Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando
Conscientious objectors and divorce
I became a Nationalist Party activist in the early 1980s, when my main concern as a young student was the fact that the Socialist government was doing its utmost to attack the concept of freedom of choice in education by engaging itself in a needless battle against Church schools. I went through the ranks: the PN youth movement, local councillor and, for the past 15 years, an MP. But the slogan that has always encapsulated what my party stands for has still remained, to me, the rallying cry of the 1980s: work, justice, liberty.
Times change. The fight for fundamental liberties was won when the majority of the electorate got the government it voted for in 1987 after five years of minority rule. The shameful interpretation of the 1981 result which, due to gerrymandering, led to a majority of seats in Parliament being given to the party with a minority of votes will forever sully the Labour Party’s history.
The PN, under Eddie Fenech Adami, was also in the forefront of another seismic societal development: EU membership. Once again the PL ended up on the wrong side of history when its leader, Alfred Sant, refused to accept the will of the majority as expressed in a referendum held in 2003.
The past years have tragically seen a dramatic rise in marriage breakdowns in Malta. We would never have believed a time would come when the marital breakdown rate would top 22 per cent, rising to 30 per cent if one were to take annulments into consideration.
This was why I presented a Private Member’s Bill aimed at putting responsible divorce on the parliamentary agenda. I was not imposing anything on my fellow MPs. I simply wanted to stimulate a debate on an important subject that has been put on the back-burner for far too long. My colleagues would have been free to vote as they deem fit.
The Standing Orders of the House are based on those of the “Mother of all Parliaments” – the House of Commons. It is worth noting that an English backbencher’s Private Member’s Bill was instrumental in the abolition of the death penalty in the UK. No one accused that honourable gentleman of “political disloyalty”.
I was initially opposed to the idea of holding a referendum on this issue, which I deem to be one of minority rights. Dr Fenech Adami took a similar stand. However, my present leader, Lawrence Gonzi, won me round to his way of thinking. He rightfully said the issue should be decided upon by the electorate in a referendum as it would have a profound impact on our country – marriage being the foundation of our society.
I agree. This is why I could never accept the stance my government was taking in this respect. The government was planning, without an electoral mandate, to legislate in favour of the increased formalisation of cohabiting relationships. The opening address for this legislature, delivered by President Fenech Adami, makes a direct reference to this. Although I will not go so far as calling this political disloyalty, I am completely against this happening in the legislative vacuum that exists at present. In the absence of responsible divorce, legislating in favour of cohabitation is tantamount to a declaration against the institution of marriage.
I have profound respect for Dr Fenech Adami. We will never see eye to eye on the divorce issue but, at least, he is honest enough to admit the true reason behind his anti-divorce militancy: “Jesus Christ, who is not any other philosopher but the Son of God, said divorce was bad for society. This is the truth and it is what I believe in. I will not budge from this position” (January 28).
What I find hard to accept is his reasoning about the institution of marriage: He challenged the notion a second marriage was better than cohabitation. “It is only better for the individuals because it gives them a higher social standing in a society that still values marriage,” he said (January 28).
I ask: What is wrong with having a society that still values marriage? We should thank God this is the case! We should not prohibit those who prefer to cohabit from doing so. It is a personal choice one should be allowed to make. But why are we afraid of allowing individuals whose first marriage has broken down irrevocably from giving new, caring relationships they have embarked upon the stability of a marital contract if they are responsible enough to wish to do so?
I will respect the will of the majority in the coming referendum. I cannot fathom how some of those who, like me, stood aghast at the anti-democratic stands taken by the PL in 1981 and 2003 can now state they are planning to ignore the referendum result unless things go the way they want them to. After having consulted with Evarist Bartolo – the co-presenter of the Divorce Bill – I will withdraw the Bill if the majority of Maltese and Gozitans decide on voting against responsible divorce in the referendum on May 28.
Is it morally acceptable to use your personal beliefs to justify the imposition of parameters for others when it comes to their liberty to pursue happiness and fulfilment?
Dr Pullicino Orlando is a Nationalist member of Parliament.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
67 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Norman E Grech
Mar 25th 2011, 16:19
@ P Hili Dear Philip,
First of all that was OBVIOUSLY a spelling mistake! You sound the 'perfect' type!!
To your question, why I want divorce, the answer is simple:
Because unlike close-minded and selfish people, I would legalise Divorce even if there were ONLY 2 people (out of 414,000 in Malta) wishing to have the OPTION to marry again!!
Plain and simple!!!
One last friendly advice: Embrace change and be bold and detach yourself from darkness and fear!!
Amen
Philip Hili
Mar 26th 2011, 15:31
@ Norman E. Grech
I cannot understand why you said "First of all that was OBVIOUSLY a spelling mistake! You sound the 'perfect' type!! ". The subject of the conversation is "divorce" and not "English Grammar" I never comment on spelling mistakes. My comments are based on sound arguments not about spelling mistakes. Nobody said that I am perfect. When one fails to prove sound arguments, one comments on personal matters. Perhaps you failed out of sound arguments.
Thank you for your answer. You made me more convinced that as far as you are concerned, only pro-divorce people are NOT "close-minded and selfish". Anti-divorce people "talk nonsense!!", are narrow minded and live in "darkness and fear!! " which is not the case.
Philip Hili
Mar 24th 2011, 17:12
@ To all Pro-divorce.
Speak clear and for once be sincere with us.
