‘Divorce intrinsically bad’
Divorce and any legal measures that break down a marriage are “intrinsically bad” since they go against God’s will, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech said during his Sunday Mass homily.
The true and sincere Catholic conscience can never, in no circumstance, compromise on the will of God, he told the congregation at the Xewkija parish church.
Mgr Grech said that when the personal judgment of a Catholic disagreed with the teachings of Christ as delivered by the Church, that Catholic would not be free of “guilt” if he did not bring his judgment in line with the teachings of the Church.
This was because if one consciously breached moral law, he also breached his relationship with God, he said in his homily centred around the theme of conscience.
Last year the Church endorsed a position paper on divorce, drawn up by seven of its most prominent priests, which left the door open for Catholics to vote for divorce so long as they did this on the basis of a “formed and informed conscience”.
The paper set off on the premise that Catholics should strive for a Christian outlook on the family and work hard for their societies to have “stable and lasting marriages” bound by “love and fidelity”.
It acknowledged that “divorce is wrong”, whether permitted by law or not, but did not go so far as to say that voting for divorce legislation would be a sin – something that Mgr Grech stopped short of saying in his Sunday homily when he used the word “guilt”.
Mgr Grech said the conscience was an “intimate sanctuary” where people could be alone with God and discover his law which they must obey. This led people to do good and move away from all that was bad.
“Man is not autonomous in the formation of his conscience but is subject to the will of God,” he said.
He added that any words that misinformed, misguided or blinded the conscience, rather than enlightened and guided its formation, were abusive and could cause irreparable damage on a personal and social level.
When a Catholic formed a judgment of conscience about marriage and all that was connected to it, he had as guidance the Commandments and Christ’s words. These asserted that any legal measures that break down marriage, such as divorce, as well as adultery were intrinsically bad as they were directly opposing God’s will.
Over the past months the conscience of members of Parliament has been the source of much debate. With the upcoming divorce referendum in May, some MPs may be torn between their conscience and the will of the majority when voting on the divorce Bill. Some MPs have declared they will follow the first and some the second, but many have said they would solve the conflict by abstaining.
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...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
52 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
victor pulis
Mar 31st 2011, 10:13
Joe Grima Brussels(20 hours, 12 minutes ago)
You forgot to mention that with divorce, the very violent husbnd can remarry another VICTIM!
It is the duty of anyone dating a divorced person to inquire why that person was divorced.
evenThe church sees this problem when it publishes the bans before every marriage specifically for this reason.
Not to mention the danger that many will claim that they hve been beaten, so that they get the divorce! We had one recently!
A swallow does not make a Spring it is said. So you are condemning all battered persons on this one example?
Divorce does not solve all problems. Actually, it may double them. What step solves all problems? Separation? annullment? cohabitation?
Ask the silent children.
Do we also ask the children of annulled couples?
victor pulis
Mar 31st 2011, 10:07
'What God has joined together let no man put asunder'
And yet the church grants separation which means putting asunder.
The couple ceases to be 'one flesh'
'It was because of their stubborness that Moses conceded.'
It seems that God conceded too because there is no mention of any punishment from God for those who divorced. Furthermore, bigamy was also permitted read Deuteronomy 21: 14-17.
anthony pace gouder
Mar 31st 2011, 05:08
How can we explain the fact that MOSES ,who always cherished the will of GOD and acted on his behalf, enshrined a Divorce Law for the Chosen People !
Apparently, if I'm not mistaken, there aren't any excerpts in the New Testement where Christ ever denounced and preached for the abolition of the Mosaic Divorce Law !
My humble observation ,regarding the TEST question by the Phareesees to Christ and in St. Matthew's Gospel, where 'unfaithfullness' is accepted as grounds for divorce , is that Christ did not, even in controversial circumstance, pronounce for or against .DIVORCE !
Gerry Cowie
Mar 30th 2011, 21:52
The bickering continues, with people putting words into other people's mouths and being free with sarcasm! Tell me, who actually helps their cause by rubbishing the opinions of others and chucking sarcasm at them?
