Advert
Print
Monday, August 30, 2010, 09:00 , by

David Schembri

Church cannot play God in people’s consciences - theologian

The Church can only say that a person’s decision is not in accordance with the Church’s teaching; saying it is a sin would be playing God in people’s conscience, according to the Dean of Theology at the University.

“When one makes a decision in conscience, seeking the truth, and the decision is different from what the Church teaches, one could say the individual is not in agreement with the Church’s teachings, but when we talk about sin we’re talking about something between the individual and God, and that is something where we can’t play God ourselves,” Fr Emmanuel Agius said.

“Just like we can’t play God in science, we can’t play God in people’s consciences.”

Fr Agius was speaking to The Times in the wake of comments, made earlier this month, by Mgr Anton Gouder, the Curia’s Pro-Vicar, who said that convinced Catholics voting in favour of divorce would be going against Christ’s teachings and thus committing a sin, stoking the already heated debate on the introduction of divorce in Malta.

The Church has so far not commented on Fr Gouder’s statements. On Saturday, the Bishops issued a pastoral letter asking anyone contributing to this debate “not to distort the love for each person ingrained in the Christian message by embarking on some kind of crusade, even in the case of clear signs of provocation”.

Theologian Fr Charlò Camilleri wrote a Talking Point published in The Times on Friday criticising the overzealous approach of Catholics and “Curia spokesmen” in the discussion on the introduction of divorce.

Arguments based on an “I command, you obey” attitude, such as “voting in favour of divorce is a sin” and “no MP can vote for divorce without sinning seriously against God”, put forward by particular people, be they a Curia spokesman or zealous Catholics voicing their opinion, sound as nothing more than a fundamentalist retrograde interpretation of the positive teaching of the Church on marriage, Fr Camilleri wrote.

“Sin is a matter related to one’s own personal conscience. It is matter of the foro interno! And while the Church is surely in duty bound to form consciences by proposing objective guidelines, she cannot coerce the individual conscience of its members even when these take decisions that differ from the official Catholic teaching.”

Fr Agius said Fr Camilleri’s position was consistent with the Catholic Church’s teaching on conscience, but emphasised that in no way did this mean that either he or Fr Camilleri should be interpreted as being in favour of the introduction of divorce in Malta.

“The Church has the moral authority to teach and enlighten the conscience of its members but one should always respect the decision of the individual,” Fr Agius said.

“Obviously, one should always keep in mind the risk of self-deception. One could easily deceive himself he is taking a good decision in conscience while he is not striving for truth. When we speak on conscience formation it’s very important that the individual enlightens himself and refers to moral authority, but the final decision should be taken by the individual.”

The professor of moral theology said that when “we talk on the question of divorce we must also take into consideration empirical facts and truths, and we must be humble enough and admit we are not experts in empirical facts.

“The Church must always be in dialogue with experts in the area to enlighten its teaching and individual decisions.”

Mgr Gouder’s argument was that since Jesus spoke explicitly against divorce, convinced followers would not vote in favour of it.

Meanwhile, Labour leader Joseph Muscat was asked about Fr Gouder’s comments in the context of the clash Labour had with the Church in the 1960s when voting Labour was declared to be a sin.

“I don’t intend to open another political-religious confrontation in our country... All I want is a debate through which all parties can express their opinion so that a mature decision can be reached,” he said during a radio interview.

Dr Muscat has declared himself in favour of divorce and said that if elected Prime Minister, he would present a Private Member’s Bill in Parliament and give his MPs a free vote.

Yesterday, he said he hoped Mgr Gouder’s comment had been blown out of proportion by the media, adding that some Labour supporters were still suffering from the 1960s battle.

He emphasised that he was in favour of divorce for those families who were suffering because of the lack of this legislation, but stressed that he believed there had to be control mechanisms to ensure there was no abuse of the system.

Print
Advert

247 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

David Buttigieg

Sep 2nd 2010, 00:06

Dr Saliba,

I agree with you, they are growing wiser by not following ANYTHING without question! Today's generations demand rational explanations, and religion, any religion, is by it's very nature irrational!

I am no prophet, Dr Saliba, magic like prophesies and so called miracles, does not exist, I am merely making an educated guess based on facts, and the undeniable facts are that religion, thankfully, grows less and less important to today's generations!

But again, you can rest easy, I'm sure it will be quite a few years until divorce is introduced here and we finally throw off the shackles the catholic church has on this country for good!



David Buttigieg

Sep 2nd 2010, 00:09

Oh, one more thing I too believe today's younger generation will indeed grow older ........

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 2nd 2010, 06:59

@ David Buttigieg

You admit you are no prophet, but evidently that does not inhibit you from foretelling the future in your comments.

You admit that the younger generation will grow older but you stop there. Your truncated sentence suggests another prophecy that this young generation will not grow wiser as it matures! I have a better opinion of the young and that is why I do my best so that they may inherit a better Malta.

David Buttigieg

Sep 2nd 2010, 09:28

Francis Saliba,

Now look who is putting words in peoples' mouth :)

"You admit you are no prophet, but evidently that does not inhibit you from foretelling the future in your comments."

As I wrote :", I am merely making an educated GUESS based on facts "

"You admit that the younger generation will grow older but you stop there. " - Lighten up, that was a joke in response to your original statement - "I believe that “today’s younger generation” will grow older " - You really think the will grow older?

"I have a better opinion of the young"

I don't agree, I have a very good opinion of today's younger generations, in fact I am grateful that they no longer accept blindly accept stories of magic!

"and that is why I do my best so that they may inherit a better Malta."

At last we agree, Malta needs to be better. Malta WILL be better in the future as the grasp of theocracy loosens further and beleifs are no longer imposed!

A toast to the future and a better Malta!

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 1st 2010, 17:12

You are right in one respect. I also was dragged into the heat of the argument. But since quite some time I have been saying that I do not want to comment on a particular subject because it is all hypothetical, and more damage than good was being done. I have my share of responsibility. As to my logic, that is what I have been endowed with. You may know better than I what makes a good quality "theologian". I do not discuss that. What I know is that they are trained and examined in Rome, as the Vatican universities are spread across the city. I do not know that they manufacture Trojan horse. That opinion is yours.

Mike F Abbot

Sep 1st 2010, 15:33

naughty atheists? meaning?
So you think Joe is giving people a hard time? I think he just annoys people with his fundamentalist rants which you seem to be warming to.
Joe is not forcing anything on anyone. As far as i can see nobody is forcing anything on anyone here so i’m not sure what your point is. As for your comment regarding holding guns to heads. The introduction of divorce does not impose anything on anyone. No one will be forced to get divorced.
And your last comment. Well maybe some people insulting Joe do need divorce for personal reasons – as though anyone would need divorce for anything but personal reasons. Has it not crossed your mind that Joe insults people almost every time he writes something?

jason fenech

Sep 1st 2010, 16:02

Answering your heart of hearts question, actually no, it does not. Why should it anyway? Do you honestly think that a god, assuming one or many exist, would reward you just because you were brought up to believe in whichever religion you accidentally happened to be raised? Isn’t that preposterous?

