Why conscience alone is not enough

peter cassar torreggiani

Sep 26th 2010, 18:50

"Caritas in Veritatem" - this is my experience of marriage. How often have I experienced bitterness in selfishness, how often have I experienced love in forgiveness. The amazing thing is that the guide second by second to get through the raging rapids has been trusting that Christ's love supplements for all defects in experiencing human love in the embrace of Trinitarian love. Even more beautiful has been the experience that in the intimacy of internal bodily expression of married love in the marriage act itself the opening of one's heart to the spirit of external charity is the gift of this Trinitarian love. It's truely amazing how the last two Pope's have been inspired by God to map out this path to the fullness of human happiness in the matter of love and marriage. Today I see in the agony of so many in marriage the invitation I have found to be on the cross with Christ in the universal outreach to the love of all in the Father. It's as though we are in an era when God wants us all to marry him within our own marriages! The Holy Spirit is at work in all this incredible beauty.

george rev. frendo

Sep 6th 2010, 12:04

As Dr Brincat aptly noted, it is saddening to read vicious remarks, pointed inuendoes, and what could be termed as blasphemous statements. It seems that blogging unfortunately tends to bring out some nasty aspects of one's character. So be it. I am also certain that Dr Brincat would agree that "caritas in veritate": charity in truth has always been and will be the way to go. To the catholic, the Saving Truth is Our Lord Jesus Christ: His Words and Deeds. And as the Scripture (1Tess. 2,13) entreats, Receive the Word of God, not as the word of man (even if he were to the most saintly, or the profoundest intellectual), but as it is in truth, the Word of God (i.e. with open mind and heart). I am sure that in this specific instance, the Word of God could not be more clear and unambiguous.

David Seychell

Sep 4th 2010, 16:38

@Fr Joe Borg
"I totally agree that conscience is not the ultimate seat of morality. God is. There is nothing in my writings or in that of Fr Charlo or the Dean of the Faculty of Theology which could vagely suggest that any one of us believes in a relativistic kind of morality."

Fr Borg, what you, Fr Charlo and Fr Emmanuel Agius said/wrote is still there for all to see. You may now deny your own words but you may not at the same time sound credible or consistent.

Lino Apap

Sep 4th 2010, 16:15

Mr. Caruana, stop getting your knickers in such a terrible twist. Good on you for believing that “resorting to divorce or abetting its legislation“ “is a ‘grave offence’, a sin”. You have your opinion and I have mine which I am simply stating like I have every right to do; I’m sorry if my opinion offends you but ….tough! If you don’t like it – don’t read it. I’m not preaching and I’m certainly not limiting anyone’s “say or participation”. It is your ilk that tries to stifle everybody to get them to toe your line “or else burn in hell”. I’m not afraid of the Catholic vote – why should I be? For all your crowing, there is only a 5% difference between those wanting the introduction of divorce and those who don’t according to the Times survey. 40% is no small minority Mr. Caruana. And, one has to keep in mind that the survey was carried out on a simple yes/no question on the introduction of divorce. Imagine the result if a reasonable law is drafted and subjected to a referendum – why Mr. Caruana you may actually be part of a minority after all!

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 4th 2010, 14:39

Fr Frendo. Sorry that I am bothering you again, but you answer,so a constructive discussion can be established. It may be of help to others. You must have seen that there are posts here and in other comments which verge on the blasphemous, and sometimes on the margin of the vilification of religion (which are crimes). Is this healthy ?

I personally do not think that civil legislation can make a marriage happy or keep it together. It must be moral ( or let's call them simply human) principles.

Once we had a law that a husband could call back his wife to the matrimonial home as otherwise she would lose the right to maintenance. Who bothered ? It has been scrapped.

Civil laws do not guarantee stability in families. There is something more, which is not written in any man-made law.

That is why I insist on "loving" help to families in problems. When one crosses the Rubicon, it is simply too difficult to make one cross back, sin or not sin, intrinsic evil or not.

charles caruana

Sep 4th 2010, 14:36

Mr Apap, apparently it is the Church’s constitutional right to teach its faithful what constitutes sin that is hitting a very raw nerve in you. The 60’s interdiction has nothing to do with this debate; don’t play scare tactics by fishing in troubled waters. I repeat, don’t just harp on your belief about spiritual threats, prove it, if necessary by opening a constitutional or civil case at court. I as a Catholic believer know that resorting to divorce or abetting its legislation by my vote is a ‘grave offence’, a sin, and therefore I do not feel threatened at all. You have no right to speak in the name of believers by claiming they are feeling threatened. Yes you are high handedly excluding the Catholic viewpoint by disallowing something intrinsic to it to be said in public, namely that divorce and voting for it are sins for a practicing Catholic. Any civil act, including divorce, involves moral, ethical and social issues and impacts, and you have absolutely no right to limit my say and participation in such issues from a religious, specifically Catholic point of you. What are you afraid of Mr Apap? The Catholic vote?

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 4th 2010, 14:22

Fr Frendo. I had vowed not to touch this subject.

When I speak about a pastoral approach, I do not mean that it should be a negation of doctrine. It is only how one presents it. If one needs an example is Familiaris Consortio.

I was happily surprised by an expression in the Pastoral Note of the Bishops. I read it in its entirety on One Radio, after midnight last Sunday. On the other side, there was Bishop Mario Grech listening. In the Note, there is a comment about the heartbreak of parents when they see their children passing through a marriage breakdown. So realistic, and so human. All the doctrine was there, but how human in presentation!!!

