Joe Zammit, Paola
The bishops’ perspective of marriage (1)
In Maltese we say that it is wiser to light a candle than to curse darkness. The lesson is clear: In doing something positive, you are reducing the negative; in doing good, you are cutting down on evil. In their pastoral note, our dear bishops have taken this positive step.
They have entitled their message Pastoral Note On Marriage And The Family. Their purpose was positive as well: “This pastoral note is meant to convey the position of the Catholic Church for those who look towards the Church for direction.”
After showing that marriage is the basis of the family, they pointed directly to what Christ has said about marriage, ending with the words: “So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.” Why are “human beings” mentioned? They are mentioned for the simple fact that divorce is the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage by a human being or, for that matter, a human authority. God can dissolve marriage and it would not amount to a divorce. But no human being has the power to dissolve a validly contracted and consummated marriage, whether the marriage is religious nor not. Dissolving a valid marriage is evil, condemned by God as a grave sin.
The bishops insisted that the Catholic Church “promotes marriage and defends it because, ultimately, this will result in fewer breakdowns”.
So, also here, a positive step is highlighted to increase the stability of marriages and families. On the other hand, they referred to statistics proving divorce to be a negative step which causes society to suffer.
The bishops focused also on the evil of divorce that goes directly against the spouses’ consent as a lifelong commitment. Divorce greatly contrasts with this consent as it renders it a temporary reality, that is, until you divorce.
To confirm the evil of divorce, the bishops made reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on marriage and divorce where it is explicitly stated that divorce is immoral and a grave offence against natural law, against God, and entering a second marriage renders one an adulterer or adulteress, thus, living in grave sin.
As an encouragement to those defending the value and indissolubility of marriage, the bishops stated that it is a “great privilege for every committed member of the Church to say before the Lord that they have done their part in promoting and defending these values that Jesus insisted so much upon in His teachings”.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
40 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Sep 14th 2010, 09:37
No conscience can contradict the express and clear words of Christ about the evil of divorce: What God has joined together let no man put asunder! No conscience can genuinely go against this clear commandment of Christ on the necessity of the indissolubility of marriage and the intrinsic evil of divorce. A conscience that suggests divorce to anyone is diabolical. The devil is pleased with divorce. God does not want divorce. This is the clear teaching of Christ and the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. If your conscience tells you something against the infallible teaching of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, do not follow your conscience. Your conscience is not infallible. Your conscience is subject to the teaching of Christ and his Church. If you follow your conscience in disagreement with the Church, you are grievously stubborn and proud. Your stubbornness and pride will lead you only to hell. All those in hell appeal to their conscience for being there ... for ever... without any hope of redemption... there for ever!
David Seychell
Sep 14th 2010, 00:46
“man is obliged to act in conformity with his conscience after reaching a reasoned conclusion about his own duty even when this, for some reason or another, is mistaken and the conscience judgment is false”. "Finally, we should put out consciences at rest that, if research showed divorce was beneficial for the common good mentioned also in the Catechism, a Catholic politician can, according to his conscience, vote in favour of divorce" -Fr Charlò Camilleri, O. Carm http://stocks.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100827/opinion/conscience-authority-and-divorce Assuming Fr Camilleri is correct, from his conclusion we can extrapolate a very important principle. No matter how wrong something may be according to the Church teachings, one's conscience (including a catholic's one) can still, even after a reasoned search for truth, reach a totally opposite moral conclusion from that of the Church. In that case one still must follow his conscience to avoid sinning against God even if that means going against the teachings of Christ. Voting in favour of divorce is a clear example of what I have just said. This principle can be summarized in one sentence: Morality is relative to one's own conscience.
Joe Zammit
Sep 13th 2010, 21:37
No conscience can contradict the express and clear words of Christ about the evil of divorce: What God has joined together let no man put asunder! No conscience can genuinely go against this clear commandment of Christ on the necessity of the indissolubility of marriage and the intrinsic evil of divorce. A conscience that suggests divorce to anyone is diabolical. The devil is pleased with divorce. God does not want divorce. This is the clear teaching of Christ and the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. If your conscience tells you something against the infallible teaching of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, do not follow your conscience. Your conscience is not infallible. Your conscience is subject to the teaching of Christ and his Church. If you follow your conscience in disagreement with the Church, you are grievously stubborn and proud. Your stubbornness and pride will lead you only to hell. All those in hell appeal to their conscience for being there ... for ever... without any hope of redemption... there for ever!