And even if that were the case, which god to adore, which holy book to follow? Just because you believe it doesn't make it anymore true.

What’s wrong in asking why? It’s the people who ask “why?” who make a difference. Is it not?

Look what‘s happening with the divorce issue. It’s become a religious issue, based on pure conjecture, based on the notion that the Christian god does not allow divorce. It’s not about the pros or cons of divorce. It’s about people wanting to enforce their belief system on those who do not share their views. It’s about wanting to be proven right no matter what.

So think twice before calling someone "naughty". There’s nothing more dangerous than the religious mind that thinks it knows best. There’s nothing virtuous about people like JZ posting ludicrous comments.

charles caruana

Sep 1st 2010, 16:48

Mr Abbot, so you think that that Joe is not giving people a hard time, do you? If you and others find him so annoying, why do you read and respond so assiduously to his fundamentalist rants? Why not totally ignore him? After all his religious claims are gibberish to a fervent atheist like you. Are you worried he may influence other readers, or, perish the thought, are you perchance trying to make him see the light and convert him into a rational, tolerant well meaning atheist? Fat chance! So I repeat Mr Attard’s question, why bother?
I agree with you that no one will be forced to get divorced. But to claim that ‘The introduction of divorce does not impose anything on anyone’ is just as true as to say that the fundamentalist rants of Joe are not annoying or not giving some people a hard time.

Kevin Cassar

Sep 1st 2010, 17:53

@ A Attard and Charles Caruana Some atheists respond to Joe Zammit for the same reason that you both respond to atheists. While our opinions and yours may be formed and steady as a rock, there are readers who are still asking questions and searching the truth. In my opinion, the fairest way to make a mature decision is to listen to both sides of an argument and then decide which one makes sense. Of course, people like Joe Zammit, would not allow anyone even that option because he is the messenger of the true God and his bible interpretations are always the right ones even when they contradict the others. It is in our interests as Atheists, that people around us leas good moral lives. It benefits us all, and that is why we also try hard to live good lives ourselves. When your moral standard isn't consistent, trouble starts to arise, but I don't expect you to understand what I mean, simply because you will not listen to anyone who does not hold your beliefs.

eugene sapiano

Sep 1st 2010, 19:44

I do not need divorce for myself; in fact I have been married for twenty six years , but some of my friends some of them I also attended their wedding, were not so lucky and obviously since some of them were separated in their twenties or thirties, none of them could be expected to lead a celibate life. The majority opted for a civil annullment. it is vain arguing that we cannot introduce divorce because of our traditions; has enyone ever attended mass only to hear people arguing about anything except the mass.

charles caruana

Sep 1st 2010, 20:35

@ Kevin Cassar If you did not expect me to understand even such a trite commonplace as ‘When your moral standard isn’t consistent, trouble starts to arise’ why did you address it to me in the first place? Your statement ‘simply because you will not listen to anyone who does not hold your beliefs’ is purely gratuitous, and therefore not worth commenting upon. You are wrong, I do not respond to all atheists, only those who are capable of a modicum of rational argument and civilized dialogue. The others, who substitute invective, insults and half-baked knowledge for intelligent discussion, I simply and totally ignore. This is why I fail to understand why, if any atheist really considered Joe Zammit to be a deluded fundamentalist that takes himself for the messenger of God, he would bother to respond to him.

ray sacco

Sep 1st 2010, 21:26

@a.attard:
yeah...................he s giving us quite a hard time to stop laughing!

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 1st 2010, 16:49

Complaining that “academic theologians” should not hold their desultory academic discussions in the public media , because their abstruse dialectics are bound to be abused by anti-Catholics, is not “denigrating theologians”. Denigration and disrespect would be shown by those who pitch them against each other in public so as to bring the teaching of Christ in the bible into disrepute.

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 1st 2010, 17:48

@ Dr Francis Saliba. Here I was speaking in general. Sincerely I did not have you in mind. You know that I had my worries that the debate was degenerating in previous blogs into an anti-clerical anti-religion slinging of insults.

rgalea

Sep 1st 2010, 12:59

Your frustration is understandable.

On one side the godless hordes and on the other "maverick" theologians that sow confusion in the minds of the faithful.

Perhaps you long for the time when what the church preached was not open to debate.
It was all so much simpler wasn't it......the earth was at the centre of the universe and God literally created our planet and humankind in 7 days.

Ah, but then things got complicated because interpretation and scientific fact started to raise doubts about how truly universal and absolute these tenets really were.

Questioning the existance of a Creator does not equate with disrespect.

Mankind has moved forwards because evey now and then a "maverick" thinker had the courage to dispute the accepted notions of the time, often at great personal sacrifice.

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 1st 2010, 17:38

@ r galea To be absolutely correct one would have to line up “the godless hordes” and maverick theologians on the same side (strange bedfellows) disputing the traditionalists on the other side. Questioning the existence of a Creator is not disrespectful. Calling Him a fairy tale white-bearded old man in the sky is disrespectful (to put it mildly) to Him and to those who believe in Him.

rgalea

Sep 2nd 2010, 09:46


I can't see how a mindset that diputes the very existance of a Creator and a mindset that tries to understand the will of the Creator (thus accepting the notion of a Creator ) can possibly be bundled on to the same side.The first view totally negates the raison d'etre of the second.
This is a fundamental difference between the two.

Please indicate where I have used descriptions of the type you quote.

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 2nd 2010, 13:09

@r galea you wrote: "On one side the godless hordes and on the other "maverick" theologians that sow confusion in the minds of the faithful." In so far as voting in favour of divorce legislation is concerned your "godless hordes" and the "maverick theologians" are pulling on the same rope.

MARIA FORMOSA

Sep 1st 2010, 21:02

Iagree totally with what you say "You cannot trust a clergyman for being one" Sadly it appears that no priest or theologian can be found to safrguard the church1 Some clergymen seem to have become prey to the spirit of the world and to be politically correct speak their own personal opinion which usually is incompatible with the the teachings of the catholic church thereby sowing confusion amongthe people who sometimes are very vulnerable.Our Lord s words were very harsh when he says "You are the salt of the earth.But if the salt becomes tasteless what can make it salty again? It is good for nothing and can only be thrown out to be trampled underfoot by men" Matt.5 v.13

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 1st 2010, 12:09

@m portelli

So what?

Rudy Sollars

Aug 31st 2010, 20:37

For Jean Paul Sartre, morality centres wholly on the freedom of choosing, rather than on what is chosen. However, in a debate such as this, I must remain open to a multitude of views, even though that at the end of the day, I must decide for myself.

Mike F Abbot

Sep 1st 2010, 00:00

Looking to the church or the state for guidance on divorce means navigating a minefield of moral conjecture based more on the needs of politicians & church and far less, the needs of people. You are right in that people need to think for themselves.

I do, however, believe that this whole debate cannot involve the church, at least not directly. The catholic faith maintains it’s own comprehensive mandate, or moral code, quite separate from the state with which it rightfully guides it’s followers. It deals with divorce quite clearly and it’s followers freely adhere to it’s teachings.

