Divorce: Threatening of spiritual harm illegal - former MP

Philip Hili

May 14th 2011, 00:39

Good one.

ray sacco

Aug 24th 2010, 22:06

@dr.francis saliba:
yes, the definition is correct, but it is, as you said, a definition. and life is not lived on definitions!
as for my fanciful wild allegation that your catholic church admits annulments only for profit reasons, all you have to do is ask one question, does the church do it for free (excluding expences)? you can ask this question to couples who went through long, painful years of disbursement to get annulment!
i mentioned children because the majority of marriages which were declared null had children, not to read some biology and punctuation lessons from a doctor! in these areas, i am sure you are more radiant than me, though i would have been more careful if i had known you were so sensitive about spaces (off spring)!
about mysteries, i was not refering to how babies are born, but to how can the catholic church regard a marriage with children as null, not concieved? i beg you to illuminate us, the less brilliant part of the human race, not with definitions. just answers that make sense. just elementary dear doctor!

ray sacco

Aug 24th 2010, 22:50

@dr.francis saliba:
you challenged the fact that the catholic church is granting annulments for profit, yet you avoided the other three facts i mentioned! 590 annulments in 5 years (average of 3 per week), the stupid reasons for which they are being granted and that couples are seeking annulments becuse divorce is not available! and you want us to believe that the system is not being abused and that annulments are only granted in rare cases with a real cause?!?!

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 25th 2010, 18:10

@RaySacco.

Thank you for admitting that my definition of "declaration of nullity" was correct.

You are absolutely right to introduce children in this discussion because they are the weakest, most innocent and worst hit victims of remarriages of parents after easy divorces. My objection was not for "children" but for your confusion about "conception not being valid" in marriages that had been annulled. "Conception" is valid and very real because it produces children in and out of all sorts of "marriages" and other arrangements.

ray sacco

Aug 26th 2010, 13:34

@dr.francis saliba:
still yet again you avoid the facts about annulment which i wrote about earlier.
that children are the weakest and the ones mostly to suffer, i fully agree. what i disagree is that children do not suffer when parents remarry............they suffer most when their parents go on war path leading to physical seperation. what comes after that trauma whether its legal seperation, divorce or annulment is inmaterial to them!
the proposed legislation in parliament is surely no easy divorce. it is proposed that to file for divorce one has to spend 4 years legaly seperated.
that a definition is correct, does not mean it makes sense. the definition you are talking about was made up by the catholic church, the same church which DEFINED limbo for centuries until it found out it closed down! (how and why has not yet been DEFINED by your church). that is how much your catholic church's definitions can be realistic and reliable!

rgalea

Aug 23rd 2010, 19:46

Another member of the clergy does not agree with the pro-vicars theological view.

did you notice?

who is ( in your own words ) beyond stupidity?

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 23rd 2010, 21:06

I do not represent the Labour Party in any way. I suggest you vote for JPO. I do not want to go into this discussion anymore, because it is all hypothetical, the referendum is hypthetical, a vote in Parliament is hypothetical, JPO presented a Bill, but whether Parliament ever discusses it is hypothetical. I do not want that because of a hypothetical referendum we have a repeat performance of the lacerating experience not only for the Church but also for Maltese society. This time it does not appear that it is one party and the Church, but a cross section, across parties, and the Church.

ray sacco

Aug 23rd 2010, 19:24

@rgalea:
anything goes as long as you have the cash!

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 20:18

@R Galea I did not miss your question. It did not deserve an answer from me. You missed my repeated explanation that a declaration of nullity refers to events that existed at the time when the couple were married and not for subsequent events. Therafter the spouses are expected to stick together "in sickness and in health etc" and if that is not possible to seek a separation - not a divorce.

rgalea

Aug 23rd 2010, 22:11

Thank you for deigning to reply.

I'm perfectly aware of your previous posts regarding annulment and my question was merely intended to confirm the absurdity of the situation that exists in Malta.


You seem to have conveniently forgotten that there is another way out.

If the couple are wealthy enough, they can get a foreign divorce and have it recognised in Malta.

Does this situation seem logical and just to you?

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 24th 2010, 13:32

@R galea

I am not interested in your diversionary "another way out" to circumvent the Church's and Christ's teaching about divorce and whether that way out is logical or just. It is immoral whichever way you look at it.

martin saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 17:37

I have been asking if those that sell condoms are comitting a sin with every sale but noone has answer. A simple yes or no would do. Mr Zammit or Mr, meli maybe ?

martin saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 17:45

maybe you can help me with this one Mr. Meli. You keep ranting on the teachings of the church as instructed by god. I have mentioned time and again ,without getting a reply , the farce where the church maintained and insisted that unbaptised children were sent to limbo only to be told a few years ago that limbo dosn't and has never existed. Can you ever fathom the trauma and distress these unfortunate parents went through in those days ? Have you forgotten that an unbaptised child was collected , as they collect rubbish in a patato sack , by someone sent from the parish church to be taken to be buried in a " mizbla ". They were not even allowed to walk on the pavement with the dead child. Seeing that your church changed its mind on something that itself had invented hundreds of years ago , why should anyone believe what it , and you , are saying today. You have a habit of speaking about evil , if this and those who supported it are not evil then nobody is. One more thing GOD IS BIGGER THAN RELIGION

victor pulis

Aug 23rd 2010, 18:07

The Israelites didn't always win their battles like all other armies they had their defeats and their victories. They spent decades under oppression in Babylon and under the Assyrians. Even the ark of the covenant was taken from them by the Philistines. So there's nothing divine or supernatural in the writing of the history of the Jewish people.All nations attributed their victories to their Gods up to our own time when even a convoy's arrival was attributed to divine intercession .How many convoys didn't get through? The Mosta bomb incident was regarded a miracle conveniently forgetting the fact that the particular stick of bombs all failed to explode and the thousands of churches destroyed all over the world. The list goes on and on

martin saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 16:12

I have been asking if those that sell condoms are comitting a sin with every sale but noone has answer. A simple yes or no would do. Mr Zammit or Mr, meli maybe ?

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 17:00

@RaySacco.

I have already repeated ad nauseam how a “declaration of nullity” differs radically from "divorce" with remarriage. Look it up.

The most probable explanation for any increase in “declarations of nullity” would be an increased public awareness and an increasing tendency to contract hurried “marriages” irresponsibly and without adequate preparation. This would create invalid marriages because of impediments existing but not divulged at the time of marriage. The mentality that, in any case, divorce is always a possibility by proceeding abroad would be another factor.

“Conception was never valid” is your silly statement – not mine. The Catholic Church would actually welcome any Civil Laws that protected the interests of spouses and children born from annulled marriages.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 17:28

@ASciberras.

Jien m’ghandix l-istatistici mitluba minnek u anqas ma ghandi xi xewqa li nitlobhom f’ismek. Ghalija huma ghal kollox irrelevanti ghat-taghlim ta’ Kristu dwar l-indissolubilita’ taz-zwieg. Daqstant irrelevanti huma l-hsibijiet u l-profeziji personali tieghek dwar il-futur.

Naqbel mieghek kompletament dwar l-Alla tal-Kristjanezmu li jahfer u jaghder bla qies. Imma nemmen ukoll li l-istess Alla jesigi is-soghba ghan-nuqqasijiet taghna, rizoluzzjoni li wiehed ma jonqosx u li jevita l-okkazjonijiet li jonqos.. Fil-fehma tieghi, il-bniedem juri intelligenza vera meta jsegwi t-taghlim ta’Kristu fil-Vangelu u mhux meta jsegwi b’ghajnu maghluqa l-merhla tas-sekularizmu modern.

Naqbel ukoll li l-verita’ tista’ twegga’ u tista’ toffendi. imma din mhix l-intenzjoni tieghi.

C Gatt

Aug 23rd 2010, 15:37

I'm no church supporter (far from it) but come on! Mgarr is a very tightly knit community. Far from be shameful, the auction is a brilliant way to keep the church in good nick and allow the Mgarr community to take pride in itself. A church is not merely a building but also a symbol of the community.
I have always admired how this small village is so vibrant, hard-working and enthusiastic. With its small but talented theatre community, and a great community spirit, this is one village that needs to be praised not criticized.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 12:57

@AdrianArcher.

Moses did not "enforce" divorce - he only permitted it reluctantly because of the obduracy of the Israelites. Obviously his culpability, if any, and any punishment for it, if any, would be a judgment in the sole hands of a merciful forgiving God. I do not believe that any theologian worth his salt would hazard a guess just to satisfy your curiosity.

Enough has been said to highlight the radical difference between a declaration of nullity and a divorce. If you refuse to make that distinction nothing and no one would ever persuade you. You can take a mule to the drinking trough but you cannot make it drink

Joseph MELI

Aug 23rd 2010, 14:38

Please note that I was quoting what Pope John Paul ll said and he was referring that members of Parliament that are Christians / Catholic are not expected to vote in favour of these two things. Therefore, that's why they are included together.

Hope that it is clear. But anyway, both things are two different points, but still both go against the catholic religion.

jvella

Aug 23rd 2010, 10:44

Declaring that what was joined before God didnt actually happen"declaration of nullity "is even worse and even more presumptous than dividing what was joined before God!!!No vulgharity was intended or committed,as a Dr you must be aware that the use of under- or in this case overstatement abounds in the english language,maybe a bit too strong in this case for some individuals i grant you that,but Wilde and Shaw are full of phrases like that.Annulment is a very serious step to take but here in this holier than thou country we have relegated it to the level of divorce, a convienent step to take since our legal code recognises divorces granted by foreign courts while our MPs cant get about to discuss it and do something about it.And i stress again it has become a gravy train fot the local curia and tribunal lawyers and some stories you hear are truly scandalous.

rgalea

Aug 23rd 2010, 11:23

What if one of the partners suffers traumatic personality changes caused by external sources after the marriage took place?

Is an annulment granted in this case?

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 11:36

@jrvella
I require valid arguments, not your unsupported opinion, before accepting that a declaration of nullity is “even worse and more presumptous” than an “annulment”. And, whether you intended it or not and whether Wilde or Shaw used similar language in their plays, “b*****y shovel” is a pointless vulgarity in this context that does not enhance the value of your comment.

rgalea

Aug 23rd 2010, 13:12

Can anyone enlighten me as to what happens with regards to annulment in the scenario I outlined in my previous post?

jvella

Aug 23rd 2010, 15:27

If one coarse word was too strong for your delicate palate I humbly withdraw it.As regards valid arguments,what I wrote was my opinion,I never said my word was the undeniable truth,as so many of other ertswhile theologians here insist on doing.If we are going after valid arguments then we have to go back to square one....what God has joined nobody can separate...if that is the thesis then we have to first prove the existance of God....a similar court case re the existance of God was in the Italian courts,I am not making this up.So it all boils down to a complete seperation of state and religion.I believe that religion gives an individual and even a society a structure in life...but a theocracy is a completly different matter.And anyway what we are talking about here is divorce, a legal mechanism which is available in all the states ijn the world except Malta and the Phillipines.Ans have to mention again that the Maltese courts accept and recognise divorces granted by foreign courts.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 09:16

Alla ma halaqx minoranzi u maggoranzi u ma jaghmel l-ebda distinzjoni bejniethom. Il-kmandamenti tieghu japplikaw egwalment ghal kulhadd.

Miguel Micallef

Aug 23rd 2010, 17:13

As long as wearing a nappy and a wig gets you prison time for 'imitating Jesus' or whatever nonsese they managed to come up with, then it should also be that mentioning sin in public is also illegal.

When you attack freedom of speech it works both ways.

B. Cachia

Aug 22nd 2010, 22:07

Don't you understand that the law applies to everyone not to convinced Catholics alone? Why should an Orthodox Christian, to mention one example, be forced to live a Catholic lifestyle when their own interpretation of Christianity is different?

The Church has every right to evangelise and to promote Catholicism and Catholic morality. But it should not attempt to use the law as a means by which to bind others to follow the Catholic path against their will. The law is there for other purposes - mainly to achieve the common good.

jvella

Aug 23rd 2010, 07:14

"what god has united NOBODY can divide"!!!So who are the presumptous creatures who decide whether a marriage can be annuled or not?????Who is so bigheaded that he(of course it can never be a she)presumes to represent God's will on this earth???!!!!!!Why don't we call a spade a b****y shovel and put the spotlight on the annulment scandal,which has become a gravy train for the local curia ,at about E10,000 a shot and depending on family connections!!!!!

R. Gatt

Aug 23rd 2010, 10:16

@ B. Cachia - Prosit...you couldn't be more correct in your argument. The law of the state should respect the freedom of choice of all citizens - be they Catholic, be they not - to live according to one's conscience. It rests upon the individual to decide whether his or her conscience tells him or her to live according to his or her Catholic beliefs, provided he or she is Catholic in the first place. The State cannot be called democratic if it passes a law that is a reflection of Christian dogma, when not all citizens are Catholics and not all Catholics are firm believers! The decision whether or not to follow the Church's teachings lies entirely in the hands of each and every citizen, certainly not in the hands of the State!

charles caruana

Aug 23rd 2010, 10:37

Don’t you understand ‘that the law that applies to everyone’ is legislated by a democratically elected parliament whose view of what constitutes the common good should reflect that of the electorate? You, as a divorcist, have one view of the common good, while convinced Catholics who are by definition anti-divorcist have another. Both have the right to freely promote their views in public and choose the kind of parliamentarians who would enact those views into laws for the public good as they see it. If divorce laws are eventually passed in Malta, shall I accuse you and your ilk of ‘using the law’ to bind me to a view of the common good that I as a Catholic consider as harmful to all members of society, including both pro- and anti-divorcists, irrespective of whether I make or do not make use of divorce? So stop all the balderdash of the Church ‘imposing’ its views by ‘using’ the law of the land. Catholics have as much right as you have to exert public influence in order to change or maintain laws in ways that reflect their values and their view of the common good.

