Divorce sin threat ‘a medieval imposition’
Interference in secular matters
Former judges and lawyers condemned the words of the Church’s Judicial Vicar, Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino, who threatened with grave sin members of the judiciary who presided over divorce cases.
Judge Philip Sciberras, who retired only this week, said the threat of sin was “a medieval imposition” and simply put a burden on members of the judiciary.
“I am a practising Catholic but I believe the state is obliged to regulate such situations by introducing laws. Members of the judiciary should not object to hear divorce cases because of some medieval imposition,” he said when contacted.
“If I were still a sitting judge I would be obliged to apply the law if divorce is legal,” Judge Sciberras insisted.
In a homily delivered during Mass marking the start of the forensic year, Mgr Said Pullicino said judges should be conscientious objectors and warned lawyers assisting people who filed for divorce of committing a grave sin.
Reacting, Judge Sciberras went as far as comparing the monsignor’s threat of sin to the political-religious battle of the 1960s. “My family supported Labour and we lived through those dark days when the Church imposed mortal sin on those who voted Labour. Shall we pass through those times again,” he asked.
The divorce debate has to be profound, he added, leading to serious legislation that regulated situations that caused a lot of hurt.
Former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello insisted on drawing a clear distinction between the civil aspect of marriage and its sacramental dimension.
“Mgr Said Pullicino has every right to say a judge of the civil courts has no jurisdiction on the sacrament of marriage but in our country marriage is also a civil contract. A judge in the civil courts deciding on the dissolution of marriage as a civil contract is in no way entering into religious matters. This distinction has to be made,” Judge Bonello said.
When contacted, recently-appointed Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri said he “took note” of Mgr Said Pullicino’s words but would not comment at this stage.
Mgr Said Pullicino, who heads the Church tribunals that deal with marriage annulments, also targeted lawyers in his homily, saying they would be going against God’s law if they took up the case of somebody who filed for divorce.
Speaking in his personal capacity, Chamber of Advocates president Andrew Borg Cardona hit out at the Judicial Vicar, insisting his words were “unacceptable” and constituted interference in secular matters.
Lawyers Roberta Leprè and Lorraine Schembri Orland agreed that a clear distinction had to be maintained between affairs of the state and the Church.
“While upholding Catholic principles and values, I believe that Church and state should be kept distinct. A judge is in duty bound to apply the laws of Malta and cannot deny the parties their rights under these laws,” Dr Schembri Orland said.
Defending lawyers and their choice of clients, she said it was not for them to determine who the innocent party was because both individuals suffered in such circumstances.
She also expressed concern about the impact of Mgr Said Pullicino’s statement on lawyers who practised before the Church’s tribunal. “Will there be negative repercussions if they also take up the defence in divorce litigation,” she wondered.
On the other hand, Dr Leprè said a distinction had to be made between remedies provided by the Church and those provided by the state. Divorce legislation would not oblige a Christian to abandon his faith.
“People can still seek a remedy in the Church tribunal if they feel it best suits them. There should be a choice and people should decide what is best for them according to their conscience. It is a sin not to live life fully,” Dr Leprè said taking a swipe at Mgr Said Pullicino’s “grave sin” comment.
Mgr Said Pullicino’s strong words are the first from a high-ranking Church official to target the judiciary’s moral responsibility if they were to preside over cases of divorce if this became law.
The use of the word “sin” seems to conflict with the more measured approach adopted by the bishops in the wake of another controversy sparked by another high-ranking Church official a couple of months ago. Mgr Anton Gouder, the Pro Vicar, had said it was a sin for a Catholic to vote for divorce in a referendum.
Excerpts from the homily
Christian society and God’s law
“Judges, the lawyer and other officials of the law courts who are committed Christians understand... that the administration of justice in a society that still adheres to Christian values cannot have strong foundations unless it is based on the obedience to God’s law.”
Laws against divine natural law
“An analysis of the situation in our country shows that we are influenced from what is happening abroad, primarily in Europe, where the administration of justice is faced with a situation where it has to break God’s law because the country’s laws are violating the fundamental principles of divine natural law when it deals with divorce, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia... This is what happened in our society when the divorce discussion was rekindled. This is a situation that directly involves the administration of justice. This is the time when those who administer justice are obliged to make their voice heard in a clear way and invoke conscientious objection.”
