman are not married together but are cohabiting."
Untrue. And in any case, if what you say were true, Jesus would be saying that only people who are not married and cohabit may divorce. Sounds crazy to me. I'm sure you have misunderstood.
Joe Zammit
Aug 19th 2010, 21:25
Kenneth, Christ condemned divorce without any exception. That in St Matthew is no exception at all. It refers to two persons cohabiting together. In Greek as in Maltese: the word for 'woman' and 'wife' is the same. In 2000 years the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ has never resorted to divorce because Christ said to one and all: what God has joined together let no man put asunder. No exception!
martin saliba
Aug 20th 2010, 01:07
Why do you lie to try and prove a point. Fofrnification means sex between an umarried couple. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication. I'm sure you will go to confession tomorrow
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 20th 2010, 11:51
@ Joe Zammit:
Don't you realise that what you're saying does not make any sense? If the passage in the bible refers to two persons cohabiting together, then whoever wrote that passage must have been drunk. One has to be married to divorce.
Therefore, one cannot say that divorce is not acceptable except in the case of "two persons cohabiting together". Please explain how two unmarried persons can ever divorce.
Are you really incapable of understanding this simple fact, or are you intentionally trying to deceive readers? May I remind you that if it's the latter, it is a sin "condemned by God" (to use your wearied phrase).
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 20th 2010, 11:54
Fornication: voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 20th 2010, 12:03
@ Joe Zammit:
"It refers to two persons cohabiting together. In Greek as in Maltese: the word for 'woman' and 'wife' is the same".
In Greek as in Maltese, the word for "divorce" and "divorce" is the same. So how can divorce refer to two persons cohabiting together, when they are not even married.
To divorce, one has to be married first. Got it yet?
Rudy Sollars
Aug 19th 2010, 11:54
Based on the premise of ‘providing true information’, the argument that divorce would be going against Christ’s teachings appears to be a religious discourse intended to maintain a particular structure of power, and not necessarily a universal Christian position or interpretation.
Research on families across cultures suggests that while Catholic Church does not permit divorce except under highly unusual situations requiring a special dispensation, the Orthodox Church permits three marriages and three divorces and the Protestant churches permit divorce. There are many other examples from other cultures regarding how religion regulates and shapes family types.
On the other hand, some sociologists as well as psychologists do maintain that the increased divorce rate signals the breakdown of the family as a social institution. However, others argue that the increase in divorce rate signals the increased opportunity in today's world for women and men to end a bad marriage and to seek a new relationship built on trust and communication, which is an indication of the continued importance of the family.
These multi-perspectives suggest that although the research on divorce is varied, one should most carefully refrain to get married to merely one perspective - but remain open to many.
Joe Zammit
Aug 19th 2010, 11:34
Divorce cannot be accepted nor voted for even if it is proved that it is beneficial to the whole society. Divorce is evil, condemned by Christ.
The end never justifies the means. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. This applies even if divorce were beneficial to the whole society.
What God has joined together let no man put asunder. This must be the primary reason for refusing the legislation of divorce.
DIVORCE NEVER!
victor pulis
Aug 19th 2010, 13:57
Yawn, snore! cut, paste.
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 19th 2010, 15:55
"Divorce cannot be accepted nor voted for even if it is proved that it is beneficial to the whole society".
The essence of a true fundamentalist.
victor pulis
Aug 19th 2010, 20:45
Divorce cannot be accepted nor voted for even if it is proved that it is beneficial to the whole society.
Incredible! just when you thought Joe has reached the bottom of fanatical fundamentalism he comes out with this.
Joe beneficial means good, the opposite of evil. so how can you be against goodness? you're starting to freak me out now.
Christian Sciberras
Aug 19th 2010, 11:27
Mgr Gouder, hopefully, after divorce the couple would learn the lesson of not wedding again.
That said, the title (and quote) plainly reminds me of the Mintof / Mizbla / Mghatab era.
I sure hope I am wrong. So far, few of the Church's clerics are diverging to this mentality - which is a good thing.
Gouder, on the other hand, gives a completely different impression...
Joe Zammit
Aug 19th 2010, 10:34
Legislating in favour of divorce is grave sin that separates the offender from God and puts him or her on the path to hell.
Legislating in favour of divorce is legislating in favour of evil, condemned by God.
Legislating in favour of divorce is betraying God who tells us that what he has joined together, let no man put asunder!
Legislating in favour of divorce is a diabolical step that pleases only the devil.