David Seychell
Sep 13th 2010, 19:32
“man is obliged to act in conformity with his conscience” after “reaching a reasoned conclusion about his own duty” even when this, for some reason or another, “is mistaken and the conscience judgment is false”. -Fr Charlò Camilleri, O. Carm Therefore it's very clear. If after a reasoned search for truth your conscience tells you that voting in favour of divorce is good, you are "obliged" to do it even if you know that according to Jesus divorce is of the devil. This is in line with the notion that conscience is supreme because Conscience has the last word, and you need to obey it even if it explicitly goes against what the Holy Bible/Jesus or the Church says. Failing to obey your conscience, even when your conscience explicitly contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the infallible Church, means sinning against God. The conscience of a person remains the ultimate arbiter of morality for that person.
Joe Grima Brussels
Sep 13th 2010, 22:24
Mr Seychell. Everyone is DUTY BOUND to instruct one's conscience, to determine what is right or wrong. With your reasoning, a rapist, vandal or paedophile, who feels in his conscience that 'he is doing nothing wrong', is innocent, and doing right! Failing to learn the truth or pretending not to know it, does not diminish one's guilt. Try breaking the law and declaring ignorance. Good luck!
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 14th 2010, 07:16
"Conscience has the last word, and you need to obey it even if it explicitly goes against what the Holy Bible/Jesus or the Church says. Failing to obey your conscience, even when your conscience explicitly contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the infallible Church, means sinning against God. The conscience of a person remains the ultimate arbiter of morality for that person." (David Seychell) According to you the "teachings of Christ" can be jettisoned out of hand. All you have to do is to corrupt your conscience and then follow that corrupted conscience - otherwise you will "sin" by following Christ. How illogical!
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 14th 2010, 13:12
Fr C Camilleri speaks of "mistaken" conscience meaning a conscience that is genuinely incorrect in spite of all efforts to have a correctly informed conscience. An true and genuinely mistaken conscience would not include any conscience that is adjusted to satisfy the self-serving, selfish demands of the individual. The ultimate judge whether a conscience is genuinely mistaken or not is an omniscient God and no one else. That is why at the forefront of the divorce lobby you will always find so many atheists, lapsed Christians and the generally anti-religious. They find it necessary to exclude any independent point of reference to act as an impartial judge. They insist that they, with their own "made to measure" conscience, must be sole judges and the sole juries of their own behaviour.
David Seychell
Sep 14th 2010, 18:13
@Dr Francis Saliba "According to you the "teachings of Christ" can be jettisoned out of hand. All you have to do is to corrupt your conscience and then follow that corrupted conscience - otherwise you will "sin" by following Christ. How illogical!" Before we speak about logic, we must first set the axioms. My axioms are the latest "teachings" of Fr Charlò Camilleri, O. Carm and the Dean of Theology at the University Fr Emmanuel Agius. My statements are the logical conclusion of those axioms. The practical proof of what I said is the fact that after a reasoned search for truth, a catholic can vote in favour of divorce (even though he knows divorce is bad according to religion) without sinning because it would be ok by his own conscience. When after a reasoned search for truth, our conscience tells us to do something different form the Church teachings: “We ought to die excommunicated rather than violate our conscience”-Aquinas http://stocks.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20100827/fr-joe-borg/we-ought-to-die-excommunicated-rather-than-violate-our-conscience
David Seychell
Sep 14th 2010, 18:22
Mr Joe Grima, the law of man (society) and the law of God are two and separate.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 14th 2010, 18:49
@DavidSeychell Logic is NOT based on YOUR axioms. It is based on valid and correct “premises”. Your “axioms” are not correct premises and they do not follow correctly from what the Rev. Fathers said. You do not differentiate between a true “conscience” that is genuine and well informed and, on the other hand, an “a la carte” conscience that dissidents hypnotize themselves into believing to be a valid conscience that God would accept.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 14th 2010, 19:04
@DavidSeychell The indissolubility of marriage is the undoubted teaching of Christ himself accepted by practicing Catholics. These practicing Catholics cannot conscientiously follow Christ’s teaching and at the same time schizophrenically assist and condone a lobby that is trying to flout Christ’s teaching – and still pretend not to be doing wrong.