Grave sin
“In front of Christ’s clear teachings on marriage, the Church need not discuss anything about divorce and its introduction. All the Church has to do is teach that whoever cooperates in any way with the introduction of divorce, who applies the law and who takes recourse to it, though not the innocent party, would be breaking God’s law and so would be committing a grave sin.”
Non-cooperation
“...Members of Parliament who profess the Christian faith and administrators of justice cannot morally cooperate with those who ask for divorce... by dissolving a valid marriage.”
Difficult decision
“...the Christian judge and lawyer have to examine their position according to a well-formed conscience, by reflecting on the word of God and the teachings of the Church, before deciding whether to cooperate with a law that goes directly against God’s law. This is not an easy situation that requires difficult decisions. But this is the difficulty of Christian life.”
More items from The Times in the News section
See Fr Joe Borg's blog Ecclesiastical form, substance and perceptions
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
51 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr K. Zammit
Apr 28th 2011, 08:01
I honestly can't see what the church has to do with it. For those of use who were married in a church and at the same time married civilly by a separate contract of marriage, what will actually be happening if divorce is introduced is that the civil marriage would be allowed to be dissolved. In the church's eyes that marriage is still valid and would not allow any divorcee to be remarried in a church. So where is the problem here ? The divorcee is getting his/her right to remarry but not within the catholic church. So why is the church crying foul ?
The only thing a church can/should do is to try and convince its followers that its position is correct and explain why. In no case should the church get into whether the options given by the state to its people are correct or otherwise. FREEDOM OF CHOICE this is democracy something the catholic church doesn't seem to be willing to give the people for fear of losing its grip on its followers who have provided it with it source of material wealth ....something it has taught us not to give much importance to.
P. Borg
Oct 11th 2010, 13:13
Instead of imposing, the church should let people choose its religion and beliefs by themselves. There are many problems that lead to one institution - the Church. The church thinks that it is the only religion here in Malta or that if a person does not follow any religion it is obvious that he/she is catholic. This is wrong. Once I heard someone say - if you love someone let him go, if he comes back it means that he loves you and respects you, if he doesn't it means it was not worth it. The same should do the church. The country should introduce divorce and the church should just shut up. If its followers love the religion and want to live by they won't need anyne dictating to them, they will choose not to divorce. That is freedom, that is democracy. We are not in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, our country is not governed by a religion. We are in a democracy and the church should also seek to mature and grow up from the 1900 thoughts and beliefs.
Dr Joe Brincat
Oct 9th 2010, 19:34
David Borg, lower down, gave an excellent exposition of the Pauline and Petrine Privileges, by which marriages of "two pagans from the bush in Africa" and of others, can be dissolved by the Pope. He makes it clear, or rather one can desume, that this is Church law. The ground is that such a divorce is "in favour of the faith".
With all due respect, is the Pope God ? I do not think that the answer is "yes". Otherwise, once elected, they should not need beatification and be declared saints, in some cases only.
David, by the way, thank you for supporting the argument (though unwittingly) that the statement that what "God has joined together, let no man put asunder" is only partly true. It is not true if it is "in favour of the faith".
Robert Callus
Oct 9th 2010, 16:21
I don't believe that the main reason why there is no divorce in Malta is Catholicism, I think it's something more cultural. Something that we have nothing to boast of. Something that Mgr Said Pullicino literally personifies:
http://robertcallus.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/divorce-and-maltese-culture/
Joseph Calleja
Oct 9th 2010, 16:09
It seems like the church is trying to pull it's last straw. Why does the clergy a very educated people come up with such stupid remarks. I am sure Mgr Pullicino knew that this remark is going to upset everybody, especially judges and lawyers in general. This is more proof that the church is still trying to run Maltese politics but I don't think it's going to work anymore, especially not with remarks like this. A medieval imposition is the correct statement. The time of threatening and condemning people to hell is long gone but it seems that for the likes of the Mgr they think that power is still there. If only the Mgr knows how much damage he has caused by that one statement. Mgr Pullicino, divorce is already allowed in Malta and that happened when we joined the EU which the Church sanctioned. The only thing missing is for a Maltese/EU Citizen to be able to obtain a divorce without going out of the country and that should be on our EU MEPs agenda. Our MEPs in Brussels are aware of this and should act accordingly.
