Influential priests issue position paper on divorce

Joe Zammit

Jan 13th 2011, 10:46

Conscience is supreme only if it dictates what Christ through his one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches. If conscience says one thing, and the Catholic Church infallibly teaches something different, we must follow the infallible teaching of the Church. Following conscience will surely lead you to hell. This is the teaching of Christ and his Church.

If conscience were enough, Christ would not have set up his Church. He would have told us only to follow our conscience. But he ordered us to follow the teaching of the Apostles and their successors, the bishops.

After all, conscience is reasoning. To start reasoning we must have a premise. The premise must be the teaching of Christ and his Church. Then conscience will tell us if we are doing God's will or not. So conscience must necessarily be enlightened by the infallible teaching of the Church first, then it can reason things well.

Without this teaching conscience will just do what it pleases, and will only lead you to hell. Those in hell appeal to their conscience for being there, … but there shall they remain for ever!

Paul Farrugia

Oct 15th 2010, 21:39

Nixtieq nuri t thassib tieghi qabel jidhol id divorzju.Jien konvint li kif jidhol id divorzju,jidhol l-abort, tidhol l-ewtanasja u affarijiet ohra.Forsi hafna bhalissa qed jghidu id divorzju iva imma l-ohrajn le.Il fatti huma li fejn dahal wiehed dahlu l-ohrajn.Araw f` hafna pajjizi fl ewropa x qed jigri.Ir rizultat taf x`jkun herba shiha u sitwazjoni fejn il bniedem iffittex li hu jaf imexxi iktar mill ligijiet t`Alla.Forsi rridu nghaddu min dawn iz zminijiet biex naraw nkunux ahjar jew le.Zgur l-esperjenza f pajjizi ohra turina li dawn mhumiex is soluzjonijiet li ghadna bzonn.

C Dalli

Oct 15th 2010, 19:02

It is really the business of a modern secular state, not religious organizations, to decide how to legislate. In Malta's case, the situation is really surreal, when one considers the statistics of separations, annulments, etc. The law courts of this sovereign nation are powerless to grant a divorce themselves, but have to recognize one granted by foreign tribunals. The Rev authors seem to be preparing Catholics for a referendum, assuming this will take place, urging Catholics to use their conscience (but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is unequivocal about divorce! That's for Catholics to decide). Is a referendum the right option?? The state's duty is to legislate for 1and all, and no basic right or freedom (including the right to remarry after a marriage breakdown) should be made to hinge on qualms of conscience, however well 'informed', or the lottery of a popular referendum, especially when the public is getting utterly confusing messages from all directions all the time. The right to a new chance in life should be accessible to one and all. Extend the present right of the privileged few to all citizens. One life destroyed is one too many.

simon cutajar

Oct 15th 2010, 16:33

NO DIVORCE ! NO VOTE !

Mike Rizzo

Oct 14th 2010, 12:25

Quotes from paper:
"the introduction of such a law in favour of divorce"
"concerning legislation in favour of divorce"
"to vote against legislation favouring divorce"

Nobody is asking for a law that "favours" divorce. Law does not favour anything - it can only enable things to happen. Favouring legislation to enable divorce is not the same as being being pro-divorce.

charles philip zammit

Oct 14th 2010, 10:10

mr spiteri from your quote of matthew you jumped into the wrong conclusion and tried to make us believe that God goes about with two ways two measures. now we all know that God is the most just so your reasoning must be wrong. in fact in your quote of matthew Jesus said unless she commits sexual immorality. therefore there are instances where a man can divorce his wife, and can remarry an unmarried lady but not a divorced one.and arent most divorces given on the basis of infedelity i might ask? and i hope that what goes for men holds good for women also. in my humble openion there is the difficulty of correct reporting over time, of correct translations from the actual language it was spoken to the greek to the english or maltese version. a qualified sholar such as mons cachia of zebbug will surely enlighten us on this matter.

C Dalli

Oct 14th 2010, 09:16

Is it enough for the learned gentlemen to state that 'divorce is wrong' (para 4)? I don't think so. It must be clarified that in the Catholic Church, remarriage after divorce is a 'grave sin', and that remarriage bars Catholic divorcees from communion.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997) states: Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. (1650)

George Vella

Oct 14th 2010, 04:53

I sincerely know the good intentions of these learned clergy re their ‘Declaration about Conscience and Divorce’.
Yet in my humble opinion they blundered for the second time … all clergy in Malta and Gozo should not speak or show their individual opinion about the matter of divorce. I am sorry to say that they are creating chaos. Only the Church in Malta or any clergy authorized by the said Church should speak. After all we all know what the Gospel says and how it stands about divorce.
Separation, annulment and divorce are the same, for in the three cases all aim at putting both parties concerned in a settled legal, civil and secular agreement. This is an immediate naturalistic solution and not a divine one. Here I would never advice what an individual should do.