B. Cachia

Aug 23rd 2010, 11:09

@ Charles Caruana: Obviously Catholics are not by definition opposed to divorce legislation, particularly as it relates only to civil marriage. There is nothing inherent in Catholicism that requires one to bind other people by law to follow Catholic norms, as opposed to spreading the truth through evangelisation, leaving people free to choose whether they want to live as Catholics or not.

And, if divorce legislation is passed, it would not be binding you or imposing anything on you in any shape or form. No one will oblige you or anyone else to get divorced. You will be able to continue your life precisely as you do now. It will merely give you an additional possibility which, as a Catholic, you will not need to make use of. No one, likewise, wants to bind you to any specific view of the common good.

charles caruana

Aug 23rd 2010, 12:26

@B.Cachia
‘Obviously Catholics are not by definition opposed to divorce legislation.’ So say you. Obviously you have missed or elided the point of my posting. When and where, have practicing Catholics, subscribing fully to the Catholic Church and its teachings as promulgated by the Pope and the bishops in full communion with him, not been opposed to divorce? Can you imagine in your most wishful of dreams the Catholic Church ever being in favour of divorce, once it claims that divorce contradicts Christ’s express teaching as understood and taught by the Church herself? Only cafeteria Catholics , who wish to choose and pick from the Church’s doctrines whatever suits their whims and wishes are not by definition opposed to divorce.
As for your second paragraph , I invite you to read again carefully my fourth sentence. If I did not believe that the introduction of divorce would radically affect all members of society, ‘binding’ me and you to all the harmful consequences that divorce has wrought wherever it was introduced, do you think that I would oppose it in principle and in practice? Legislated views of the common good ‘bind’ everyone , for better or for worse.

B. Cachia

Aug 23rd 2010, 13:28

@ Charles Caruana: I do not see why you should need to write in a sarcastic tone. I showed no disrespect to your position.

As I said, Catholics need not be opposed to divorce legislation. On the other hand, they are, as you rightly say, opposed to divorce itself and will not use it or advise anyone else to do so. I do not, even in my 'most wishful of dreams' expect the Church or Catholics to support divorce itself, just as I don't expect them to support adultery, which is legal.

The vast majority of Catholics around the world have apparently taken such a position, judging by the fact that divorce legislation has been introduced in virtually all Catholic countries, through referenda or by elected representatives. This was done with the votes of Catholics who made a distinction between divine law and national laws, acknowledging that the latter have a much more limited purpose.

As for the 'common good' issue, certainly the social effects of any legislation concern everyone. That is why it would be useful to discuss this question on its merits rather than on religious grounds.

charles caruana

Aug 23rd 2010, 15:38

@ B. Cachia
Apologies if I came across as sarcastic, no disrespect intended. But once more I beg to differ. Convinced Catholics are and should be opposed both to divorce and its legislation for the simple reason that both harm the common good as Catholics see it, by undermining in the short and longer run the bond of marriage and family stability while imposing heavy social and economic burdens on all citizens, whether pro-divorcists or not.
The opposition of Catholics is based not just on religious grounds but also on civil ones. Catholics do distinguish between divine and national laws, but they are not schizophrenic in following or applying them to their daily life. A distinction does not mean total separation. They are simultaneous citizens of the here and the hereafter, and believing that what they value, choose and do here implies consequences in the hereafter, they have a right and a duty to participate actively in the design and execution of national laws that may have dire consequence, both spiritual and material, on the common good. They do so according to their conscience as inspired and informed by an integral Catholic faith.

B. Cachia

Aug 23rd 2010, 21:46

@ Charles Caruana: National laws and religious precepts do overlap, of course, but the reasons behind state laws are different, they are based on what is useful for society and the individuals that make it up. Divine laws are based on different criteria and are perceived differently depending on one's religious background. Divine laws often go far beyond what would be appropriate for the state to actually enforce. Society would be a utopia if most of its members actually followed divine laws but it would be hell on earth if the state actually decided to impose them by law, as happens in certain theocracies around the world.

Adultery, for example, is prohibited by most religions, Catholicism included. Yet, most advanced countries including Malta do not prohibit it by law - not because they approve of it, but merely because it is not appropriate for something to be prohibited when the costs in doing so, in terms of personal freedom, are disproportionately large in comparison with the social benefits. At the same time, divine law with regard to adultery remains unchanged and the state's tolerance of it is in no way a challenge to divine law.

B. Cachia

Aug 22nd 2010, 22:00

@ C. Muscat: Yes, of course people are being forced. The law applies to everyone, not to convinced Catholics alone. So, if the Church influences the Catholic vote in order to fashion national law on Catholic interpretation of divine law then it is in effect attempting to bind non-Catholics by that interpretation.

If one votes in a referendum against divorce on religious grounds one is not simply stating that one dislikes divorce and wants nothing to do with it. One is also binding other people, on purely religious grounds, to do the same.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 00:22

@BCachia

Yes everyone is expected ("forced" according to you) to obey the laws of the land buit those laws are passed by members of parliament, not by the Church, not by anybody else. The Church is only one of many pressure groups that seek to influence parliamentarians (and members of the public) to form their own individual opinions. It cannot be denied that parliamentarians remain free to be guided by, or to reject, the pressures exerted by the electorate and by all sorts of pressure groups. There is ample evidence, even from our own history, of parliamentarians exercising their privileges and their freedom to continue to pass laws even when deprived of majority support.

C Muscat

Aug 23rd 2010, 11:02

The church is duty bound to convince anyone that would like to be saved to follow its teachings. This type of teaching is democratic and it should be free for all to be able to say his views. I do not take the moral issue of 'divorce' because this is clearly "no to any form of divorce". I take the practical side of divorce because many pro divorce contenders are only mentioning and selling divorce as if everything is going to be fine. In actual fact neither today (without divorce) nor with divorce will it be perfect. In my opinion, divorce will get us worse. Naturally generally speaking because for some it might be a new better life. BUT for these few some, should we introduce something that will be detrimental to families without any problem. One main point that divorce will disintegrate the concept that marriage is forever. Another main point in my opinion is that children with many mothers and fathers will be sacrificed for the benefit of maybe one father and one mother (probably for a small period of time). Naturally, I say my points, you say yours and I hope the most beneficial aspect will prevail.

B. Cachia

Aug 23rd 2010, 11:22

@ Dr Francis Saliba: Of course, Catholics have every right to express their views and to vote as they see fit etc. like any other 'pressure group', as you have said. Could any rational person put this in question?

What I'm saying is that from a Catholic perspective it makes no sense for Catholics to try and evangelise through the law. There are other means to do that.

From the perspective of a citizen what interests me is the common good (however one defines it). Unfortunately there has been relatively little debate about that at all as people have moved to their respective barricades on another, much larger issue, which is that of whether the state should be confessional or secular.

charles caruana

Aug 23rd 2010, 13:50

@B.Cachia
‘From the perspective of a citizen what interests me is the common good (however one defines it).’ I am in perfect agreement with you there Mr Cachia. My strictures about your position is when you allege that Catholics try to ‘evangelise through the law.’ You define the common good as including divorce legislation, and this is why you write as you do in this blog, hoping to influence public opinion in the direction of such legislation. Shall I accuse of secular proselytism through the law? Catholic citizens have as much right as you to influence public opinion and eventual legislation based on it to safeguard the common good as they define it, which excludes divorce. The laws of a democratic country reflect and respect the collective views of its people about the common good. It makes perfect sense from a Catholic perspective to participate and try to influence the whole process. Democracy is about allowing competing views of the common good to influence and decide legislation either directly or indirectly through referenda or parliament respectively.

B. Cachia

Aug 23rd 2010, 15:09

@ Charles Caruana: I agree with your definition of the democratic debate and, obviously, I have no problem with any citizen expressing their views, voting etc.

'Evangelising through the law' referred not to those who may oppose divorce legislation on social grounds but to those who oppose it merely because it is a sin from a Catholic perspective. I do not question the political or legal legitimacy of anyone attempting to evangelise through the law, but I disagree with it and see no reason for it.

Incidentally, I don't see divorce legislation as itself forming part of the common good. Whether it leads to the common good (however one defines it) or not is a complex subject that has been largely ignored. I actually happen to think that it will have a very modest social impact and that the cost of not having divorce legislation, in terms of personal freedom, exceeds any social benefit, if any, that the absence of such divorce laws may currently be producing.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 16:14

@B.Cachia.

Practicing Catholics do not “try and evangelize through the law” – they are not proposing any laws for or against divorce. They express their objection, as they have every right to do, to the promotion of divorce and subsequent re-marriage by new legislation that others are proposing.

B. Cachia

Aug 23rd 2010, 21:28

@ Dr Francis Saliba: Yes, of course, the anti-divorce side is not proposing to introduce a new law, it is rather proposing to keep unchanged a law that does not provide for divorce.

This does not change the fact that some people want to have Catholic morality (or some aspects of it) continue to be imposed on non-Catholics, and on Catholics too for that matter, via our legal system even in a scenario where there is no social justification for this.

Fortunately, over the years, substantial progress has been made in separating church and state. Things like adultery, homosexuality and so on are now allowed, civil marriage exists - unfortunately not thanks to my own party, which has otherwise shaped modern Malta.

Joe Zammit

Aug 23rd 2010, 02:47

If you open the door for divorce, you are opening the door for the second, third, fourth, etc, divorce. If you have failed in the first marriage, you can fail as well in your second marriage which would be no marriage at all since you enter it with the possibility of divorcing.

Steve Pace

Aug 23rd 2010, 13:32

@ Joe Zammit - You really have no idea of what you are tlaking about do you ? If you did , you would understand ;

1) how expensive it is to even legally seperate , let alone divorce .
2) The financial commitments like maintenace and alimony due to an ex wife .
3) Without divorce legalized, some people are simply using the system to their advantage since no law is binding them to any commitment with their partners !

I already asked you the following questions and to date you have not contradicted me. I am now more convinced of my opinion

1) have you ever been married ?
2) have you ever had a relationship breakdown ?
3) Do you ever stop to think what others have to say ?
4) Do you ever see beyond a book and a set of rules ?
5) Do you ever stop to think of the pain people go through reading your comments ?

The answer to all the above is NO...

O. Falzon

Aug 23rd 2010, 15:36

@ JOE ZAMMIT... Your comments make me laugh... Wake up we're living in 2010 !!

Ray Micallef

Aug 26th 2010, 19:00

@ Joe Zammit....are you for real? Of course the second and third and fourth marriage ...ad nasium can fail too! Marriage is a journey with another person through life...life's circumstances change and PEOPLE DO CHANGE TOO...but it doesn't mean that each marriage will fail because by your reasoning then...ALL MARRIAGES WILL FAIL including the first one ever...and this is surely no way to teach and bring up our children!! What I said is there is no one, including yourself Joe (!) that can say that a particular marriage will succeed or fail, NO ONE JOE....well unless you have special powers unknown to all of us here...like the Octopus Paul predicting World Cup match results!!! Hallina Joe! And your further unfounded argument that subsequent marriages are not marriages at all because they would have been entered into under a divorce legal state, well does this mean that you will feel ''unmarried'' (if you are) to your wife because there would be divorce in Malta???...if this is so you are more of a danger to her and society than divorce itself in this hypothetical case!! I say again: divorce IS A CHOICE, ITS AN OPTION in every democratic and free country period!

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 22nd 2010, 14:48

I think that only fools and bigots are SURE about anything. Intelligent people hold flexible opinions that they would willing to change as a result of new knowledge and new experience.

victor pulis

Aug 22nd 2010, 15:04

I gave you a reason why I believe what I believe. you just fitted your assumption round an invention of the church. I won't call you fool or a bigot...It's unchristian. And as for intelligent people... They say self praise is no recommendation

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 22nd 2010, 15:15

I do not think that in Christ's time the term "partner" was in general use as a substitute for a a "stepney" marriage partner. You were either a wife, a putative wife, a concubine or a prostitute. I assume that when Christ used the term "wife" he was referring to a woman who was married or generally presumed to be married - a putative wife.

victor pulis

Aug 22nd 2010, 16:03

There you go again assuming. The putative wife bit was added by you. It's funny, Everytime we find our backs against a wall we start rewritng the gospels and assuming but always in a way to fit it round a tradition. Another example is the debate if Jesus had brothers and sisters. When the invention that relatives were called brothers or sisters was wearing thin another theory was invented. Joseph must have been a widower and the brothers and sisters mentioned in the gospels must have been Jesus' step siblings of course. there are hundreds of such tales.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 22nd 2010, 17:12

@VictorPulis. Up to this very day there are many societies, primitive by modern standards, who apply the terms brother and sister together with other family relationships to a very extended families. I know it from personal experience among those people.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 23rd 2010, 00:46

@VictorPulis

No, I have not "fitted (my) assumption round an invention of the church". I seek to understand the word "porneia" in the WHOLE context of Christ's teaching about divorce, marriage and its indissolubility. I would not feel justified to assign a meaning to "porneia" that runs counter to the rest of the teaching of Christ that is clearly against divorce and in favour of the indisolubility of marriage.