M. Fenech
Oct 9th 2010, 15:06
It seems that the church benefits alot financially from annulments, and probably that's why certain priest are taking such a drastict position against the introduction of divorce. The Hon. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando was quite correct with his latest statement that we should not allow any clerical figure to take us back in those, dark medieval and shameful days of the 60's. I even agree word by word to what former Judge Philip Sciberras said. In a civil society, which has a Republican Constitution, there is no room for any religious interference. And I hope that many people will realise the frustration and hardship that people who are going through separation proceedings suffer, when they come to take a position on the divorce issue. We have to wipe apart the religious fundamentalists, and use our logic and common sense.
Kevin Camilleri
Oct 9th 2010, 14:44
I am a practicing Christian, and as my principle, I am against divorce and I do not want it to be part of MY life. This however, is just what I want for myself, and I cannot in any way try to impose my beleifs on others. I understand that Malta is not made 100% by practicing Christians. Out there, there are people who are suffering and would like to start a fresh a new life. Who am I to tell them what to do with their lives?!
I fully agree that the church must hold its position, and must preach out what it beleifs is correct. "Dak li jorbot Alla, ma ghandux ihollu il-bniedem" At the end of the day, the first chatolic marraige will be the one that counts in front of God, but if marrying another person is a sin, and coabitation is a sin as well, than let the people involved decide what they want to do with their lives. In my opinion, Voting for divorce in a referendum, or the Judiciary giving out a divorce will not be commiting a sin. People will be just doing what they think is right.
MSciberras
Oct 9th 2010, 14:35
It needs to be understood that Mons Said Pullicino does not speak in the name of the Catholic Church, even if, like so many of the old men who dominate the Church, he thinks he speaks in its name. And the Archbishop, by not condemning a man who makes no distinction between civil law that applies to all citizens regardless of their faith or religous principles and the Catholic sacrament of marraige, similarly errs in his own name alone, not that of the church. I will share the experience of a close friend who went through the annulment proceedings managed by the tribunals chaired by Mons Said Pullicino. A woman, she was forced to undergo extremely personal and intimate interrogation by men who had never been intimate with a woman; she ended up traumatized and although the annulment was granted, was given to understand in very clear terms that she was principally reponsible for the breakdown of the marraige. She was never called a whore, but that was simply because the word was not spoken, Today, she doesnt set foot inside a church, because like many she doesn't distinguish between the errors of mere men and the Church itself.
Anton Portelli
Oct 9th 2010, 14:33
Judge Philip Sciberras, who retired only this week, said the threat of sin was “a medieval imposition” and simply put a burden on members of the judiciary.
YES VERY WELL SAID YOUR HONOUR THIS IS TAKING BACK TO MEDIEVAL TIMES NOT ONLY TO THE SIXTIES
Andrew Borg Cardona hit out at the Judicial Vicar, insisting his words were “unacceptable” and constituted interference in secular matters.
YES THESE COMMENTS AND OTHERS LIKE THOSE OF MGR GOUDER ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCEPTABLE IN OUR TIME AND IN AN EU MEMBER STATE, OR WE HAVE VOTED TO JOIN THE EU ONLY TO LIVE LIKE SECOND CLASS EUROPEAN CITIZENS!!
PERSONS PASSING THESE COMMENTS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR THREATENING AND INTERFEREING WITH THE JUDICIARY AND FOR CORRUPT PRACTICES IN RELATION TO REFERENDA AND ELECTIONS.
Raymond Bezzina
Oct 9th 2010, 14:20
Please permit me to put a question to all the judges and lawyers
of Malta's civil courts, and who participated in the above article, thus :
If the issue in question was not about divorce but about abortion, would
they reason in the same way, and put the same arguments as those
mentioned in the above article ?
I am a Roman Catholic, and therefore I believe that every Roman Catholic
must do his / her best not to accept or approve of anything which violates
God's Law ; even though man is very weak in everything.