Since with and/or without divorce you are living your own way, why you are pressing so much in order divorce will be legalised?
Ma naghmlux moghod li minhabba l-fatt li d-divorzju mhux legalizat qeghdin titilfu xi beneficcji mil-Istat u jekk tippressaw biex dan jigi legalizat tistghu d gawdu xi beneficcji min fuq dahar it-taxxi tac-cittadin onest hux? Fil-fehma tieghi, jekk jien qieghd kuntent!! mal-"partner" il-gdid, x'jinteressani jekk inkunx qieghed nghix f'sitwazzjoni legali jew le.
Jien nahseb li hemm xi agneda mohbija u dawk li huma favur ma jixtiequx li l-elettorat ikun jafha qabel ir-referendum. Imbaghd wara "ix-xileb ikun gewwa" u bye bye l-weghdi li jkun saru qabel.
Norman E Grech
Mar 24th 2011, 19:20
Mr Hili!!
Don't talk nonsense!!! Personally I don't won't to get married again and can assure you that I am a gross contributor to the tax system!!
You must have exhausted all possible arguments to come with such an absurdity!!!
Alex Ciantar
Mar 24th 2011, 23:20
@ Philip Hili - I can give you many reasons why a I want to re marry
1.Because my intentions towards my partner r genuine & built on love respect & values plus that I am a responsible & serious person & feel it is the right thing to do, if I were not these things I wouldn't careless.2.Because of status both mine & my partners & children. 3.And for legal & monitory benefits, You insinuated that I would be stealing from the state & therefore from your own pocket, but I see it from my point of view I believe I have every right to claim all the benefits that any other married couple enjoys since I pay the same bills, have a home, & pay my taxes, on the contrary & by the same reasoning that you commented by, as it stands I'm losing out & you are benefiting since I pay more taxes then you do, in the eyes of the state I am single regardless if my partner works or not or how many kids I have. One last thing not everyone from a failed marriage is the culprit some of us are victims!
Philip Hili
Mar 25th 2011, 14:46
@ Norman E. Grech
Dear Norman,
If you "don't won't to get married again" - {your words}, why are you so in favour of divorce? As far as I am concerned the reason behind the legalisation of divorce is so that those person who "after 4 years of separation" from the first marriage (sic)!!!! they can apply for divorce in order to marry the partner with whom they were living for the past four years. Heq!! ha jibdew hajja ohra, hajja gdida.!!! Allura skond int, ma jinteressakx SUPPOST!!!!! Wara kollox, x'hajja gdia ohra iridu jibdw jekk diga' ikunu ilhom erba snin mal-"partner"?
Siehbi Norman, hallina trid, iddecidi jew ahjar ghid lill shabek tal-IVA jiddeciedu!!!!!!!!!u jghidu l-verita' kollha wara din il-manuvra ghax sa kemm ma tghidux il-verita' m'intomx KREDIBBLI.
Philip Hili
Mar 25th 2011, 14:51
@ Norman E. Grech
Dear Norman,
I forgot to draw your attention to the fact that because you are "a gross contributor to the tax system!!" it does not mean that if there are any social benefits you are going to refuse them.
Philip Hili
Mar 25th 2011, 15:45
@Alex Ciantar
"@ Philip Hili - I can give you many reasons why a I want to re marry"
" I see it from my point of view I believe I have every right to claim all the benefits that any other married couple enjoys"
Allelulia!! Ftit ftit, bdied hierga l-verita'. Jigifieri siehbi Alex, inti trid id-"divorzju" biex ikollok id-dritt tal-beneficcji bhal miz-zewgin l-ohra!! Mela meta zzewwigt l-ewwel mara, ma kontx tiehu dawn il-befeficcji li semmejt? Nahseb li hadd ma cahhadomlok. Jistghu jinholqu xi beneficcji ohra ghad-divorzjati li f'dan il-kaz ikunu qeghdin jigu mhalsa mit-taxxi tac-cittadin onest.
Ma nixtieq inkun kattiv ta!! imma d-domanda wehidha tohrog. Jekk inti ma kontx "a responsible & serious person" with your first wife, are you going to be responsible and serious with your second?, and if you do not be responsible and serious with the second are you going to file another divorce application from the 2nd wife to marry the 3rd partner because you count yourself serious and responsible towards the 3rd partner??
Finally, I pity you. I never and said that those who are unfortunate in their matrimonial life are culprits.
Matthew Grima
Mar 25th 2011, 18:06
Mr Hili, take your noise out of other people's business and live your own life, try not to judge others as you wouldn't want to be judged. The only downside to the taxpayer when it comes to divorce is the divorce cases in court, the rest will remain the same.
Alex Ciantar
Mar 25th 2011, 23:14
@ Philip Hili
Part 1.
@ Philip Hili - So for a start there is nothing to come out ftit ftit because there is nothing to hide in the first place. what I said as regards any benefits are my right as much as they are yours, any benefits due to married couple should be due to co habiting couples as well since it would a discriminating to deny these rights to co habiting couples as they still have a household to up keep, bills to pay and children to feed just like any other family. This is regardless if they were married before or not a family is family.
Secondly not all separated people are separated because they choose to be, it is because they are victims of circumstances beyond their control. Therefore they have a right to a second chance in life same as you would if you were in their shoes.
Alex Ciantar
Mar 25th 2011, 23:21
Part2.