Emanuel Farrugia

Oct 13th 2010, 20:46

The family is, in a sense, a school for human enrichment. But if it is to achieve the full flowering of its life and mission, the married couple must practise an affectionate sharing of thought and common deliberation as well as eager cooperation as parents in the children's upbringing.

Emanuel Farrugia former Executive Secretary Mtarfa Local Council, & Maltese Episcopal Conference

A.Spiteri

Oct 13th 2010, 20:06

What are the Biblical reasons for divorce? Let’s let Jesus answer this for us in Matthew 19:8-9. Leaders in Israel were trying to trick Jesus into saying something that they could use against him in a court of law, so they asked him why Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife and Jesus answered, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Joe Zammit

Oct 13th 2010, 19:31

Christian Marriage (Casti Connubii) of Pope Pius XI: Par.91 runs: “Venerable Brethren, there stands one irrefragable law of God, amply endorsed by Christ, a law against whose force no human decree, no ordinance of peoples, no lawgiver’s will can prevail: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder.’ If anyone in spite of that law makes such a separation his act is null and void, with the consequence which Christ Himself has clearly proclaimed: ‘He that puts away his wife and marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery.’ And these words of Christ apply to any marriage whatsoever, EVEN TO A LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE OF THE NATURAL ORDER. Indissolubility is the attribute of every true marriage, and therefore so far as the dissolution of the bond is concerned it is independent of the will of the parties themselves and of every secular power.”

Joe Zammit

Oct 13th 2010, 19:23

Conscience is not an oracle which can draw the truth from its own obscure depths or even create it. It is the proper task of conscience to move the will in accordance with the truth of which it is aware and to search for the truth prior to its decision. Accordingly, conscience and objective truth, and ultimately also conscience and the authority of God teaching us, essentially belong together. By its very nature conscience seeks illumination and guidance, which it finds naturally in the order and harmony of creation, supernaturally in the teaching of Christ as taught to us by his one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If your conscience tells you something contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, do not follow your conscience because it will mislead you. Your conscience is not infallible. So follow the infallible teaching of the Church. That is why Christ has set up his Catholic Church.

GVella

Oct 13th 2010, 17:51

Unfortunately, these learned clerics are still sending out mixed signals. They talk of the primacy of conscience but seem to insist at certain points that the dictates of that conscience must perforce conform to the dictates of the Church. Except in point 7, where they clearly concede that a position on divorce reached in all honesty but which does not coincide with the position of the Church may legitimately be held by a Catholic. This to me is the clearest message that these priests appear to want to transmit. If that is the case, then this is a welcome breath of fresh air, but I urge them to come out more clearly with their thoughts so that there are no equivocations on what they really mean.

mark johnson

Oct 13th 2010, 17:49

Is it a sin to hurt children? Then why do the church issue annulments to couples with kids when it will harm the children for their family to be destroyed by the annulment? How can a marriage be presumed to have never taken place when children were born in that marriage? Does it bother you that the catholic church are the biggest sinners of the lot in this respect?

A Agius

Oct 13th 2010, 17:26

Kif in-nies ma jifthux ghajnejhom u jaraw din l-ipokrezija fil- wicc? Nibqa imbellah b'dil-mentalita, mhux ta' b' xejn qeghdin f' dan l-istat li qeghdin issa fih. U l -wicc vili hu, li l-maggoranza tal- kattolici trid timponi fuq min ma jemminx b'alla jew ghandu religjonijiet ohra. Igieghlek tahseb, impossibli il- knisja ma temminx li tghid hi stess?... Li kieku vera li jaqqghad alla ma jhassrux il-bniedem ghaliex din il- bizgha kollha mid-divorzju? Dan hu il- kuragg li taghmlu liz-zaghzagh li ha jizzewgu? Tghidilhom li jekk jidhol id-divorzju ha jinfirdu? Ghax milli nista nifhem il-knisja qed tghid jekk jidhol id-divorzju ha jitkissru l-familji... Ma tghidx jekk tkunu thobbu l' xulxin lanqas id-divorzju ma jista jifridkhom. U fl-ahhar mill-ahhar, xi dritt ghandek fuqi int min int? Jekk irrid id-divorzju jien, ghalxiex ma nistax niehdu ghax lilek ma jogghbokx? Nahseb alla kuntent jara nisa u irgiel jigru ma dik u ma l-iehor flok jidhol id-divorzju hux? Jekk ma joghgbkomx id-divorzju tuzawhx, kif jekk ma jogghbokx l-alcohol ma tixorbux. Pero` timponix lil haddiehor x'jaghmel b'hajtu. Skond inthom lanqas alla ma jimponi fuqna ghax ihallina liberi... u inthom qed taghmlu bil-kontra, issakru lis-socejta li trid tkun libera. Ateist