victor pulis
Sep 13th 2010, 18:59
Annullment is nowhere mentioned in the gospel. it is an invention of the church to be used as a loophole and as a money making tool for the church. If Moses conceded to the Israelites' demand for divorce then Moses is as guilty as them. If you read deuteronomy you will find that not only was divorce accepted (there is no mention of punishment anywhere) but you will also find that even bigamy was allowed. Deuteronomy 21: 14 to 21. Both the old and the new testaments are the word of the same God I presume and God's word never changes. One final question, for anyone who wants to answer, are theft, lying and deceit considered as sins?
P. Borg
Sep 15th 2010, 08:07
Naqbel mieghek. Wiehed mill-ftit kummenti bis-sens li hawn.
Joseph Calleja
Sep 13th 2010, 16:50
"our dear bishops have taken this positive step". and left you et al to do the dirty work. Mr Z, I see you are using a new approach, how convenient for you. Mr Z stop condemning and sending everybody to hell. Malta is part of the EU and any EU Citizen has the right to divorce whether you approve it or not. As EU Citizens we should be treated like any other EU Citizen in the other 26 states and make divorce available here in Malta, so we don't have to go outside of our state to get what every other EU citizen already has available to them. This is a civil matter and the EU is obligated to make sure that all of its' citizens are treated fairly and equally. MEPs, please take note. So why vote for something that we already have? I think divorce became legal in Malta when we elected to vote in the EU. MPs who favour divorce don't have to worry about going to hell, because technically they don't have to vote pro or con divorce. As an EU member Malta has to abide by EU laws and the EU allows divorce.
Joe Zammit
Sep 13th 2010, 16:08
“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 had 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. In St Matthew’s gospel there is no exception accepting divorce. Divorce is always a grave sin. The Catholic Church, as the one holy Apostolic Church of Christ has NEVER resorted to divorce in her 2000-year history. Only the other churches which are false have introduced in them the evil of divorce to prove they are not the Church of Christ.
patrick zammit
Sep 13th 2010, 19:18
Different versions of the Bible give different words like fornication, unclean, unfaithful etc which all mean the same, the wife going with someone else and not her husband. Mathew repeats what he said in Matt 19 9 - "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (New International Version). Other cases where God tells us that divorce is allowed are: 1 Kor 7.15 says that when one of the spouses is an unbeliever, divorce is permitted. Deuteronomy 24 says ok to divorce if a man found his wife guilty of "uncleanliness". Deuteronomy 22:20 says a marriage will be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
Joe Zammit
Sep 13th 2010, 21:45
Christ condemned divorce. In the Old Testament it was permitted on account of their hardness of heart. 'Hardness of heart' means 'living in sin'. Moses, NOT GOD, permitted them to divorce. The prophets, of course after Moses but before Christ continue to condemn divorce as a great sin against God. St Matthew was a living member of the Catholic Church, one with the Pope. He wrote his gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He passed his gospel to the Catholic Church of which he was member. The Catholic Church in 2000 years has never resorted to divorce. This is the greatest proof that in St Matthew there is no exception allowing divorce.
victor pulis
Sep 13th 2010, 15:00
Are deceit, theft and lying considered sins?