Joe Zammit

Aug 23rd 2010, 02:52

Lynn, are you so gullible? Study the provisions of the law well and you will come with a different version of legal facts about influencing people in their voting. Joe Brincat is trying to impress the fairies around him! Poor Joe. Darbtejn insiru tfal.

Steve Pace

Aug 23rd 2010, 13:37

@Joe Zammit -- For some you can use the expression " darbtejn insiru tfal" For others you may use the pharse "Grow up" ... your call Joe, choose the best one you like !

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 22nd 2010, 13:56

@Victor Pulis.

I have already given an explanation about the confusion of Christ's predictions regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and another prophecy about later events that are still to happen at the end of time.

"The catastrophe predicted by Christ that would happen “before this generation has passed” actually came to pass during the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. By the time the gospels were taken down in written form. in all probability. the destruction of Jerusalem had already become fait accompli'. Unfortunately the prediction of the the destruction of Jerusalem became inextricably linked with another pericope that dealt with the end of the world. This led many early Christians to expect mistakenly an imminent end of the world – a mistake that was corrected by St Paul himself in his letters.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 22nd 2010, 21:05

@VictorPulis

I have read Luke 21: 25-23 and it does not conradict Christ's sitting in judgment on all nations at the end of time. It deals with Christ's second coming and I have already refuted your allegation that this second coming was something that should have taken place during the time of the apostles or their contemporaries.

victor pulis

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:54

In that case should the church accept divorce where adultery has been commited at least?

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 22nd 2010, 13:12

@VictorPulis

I have already explained that there is no consensus about Christ's exception. His original Aramaic word is irretriveably lost. The next most ancient translation uses the Greek word "porneia" and this is variously translated further into "adultery" fornication" "sexual irregularity' etc. I am no authority on the subject but, for what it is worth, I think that Christ may have been referring to any irregularity that vitiated the marriage from its onset, i.e. a declaration of nullity (i.e. no marriage having been validly contracted) rather than a dissoultion of a validly contracted marriage.

Dr Mark A. Sammut

Aug 22nd 2010, 20:20

@ Dr Saliba The word "porneia" seems to have had many translations. Saydon chose "rabta hazina" - but I find that rather confusing. Rabta hazina would seem to refer to vitiated consent. Why then should divorce be used in the same sentence as annulment? It would therefore seem that there are instances in which one may divorce one's spouse according to the Gospels. On the other hand, basing oneself solely on the Gospels would be wrong. One has to see what Tradition has to say. It is Tradition which helps one to find the proper interpretation of the Gospels. What confuses me is that the Orthodox tradition allows for divorce, on the basis of human compassion. The Orthodox tradition is as old as, if not older, than the Western tradition.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 24th 2010, 20:47

@Dr Mark Sammut

Prof Saydon was a biblical scholar of world-wide renown and I would not dare to challenge his translation of porneia as "rabta hazina". I was not aware of Prof. Saydon's erudite translation and it is a great consolation to me that his translation of "porneia" agrees with my own concept.

I do not know if the concept of a "declaration of nullity" (as distinct from divorce) existed at the time the gospels were written. That would explain why only "divorce" was used at that time whereas today the distinction would be made.

Steve Pace

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:35

Probably depends in which context one says it . In his introduction Dr.Brincat clearly explains why it is. I doubt he would have said it, had he not been sure about it .

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 22nd 2010, 09:55

Yes it is illegal and was illegal, committed by whoever. Not one side only. Certain candidates had their able-bodied bullies. I remember many of them, on both sides, in what you call the good old days. The funny thing was that after showing their muscles, these "canvassers" used to meet and drink together, across party lines.

Sometimes they fighting was more with canvassers of candidates in the same party !!!

I can assure you that I never had any such people around me to be my personal "supporters" .

rgalea

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:08

Totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Tommy Vella

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:10

You seem to want the church to update herself by going back 806 years to 1204.
The Maltese Catholics are members of the Catholic church and it is her guidance as our beloved Mother and Teacher, as the good Pope John XXIII called her, that we seek. The Catholic church is guided not only by the Scriptures (the Word of God for those who believe) but also by Tradition (The uninterrupted interpretation, since Peter and Paul, over 2000 years, of that same Word of God).

D Vella

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:36

@Tommy Vella

Noticed you have ignored my answers to your comments(see below) Mr Vella. Any reason,or is it because when outgunned you choose to stat silent and not admit that you may have been wrong?.

In any case you should know that polygamy is excepted by the State of Malta already,a fuller explanation is below if you care to read it.

Luigi Cassar Manghi

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:32

To Tommy Vella: you misunderstood me. The Catholic Church must not go back 806 years, God forbid.

What I am saying, if you read between the lines of my comment, is that it must move on by re-thinking its relationship with Eastern Orthodoxy, who I am sure have moved on by 806 years since they too live in 2010 today.

Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, you know? They accept the Matthean 19:9 exceptive clause to divorce, you know?

To all I ask: which of the two great Christian religions looks more outdated and tied to its rules? On the count of celibacy and divorce the Catholic Church is more orthodox than the Orthodox Church. You better check why the two religions emerged out of the Great Schism. Maybe you will find other reasons why the Eastern Orthodox are ahead of us Catholics.

Priest celibacy and divorce touch one of human nature's most basic human rights, like eating and drinking, and shelter. It is a problem if people fail to understand this.

C Gatt

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:39

Mr Vella's interpretation of the word uninterrupted is very curious especially since the correspondence refers to the schism with the Christian church. Which 'tradition' is the correct one? that of a married Peter who abandons his family or that of a misogynist Paul who would rather not talk of marriage at all? The problem with the likes of Mr Vella is that they refuse to admit that life is complex and that there can be more then one answer to a question. For them The Truth is one. But as Christ told his inquisitor Pilate 'What is Truth?'
This would be amusing if it wasn't for the fact that Mr Vella is a teacher who is supposed to be preparing our youth for the complexities of life. This reductio ad absurdum of complex problems doe snot bode well.

Victor Buhagiar

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:35

I wonder who gave you the right to judge me or accuse me falsely for what happened in the past. Anything evil, is evil. Even judging others is evil.

martin saliba

Aug 22nd 2010, 09:53

@ Joe Zammit. You keep ranting on the teachings of the church as instructed by god. I have mentioned to you time and again ,without getting a reply , the farce where the church maintained and insisted that unbaptised children were sent to limbo only to be told a few years ago that limbo dosn't and has never exisred. Can you ever fathom the trauma and distress these unfortunate parents went through in those days ? Have you forgotten that an unbaptised child was collected , as they collect rubbish in a patato sack , by someone sent from the parish church to be taken to be buried in a " mizbla ". They were not even allowed to walk on the pavement with the dead child. Seeing that your church changed its mind on something that itself had invented hundreds of years ago , why should anyone belive what it , and you , are saying today. You have a habbit of speaking about evil , if this and those who supported it are not evil then nobody is. One more thing GOD IS BIGGER THAN RELIGION.

Joseph Vella (Gozo)

Aug 22nd 2010, 09:55

Joe you must be joking...what if a person is an atheist? State marriage can and should be allowed to dissolve and no church or any other organisation has any right to interfere. The problem in this country is that we can't even see the difference between state and civil marriage.

Steve Pace

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:12

Dear Joe, a few questions

1) have you ever been married ?
2) have you ever had a relationship breakdown ?
3) Do you ever stop to think what others have to say ?
4) Do you ever see beyond a book and a set of rules ?
5) Do you ever stop to think of the pain people go through reading your comments ?


I can guess the answer is NO to all the above.

JOe VELLa

Aug 22nd 2010, 14:30

@Joe Zammit
I promise you I hate to mention old facts but people like you put me in a corner.

We had popes running with their children in the Vatican. Pope Hormisdas son, Silverius was even appointment a pope by King Theodahad, was the pope married? was she his girl friend the one that gave him his son? or was she one of the many doing part time work in the Vatican?
But then talking of sin the church even twisted the second commandment: ''Thou shall not worship false Gods''.
Please I beg you, be real!

Joseph Micallef

Aug 22nd 2010, 16:03

God also loves so much the sinner that he sent his son to die instead of sinners. Now what do you think of that Joe!?

R. Gatt

Aug 23rd 2010, 10:42

Quoting J. Zammit: "Marriage is for ever. This applies also to civil marriages. In all marriages it is God who is joining two together and no man, no State can put asunder what God has united together."

So according to J. Zammit, state marriage and marriage in the church are one and the same thing! What a confused mind!

Mario Psaila

Aug 23rd 2010, 13:09

Dear Joe Zammit, my question to you is very simple: Have you ever stopped to consider that not all Maltese citizens are Christian? Have you ever thought that what your religion teaches might differ from other people's beliefs and opinions? Or are you so blindfolded by your own faith that you assume you know what's right for everyone else?!

You speak about how your god condemns such acts, but you fail to see that you are forcing your religion onto other (or should I say ALL) the Maltese Citizens. For you marriage is the unification of a man and a woman by god, and I respect that, given that the marriage is approved by the Church. But what about Civil marriages? What about marriages of people with different faiths? Why should they fall under the same scrutiny as Catholic marriages?

Divorce should be legalised, and if Catholics truly believe that god is against divorce, then we shouldn't have too many applicants, don't you think? It's that simple ...

victor pulis

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:52

I have come to associate the word abortion with Raymond Bezzina. Not because he condones it, on the contrary, he condemns it, but because in every comment he makes he mixes up divorce, that is the decision by two adults to terminate a failed beyond redemption marriage, with abortion, meaning the termination of the life of a third, innocent, defenceless voiceless being.
There is simply no comparison between the two and being pro divorce doesn't automatically mean that one is also pro abortion.
Mr. Bezzina claims the he is a Roman catholic and he has every right to be. But others have the same right not to belong to his faith or to any faith for that matter. Good and evil are subjective. For instance, is it good to kill? One may answer no but is it right to kill in self defence or in war(Luke 22;36)? Is it good to tell a lie? No, unless by telling a lie you would be preventing some sort of suffering. Finally may I ask Mr. Bezzina if he thinks that only Catholics can go to heaven?

Steve Pace

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:22

You continue to repeat ad nausia the same statements , recycling them from other blogs and comments. People have demolished your arguments to the point they look like a crater. Now you tell us you are more convinced that divorce = abortion mentality. How sad.. truly sad..

Throwing abortion in the subject of divorce only demonstrates your lack of competance and knowledege of either subject .

It is an insult to our intelligence and more than that shows your total dis respect for children who have been murdered.

Raymond Bezzina

Aug 22nd 2010, 16:20

@ Mr. Victor Pulis

With reference to your first chapter, you have the answer in the feature
shown in the website indicated.

You said that good and evil are subjective. Good and evil existed before you and
I were born, and they would still be existing after you and I die. The commandments
are not there for Roman Catholics only, and we all have to do our best to obey them.

You asked me if I think that only Catholics can go to Heaven. The answer is NO.
Not only Catholics can go to Heaven. GOD'S MERCY is there for every human being.
Therefore, the problem of those who do not go to Heaven is their own fault, and
their's alone. Obviously, we need to repent truthfully from our sins, and then go to
make a good confession.

Regarding God's Mercy, study the book entitled " Diary of St. Maria Faustina Kowalska".

rgalea

Aug 22nd 2010, 09:42

Unfortunately you seem to have missed the growing up process :)))))

Victor Buhagiar

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:36

I am glad you have grown up. Good luck to you.

B. Cachia

Aug 22nd 2010, 08:53

@ Joe Zammit: That would be true only if one were legislating to force people to get divorced. As this is quite obviously not the case, your comment makes little sense.

victor pulis

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:56

There he goes again!

Rene A Cilia

Aug 22nd 2010, 07:50

There is no need to turn to foreign productions to see how this man reasons: an examination of all his interventions on Xarabank will be enough since there are over fifteen occasions when the man was guest speaker. Reading and listening carefully would reveal that, not only is the accusation that he speaks of sin (as related to this issue) in threatening tones FALSE, but also that he can, and is, arguing against divorce in purely secular, apologetic terms, using valid statistics to prove his point.

Since evidently The Times is at the forefront of the Pro-Divorce lobby - which, of course, would find no backing from Lord Strickland, given his morals, were he still around - portraying any other opinion in a grim light has become a priority to its employees, doing away with their efforts to not to let the journalists' biases affect his/her writing.

C Gatt

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:50

@Rene Cilia
Ah i see we are now bringing in a secondary tactic : blame the messenger.
All the journalists did was report a statement, a statement confirmed by Mgr Gouder when he released the transcript. Mgr Gouder could have given it a different context if he wanted to but chose not to.
All most correspondents are saying is that giving people the choice of getting divorce is not tantamount to a sin.
I repeat an earlier analogy. Allowing people to handle guns does not automatically make politicians accomplices to murder.
If a Catholic feels that there is just cause for people to apply for divorce ( something the Catholic church apparently also understands in its Cathechism) then it should not be a sin to give his or her permission to the right form of Divorce legislation.
If a system is abused it is the abuser who has sinned not the person who has created the tool. Should we now ban Knives or alcohol because they can be abused?
Like the archbishop, Mgr Gouder could have couched his words more correctly. He (purposely) chose not to.

victor pulis

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:28

Edward one cannot prove that something does not exist. One can only prove that something does exist. In the case of heaven and hell it all boils down to faith, blind faith. As you sid, Science is in a constant search for the truth but in many instances science has already found it like for instance the fact that the earth goes round the sun, that every living thing is made up of DNA. science has uncovered the way our body works and a miriad of other examples. these are proven, undeniable facts. The existance of heaven and hell and indeed God/s rests on faith. Now some are ready to accept faith blindly while some question before believeing or rejecting a religion's teachings. I am talking about all religions here.

Jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 21st 2010, 20:02

Guide US..? WHo exactly is US?

I have absolutely no wish of being guided by the likes of Mr. Gouder

Sabrina Borda

Aug 22nd 2010, 08:07

With advice like that Mr. Gouder is not guiding anybody in the right direction.
He is manipulating people to form his own beliefs based on his mere faith because there is no proof of god's words.
So he is using this method as a form of bullying.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 21st 2010, 20:50

@MGrech

The belief that God will sit in judgment on all nations arises from Matthew Chapter 25. On what grounds do you base your own contrary belief that "God is all loving and will not judge anyone". Surely you do not expect anyone to take your word for it!

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 21st 2010, 21:29

@M Grech

You say “It's only us who will judge our own actions, deciet, failure to love thy neighour”. That is the most ridiculous, most expedient, most self-serving statement I have heard in a very long time. It wrongly assumes that we all have a perfect, well-informed, uncorrupted conscience and that we are all simultaneously correct in all our contradictory evaluations of what is right and what is wrong. You are assigning to each and everyone of us the roles of a perfectly impartial judge, perfect jury and accused all rolled into one and capable of judging ourselves without any external point of reference! How very conveniently self-serving but also and how preposterously incredible!

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 18:56

"If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights".

Did you notice the IF at the beginning? Is that the situation in Malta? And if it is not so should Catholics vote to make it so?

C Gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 19:55

in answer to your question: Is that the situation in Malta?, the answer is yes.

Tommy Vella

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:15

If divorce does not exist here, how can that be the situation in Malta?

C Gatt

Aug 22nd 2010, 11:56

Dear Mr Vella, the 'situation ' referred to is not the presence of divorce legislation, it is situations where 'civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. '
Currently in Malta the legal frameworks we have do not sufficiently protect the vulnerable and ensure certain legal rights.
Is that clear enough now?

B. Cachia

Aug 22nd 2010, 22:22

You keep flogging a dead horse there. We all know that, in the Catholic tradition, divorce is a sin. Forcing or encouraging others to commit a sin is likewise a sin. Rest assured that no one is going to dispute this point.

All of that is quite irrelevant to the discussion about divorce legislation, however. Those who support it are not necessarily getting divorced themselves or encouraging others to do so - and they are certainly not forcing anyone to get divorced either. They simply believe that people should not be forced by law to observe Catholic morality, but that the law should be preserved for a totally different and much more modest purpose, that of pursuing the common good.

I would in fact argue that to attempt to deliberately deny others their freedom not to be Catholics is itself a sin - as it is nothing but a lack of respect and charity towards others - whether they are Orthodox Christians, Protestants or non-Christians.

Paul Barrett

Aug 21st 2010, 19:17

Dear Dr Vet. Your first sentence seems to be in severe scientific doubt. If you are wrong in your first sentence it is hardly worth reading the rest of your sermon.

Jimmy Magro

Aug 21st 2010, 20:32

@Dr Geoffrey Schembri Adami Med. Vet
I suppose you expose your profession to tell us that you are not a clergy. That is very transparent and should be applauded.
But your first quote is taken from a time when divorce did not exist. Hence it is saying that a man takes another woman, or a woman takes another man. When a couple get an official and legal divorce, they are being given the right to remarry and hence both of them (man and woman) are not taking the wife or husband of someone else.
In fact divorce solves the issue; the quote you mention applies when a man still married takes another wife or a married woman takes another man.
Hence it is useless to quote a book that has no recognisiton of divorce. IN Malta we need to change the family law as to seperate between the State and the Church since as things are now the Church is above the State.
A civil dicorce need not be recognised by the Church but couples will have the opportunity to remarry under civil law.

Alex Tonna

Aug 21st 2010, 18:22

Well said !

Alex Tonna

Aug 21st 2010, 18:21

No use David !!! - Joe Zammit is just plain Brain-Washed and has been ably forged to see only Black and White. Telling Mr. Zammit that Reality has a whole load of Grey in between is like offering candy to a goalpost.

Joe Zammit

Aug 22nd 2010, 01:01

And notwithstanding that, Joe Zammit is influencing many people, by God's grace. Dr Joe Brincat's burst of fear itself proves Joe Zammit right!

Joseph Micallef

Aug 22nd 2010, 12:48

Mr. Zammit you certainly have an exagerated high opinion of yourself!

Alex Tonna

Aug 21st 2010, 18:47

Dear Mr Magro,
you may have a point, however if there is need for a change in the official and somewhat outdated framework of the Church, then it is these very priests you condemn that are the only hope for a more progressive and up to date Catholic Church.
There is absolutely NOTHING created in this World that is constant. I am quite sure that we all agree on that. We all live on an imperfect Planet that is constantly changing. Those who cannot adapt, (or just do not want to) are destined to fall on the wayside and perish. I sincerely hope that the Catholic Church will find the necessary strength to adapt to these changes and stop abiding by phrases and laws written by people of a World that doesn’t exist anymore. Because let’s face it, all the “Holy”, “Indisputable”,” Irrevocable” Quotes” written hundreds and even thousands of years ago, cannot ever be considered as relevant today. Then again there are always those people who simply FEAR change .. . C’est La Vie !!!
Stay Well

Sabrina Borda

Aug 23rd 2010, 18:28

There is also one German Pope living in the Vatican in Rome. In Germany they have divorce and in Rome they have divorce. Divorce in Rome and Germany = Divorce in Malta. Their good book is the same as ours too so why not !

Joseph MELI

Aug 21st 2010, 17:59

@R.Gatt::::> Well during the forthcoming General Election hundred or thousands upon thousands of local Voters (Christians/Catholics) cannot in conscience vote for certain candidates in an election for candidates who promote lifestyles or opinion that go against the teaching of Christ and His Church!

It was John Paul II who clearly has taught us in his Encyclical “Evangelium Vitas” that an elected official who is absolute personal not in opposition to the procured abortion or divorce, should be well know to voters.

If they do support such proposals [and a list is being made] which could be aimed at limiting by doing such laws and lessening its negative consequences at such level of opinion or to public morality such as divorce, they are at risk of loosing hundred of votes.

Therefore, these candidates if they want to have votes, they should clearly declare whether they are in favor of divorce or not, otherwise nobody would risk to give them their vote ?

R. Gatt

Aug 23rd 2010, 09:39

@ Joseph Meli [Part Two]: That said, I think that the issues of divorce and abortions are separate issues. Abortion involves the violation of an unborn child’s fundamental right to live – which right is as fundamental and as equal in value to any born human being. In the case of a referendum on abortion, I will vote against the legalisation of abortion because abortion is equivalent to the killing of an innocent human being, because the right of an unborn child to live is as fundamental and as equal in value to the right to live, of any other human being.

On the other hand, the right for divorce is not fundamental to everybody, but should exist in a legal framework satisfying a number of conditions. I agree with you that an MP should state whether he/she is in favour or against the introduction of divorce, so that the electorate can be in a better position to decide whether – in the case that indirect democracy is at work – the MP can vote in a way that enables the electorate to take any decision in life with freedom and as according to his or her own conscience.

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 17:07

I think the debate here is not about whether the Church should show pity and understanding twords divorced people and not condemn them. That goes without saying. Ans it is true for any wrongdoing. The Church's duty is not to condemn sinners but to help them convert.
What we are debating here is whether any Catholic person can be party to something which goes against his beliefs. The parts you quoted from the Catechism are what every Catholic person should hold to be true.
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Can I, as a Catholic, be party to this by voting for divorce when I can vote against?

Luigi Cassar Manghi

Aug 21st 2010, 17:16

According to distinguished Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, divorce is an action of “economia” and “expression of compassion” of the [Eastern Orthodox] Church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account [19:9], allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception”.

Luigi Cassar Manghi

Aug 21st 2010, 16:39

Without exception? Do you mean that Christ was speaking to the wind in his exception clause of Matthew 19:9?

Joseph Micallef

Aug 21st 2010, 16:54

Ok so Catholics can stick to what you said Mr. Micallef. What about others? What about those who married as Catholics and now find themselves detached and have lost their faith? What about Muslims, and other Christians denominations who's version of God allows devorce? OK let devout, convinced Catholics live by the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. But as the name implies, it is the Cathechism of the CATHOLIC CHURCH - and not all other beleifs!

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 21st 2010, 16:59

You mentioned 2382 ......2384 and 2385. Why did you skip 2383 ???

david debattista

Aug 21st 2010, 17:17

G Micallef
The problem in Malta Mr Micallef is that we are so mentally conditioned by the church that for some it seems impossible to understand the true meaning of spirituality, sin, and evil . This is not a question of self professed theologians, more of inhuman and unnecessary suffering and if you cannot see Christ work and examples under such conditions then the church, YOUR church Mr Micallef has failed you, and all of us miserably.

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 16:16

I agree totally. How does permitting divorce tally with this?

Joe Grima

Aug 21st 2010, 17:34

Joe Brincat's sudden flurry of contributions have has become embroiled in a case of different people quoting different verses , each one to suit his own position on divorce. Instead of so many episltles, Joe Brincat should clearly declare himself in favour or against divorce in Malta as Joseph Muscat did on the first day of his election to the leadership of the LP . Most of the rest is just hogwash. From his legal position quoting EU decisions that, according to him, made the granting of divorce in malta impossible to achieve , he has now moved to religious issues which essentially do not concern anybody because the divorce issue is definitely not a religious but a civil one. Relevance rules. ok?

Joe Grima

Aug 21st 2010, 16:14

The "sin" issue is the last straw. The Church is trying to bring back the sixties. If that's the case, let's roll. The beginning of this century will see the church of malta and all the clowning that goes with it wiped out by the pople of these islands, just desserts for an organization that is centures over its sell-by date.

Joseph Calleja

Aug 21st 2010, 15:34

Mr Meli another fine sermon and it not even Sunday yet?

victor pulis

Aug 21st 2010, 15:32

But I'm sure that as they kissed the crucifix or the Bible they were concious that not all Maltese citizens were catholics or believers. Our MPs were not ordained priests Joseph, they are members of parliament and they must cater for every single citizen. Otherwise we wouldn't have places of worship of other denominations on the island. I hope you're not against this too.

martin saliba

Aug 21st 2010, 15:38

It is good to note that people like you and JZ are very mistaken .Do you , and j|Z , after seeing all the negative reaction towards what the leaders of your church are saying , still say that 96 to 98 % of the malteseare catholic ? Baptised yes but catholic not. We will beat you at this so it is better for you to work with us on the way divorce is inrtoduced than against and have no say at all.

Luigi Cassar Manghi

Aug 21st 2010, 16:22

The Church, based on its beliefs, acted CRIMINALLY AND SINFULLY against Galileo. Pope John Paul sought pardon. How do you explain this?

Pierre Sacco

Aug 21st 2010, 21:35

Mr Cassar Manghi, you may be right in part, but Christ never mentioned how our galaxy is made up. At that time everyone thought everything revolved around Earth. So if the Church misjudged Galileo, it was a mistake, and the Church had the guts to ask pardon, time and again, unlike other people and institutions who never even bothered to look at their mistakes, which at times were even more grievious.

C Gatt

Aug 22nd 2010, 12:24

@Pierre Sacco. Itis far from true that everyone thought the Earth was the centre of the universe.
The theory that the earth revolved around the sun was first mooted by Copernicus in 1543 (although he had reached his conclusion decades earlier). Galileo merely confirmed the theory. With his invention of the telescope he provided physical proof of this in 1616.

Unfortunately the Church was keener on using Biblical references such as Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.

I fear that some of our correspondents are doing exactly the same thing.:)

J.Tonna

Aug 21st 2010, 15:27

Mr Tonna - The Church always speak to its followers, as it has the right and duty to do. Those who want to ignore its teachings, it is up to him.

Alex Tonna

Aug 21st 2010, 16:05

@J.Tonna
Does the Catholic Church permit civil authorities to comment or meddle around with their Canon Laws? I'm quite sure that you know the correct answer to that one. Consequently, why should the Catholic Church be allowed to meddle with an exclusively optional Civil Tool? Remember that for all intents and purposes, Civil Divorce cannot be utilised by any practising Catholics and yet the Catholic Church keeps on imposing its dogma onto everyone else.
So yes, as you say, the Catholic Church has every right to speak to its followers about Catholic matters; however, it cannot be left to interfere in Civil Laws as well. If the Catholic Church is again successful in forging our Civil Laws (as it used to be in centuries past all across the continent) then we will now open the floodgates for other Religions to do the same.
Dear J.Tonna, may I ask you as question? :
Simply because they are in contrast to Islamic “Sharia Laws”, we should now allow our local Imam to mess around with our proposed Civil Divorce Laws as well?
I hope you see the Light !!
Stay Well

victor pulis

Aug 21st 2010, 14:27

Ghalkemm hawn min jitlaq mill knisja ghal ragunijiet ta' pika jew ghax ikun inqaras, hawn ohrajn li jkunu waslu li jitilqu wara hafna snin ta' riflessjoni u osservazzjoni. Jigifieri mhux kull min jitlaq mill knisja jerga lura anke fil punt tal mewt. U hag'a ohra, din l-idea li kull min ma jemminx li hemm xi entita tikkmanda kollox hu xi xxellerat, jghix hajja laxka jew jaghmel il hazen hi idea zbaljata. Jien sempliciment nipprova nghix hajja tajba ghax hekk suppost u ma nemminx u ma nahdimx biex meta mmut immur niehu premju. Jekk, meta mmut hemm vera premju cert li alla jiggudikani fuq li nkun ghamilt u jkolli mertu quddiemu izjed minn min qed jahdem biex imur igawdi.Dak egoismu mhux qdusija.