I believe that there is only one whole truth, and true righteousness does not
contradict this truth.
victor pulis
Oct 9th 2010, 16:03
Ray why do you always have to fight the divorce case by mentioning abortion? These are two totally different issues. When the time comes to discuss abortion, which doesn't seem to be in the foreseeable future then you can comment. A person can be in favour of divorce and at the same time opposes abodtion. Scare tactics whether they include sin or abortion will not work.
Anton Portelli
Oct 9th 2010, 16:18
Mr Bezzina do not mix up divorce with abortion. Divorce gives a couple the possibility of starting another family and a new happy life, while abortion is a totally different thing, the killing of an individual. Yes I would surely be reasoning in a different way.
I also agree with you that roman catholics have a right to their opinion, but they have no right to impose their opinions and the teachings of their church on others who have a different religion or who no longer believe the catholic church especially after the recent scandals that have been exposed. Don't you think that those catholic bishops or higher authorities who pushed cases of clergy paedophily under the carpets are not commiting a mortal sin - why is this not preached? Why is the church just giving apologies without definite statements like those of Mgr Said Pullicino?
M Pace
Oct 9th 2010, 14:16
Civil marriage is enacted by men and God is not involved. So dissolvement of such a marriage is is not going against "Whom God has joined let no man put assunder". Those who get married under civil law only, whether they are divorcees or not are commiting a sin. We are not disscussing for the church to implement Divorce but the State and please open your mind. Divorce will give status and recognition to couples who are cohibiting now and cannot be recognized legally because there is no divorce.When i was young when the majority of the Maltese wanted to follow the Catholic Religion A Divorce Law would have been futile but now the Maltese have changed sorry to say and we can no longer bury our heads in the sand, divorce is preferable to cohabitation for the state. I assure you no judge will be sent to hell for dissolving a civil marriage which is not recognised by the church on its own merit.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Oct 9th 2010, 14:15
There need be no fear that religious freedom would be detrimental to the life of civil society or that religious freedom, granted in our Republican Constitution, to the Catholic Church, is also granted to other denominations. This ‘right’ equates to a ‘wrong’ for any religion in Malta, to push its beliefs down the gullet of the other denominations. It also means that the Catholic Religion must not intrude upon the realm of political freedom: the Church must be vigilantly careful to distinguish, as she must, between what belongs to Caesar from what belongs to God.
I went through a martyrdom of souls in the 60’s just because I supported Mintoff and his Labour Party and I have serious difficulties to forget the spiritual pain and suffering which we had to endure then. As to forgiveness, no way. How can you forgive when you see them unremittingly grabbing all possible opportunities to demonstrate their arrogance and power over the meek and the disadvantaged?
The silver lining of the current divorce issue is that prominent members of their protégées within the PN’s hierarchy are also up in arms against their dastard attitude.
David Borg
Oct 9th 2010, 14:04
I think Monsignor Said Pullicino was restating Pope John Paul II's speech in 1992. Addressing the Roman Rota, he said
" ... professionals in the field of civil law should avoid being personally involved in anything that might imply a cooperation with divorce. For judges this may prove difficult, since the legal order does not recognize a conscientious objection to exempt them from giving sentence ...they may therefore act in accord with the traditional principles of material cooperation. But they too must seek effective means to encourage marital unions, especially through a wisely handled work of reconciliation.
Lawyers, as independent professionals, should always decline the use of their profession for an end that is contrary to justice, as is divorce. They can only cooperate in this kind of activity when, in the intention of the client, it is not directed to the break-up of the marriage, but to the securing of other legitimate effects that can only be obtained through such a judicial process ...".
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264xh.htm
Do judges in Malta have a right of conscientious objection based on the constitutional freedoms of conscience and religion and also on the constitutional provision that the Catholic religion is the religion of Malta?