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Sep 13th 2010, 14:44
The Church has annulment and the state should have Divorce. Divorce NOW ! Yes, the law must cover all citizens of different beliefs. Divorce is a state matter. DIVORCE NOW.
patrick zammit
Sep 13th 2010, 14:03
1) "they referred to statistics proving divorce to be a negative step"
The introduction of divorce like that introduced in Ireland is beneficial to the stability of families.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0223/1224265038500.html
2) "they pointed directly to what Christ has said"
a) Christ/God allows divorce in some cases: Matt 5 32, Matt 19 9, 1 Kor 7 15, Deut 24
b) According to God, marriage will be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed." Deuteronomy 22:20
Joseph Calleja
Sep 13th 2010, 16:03
Mr Zammit statement B is very sexist. It does not mention man, only the woman. If men are are looking for virgin women to marry, good luck on that one. As I mentioned before , Virgins are all taken by the suicide bombers. What a bunch of crock, and this is all in the name of religion. Can't you see that these rules were made by man, for man ages ago? What an insult to women.
Joe Grima Brussels
Sep 13th 2010, 18:02
Mr Patrick Zammit. You forgot to mention some other important facts. 1. Although Deutoronomy advises to stone adulterers, Jesus forgave the one they took to Him, for He is superior to the Old Testament. When questioned about Moses permitting divorce, He said that it was because of their STUBBORNnESS that Moses conceded, and that God hates divorce. 2. You missed Matthew 5 continues: 'he who marries a divorcee commits adultery.' 3. You also missed Matthew 19.6 'What God has joined, let NO MAN seperate.' 4. The trouble is that MANY of those who are for divorce, do not want it because their partner committed adultery, but because THEY INTEND TO COMMIT ADULTERY! 5. When He met the woman (who had married several times) at the well, Jesus was VERY clear: 'That man is not your husband.'
patrick zammit
Sep 13th 2010, 19:45
J Calleja - It is not my fault that God shows sexism in the Bible. See 1 Kor 11.3 for more sexism. Also, it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church - 1 Corinthians 14 5. J Grima - God is clear, newly married brides who are found to be not virgin should be killed - (Deuteronomy 22:20). Jesus on the other hand, is not of the same opinion. 'What God has joined, let NO MAN separate" was said by Jesus. But he also said that if the wife is found to be unfaithful, specifically in that case, she can be divorced - (Matt 5 32, Matt 19 9).
victor pulis
Sep 13th 2010, 12:45
The bishops' pastoral note was meant for catholics. Non catholics and non believers are not bound by the cathecism of the catholic church just as much as catholics are not bound by the laws of other religions. Saying that catholic teaching is meant for everyone is arrogance of the first degree. Furthermore, the bishops condemned no one to hell unlike you who is convinced that 5/6 of the world's population is going to hell simply because they are not catholics. Just a eminder; Deuteronomy 21:14-21
William P Flynn
Sep 13th 2010, 11:22
"entering a second marriage renders one an adulterer or adulteress, thus, living in grave sin". So, people cohabiting are not living in sin and only do so if they enter into a second marriage? That's a new one.
The clergy have their own divorce facility called annulment; why can't the secular state have its own divorce; every other nation but one has it. Divorce now.
Joe Grima Brussels
Sep 13th 2010, 14:17
Mr Flynn.
I think it is useless to explain, AGAIN, the difference between divorce of annulment! In any contract or agreement, if any deceit, betrayal, hidden agenda, threats, or other cheats are detected, the contract/agreement is declared null. But for you, there is no difference between one and the other! For you, deceit, betrayal, threats, and the like are nothing at all. No wonder you are in favour of divorce!! That says it all.
Joseph Micallef
Sep 13th 2010, 14:44
Mr. Grima what you mentioned as reasons for annulment can be enough reasons for divorce. That's why annullment is simply a divorce condoned by the Church! You gave us more reasons to confirm that there is no reason why not to allow divorce actually!
Joe Grima Brussels
Sep 13th 2010, 17:51
Mr Micallef, as I said before, it is useless to try to explain the difference between divorce and annulment. Many simply do not want to listen! If there is a reason for an annulment, there is no need for divorce for that particular case. Annulment means someone cheated in the 'contract/agreement', rending the said agreement null. With divorce, one can apply for other 'reasons', even more trivial. Divorce can just be used as an excuse to change partners. So divorce and annulment are as similar as black and white!!!!
