Advert

Divorce and the Church (2)

I am not at all surprised that those who have long been advocating the introduction of divorce are up in arms against Mgr Anton Gouder. During the RTK programme (which I heard), he only stated what the teaching of the Church on divorce and remarriage is. The Pro-Vicar General is known for speaking clearly, without fear or favour, not least on moral issues. He is one of the few priests who do not mince their words; who do not try to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds, as unfortunately many, especially when they appear on the media, try to do.

By stating that practising Catholics are morally bound to vote against the introduction of divorce he was not in any way denying their constitutional rights or, worse, meddling in politics as some have claimed. The Church has a sacrosanct duty sanctioned by the Constitution to teach what is morally right and what is wrong. By telling the faithful what their obligations as Christians are, she is in no way interfering in politics. Members of Parliament and voters are left free to choose whether to accept the teaching of the Church and vote to their Christian belief or according to their own personal convictions. Nobody has said that those who vote in favour of divorce should be pilloried, scourged or stoned or have their arms amputated.

I am convinced that Mgr Gouder will not be deterred by those who in the name of freedom and “progress” want to stifle the Church and deny her the right and duty to convey to the faithful the message as proclaimed by her Founder who among other things unequivocally stated that marriages cannot be dissolved by man and that those who divorce and remarry would be committing adultery (Mt 19, 9-11).

Advert

43 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.

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 3rd 2010, 06:38

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

I see. So at one point you say that pornea does not mean adultery, and then at another point you refer to pornea as "that adultery".

No wonder I could not understand you, seeing that you're contradicting yourself all the time.

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 3rd 2010, 16:32

@KennethCassar.

Please do not start your replies with "I see" when the rest of the comment proves that you do not see at all.

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 2nd 2010, 18:11

@Flynn. Your comment only confirms all that I have said - therefore YOU are wrong. As matters stand, you cannot vote in Malta - I can. You obstinately strain to change our Republican Constitution but you are not allowed to cast one single local vote in any election or any referendum to attain your "sour grapes" desire. I do not tell my "country people" (or the city people) how to live. I do recommend that they live according to the law and the Constitution - as it is, not as you woud like to be be - is the supreme law of the land.

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 2nd 2010, 18:39

"To vote, you have to abide by the same rules as I; except that you’re stuck there and can’t go anywhere else."(William Flynn) WRONG AGAIN. I am NOT stuck here, I can go everywhere else, my passport pages will soon be full and I have already paid a deposit for my next holiday abroad. I am not coming in the direction of Australia, so don't get too excited.

Gerry Cowie

Sep 2nd 2010, 23:53

William, as many have pointed out to you there is absolutely nothing you can do to change the constitution of Malta. You are living in Australia and call Malta "Mickey Mouse Malta" which suggests a lack of interest in the country you once lived in.
Like you, I am a tourist and cannot change things.
So leave it to those empowered with a vote in Malta.
Stop your attacks on Catholicism, which appear to be behind your many comments on subjects in these blogs.
Try a sensible, measured approach and stick to the matter in hand! Then you just might persuade a couple of people that things should be as you wish them to be.
Your continued denials of the majority religion of the Maltese Islands is a well known brick wall approach which you seem to use ad infinitum on here!
Unlike you I do not speak as an apologist on any front - I would indeed like to see a sensible debate and not a hotch potch quarrell!

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 3rd 2010, 12:11

@ Gerry Cowie:

Doesn't influencing the voter count as doing something about it? Remeber we live in a globalised world where there are few barriers to information.

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 2nd 2010, 06:47

You, a self-confessed atheist, dare to judge Moses' and my own relationship to a God who, according to you, does not even exist. You cannot even begin to understand that neither Moses nor I are presuming to overrule God. I do not expect anything better from someone who does not even have the right to cast a single vote in Malta and yet has the effrontery to counsel us to change their Constitution at his urging from distant Australia.

Kevin Cassar

Sep 2nd 2010, 11:07

@ Dr Francis Saliba

You tell William that he "dares" to have an opinion that is based on REALITY. I have news for you dr. Neither Moses nor Jesus have the right to cast a single vote in Malta neither so if you are willing to take their counsel, then your position is just as effronterous.