R.Borg

Oct 13th 2010, 17:02

The common position does not endorse divorce. However, the priests argue the importance that individuals form their conscience in the light of Church teachings and the common good before deciding on divorce according to conscience.

AND IN THE LIGHT OF GOD'S COMMANDMENTS:
'YOU SHOULD NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'

maria aquilina

Oct 13th 2010, 16:09

This declaration makes sense.All is left to one's conscience.

martin saliba

Oct 13th 2010, 16:08

Please explain this teaching of the church . Have the unbaptised babies buried in unconsacrated grounds been exhumed and reburied in consacrated grounds ? Has the church al least tried to put this grave wrong right? http://www.metro.co.uk/home/20616-pope-limbo-does-not-exist

Mark J.Magri

Oct 13th 2010, 15:39

I should put my idea about divorce this way:
I should say Yes for the WORD of GOD and NO for the word of people who are twisting
the WORD of GOD.
GRANPINTO

Clyde Attard

Oct 13th 2010, 15:26

This is unacceptable! The Lord and His Holy Mother do not want divorce. It is wrong to divorce one's spouse - Till death do us part. It is GRAVE sin to be involved in the introduction and implementation of divorce. Whoever is involved in the introduction of divorce will have to carry the spiritual responsabilty of all divorces in Malta. Go and read the great Church mystics.

For catholics there is only 1 conscience - that applied by the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church is not here to teach what is comfortable but what is right.

Is there anbody in his right senses that really beleive that the Lord wants the introduction of divorce? Who do you think you're kidding?

Alfred Gatt

Oct 13th 2010, 14:31

Mr Michael Ellul Vincenti: You got it all wrong. A priest remains a priest forever. The dispensation grants him the permission to stop administering his priestly ministry and he can therefore marry if he wants to. Celibacy is a discipline in the Catholic Church which can be removed. Divorce is a different matter altogether. The Church here has to obey Christ's command who does not allow divorce. So this is NOT divorce for the clergy, although unfortunately many confuse this issue. Hope this information makes you more informed to know the great difference between the two issues.

Sabrina Borda

Oct 13th 2010, 14:26

If the suppressed conscience is filled with rules and regulations therefore unable to make its own free balanced rational choices and if it is threatened with hell to follow, then this is extreme coaxing and more like manipulating rather than allowing one the intelligence and the breath to think in balance to actually form a conscience. These flagrant stipulations would not be benefiting the real use of a free conscience but undervaluing the true potential of it.
These are ultimately always threats to which in all the other Roman Catholics world wide that do have divorce as an option in each of their countries are not tainted with this mire of conscience battles that make them feel so stained. They are still considered good Christians.

Albert Farrugia

Oct 13th 2010, 14:07

I am sorry to say this, but all this confusion on the part of the Maltese Church is due to lack of leadership. Unfortunately, inspite of his good intentions, Archbishop Cremona is abdicating his role as leader. This "position paper" by "influential priests" should have, really, been a Pastoral Letter from the Bishops, read in all Churches, and having the authority of the Maltese church. As it is, it is just a tiny bit more influential that a normal opinion piece on a newspaper.
I think the Vatican's choice of Mgr Cremona was ill-advised. Probably they chose Mgr Cremona as they assumed that the Church in Malta does not face severe controversies. How wrong they were. And, while on the subject, why is it that the public at large is never informed on HOW and WHY a particular person was chose to be Archibishop?

mpace2

Oct 13th 2010, 14:00

A question to all concerned - do;nt let the issues go back to 60;s for god seek and what its means is the church keeps its affairs to Catholic teaching and the state affairs kept apart or else their will be flock whom will tear away from their Catholic beliefs as families already pass from the feelings as its was a sin if you vote for particular political party or else heads will roll again and first we have to keep the family unite on this issue of national interest
May God Bless the Maltese flock united in Christian values

Emanuel Farrugia

Oct 13th 2010, 13:59

Gaudium et Spes :

Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself. Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

Emanuel Farrugia former Executive Secretary, Mtarfa Local Council & Maltese Episcopal Conference

Mark Galea

Oct 13th 2010, 13:01

Seems the divorce issue is not as actively discussed as before - infact only the usual die hards (both pro and against) have commented up to now. And there are many around (especially men) that are "happily cohabiting" with a new partner after separation that will do their best not to have to marry their new partner. Many may not understand but statistics are statistics ...