Joe Zammit
Mar 30th 2011, 19:13
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt.5, 31-32).
Christ is not saying 'in case of unfaithfulness' but in case of fornication. Fornication is had between two unmarried persons. Otherwise, what sense do the words of Christ make when he told us "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder?
Otherwise, it would be so easy for all married people to divorce, just be unfaithful! As easy as that!
Christ condemned divorce for all people. There is no possibility of divorce even in the case of unfaithfulness. In St Matthew’s gospel there is no exception accepting divorce. Divorce is always a grave sin.
The Catholic Church, as the one holy Apostolic Church of Christ has NEVER resorted to divorce in her 2000-year history. Only the other churches which are false have introduced in them the evil of divorce to prove they are not the Church of Christ.
'Let no man put asunder' means marriage for life.
Claude Lacoste
Mar 30th 2011, 19:33
Sorry but with your reasonning, the catholic churchs of all world will be empty : it seems that will not be the case !
MBorg
Mar 30th 2011, 18:58
@ all The more I read the comments that are being written , the more I realize what a mess we are in. Many are coming out in favour of Divorce because they are against the church. Many think that the church should even change its teaching to accommodate them. Divorce will affect everyone believers or non believers. We will have to pay for marriage breakdowns. In the Uk £24 billion per year are paid out of the public purse. i.e taxes. 50% of marriages end in divorce and they are now moving towards 50% of children born out of wedlock. If the same had to happen in Malta believers or non believers will have to foot the bill. The worst thing in all this mess, is that we are being asked to vote for divorce on the strength of a very dishonest question, without anyone telling us what is in the Divorce Bill which governs it. This should not have happened. Parliament should have discussed the divorce Bill first with us voting in a referendum after. How can we vote for something we do not know the consequences of ? It might not even be legal.
Claude Lacoste
Mar 30th 2011, 19:30
Not against the Catholic Church but against Fundamentalists ... and overall for free will for all !!!!
Paul Barrett
Mar 30th 2011, 21:06
I am not against the Church or indeed any religion as such. There are still one or two things that science has yet to explain and it is also nice to think that somewhere there is someone or something that actually cares about us.
You mention the expansion of marriage breakdown in the UK and then blame divorce for the whole of the UK welfare bill. The equivalent in Malta is annulment, legal separation without divorce which still leads to an expanding welfare bill and has nothing to do with divorce.
The whole debate on divorce has got stupidly complicated. The basic fact is that following 4 years of legal separation you can apply to the Court for a certificate that the marriage is finally ended in legal terms. With this registered, you are then free to apply for and be granted a civil marriage. Mixing in all the welfare costs, smoke, fire and brimstone etc., etc is hog wash and effectively sorted out at the time of legal separation.
Let those with the drive and determination to pick themselves up of the floor from a broken, dead marriage have the chance to re-build their lives.
victor pulis
Mar 31st 2011, 09:54
No one is expecting the church to change its views about divorce. What we are against is the church's refusal to admit that those not married in church should have a right to divorce. So, rather than us intruding on church's territory, it is people like you who are trying to push the catholic church's rules down our throats.
Patrick Zahra
Mar 30th 2011, 17:29
"Divorce and any legal methods that break up a marriage are intrinsically bad". By the time one comes to divorce the marriage would already have been irretrievably broken.
Albert Spiteri
Mar 30th 2011, 16:53
Nowhere in the bible does one find the vow, “till death do us part”. That marriage vow is form and tradition only.
We can’t even keep ourselves by our OWN strength in the love of God. Yet we commit OURSELVES to love someone else forever! Therefore a scriptural vow that would be more appropriate would be: “By the GRACE OF GOD, AND THROUGH HIS STRENGTH, I GIVE myself to you all the days of my life, to have and to hold, to love and to cherish, for in ourselves WE ARE WEAK.”
