Laurence Mizzi, Buġibba
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).
Popular Stories
In Discussion
43 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 4th 2010, 11:31
Update. My comment of 10hrs.27mins. ' Or Australia's distance from dear Catholic Malta. As the crow flies' could have read '.......as the crowing crow, the old salt, flies. If it survives the onslaught over the white cliffs of Malta, soaring, with Vera Lynn, on a wing and an unheard prayer. Bang! Bang!
(Sorry, but late into the night, my creativity tends to shrivel - nudge! nudge! - up somewhat. But come the morning, and a new beginning, and a new de-flowering.........)
Il-ghodwa t-tajba lil kulhadd (mornin' oll!)
Joe Xuereb
Sep 4th 2010, 00:50
One man, one vote. So what's the big deal whether I vote or not. In a way the strongest vote is the one that is not cast.
This Constitution thing. Fair to assume that its worded in such a way as to reassure its citizens that they be protected. The Polish constitution would have been such a document. Yet when the jack-boots marched in the Constitution was just a piece of paper that saved nobody. The same can be said of the Maltese Constitution. Not unlike the words of the National Anthem. Now that's in serious need of a re-haul. If an alien horde were to invade Malta, even by stealth, whither the Constitution? Now THAT's cause for concern, not THAT adultery. Or Australia's distance from dear Catholic Malta. As the crow flies.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 2nd 2010, 18:31
@Kenneth Cassar I did not say "adultery", I said "THAT adultery". That means that I was referring to the adultery mentioned in the Matthean text "except it be for adultery". In that context "adultery' is the challenged English translation from the Greek word "porneia" itself a translation from the unknown Aramaic word actually used by Christ. So, YES, I insist that the word "adultery" in the Matthean text is better translated as "rabta hazina" as maintained by Professor Saydon and other modern exegists of repute. It is not a matter of dictionary definitions. It is a matter of translation from Greek to English. I assumed that no effort should be necessary for the average reader to understand that - evidently I did not make due allowance for you. Sorry!
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.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 2nd 2010, 15:29
I never studied Aramaic though I may speak the odd remnant word according to Saydon via a doctor, a salt-of-the-earth Melliehi London graduate.
But modern Greek I did acquire to facilitate my access to the 'Greek vice'. Porni in modern parlance means whore, a common street prostitute, hypocritically and unmentionable social parlance. Little do they know, the poor lambs! Frequenting such implies, to someone who's 'tied', adultery. Rabta hazina? Not so much a rabta hazina; rather a fact of life. The man loves the whore but marries/desires his mother, a decent woman. The Madonna/whore syndrome at work. His mother never could decently provide his darker side. So for that, he has recourse, if only in his mind while on the job, to the porni. It's not a question of sin or not, bad or not. It's merely a fact.
All this says all there is to know about man and his sad predicament. The Madonna/whore syndrome is nothing new. Man is patriarchal and, in enforching his will, short-changes himself something terrible. An adult but obstinately an enfant terrible in his sad persistence to control.
No, not a sin. Just a dreadful god-given predicament. But he's got free will. Like not!
William { Flynn
Sep 2nd 2010, 15:26
Buzzzz! Wrong Francis! To vote, you have to abide by the same rules as I; except that you’re stuck there and can’t go anywhere else. I can come and go, stay or leave, vote or not as I please and there is not a thing you can do about it.
Meantime I shall continue to attack your religious arguments fanatically tossed against what is purely a social question of basic human rights, divorce; and freedom for people to live their lives without the pressure from clerics and people like you.
The Constitution belongs to me as much as to you and there’s nothing you can do about that either. So I say, down with that disgrace of Article 2 which was inserted by guile and stealth by the Curia and then archbishop Gonzi.
The effrontery is yours to sanctimoniously dare tell your adult country people how to live.
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.
victor pulis
Sep 1st 2010, 21:47
Joe Zammit(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Mr Theuma, there are no two evils. There is, in case, a failed marriage where separation does well before God. The two are still validly married and must live separately without entering another false marriage. They must take that failure as a cross, unite it with the suffering of Christ and offer it to God, thus they will draw nearer to God and will have a greater reward in heaven for eternity. This is the only will of God. Divorce is condemned by God. Only the devil is pleased with divorce.