We are talking about changing the act of divorce in our legal system and clearly not talking about the church to changing it’s teachings.

No one has a choice when it comes to state law. Everyone has a choice when it comes to Catholicism and some, freely i might add, choose not to follow it.

Arguing that divorce be rejected on religious grounds is disingenuous as this will impose a law, that binds all, based on teachings we are supposedly free to choose whether to follow or not.

Mike F Abbot

Sep 1st 2010, 00:01

This is why I don’t believe the church, or it’s official representatives, should be making the type directive statements we’ve been hearing. There have been representatives promoting free thought and, it’s worth noting, without suggesting a pro or anti stance. Very encouraging.
This is also why people need to think for themselves.

I’ve not mentioned politicians as i think we are, mostly, all agreed that they are, at the end of the day, a self serving breed of people.

Miguel Micallef

Aug 31st 2010, 13:54

The pope also urged all of the aids infected Africans NOT TO USE CONDOMS.

He's not exactly the person I would look up to when I need advise :)

eugene sapiano

Sep 1st 2010, 16:46

I wonder whether Ms Formosa is one of those who still believes that the pope is infallible. If the pope is regarded as the world's leading theologian what about Prof Hans Kung?

m.portelli

Aug 31st 2010, 14:20

You insist on a monochrome Church that should not take into account social realities. Where exactly are those bad shepherds and bad theologians arguing that divorce is a good thing or deviating from official teaching? There are other moral issues involved like the common good against the backdrop of contemporary social realities. Rather than pejoratively labelling such priests as modernist mavericks and bad shepherds give them the benefit of seeking to speak the truth. As to your assertion re the.”undermining the status of the Roman Catholic Religion and all its adherents from Archbishop down to the laity”. You leave no space for rationally looking at tolerating divorce as a lesser evil in civil society. You instantly assume that such Catholics seek to undermine the Catholic Church. You followed the same pattern of argument in the Church and child abuse issue. This at best is misguided triumphalism; you assume one legitimate love for the church, your own. Shouldn’t Catholics enter the civil debate without impositions on others? What good can we contribute if we do the opposite? There are other times when intransigence will just not serve the common good. Catholics are aware that divorce is not an option for them.

m.portelli

Aug 31st 2010, 14:30

Crusader is a pejorative term. It is associated with one of the less than glorious episodes in Christianity’s history. Thank God that today we opt for interfaith dialogue instead.

martin saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 14:42

As the catholic knights did to the muslims ?

Kevin Cassar

Aug 31st 2010, 15:22

"One or two solitary commenters, who copy/paste from the scriptures, would never amount to a crusade. "


Seriously Dr Saliba, one or two??????? More like one or two thousand. Maths is apparently not your best quality.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 16:09

@KevinCassar

I was referring to, and I quote: " .... particular people, be they a Curia spokesman or zealous Catholics voicing their opinion ...." By your mathematics these would be "More like one or two thousand" . Take out a pocket calculator and see how far you reach short of your "one or two thouands". Actually you would not need a calculator - your fingers and perhaps your toes would amply suffice.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 16:34

@m.portelli

Your comment is a pot-pourri of theoretical questions imputing to me statements that I never made, sentiments that I do not possess and a sentence that trails off into incompleteness. I will ignore them all. There is absolutely no trace of “triumphalism” misguided or otherwise, in my comments. I quote our Republican Constitution to those who refuse to accept it as it is. I never “impose” my beliefs on anybody else; I only react in defence of the gospels and the official teaching of the “magisterium” - but only when challenged. I use logic and civil language, without ever resorting to the type of personal vilification to which I am subjected all the time.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 16:55

@MartinSaliba

And as the Moslems did to Christian pilgrims trying to visit the holy sites - always according to the terrible standards of that time. The violence occurred in both directions but you would have to remove your blinkers before you would appreciate that simple fact.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 13:39

@JonathanPace.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT tell its faithful to judge the life of fellow man. It teaches the admonishment of Christ : "Judge not lest you be judged yourself"

Jonathan Pace

Aug 31st 2010, 18:57

That is what the bible says, but apparently the CATHOLIC church has time and time again told its people to judge everyone else using their Religious ideologies. If this were not true then we would not have a Divorce argument to begin with as everyone would just mind his own buisness and not try to interfere with each other's lives.

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 1st 2010, 00:51

@Jonathan Pace

The Church did not "time and time again tell its people to judge everyone else". The Church taught those who would listen what is right and what is wrong and how to conform with what the bible says. Evidently you did not listen properly or you did not understand the message.

Joseph Micallef

Aug 31st 2010, 12:29

Do you think the Policeman you mention got the message? No way!

S. Vella

Aug 31st 2010, 11:47

Ma jimpurtax, hallini ha ninharaq fil-kaz. Int l-aqwa ma tinharaqx int. Mhux hekk???

Ghalija l-importanti li nkun ghext hajti kif hassejtni tajjeb u mhux skond l-ipokrezija li certu nies iridu jimponu fuq l-ohrajn. MALTA MHIX KOLLHA KATTOLIKA FANATIKA - META SE TIFHEM???

Robert Agius

Aug 31st 2010, 14:21

Horns, cloven hoofs and all?

ray sacco

Sep 1st 2010, 21:36

u jigi l babaw ghalik fis satra tal lejl u jiehdok mieghu biex tinharaq ghal eternita...............maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

charles caruana

Aug 31st 2010, 09:33

Sinjura M Grech, jekk joghgbok tista tikkwotali fejn papa Gwanni Pawlu II u anke l-papa presenti qalu li id-divorzju mhux offiza gravi u dnub? Fejn hi t-tolleranza ta' Lynn Zahra u tieghek meta tikkummentaw fuq min ma jaqbilx maghkom u takkuzawhom bi krucjati u b'intolleranza, kif ghadek kif ghamilt int? Hares fil-mera jekk joghgbok.

V. Vella Bartolo

Aug 31st 2010, 11:43

Sur Caruana, nahseb meta l-ahhar zewg papiet li kellna iltaqaw mal-kbarat ta kull religjon (u dan sar recenti) urew kemm it-tolleranza hija importanti ghar-religjon kattolika proprju ghaliex Gesu ghallimna inhobbu lil kulhadd hekk kif habbna hu. Kieku li ma tkunx ta l-istess hsieb kattoliku kien dnub kieku dawn il-papiet ma kinux jiltaqaw maghhom.

Il-krucjati qed isiru minn certi nies li jajjru lil min hu favur id-divorzju li hu midneb, xitan etc etc. Fil-kummenti ta certu nies ghadni ma rajt xejn hlief il-kliem "bible, against God, Sin, Evil u War". U int tghidli li Lynn Zahra u min hu bhala qed jaghmel il-krucjati? Ma tarax. Il-krucjati qed jaghmluhom certi nies fanatici tal-knisja li qed idawru kull ma hemm fil-bibbja biex jimponu dak li jridu huma. Sur Caruana, infakkrek li meta timponi dak li temmen int tmur kontra dak li ghallimna Gesu jigifieri li naccettaw u nhobbu lil kulhadd immaterjali x'jahseb. Dan pajjiz demokratiku u hadd ma qal li il-kattolicizmu hija xi haga ta bilfors. Fil-hajja mhawn xejn bilfors hlief il-mewt. Min ma jridx jibqa mizzewweg ghandu kull dritt ifittex hajja ahjar. Il-mod kif tindirizzaw in-nies intom tridu iggibu lil Malta dittatorjat.