Joe Mangion

Oct 13th 2010, 12:38

The Declaration confirms that the House of Representatives is duty bound to decide on the introduction of divorce in Malta. Our members are occupying their seat in parliament to do their job - to legislate. And that is what they should do without further procrastination.

gcForte

Oct 13th 2010, 12:16

What I wish to know is one simple question. What is the church doing to prevent the broken marriages ? I give an example. If a bulb blow off, I change it, but if it blows again instant, I will not change the bulb, but start looking for the fault which is causing the bulb to blow off. In my opinion the first thing the church should do is identify the real problems why couples are stopping loving each other after few years. It is a known fact that two of the main reasons are. A. The huge loans that they have to make, to have a home, which brings lot of repercussions B. The 24 / 7 gambling that exists. Lots are hoping that someday will be their lucky day will come, but they will be waiting in vain. The church should urge the government to start providing housing for the new citizens, like it use to be under the Labour governments, and secondly the church should use its pulpits to show the faithfuls how wrong is to leave your children without adequate food and clothing, just to hope in playing.

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 13th 2010, 12:03

Surely, when faced with the hypothetical question of a choice between two evils the first consideration is to ascertain that there really is no other choice and that one cannot conscientiously abstain from chosing between either of the two evils

Adriano Spiteri

Oct 13th 2010, 11:32

First of all let me point out that divorce is an individual right which everyone should be entitled to. All other member states introduced it. We should not remain the blacksheep. That would be discrimination against those who cannot afford to file divorce elsewhere.

Secondly:
"All citizens, Catholic or not, if asked to give their judgement whether they wish or not the introduction of such a law in favour of divorce have the right..."
The Church has no right to dictate our rights. The role of the Church is to give the best advice to its followers. The Individual, be him Catholic or not, has the ultimate say. Punto Basta.

"For us, Catholics, divorce is wrong whether it is permitted by civil law or not"
Paedophilia is not only wrong but unlawful. Prominent church figures had failed to report certain cases to the authorities. This includes the Pope himself.

"The group includes Mgr Anton Gouder, who only two months ago was embroiled in controversy after linking divorce with sin."
Mgr Gouder realised that the Individual should have the freedom to sin, finally!
Paedophiles and Divorcees join forces for swan lake in hell!

Joseph Baldacchino

Oct 13th 2010, 11:22

@C Muscat: "As a rule, it is better to remain separated rather than risk again by remarrying.
As a rule, to remarry is risking another failure. "
Where may I ask did you get this fuzzy logic from. The logical sequence here is then 'don't get married in the 1st place!'. Civil divorce is a human right. It is a means to an end. It brings closure to a very unhappy episode in one's life. Do you all honestly think people apply for separation for the fun of it?. Most married couples going through a separation will have tried everything to save their marriage. Of course, there are unwritten rules in marriage that if one fails to abide by them, then the trust element is completely lost. Like adultery for example. Both partners in marriage must provide that level of comfort whereby each partner feels they can trust their spouse completely in their relationship. If that trust link is broken, and to some, probably many (as in my case) that spells the end of marriage. But that doesn't mean that because the first marriage fails, the second is doomed to failure before it even begins.

Antoine Xuereb

Oct 13th 2010, 11:19

Id-divorzju mhux Alla ma jridux izda l-knisja ghax inkella ma ddahhalx bizzejjed flus mill-annullamenti!

Michael Aquilina

Oct 13th 2010, 11:16

When will they realise that not everyone in Malta is a catholic. Just because you want to follow your rules of religion, doesnt mean everyone else has to! If you dont want divorce, then just dont make use of it!