3rd. since I had the right for benefits in my 1st marriage then I should have the same rights with my second relationship, after all I'm an honest taxpayer and pay my taxes like everyone else, in mycase I'm being discriminated against because I paytax as a singlepersons whilst I have a family to upkeep etc.. So who is riding on who’s back in this case? 4th I deplore your assumption that I was'nt responsible and serious with my first marriage for your information in my case I was the victim, but I managed to goto hell and come back and live to tell the tale, now if you want to believe me or not that is up to you. But like me there hundreds of people in the same situation. And lastly I need no pity from you or anyone else if there is anyone you should pity it is yourself at your lack of intelligence. One final thing if your marriage broke down irrevocably what would you do? Surly you would change you attitude!! Please don't answer that it will never happen to you because in life there are no guarantees and always expect the unexpected!!
Philip Hili
Mar 26th 2011, 16:17
@ Matthew Grima,
Mr. Grima, I am living my own life more than you think. Besides, as of when if somebody airs his views is judging others?
How sure are you that the only downside to the taxpayer when it comes to divorce is the divorce cases in court, the rest will remain the same?
Norman E Grech
Mar 24th 2011, 09:59
Jeffrey! I do not share you political beliefs, you have your reasons why you side with PN and believe me I have my reason not to! The PN always had a good propaganda machine and unfortunately many have succumbed to it! I also don't like the way you did certain things in the past!
In this issue however I am totally behind you! Why certain people remain stuck to the dark ages baffles me! The most ridiculous invention ever made is Annulment' how can you ever state that 'A MARRIAGE NEVER WAS??' this is sheer stupidity, church and state. If a marriage has finished, just dissolve it. Right now hundreds of thousands of Euro, effort and stress is caused to address this man-made farse! I am sure Jesus Christ didn't want the church to become a place where 'Annulment seekers' go, with all sorts of dirt on the exes!!! The thing is that they no choice!!!
I will say the last thing! If the majority are closed minded enough to vote 'NO' in the forthcoming referedum, it would be a complete waste of time and tax-payers' money... Divorce shall be introduced in Malta. It's only a matter of time
R.Borg
Mar 24th 2011, 09:20
Grazzi JPO ta' dan l-artiklu.
Tinsiex x'hemm miktub fil-Ktieb tal-Genesi:
"GHALHEKK IR-RAGEL IHALLI LIL MISSIERU U LIL OMMU
U JINGHAQAD MA' MARTU
U T-TNEJN ISIRU GISEM WIEHED.
GHALHEKK DAK LI GHAQQAD ALLA M'GHANDUX JIFIRDU L-BNIEDEM"
Dan il-kliem/kmand ma qalux il-HALLIEQ lill-poplu ta' Israel fil-bidu tal-holqien izda LILL-POPLI KOLLHA.
Issa, twahhalx aktar f'DAS li seta' qeridlek il-karriera politika izda wahhal fil-partitarji nazzjonalisti li mhux se jafdawk aktar u ghalhekk mhux se jivvotawlek!
Inti ttradejt il-principji tad-demokratici kristjani li fihom il-PN jemmen!
Philip Hili
Mar 24th 2011, 17:20
@ R. Borg
"Issa, twahhalx aktar f'DAS li seta' qeridlek il-karriera politika izda wahhal fil-partitarji nazzjonalisti li mhux se jafdawk aktar u ghalhekk mhux se jivvotawlek!
Inti ttradejt il-principji tad-demokratici kristjani li fihom il-PN jemmen!"
Skuzi Sur Borg, nixtieq nikkoreggik. Mhux sew li tghid " wahhal fil-partitarji nazzjonalisti" Izda ghandu jwahhal fik innifsu ghax bhal ma ghidt int u nikkwatak - "Inti ttradejt il-principji tad-demokratici kristjani li fihom il-PN jemmen!"
Sabrina Borda
Mar 24th 2011, 08:24
@ Fr Ivan Scicluna; I can well agree with you Father, for the quote you gave from the Dignitatis Humanae no. 3.
It is indeed a reasonable expectation to utilize our conscience, this very conscience must be unfettered, and totally free from instructions.
To use our conscience freely and to delve right in to our hearts it must not be a conscience that is hampered with a particular dogma and make-belief systems and urged on by religion or loyalty to politicians standards.
A conscience must be free from any form of persuasion, or any tailor made sermon given from pulpits or political rallies or we would not really own it.
It is vital conscience must not be controlled by superstition or instilled by fear, otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose of having a mind let alone any conscience at all.
Having any Human Dignity also means having a conscience without anyone suggesting one ought to have it in the first place. A conscience is designed to be sufficiently subjective. Having any Human Dignity is being in full charge of owning our very own conscience.
Fr Ivan Scicluna
Mar 24th 2011, 23:58
Conscience is a judgement of reason to which one arrives after much study and reflection. For this very reason it is objective, not subjective.
Charlie Borg
Mar 24th 2011, 07:08
I have the greatest respect for people like Dr Mifsud Bonnici but let us remember that he belongs to a certain political belief and, what's more important, of a certain era which today is passe'. So is Dr Fenech Adami. I am sorry, but they have 'done their time' and must allow the country to move on.
My second point is that Dr Mifsud Bonnici is wrong and is willingly or unwillingly thwarting the whole idea. There is nowhere being said that marriage is now going to be for four years! Whoever said this? Unbelievable. If divorce is legalised in Malta, what the Bill would say is that separated spouses need to have spent four years in this state of separation. Not less. This point makes it impossible to apply for divorce within one year, two, three, etc.... Quite different from what takes place in La Vegas as the PM should know.