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 2nd 2010, 16:40

@KevinCassar

"Effronterous"! What on earth is that? I have news for you, Sir. Neither Moses nor Jesus is trying to amend our constitution from heavens above. On the other hand, Flynn from distant Australia, is always trying to amend our Constitution when he is disemfranchised and he is disqualified from voting here. That is Flynn’s unique effrontery.

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 1st 2010, 19:42

"In any case that "adultery" is better translated as “rabta hazina”.

Ah, I see we're re-writing the dictionary now.

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 1st 2010, 21:03

@KennethCassar

No I am not re-writing any dictionary - I am only quoting.

The original Aramaic word used by Christ is irretrievably lost. The earliest available translation is in Greek and says "porneia". For decades this was translated variously as "adultery", fornication" etc. That translation conflicts with all the other declarations of Christ about marriage being indissoluble from the very beginning. Modern exegists are now favouring the "rabta hazina" also favoured by our foremost expert Professor Saydon.

You do not see anything at all.

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 2nd 2010, 06:52

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

I was not referring to "pornea" and neither were you. Let me repeat what you wrote:

"In any case that "adultery" is better translated as “rabta hazina”.

Now tell me. In which dictionary is adultery translated into "rabta hazina"?

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 2nd 2010, 11:54

If you make the effort you should be able to understand that the "adultery" (and fornication etc) mentioned by me was the imprecise old translations of the greek word "porneia".

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 2nd 2010, 16:05

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

No effort necessary. Once again, you wrote: "In any case that "adultery" is better translated as “rabta hazina”.

Do you insist that "adultery" is better translated as "rabta hazina"?

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 1st 2010, 19:23

@EugeneSapiano We got Church not only to hear mass. There are other reasons, a very important reason being to listen to the the message of Christ being "preached to all nations".

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 2nd 2010, 07:10

Those who say that divorce is a grave sin and that to vote for divorce is a grave sin are playing god.

C Cini

Sep 1st 2010, 15:02

They are not wrong. It is your interpretation is wrong.

Joseph Micallef

Sep 1st 2010, 16:19

C Cini its not my interpretation. Fr. Montebello said, on a TV interview, that it's not really true that Jesus was against Divorce! He said it clear enough. No interpretation needed!

C Cini

Sep 1st 2010, 18:19

We all know how Fr Montebello speak. If you agree with him, does not mean you are right. Go to the source such as the bible and discuss these issues with those who are really know the facts. There are other priests who are good enough to make clear your arguments, not only Fr Montebello.

Joseph Micallef

Sep 1st 2010, 19:45

C. Cini may I remind you why I replied to you. You said "They are not wrong. It is your interpretation is wrong". Now you are saying that Fr. Montebello is wrong! Decide please!

David Borg

Sep 1st 2010, 16:22

Yes they say that even the devil quotes scripture!

Now what you quoted is a dubious translation of the gospel as the Greek word porneia does not mean fornication but an invalid marriage, zenut in Hebrew. See, for example http://www.groverproctor.us/sb/sb-adul.txt

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 1st 2010, 19:40

@ David Borg: Actually, the devil would misquote scripture. Now, would you be so kind as to substantiate your definition of pornea with some reference? And thanks for the link. Let me reproduce, ad verbatim, its concluding paragraph: "Does this means that Jesus made no allowance for divorce and remarriage? Not really. Christ's concern was to articulate God's ideal that marriage be an indissoluble union. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal sinless world, but in a real sinful world. Jesus did not pastor a church where some couples find it impossible to maintain a peaceful marital relationship. On the other hand, Paul did face that very challenge in churches like Corinth. Paul knew Christ's ideal of the permanence of the marital union, but he also knew the real situation of marriages that could not continue because one partner made normal life impossible for the other. Thus the apostle takes the freedom to make exceptions to Christ's ideal by allowing for the dissolution of certain difficult marriages". Thanks again for giving further evidence to what I wrote.

Advert
Advert