If this is the solution offered by the church to all the victims of failed marriages then I'm not surprised there's so much opposition to the church's teachings.
It was not always so Joe. DEUTERONOMY 21; 14 TO 21 READ IT. THE WORD OF GOD.
William P Flynn
Sep 1st 2010, 21:05
Now what; Moses overrules god and Francis Saliba overrules Moses?
There is no divine punishment; only people like Francis Saliba, the priests and the wannabe priests who want to screw with your life and tell you how to live it while hitting you on the head with a thick book of impossible fairy tales-the brainless writings of Bronze Age ignoramuses who attributed every clap of thunder to the man in the sky, appeased him by burning birds and animals on altars and filled volumes with unscientific crap. Then Catholics outdid even them with more theology, fairy-tales and miracles crap.
People who have made their own "marriages" after their first one went bad, have already made their decision to ignore, disobey or forsake the bible and Catholic dogma; or interpret them differently. And who can blame them when Jews, Moslems and most of Christianity allow divorce, Catholic theologians are confused, and almost every country allows divorce?
The cause of causes of this messy and anachronistic argument is the power that we, the people, allow the priests to have over our country.
It doesn't have to be like this. Shut them up; removing Article 2 from OUR Constitution is all it takes.
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 3rd 2010, 06:46
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
""Effronterous"! What on earth is that?"
Ask the Christian Observer:
http://books.google.com.mt/books?id=7uARAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA386&lpg=PA386&dq=effronterous&source=bl&ots=fELICPapHO&sig=q7fo3z5u6682_c3xEBv78-PN58I&hl=en&ei=z3yATMmjBdWL4Qa-is3TCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=effronterous&f=false
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 1st 2010, 19:01
@Franco Farrugia You present your challenged personal opinions as if they were absolute truths. They are not. The Church does not “threaten" one and all with the 'dnub' (sin). It does not threaten, it teaches. It is not “threatening” to inflict any punishment on anyone. It is teaching that God punishes evil. The possibility of that divine punishment is unpalatable to prospective divorcees. That danger forces atheists to reject God. Others, less sanguine, would like to remould God according to their liberal tastes and not according to the teaching of Christ. That is why atheists, secularists and a la carte Catholics swell the ranks of the divorce lobby. You have no grounds to claim that Church authorities “speak of God-does-not-want-divorce when we know this not to be so!” WE DO NOT KNOW that at all. According to the full teaching of Christ (not the isolated debated exception for “adultery) God forbade divorce from the very beginning, God did not approve the Mosaic dispensation. Dato non concesso the "adultery exception” it is obvious that divorcists want divorce for all sorts of additional pretexts, not just for a biblical “adultery”. In any case that "adultery" is better translated as “rabta hazina”.
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"?
eugene sapiano
Sep 1st 2010, 18:17
In spite of the bishops' warning about organising a crusade against divorce, it seema that many priests and members of religious organizations are already doing so; are we going back to the sixties ?
It is true that evryone is entitled to his opinion, priests included, but in church we go to hear mass.
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".
Franco Farrugia
Sep 1st 2010, 17:57
Dear Mr Mizzi, I know you well, you are a very respected person and I admire you for what you are and what you stand for. I know you are not a person who will insult others. At the same time, owing to your age, your generation and your life experience within the 'bosom' of the Church, I expect you to be against divorce, come what may. Most of those who 'advocate', as you claim, 'the introduction of divorce', such as myself, are not trying to 'stifle the Church'. No way. What I,don't agree with is that the Church starts threatening one and all with the 'dnub' (sin). What I don't agree with is that within some quarters of the Church, they speak of God-does-not-want-divorce when we know this not to be so! What I also don't agree with is the fact that the Church expects, no, demands, the State to walk the way it wants the State to walk - this is unacceptable. What I find totally unacceptable is people, such as your good self, to wear blinkers and totally ignore the plight of thousands of men and women who want to start afresh or close with the past.
Joe Zammit
Sep 1st 2010, 16:14
Those who say that divorce is no grave sin and that to vote for divorce is no grave sin are playing the devil.
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. camilleri
Sep 1st 2010, 16:12
Prosit Lawrence . I fully agree with you. We need more persons like you and Mons Gouder who speak loudly and clearly without mincing their words or trying to please everyone.