All must understand that, once two spouses lose the love and respect that they have for each other, that marriage is already over and unsustainable! And it would be simply hypocritical for the State to hide behind non-legislation and not to cater for this eventuality.
Philip Hili
Mar 24th 2011, 16:09
@ Charlie Borg
"I have the greatest respect for people like Dr Mifsud Bonnici but let us remember that he belongs to a certain political belief and, what's more important, of a certain era which today is passe'. So is Dr Fenech Adami. I am sorry, but they have 'done their time' and must allow the country to move on"
WHAT A FEEBLE COMMENT!!!! Mamma Mia! Mnejn iggubuhom dawn il-kummenti?
So people like their Exels. Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami and Dr. Ugo Mifsud Bonnici "did their time and must allow the country to move on". As if they do not have a right to speak -sewwa!!!. Therefore, with the same argument whoever does not agree and abhore divorce, "must allow the country to move on" mela mhux hekk!!! so that Our Beloved country be HIJACKED AND RUN by a bunch of anti-clerical people.
No Sir, you are very much mistaken.
Lino Apap
Mar 23rd 2011, 23:29
@ Lina Caruana – I know you mean well but your opening sentence says it all – “I am genuinely against the practice of divorce for its consequences in other countries, apart from my Catholic stand”. I understand your anti-divorce stance because of your faith. However, I can’t understand your comments about “its consequences”. Are you saying that the European marriage failure rate is a result of divorce? England has had divorce for hundreds of years – why has the marriage failure rate increased dramatically only in the past 50 years? Look at Malta – no divorce but we have a 22% marriage failure rate and an ever increasing rate of cohabitation. It’s not divorce that causes marriages to break down – it’s the constant pressure, the financial independence of women, lack of time as a family and the daily race against time. These and a thousand other factors are causing marital failure and not divorce. You need not blame your generation. It is inevitable that in this maelstrom of modern living, marriages WILL break down – which is why divorce is necessary even in Malta. Your generation can only be blamed if they do not recognize this fact.
Norman E Grech
Mar 24th 2011, 13:12
Well said Lino!!
P. Vincenti
Mar 23rd 2011, 20:39
Wally vella-zarb is using the argument that abortion is available abroad insinuating we should legalise it in Malta maybe?. Has not the same argument already been tabled by numerous pro-divorce propoenets already to justify legalising divorce?
We have been involved in the pro-life area for many years, we have attended numerous conferences, meetings and encountered untold pro-aborts who have been rehashing the same lines of argument been thrown about in the debate for divorce.
The very Maltese people who brought Dr Rebecca Gomperts of the abortion ship to Malta to promote abortion are the same ones that this paper ran a story on when they printed red and blue yes to divorce campaign bags.
Norman E Grech
Mar 24th 2011, 15:34
Mr Vincenti! Why this fear? Our Prime minister talked so much about globalisation in the past!! That we cannot be left isolated!!! This is reality... so wake up!!! In all democratic countires (including arch religious ones like Italy and Ireland) Divorce has been legalised!! Thereby giving the OPTION to who ever believes in marriage and so would like to marry again. Why are we different? do we only live in a globalised world where it suits us?
And on abortion, hold your horses! Not everyone shares your opinion! Quite an accelerating number of people are coming into terms that in certain cases and on certain conditions, yes abortion should be allowed... I happen to be one of them!!! If I were a women, and I had an unwanted pregnancy, I won't allow anyone to tell me what to do!! And this already is in practice but in an unofficial way! What we need here is an aggressive educational program primarily targeted to youths! And what about rape victims? Would you be prepared to bring up the child yourself Mr Vincenti?
mfrendo
Mar 23rd 2011, 19:02
quite honestly i fail to see all this hype on this issue, or maybe there should be this ballyhoo after all, divorce existence is parellel with man's civilisation. thus it should have been incorported within our constitutional social reforms eons ago.
then it is our personal prerogative to apply such reasoning and decisions according to our conscience and beliefs.
what i highly recomend in this age of social life on the fast track, is to enhance and update techniques and teachings to would be couples, thus giving them a solid background and basis to build up a life together.
this referendum will simply drain our coffers, where at this time and age could have been spent elsewhere.list is long ./ water supply/ beaches enhancments/ recycling and so on and so forth.
society should by now ,be mature enough to take the direct course in their marriage crises and breakups.
Fr Ivan Scicluna
Mar 23rd 2011, 17:00
"Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. 'He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience...' " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1782. The quote within the quote is from Vatican Council II, Dignitatis Humanae no. 3).
The right to act according to one's conscience remains also in the case of politicians who are confronted with the result of a referendum, especially when the issue which is being voted upon is an ethical one, like divorce.
In Thomas More's times, the king wielded absolute power, but More opted to follow his conscience, even at the cost of his life. The characteristic of contemporary democratic states is majority rule, but, still, if the will of the majority goes against the ethical convictions of a politician, he is morally bound to act according to his conscience.