Philip Hili

Aug 21st 2010, 17:54

@Victor Pulis

Bizzejjed Sur Pulis.

B'kitbietek tajt xiehda li dak li ghidt hu kollu - speci ta' suppervja, - BLUFF , ghax diga' bla ma qallek hadd tajt lill minn jahseb li inti temmen li HEMM xi haga ohra ward din id-dinja.

victor pulis

Aug 21st 2010, 19:09

Qed turini li ma fhimt xejn milli ktibt. U miniex sorpriz. Qisni lqatt xi nerv bl-ahhar sentenza!

Fr Joe Borg

Aug 21st 2010, 13:48

Dear Dr Brincat, my disagreement with Mgr Gouder is of a theological and pastoral nature. Your argument, on the other hand, is a legal one. The Constitutional expert I spoke to this morning told me that your interpetation of the law is incorrect. Now that I read Art 55 as reproduced by you I also think that your interpretation of the law is mistaken. Mgr Gouder did not threaten to inflict any spiritual injury. He just said what, in his opinion, would be the natural and logical effect of a certain action in the political arena on the moral arena. All our actions have moral conseqences. Pointing them out is not a threat. You refer to the Church-MLP agreement. If my memory serves me right it refers to "il-Knisja ma timponix id-dnub il-mejjet bhala censura." Mgr Gouder did nothing of the sort.

Dr Joseph Brincat

Aug 21st 2010, 14:24

Although your answer was a bit convoluted, I understand that you would not have said that, for theological and pastoral reasons. You seem to be more in agreement with the Archbishop. Good.

I have already answered another post. I did not say that at the present moment there is an actual violation. But if there was an officially proclaimed referendum or election, then it would be.

Was the agreement Curia-MLP written in vacuo ? It referred to electoral, and now referendum decisions. As to the advice that you had from a Constitutional lawyer, why not invite him in this debate ? We can trash the issue on a parity basis.

You mentioned the word "pastoral" in your reply. That is the way to go !

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 21st 2010, 13:39

If there was an election or a referendum, officially declared to be held, there could be the offence. But there is none now.

The Times has, in the same breath, mentioned the statement of the Archbishop. "I would not mention sin". I am waiting for a reaction from Fr Joe Borg whether his statement that he does not agree, or has not agreed, with Mons Gouder on voting and sin, applies to this case as well, if a referendum were to be held.

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 15:50

Then maybe, according to you, since there is a Muslim minority in Malta we should enact a law permitting polygamy.

D Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 16:02

@Tommy Vella

Study the Islamic religion with regard to marriage and wives, and then come back here and apologise for your ill thought out,uninformed remark

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 16:30

I have an open mind with regard to learning. Illuminate me because I am at a loss. I will apologise if there is cause for apology.

D Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 17:38

@Tommy Vella.Let me state that I see nothing wrong with polygamy provided all the parties on both sides concerned agree without threat or coercion
It is the case in Islam if a man takes a second or third wife he must be able to take care of her/their comfort and well being equally,otherwise under Islamic law he cannot marry. In any case if all parties agree to this arrangement,what is so wrong with it?. Mohammed although married for a long time to one wife also took on a number of other women who had lost their husband for one reason or another in order to look after their worldly needs. It is no different to a woman who loses her husband and then marries his brother as used to happen in Malta not so very long ago,and still though rarely, happens now.
When all said and done polygamy is practiced so rarely that for you to use it as an excuse to deny minorities their right to divorce is rather underhanded .Sensationalism at it's worst.It is for this that I asked you to apologise.

Divorce and Polygamy are two very different subjects. Malta isn't a Theocracy.

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 18:01

I do not see any reason for apologising.
I was taking your argument: (Yes to rights of the minorities.No matter what creed or none,race or sex you are. You are a human being and as such entitled to the right to chase your own happiness without interference from any one and thats includes the Roman Catholic Church), to an extreme to show you that it is not tenable, otherwise we will have to legislate for every single need of every person living in Malta.
In a society the law has to cater for the common good, without trampling on the rights (when they are rights) of any minority.
I am against divorce bcause as I already quoted before and as the Church teaches, "Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society" (CCC 2385).

D Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 18:25

@Tommy Vella
The disorder comes when love turns to hate,despising the very tile your parner walks on.The disorder comes when a child sees his parents ranting and raving and hitting each other and the child is made the pawn to be used against each other. Disorder is when one partner would rather stay out all night than go home.Hate is when you are in a relationship you can't get out of or when your partner is having an affair with another and like it or lump it you have to put up with it,Disorder comes when all you can think of to get out of a bad situation is pick up a knife and end it one way or another. A civilised society should and must have a civilised solution and that is divorce.Take it from someone who knows Mr Vella,I was that child in the middle once.

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 18:40

I agree with you and you have my sympathy for being such a child. I know other children, products of broken homes, I have met them in my forty-plus years as a teacher, and I have touched their problems with my hands.
How is divorce going to solve these disorders? Isn't the picture you painted also found in all the countries where divorce is permitted?
Don't you think that by introducing divorce we will only be propagating these disorders?
First we open the door for desperate cases only, then little by little, over the years the door's gap will be widened and we will find oursleves engulfed by problems that get more complex.

D Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 19:03

@Tommy Vella

All I can tell you is that the only time.as a child, I ever came anywhere near a normal childhood is when my parents separated and finally divorced. Only then did I feel secure enough to have friends,go to one school as opposed to being transferred from one to another depending on where one parent or another lived. For the first time in my life I didn't have to put up with their fights,their total dislike of each other.Christmas began to be a joy and I was able to see a World beyond the horrible one that I had believed was the norm till then. My mother was able to lead a decent life,damaged as it was.My father too.Both of them became decent human beings again. Mother because of her religious upbringing did not remarry and led a lonely but quiet existence,but happy in her independence and what a success she made of that. My father,because of all that went on during his marriage,didn't bother remarrying , he swore he never would,but lived peacefully with a partner into old age and finally death.Through divorce both managed to save something out of what was a miserable existence

D Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 19:19

@Tommy Vella

At least in those Countries where divorce is permitted,there is a legal remedy to the problem of a bad marriage.As a teacher you must know how badly a child is affected by a disturbed home life.

I know that divorce is an imperfect solution,but it is a solution and all in all the only one that has a reasonable chance of letting people,children included move on.

The mistake would be to open the door to desperate cases only. That will definetely,as you say, lead to many more complex problems. It really has to be that once a couple have decided to opt for divorce,then it must be given. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to find a better solution beforehand.Of course they should. Divorce is and should be the final solution when no other can be found.A benovelent Church should understand and while not exactly jump for joy must know that no one ever marries with divorce in mind,and when a couple take the decision to go their separate ways do it's best to support them through what is a very difficult and traumatic time.

C Gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 20:11

Mr Vella's comments are worrying especially as a teacher . Malta already recognises polygamy
The Hague Convention harmonizes different marriage laws, the Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages, ......entered into force on 1 May 1991. Article 9 of the Convention holds that, “A marriage validly entered into under the law of the State of celebration or which subsequently becomes valid under that law shall be considered as such in all Contracting States, subject to the provisions of this Chapter.”[1] In short, one Contracting State must recognize a marriage legally performed in another contracting state. Currently only three states (Australia, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) have ratified the Convention.[2] Another three (Egypt, Finland, and Portugal) have signed it.[3] One of the reasons that the Convention may have so few Contracting States is that states have long observed the principle of comity which has been defined in the United States as the “recognition that one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to the international duty and convenience and to the rights of its own citizens who are under the protection of its laws.

D Vella

Aug 22nd 2010, 08:23

@Tommy Vella

In view of the above comment from Mr.Gatt,I really do think you should withdraw your first remark re polygamy.I admit that I wasn't aware that Malta recognised any form of marriage,as long as it's lawfull in the State of celebration. There you are,what you are so scared of is already here and hasn't affected you or anyone else unduly ,now has it?. To be scared and dismissive of the unknown is not a way to move forward and create a better life for all.That is really why politicans are elected in the first place,though they tend to forget it in the run for votes. Lack of information is a dangerous thing wheter it's in the hands of Politicians and/or Priests .What's also strange ,with all these lawyers commenting and reading all this stuff we write,that not one of them has seen fit to put us right on this subject except for Mr Gatt. Wonder why?

Tommy Vella

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:21

I do not see any apology due.
There is a difference between recognising a de facto situation from another country and going into that situation in your state. Why doesn't C. Gatt (if he is a man) try to marry more than one woman here in Malta?

C Gatt

Aug 22nd 2010, 12:13

@Mr Vella,
I really don't understand your reasoning. Why should I marry another woman (especially if i am a man!!! LOL). I was merely pointing out that Malta's legislation already allows for polygamy in certain situations. If I were Muslim and I did marry more than one person in a Muslim country (assuming that i can afford it, the Muslim religion is very strict on this point), then the Maltese authorities would have to recognise those marriages.
Again what Mr Vella does not understand is that marriage is not 'natural' but a civil structure created by society and this can change. All the religious stuff is an added bonus for believers only.
Which goes back to the answer to your question can the Maltese state recognise polygamy. And the answer is that in certain cases yes. And what is more, there is nothing stopping a state to recognise polygamy or polyandry at a later stage. Let's face it many of the Old Testament prophets were polygamous. Abraham had three wives,King David at least 8, Moses 2, and Solomon seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Society changes according to its needs

martin saliba

Aug 21st 2010, 13:19

@ Joe Zammit. You keep ranting on the teachings of the church as instructed by god. I have mentioned to you time and again ,without getting a reply , the farce where the church maintained and insisted that unbaptised children were sent to limbo only to be told a few years ago that limbo dosn't and has never exisred. Can you ever fathom the trauma and distress these unfortunate parents went through in those days ? Have you forgotten that an unbaptised child was collected , as they collect rubbish in a patato sack , by someone sent from the parish church to be taken to be buried in a " mizbla ". They were not even allowed to walk on the pavement with the dead child. Seeing that your church changed its mind on something that itself had invented hundreds of years ago , why should anyone belive what it , and you , are saying today. You have a habbit of speaking about evil , if this and those who supported it are not evil then nobody is. One more thing GOD IS BIGGER THAN RELIGION.

Alex Caffari

Aug 21st 2010, 13:37

Seriously now Joe... Do you actually believe that repeating your diatribe day in and day out and many times over in the same article makes your statements any more convincing than the first time you made them? Enough already!!!

Perhaps you are just trying to convince yourself by the power of self-suggestion.

YAWN

victor pulis

Aug 21st 2010, 14:33

Cut and paste, a very big yaaaaaawwwwwnnnnn! please can't you come up with something new every once in a while?
I'm starting to suspect that you gt a commission for every annullment!!

D Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 13:09

tried AD yet Mr Galea?.Alternativa Demokratika. There is an alternative voice.

Philip Hili

Aug 21st 2010, 13:33

"If the church will keep imposing on the people to vote against, i believe that the church will lose more and more followers. One of the is myself. I already feel out of place in church and more and more after this issue. Many others feel the same like me".

Mr. Galea, the chruch is not imposing on people to vote against divorce. The church is doing what she is supposed to do. If you feel sick and you go to a Doctor I assume that you adhere to his professional advice and if he prescribes a certain medicine I am sure that you take the medicine your doctor prescribed. Why? Because you have faith in your doctor because he is the proper person to heal you - physically. If you seek an advice of a lawyer, I am sure that you obey his advice.

Rudy Sollars

Aug 21st 2010, 13:32

correction: ...the corruption of reason by 'original sin'

Christian Sciberras

Aug 21st 2010, 12:19

Ernest Vella - Ma tisthix iddawwar kliem il Knisja? Liema Bibja qatt indahlet fuq votijiet? Tieghek?

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 21st 2010, 12:45

Skuzi, jien ma qed nitkellem ghan-nom tal-ebda Partit. Dan kollu beda bl-abbozz ta' JPO, jew le ?
Il-ligi tar-referendum ghamilha Partit iehor li qatt ma kont fih jien. Rega' emendaha fl-2002.

Fiha Artiklu 10 jinghad li L-Ordinanza dwar l-Elezzjonijiet tapplika.

Din l-Ordinanza fl-Art 55 tghid hekk. (se jkolli nikkuppja mill-Ingliz) : "Every person who directly or indirectly, by himself or by
any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make
use of any force, violence, or restraint, or inflicts, or threatens to
inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual
injury, damage, harm, or loss upon or against any person in order to
induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on
account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at
any election,.....shall be guilty of an offence of undue influence "

U mur staqsi meta dahlet din il-ligi ? Fl-istess zmien tar-Repubblika, meta kienu vvutaw ghaliha miz-zewg nahat.