Joe Zammit
Sep 1st 2010, 16:12
Legislating in favour of divorce is grave sin that separates the offender from God and puts him or her on the path to hell.
Legislating in favour of divorce is legislating in favour of evil, condemned by God.
Legislating in favour of divorce is betraying God who tells us that what he has joined together, let no man put asunder!
Legislating in favour of divorce is a diabolical step that pleases only the devil.
Legislating in favour of divorce makes you responsible before God for the grave sins others will commit on account of your sinful and evil legislation.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Sep 1st 2010, 15:35
Oh! The boogeyman (JZ) is once again with us..
Today he praises the Constitution. Of course, the devil is wise and he plays tricks. He reminds us that “The Constitution states that the Catholic Church has the right and duty to teach what principles are good and what principles are bad.” And the poor devil pretends to forget that the Constitution belongs to Caesar and not God. Malicious devil that he is!
You see, dear reader, how this poor malicious devil wants to keep you chain-bound under his feet.
Divorce IS NOT AN INJUSTICE AGAINST GOD—that is blasphemy!
Divorce is a great JUSTICE TO THE VICTIM OF A BROKEN MARRIAGE.
DIVORCE IS A MUST FOR THE BROKEN VICTIM AND A SECOND CHANCE FOR THE CHILDREN TO HAVE A FAMILY.
The Church can only teach BUT NOT DICTATE. The Church must only help and not scare people.
Heaven and hell are myths. Sin does not exist. Only LOVE and COMPASSION exist.
JZ, what principles are good and what principles are bad is only one’s business and surely not yours to dictate.
William P Flynn
Sep 1st 2010, 13:40
No one is trying to stifle the church. In this instance the Catholic church is the aggressor, as it has always been throughout history.
It is trying to prevent a law which, for those willingly governed by the Catholic church, is useless and inconsequential; for Catholics should never have use for divorce.
This is religious persecution by the religious on those of other social beliefs and mores.
Anton Gouder displays the egoism, social anachronism and dictatorial behaviour of the Catholic church seen wherever people are tame enough to allow it to have the power to do so, such as in Malta.
It doesn't have to be so; the church only has the power we, the people, allow it to have. We, the people, own the republic, our lives and our future; and not the church and the priests. They exist at our pleasure.
Remove the church's power. Annihilate the reprehensible Article 2 of the Constitution and just ignore the ravings of priests and mużewmini who would have a seizure and likely lose the contents of their bowels and bladders if they find themselves alone with a woman in a bedroom; let alone know anything about man/woman/relationships and divorce.
Gerard Cassar
Sep 1st 2010, 12:18
What Mons Gouder said means that, if by any chance a voter for divorce comes out of the polling booth and drops death his soul goes to eternal damnation. That is the position according to Mons Gouder. No need to beat about the bush. Mons Gouder admits no attenutation as the Cathechism of the Catholic Church does,
C Cini
Sep 1st 2010, 11:03
You should know that the voice of the priests is like a voice in the desert, no one cares what others teach even though teach real principles and values . This is the result of the grandstanding attitude which already exists. Surely this is not a progress.
Joseph Micallef
Sep 1st 2010, 10:20
I see. So Mgr Gouder is correct but Fr. Montebello, Fr. Peter Seracino Inglott, Fr. Ciarlo Camilleri, and the latest cleric lecturing at Univeristy (forgot the name) - are all wrong! And I know that there are many other clerics who agree with these! Is there a scism going on in the Maltese Church maybe - and is the Maltese Church distinct from let's say - the Catholic church in England - distinct as in having different beliefs?!!!
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!
Kenneth Cassar
Sep 1st 2010, 09:38
Actually, Mt 19, 9-11 says: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery".
Isn't misquoting the Bible considered a grave sin?
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.
Joe Zammit
Sep 1st 2010, 09:20
A simple argument:
The Constitution is above all national laws.
The Constitution states that the Catholic Church has the right and duty to teach what principles are good and what principles are bad.
Therefore, the right and duty of the Catholic Church to teach what principles are good and what principles are bad are above ALL national laws, including the Electoral (Polling) Ordinance.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!