Who wants to lead his daughter up the aisle, and within two years waiting in court for a separation or an annulment ? Yes, I am a lawyer but every separation is a heartbreak.

Every marriage breakdown, irrespective of its classification under civil law, is a trauma.

Kenneth Zammit Tabona

Sep 4th 2010, 13:22

no need to get all het up about this article as Mgr Gouder the Pro Vicar although maintaining that voting for divorce is a sin reminded us all that we can confess it afterwards!!!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or was tha yet another personal opinion?

This free for all is unfair on good Catholics as with each cleric making his own personal point the issue becomes more and more confusing ; possibly obfuscating it to a ridiculous degree.

This is not a religious issue. This is a power game. The state and the church have been playing musical chairs for centuries. Because of the divorce issue all the chairs have been removed save one and the governement doesnt like it, the church doesnt like it, the people do not like it.

The reason is simple. As Caesar said 'the die is cast'
There is now no going back.

George rev. Frendo

Sep 4th 2010, 11:40

I am sure that Dr Brincat would agree that in the case of a catholic formation of conscience essentially entails the enlightenment which comes from the Word of God. In this specific case, Our Lord expressely referred his interlocutors to the original design of the Father, "in the beginning". In fact for our Lord, His Father's will was paramount. The Lord was not referring to a future time of the establishment of the Church with its particular sacramental marriage legislation, but going back to the roots: at that time there were neither Christians,nor Muslims, nor Hindus, nor agnostics, nor whatever: there was just Human Being (understood in the essential duality: male/female). Regarding the query about considering divorce (i.e. the dissolution of a legally valid marriage contract to enter into another marriage contract), as a "crime", (punishable?), please let's be serious. One thing is certain: it does not pay to "banalize" the issue.

Joseph Micallef

Sep 4th 2010, 09:54

@ all commentators: Will you please refrain from referring to these comments as blogs. A blog is a totally different thing. This is neither a blog nor are we bloggers. These are comments to an article/letter - not a blog. A blog is an online journal. Take a look at the column on the left hand side of the page - there is a subtitle "blogs" and you see listed Alison Bezzina, Andrew Borg Cardona and so on. Those are bloggs with their blogs. Should you wish to start your own blog and start blogging visit either www.blogger.com or www.wordpress.com - for the most popular blogging service - for free.

Lino Apap

Sep 4th 2010, 06:58

Mr. Caruana, apparently I’m hitting a nerve somewhere. Of course Mgr. Gouder’s statement that voting for divorce is sinful is a threat just as the Church’s decree of the 1960’s that voting for Labour was “a sin” was. Believers are being spiritually threatened that if they vote (a totally civil act – nothing remotely religious about it) in a certain way, they will terminate their relationship with God. I’m sorry but I believe this to be a spiritual threat whether you like it or not. If I have a knack for avoiding the essential you have an absolute gift for putting words in my mouth that were never said. I never excluded anyone’s viewpoint (Catholic or otherwise) nor have I assumed that divorce is a solution to marital failure. These are your words not mine. I believe that (a) divorce is a civil act that dissolves the civil marriage, (b) the Church should not interfere (especially in such a high-handed way) against its necessary introduction owing to the civil nature of divorce and (c) it (divorce) is necessary because of the ever-increasing marital failure rate NOT as a solution but as a form of closure on the failed marriage. Clear?

gaffarena joseph

Sep 3rd 2010, 23:40

Fasther Mizzi, , please for the love that we all have for our religion,why you continue mentioning the word SIN,
So, all the other catholic people that divorce now is a legal factor, are all making sins.The mortal
sin is coming from the church itself, by being conservative about this matter.I, blame the heads of our church, for keeping us in all this darkness.Why a couple have to wait all these years to get an allunament from the church,sometimes it take 10 years,IS this not a sin.?
Sure everyone want to have a happy marriage, but now adays we are living in another era, an era that we cannot stop it by pouring all these sins.After all this is purely a private matter, and I, see no ways why it have to be discussed by the church.Try to be more moderate with your faithful in many things, because we are letting more young people seeing only the negative from our church.None of the members of the church can feel the negative aspect of a broken marriage.The couple have to decide their future.

J. Falzon

Sep 3rd 2010, 23:38

Awesome!
I'm not Catholic, and I do not want a Catholic marriage
Why can't I divorce?

Let's do a Joe Zammit typical rant shall we?

YES TO DIVORCE
MALTA IS A MULTI-RELIGIOUS COUNTRY
A YES TO DIVORCE IS A YES FOR PROGRESS!!

Let's see what you Catholics say when YOU're in a minority

Peace

Loredana Gatt

Sep 3rd 2010, 22:31

Fr Joseph Mizzi is confusing two issues. Religion and the State. Religion has rules which apply exclusively to its faithful. If one is a practising Catholic then he/she must follow the rules of that faith, whether one likes them or not. If that person is not happy with the rules and wants to divorce, find a lover and what not then he or she should stop considering themselves as Catholics. Their relation with God is their own affair and is just a valid whether they worship Allah, Bhudda, Mohammed or follow any other faith that they believe better represents their way of thinking.