S. Vella

Aug 31st 2010, 11:45

Sur Caruana, jekk ghandek xi problema biex tifhem min qieghed jaghmel il-krucjati fost dawn l-artikli aqra ftit b'attenzjoni il-kummenti ta Joe Zammit halli tifhem ahjar. Hlief Evil, Sin u Gwerra ma jsemmix. MIn ezatt qed jaghmel il-krucjati?????????????????

charles caruana

Aug 31st 2010, 12:39

I see that the divorce brigade is rallying round its leader –as it should, no doubt. No divided army can stand, much less win. Dear Ladies, I respect your right to campaign and ‘crusade’ in favour of divorce, just as much as I respect the right of someone like Joe Zammit to do likewise in his campaign and ‘crusade’ against divorce. I may disagree with some of the tactics, strategies and maneuvers used on both sides, but far be it from me to question their right to fight for what to them is ‘sacred.’

Steven Calascione

Aug 31st 2010, 06:53

Not quite. Fr. Aguis is implying that God alone is absolute (an idea that is well entrenched in the Eastern Orthodox concept of the "economia of salvation").

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 31st 2010, 06:59

Wrong. Three words : Conscience is personal.

David Seychell

Aug 31st 2010, 10:09

"Conscience is personal"? And what is the difference between 'Conscience is personal' and morality is relative to one's own conscience? In practice, what Fr Emmanuel Agius said means that; killing, or stealing or lying or voting in favour of divorce or whatever example you want, is neutral, that is, it's neither a sin nor 'not a sin'. Whether something is a sin or not depends on the conscience of the individual doing it. For example if you and me robbed a bank, you may have sinned, however, if robbing is ok by my conscience then -in God's eyes-I didn't sin even though we robbed the bank together. In short, sinning (morality) is relative to one's own conscience.

mary borg

Aug 31st 2010, 10:13

Well said, that is what he implies; and that is wrong for God and His laws are not relative. One law....one truth

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 31st 2010, 11:15

Fr Em Agius did not write about criminal law, under which the defined illegal act and the willingness of commit it bring about liability and punishment.

He was writing about conscience and the teaching of the Church on conscience, as defined also in the Catholic Catechism.

mary borg

Aug 31st 2010, 12:49

Dr Brincat
whatever ANY theolgian says, Chrsit said no to divorce except in the case of fornication (when trasnlated from Greek). Fornication has three meanings amongst which is homosexuality and incest. These are already adorned by the Catholic Church when it comes to annulment. Provided at the time of marriage the person is free (mental state and otherwise) and there is no forniacation, the marriage will remain valid. A theologian is a human being and he has a right for his own opinion as a person. Christ teaching is one. Any breaking from Christ's teaching is a sin

mary borg

Aug 31st 2010, 13:06

The Church has every right to remind us what Christ teaches and to remind us that any breaching of His teachings is a sin. Then it is up to the person to decide.

martin saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 14:49

Fornication has only one meaning. Look it up or are you trying to confuse others with your missinterpretation ?

mary borg

Aug 31st 2010, 15:27

if you look up fornication is any english dictionary most probably it gives you adultery as a meaning. However, in its purest meaning, coming from its greek origin, it means bestiality, homosexuality and incest. It is not a misinterpretation and these are the three conditions out of about five that the Churcb gives the go ahead for annulment. The other condition is lack of free will. It is not my misinterpretation it is also what the Church teaches. I suggest that you look up these conditions yourself.

mary borg

Aug 31st 2010, 15:29

Priests who do not agree with Christ's teachings or with the Church's teachings are the ones who are misinterpreting and confusing people.

martin saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 21:06

@ Mary Borg. Fornication means sex between two unmaried persons. Whatever it used to mean in greek is irrelavant. What counts is what it is understood to mean today. please use a dictionary and not the bible for reference. Some books might be missleading intentionaly or not.

martin saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 21:18

@ Mary Borg. The consise english dictionary , " Voluntary sexual intercourse between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. " You bible gives as one meaning " Fornication
Loving the world more than God the God of Israel [ even so the spiritual Israel so does]" if you want more meanings go to :- http://www.whoisonthelordside.com/fornication.html

J Farrugia

Aug 31st 2010, 12:23

Lynn Zahra you are not in a position to preach to us about divorce, Since you a lapsed catholic and therefore you dont even know what Christ teaches us about the family.

Lynn Zahra

Aug 31st 2010, 17:48

@ J Farrugia. Some people have an agenda, and write aggressively. Joe Zammit is a baby compared to you. You wrote :Dr.Lynn Zahra don't teach us about divorce, you are a lapsed Catholic and don't even know what Christ said.." This lapsed Catholic has a B.A. in Theology actually Mr.Farrugia. You won't even listen to instructions from the two Bishops why would you listen to me? As if I care? Dream on Mr.Farrugia, divorce will be introduced in Malta whether you like it or not. By the way, the Bishops

Pastore Rafael Sanchez

Aug 31st 2010, 08:37

Dear Dr Joe Brincat,

I am a Catholic Pastore but not a Roman Catholic one. I am a follower of the true pope. Evangelicals are false in their thinking, evil in their logic, damned in their reasoning.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 31st 2010, 10:30

Wait a minute. Even if you and I do not agree with the Evangelicals, we, and I repeat we, have no right to denounce them by a series of adjectives. Freedom of conscience and freedom of worship are not rights guaranteed by the State, but first and foremost they must be ingrained in every individual.

Your reply is rather enigmatic. You say you are Catholic, not Roman, and you have the "real pope". Can you specify please ? Just to know you, rather than keep me guessing.

Pastore Rafael Sanchez

Aug 31st 2010, 11:32

Not enigmatic at all:

http://www.palmardetroya.org/index2.html

The true Pope is Peter II and the only Catholic Church is the Iglesia Católica Palmariana. His Holiness Peter II has no claims to visions but has confirmed that the Antichrist was born in the year 2000. The Palmarian doctrine regarding the Antichrist indicates that the Antichrist will mock Christ and imitate him by making a public appearance at the age of 12 and begin his public life when he is 30 years old.

In Malta, (because I minister in Italy), there is a small community of around 17,000 followers who keep a low profile because of persecution by the Roman Catholics. The two Maltese cardinals are very active and suffer in silence.

David Buttigieg

Sep 1st 2010, 09:54

Well Pastore,

Seeing that your churh has 2000 followers worldwide, how on earth did you manage the 17000 in Malta?

With all due respect, your "very great Greg" was a certifiable twit and el pedro looks no less!

Well, enjoy Malta!

DR Joe Brincat

Aug 31st 2010, 08:45

Translated it lower down. Scroll down.