John Catania
Oct 9th 2010, 14:01
Does anyone pretend that church will ever be in favour of divorce? but the reason will not be because the church really cares about the families and is making its utmost to keep families united but because with the introduction of the divorce, the church will be losing alot of money which up to date is deriving from the annulment. can anyone from the maltese church explain why the church fully accepts the annulment whilst it is fiercly opposing the divorce? is the annulment doing any good to the maltese families which the divorce cannot? and during the annulment why the church does not give any importance to the children? and why are there couples who get their annulment much easier and faster than others? the answer is MONEY! And now we have these hypocrits as i do not want to call them 'monsignor' who pretend they can teach us about sins. are we going back to the 60's or 70's by any chance? Probably that's what the church think they can do......
Anton Portelli
Oct 9th 2010, 16:21
Fully agree with you Mr John Catania except for one thing they are taking us back to the times of the inquisition when those who did not agree with them were burned at the stake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Richard Galea
Oct 9th 2010, 13:53
The State must submit to the WILL of the People........While Believers must submit to the WILL of GOD..
The State simply has no right to morally bind two individuals for life.......It simply goes against the basic Human Rights.
The problem is that the state is unlawfully morally binding two persons for a life commitment.
while in practice the state has only to FINANCIALLY bind two Individuals........Very similiar to two or more people agree to form commercial company !!!!
The state should never try to play monkey with what is Spiritual..........After all it was Jesus himself who cursed the fig tree of never making good fruit.......
Richard Galea.
Richard Galea
s.grima
Oct 9th 2010, 13:26
fejn hu l arcisqof??????? x ini l opinjoni tieghew fuq dan is sugget? u x inu jistena li tinqala xi glida ohra bix jitkelem?? em bzonn inkunu nafu il pozizjoni ufficjali tal knisja imedjatament.
Mark J.Magri
Oct 9th 2010, 12:10
As I widely known that I am against divorce through your blogs,I do not agree with Mons A.Said Pullicino on behalf of the Maltese Church to impose his views about divorce on The Law Courts. Everyone has all freedom to act and think what he likes best without any impositions from either sides at all.
Dr Joe Brincat
Oct 9th 2010, 12:09
"Legislating in favour of divorce is legislating in favour of evil, condemned by God." There are so many countries which did and two Christian Churches, the Orthodox and the Catholic in their laws. That may surprise you. "Let no man put asunder" is only partially true.
Canon law has dissolution of marriage, apart from annulment. It is defined in Canon Law. Can 1143 et seq lay down dissolution from the bond (i.e. divorce) even of a valid marriage in front of God, even if it consummated and there are children to the marriage, if both spouses were not baptized, and one decides to become a Catholic.
And if he happens to be a muslim and has several wives, according to Canon Law, on becoming Catholic he may divorce the first and second wife and the fourth wife and keep the third.
And if one is converted, and the other party is detained in some other country and so is not available as a spouse, he may also divorce her in the Catholic way.
David Borg
Oct 9th 2010, 14:34
I refer to Pope John Paul II's speech to the Roman Rota in 1990, quoting Pope Pius XII who said "ratified and consummated marriage is by divine law indissoluble, since it cannot be dissolved by any human authority (can. 1118); while other marriages, although intrinsically indissoluble, still do not have an absolute extrinsic indissolubility, but, under certain necessary conditions, can (it is a question, as everyone knows, of relatively rare cases) be dissolved not only by virtue of the Pauline privilege, but also by the Roman Pontiff in virtue of his ministerial power"
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000121_rota-romana_en.html
The marriages by non-Catholics can be dissolved only in limited circumstances in favour of the Catholic faith in case of conversion by a spouse. This is the Pauline privilege of the faith. This is not sacramental marriage (as the spouses are not baptised) and this marriage can be dissolved as faith is privileged over lack of faith. There are some non sacramental marriages that can be dissolved only by the Pope acting as the vicar of Christ. This so called Petrine privilege is similarly dissolution in favour of the faith in certain circumstances and can be applied even if one of the spouses is Catholic.
Robert Henry Bugeja
Oct 9th 2010, 12:05
Remember dear Maltese Public..The famous journey to the Mintoff meeting at It Tokk Square, Gozo in 1961. Why the PN and the Church never mentioned these events and it took half a century to ask forgiveness? Isnt this part of their HOLY record of achievments!! Where was the PN that time? Silent, of course! Sitting on a wall. Conveniently I say, to grasp power while the Church does the dirty work...like its trying to do again now!