The State and its legal system are an altogether different issue. The State should legislate for all and not for Catholics. The State should allow non-practising Catholics or Maltese nationals embracing other faiths to divorce if they so chose. Divorce involves consenting adults who may want to chose to not share a life together any longer. Why should the State interfere , especially when the same result can be reached simply by investing money abroad, obtaining residence there, filing for divorce and having that divorce recognised under the Maltese Marriage Act?

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 3rd 2010, 21:33

@ Rev George Frendo. Definitely these matters of conscience are important.

May I recall that the United Nations in 1948, 1995 and 1998 has re-iterated its position in favour of objectors of conscience for military personnel, on account of freedom of thought, conscience or religion. Military personnel, who are under military discipline, have the right to remain in the army but in conformity with their conscience. It also envisages that a person may develop into a conscientious objector.

The United States has fully recognised such a right of conscience in the military.

I agree that in such matters the mind (to follow Aquinas, as the seat of conscience) has to be enlightened. The mind must understand and assimilate. The mind has to ask "Why ?" "How ?" Otherwise enlightened becomes mere knowledge without any deep rooted effect.

george frendo rev.

Sep 3rd 2010, 20:25

While noting Fr Joe Borg's and Dr Brincat's, (in the main), scholarly elucidations, the point remains that irrespective of the individual/collective "conscience", as well as the prevailing particular national legislation, a crime remains a crime, which in theological parlance would translate as intrinsically evil act. The imputability to the subject of a "gravely sinful" act, depends on the circumstances, which obviously includes one's perception (consciousness or lack of it) of the intrinsic evil of the act; his freedom of action at the time of its execution/or omission, among other things. So please, let's work for an enlightened "conscience": after all an enlightened conscience is a tremendous asset to the nation.

Lino Apap

Sep 3rd 2010, 17:26

Mr. Caruana - Whether I’m a practicing Catholic or not isn’t the issue; the absence of divorce from Maltese civil law is! At a time when marital failure is at an all-time high this is irresponsible. An accurate definition of divorce is “the legal dissolution of a marriage by a court or other competent body”- “legal” referring to Civil Law of course. Divorce legislation will only apply to CIVIL marriage – religious marriage will remain untouched. Irrelevant of course because the couple is no longer living together – but still untouched by civil divorce just as it is today by legal separation. The Church should teach and guide its flock but shouldn't threaten. Whether Mgr. Gouder’s “warning” that voting for divorce is sinful is considered a threat or simply a “teaching” exercise is a matter of opinion. Many see it as threat; you and others obviously disagree which is what this debate is all about. That’s acceptable. What’s unacceptable is your using abortion which has nothing to do with divorce. Or is this the only ploy you can count on – using abortion as the bogeyman – against a logical discussion? BTW – you’ve forgotten to include euthanasia :-)

Charmaine Marmara'

Sep 3rd 2010, 16:38

Yes, it is a sin to vote in favour of divorce because outrightly it goes against the Word
Fr .Mizzi , i vote yes to divorce and that doesnt give you the right to call me a sinner just coz u are a priest and read that line from the bible ....i dont agree . and if ur never been married u cant talk either in my opinion ...

Dr Francis Saliba

Sep 3rd 2010, 13:14

Everything depends on what one means by "conscience". A self-serving, accomodating, expedient conscience tailor made by the individual to suit his own exigencies at the moment is very rarely a good and reliable conscience according to God's law (or the "natural law" for those who feel uncomfortable with the idea of the God as preached by Christ and who sits in judgment on everybody at the end of time. When they preach the supremacy of conscience Catholic clergy should make it abundantly clear that they do not accept this "a la carte conscience" as a valid conscience at all

Christopher Grech

Sep 3rd 2010, 12:45

@ Fr Mizzi

Which Word of God does it say in the Bible, that goes contrary to divorce please? I know it otherwise!

Joe Xuereb

Sep 3rd 2010, 12:44

@ Anthony Girard (1day ago). Quoting yourself: ' I have heard it at Mass from the pulpit and it is done purposely to cast confusiuon in the minds of the congregation'. I don't think piests speaking from pulpits are deliberately misleading the congregation. They are confused themselves simply because they limit themselves to 'the word of god'. They could choose to research outside this box and come back to the people with greater candour. Research is easy these days. Opium is past its sell-by date. If they know this but refuse, THEN they would be deliberately confusing themselves further, and the people. Their oration would be a lie. It would be on their conscience.
What I'm saying in other words is, the priest is much a victim as the members in the congregation. Traditionally, he lead the flock. Maybe the time has come when the flock leads the preacher. This process is already in motion, witness the diminishing church-attendances. Joe Zammit, are you there?

Lino Apap

Sep 3rd 2010, 07:17

Of course conscience should be enough. Divorce is a civil matter and not a religious one so threatening people with sin if they decide to vote in favour in a possible referendum is a clear example of the church grossly overstepping its area of jurisdiction; the Church may take a contrary position in support of its dogma but it is unacceptable that some high ranking clerics threaten voters with spiritual blackmail. This is made worse when these same clerics and their vociferous supporters threaten our MP's whose duty it is to legislate for ALL Maltese citizens irrespective of religious belief, with the same sort of blackmail.
Fr. Mizzi's linking divorce to abortion & euthanasia is totally uncalled for. There is no link between the three as everyboy knows but this tired old chestnut is brought out many times to bolster a weak argument.

Kenneth Cassar

Sep 3rd 2010, 07:13

This is the same Cana Movement that tells us we shouldn't use condoms, isn't it?