J Farrugia

Aug 31st 2010, 11:01

Sin is part and parcel of the Catholic teachings. Do something wrong and not according to morality and you will be committing a SIN. Mortal or venial, if you still remember the catholic doctrine. Yet SIN still exists in all forms and manners, and whether you believe in God or not..

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 07:14

@David Buttigieg

I know the difference between "official" and "mandatory" - and when I say "official" I mean just that. You would better get used to the idea that deviously putting words into my mouth will not get you anywhere.

M. Fenech

Aug 30th 2010, 21:23

A very good comment! I totally agree with you.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 30th 2010, 20:20

And for the umpteenth time, I am not 'malicious' and people who know me, many, many priests and bishops, in fact, know that I am not 'malicious' as you so disgustingly and so unchristian allude to me. On the contrary, it is people like yourself and like Joe Zammit for whom the Bishops wrote and in which they claimed that they want no 'crusades'. You are the crusaders. And in today's world, there is no place for crusades. Thus endeth!

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 31st 2010, 14:02

@FrancoFarrugia

I do not take your word for anything you boast about because of your incorrigible habit to give a twist and to distort my written comments. I am all ears, waiting to hear directly from one of your “ many, many priests and bishops” to give you a character reference confirming your boast that you are not being “malicious” when you habitually twist my words. Similarly I am waiting to hear from our bishops confirming your judgment that our bishops do not want me and do not want my alleged “crusade”.

Joseph Micallef

Aug 30th 2010, 19:34

While I agree with you that Malta should have it's own divorce legislation - you are incorrect to state that people can go abroad to have a divorce just because we are members of the EU. This provision has been in place much before Malta's EU membership!

rgalea

Aug 30th 2010, 17:36

A simple question:

What are your theological credentials?

I have been asking you this question for a while, but so far you have not uttered a word in this regard.

Please enlighten the genle readers of these comment threads.

victor pulis

Aug 30th 2010, 18:16

Moses is in hell Joe because he gave in to the Israelites' wishes. Not only that, he legislated in favour of divorce and also in favour of bigamy. For the umpteenth time I refer you to Deuteronomy 21;14 to 21.

patrick zammit

Aug 30th 2010, 19:10

"We must follow the infallible teaching of Christ though his Church to be one with God."

Was the church also infallible when:

1) the church put Galileo under house arrest for life for his support of Copernicus' heliocentrism theory?
2) the church stole a dying person's property to pray for his soul?
3) the church burnt people at the stake for not agreeing with the church's views?
4) the church buried people at the mizbla and imposed the dnub il-mejjet on MLP followers?
5) the church actively protects paedophile priests by transferring them to other localities (not Mexico) so that they can continue to abuse more children at their new locality?
6) the church castrated choir boys so that their voice would not break?
7) the church actively put pressure on people during confessions so that they do not use coitus interruptus and so have a child every 11 months or so?
Etc, etc.

Paul Barrett

Aug 30th 2010, 19:36

Joe, You keep on with the same rhetoric but have still yet to produce one solid argument that does not rely on brainwashing superstition and fear.
As a child I was brought up in two Christian Religions. One beat the crap out of me on a daily basis for my inability to be able to learn by rote and asking questions. The other religion taught me right from wrong and the ability to be able to think for myself.
I truly believe that there is a lot of good in the Catholic Religion. You however are a prime example of the kind of instruction I received as a child.

Joseph Micallef

Aug 30th 2010, 19:37

Joe, in their note the Bishops also commented against those who, like you, embark in a cruisade sending people who do not agree with you to hell!

P. Borg Bartolo

Aug 31st 2010, 11:58

Joe, when you will be able to answer Mr. Patrick Zammit questions, I think I will finally turn against divorce. The problem is that there are not any answers for these in your bible so you will not be able to.

The people who learn things "pappagall" style are just those who are opinion less. You are so closed minded and egoist that whatever other people want and think is immaterial. You are actually driving away others from the church. I am catholic but personally I don't even want to be called so if this attitude is exists. Patrick's questions are realities Malta has lived and I think the church should be grateful to have still some followers. Be democratic for once we are not in the 60s.

Joeseph Calleja

Aug 30th 2010, 17:15

Dr Brincat the next time you want to impress somebody, please use the Maltese or the English language. Us simple folks don't read or understand the Latin language, so please if you have to converse in any other language other than Maltese or English just call the man in person or send him an email in that language, keep it simple. We have enough problems of our own. Grazzi

martin saliba

Aug 30th 2010, 17:48

I speak perfect latin but im not going to bother to translate it for everybody, someone else might do it for me. In the mean time those that do not understand latin will be left in the dark.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 30th 2010, 21:44

Sorry Mr Calleja. There was a quotation in Latin addressed to Fr Agius. I just changed three words from that, and addressed Fr Agius again.

To have a definition of conscience to agree with the theory of somebody, the text has to be amended as I suggested. Otherwise, Fr Agius is right. Fr Camilleri is right. And Fr Joe Borg is right.

Translation of my text : Moral Conscience is the submission (rather than "dictate") of the mind in practice or of practical judgment of faith, in final analysis, about the morality of an act to be done or omitted, or which has already been done or omitted, but always according to the principles of the Church.

Original text cited by somebody : Moral Conscience is the dictate of the mind in practice or of practical judgment according to reason in final analysis, about the morality of an act to be done or omitted, or which has already been done or omitted, according to moral principles.

mary borg

Aug 31st 2010, 10:17

If nobody follows it' as you say, doesn't mean that it is not a sin. Everybody is free to choose what they like however, and to choose where to spend eternity as well!

Neil Dent

Aug 30th 2010, 16:24

Yeah sorry, but I for one don't do latin or any other dead language. But I get the gist I suppose.

But good news! Finally you have said something that the majority here will definitely agree with Mr. Zammit. And that is your final line: 'I don’t care a fig about you and about what you tell me!'

Hear, hear! Sadly however, that statement would most definitely be directed at YOU Mr. Zammit.

A Agius

Aug 30th 2010, 16:28

There we have it on record:

"I don’t care a fig about you and about what you tell me!"

How very Christian of you.

Luke chapter 6
27 "But I tell everyone who is listening: Love your enemies. Be kind to those who hate you.
28 Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who insult you.
37 "Stop judging, and you will not be judged. Stop condemning, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Looks like someone has to do a bit of flagellating tonight ay Mr. JZ





Charles J. Buttigieg

Aug 30th 2010, 18:16

Stop giving this man the pleasure of having an audience. He's too radical to be true. He might even be having a good time irritating sane people. Ignore him and he will finally shut up.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 30th 2010, 17:45

@CharlesJButtigieg

Parliament has the Constitutional right to pass and to amend laws and to abrogate laws - full stop. If our parliamnet refuses to pass laws to allow the stoning of adulterous women or the amputation of the hands of persistent robbers it does not follow that in Malta we do not practice the freedom of religion guaranteed in our Constitution

victor pulis

Aug 30th 2010, 18:06

The story of Adam and Eve is very interesting and has some intriguing points to ponder and I would be happy to discuss it but I may digress from the actual issue of divorce.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 30th 2010, 20:15

Kemm int sejjer zball! Veru int fit-triq hazina!

victor pulis

Aug 30th 2010, 18:03

J farrugia perhaps it's you who is blind and in danger of falling into the pit.