No, this time it wont work. Ignorance left the island and was replaced by information. Divorce is a right not a sin! Imposing it wont help!!
Acts such as those of 61, which Jesus himself came on earth to prevent, boomeranged against the same Church which imposed them. Division and Hate! The Church of Malta under Mgns Gonzi supported such inhumane acts!!! Shame on you, and all of those who supported you in those days! Go knock on every door you see and beg for forgiveness for the hate and division you spilled in those days...and stop blaming it on Mintoff once and for all!
D. Spiteri
Oct 9th 2010, 12:03
One waits with bated breath for the final word from Archbishop Cremona and Bishop Grech, and hopes there will be no mincing of words. The writing is on the wall; one would think they will not want to jeopardise the image of the Church as a kind and understanding institution; even towards those outside the fold.
A Church that talks with two voices or that does not distinguish between the various reasons and conditions for divorce and that then muddies the waters by mentioning also abortion and euthanasia as if they were closely related to it, is not worth listening to.
Charles Zammit
Oct 9th 2010, 11:53
Well said Mr. Justice Sciberras. Looks like the pains that our ancestors went through in the 60s brought no change at all in the church. Additionally the recent apology by the archbishop regarding the imposition of mortal sin on labourites in the 60s means nothing. Here we go again full circle.
Dr Francis Saliba
Oct 9th 2010, 11:48
There is a world of difference between "imposing" mortal sin (as if a new sin is being created) and the church authorities fulfilling their duty to teach that a particular activity - in this case e.g. creating de novo pro-divorce legislation - would be wrong and therefore sinful. The Catholic Church has this moral right imposed on it by its founder Christ. On top of that the authority of the Catholic Church has right and the duty imposed on it by the Constitution of Malta to teach what is right and what is wrong - and therefore to indicate that a particular activit is sinful.
A judge could always recuse himself from taking cognisance of a case, e.g. on the grounds of being a conscientious objector. On the other hand Church authorities themselves do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which teaching of Christ to endorse and which to reject.
Martha Shamp
Jul 25th 2011, 22:59
Dr. Saliba, I agree.
Malta is a rare bird, a land that has Christian heritage solid as a rock. The horrors of godless society have not yet eroded its laws. Beware of evil ways from Europe and America. The media pours out proof of the awful decline of societies who scoff at God and think man's stupid ways are better. man's ways are a joke
patrick zammit
Oct 9th 2010, 11:24
A simple wiki search for marriage shows that:
“For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children.
From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter,[citation needed] with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required.”
So, limiting ourselves to the situation in Europe only, man started to mix marriage with religion less than 2,000 years ago despite his presence in Europe for the last 22,000 years or so.
Now, if god really exists and the religious aspect of marriage was so important, why did he leave it so late to show us the correct way it should be done?
Gerard Cassar
Oct 9th 2010, 11:22
Mons Said Pullicino has passed his term of office being over 80. Why does he not leave his office for a younger one. Why does he hold so much to his present responsibility of head of the Church Tribunal. He should retire and enjoy his pension.There are younger Monseigneurs who are eager to take his place. Lets hope it is not a question of remuneration or money. Let's hope it is not.
Bishops retire at a certain age why not the head of the tribunal?
victor pulis
Oct 9th 2010, 11:22
Inspite of the condemnation by former judges and lawyers of the speech by the mons, I am afraid that the damage has been done. The feathers have been scattered and it's well nigh impossible to pick them up and place them back in the bag. The fear of grave sin and hell is not easily erased from those faithful who need others to decide for them and who think that every word that comes out of a priest's mouth is gospel. I know several people who agree with divorce but will hold back their vote because of fear of eternal flames and damnation because the mons said so. Therefore, I'm afraid that a referendum result if and when it is called will not show the real sentiment of the people.
Raymond Sammut
Oct 9th 2010, 13:36
How do you mean by "real sentiment"? Sentiment is by necessity real. If people yield to what the church authority proclaims, that yielding is in itself sentiment. There can be no reason to think that that sentiment is not real. The hard cold fact about Malta's society is that a large proportion of the population support the Church. Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the support, and hence the sentiment, is real.