Enough said.

C Cini

Sep 3rd 2010, 00:41

Jmisskom tisthu tghidu il-hmerijiet u ma taccettawx l-opinjoni ta' haddiehor ghax ma jaqbilx ghal widnejn.

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 2nd 2010, 23:47

@ Rev George Frendo. The International Tribunal which tried the war crimes during Hitler's Regime, the Nurnberg Trials, decided on crimes against humanity. As in any criminal trial, the actus reus (illegal act) and the mens rea (willingness to commit it) are established. Matters of conscience may reflect on the "motive" which may be taken into consideration in punishment, but even the noblest of motives cannot erase liability, except where the law states so. (e.g self defence) A German who killed another soldier on the other side did not commit a war crime.

The Tribunal was set up by two protestant and a Communist country (USA, UK and USSR).

Genocide is against the conscience of humanity, so no one could claim that his conscience was correct. It was precisely on the conscience of humanity that the trials could take place. There was no written international law laying down genocide as a war crime. The Genocide Convention was promulgated in 1948 !!! Years after the Holocaust.

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 2nd 2010, 22:54

@ Frank Muscat. You sent me to revisit the Code of Canon Law. My reading is that the faithful have a right to inform their pastor about things pertaining to the Church. What is being written here is a very indirect way to passing a message. True, researchers have a right to freedom.

The problem is the medium used.

It may be infantile, but I was voicing the concern of many, who may even not agree with me. It is a sorry spectacle when a house appears divided. There is something called "credibility". Let's transpose the argument to the medical profession. If doctors tell you one thing, and the others the opposite, I pity the patients.

Truth becomes many truths, even conflicting. If there are various opinions, let them be trashed out in proper forum. I did not read in the Canons that it is wise to write posts and letters in the Times or any other newspaper.

Luigi Cassar Manghi

Sep 2nd 2010, 22:04

Dear Fr, Mizzi,

If you read a few verses down from where you quoted, namely Matthew 19:9, Jesus gives an exception where divorce is allowable to the innocent spouse. Please do not stick to one single bible version of this same verse, because variations exist but they all mean the same in substance.

Much in the same way that Matthew 19:6 which you quoted is the Word of God, even Matthew 19:9 which I am quoting is the Word of God, from the same Gospel.

The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts Matthew 19:9 in a compassionate way, after a period of excommunication and renewed communion for the innocent divorcee.

Can you please tell me what is this paradox? Is Matthew 19:9 erroneous? It is dangerous to state that it is erroneous. To me it is simply an exception.

Regards,

LCM

Joe Zammit

Sep 2nd 2010, 19:40

Par.2383 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “… If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offence.” This is a case where the validly married spouse is constrained by law to accept divorce as the only possible way for certain legal rights. This provision of the Catechism is in no way favouring divorce. The Church is saying ‘tolerated’, i.e., the action for divorce is made externally only, not internally, materially and not formally. After all, this case does not apply to Malta. So the married spouse continues to consider his or her marriage still valid before God and the Catholic Church and does not enter another relationship. Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!

sciortino m

Sep 2nd 2010, 18:25

@Fr. Joseph Mizzi 'The Word of God is very clear on divorce: “What God has united, man must not divide” (Mt 19, 6).' What is the problem for man to divide what was united by man? The Church does not recognise civil marriages involving Catholics and considers them as null or invalid. Yet the state cannot dissolve such marriages. Please explain the reasoning why it is a sin for the state to dissolve something that the Church says does not exist?

Frank Muscat

Sep 2nd 2010, 18:05

Dr. Brincat: Why should priests and theologians, and catholic lay-people for that matter, come out with a "unitary position"? Quite an infantile attitude, I would say. We are not clones or robots. The Christian faithful "have the right and even at times the DUTY to manifest to the sacred pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the church..." (canon 212.3). And "Those who are engaged in fields of sacred study have a just freedom to research matters in which they are expert and to express themselves prudently concerning them..." (canon 218). Pope John Paul II encouraged responsible dissent and supported theologians in their invaluable service done in freedom. In 1969, then Archbishop of Krakow, he said: "Conformity means death for any community. A loyal opposition is a necessity in any community". A little later he remarked: "Truth is the power of peace...What should one say of the practice of combatting or silencing those who do not share the same views?"

george rev frendo

Sep 2nd 2010, 17:32

If one's "conscience", which is fast becoming an ambiguous term, were to be the ultimate seat of morality (determining the goodness/badness of a human act), than any Holocaust would be written off without the batting of an eyelid. After all, is that not what is happening all the time through abortion, just to state one of the contemporary human tragedies? The international tribunals set up to decide upon the atrocities perpetrated by various criminals during the course of armed conflict and beyond it, certainly give the lie to the assumption that the appeal to the supremacy of one's "conscience" can condone anything.

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 2nd 2010, 17:02

Earlier, if you scroll down, I opined that there were several discordant views, and these are not conducive to any good. I forgot to mention the expression of Archbishop Cremona "I would not put it as a sin...." Instead of a choir we have so many soloists. Whatever the topic. This is not a question of whether to have traditional fiestas or not.

Fr Mizzi says that some are afraid to "swim against the tide".

I am afraid that a tsunami is being put in motion.

C Gatt

Sep 2nd 2010, 16:53

The reason why Fr Mizzi's reasoning is troubling is because ultimately it can lead to cruel decisions.