Carlo Vella

Aug 30th 2010, 14:37

A persons concious is a form of emotion. Are we to throw that away and only listen to what the church tells us? If that is the case, let us loose the will of free speech, let us be controlled by ONLY what the church tells us. Lets go back to the days where punishment was served to those who did not believe and went against the church. I for one do not want the church to tell me how to think, what to do.

Paul Barrett

Aug 30th 2010, 14:41

Joe, That statement is the equivalent to following a GPS guidance system without using any personal judgment or common sense - thus ending up in the river instead of crossing the bridge.
The only guaranteed infallible thing in life is death.

victor pulis

Aug 30th 2010, 15:06

So Joe you are advising us to throw our concience out of the window and let the infallible, holy, roman, catholic church do the thinking for us. What's the point in having a concience if you're not allowed to listen to it? Do you know who reasoned that way? totalitarian states like the USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea. Do you think you're in good company Joe? And by the way, What about the billions of happily married non catholic couples around the world? What concience did they follow? And don't forget to look up Deuteronomy 21; 14 to 21.

Neil Dent

Aug 30th 2010, 15:14

Mr. Zammit - Judging by your wanton, tedious ravings which sometimes verge on the maniacal, I'm sure you don't realise it. But here you have given a very accurate description of what brain-washing essentially is.

Conscience or independent thoughts must be replaced by, in this case, what YOU say is taught by YOUR so-called 'infallible' church.

Change the record. This one is just boring now. It's not even funny anymore.

R. Gatt

Aug 30th 2010, 15:42

Good one Joe. So you are telling us to follow the Church's teachings on occasions when our conscience misleads us in telling us anything different than what the Church is saying. Now I believe that Fr Emmanuel Agius is a member of the Catholic Church. So in this case, since you came all the way trying to discredit his arguments and I perfectly agree with Fr Agius, can you tell me whether I should follow what he is saying or what YOU are saying? If I follow what you're saying, it means that I wouldn't be following the teaching of the Catholic Church, Sir! :-)

David Buttigieg

Aug 30th 2010, 15:53

Actually, Joe Zammit old misguided chap,

The church has failed iunumerable times!

When it imprisoned Galilleo for daring to say the world circled the sun, where was your church's/your god's (not mine) infallibility!

Your god ain't my god so you I don't give two hoots what 'he says'!

Lynn Zahra

Aug 30th 2010, 16:23

I believe that Fr.Gouder's opinion was a tactic boumeranged!

The Church aslo teaches that using condoms /taking the pill is a sin but who's following this in Malta?

The Maltese remember when the teachings of the Church were contorted Mr.Zammit, we all know what happened in the 60s when Mintoff toke on Arcbishop Gonzi .

No sorry, the teaching of the Church are not infallible - to say so shows that you have no respect for our intelligence, never mind any respect for diversity.

Not everybody is Catholic in Malta even if Malta's main religious is Roman Catholic.

One follows the law embedded in his heart . You don't have to be Catholic to know right from wrong.






Paul Barrett

Aug 30th 2010, 14:25

Joe, The world is flat, be careful you don't walk off the edge!

Miguel Micallef

Aug 30th 2010, 12:23

Yes. Victory is already guaranteed ;)

Join us Mr Zammit!

Paul Barrett

Aug 30th 2010, 12:53

Whenever the anti divorce faction feel threatened, have you ever noticed how often other subjects which have nothing to do with divorce are thrown into the debate to try and scare of anyone that might be otherwise persuaded to have compassion for others, see the awful social state we are getting into by co-habitation without the choice of divorce which would allow those that then wish to, to obtain a legal state civil marriage - see common sense for the good of society.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 30th 2010, 13:32

Can you kindly tell us to which church or denomination you belong ? The priests or pastors are clearly identified, and one should be able to identify you and the position of your church.

Ivan Vassallo

Aug 30th 2010, 13:41

So that's your aim to follow up with abortion, certainly euthanasia..... we've found your and other people's true colours. Better be a Crusader now than a Conformist always.

C Cini

Aug 30th 2010, 15:20

What Fr Agius is saying that our conscience should be based on what the moral authority teaches. If you would like to have another Italy in Malta its better for you to transfer yourself in Italy and see what type of society there is. Live in Italy by yourself and do not force others to live in the disaster which exists already in Italy. Be Victorous, go to Italy and vote for Emma Bonino, but leave us in peace.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 30th 2010, 16:00

@ Pastore Rafael Sanchez. Am I to understand that you belong to the Evangelical Church ?

mary borg

Aug 31st 2010, 10:21

Pastore, there are many of us who are true Catholics, who follow Jesus' message (for His love) and will not bow down to the whimps of certain people and certain 'theologians'.

mary borg

Aug 31st 2010, 10:24

Fr Agius is being relative like some other priests. But true Catholic priests are not relative, they have one true teachings...Christ's. Relativism is not good as it is subjective and Christ's teachings are anything but subjective. They are the norm which those who truly believe in Him should follow.

Carlo Vella

Aug 30th 2010, 13:07

I agree. It is about time the church gets a new look and a new belief system because slowly wee are seeing its demise. The popularity of the church has decreased quite allot in the past few years and it will continue to decrease.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 30th 2010, 13:14

@DavidButtigieg

So sorry, but it is you who needs to "Get over it"! You are living in a Republic whose official religion is the Roman Catholic Religion - if you do not like it, plug your ears, shut your eyes or move on.

C Gatt

Aug 30th 2010, 17:54

@Dr Saliba


....or slowly but surely change the constitution :)

Peter Korsten

Aug 30th 2010, 12:23

The Catholic church is free to spread the message that marriage cannot be dissolved, fine. But that's the marriage according to canon law, not according to civil law.

If I were to get married in the registry (which I can't, I'm already married and quite happily so), which according to the Catholic church isn't a proper marriage anyway because it was not ordained by a priest, I cannot not get a divorce. If I play my cards well, I may get an annulment, but that's really a way out of there not being divorce.

The problem is the mixing up of canon law with civil law, and priests conducting civil marriages.

If you split those, and have church marriages be purely ceremonial from a legal point of view, and require a separate civil ceremony for a couple to be legally married, you actually solve a lot of problems.

Obviously, this will over time lead to a decrease in church marriages, but that's the concern of the church. Just like the divorce of a married couple is the concern of only them and those who represent the interests of the children.

It's not your concern.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 30th 2010, 12:38

So ... this is the second expert priest that you are denigrating. How long is it going to take to convince people like you that the God-is-against-divorce syndrome is not true, does not hold water and is not as simple as that. This is the message that these priests whom you are denigrating, are saying. This is ALL that they are saying: that it is not a straight-forward question!!! Listen... keep on thinking what you want to think, what you were used to think, and what you prefer to think, but stop, please, stop, pontificating. You, plural, are doing much more harm than good. You are continuing to sow immense hurt on the Church that you are pathetically militating for. The Dr. in front of your name does not impress - it's what you write that does.
Perhaps, only perhaps, now, you will believe me when I said that various biblical expert priests told me what I had said that they told me. Which you pooh-pood - but that's nothing new: you do that to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

C Gatt

Aug 30th 2010, 13:39

Let us hope that Dr Saliba's knowledge in other departments is less sketchy then his historical accounts. The Ottoman empire came into existence in 1299, two centuries after the first crusade.