J.Tonna
Oct 9th 2010, 11:22
I do not know why they call it imposition??? Is telling the facts imposition nowadays???
Adrian Camilleri
Oct 9th 2010, 11:38
How can 'sin' be a fact ?
Its a human construct and forms part of the attempt by a certain part of society to codify the way they view the world. The things they agree with are 'moral', the things they disagree with are 'sins'. In that respect, 'sin' is a point of view, not a fact.
J.Tonna
Oct 9th 2010, 14:04
Mr Camilleri - Those who are Catholics, or Christians know that Jesus only taught facts (i.e what displeases God) and not His opinion. The Catholic Church teaches what it has learnt from Jesus and therefore they are facts. The Church is there to teach us not to impose.
Adrian Wirth
Oct 9th 2010, 11:15
Not only is the silence of the entire political arena deafening but more so is the absense of any response from the Curia.
Could Mons. Said Pullicino be engulfed in some internal difference of opinion and this was his way of expressing his personal point of view clearly causing apparant embarassement in the church hierarchy whose bishops, from previous statements, appear to understand that it is the responsibility of government to govern and legislate for all.
Could we be seeing yet another example of a theocracy not democracy at work in these islands.
John Pace
Oct 9th 2010, 11:15
Mgr Said Pullicino is so out of touch with the real world. Threatening us with mortal sin? Like anyone cares what he says? This isn't the 1950's. You are no one to say such rubbish. Shame on you Mgr Said Pullicino. Only God is my god. I want nothing to do with your church and priests.
J Borg
Oct 9th 2010, 11:53
You say that God is your god, not the church and priests. Your GOD ordered and ordained the Church to spread HIS word. According to Jesus' teaching, HE is against divorce. So what is the church doing which you don't like? Or do you want the Church to teach ONLY what you want??
Dear John. Min ma jhobbx lill-kelb, MA JHOBBX lil sidu!
renzo galea
Oct 9th 2010, 14:26
church and priest are not God dear borg!!!
dont forget that priests messed up sexually little children... sided with PN in the 1960s... declaring as voting to labour would be a sin... etc
so is this our GOD???
L Spiteri
Oct 9th 2010, 11:07
Today's Gospel reading: “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
A practicing Catholic is bound to observe the Word of God be he judge, soldier, salesman and what not.
"Right is right, even if no one is right. Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong." - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
Joe Zammit
Oct 9th 2010, 11:02
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.
No MP can vote for divorce without sinning seriously against God. If an MP votes for divorce he or she will be betraying God. And let no MP think that God is asleep! Time will tell.
R Saliba
Oct 9th 2010, 12:04
God forgives.
Richard Micallef
Oct 9th 2010, 13:47
Although not a labourite myself, I am now beginning to understand what it was like to be a labourite in the 60s. What next Mr. Zammit? Bring back the inquisition?
Bernard Mamo
Oct 9th 2010, 14:06
Who cares? Open your eyes! If your religion doesn't accept it then don't do it! Who are you to tell me what is right and what is wrong? I hope someday you'll need divorce yourself so you'll know what people out of love feel.
victor pulis
Oct 9th 2010, 16:10
Welcome back Joe! we were starting to miss you and your cut and pastes!
victor pulis
Oct 9th 2010, 16:13
@ Joe Zammit
"...That refers to a CONSTRAINED application for divorce. The married couple continues to consider their marriage VALID also after the divorce decree by the state. Their action for divorce is materially made, not formally, externally not internally. Besides considering their marriage still valid, they do not enter into a new relationship. "
Which means they are not really divorced but SEPARATED!
Frank Portelli 2BFRANK
Oct 9th 2010, 10:52
Unfortunately Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino is not singing from the same hymn sheet as the Vatican - never mind the bishop.
Here is the official version of our Catholic Catechism published by the Vatican
“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 offense.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2383
We are not "Cradle Catholics"
We are "Concerned Cathoilics"
Dr Frank Portelli
Joe Zammit
Oct 9th 2010, 12:02
Frank, divorce is evil and can never be accepted. That paragraph you quoted in no way points to the acceptance of divorce. That refers to a CONSTRAINED application for divorce. The married couple continues to consider their marriage VALID also after the divorce decree by the state. Their action for divorce is materially made, not formally, externally not internally. Besides considering their marriage still valid, they do not enter into a new relationship.