Whilst I cannot accept that divorce is in any way connected to abortion and euthanasia, once he has picked on the topic of abortion, I will once more bring up the story of the nun who was recently excommunicated because, as a director of a Catholic hospital in Arizona, she gave the go ahead to perform an abortion of an 11 week old fetus to save the life of a mother of four.
To understand the church's reasoning why this excommunication was justifiable please follow this link: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=36604.
I quote "The hospital has two directives relating to abortion..... The first says that physicians cannot perform direct abortions under any circumstances, including for such reasons as to save the life of the mother."
I wonder how many pregnant women or their partner would be happy going to a hospital with such a policy, whether they are catholics or not.

Kevin Cassar

Sep 2nd 2010, 16:16

If the Bible were the word of god, then god surely is a confused fellow. You can just about derive any possible conclusion from the bible according to your interpretation of the words or your selection of passages. Let me give a few examples:

Jesus said to Nicodemus that noone has ever been to heaven except for the son of man, yet if we go back a few pages we read that Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of fire. Maybe Jesus failed to see him? Paul wrote letters in which he said that it was necessary for a man to be circumcized and others in which he says that it is better not to be circumcized. Jesus is also quoted to have said that he did not come to make judgement on the world (John 3:17 and John 12:47) while he also said the opposite, that he came to make judgement on the world in John 9:39 (ironically the same author!!!!). Take your pick.

William P Flynn

Sep 2nd 2010, 16:15

Joseph Mizzi, when you "swim against the tide" it is advisable too keep your mouth shut; you swallow less water that way and more likely survive.

Revelation and the word of god are only your interpretation of such. Jews, Moslems and the majority of Christian sects read the same books and allow divorce.

This is about power; church power that you wish to exercise from that sneakily acquired Article 2 of the Constitution; which 85% of Maltese citizens wouldn't know it exists and which was fraudulently included in the Constitution before these citizens were even born or got out of short pants.

And what is a priest like you, unmarried, doing heading a Cana Movement? If you want to show how a marriage should be lived, get married; start a family yourself. Get some flying hours before you tell others how to fly a plane.

Have you ever spent one day alone with a woman? Let alone lived with one?
Honestly, priests stick their noses into everything in Malta. Why? Because we let them.

Joseph Calleja

Sep 2nd 2010, 15:34

And what makes you think that your truth is the right one? I am entitled to think that my opinion is the right one. Everybody in the free world is entitled to believe his/her opinion is the right one. As they say, you make the bed, you lay in it. I think the church has made it's bed of arrogance and now it has to live with it. People are sick and tired of being threatened with hell and sin in everything they do and that is why a lot of it's members are having a hard time swimming against the tide. The world is changing and so must the church. Talking about Malta and the Maltese, we are not so gullible anymore and in the last 25 years Maltese catholics are more aware of what is going on around them and have realized that there is another world out there and also realized that voting in favour of divorce does not condemned you to hell. Threatening people with hell and condemnation does not work anymore. Maybe a little more understanding would work a lot better instead of condemning anybody and everybody that does not agree with you.

Leo Bartolo

Sep 2nd 2010, 15:29

Shame on Fr Mizzi for taking the place of God and decides that a vote in favour of divorce is a sin. Take a look at the Cathecisim of The Catholic Church and learn what the Catholic Church's doctrine says about divorce holistically.
Furthermore Fr Mizzi, what does your conscience say with regards to the increasing marriage separations (even after 1, 2 years of marriage) after the couples in question had attended and concluded (sic) the so-called pre-marriage courses. It seems that these so-called courses in preparation of marriage are not bearing fruit and marriages are breaking down every day. No wonder there seems to be a great necessity for the introduction of divorce in these islands.

patrick zammit

Sep 2nd 2010, 15:27

Is it also a sin to
1) put Galileo under house arrest for life for his support of Copernicus' heliocentrism theory?
2) steal a dying person's property in exchange for prayers for his soul’s salvation?
3) torture and burn people at the stake for not agreeing with the church's views?
4) bury people at the mizbla and impose the dnub il-mejjet on MLP followers?
5) protect paedophile priests by transferring them to other unsuspecting localities (not Mexico) where they can continue to abuse more children at their new district?
6) castrate choir boys so that their voice would not break since women are “unclean” to sing in church?
7) threatened people during confession with denying them absolution of their sins if they use coitus interruptus and have less than 1 child every 11 months or so, contributing to social problems like making Malta almost the most populated country in the world?
8) support the Spanish royalty in enslaving/torturing/killing whole civilisations (Incas/Aztecs/Mayas) running into millions of natives in the search of earthly pleasures and riches?

JOSEPH ZAMMIT

Sep 2nd 2010, 15:24

It is all well and good for Fr Joseph Mizzi to argue thus. Even assuming that the Bible is the Word of God, his argument only binds Catholics. All the other atheists; Muslims; Mormons; Hindus; Buddhists etc do not give a dime what the Bible and the Church says and thus their conscience is free to choose otherwise.

Divorce is a sin for the Catholics who still prefer to follow the priesthood and their myths. For Non-Catholics it is NOT a SIN and no amount of scaremongering will ever play the trick. The Laws are for everyone of whatever belief he/she harbors and no particular religion should be preferred from others.

The Church has its canon Laws and the State (Caesar) has its own. Caesar’s laws must be for ALL the people. Its about high time that this simple reasoning be well understood by the church.