Lynn Zahra

Aug 30th 2010, 16:52

Dr.Saliba , The Bishops have spoken to limit the damage that Catholics such as you and Joe Zammit have created with your crusade against divorce , writing so adamantly against here on the Times. Believe me, and with respect, you are merely preaching to the converted because the Maltese are fed up with being forced to live in this backwater just becasue stauch Catholics like yourself demand that we all observe the teachings of the Church , when it should be obvious that many don't want to. Times have changed and people have changed. Accept it. The reason you cannot force people to denounce divorce as you would wish is becasue you have totally failed to grasp the reality : that the introduction of divorce is inevitable now. This is so not becasue it is to be applauded no, but because not permitting it is creating legal havoc and chaos . It seems to me you can be selective in what you abide by when the Bishops issue instructions and speak to the people. Why did you refer to them as the Church hierarchy instead of the Bishops? It seems most disrespectful coming from a devotee such as you.

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 30th 2010, 17:20

@ CGatt

I did not mention any Ottoman EMPIRE. I mentioned Turks. Neo-Persians under Chosroes and later Arabs under Caliph Omar and Caliph Hakim were destroying Christian places of worship as far back as 638 AD and the Seljuk Turks occupied Jerusalem and destroyed the Holy Sepulchre in AD 1072.

It is difficult to put an exact date to the addition of military duties to the knights who had previously been hospitallers – the earliest probable date was around 1096 AD

Does this information shake your claim that my historical knowledge is sketchy? Now run for your encyclopedia and check!

Dr Francis Saliba

Aug 30th 2010, 20:46

@LynnZahra

I will believe that the Bishops are really trying to limit the damage that I am causing (according to you) only when I hear the Bishops say so, not after reading the twisted version of any self-appointed spokeswoman/man.

When I mean “bishops” I say “bishops”. When I mean a much wider circle I say “hierarchy”. You should be able to understand the difference. Any alleged disrespect to our bishops by me is a malicious invention - I defend them and I pray for them. The havoc is not being caused by me. It is caused but by those who distort the message of Christ,, and of those he appointed to spread his message while hypocritically pretending to be defending both.

P. Vincenti

Aug 30th 2010, 12:16

That is like saying that only a dog who was ever beaten by its master has the right to an opinion about animal cruelty.
It is like saying only an aborted child has a right to an opinion on abortion, which of course it cannot have as it has been aborted.
Your statement also excludes most of the MPs who are not divorced from doing their bit if they are called to take a vote on divorce
It excludes Joseph Muscat from the debate as he is not divorced or separated either.

Gerard Cassar

Aug 30th 2010, 12:04

Mr. Borg.
If one is hungry because he is without means to buy any food, and does everything imaginable to get food legally but does not succeed either there is no one to help no means of getting help, then if he is still hungry, stealing food does no wrong in his conscious, a bit difficult but that is so. This is an extreme situation mostly applicable to young people who have no experience of what is available.

J.Debono

Aug 30th 2010, 12:05

Our Lord Jesus Christ also told us to " Love your neighbour as yourself ". So, as a Christian who does not want to avail of divorce because I believe that it would inflict spirtual harm on myself, would it be morally correct for me to vote in favour of a legislation in favour of divorce? Would it be charitable of me to pave the way for others to live in sin? Is it merciful to give my approval to a legislation that if anything will make what is wrong 'APPEAR' to be right?

There is only ONE TRUTH and HE is JESUS. If Jesus says that divorce is WRONG than it's WRONG in any circumstance. As a Roman Catholic I SHALL NOT VOTE IN FAVOUR OF ANYTHING THAT IS WRONG AND THAT GOES AGAINST CHRIST'S TEACHINGS. No excuse is good enough, and if we do find an excuse to vote in favour, we'll only be fooling ourselves.

edwin formosa

Sep 1st 2010, 18:31

" Is it not hypocritical to interfere and raise religious issues in this matter? " You are forgetting that 'this matter' is considered to be a Sacrament by the Catholic Church.

Christian Sciberras

Aug 30th 2010, 11:06

"Conscience is only the capacity to select the right, reasonable option."

Yet it is as reasonable as much as subjective opinion can get...

mportelli

Aug 30th 2010, 11:38

THANKYOU FATHER AGIUS AND FATHER CAMILLERI !! The church and us need people like you who really SERVE God and not PLAY God! I am not a religious person I am more a spiritual person and it's because of the way the church send God's message a lot of false consciousness. I believe in the same thing Fr.Agius mentioned - no one can play God. No one is to judge and call people sinners. AND SOMETHING TO ALL THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IF GOD IS SO BIG WHY DO YOU PRAY TO SAINTS AND MARIA ? GOD IS BIG HE'S EVERYWHERE HE IS EVERYTHING DOES HE NEED MESSENGERS? IS THERE ANY OFFICES OR DEPARTMENTS UP THERE OR MAYBE MINISTERS DOING FAVORS TO EARN VOTES ? :)

Cassandra Miggiani

Aug 30th 2010, 19:20

portelli - if you don't understand Catholicism, why not direct your questions to a priest or read a copy of the Catechism rather than type (incoherent) paragraphs on the Times website? there's too much ignorance on display here already.

Joseph Micallef

Aug 30th 2010, 13:04

The problem is that Christ's teachings were probably never really totally against Divorce! But here we are not really debating this. We are saying that one should not be beligerant and put the law before love! Those who live by the law are slaves.

G Psaila

Aug 30th 2010, 13:15

No, teachings haven't changed. Jesus was clear when he said 'if one so much as looks at another woman, he sins.' At least, that's what we were taught, I suppose it still counts.

Christian Sciberras

Aug 30th 2010, 11:07

We're always impressed how you make 4 out of a 2 and a 1.

patrick zammit

Aug 30th 2010, 11:36

J Z

Is it a sin to manufacture, import, sell and use contraceptives?

R. Gatt

Aug 30th 2010, 11:43

Your argument is lost from the beginning, JZ. God's Word is based on proposition, not imposition. Those who are Catholics incidentally should have a conscience to enable them to decide whether to follow Christ's teaching or not. It is entirely up to them to decide what they should do. Not even God himself ever pursued any Catholic telling him or her, "Listen, if you don't obey the 10 Commandments, I'll send you to hell!!" Catholics do not need any religious scaremongering in order to decide which way to vote. It's only their conscience that should tell them that! AND, incidentally, also, in the Maltese Laws it is illegal to exert undue pressure - even religious in nature - on any citizen when coming to vote in an election. I for one am a convinced Catholic and will vote against the introduction of divorce, but will never resort to your line of argument in expressing my opinions! We are living in a secular state, and democracy of opinions should prevail with freedom and without fear.

victor pulis

Aug 30th 2010, 11:43

According to Joe Zammit
"Those in hell invoke their conscience for being there for ever! "
Am I to assume that Joe has been to hell interviewing the inmates?