What Mgr Said Pullicino said is correct. Favouring divorce in any way is favouring the devil. Chirst does not want divorce. In 2000-year history the Catholic Church has never resorted to divorce because Christ has taught her so. Remember that only the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the true Church of Christ!
P. Borg
Oct 11th 2010, 13:19
Joe vazun imkisser rari tista twahhlu ma jimpurtax x'tip ta superglue uzajt. Ma taghmilx sens li qed tghid. Ghandek il-gutz tghid dan lil mara imsawtha minn zewgha kuljum ghalxejn??? Ghandek il-gutz tghid dan lil xi hadd li kellu il-partner mar ma ragel jew mara ohra waqt iz-zwieg meta suppost twieghed fedelta fuq l-artal???
Jien ma nafx kif jahdem mohhok. Taghlaq ghajnejk ghat-tbatija ta haddiehor basta tibqa fid-dinja tal-holm. L-imhabba bhal ma tinbet tista tmut ukoll u ghal dan ghandu jkun hemm rimedju. Mhux kull zwieg jirnexxi u int persuna li trid tpoggi kundanna fuq ras min ma rnexxilux iz-zwieg. Tahseb li kieku dawn in-nies jafu li mhux se jirnexxi iz-zwieg, tahseb li ser imorru jizzewgu?? Trid tkun mignun biex taghmel hekk . Nipprova nifhmek ta imma il-kastelli fuq ir-ramel li ghandek huma hafna ghalija u ma niflahx nara fantaziji iktar. Trid iggieghel lil min hu imdejjaq jibqa imdejjaq. Fik kattoliku ukoll!!!!
K Grech
Oct 9th 2010, 10:51
To date I am still undecided whether divorce should be introduced or not, as both the pro and against are still unconvincing. Using old tactics by scaring people with immortal damnation is definitely not going to work to convince the masses. God is love no matter ones circumstances. So far the best preacher on the subject was Mgr Charles Vella. With or without divorce, the church offers the best teachings towards the development of healthy family units.
R.Abela
Oct 9th 2010, 10:40
Taf fejn hu dnub mejjet sur MGR, meta bnedmien mahluqa fuq xbieja T`ALLA u ghax kellom twemien li MALTA kella tkun parti mill RENJU UNIT, L ISQOF GONZI dak iz zmien kien qed jaspira li issir Kardinal u jek MALTA kienet tiehu L-INTEGRATION U MALTA issier parti mir RENJU UNIT ic-cans li jilhaq Kardinal kien jisfuma fix-xejn ghax L_INGILTERRA ga kellha Kardinal, b`hekk L-ARCISQOF GONZI dak iz zmien inpona id dnub il mejjet fuq il LABUISTI u dawk li imutu jindifnu fil Mizbla. Avolja il-Knisja ghalmitna li il Bnedmien mahluqa fuq ix xbieha T`ALLA. Ma iddejjaq xejn li jindifnu fil Mizbla u qies bis xawwatu. Saqsu lil dawk IL QRABA TAd 9 Maltin li mietu fil kraxx tal LIBJA. Meta gabuhom MALTA gie MGR DANDRIA fil kamra mortwarja isaqsi min Kien Laburist. ` DAN LELI FALZON?` `IVA`. `MELA IDDFNUH FIL MIZBLA. DAWK DNUBIET MEJTA MELA MIN QED IFITTEX IMHABBA OHRA. Sal-lum LELI FALZON ghadu midfun fic cimiterju ta linglizi F`PEMBROKE.
Lino Apap
Oct 9th 2010, 10:02
The Judges have spoken in defence of the Law they have sworn to uphold and work with all their lives - Well Done. Now, how about the politicians? So far we have had Mons. Said Pullicino threaten the Judiciary and Mons. Gouder threatening the Legislature. At least the Judiciary has stood up to be counted. The politicians? With a few exceptions, the silence is deafening.