If politicians are automatically bound to vote in parliament according to the outcome of the referendum, so the vote in parliament might as well not be held. Yes, legislators should decide according to their conscience.
wally vella-zarb
Mar 23rd 2011, 18:06
If faced with a situation where one's conscience goes against the will of the majority of voters, as expressed in a nationwide consultative referendum, the decent thing for a politician to do would be to abstain. Imagine a situation where the majority of voters want a particular outcome, in this case divorce, and thirty-three Members of Parliament do not agree with them, should these 33 individuals hold sway against the will of the electorate and block the legislation? Voting 'No' would render the entire 'consultation' a farce. They should abstain.
MBorg
Mar 23rd 2011, 18:43
@ Wally Vella Zarb
I agree with you on one thing, this whole thing is a farce.
We have a referendum question which could not be more dishonest, I cannot understan how people cannot see through it . Are they so blind or do they want divorce so much that they do not care of the consequences that follow ?
We have a question which gives guarantees which do not exsit. We have the pro-divorce saying that they want divorce because they believe in marriage and the family. The biggest lie of all. Facts show that once divorced most will not remarry but move into cohabitaion.for them marriage is dead.
But the biggest farce of all is the referendun itself. Everyone, including JPO and E.Bartolo know that it is a consultative referendum,funny that they now want to turn the tables on their fellow MPs by saying that they should vote in favour if the majority vote yes. Since when did a consultative referendum become a binding referendum ? Since when can someone decide for another the way to vote when a free vote has been granted ?
MPs should vote according to their conscience and ignore this political blackmail.
Emanuel Ciant ar
Mar 23rd 2011, 20:34
The thing is what we understand by "conscience". If all we mean by conscience is the gradual formation according to a particular religion or indoctrination then we simply say so. As I see it, it is far more rewarding to introduce an element of reasoning, of the realization that as human beings we can strive for common basic rights and values, although with much difficulty.
It is very easy and immediately visible when you're talking say to a muslim, or someone with a different doctrine. But it is very difficult to notice it yourself when you evaluate your own "beliefs". Hence we end up talking as if what we believe is the Truth, we abort our mission to go deeper into our faith to "look" for the Truth, and our mission changes to one wherby we try to sell our infallible Truth to all others, especially those who still cant see the light.
So a word of caution, if anyone cares. We can believe very strongly in something, but this by itself does'nt make it more True. And in case you think I found the Holy Grail, I'm just saying I know of a place where it is not.
Lino Apap
Mar 23rd 2011, 23:39
It is understandable that someone coming from an institution that is totally autocratic like the Church will fail to understand the niceties of democracy. However, growing up in the 70's and the particularly the 80's taught me that the will of the majority should prevail. It is very ironic that politicians coming from this same party which I supported in my youth and adulthood are now saying that they will vote against the introduction of a law that has been voted for by a majority of the people, simply because it goes against their religious beliefs. These politicians also come from the party that in the 2003 EU referendum did not make any noises about that referendum being "simply consultative". At that time the people spoke and their word became Law. So why the double standards? The least such politicians can do is to abstain from a vote and not go against the will of the majority of Maltese voters. I think they owe us at least that!
d.attard
Mar 23rd 2011, 23:58
i find it unfortunate for the catholic church to mention thomas more. Under current church practice Henry viii would have obtained his annulment with ease and all the ensuing hassels would have been avoided. The catholic church has today come to terms with divorce the world over and i find its hostility against maltese civil divorce as obnoxious.
Charlie Borg
Mar 24th 2011, 07:18
Politicians are bound to cater and legislate for the good of those who elected them. And they are duty-bound to legislate even for the smallest and most significant of minorities. I pity you, in a way: you are a priest - a member of the Church which is undemocratic by nature. So, how can you speak about the democratic principles?
I sincerely hope that young, fresh priests do not resort to arm-bending tactics against the politicians in order to coerce them into legislating the Roman Catholic way. THAT would be unfair, and unjust.
And not only that: I judge that it would also be illegal, since politicians should not be threatened by any group or organisation (read Church) into legislating the way that that group or organisation would want.
I am a believer but I will vote in favor of divorce because in my conscience I do not believe that it goes against marriage. From what I read about the pamphlet that the Church intends to disseminate in homes, I will not stay away from the Sacraments because that is not how Christ would want it. I have a right to vote according to my conscience.
Philip Hili
Mar 24th 2011, 16:22
@ Charlie Borg
"I pity you, in a way: you are a priest - a member of the Church which is undemocratic by nature. So, how can you speak about the democratic principles? "
Mr. Borg, don't you think that by your DEMOCRATIC teaching (to Fr. Ivan Scicluna) you are more undemocratic than Fr. Scicluna is? I am reaching to the conclusion that in this issue only those who are in favour of divorce are democratic and have a right to speak their mind!!
Norman E Grech
Mar 24th 2011, 16:46
@P Hili!!! Let's not turn this into who is more democratic or who isn't!
We all have the right to air our views!! From my point of view anti-divorcists fear change and have not grasped reality.. I am sorry but I have to be blunt! If you are against divoce, do not divorce and if your marriage fails, either stay alone or co habitate, but you cannot impose your belief on others!
This legality would give the OPTION to those who favour marriage and would like to marry again. In so doing, we would get rid of the ridiculous annulment and everything tied with it, once and for all. Why do you make it sound like our society 'would suddenly crumble'?
Philip Hili
Mar 24th 2011, 17:36
@Norman E Grech
"Let's not turn this into who is more democratic or who isn't! O.K. grnated, I agree. But at the same time you comment in this manner:-
"In so doing, we would get rid of the ridiculous annulment and everything tied with it, once and for all"
My friend Norman, I will be very much pleased if you could tell me who though you these lessons of democracy?