Legislating in favour of divorce makes you responsible before God for all the grave sins others will commit on account of your sinful and evil legislation.
DIVORCE NEVER!
wally vella-zarb
Aug 19th 2010, 13:07
Legislating against divorce means denying legal redress to a section of the people to whom Members of Parliament declared loyalty in their Oath of Allegiance, regardless of race, colour or creed
Members of Parliament are elected to safeguard the interests of ALL sections of the population, regardless of race, colour or creed, and NOT to advance the wishes of the catholic church.
As Members of Parliament, their primary allegiance is to the People and to the Republic of Malta, regardless of race, colour or creed, and NOT to the catholic church
People who continually seek to deny access to divorce for those who wish to take that avenue can only be described as the epitome of EVIL.
C. Bonello
Aug 19th 2010, 15:17
Mr Zammit
Pero' mhux kulhadd jemmen fl-istess religjon li temmen fiha inti.
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 19th 2010, 15:57
Legislating in favour of divorce means Joe Zammit will finally give it a rest.
Philip Hili
Aug 20th 2010, 10:57
@ Dear Mr Vella Zarb,
"As Members of Parliament, their primary allegiance is to the People and to the Republic of Malta, regardless of race, colour or creed, and NOT to the catholic church" SO LONG AS SUCH ISSUE WAS DECLARED BY BOTH PARTIES IN THE ELECTORAL MANIFESTO PRIOR TO A GENERAL ELECTION.
Being a PN council member, I can speak for myself from the PN point of view because prior to the last General Election we, councilors were assembled in a Pre-Election Council meeting to approve or deny the Electoral Manifesto of the PN and in that Electoral Manifesto there was not even a single word that indicates that the PN if elected will introduce divorce in this legislature.
Therefore, I am very sorry for Dr. J. Pullicino Orlando to be he, to put forward this controversial private motion. Dr. Pullicino Orlando was elected in Parliament from two districts on the PN ticket to see and makes it his business to see that what WE approved in that meeting be confirmed.
What the councilors of the MLP approved prior to the last General Election, I cannot say because I was not there.
wally vella-zarb
Aug 20th 2010, 11:51
@ Mr Philip Hili
What councilors of any party decide or agree to within the confines of their own party does not interest me in this case as it is totally irrelevant.
The Oath of Allegiance that they take before assuming PUBLIC office refers to their duties and obligations as MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT towards the People and the Republic of Malta. It makes absolutely no reference to what their party agreed or promised to do.
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 20th 2010, 12:20
@ Philip Hili:
Are you saying that anything that is not in a party's electoral manifesto cannot be done if the party is elected in government? Pull the other one!
Philip Hili
Aug 20th 2010, 14:18
@ Wally Vella Zarb.
"What councilors of any party decide or agree to within the confines of their own party does not interest me in this case as it is totally irrelevant." Eh, that's good!! So fruitful benefits such as, tax deductions, increase in wages, cost of living allowance and many other social services benefits are irrelevant to you even though these benefits were approved by "councilors of any party decide or agree to within the confines of their own party"?
Philip Hili
Aug 20th 2010, 14:34
@ Kenneth Cassar
"Are you saying that anything that is not in a party's electoral manifesto cannot be done if the party is elected in government?" You see, again like your prior argument - interpretation of your wisdom. But this time is not based on religion. My answer is NO,
I AM NOT SAYING what you would like to interpret and if you live in Malta, you know that there are some things that were not in an electoral manifesto which were carried out as well as other promises which were not carried out.
Philip Hili
Aug 20th 2010, 15:02
@ Wally Vella-Zarb
Since you are very well in favour of divorce, are you and the rest of you who argue in favour of divorce prepared to share both the financial burden and the social burden of divorce?
H Dempster
Aug 19th 2010, 10:26
Isnt Co Habitation not a sin as well? So why hide behind the church to decide fore or against divorce.
Joe Zammit
Aug 19th 2010, 13:04
Two wrongs do not make a right! Divorce is evil and no one can vote for it without offending God seriously. Cohabitation is grave sin as well and no one can promote or encourage cohabitation, let alone enter into it themselves.
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 19th 2010, 16:00
@ Joe Zammit:
"Cohabitation is grave sin as well and no one can promote or encourage cohabitation, let alone enter into it themselves".
And yet, I don't see you copying and pasting multiple posts for making it illegal. A little hypocritical, don't you think. Beware...you might still not avoid hell-fire if you don't do your Christian duty and start a campaign for making cohabitation illegal.