Jon Shaw

Sep 2nd 2010, 14:53

I think that someone must seriously advise the Curia and church in Malta that such letters and corresponding pedantic message by it's members is only serving to further alienate the public and push it away from the church.

D Merceica

Sep 2nd 2010, 14:41

There ain't no Heaven and there ain't no hell. There might just be a God,but he's nothing like you imagine, and certainly he won't give two hoots about divorce. About time the fairy tales stopped.

Carmel Borg

Sep 2nd 2010, 14:38

@ Fr. Joseph Mizzi

The problem with your view is that you are addressing the divorce issue only from a Roman Catholic perspective.
Those who were born into the roman catholic fold and have long felt that they do not belong to it, have different views. Also, there are those of different religions, atheists, etc. who simply don't bother of what the roman catholic authority says. Just take a look at today's society. We've got so many separated people in relationships, cohabiting couples, single mothers and same sex couples.
Personally I respect the Word of God, but the problem with it is that there many interpretations which have led to many divisions within the Christian faith. There are even divisions within the roman catholic church.
Divorce, just like separation and annulment is a sad episode, but life is full ups and downs, and we must move on and hope for the best.

Chris Reiff

Sep 2nd 2010, 14:32

There's nothing about child rape in that book of yours, so is child rape not a sin?

Dr. Edward J. Clemmer

Sep 2nd 2010, 14:07

Conscience "alone" is insufficient, as the "Word of God" also reveals the intention of God regarding the covenantal nature of marriage, and also of celebacy, in fact. Both are faithful commitments in the manner of God's faithful covenant with us for our salvation. However, there is a difference between "voting" for divorce and "obtaining" one, as well as a difference between "obtaining" one and "remarriage." If I should support the option for "choosing" divorce by "voting" for it, does not mean that I favour, praise, or recommend divorce. For, all of its moral shades of gray certainly are obscured for me regarding the situations of specific couples. It is not for me to make that choice, or for me to deny that choice by others. There certainly is sufficient theological grounds for the invalidity or nullity of some marriages. It is not for me to make that judgment. But it is in the consciences of individual couples to arrive at a moral decision for their potential choices for divorce, or initiations for annulment, or decisions for remarriage. While all decisions are moral ones, in advanced secular societies, no religious viewpoint should prevent freedom of individual choice. That would be "sin."

Joe Xuereb

Sep 2nd 2010, 13:52

The human's inherently insecure (consciousness is such a double-edged sword) and needs an antidote. Hence religion, fitting the bill to perfection, at a stroke promising a solution to the very thing that terrifies him most. It's no accident that we speak of MOTHER nature, MOTHER earth, god the FATHER. Why! we even call variously celebrated celibate Joes, like Borg and Mizzi., father. These forcibly unquestioning infantiles dare not ask questions for fear of upsetting mother, father and what have you.
Mizzi, Joseph, no disrespect. You're not daddy. I had a father and he was a victim of church victimisation in the 1960so because he dared read a certain newspaper. One father's enough so I'll draw a veil. R.I.P. Pa! So I'll award myself the luxury to dispense with meaningless appellations that are at best dubious. I've conquered the fear of asking questions and I've survived. And I've a morally-rich-life.
Which brings me to the 'Greek' thing. I know a thing or two about the modern Greek man (nudge! nudge!). Of the ancients, I go by one Socrates who informs me that 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. Profoundly simple and yet, simply profound. I buy that from my Socrates.

Ronald Cauchi

Sep 2nd 2010, 13:38

Unfortunately for Fr Mizzi the Greeks got it wrong, the truth is not One. Th.e truth is relative and changes with time and space. Even his church has had to accept this. It burnt St Joan and Savonarola at the stake, condemned Da Vinci as a heretic, stated that the world was flat, came up with the idea of limbo and abandoned it and so on. So condemning those theologians who are trying to give a balanced view of divorce is simplistic or outright dishonest. This apart from the obvious that Catholics have been free to vote to allow non-believers to sin to their hearts content such as legalizing homosexuality and adultery.

maria camilleri

Sep 2nd 2010, 13:08

"The truth is one..."

I think you will find that each religion, scientist, philosopher feels their truth to be the one but that fact does not make it closer to being the truth. In a democratic society, I would expect a bit more tolerance and understand that there is no one inalienable truth.

And here's for another truth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

philip camilleri

Sep 2nd 2010, 13:02

Fr Mizzi is very right in guiding his catholic church members on how to live their life, however, the state of Malta is a secular state in which the Catholic church at this time happens to be the most followed religion. in the eyes of the state all Maltese citizens are equal and not necessarily catholic or follow any religion for that matter. Divorce is a human right for all citizens. Any citizens who decide they prefer to lead their life are more than welcome to do so as long as they dont infringe on the human rights of any non believers and try and impose their religious opinions on other cittizens. Unfotunately, history has taught us that organized religions such as the Catholic Church and Islam have always tried to impose their views on one and all. In my case I beieve that Religion is a personal choice and should remain so whilst respecting others opinions. Catholic zealots simply do not have to apply for divorce or any other right if they decide not too. I wish a happy life to everyone free to decide their own fate for themselves without big brother interfering :)

John Carmel Navarro

Sep 2nd 2010, 12:30

“Why conscience alone is not enough” “Why not” Surely a practising Maltese Catholic can go with their conscience with everything they do, this would include how to vote on Divorce. Of course one has to look at the bigger picture rather than burry their head in the sand, quite rightly you mentioned Abortion and Euthanasia these are just as important as the issue of Divorce and using the excuse that “the Catholic Church in Malta is passing through serious, challenging times” does not mean we should not dare to consider making Divorce Abortion or Euthanasia Legal. The Catholic Church in Malta needs to use a very stiff hard broom and have a clean sweep, most of the problems are self inflicted. I do not wish to harp too much on the past performances involvement in matters of State, but the current tones are once I have heard before. The Church has when it suited reviewed sacraments; Example Married Priest from different denominations accepted as Catholic Priest I do not have an issue with this as it certainly brought fresh ideas and benefits. I expect to be told that this is different from where I am sitting changes can be made.