M. Fenech

Aug 21st 2010, 13:20

Mela hsibt li ghadna fi zmien l'inkwizizzjoni, jew fi zmien l'interdett? Hadd m'ghandu dritt jinqeda bir-rikatt morali biex jinfluenza decizjonijiet civili. Minhabba nies bil-mentalita bhal tieghek, hafna u hafna nies tbieghbu mill-knisja. L'anqas l'awtoritajiet tal-knisja ma jghamlu kummenti bhal tieghek. U jekk int daqshekk konvint li dak li jghaqqad Alla ma jhassrux il-bniedem, ghandek dritt tahseb hekk, pero kun nisrani ta' veru u RRISPETTA L'OPINJONI TA' HADDIEHOR! U jekk jirnexxilek, tkun immaturajt ftit. Hawn hafna nies ibghatu, u minhabba l'EGOISMU ma jistghux jiehdu opportunita ohra bhalek.
Mhux ta' b'xejn KRISTU qalilkomOQBRA MBAJDA!

patrick zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 12:10

Ha Ha Ha or as they say today LOL.

Emma Xerri

Aug 21st 2010, 12:36

The Chuch DOES recognise the aspect of the Civil Union whether they tell you or not. They are just being coy or more bluntly, untruthful.

When I got my Church Annulment in Malta before the famous 'agreement' made by the PN Government in Malta that gave the stamp of legal approval to Church Annulments, I was personally told by a Monsignior high up in the Curia, that although for them, i.e. the Church, I was now single, he would not be able to marry me to my new boyfriend since I was still legally married. At that point I was perplexed (I was still young and naive) and he added that the Church wedding is only a ceremony good only within the Church and holds no water legally. Furthermore, he said without a Civil Divorce, I would be committing bigamy at law and the Church would be complicit and held accountable. Since I was luck to have been a returned immigranat, I was soon back on the plane to my adopted country to file for Divorce. When I told my Divorce lawyer about my Church Annulment he said, 'Do not even mention it to the Judge, it means nothing".

S. Camilleri

Aug 21st 2010, 13:54

Exactly. That is the whole point that narrow minded individuals fail to grasp. Divorce is about legislating the civil marriage to provide both a net for the weaker members and a formal structure as to how this is to take place. It can never dissolve the Spiritual Union because for those who chose to be members of the Church, the introduction or otherwise of Divorce is and should remain an irrelevant issue.

Philip Hili

Aug 21st 2010, 14:01

@ Prosit Ms Xerri.

Ma stajtx tkun preciza aktar mill kont.
Tant il-knisja fgharaf iz-zwieg civili li fejn qabel, wara c-cerimonja kont tmur fis-sagristija biex tizzewweg bic-civil, issa dan kollu qieghed isir fuq l-artal, quddiem il-mistednin kollha.

U hallina sur Vella. Tharbix qabel tkun cert, biex tghid xi haga u tkun bhall-ohrajn.

GVella

Aug 21st 2010, 14:38

@ Mr Hili

What you are referring to is something else, namely the concordat which was signed in 1993 between the Maltese State and the Church whereby the civil effects of marriages celebrated in Malta according to the canonical norms of the Catholic Church are recognised by the State from the moment of their enactment by the Church. However, this is not reciprocal. In other words, two parties who contract a civil marriage are not considered to be validly married in the eyes of the Church and hence living in a state of fornication.

Mikiel Sciberras

Aug 21st 2010, 16:10

@G Vella

That still does not change the fact that the Church RECOGNISES Civil Marriage Laws. The fact that there was a Concordat changes nothing of this fact. It is just a way to make things easier for couples since most marriages in Malta are held in a Catholic Religious rite. If the majority were of another religion, the State could also sign such an agreement with them too.

And whether the Church recognises those married with Civil Law ONLY is irrelevant to both the Law and to the parties married thus, since it is obvious that they either do not appertain to that particular brand of religion, or do not care one iota, and therefore, “fornication” notwithstanding, what the Catholic Church thinks holds no relevance or bearing in their lives.

Philip Hili

Aug 21st 2010, 18:41

@Mikiel Sciberras

Of course that the Church recognizes Civil Marriage Laws. The Concordat mentioned by Mr. Vela was not intended to make the Church recognizes the Civil Marriage Law. As stated by Mr Vella, the concordat was signed in 1993 and prior to that date All marriages in Malta were conducted by the Church - no civil laws existed by then. When the state introduced the Civil Marriage Law it goes without saying that the parties involved, in this case the Church and the State had to reach an agreement (concordat) where the state recognizes the act of marriage of the church and the church recognizes the act of marriage of the state a (sort of a reciprocal agreement ).

Emma Xerri

Aug 22nd 2010, 01:01

@ Philip Hili

I beg to differ - Civil Marriage existed in Malta way before that time you mentioned. When I obtained my Church Annulment, as explained earlier in my post above,(this was in the 1970's) the Monsignor told me that even in Malta, I was still married and bound by civil law, therefore he recommended I go to a country where Divorce was available and get my legal marriage dissolved there Even my late parents who married only in the Church obtained their records of marriage from the Public Registry - meaning that their Church Wedding was registered as a contract under Maltese laws even way back in the 1950's.

One thing is for sure, no country can afford to let religions run amok and concoct their own laws - if that were the case then the State should give them the whole kit and caboodle and let religions also take care of all criminal and civil cases and wash their hands of the Judiciary. But it will never happen, because the laws of the State are sovereign and trump all rules and regulations based on religious laws, whether these be marriage, theft, or murder.

Raymond Cachia

Aug 22nd 2010, 16:54

@ Philip Hili Of course Civil Marriage existed before 1993! I know plenty of people who got married at the Registry in Malta many years prior to this date. The Marriage Act was enacted during PM Mintoff tenure in the 1970's and has been in force ever since. The Concordat that you mentioned is just as Mr. Sciberras said, and agreement to facilitate proceedings at Church weddings - nothing more. PS: I have also attended two weddings of my cousins in the 1960's at the Protestant Cathedral in Valletta, so please do not tell me that all marriages in Malta were held in the Catholic Church. These weddings were legally registered in Malta.

Charlene Bonnici

Aug 21st 2010, 12:07

See you in hell then Mr Zammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rgalea

Aug 21st 2010, 12:24

Did you bother to read the contribution by Fr.Borg on this comment board ?

You would realise that there is no agreement even within the clergy about voting and sin.

Cilio Bugeja

Aug 21st 2010, 12:27

Legislation in favour of divorce....is a CIVIL RIGHT everywhere in the world exists except taliban Malta and the Phillipines!!!

martin saliba

Aug 21st 2010, 12:37

So you are sdaying that those that sell condoms are commiting a sin with evey sale made.

Guido Farrugia

Aug 21st 2010, 12:53

So be it Joe. I'm a sinner, so what. It's purely my business and nobody elses' your repetitions are becoming the joke of the day, can't you see the obvious?

Joe Zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 12:54

Any help of whatever nature to sin is sinful. No one can help others in their evil doings. Helping others in evil is sinful, of course venial or grave according to the type of evil. Divorce is grave evil condemned by Christ. So anyone, whoever he or she is, who votes for divorce is committing a grave sin that leads him or her to hell. We must see what the Catholic Church teaches, not what a priest says. A priest who does not reflect the teaching of Christ and his one Catholic Church is not worth his salt!

Philip Hili

Aug 21st 2010, 14:27

@ Charlene Bonnici
Le ta!! l-anqas fl-infern ma rrid nies li jirragunaw bhalek, ghax imbaghad tibda tghidli kemm qegha thoss BARD!!!!!!!!

Philip Hili

Aug 21st 2010, 14:19

@ George Mangion
F'dik is-siegha, kollox jinqalgha. Luzarju, talb lil Santa Rita, lill-Madonna tal-Mirakli, lil San Gorg Preca (forsi lil Dan izjed ghax Malti bhalna u jista' jghaddi kelma!) u kemm aktar. Haga hemm tajba li l-Hallieq ma jafx ighid - issa troppo tardi Xbin kasbartni bizzejjed, ghax anke fil-pont tal-mewt taghna jghatina c-cans biex nikkonvertu u jahfrilna 't-tawwig li konna ghamilna, divorzju u mhux.

victor pulis

Aug 21st 2010, 14:52

@ George Mangion
Picture this scene if you will;
An old woman in front of St. Peter outside the pearly gates.
St. Peter:
What have you to say for yourself?
Woman:
I lived a life of pain due to my husband who beat me to a pulp every day, beat our children, got drunk, spent all our savings on women and wine.
Then I divorced him and remarried a man who loved me and raised my children as if they were his own.We spent forty glorious, blissful years together facing the good and the bad until a moment ago.
St. Peter:
You evil woman! you said you divorced your first husband? it's eternal damnation for you.
Going down!
Sounds silly doesn't it?
Of course it is. It's fiction every which way you look at it

Joseph Calleja

Aug 21st 2010, 18:06

@ Victor Pulis
Mr Pulis your story might be fiction and I have no idea what happened after the woman's death and not changing too many things in your story, I happen to know another woman personally that went through exactly the same episode you mentioned. Yes she found happiness and true bliss with her second husband. And her new husband respected her kids as much or more than their own dad did. So divorce can be a good thing and that's a fact. I am sure there are priests and nuns that left the church and are now very happily married. But it skips my mind, that's not a sin?

Jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 21st 2010, 12:35

And concerning propoganda, I guess the Church is the ultimate expert...so Joe Borg knows what he's talking about....

Ramon Mizzi

Aug 21st 2010, 13:06

Dear Fr Joe Borg, even your comments are clouded by bias as a priest everyone knows what your agendas are mate.

Philip Hili

Aug 21st 2010, 14:36

@ Fr. Joe Borg.
You are 100% right.
"It is very clear that the pro-divorce journalists of The Times are letting their bias cloud their journalistic duties. It is very clear that they want to push their agenda independently of the norms of professional journalism."
Who at "The Times" is concerned please note!!!!!!because journalists please a section of your readers but displease the other section which is majority of your readers.

Pierre Sacco

Aug 21st 2010, 13:48

Well said Mr Tonna!

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 11:38

I do not think that anybody, much less Mons Gouder, is saying this.

rgalea

Aug 21st 2010, 11:40

no

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 21st 2010, 11:55

No. Art 40 (1) "Il-persuni kollha f’Malta ghandu jkollhom libertà
shiha ta’ kuxjenza u jgawdu l-esercizzju liberu tal-mod rispettiv
taghhom ta’ qima relg[juza."

This is a fundamental human right under the Constitution.

M Borg

Aug 21st 2010, 11:36

No Mr. Zammit, the truth is that the Church is intolerant of any other religion or way of life which does not fall into it's teachings. The church has every right to decide to not recognise the state's divorce and therefore not allow it's members to remarry within it (and they are also free to leave the church).

However, the church has no right to impose on me, a non-catholic, it's teachings and regulations.

The state represents a collective that is the Maltese people, it is made up of Catholics, Jews, Atheists and people from other religions, and therefore the state must take a secular stance in all it's decision making.

rgalea

Aug 21st 2010, 11:38

It seems the pro-divorce lobby are doing their very best to intimidate the church to keep silent in matters which are part of its core teaching. This is what I call fake democracy where citizens are prohibited or limited to speak against anything which goes against the Eurpean liberal socialist creed.

There is a big difference between trying to silence an opponent and opposing his argument.

Can you spot the difference?

To silence the church would entail denying access to the media and prohibiting sermons in church.Do you see any evidence of that?

How exactly are citizens "being prohibited or limited" in expressing their opinion?
Have you been pressured into not writing on this comment board?

Engage brain before putting keyboard into action.

rgalea

Aug 21st 2010, 11:38

It seems the pro-divorce lobby are doing their very best to intimidate the church to keep silent in matters which are part of its core teaching. This is what I call fake democracy where citizens are prohibited or limited to speak against anything which goes against the Eurpean liberal socialist creed.

There is a big difference between trying to silence an opponent and opposing his argument.

Can you spot the difference?

To silence the church would entail denying access to the media and prohibiting sermons in church.Do you see any evidence of that?

How exactly are citizens "being prohibited or limited" in expressing their opinion?
Have you been pressured into not writing on this comment board?

Engage brain before putting keyboard into action.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 21st 2010, 12:04

"This is what I call fake democracy where citizens are prohibited or limited to speak against anything which goes against the Eurpean liberal socialist creed."

In previous posts I was in complete agreement with Dr Francis Saliba, that the Church has a duty and a right to teach what is right and what is wrong. Not only on divorce, but also on any other law, which is no longer debated. Adultery is no longer a crime. But has the duty of the Church stopped because it is no longer a criminal offence ?

As the European Liberal and Socialist creed, I laughed. Pier Ferdinando Casini, the last remnant of Democrazia Cristiana in Italy, which campaigned for a "referendum abrogativo" of the Fortuna-Baslini divorce law, is now one of the president of the "Christian right". So is Berlusconi. When Pier Ferdinando Casini left his wife, divorced and remarried. Berlusconi, no need to mention. Bertinotti, far left, D'Alema, left, Dario Fo and others who were in favour of divorce legislation maintained their belief in their marriage. Laughable no ?

MSciberras

Aug 21st 2010, 12:05

The core teaching of the Church is alot more than a list of dos and donts. I am a committed Christian and am horrified by Mons Gouder's comments. I may never resort to divorce, but this is about allowing people who do not share my views to live their lives according to their wishes. I also do not subscribe to any notion that Maltese society is somehow any better for not allowing divorce as opposed to to every other country in the west that does. I wish life were so simple! This is not about intimidating the church. The church, or those who say they speak in her name, have never been prevented from speaking their mind in Malta. This is about Mons Gouder being wrong - very wrong - when he calls my wish not to impose my views on others in matters so personal and fundamental as family life and marraige a sin. The real church in Malta and everywhere else is the many who do their works of charity and live their lives quietly, unobtrusively, humbly - theirs is the loudest and most effective voice. False theoligians like Mons Gouder threatening fire and brimstone undermine the Church.

