The Church’s stand on divorce (2)
This is a response to Pro-Vicar Fr Anton Gouder’s position in an interview on RTK, where he claimed that notwithstanding the fact that it is a sin to vote in favour of the legislation of divorce in a referendum, one is absolved if s/he confesses his/her sin. I will argue that it is the Church’s right to promote this kind of doctrine to its members and it is the individual’s right to feel free to decide whether to abide by these sort of teachings or not. My idea of democracy permits such impositions by religious institutions on those who choose to form part of them. This is as long as religion refrains from manoeuvring for greater control on political decisions which are meant to lie under the prerogative of the secular state.
I’ve got strong feelings in favour of religious freedoms in a state that is secular and which allows more than one hegemonic voice to be heard. It is in view of this that I will suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is allowed to voice its opinion freely whilst realising that what they consider as their civil rights should not deny the civil rights of others who do not share the same views that they do. Not abiding by the Church’s laws is as much a right as abiding by them. I do hope that the Church has grown enough in tolerance to enable it to co-exist with other voices, i.e. that it is not playing the game of presenting its own axioms as the truths they expect civil institutions to disseminate. This seems to be what Fr Gouder is suggesting in his interview when he appeals for the true information to be disseminated. He interprets statistics in a way and expects others to do the same because he erroneously believes that the very fact that he uses statistics gives him and his institution’s views precedence over all the rest. He dismisses the fact that documents could be read in different ways and one interpretation should never be considered as a beacon of an unquestionable truth.
I will not quarrel with the Church for portraying its values as truthful. My problem is that Fr Gouder is imposing his truth by expecting civil organisations to play the same tune his does i.e. the Roman Catholic Church’s tune. If information were to be disseminated in the way he expects it to be, the debate would fail in its objective of being democratic. A democratic society should ensure a fair debate, unlike the one being suggested by Fr Gouder. The duty of a secular state is that of ensuring the impartiality of the debate. The Church, on the other hand, should maintain its place and try to convince society that they have got the best idea possible on the issue of divorce.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
victor pulis
Aug 27th 2010, 17:21
So Joseph Meli
According to Dr. Patricia Morgan separations were attributed to the following facts;
1)Failing to say [daily] some prayers (before meals or at night time) or read the Bible regularly (together or separately) (2) Failed to offer forgiveness (from both side) (3) Fail as to make aware (both) or observance of our Christian/Catholic law; and (4) At an early stage of marriage fail as to help young children from or after their confirmation to start attended any prayer groups meeting; or legion or Marian Movements; in their particular area for enrichment in religion teaching.
So according to this list all non christian marriages without exception should fail.
Joseph love is neither as prerogative nor a monopoly of the catholic church.
Joseph MELI
Aug 28th 2010, 13:48
@Victor Pulis:::> YES, as you said they would fail with PROOF....and that is the local problem because the majority had left God, prayers etc., out of their marriage.
So also..the...University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford..Wilcox, using data from the General Social Survey (GSS), the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), and the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), found that married churchgoing Americans, regardless of race or religious denomination, were more likely to describe themselves as “very happy” – more so than non-churchgoing married couples, Cybercast News Service reported....CLEAR>>>>
Professor Wilcox also found that couples who regularly attend church together are less likely to divorce. "Attending church only seems to help couples when they attend together," Wilcox told Cybercast News Service.
"But when they do, they are significantly happier in their..marriages, and they are much less likely to divorce, compared to couples who do not attend church. I would say that church attendance is a beneficial component of marriage when it is done together."
Wilcox said that churches supply moral norms like sexual fidelity and forgiveness while also offering family-friendly social networks to support..couples through high and low..points of their marriages.
Joe Zammit
Aug 27th 2010, 16:09
Marriage is not a sin, but dissolving a validly contracted marriage is always a grave sin. No man has the right or the power to dissolve a validly contracted marriage, especially once it is consummated.
Appealing to God's mercy to introduce divorce is diabolical in its very essence. The 'second chance' proposition is also a devilish deceit. Christ commands us never to resort to divorce because "what God has joined together let no man put asunder!"
God will award the good and punish those who choose evil, like divorce, and this punishment will be in hell for ever if they don't repent before.
But, let no one deceive themselves by saying that they can offend God the way they like and then they will find mercy in God. God is infinitely merciful but no one is going to deceive him. The millions of people in hell have deceived only themselves!