P Pace Balzan

Sep 2nd 2010, 12:23

I read Fr Joseph Mizzi’s article with interest.

He states that the church(Catholic) in Malta is passing through serious and challenging times.
I wish to inform him that so are people passing through serious and challenging times.
A serious flaw is that the church takes year after year after year after year after year (ad nauseam) along with the courts of justice to honestly conclude legal cases.
Dignity is a word that appears to be absent.

The Church has created and formulated rules and procedures which dictate what God has united. It sees the obvious through different lenses.
The Church has also created rules (para2383) which are disputed (now) by many (Inc Fr Mizzi). It interprets them in different ways by different standards.

The Church and the Courts are clearly and seriously failing in their tasks.
This is a very grave sin.

What do people do when faced with this situation?
The answer is simple; they seek and gather information about alternative options.

A real Shepard gathers his flock.
A false Shepard scatters his flock.

M. Camilleri

Sep 2nd 2010, 11:42

Just because someone wrote it in your old book doesn't make it Word of God.

That same god in that same book killed innocent children to free "his people". Do we kill innocent children? No we don't because unlike what you said sometimes "conscience and opinions valued are held above the Word of God" indeed.

anthony girard

Sep 2nd 2010, 11:35

@ Victor Laiviera

I agree.

This subtle association of divorce/abortion/euthanasia is very damaging to the credibility of the Church. I have heard it at Mass from the pulpit and it is done purposely to cast confusiuon in the minds of the congregation.

Please stop.

Divorce is a social and legal concept. The moral aspect applies only if one marries in the Church. If one feels that it goes against his/her religious beliefs, all well and good, then do not make use of it.

Divorce has NOTHING to do with either abortion or euthanisia.

Finally, PLEASE let's not start with this sin business again.

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 2nd 2010, 11:30

Apart from the topic in question, which I do not want to discuss (and I prefer what Fr Mario Attard has written in Letters appearing today) clergymen are giving a very disjointed picture of their guidance.

Fr Charles Vella (Founder of Cana) Sept 2009 "I repeat that divorce legislation does not scare me..."
Mons Gouder criticises him immediately.
Mons Gouder says it is a sin.
Fr Joe Borg writes an article about conscience and its supremacy. Fr Joe Borg writes in his blog "that it is better to die excommunicated than to violate one's conscience" quoting none other than St Thomas Aquinas. A seminarian has a go at him, in no endearing terms, especially if one reads between the lines.
Fr Chiarlo` Camilleri writes about the supremacy of conscience.
The Dean of Theology follows the same line.
Now Cana Movement present Director says it is a sin to vote.

I believe in the right to free speech and a free press. I believe that there can be divergent opinions.

Is it not more edifying to put your heads together, and come out with a unitary position ?

Joseph Galea

Sep 2nd 2010, 11:19

At least we hear a priest that holds the teaching of the Church. The others want only to be popular. Jesus certainly did not seek popularity. Infact he was crucified and killed because he said the truth.

l.azzopardi

Sep 2nd 2010, 11:13

Kull argument reliġjuż marbut mad-divorzju anqas biss jibda biex jiddiskuti l-anomalija li teżisti għal dawk li għandhom twemmin differenti. Kif tista' tiġġustifika l-impożizzjoni u r-regoli tar-reliġjon Kattolika fuq dawk ta' fidi differenti? Liema fidi tista' ma tqisx id-divorzju bħala dnub.

Ramon Casha

Sep 2nd 2010, 11:11

Apparently, to you, "the word of god" is not enough - you seem to feel that people also need a priest to tell them what that word is. You're saying that people should think freely as long as they only think what you tell them to.

When I was young I was told it is a sin to lie, but apparently that's just another of those sins that don't apply to the church. "Do as I say not as I do".

joseph engerer

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:58

This sin business is getting a bit zombiotic, its dead but wont lie down.
qouting from greek or jewish books its not going to change things.
stop beating a dead horse,after all the hoo haa divorce will be here
sooner rather than later.

Joe Zammit

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:52

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt.5, 31-32).

Christ is not saying 'in case of unfaithfulness' but in case of fornication. Fornication is done between two unmarried persons. Otherwise, what sense do the words of Christ make when he told us "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder?

Otherwise, it would be so easy for all married people to divorce, just be unfaithful! As easy as that!

Christ condemned divorce for all people. There is no possibility of divorce even in the case of unfaithfulness. Divorce never!

AFabri

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:45

The issue about Divorce again is very simple, yet very complex in the view of the teaching of Catholicism.....sin, quotes, theoligians, holy war, anti-liberal views, word of God, vatical councils, etc etc..