J.Tonna

Aug 21st 2010, 11:47

If someone tells you that a certain street is a 'one way' will he be threatening you??

Telling the facts is no threat but a clarification. For those wise enough to understand.

patrick zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 12:36

When voting for anything, be it a general election or a referendum, one should be free to do that without any fear of any threats. If I'm not mistaken, that is the law.

We are discussing voting and not the wisdom of traffic regulations.

C Gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 11:09

The words where taken out of context? How so? Mgr Gouder was kind enough to publish the extract verbatim in both this paper and another. It seemed v clear to me.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 21st 2010, 11:36

Why for some Mgr Gouder represents the position of the Church more than Archbishop ? The Archbishop is positive about the duty to promote good marriages, stability and even the sacred character of the marriage bond. Working along those lines, he is doing a great service to society, not only to the Church. Who threatens with sin, is negative. Certainly you remember the episodes of the Pharisees and sinners. Christ, in whom I believe, was positive.

On abortion, the question is different. Which is the victim ? The unborn. I made that position clear in the Council of Europe when there was the discussion about the rights of the child. My question was that when should those rights start. Has the unborn child the right to life ? I always mention the case of former PM Giuliano Amato. He canvassed for abortion in Italy. Later both he and his wife regretted it. The heinous character of abortion should be evident to all religions and to all men who consider themselves human. What if their mother aborted them ?

Raymond Bezzina

Aug 21st 2010, 13:55

@ Dr. Joe Brincat

Dr. Brincat,
Please permit me to rephrase my second question of my previous comment.

Would you say the same as what you have said in the first three paragraphs
of the above mentioned newspapers' article, if the issue was abortion and not
divorce ; because the one of the six points agreed between the Labour party
and the church, as published above, does not speak on any specific issue,
but it is in general.

Please do not think that I am trying to be selfish or sarcastic, but it is a genuine
question.

Charles Grixti

Aug 21st 2010, 12:52

That is exactly right Mr, Lowell. And the Statistics in other countries are even higher. Here in North America over 90% of Divorce petitions are sought by women. Which means that it is mostly women that are dissatisfied with marriage (and their men) when they find out it is not what t it was cracked-up to be, especially if they are stuck with a violent and abusive husband.

And I contend that this is the REAL reason that the Church is against Divorce, not because of God or the Gospels, but because it is against women, their freedom, independence and choice.

victor pulis

Aug 21st 2010, 15:09

I have alread mentioned this fact in a previous comment. The world has changed since Jesus said those words 2,000 years ago. In his time women were second class citizens (read Genesis 16; ...And thou shalt be under thy husband's power and he shall have dominion over thee) today's woman is independent and free from her husband's 'dominion' some women have better jobs than their husbands. it is in this light that the divorce issue should be seen. The traditional family is no more. For better or for worse, progress has caught up with us. The church can be hard headed and procrastinate over this but ultimately divorce will be introduced in Malta.

Joe Zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 11:43

J. Brincat seems to reflect someone of the same name! The person to whom I am referring is understanding me very well. Mgr Gonzi did what he had to do and we bless him for what he did. The Catholic Church will continue to speak out. Persection will only strengthen her as it did in the 60s where the great majority of Maltese and Gozitans backed Mgr Michael Gonzi. J. Brincat, nota bene, if you still have any salt left in your mind!

Josephine Bugeja

Aug 21st 2010, 12:58

@Joe Zammit: apparently your knowledge of history is either severely limited or hugely biased. To say that Archbishop Gonzi's imposition of mortal sin strengthened the Church is a crass miscalculation. Archbishop Gonzi was a fundamentalist who did not read the times he lived in when the sexual revolution was raging and still insisted on antiquated parameters of censorship and sexual mores. The threat of hell, whether constitutional or not, and here I agree with Dr. Joe Brincat, is a form of pressure harking back to the middle ages. I trust that the number of Maltese still scared of hellfire is now limited: it may still be large enough to tilt the balance nonetheless. The Enlightenment bypassed Malta more than two hundred years ago. If divorce is not enacted fast, we risk remaining medieval even in the 21st century. Divorce will come sooner or later and no amount of hysteria on your part will halt its progress. Tardare si, scappare no. History will judge harshly those politicians opposing divorce. Quoting the holy scriptures is ludicrous. For non-believers, they are a collection of mythological writings with the same value as the tales of the Hydra and the Medusa.

c Gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 13:02

@ J Zammit
"salt in your mind"???? You a re obviously a very well read man. ROFL

patrick zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 11:22

"I also think that even condoning and remaining SILENT on such an issue would constitute a sin."

Does this also apply to the bishops and other high church officials who did just that in the case of paedophile priests?

David Spiteri

Aug 21st 2010, 11:31

You are wrong Mr. Debono. Voting for divorce is not a sin. Voting for divorce is a vote in favour of civil rights. Divorcing is a sin (according to the church). Thanks to Mgr.Gouder, the church is again trying to instill fear other than preach for love and union.

Also please stop with the nonsense of stating that divorce breaks marriages. Marriages break a long way before divorce, and divorce is only the result of such a break. People aren't so naive that once divorce is in, they just file for one for the sake of it. Also I concur with JPO to introduce divorce with the irish restrictions and not the 'Las Vegas' type.

Leave the judgement in the hands of God. You, me and Mgr Gouder do not enjoy such a privilage.

J.Debono

Aug 21st 2010, 15:22

@ David Spiteri

As a Roman Catholic I believe that divorce is morally wrong and does spiritual and social harm. So, since I truly believe this, how can I ever vote in favour of anything that according to my belief would be wrong and harmful to others?! That would be a truly unmerciful act towards my neighbour. And yes, this and other factors would constitute a sin.

David Spiteri

Aug 21st 2010, 16:01

I'm a Roman Catholic my self too, but my moral conviction says that I cannot impose my beleifs on others. If divorce is introduced, it's not something imposed on you, but you use it only if you want and should you need too. A no vote to divorce is a yes vote to status quo which means cohabitaion and the social problems it trails.

J.Debono

Aug 21st 2010, 19:14

@ David Spiteri

Two wrongs will never make a right.

My moral conviction says to place all my trust in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to pray that I shall have the strength to follow Him all the days of my life.

Philip Hili

Aug 21st 2010, 19:17

@Anton Portelli

To threaten means "thedded". As from when, when one says the truth is threatening? If I tell you that if you swim to a certain point at sea you are at risk, am I threatening you? I just said true facts, now it's you choice. If you want to go there, you are at liberty to go there, where you are at risk. If you do not go because you listened to what I told you, you are safe.

Whoever consider the statement of Mgr. Anton Gouder a threat is because he/she does not like the truth. After all, Mrg. Anton Gouder said only the truth nothing but the truth.

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 10:56

Mons Gouder never said that "Practicing Catholics have any right to force non-Catholics not to accept divorce"

He simply said that for Catholics it would be a sin to vote for divorce. If it ever comes to a referendum, non-Catholics as well as Catholics will have to go by their conscience. This being a democracy the will of the majority will prevail, but the will of the majority isn't always the best option.

Jimmy Magro

Aug 21st 2010, 10:59

The time for fundamentalism is over. At least we should not enter into that form of state here in Malta when we are already surrounded by fundamentalism across the Mediterranean.

The Church is an institution and once it is led by ordinary people the question of divine rights and duties does not arise. We do not need to enter into the long history of the Church where mistakes have been made. We also need not go too far as we still read about the series of child abuse around the world by Roman Catholic clergy and people higher up in the establishment.

Would I be going too far to ask whether these deeds were Divine too?

Let the Church do its part. But let the State do its part too. Using the tool of the sin to influence people is wrong. We have this life to live and the citizens must be given the remedies to make their life better. We must have confidence in our democratic institutions as otherwise we become an outlaw state.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 21st 2010, 11:20

Historically I read it before you did. I was there during the drafting of the amendment which changed the original text in the Independence Constitution. I know what it says and what it means.

I agree with this : "“I would put it in a different way. If he is a committed Christian and Catholic, I think his main preoccupation would be to promote those things he believes in. I would not mention sin,” (Not me, not Mgr Gouder, but the Archbishop). Before reading the Constitution read the article.

c gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 11:07

So how does the church then deal with separation? Is that not also the breaking of a contract?
The church seems to have painted itself into a corner with no exit strategy.
I can fully respect that the church has a right and duty to expound on theological points, but i start despairing when I realizes that they really haven't thought through their conclusions.
The ten commandments are very clear about the sin of adultery, not so about divorce. How can the church, or any other correspondent conclude that everyone who gets divorced must perforce remarry. I suspect statistics would offer some surprises, i.e. people who prefer never to get married again.

I am also v amused when people refer to 'natural law'. Who and what is this? Many societies think it is 'natural' to be polygamous. Many animal species require several partners to ensure strength for the species, others tend to prefer one partner. Are these not 'natural'. Is it impossible to conceive that some people are not made for long-term monogamous relationships. After all it has been happening since the dawn of time, so perhaps it is 'natural' after all!

Charles Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 11:01

Some people and institutions are above the law in Malta. The police did not prosecute in the case of gross overspending in the MEP electoral campaign, either.

It that case, it was not only electoral law that was broken, but money laundering law as well. Someone who spends hundreds of thousands of Euros on his campaign is duty bound to declare their provenance. It does not do the credibility of the police much good when they will go to town with someone caught with €10,000 at the airport and yet turn a blind eye at someone who spends half a million euros on his electoral campaign. Never mind declaring "NIL" income and spending €17,570.69. Magic.

patrick zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 11:31

Yes, they will, just as they did in all those cases of paedophilia committed by priests and those who “perverted the course of justice” by protecting the same priests.

Tommy Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 10:21

the duty of an MP is to put aside their personal religion and act in a way to respect the needs of the minorities.

A christian is always and everywhere a christian. Being elected a member of parliament does not deprive you of that fact. Catholic MPs cannot "put aside their personal religion and act in a way to respect the needs of the minorities", if those needs are in conflict with the MPs beliefs.

patrick zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 11:35

T Vella

Wrong!

I do not like hunting, so according to you, if I am an mp, I can pass a law banning legal hunting as I am convinced that hunting is harmfull to biodiversity, cruel etc.

Tommy Vella

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:27

No, I am not wrong.
Yes, you can try to ban hunting if you are against it, as you can try to pass any law that you feel like passing. Isn't that what Jeffrey Pullicino Orland is trying to do, in a private member's bill? Of course the problem would be to gather the support of the majority of the members of parliament needed to pass the proposed law through.

Joe Zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 10:16

Mr Debono, Joe Brincat is forgetting that Christ forbids us, including MPs, to resort to divorce. He is forgetting that he can appear suddenly before Christ to be judged by him.
Christ will judge him on the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, and I hope it wont be too late, then, for him!

Charles Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 10:27

Ironically, after joining the EU, AIDS cases doubled, we have been invaded by criminals, corruption has been put out of the reach of Cikku l-poplu and only available to the well heeled. Our jobs are being taken by immigrants, legal and illegal.

Seems like the MLP was right on this one and yours was a bad choice of example.

C Gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 11:17

@Charles Sammut.
Please explain how joining the EU has increased AIDS in Malta??? Perhaps you have some scientific research we should all know about. Are STD's transferable through EU legislation? And what invasion of criminals have you seen and how did this happen through us joining the E?

But your best line and I quote "corruption has been put out of the reach of Cikku l-poplu and only available to the well heeled". ah the good ol' days when we could all corrupt with a few pennies. Now it is i only the rich that can afford to corrupt others
ROFL

rgalea

Aug 21st 2010, 10:31

Perhaps you need a little physics 101.

Echoes fade with time to zero amplitude..... ie...they dissipate to zero energy.

At the very least get your metaphors right.

david debattista

Aug 21st 2010, 12:39

Mr Joe Zammit could you please tell us what you do, what is your work !
Mr Zammit your statements are mistaken and I can prove it , seriously I can prove that you are mistaken and misinformed in your arguments but first tell me what work you do.

D Vella

Aug 21st 2010, 12:41

To those of us who remember the strife and hatefull snide sermons,the ever constant bells ringing if you dared to say a word.The priests who wouldnt confess you,the communion you were forbidden,the funeral you weren't allowed to have,the burial in the mizbla,the hate sown between families,the distrust between neighbours,the violence, the spitting on people with a different opinion to your own. brother and family fighting against family and brother. To those of us who remember the interdict and all that and to those who should be reminded of all that, remember all this everytime Joe Zammit and his likes open their mouth. They must never be allowed to trample over people and minorities the way they trampled over us then.

Yes to rights of the minorities.No matter what creed or none,race or sex you are. You are a human being and as such entitled to the right to chase your own happiness without interference from any one and thats includes the Roman Catholic Church.

Anton Portelli

Aug 21st 2010, 14:22

Mr zammit you and your beloved monsignor are drumming the upbeat for the next politco creligious crusade like the one of the 1960s but this time people are less gullible and superstitious so you will and those fundamentalist fanatics like you would do your catholic church a bigger favour by closing your mouths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What you are preaching is purely taliban fundamentalism and you are scaring more faithful away by your intolerant attitulde. Live your holy life and let others live their life.

Kat Gauci

Aug 21st 2010, 10:26

And who would make sandwiches for her after her hard day at work? If anything, they should make the sandwiches together.