Joseph Micallef
Sep 13th 2010, 19:20
Sure Mr. Grima and the more money you can afford the faster and easier your annullment is! Pull the other one Mr. Grima and wake up to reality! The only difference is the name it is given - nothing more!
Joe Grima Brussels
Sep 13th 2010, 20:08
Joseph Micallef.
The best thing to do is to invest in a good English dictionary. It is as easy as that!
Joseph Micallef
Sep 13th 2010, 21:55
Mr. Grima. An English dictionary would simply give me the definition the Catholic church gives to Annullments. It does not give the real meaning but just the presumed meaning. There is a difference. By the way, simply for your information, apart from owning various English language dictionaries I can also browse and search the internet for definitions, should I need to.
Joseph Micallef
Sep 13th 2010, 21:58
Mr. Grima and those who refuse to call a spade a spade I invite you to read the following: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_1_63/ai_84396072/
John M. Grima
Sep 16th 2010, 16:14
It makes sence to me Bill........Its called, "Consenting Adults".
Joseph Micallef
Sep 13th 2010, 09:17
The Bishops also said that over-zealous people like you should refrain from engaging in cruisades. The Bishops also did not mention once the word sin. ONLY YOU DO!
Raymond Bezzina
Sep 13th 2010, 13:01
@ Joseph Micallef and All,
With reference to the second sentence of your comment, and also from other
peoples' comments on this same site, I think that many people do not like to
hear the word 'sin' : and if my gut feeling is correct, I believe that in this case we
should ask ourselves two main questions thus :
1. Is the word sin hurting me because it indicates to me of an offence against
God, whom I am trying to do my best not to offend ?
2. Or is it because I do not want to distance myself from continuing to lead a life of
bad habits and evil practices, which are sinful ?
Joseph Micallef
Sep 13th 2010, 15:01
It is not the word "sin" as such that hurts - but the attitude. If one wants to seriously discuss the issue of divorce one cannot talk about sin to non believers or to people of different faiths. One cannot impose the rules of ONE religion on all. One has to keep in mind that there are Evangelical maltese, Muslim maltese, Hindu maltese, atheist maltese and god knows more. So telling an atheist that divorce is bad because it is a sin has no effect and it is superflous and contributes nothing to the discussion. Same as when one condems all non Catholics to hell - as Mr. JZ does. So please take my comment in perspective. We have been following Mr. JZ's diatribes and judgements for quite some time now!
victor pulis
Sep 13th 2010, 15:09
Ray it could be neither of the two. 1. There are those who don't even bring God into the equation because they don't believe in a God 2.Being in favour of divorce doesn't mean that a person is living a bad life. I for one am happily married and I have no intention of running around.I do not drink, smoke or gamble. it could be simply because one doesn't consider divorce as something that is against one's concience. is that so hard to understand? The persons who are in favour of divorce can be as genuine as those who are against with the difference that those in favour are not forcing anything on those against.
Joe Grima Brussels
Sep 13th 2010, 18:34
Joe Grima Brussels
Sep 13th 2010, 20:37
Victor Pulis. How can a happily married man, who has no intention of running about, does not smoke or drink....be in favour of divorce?? We are DUTY BOUND to instruct our conscience. Does a vandal, rapist or paedophile who does not feel any guilt have a sound conscience? To give an extreme example: Hitler felt he was doing right to eliminate all Jews, Slavs, Russians, disabled....... Does that mean that he had a clean conscience?? So one must do his utmost to know right from wrong, thus making sure that his conscience is well founded.
victor pulis
Sep 14th 2010, 08:45
Joe grima I am neither a vandal, a rapist nor a paedophile because my concience tells me that they are wrong. I don't go around murdering jews or any other race because concience tells me that too is wrong. i am positive that vandals, rapists, paedophiles and Hitler knew they were doing wrong because they lived in a society where these things went against their culture. Divorce does not fall in that category. I am in favour of divorce baecuse I feel for the victims of broken marriages and because I don't believe that a person should be constrained from loving again after that person's first attempt fails through no fault of his/hers. If my sin is supporting and giving a second chance to someone to love and be loved again then I am prepared to take my chances.