Lina Caruana
Mar 23rd 2011, 15:49
Although I understand the psychology underlying Dr. Pullicino Orlando's reasoning I am genuinely against the practice of divorce for its consequences in other countries, apart from,my Catholic stand. I feel sorry for young people because it is my firm believe that our generation did not do enough to transmit enough internal resources to children in our care rendering them oblivious of life struggles and sufferings because we wanted to protect them. The result was that we have changed their priorities making them feel that we will always be there for them.Now many parents of young people are heart broken at the sufferings of their children not knowing how to help them. For the sake of these youngsters and their happiness I do not think it is a good idea to stand by their inexperience encouraging them to want things which they will later regret as the future generation. Divorce is known to have increased family problems in more ways than one .Besides our society is not ready for it, both politically and economically. Legislating against all kinds of human abuse will prevent taking other people lightly. Redefining marriage means a radical change.
Charlie Borg
Mar 24th 2011, 07:21
I respect what you have expressed in your comment but I cannot understand with what right you claim that our society is not prepared/read for divorce, politically and economically. If, many, many years after that Catholic bastion - Ireland - legislated in favour of divorce, the Republic of Malta is still unprepared for it, I would seriously question what kind of society we are living in. I look around me, but see no caves and cavemen taking in their women by the hair into their lairs - I see houses around me and a Government priding itself with the way the country has evolved through the years.
Norman E Grech
Mar 24th 2011, 10:14
Lina, Whilst I see the point of your geniune concern I beg to differ that Divorce in other countries brought about more break-downs! To the contrary, if Divorce were possible, spouses would be more careful and don't take each other for granted! Would you rather have 2 people together in a 'marriage' that has failed? Pro-Divorce is pro-marriage. and with all due respect, this issue has nothing to do with the church! Times have changed and if the church really wants to keep her 'faithful' close to it, the church better address this matter soon. Annulment is a farce!! How can anyone say that 'A MARRIAGE NEVER WAS'
I humbly ask you to re-consider your position and detach yourself from fear! A sound society is not based on the number of 'fake marriages' but on true love, good morales and preperation to anything that's important in life...
P. Vincenti
Mar 23rd 2011, 15:47
The argumentation being promoted by the pro-divorce movement is very damaging. It is softening up and a blurring of the concept of what is right and wrong. This is resulting in the preparing of the way for pro-abortion people to later present their case on the very same lines of argument. If we accept divorce of the sort of argumentation, we will later be pressured to legalize abortion.
Jesmond Micallef
Mar 23rd 2011, 17:37
Abortion is a different matter altogether. Divorce has potential good in it. It will also give people who are in emotional pain a new begining and a new meaning to thier lives. The progressive follow up with the passge of time within divorce legislation has to be clamped down somehow so that it does not spiral out of control, just like anything else can.
Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being. An unborn human being has not yet learnt about what humans do to eachother, the unborn child does not know human induced conflict, pain, malice, hatred, violence etc. The innocence of the unborn child is a no go area and I will never subscribe to abortion, never will. Human babies are miracles (my own definition of a miracle). There is nothing more humanly spectacular other then the birth of a human child, literally. Even as the child grows in the mothers womb. Thats pure God to my eyes. Pure allmighty God, nothing else.
For someone to remove that, thats a grave act of crime against humanity. Abortion is inhuman.
patrick zammit
Mar 23rd 2011, 17:38
Using the same perverse logic, we should have never given slaves their freedom, even though god specifically shows us (in the bible) that he agrees with slavery. Giving slaves their civil rights would also pave the way for other civil rights like votes for women, for example. Oh, the horror!
wally vella-zarb
Mar 23rd 2011, 17:44
Scaremongering apart, there is nothing that is at present preventing those with means from obtaining a divorce abroad. Likewise, there is nothing that is stopping a sizeable number of Maltese women from procuring an abortion abroad. When something is not available locally, those with means and determination will always seek to obtain it elsewhere. Irrespective of whether one approves or disapproves of their choices, they will continue to make those choices and nothing and nobody will stop them.
Lino Apap
Mar 23rd 2011, 23:07
Mr. Vincenti, It is your interpretation of the pro-divorce argumentation that is damaging. Divorce has NOTHING to do with abortion and euthanasia –these are simply red herrings that you and others are constantly using to scare people away from voting YES for a responsible divorce law. The planned divorce law is a civil act declaring that a marriage – a relationship involving a contract between two people – has been rescinded because the relationship no longer exists as a result of which the couple has not lived with each other for the past 4 years. How in the name of anything sensible can you compare this to abortion? See the polls – the Maltese are 50/50 on divorce, but they are almost 90% AGAINST abortion. With your reasoning the opinion polls should be much closer. Come on – stop this scaremongering and let the people vote freely using their minds and common sense. A marriage can and does die – the 22% marriage failure rate is proof of this. So why do you insist on maintaining the piece of paper that states a couple is married when in fact they are not! The mind absolutely boggles.
Charlie Borg
Mar 24th 2011, 07:11
I simply have no idea what this man is on about! I simply cannot understand, try as I can, to fathom the link between divorce and abortion. These are two extremely different concepts. I mean, I have in front of me two people who are divorced and who wish to start a new life. Does this mean that these two people are in some way in favour of abortion? I mean: the mind boggles. Try as I can, in my conscience, I simply cannot understand why some issues are being put in one bag, even by the Church, I am dismayed to see: divorce, abortion, euthanasia and ... ohmygoodnessme!!!!.... same-sex marriages! Whatever next? We shall be eating live babies next. Or what about growing wings and start flying!