David Smith

Oct 13th 2010, 11:10

This paper will only add more confusion. I ask several questions.
(i) Is divorce inherently wrong? (ii) If it is intrinsically wrong, then how can one justify its introduction conscientiously? (iii) If it is NOT intrisically wrong, then which are the circumstances that can justify its introduction?
According to the Constitution, the Church has the OBLIGATION to determine what is right and what is wrong - most poeple seem to forget that when they accuse the Church of living in the middle ages.

michael ellul vincenti

Oct 13th 2010, 10:58

The church dispenses its ministers from their vows and allows them to get married and raise a family. is this not divorce for the clergy? If the church have their own divorce, then why not divorce for all.
My concience is clear, i follow the church's example!

Paul Caruana

Oct 13th 2010, 10:54

The learned reverends are absolutely correct: indeed they can only affirm the official catholic position, based on scripture, resolutely against divorce.

The bigger question, however, is wheather civil society should be bound by such rigid religous rules, to the extent of denying hundreds of people whose marrage has unfortunately broken down, the right for a normal, legally recognized, relationship with another person.

Divorce is never a fully satisfactory solution to an irrevocably broken marrage, which should only be considered after repeated attempts at mediation have failed. But to simply deny the need for divorce in all instances is to sweep the dust under the carpet, so to speak: the problem might superficially appear to be out of sight, but in the end you are just making things worse.

mark johnson

Oct 13th 2010, 10:50

I have yet to hear one decent argument why splitting up a family with a church annulment is any different to a divorce. In fact, with annulment, the children are left with unmarried parents as if they never were once married. The only difference seems to be that the church get paid for a church annulment but don't get a cent for a divorce. Please enlighten me.

Ramon Casha

Oct 13th 2010, 10:49

This is a very reasonable position from these gentlemen.

However I would clarify that, while Catholics might take the church as an authoritative source where spiritual matters are concerned, it is no different than any other party where secular information is being disseminated. One example is when people quote the "harm to society", where certain clerics are biased to say the least, and give incorrect information to support their position.

Anthony Pace Gouder

Oct 13th 2010, 10:39

Are not Seperations and Annullments DIVORCE in disguise ? May I point out that Malta and the Phillipines are the only TWO ''devout'' Catholic countries without divorce !

C. Muscat

Oct 13th 2010, 10:30

Good for the information coming from such well informed teachers. It is very well presented and the information clearly stated.

One has to abide by what is good and avoid and fight back what is bad.

The divorce as a rule is bad in any form. The separation is sorrowful and ideally would not happen. As a rule, it is better to remain separated rather than risk again by remarrying.
As a rule, to remarry is risking another failure.

Well done for the paper.

walter camilleri

Oct 13th 2010, 10:28

Thank God for intelligent priests for understand they cannot talk down to an intelligent audience!

Raymond Calleja

Oct 13th 2010, 10:22

When are we going to say the word freedom.....why should the church and mostly some priest condem us for wanting divorce.They should look around them and in the comunity to see the sex scandals and abuse they have made all these years.We want divorce and we shall have it and we then can say we are becoming like EU countrys.They have divorce in Rome......why is it not in Malta.

Charles J. Buttigieg

Oct 13th 2010, 10:22

In my opinion this position paper adds to the public’s confused opinion on the subject.

The position paper would be a very good guide line as to whether or not Catholics should resort to divorce proceedings if and when their marriage becomes untenable. No problem with that. The bone of contention however is whether or not the government should or shouldn’t provide the required legal mechanism.

I wouldn’t dare try to debate the church’s teachings in that a good Catholic cannot opt for divorce; that is the Church’s doctrine and as a free citizen I’m given the right to accept it or opt out of Catholicism. It’s my way or the highway.

But the whole issue oughtn’t be a religious one; it ought to be whether a Catholic voter should be given the right to deprive two persons from permanently terminating their marriage vows considering the fact that divorce is only a choice not a legal imposition.

M.G. Farrugia

Oct 13th 2010, 10:20

Jidher li certa qassisin u monsinjuri li huma jew inkella jipppretendu li huma qed imexxu l-kurja qed joħorgu kitbiet dwar id-divorce li jidher li ma hemmx konsensus ufficjali dwarhom. Nistaqsi x'inhija l-posizjoni tal-Knisja ufficjali dwar id-divorzju. Meta l-Kurja se tohrog xi haga ufficjali. Jekk kulhadd jispara l'hawn u l'hinn minghajr ma jkun hemm il-kontrol tal-Kmandant se jigrilna bhal ma jigri fil-kamp tal-battalja -nitilfu il-battalja ghax ma jkunx hemm direzzjoni. L-Arcisqof huwa responsabbli li jghidilna il-posizzjoni ufficjali. Jekk nibqaw sejra hekk nibza li fost il-qasssisin se jkun hemm qasam li tista twassal ghal xi haga aghar. Nappella sabiex il-knisja ma taghmilx bhal politici imma tkun cara u tonda ma hemmx biza ta voti f'dan il-kaz. Il-Knisja ghanda bzon tkun diretta bhal ma qed jaghmlu hafna opinjonisti li ghandhom interest personali u l-abjad tghidlu abjad u l-iswed tghidlu iswed.