It has been wrongly taught that the couple should NEVER seek breaking a marriage covenant. Thus we, erring humans, forget that God is jealous for a righteous holy-living people. When we join into covenant agreements (such as marriages) that fly right in the face of His will, we are expected to correct it - He Himself starts the process for it to break
Exodus 20:3 “have no other gods before [you]” deals with relationship and RELATIONSHIP IS COVENANT! If there is a relationship in our life that we want more than what God wants for us, we are in covenant relationship outside His will.
Joe Zammit
Mar 30th 2011, 16:24
Christ was clear also on the evil of adultery and said that, if one divorces his spouse and enters another marriage, one lives in adultery. (Mk 10, 2-12; Mt 19, 2-9). In the first letter to the Corinthians, St Paul says: “Do not be deceived; neither … nor adulterers… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor.6, 9-10).
Since divorce is a grave sin, voting for it is equally a grave sin. Par. 1789 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church runs: “… One may never do evil so that good may result from it; …” Besides, voting for divorce makes you responsible before God for all the grave sins others will commit on account of your sinful and evil vote. If your conscience, i.e., your reasoning, tells you differently, do not follow it because otherwise you will surely be led to hell by your own conscience itself. Those in hell all invoke their conscience for being there!
victor pulis
Mar 31st 2011, 09:57
And when was the last time you spoke to someone in hell Joe? Or was this information passed on to you by padre Pio?
D Camileri
Mar 30th 2011, 15:40
who needs a conscience, when I have priests to think for me???
the church controls our minds no more.
Paul Barrett
Mar 30th 2011, 12:59
I think that you have overstepped or confused your definition with the bit - I quote:
"Adultery denotes sexual acts by married persons outside a valid marriage, i.e. outside a valid marriage that is valid before God."
Do you really mean that apart from a Roman Catholic marriage there are no other valid marriages in the world and that the rest of the world will not be committing adultery because their marriages are not valid.
Apart from playing with the "guilt" complex, a civil marriage is predominant to a religious marriage, the latter having no value in law unless carried out under state licence and registered with the state.
MBorg
Mar 30th 2011, 14:20
You were answering Joe Zammit, so there was no need to play about with words. You know that Joe Zammit was defending the Sacrament of Marriage.
No one said , or will ever say , that civil marriages performed anywhere in the world are not valid. However surely there was no need to offend by saying that next to civil marriages , Roman Catholic Church marriages have no value.
I beg to differ,they might have no value to you. but not to us. Surely a Roman Catholic marriage which is meant to last forever, untill death do us part. holds more value than a civil marriage one can discard freely when the need arise. What is the value of something that you can throw away at will ?
Religion apart even common sense tells you that it worthless.
david debattista
Mar 30th 2011, 14:22
Divorce has nothing to do with the stability of marriage It never did, nor will it ever. Stop trying to mislead the people We are sick of such BULL coming from you or the Curia As for the rest we all know the story.
Paul Barrett
Mar 30th 2011, 15:38
@ MBorg Yes, you are right, the comment was directed at the comment by Mr Joe Zammit but it would appear it became detached (or is that divorced) from his. The point I was trying to make, without demeaning any particular religion or upsetting the many followers of any particular religion is that the laws of religion may have great value among their followers but are in no way enforceable or binding to those that do not wish to follow them. Secular laws in a secular state have prominence and indeed over-rule religious laws. Why any religion should make such a fuss about an optional civil right divorce law which is not being forced upon them, they are not being forced to recognised it and none of their devout followers are being forced to use it, is one of pure amazement.
N Borg
Mar 30th 2011, 17:50
@ MBorg: Very well explained. You are not the only one who's amazed by this!
victor pulis
Mar 31st 2011, 10:00
Yes, According to JZ all humanity is living in sin except for those married in the catholic rite.
Which means that 5/6 of the world's population is destined for hell. How can one take this man seriously when all he does is condemn people to hell?
And yet he thinks that victory is guaranteed. Some victory.