Come on! Let's get real. If you want to be taken seriously, don't talk rubbish.
Joe Micallef
Mar 23rd 2011, 14:49
Some observations for Dr JPO, from a commoner
- I firmly believe that you presented the private members bill for self-gain, in terms of exposure!
- Stop this crap about being in favour of the family. While you are free to support divorce, priorities come in a scale with exclusive positions within. Evidently your priorities are 1) divorce 2) maybe the family and the rest...
- You are co-sponsor of one of the most dishonest referendum questions I have come across. It is loaded and immoral - I cannot accept that the majority in the Maltese parliament has been party to this insult to honesty.
- The question is an effort to shove responsibilities
- Stop this silly gripe against some members of parliament who, rightfully so, will rely on their conscience when a vote on divorce law is due. One question to you Mr, are you sure that that all those who gave you a seat in parliament are in favour of divorce. Probably not, which means you have betrayed their trust......and did something against their believes!
Charlie Borg
Mar 24th 2011, 07:23
What about all those people who voted for various candidates who, now, as MPs, are not voicing the concerns and the eneds of those who elected them? Your argument does not stand.
Philip Hili
Mar 24th 2011, 16:26
@ Joe Micallef
Yes he did!!
Tommy Vella
Mar 23rd 2011, 14:37
"Is it morally acceptable to use your personal beliefs to justify the imposition of parameters for others when it comes to their liberty to pursue happiness and fulfilment?"
You put the question in an erroneous way.
I am against divorce and I aim to vote no to the referendum question, not to use my personal beliefs to justify the imposition of parameters for others when it comes to their liberty to pursue happiness and fulfilment, but because I believe that my personal beliefs contribute to the common good and for me voting yes would, perhaps, in some cases, lead to some people pursuing happiness and fulfilment but at the cost of something very detrimental to society and marriage in general.
S. Vella
Mar 23rd 2011, 17:06
Hypothetical question - would you vote to have annulments abolished in a referendum?
Robert Henry Bugeja
Mar 23rd 2011, 14:30
Dear "Profs of Logic" J.Zammit, how can one be so much brainwashed and blind when for him an ANNULMENT given by the Church is completely justfied but the civil right of DIVORCE granted by the state is not? ...Who are YOU really protecting? God or the Devil?
MBorg
Mar 23rd 2011, 14:11
If anyone was in doubt, it is now official, and published in today's Governmant Gazette.
" Resolves that before commencing tha debate on Private Members Bill ( No.206) and not later then 15 days from the approval of this Resolution, a Consultative Referendum shall be called as provided in article 3 ot chapter 237 of the Laws of Malta , and that such Consultative Referendum shall be held on Saturday , the 28th day of May 2011. "
There you have it, not once but twice,. This is going to be a consultative referendum so why is JPO surprised that MPs can vote against it ?
Why use political blackmail ? Why say that MPs should follow the wish of the people ?This referendum is not binding and all MPs should vote according to their conscience.
MBorg
Mar 23rd 2011, 13:33
@ J Borg
I did not hear Beppe Fenech Adami yesterday, but can you let us know why you think that he tried to " mix people's mind with a lot of rubbish " when he said that " marriage is going to be for 4 years only "
Do yor know the referendum question you are in favour of the one you are voting yes for ?
The question says that anybody can file for divorce after 4 years of marriage. So instead of saying " till death do us part " we can now say " after 4 years we can now part ".
You might think that this is rubbish and you are right it is rubbish. But you mixed up the subject, Beppe Fenech Adami was not the one who said rubbish , it is the question which is rubbish. The question makes a joke out of marriage vows.
Anybody can file for divorce for any stupid reason, burt chicken for dinner, soup not hot enough etc. The funny thing , not to use the word rubbish again, is that you can file for divorce and get it.
This responsible divorce is very irresponsible .
P. Vincenti
Mar 23rd 2011, 12:45
JPO ends his letter with the question.
"Is it morally acceptable to use your personal beliefs to justify the imposition of parameters for others when it comes to their liberty to pursue happiness and fulfilment?"
It may interest readers to know that this is almost exactly, word for word, what Dr Rebecca Gomperts of the Dutch abortion ship'Women on Waves' told me when we met a few years ago as she tried to start a local debate to legalise abortion.
.Except the subject then was not divorce.
Lino Apap
Mar 23rd 2011, 22:07
@ Mr. Vincenti - of course the sun will not rise in the morning if you and people like you don't link abortion to the divorce issue!!! Come on Mr. Vincenti et al - divorce has NOTHING to do with divorce (or euthanasia for that matter). Get real and talk some sense not this constant scaremongering with abortion & euthanasia. Veru qedin sew - Joe Zammit tries to scare people with sin and eternal damnation and Paul Vincenti and his merry band try to scare everyone that if divorce is introduced then abortion and euthanasia will follow - u halluna!!!
Philip Hili
Mar 24th 2011, 16:39
@ Lino Apap
If those who betrayed the electorate are pushing forward an issue against the will of the majority in this case divorce, WHO is going to hold these same people elected by us not to put forward laws to legalise abortion, euthanasia?
patrick zammit
Mar 23rd 2011, 11:44
I am convinced that marriage involves love, caring and sharing, amongst others. So I cannot comprehend how otherwise intelligent persons, can honestly describe a couple as married, when this couple had been living separately (for more than 4 yrs in the past 5 yrs) and has already settled maintenance and child custody in a legal manner.
I cannot also see how the church can describe an annulled marriage as one that never happened. So, if a married couple discover that one of them held a grave secret from the other before marriage but still decide to continue living together, would they be living in sin because that lack of pre marital honesty rendered their marriage a sham? Would they need to remarry again so as not to live sin anymore?
Logical replies welcomed!
Jesmond Micallef
Mar 23rd 2011, 17:12
On the subject matter of marriage annulment from the church, you should refer to what the current Pope Benedict XVI has changed lately with regards to that criterium. That has certainly made me think twice about my previous stand against divorce and now welcome the potential incorporation into Maltese Civil Legislation. May it become a reality as it will serve as a deterent to any undeclared intentions people might have and to be used in cases of abuse and domestic violence for those who would want to use it. May my own God bless them dearly. The Roman Catholic Church is a human organisation run by unmarried humans without wives. husbands and families of thier own. That's my complete and honest logic. May divorce prevail in Malta.
One word to Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Ms. Pullicino Orlando, Labour MP Evarist Bartolo and the pro-divorce movement. I wish you all the best with your efforts here. Not all is bad in divorce. Take my word, I am your man. Good luck in the up-coming referendum.
Joseph Cauchi
Mar 23rd 2011, 10:51
As reported in The Times by H.E. President Emeritus Dr. Ugo Mifisud Bonnici, that as per the present referendum question, it renders the indissolubility of marriage for only FOUR years!
Other comments are superfluous.
JC.
David Bonello
Mar 23rd 2011, 12:53
FOUR YEARS??? NO!! you got it wrong unfortunately. As it is, presently the indissolubility of marriage does not even last for 4 SECONDS, let alone 4 years! Because you see, even if you've been married for 40 years, and have 4 kids, by annullment you can try to claim that you were not even married for 4 seconds. And guess what? Some are happy with such perverse logic! :)
wally vella-zarb
Mar 23rd 2011, 16:02
So what do you think will happen when the four years are over? Will somebody force you to divorce against your will?
Ian Zerafa
Mar 23rd 2011, 10:48
Although I don't share the same political views, I am full square behind Dr Pullicino Orlando on the issue of divorce. This is not a religious issue, but a law that gives people a second chance. Who are we to deny this right?
Anthony Mercieca
Mar 23rd 2011, 10:44
While I can understand the stress that failed marriage brings to all parties involved, nothing changes such reality by offering a different option called divorce. On individual basis no body is imposing anything on the individual freedom to do whatever he likes with his life. In spite of no divorce non-married/seperated couples were never denied any rights to form a different family unit from they already had. There where times, seeing others in "distress" of a failed marriage, I thought divorce could help, but when they actually divorced, they still managed their lives in their own way without getting married. Personally I prefer to let marriage be marriage until death do us part and those who do not share this stand can get to their notary and draw an agreement of how they want to regulated their lives, if they want to formalize their union. Nothing withholds individual action. This proposed divorce law only devalues a concept of commitment that carries the responsibility of forming a family and to protect with all one's efforts and resources.
J. Borg
Mar 23rd 2011, 10:24
@ JPO
Very well written article, though i don't agree with some points regarding gerrymandering. But tha aside, i agree 100% with JPO and Evarist on this divorce bill.
I would like to bring to the attention to JPO to listen to the recording of what was sai yesterday morning by Beppe Fenech Adami. For me this was all out of context, because he was trying to people to think that now marriage is going to be for 4 years only, that many will want to divorce after 4 yars, etc, etc.
Anti-divorce people should speak, but come on try to be true on what you said and not mix people's minds with a lot of rubbish
Joseph Scicluna
Mar 23rd 2011, 15:28
mela xkienet dik l-elezzjoni moqzieza ta 1981. issa ma ghadkomx tbezzaw in nies bd-divorzju jekk malta tidhol fil ue?
Joe Zammit
Mar 23rd 2011, 09:55
Conscience is reasoning.
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!
Conscience is reasoning!
J. Borg
Mar 23rd 2011, 10:48
and what about those who aren't catholic, those who left the catholic church, those who got a civil marriage,etc etc
Ray Gatt
Mar 23rd 2011, 12:06
I DO NOT CARE WHAT CHRIST SAID. I do not believe. Though I was born Roman Catholic, I do not consider myself one anymore. I believe that Religions are the root to all evil. Just look at history, the amount of killing in the name of God. So, the truth is even God has no right to force his teaching on anyone, especially non believers. Now if you are married and not interested in getting divorced, it's your right not to use it, but I equally have to have the same right if I need it especially if like myself one has been separated and cohabiting for a long time and reconciliation is definately out of the question.
Philip Hili
Mar 24th 2011, 16:50
@ Joe Borg.
Do not be stupid please. Those who are not catholic don't have to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church. They can do what ever they like. Now if you do not want to call yourself a Catholic or if you do not want to be a Catholic any more, you can do so and divorce, steal, commit audultary etc. etc. But do not say that you are a Catholic and at the same time live as a non-catholic. Whilst you are in a club, you have to obey the rules of the clulb. PUTO E BAST.