Pierre André Aquilina

Oct 13th 2010, 10:17

A thoroughly commendable effort. It looks, therefore, like the principal trust of the argument is one's own, individual conscience. Pray, if this is the case, howcome the position paper inserts a reference to a collective vote on divorce, in stating that a Catholic "may still, in spite of having all the necessary knowledge and having done everything to find the whole truth, in conscience not see why to vote against legislation favouring divorce"? Ought this to be a decision to be based on one's own concience, or the conscience of a collective vote? Maybe the contradiction stems from the fact that divorce resides indeed in the realm of one's own, individual conscience, albeit not on the question of whether to introduce it or not, but rather on the question of whether one should resort to it (and as the position paper states "For us, Catholics, divorce is wrong whether it is permitted by civil law or not). In other words, whether divorce is introduced or not is a matter of the state (as denoted by its constitutional organs); whether one should resort to it is a matter of one's own conscience.

Paul Barrett

Oct 13th 2010, 10:16

Quote: 4. For us, Catholics, divorce is wrong whether it is permitted by civil law or not. Unquote.

Fine, this has been the Catholic position on divorce for many years. However in all good Christian conscience, it is wrong to impose this unique Catholic position on society as a whole.

The freedom of choice and the opportunity for the increasing number of co-habiting couples to obtain a civil marriage, should they wish to, is very much in the interest of society. Legislation to allow divorce following legal separation is required.

Charles Alamango

Oct 13th 2010, 10:05

Amid all this hullabaloo, interference from the church personal opinions and doom and gloom I only ask one simple question. If marriage and the failure of it is so important to our society can the Authorities including the vociferous Church officials let us know why to-date there are still no preparation classes from a very early age in our state/church schools regarding the responsibilities/attitude/respect/appreciation etc etc in Marriage?? We should teach our children what to expect and how to deal with marital problems from an early stage. WE NEED A LICENCE AND PRACTICE TO DRIVE AND USE CARS COMPUTERS MACHINERY ETC. So what are we waiting for to start training and preparing our children for when they take their vows. By all means do legislate divorce but at least prepare the spouses.

Victor Laiviera

Oct 13th 2010, 09:46

Point 7(c) says it all.

The rest is all commentary, embellishment and padding.

A. Falzon

Oct 13th 2010, 09:31

I would like to ask Mgr Said Pullicino if the priests who difile children will have lawyers to asist them in court. As he said to judges and lawyers not to asist sinners of divorce in court. Mgr Said Pullicino kindly answer me.

patrick zammit

Oct 13th 2010, 09:30

Is this position paper endorsed by the archbishop?

Why is there all this secrecy and mystery on such an important issue for the church (and society)?

renald williams

Oct 13th 2010, 09:22

For those who want to believe: the most influential prominent Priest and Pastor; Jesus, issued His position paper in the Gospels. His teachings; are a light and way for the personal and common good, of the faithful. His only crusade was love, truth, life: for believers and not, for faithful and not; during His life, and even till His death on the Cross. May those who want to believe and have faith in Him; learn to read and hear, while not to judge or impose.
Gospel peace and health wishes.

Paul Barrett

Oct 13th 2010, 09:20

I thought that the Church had already made it's position on divorce quite clear and that there was nothing to debate on the matter. Their position is that divorce and supporting a move for a secular law on divorce is sinning as it undermines the power and income to the Church.

Vincent Galea

Oct 13th 2010, 09:20

When an elderly couple married for 50 years were asked if in all these years they have ever contemplated divorce they respond " Heavens no .Murder yes, but divorce never " : )

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 13th 2010, 09:20

Conscience should not be conditioned by only one school of thought (the Church's teaching). Doing that would be assuming the Church is always right. And if that were really the case, why appeal to one's conscience at all? All that would be required is to obey.

C.Bosch

Oct 13th 2010, 09:14

I think its not up to the Church to judge, or decide about this matter.
Only couples can make the decision for them selves and no body else.