J Farrugia
Aug 25th 2010, 22:42
The minority whether catholic or not must not ride roughshod on the majority of the people who dont want divorce in Malta. Divorce is no human or civil right. It is a human wrong and it works against women and children. We already have enough experience of the new society being built in Malta. Bullying, criminals, roughnecks. Falsehoods, what more and how low can we go further.
victor pulis
Aug 26th 2010, 09:16
How do annullments work on the family J Farrugia? and what do Bullying, criminals, roughnecks. Falsehoods have to do with the issue of divorce? You forgot to mention intollerance to other people's views.No one is riding roughshod on anyone. Divorce is not a tax which everybody has to pay.Any good catholic whose marriage is finished can opt to stay with his/her erstwhile partner with all the problems that entails. But those who are not members of the church or of any other denomination should have a choice. You say that divorce is wrong, well that's just a matter of opinion and I have as much right to say that it's right.
Joseph MELI
Aug 27th 2010, 11:52
Dr. Patricia Morgan reported that separations had contributed to the following facts from early life of their engagement or courtship from over six months together, and for children if possible from after doing their confirmation:
(1)Failing to say [daily] some prayers (before meals or at night time) or read the Bible regularly (together or separately) (2) Failed to offer forgiveness (from both side) (3) Fail as to make aware (both) or observance of our Christian/Catholic law; and (4) At an early stage of marriage fail as to help young children from or after their confirmation to start attended any prayer groups meeting; or legion or Marian Movements; in their particular area for enrichment in religion teaching.
One can list at least nine others as being a contribution to the present separations in the Maltese Islands, but many others might also exist:
(1)adultery; (2) desertion; (3) cruelty; (4) conviction for crime; (5) alcoholism; (6) impotence; (7) non-support; (8) insanity, and (9) living apart. Many times these symptoms could have been detected but due to some lies remain hidden and appear later in marriage life. Cana Movement must invest further in such research.
Joseph MELI
Aug 25th 2010, 17:40
[Continuation](2) .........................(3) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of sub article (1), to the extent that the law in question makes provision that is reasonably required in the interests of public safety, public order, public morality or decency, public health, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof, is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
The fact remains that the official religion of the Maltese islands is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion/Faith, and other religions are free to be administered, but they are not the official ones.
Therefore, Catholic faith has to be respected by the legislation members and the Constitution rights gives those of this faith to oppose any immoral acts.
rgalea
Aug 25th 2010, 18:37
How come you haven't taken the initiative to challenge the following in court?
1.Contraception
2.Homosexuality
3.Adultery
They all run counter to the church's teachings, so using your rationale the non penal nature should be subject to a challenge in the law courts.
Joseph MELI
Aug 25th 2010, 17:32
Your stated “I’ve got strong feelings in favour of religious freedoms in a state that is secular and which allows more than one hegemonic voice to be heard.” Well, you are wrong and again our official religion is the Catholic Apostolic Catholic Faith, however, The Constitution in Chapter 1 Article 2 it gives clear reference that the official religion of the Maltese Islands is that of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion/Faith. Therefore, by imposing something that goes against the faith of the state, then one can oppose this through local court. However, if you read further down what it says on other religions they are free to be used, but not the official of the State, just as what Chapter IV (4) Article 40 clearly stated or indicates “that other religions are acceptable (but not officially of the state), so they are not the religion of the state.” Therefore in (1) All persons in Malta shall have full freedom of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective mode of religious worship. [To be continued]
eugene sapiano
Aug 25th 2010, 18:52
There is one thing that should be settled once and for all; there should be no state religion and thus all denominations should be treated the same; is there any country in Europe which has state religion in the constitution?
Karl Consiglio
Aug 25th 2010, 11:14
Well said Kevin.
Joe Zammit
Aug 25th 2010, 10:31
A simple argument:
Behind all sins there is always the devil.
Divorce is sin.
Therefore, behind divorce there is always the devil.
DIVORCE NEVER!
Charles Sammut
Aug 25th 2010, 17:32
The devil must be ultra-busy in Malta. He is under every bed, well, almost. Must be a fun job though.
Joseph Calleja
Aug 25th 2010, 20:06
Hey Joe don't turn around!
Mark A. Sammut
Aug 25th 2010, 10:30
Kevin
I agree with the drift of your argument regarding democracy, save for one point:
You say, "The duty of a secular state is that of ensuring the impartiality of the debate. "
But my question to you is this:
Which organ of the state has this duty?
And how to go about it?
Joe Zammit
Aug 25th 2010, 10:15
How important and relevant the Catholic Church is in our Catholic islands! The great majority of letters and opinions deal directly with the Catholic Church. By God's grace, her impact on our private and public lives will continue to grow for the benefit of all Maltese and Gozitans.
Please choose the reason of your report below: