Mgr Lawrence Gatt, Ħamrun
Divorce, democracy and the common good (3)
In the debate on marriage and divorce, reference has been made time and again to the common good. I suppose more than one definition has been given to the common good.
Somehow it has to be an element of good, not of harm, for the whole and not just for a part, be it a minority or majority of society.
The object of legislation is the common good. The main argument of the Marriage Without Divorce movement, that should appeal to one and all, is the common good. In other words, that movement contends that a law which introduces divorce, that is, the legal dissolution of marriage with the possibility of remarriage, goes against the common good.
Indeed, in the people’s perception of marriage, normally taken to be permanent, a substantial amount of harm has already been made by the very possibility of our legislators passing a law that claims to dissolve marriage. That, I suppose, is already harm to the common good.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 28th 2011, 03:06
What I think the church - and Serracino-Inglott - find distasteful in all this is the thought that anyone, having bedded someone, god forbid that they should bed a different person when the first partner is still living. This might sound outlandish but given the Church's disgust at anything sexual, and the feelings of guilt this engenders among its flock, I do not think it is far-fetched at all.
So a marriage is annulled and often, I understand, the reason is non-consummation in the bedroom. Or the kitchen-table. So it wasn't consummated but however much it was fumbled, it still happened. And given the Church's obsession with things sexual, it still grants an annulment?
Now watch that bread-knife! No, using it as a sex-toy is taking it a bit too far. The Mgr. would not approve.
The common good is just that. Allowing people to start afresh and escape a damaging situation in a degenerated marriage. An atmospher detrimental to the children who will carry forward the wrong notion of what marriages are all about. A poisoned inheritance. A veritable never ending viscious cycle, one that has to be broken. For a common good based on reality.
Sabrina Borda
Feb 27th 2011, 14:10
What happens to your opinion when the church grants annulments?
What about the common good then?
The Church grants annulments because it gives a chance for a couple to move on and start again. A chance for a new lease of life, like a heart transplant or bypass, divorce does this too. Annulments should not be selected as a common good rewarded by the Church only as a monopoly, but one must have a right to decide this for oneself through the court.
You are a priest married to the Church not us.
The more people are happy when they get a new lease of life, the better for the common good. You should not have the heart to stop them getting a new lease of life if they need one, you should support them just as Jesus loves them non the less in Europe, and you must see that the Church is not above God or the Law.
Carmel Serracino-Inglott
Feb 27th 2011, 17:50
Annulments are a kettle of different fish from divorce. When one knows like you the difference I simple do not see why you continue to say the contrary. Do you want to mislead? If not study well what annulment is and what divorce is. I know some people who are in favour to introduce divorce law in Malta but have a clear idea what annulment is and they do not mix the two things. Therefore you might be saying so because you are against the teachings of the RCC and GOD's. If the majority does not want such a law why should the minority IMPOSE such a law?
Sabrina Borda
Feb 27th 2011, 19:03
This divorce law is to support the minority that people without a heart do not want. The majority of Maltese people are not without a heart, they will all support their brothers and sisters who need to repair their lives. Few are cruel to interfere.
The difference with an annulment is that it pretends that the marriage never took place. How shocking is that !!! No wedding, no wedding cake, no wedding photos.....but what about the children !! how can you deny them their validity? No, It is not I who is misleading.
It is dishonest to invalidate a fact, even though some were lucky enough to get an annulment finding it as a way out of a bad marriage. Divorce is the honest way therefore the right way whether you like it or not.
As for the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.......there is divorce in Rome, as in the rest of Europe and we believe in God no less. What I am against is bad reason. Good reason is a gift from God, using it may be an inspiring idea.
CJohn Zammit
Feb 27th 2011, 19:31
@Carmel Serracino-Inglott
Perhaps you should instruct the leglislators about the difference between Annulment and Divorce ... just look at Article 19A of the Marriage Act: Nullity of a ►valid◄ marriage.
A contradiction in terms, don't you think?
To the average person, there is no difference between Annulment and Divorce; the end result is the same.
It is people like the good Monsignor and yourself who think that they can suppress a citizen's wish simply by using fancy words. It matters not how your side words it; it is all holy gibberish.