Michael Vella

Aug 30th 2010, 12:14

How utterly sad and pathetic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mark Seychell

Aug 30th 2010, 13:02

Is it not a sin to play God?? Zammit, get over yourself, you will not tell me how to live my life. You are absolutely nothing to me and to many others, and have no weight in our decisions.

Personally, I find it irksome to listen to the advice of old men who have never passed through life the way most humans should. That is one major flaw of Catholicism, one of the many reasons why I have shunned it. I'm pretty sure you are not a priest, Zammit, but I bet you are no better than those fools

Melissa Bagley

Aug 30th 2010, 13:04

For Pete's sake, lanqas teologu mhu espert daqsu!

No institution maintained by human beings is infallible, and as for interpretation of God's word, don't tell us the RCC have got it right. Look what it did to Galileo; it took the RCC FIVE HUNDRED YEARS to pardon Galileo, who was in the right after all.

I have voted for politicians who did not condemn or abolish abortion or divorce, so by your freaky definition and idiosyncratic interpretation of God's word I should go to hell. So be it....if that place exists at all.

Mark Seychell

Aug 30th 2010, 13:19

that said, I myself will never divorce, but strictly on a matter of principle because I do believe it is wrong. But I would never dream of imposing my beliefs on others, unlike you, Zammit.

C Gatt

Aug 30th 2010, 13:41

Please, Please, PLEASE everybody, let us disregard Joe Zammit's writing a it contributes nothing to a serious and logical debate.
Hopefully, if we disregard him , he and his cut and paste cookie cutter comments will fade away and we can have a serious adult discussion

eugene sapiano

Aug 30th 2010, 17:22

Milli jidher hawn min jippretendi li kulhadd kellu jkun b'vuci wahda ma' Mon Gouder b'mod specjali l-qassisin! Xi ftit donnhom jinsew li l-qassisin nies ukoll u ghandhom dritt ghall-opinjoni taghhom; wara kollox s'issa hadd minnhom ma hareg ifahhar id-divorzju imma ndunaw li llum billi tbezza bid-dnub m'inti se tasal imkien. Dik kienet tattika ta' hamsin sena ilu u li hadem qabel ma jfissirx li se jahdem illum.

Alan Vella

Aug 31st 2010, 10:24

Int trid bilfors qassis jghidlek x'taghmel? Ma tafx tahseb ghalik x'inhu tajjeb u hazin billi thares madwarek u tuza mohhok???

David Buttigieg

Aug 30th 2010, 11:41

Gesu jista jkun sidek, imma m'huwiex sidi!

Paul Barrett

Aug 30th 2010, 11:30

Dear Joe,
Have you ever thought to apply for Priesthood - I am sure they would be delighted to have you, if only to silence you and the damage you are doing to them by your comments.

victor pulis

Aug 30th 2010, 11:37

Joe Zammit.
Concience existed in man long before your holy roman catholic infallible church ever existed.
Why can't you accept that not everyone is catholic (very far from it) in fact you should know since you consigned 5/6 of humanity to hell already and the number is rising steadily with the condemnation of catholic theologians!
You say that "when a Christian does wrong, we should first correct him privately, then, if need be, with the help of two or three witnesses. But then finally, call in the church: "If he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a pagan and a publican"
The holy infallible church went one better and burned him at the stake after the customary torture sessions.

David Buttigieg

Aug 30th 2010, 11:39

Joe Zammit,

If by pagan you mean I don't believe the hocus pocus you preach,

Then I'm Pagan and proud of it!

By the way, when are you going to understand that to me, your god is a fairy tale on the same lines as father christmas and mother goose so no, I don't give two hoots as to what you say 'his' laws are!

JOSEPH ZAMMIT

Aug 30th 2010, 11:52

OH! you forgot to finish your last paragraph; let me help you:
..and burn them at the stake; or bury them alive..

Blessed indeed are the merciful....

l.theuma

Aug 30th 2010, 11:54

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church about divorce in The Catachism of The Catholic Church, in Art. 2383 is: "Jekk id-divorzju ċivili biss jista jiżgura ċerti drittijiet leġittimi, bħalma huma l-kura tat-tfal u l-ħarsien tal-ġid, dan jista' jiġi tollerat mingħajr ma jkun hemm eda ħtija morali."

victor pulis

Aug 30th 2010, 12:04

Joe Matthew was not talking about divorce in that chapter. Don't misquote the gospels please. And since you seem to have the bible close by would you turn to Deuteronomy and read 21; 14 to 21? The first part deals with getting rid of your wife if she displeases you, the secand deals with bigamy sanctioned by Moses and the third instructs what you should do to a disobedient son. Remember, this is the word of God which never changes.

Carlo Vella

Aug 30th 2010, 12:45

I was brought up catholic but I follow the Pagan path due to the ridiculous teaching of the church and how it pushes and orders us to believe what it thinks is right. People should feel free to make a choice and to believe what they feel is right. As a Pagan I do not shun the catholics but it should stop dictating. Being Pagan will the church and god turn it´s back on me? Being gay, will the church and God turn it´s back on? We all know the answer and it is VERY SAD!

victor pulis

Aug 30th 2010, 11:26

J Farrugia suffice to say There's more where that came from! perhaps they are 'unknowns' because so far they have been studying the situation and refrained from blurting out nonsense statements. On the contrary, they are not destroying the catholic church. They are revitalizing it to reflect the present. Coincidentally, two thousand years ago the priests in Jerusalem said the same thing about a certain Jesus. he was also accused of corrupting the Jewish religion. So what are you proposing? that Fr. Agius, like Fr. Camilleri should be 'removed' from their posts? That would be tantamount to suicide for the church. it is priests like these who are the real future of the church not fanatics obsessed with sending people to hell.

Walter Camilleri

Aug 30th 2010, 12:17

Two Thousand years ago, when a Man called Jesus contradicted the priests, they curcified him - he was challenging their authority. That's what the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan nowadays.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 30th 2010, 12:33

Are you serious????????????????????
Do you know who Emanuel Agius is???????? If there is anyone who needs refresher courses, it's certainly not him!

Advert

Similar Stories

Popular Stories

  1. Updated: Eight more bodies found in...

  2. 49 dead, 550 injured in Argentina...

  3. France drops mademoiselle status

  4. EU may suspend funds to Hungary over...

  5. Titanic survivor slipped menu into...

  6. Monaco prince hurt in bar brawl

  7. Austria to hold off on ACTA...

  8. Germany urged to end castration

  9. We may strike first, Iran warns

In Discussion

  1. Truth about Mintoff is 'somewhere in...

  2. Bus breakdown causes congestion

  3. Minister confident Air Malta can be...

  4. Debono Grech to contest next election

  5. Weather delays Mirages' departure

  6. Premature end to Carnival

  7. Ten accused over improper disposal...

  8. Hotline for people to make...

  9. Updated: Mirages roar back into the...

Advert

Copyright © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on - 23-02-2012 - This article is for personal use only, and should not be distributed