The present situation loclaly is that those against are in favour of ' il-pogguti', nothing more and nothing less. Divorce is just a legal aid for the bona fide whome like to re-marry, altough most of the 'pogguti' or 'separati' they will never get married again !!!.
I mean what's the fuss.....it is just a title for your status.

R.Gauci

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:44

"I firmly believe that above one’s conscience and above one’s per sonal opinion there is the Word of God. The Word of God is very clear on divorce: “What God has united, man must not divide” (Mt 19, 6)."
Does this verse from the bible refers to all sacraments including that of priesthood too Fr.Mizzi?
What about the separated/cohabitant people that don't believe in the Catholic Church anymore especially because they were treated different by it (just one example can't receive holy communion) why should these people loose their civil status rights too?!
"The Catholic Church has always retained its stand on divorce."
As far as I know no one is saying that she must change it and people who get divorce should be allowed to remarry only on civil basis!
"As the ancient Greeks used to say, though there are many opinions, the truth is one."
I agree with you on this and the truth is that people that can afford it can get annulment in Malta or divorce from abroad and remarry and the really whole point which counts in this issue is that it's all about money!

Mario Azzopardi

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:43

"The Word of God" says in Matthew 19:9 that Jesus Christ himself made an exceptive clause which ALLOWS divorce. It is very clearly stated:
"And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife EXCEPT FOR UNCHASTITY and marries another, commits adultery". The Pharises, says "The Word of God", asked Jesus whether it is lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause. And Jesus came up with his famous EXCEPTIVE cause.
Any Christian who believes that this is the truth should have no pains to follow his/her concience, as it is being guided by "The Word of God" itself. Jesus Christ was in favour of divorce in the case of fornication or adultery. The local Church and anti-divorce campaigners have bee extremely careful not to make any reference to Mt. 19:9.
There is another important exception in Paul (Cor. 7:15) who allows divorce in cases were a
non-Christian partner initiates divorce procedures, in which instance, Paul says the Christian brother or sister is not bound. It is not the nature of marriage which determines its permanence, but the commitment of the parties.

Karl Consiglio

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:42

The matter has to do with the State, not the church. Apart from that you are only counting Catholics who think its Ok to vote in favour and those that think its not, you keep forgetting to take account of those that just dont care for the religious perspective and simply want divorce introduced to Malta as it is the rest of the civilized world

P.Pullicino

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:37

As Jesuit educated lout, I was taught that the bible has to be supplemented by revelation and reason, and if read alone, it is the devil’s handbook. For example, the granting of annullments is in direct violation of Matthew 19,6. Revelation and reason explains and justifies the existence of ecclesiastical annullments. Why did St. Paul said that “the truth is written in our hearts”?

Yesterday, I happened to watch the good old film “Inherit the Wind”, which was based on the famous “Monkey Trial” regarding a law passed in the US in the 1930’s making the teaching of Darwinian theory of evolution a criminal offence. I would recommend it to Fr. Mizzi. It is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with slamming your “Word of God” down people’s throats and scaring them from placing their trust and faith in their own prayers, their God given conscience and in His infinite mercy.

C A Camilleri

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:32

These are wise words and agree with what has been said. However you cannot turn a blind eye on the current marital problems. No amount of counselling can ever reunite a couple.

The divorce debate is simple how I see it. If one wants to live the Catholic faith ad litteram then divorce is simply not an option and one has to live with that but it does not mean an imposition on others that think differently. There is no debate and there will never be because like any other argument other the sun here in Malta it's always the 'us' and 'them' faction. I only hope that common sense will prevail.

Victor Laiviera

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:23

Here we go again! Divorce = abortion = euthanasia.

What a tired old trick.

Joe Zammit

Sep 2nd 2010, 10:12

Conscience is not suppressed by Faith, but ennobled. Illumined by Faith, it itself becomes light. St Paul recognizes “conscience bearing … witness in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 9,1).

For the Christian to act according to the Faith and to act according to conscience are one and the same (Rom. 14,23).

Conscience and Faith are very closely related in their mutual interaction. Faith enlightens and clarifies conscience; ‘good conscience’ shields and safeguards the Faith. The mystery of Faith is well preserved “in a pure conscience” (1 Tim. 3,9).

Mark Thorogood

Sep 2nd 2010, 09:45

What happens to your arguement if your version of god doesn't exist ?

David Buttigieg

Sep 2nd 2010, 09:36

"Yes, it is a sin to vote in favour of divorce because outrightly it goes against the Word of God"

Fine by me Fr Mizzi, and your point is? I don't believe in your god so his rules don't apply to me do they?

Pastore Rafael Sanchez

Sep 2nd 2010, 09:32

One of our Maltese Cardinals has told me that theologian Joe Zammit is expected to save Fr. Mizzi from eternal punishment. The Catholic Church of Palmar de Troya (i.e. the only Catholic Church) supports the Cana Movement position.

As to queries when our church was founded, the answer is very simple: c. 27 - 33 AD. After Pope Paul VI died in 1978, the throne in Rome was usurped by non-Catholics.

Unfortunately, one of our priests in Mexico was caught with a minor. As a result he was immediately defrocked and castrated by decision of Peter II. Afterwards, he was handed to the civil authorities in Mexico. We take this hideous abuse seriously and after the tough stance, no other abuses occurred. Very different from the secret society which is the Church in Malta.