Miguel Micallef

Aug 21st 2010, 11:09

Or he makes the sandwiches then they make something else together :)

Jennifer Cosaitis

Aug 21st 2010, 13:40

Which century are you living in Mr Gauci ? There would be less demand for divorces is less chauvinistic males like you existed on the face of this earth Mr Gauci, but then again, you wouldn't know. More females are graduating from University than males for example, but we're only good for making sandwiches in your world. U hallina!!!

d. borg

Aug 21st 2010, 14:43

Yes better keep this type of opinion for yourself. If the man wants a sandwich, he can make it himself, especially after a woman's hard day, more so, if it includes a day's work and then taking care of house and family. Wara kollox par idejn bhal taghha ghandu.

Timothy Gauci

Aug 21st 2010, 22:25

@Jennifer Cosaitis

Obviously you're not only good for making sandwiches, let's leave it at that.

Raymond Cachia

Aug 22nd 2010, 01:19

@ Philip Hili

Of course Civil Marriage existed before 1993! I know plenty of people who got married at the Registry in Malta many years prior to this date.

The Marriage Act was enacted during PM Mintoff tenure in the 1970's and has been in force ever since. The Concordat that you mentioned is just as Mr. Sciberras said, and agreement to facilitate procedings at Church weddings - nothing more.

PS: I have also attended two weddings of my cousins in the 1960's at the Protestant Cathedral in Valletta, so please do not tell me that all marriages in Malta were held in the Catholic Church. These weddings were legally registered in Malta.

Charles Grixti

Aug 22nd 2010, 01:30

According to UN Statistics, women perform 3/4 of all the work done in the world. This applies to each country, both in the First and Third world! Therefore your chauvinistic statement is clearly false and what you should have been proposing instead is that husbands come home and prepare a four-course meal for their hard working wives, then wash the dishes, take out the garbage and give her a nice leg and back massage. Then maybe you might 'get some", nudge, nudge, wink wink!! Then and only then maybe the divorce rates will start to go down.

K.Anastasi

Aug 21st 2010, 10:26

Yes that is exactly it.... most religions are mass control mechanisms nothing more nothing less. They can quote a God they have never seen.. so that to control you by fear of sin and hell. Bit like the donkey and the carrot. : )

l.theuma

Aug 21st 2010, 11:06

Oh! What an oracle of wisdom!

K.Anastasi

Aug 21st 2010, 18:20

Not wisdom.... but history.

Charles Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 10:21

Qed thallat il-hass mal-gass.

rgalea

Aug 21st 2010, 10:27

well.......why don't you enlighten us?

rofl!

Miguel Micallef

Aug 21st 2010, 11:06

I think this was more of a MOMENT OF STUPIDITY :)

Raymond Cachia

Aug 21st 2010, 13:12

Somehow I very much doubt that in this scenario, you would still be thinking of ways to be a busy-body and meddle in other people's private life.

And when are people going to face the fact that there is no hell or heaven, but just religions lies.

We decay and rot like other animals and if we have had children, only are genes are immortal and we only live on through them. Come to grips with these natural facts, otherwise you will sorely be dissappointed.

vicrtor pulis

Aug 21st 2010, 15:21

Are you asking us or are you going to answer your own questions?

G Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 09:45

Voltaire

Paul Debattista

Aug 21st 2010, 09:53

Yes Mr ALBERT FENECH. Mons Gouder was threatening Catholics by saying that they will commit a sin if they voted for divorce. This is how it was in the 1960's. At the time, more than 50,000 people disregarded the Church and voted Labour. If it tries it now like Mons Gouder is doing the vast majority will disregard it. As Dr Brincat said this is considered as a corrupt practice in trying to influence the way voters vote by putting pressure on them because of their religious beliefs.

C Gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 09:54

The objections to the Mgr's comments is that implicit in them is a manipulative lie. Whilst adultery is a sin, divorce technically is not. It is no different to separation except for clear legal structures to help sort out a mess.
So, even more so, how is my indication of approval in favour of divorce legislation a sin. It is like saying that because I give my MP approval to enact legislation which allows possession of guns, suddenly makes me guilty of every murder that takes place after the legislation is introduced. Just because a tool may be dangerous, it does not necessarily follow that it should be banned.
I'm beginning to feel that the Mgr's comments were intended to buck up the faithful. It feels very much like a last hurrah!

Charles Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 10:02

Ahh, yes but the Church is going beyond expressing an opinion. It is threatening its "fidili" with eternal damnation if they vote in favour of divorce. That is the equivalent of a government threatening the electorate with life imprisonment if they don't vote the way it wants.

Of course, Anton Gouder himself provided the way out. Vote in favour and then go to confession. Since you would not have stolen anything, there will be no restitution required.

I find it sad that in the 21st century, in a supposedly enlightened country, people still need an anachronictic prop like the Catholic Church to shore up their moral judgement.

sciortino m

Aug 21st 2010, 10:05

The problem is that if you have a different opinion from that of the Church, the Church will send you to hell rather than defend your right to express a different opinion.

rgalea

Aug 21st 2010, 10:09

@Albert Fenech

Can't you see the distinction between a warning and a threat?

The law seems to be very clear on what constitutes interference in the democratic process and there are damn good reasons why it should be so.

The usual argument about the church not being able to express it's viewpoint is patently false.The church does indeed broadcast it's opinion freely, how else would be hearing about it if it was not so?

What is unacceptable is religious doctrine directly attempting to influence a civil matter.This is unacceptable in a secular state.

Moreover it seems the members of the clergy do not even agree amongst themselves as to whether a pro divorce vote constitutes a sin ....or perhaps they don't agree on the "political" use of the "sin" card.

I might be wrong but I tought that particular quite you used is attributed to Voltaire not Rousseau.

Dr. Mark A. Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 10:30

The mental attitude attributed to Voltaire (not sharing the same opinion with someone but allowing them to say it nonetheless) is fundamental to democracy. Even if based solely on this axiom, it follows that the Church has every right to divulge and explain her teachings.

In Malta, it would seem that the Church has not only the constitutional right but also the constitutional duty to teach what is right and what is wrong.

But Dr Brincat seems to be arguing that the right (and duty) to teach does not imply the right to "threaten" spiritual harm.

If I understand Dr Brincat's reasoning correctly, it stems from the notion that the only entity which can legitimately and with impunity threaten others is the State.

Nobody outside the State can threaten others - independently of the nature of the threat.

Dr. Mark A. Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 10:31

Thus, the Criminal Code can threaten anyone with imprisonment if a certain behaviour is proven; but nobody else may threaten anyone else.

The question is whether warning someone they are about to commit a sin amounts to a threat.

Possibly, the threat is twofold and implicit. One threat could be in the sense that if you commit a sin then you will be duly punished on the Dies Irae. The other could be more mundane, in the sense that there is the implicit threat that social sanction will follow.

Dr. Mark A. Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 10:31

In a sense, social sanction amounts to spiritual harm, as it affects the addressee of the sanction on a psychological level. Also, the social sanction depends entirely on human will and actions. Excommunication or interdiction are a very direct manifestation of such a sanction, and the removal of the excommunicated or the interdicted from the spiritual community - a veritable spiritual exile - can be a dreaded situation for the person involved. This implicit threat seems to fit like a glove, it seems to be what Dr Brincat is referring to. The threat of excommunication or interdiction for those who are viewed as committing a sin by voting one way not the other, is illegal, and rightly so. The illegality would stem from the electoral context. In other words, it would seem that the same "threat" would not be illegal in another context.

Dr. Mark A. Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 10:31

4/4

About the illegality of the other implicit threat - namely Divine Judgment - I am not so sure, as it does not depend on the Church. In other words, the Church is advising people: if you do not follow God's Law, God will punish you. The threat does not depend on the will and actions of the Church, but on the will and actions of God. I would think this is not illegal. Unless God is made subject to the laws of Man.

Anton Portelli

Aug 21st 2010, 10:22

"The Church has the right to teach and defend its doctrine. This right applies too to every catholic person. This is a Constitutional right too. "
But the church and catholics have no constitutional right to impose their beliefs on those who never or no longer believe in catholicism.
Introducing divorce in Malta like the rest of the EU and almost the rest of the whole world except the Philippines will not be imposing anything on catholics.

NOBODY WILL BE FORCED TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE OR HUSBAND.

HAVING A DIVORCE LAW WILL ONLY HELP THOSE WHO HAD A FAILED MARRIAGE AND WANT TO START A NEW LIFE WITH LESS DIFFICULTIES AND MORE SECURITY.

Divorce law is not a compulsory law like the Income Tax Laws or the VAT Laws that everyone has to abide by them whether you like it or not.

So please let us stop all this catholic intolerance and have a divorce law as quickly as possible. WE HAVE LOST TOO MUCH TIME ALREADY!!!!!!!!!

Anton Portelli

Aug 21st 2010, 10:24

AND LET US NOT GO BACK TO THE 60s. or even more back to the times of the inquisition.

Ramon Mizzi

Aug 21st 2010, 13:04

Yes it has, but it has no right to bully the voters either Mr Darmanin.

victor pulis

Aug 21st 2010, 14:08

Shades of Joe Zammit's statement that only catholics can go to heaven. That leaves over 5/6 of the world's population out, or worse burning in hell as there's nowhere else to go!

Joe Zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 10:21

The Catholic Church survived 300 years of persecution and ended up taking the very centre of her persecutors in the Vatican! The Church gets its force, power and authority from Christ. Who can withstand Christ? Joe Brincat who will soon appear before Christ! The Catholic Church has spoken and will continue to speak out the truth in our Catholic islands and in the whole world. The truth will make us free.

Charles Sammut

Aug 21st 2010, 11:09

@ Joe Zammit

The Catholic Church survived by preying on the ignorance, fears and superstition of the people of the time. It used (and still does) teach that those who die for The Church go straight to heaven, baptism of blood, they call it, much like the Islamic 'martyrs' of today believe. Only in Islam they have introduced an added incentive, once in paradis, 72 virgins at your disposal, or if you are so inclined, 72 pearly boys, take your pick.

Marius Zulgis

Aug 21st 2010, 11:12

@ Joe Zammit
What about the multitudes who were persecuted, tortured and put to death by the catholic church's inquisitors such as Tomás de Torquemada and his ilk? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
Did the Church gets its force, power and authority from Christ or is this merely a selective statement? Please do clarify.

eugene sapiano

Aug 21st 2010, 12:54

No one has mentioned the Dogma of Papal Infallability...only introduced when the church found itself threatened by the revolutionary class. Thousands if not millions of people who challenged the dogma found themselves excommunicated. Some years ago one of Europe's leading theologians, Hans Kung also challenged it but he was not excommunicated.

We must not forget that today is 2010 and not 1870.

C Gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 09:47

But was the Mgr, in fact, expounding the church's teachings? He is saying that the my accepting that other people should have the right of divorce if they want it is a sin.
Let's look at another example: should a Catholic accept that a Muslim man have more then 1 wife or is acknowledging the fact a sin.
Should a Catholic allow people to smoke even though it is common knowledge that smoking does considerable harm to the body ( the temple of Christ).
There is a fine line between the personal views and the public needs and the two should not be crossed

Joe Zammit

Aug 21st 2010, 10:06

Tommy, Joe Brincat is trying to impress, but only the air around him! The Constitution of Malta tells us that the Catholic Church has the right to teach what principles are good and what principles are wrong. Voting for evil. like divorce, is evil and a grave sin. This is one of the principles the Catholic Church has the right to teach far and wide.

Anton Portelli

Aug 21st 2010, 10:09

If the Maltese Constitution gives the catholic church such rights the Constitution should be amended straight away to bring it in line with modern times and in line with other EU constitutions.

Manuel Mangani

Aug 21st 2010, 11:58

@C. Gatt. I don't think your analogies hold water. A Catholic should not endorse divorce not because whoever chooses to divorce commits sin, but because of the negative effects of divorce on the common good.

C Gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 12:32

@mangani. How does one assess the 'common good'.
If we are going to say no to divorce on the basis of the evil it possibly can cast on society, then technically we should also ban marriage.
Just as we can point at people who, having been divorced, have moved on and are happily remarried, we can speak of marriages which are still in force but causing terrible damage and pain to the respective families and therefore the 'common good'.
Everyone acknowledges that divorce is created out of a need. The assumption made by the anti-divorce lobby is that such a need stems from selfishness and therefore concludes that divorce is evil. If only! Relationships are complex, each with its own story, and have ever been thus! Divorce is a tool (some would say a blunt one!) that helps rectify mistakes. After all not all marriages are made in heaven! Without such a tool, v often it is the vulnerable who suffer having no legal recourse. It show a lack of charity on the part of the church to assume that all divorce proceeds from selfishness. It is a pity it cannot come up with more persuasive arguments.

C Gatt

Aug 21st 2010, 12:40

Also @mangani. Again , I fail to see how the act of divorce as opposed to separation is going to impact in any way on society. If society has already accepted the possibility of separation then how much greater will the introduction of divorce have on the common good.
If partners are already having children out of wedlock, how does the introduction of divorce make that any different?
Are we perhaps not exercising the popular Maltese sport of Ostrich Head in the Sand. Are we afraid that divorce will make official what we already know but refuse to accept?
The church has every right to tell its followers that marriage is for life and see how you are going to work out your problems. But governments are there to see how society is functioning, recognise society's needs, regulate and legislate accordingly and in particular protect the vulnerable The current legislation does very little in this regard.