Albert Spiteri
Mar 30th 2011, 12:49
I have immense respect and admiration for Bishop Mario Grech. I totally agree with him that divorce is definitely intrinsically bad - just as much as amputation of a limb is intrinsically bad. But a gangrenous limb or arm that threatens more serious damage has to be amputated - no matter how much intrinsically bad.
victor pulis
Mar 30th 2011, 12:38
The very first sentence in this article is already misleading. Divorce does not break down marriages as the marriage is already dead. Divorce is the result of a broken marriage not the cause.
Joe Zammit
Mar 30th 2011, 11:45
Par.2384 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Divorce is a grave offence against the natural law…. 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: …”.
‘A grave offence against natural law’ means a grave sin against God who is the author of natural law. So, divorce is a grave sin. Adultery is a grave offence against God as well since it transgresses seriously the Sixth Commandment of God. Adultery denotes sexual acts by married persons outside a valid marriage, i.e. outside a valid marriage that is valid before God.
Christ spoke clearly of the evil of divorce: “What God has joined together let no man put asunder”. ‘Let no man put asunder’ means ‘let no-one resort to divorce’. This is a command not an advice and it is so serious a command that amounts to a grave sin if it is ignored. Moreover, the fact that it is expressed in the negative clearly shows that it admits of no exception. The Catholic Church has never resorted to divorce in her 2000-year-old history.
Albert Spiteri
Mar 30th 2011, 12:34
The Catholic Church has all the right and power to ammend it's teachings from time to time. That is the basic strength of the Catholic church as against all other churches, christian or not. Catholic belief is always relevant because it is wisely updated to current human needs and situations. The Catholic teaching with regards to limbo is a case in point.
What is important is that:-
(a) Genesis 2:24 does not preclude divorce and remarriage;
(b) no passage in the Bible directly states that marriage is permanent;
(c) divorce and remarriage was permitted in the Law that God gave to Moses;
(d) Jesus later acknowledged the unchangeable nature of the Mosaic Law; and that
(e) Paul instructed the members of the church at Corinth that the ideal goal for a separated or divorced couple are to seek reconciliation or to remain celibate. However, a divorce is permissible in the case of desertion. He says nothing about remarriage. But from the rest of the Bible one can assume that remarriage was permitted after desertion.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 30th 2011, 13:32
Mr Spiteri: b. 'No passage in the Bible directly states that marriage is permanent.' So what does 'What God has joined, let no man put asunder' mean, according to you?
c. It is true that Moses permitted divorce, BUT JESUS said that 'It was because of their stubborness that Moses conceded.' You DO admit that Jesus' word is more important than Moses', do you?
d. Jesus did say that the law will not be changed, BUT he often said,'you herd what has been said.......BUT I TELL YOU'. This is CLEAR indication that what Jesus says, IS SUPERIOR TO anything said before....or after, for that matter.
When you quote the Bible, be sure you know it first!
Albert Spiteri
Mar 30th 2011, 15:52
Dear Mr. Grima: Please refer to Matthew 19:3-9. "What therefore God hath joined together, let NOT man put asunder." This verse is often misinterpreted. Jesus was not implying that all marriages were indissoluble. What Jesus was actually saying was that the Pharisees were "not competent to serve as judges on the issue of divorce." As Deuteronomy (24:1-2) says, it is the couple themselves, and not a court, who are to decide whether a divorce is to be implemented. If they decided to divorce, the husband wrote out a bill of divorce. He gave it to his wife and she left. By extension, today's Christian clergy have no authority to "stand in judgment over the dissolution of a marriage than did the Pharasees." Some marriages cannot live up to God's ideal of a permanent, loving marriage. Because humans are not perfect, God included provision for divorce in the Mosaic Law. In Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17, Jesus said that the Law was still in place. Not "...one jot or one tittle shall...pass from the law..." vide http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_ok3.htm" you may find some light at the end of your extremely obscure tunnel.
Mark Spiteri
Mar 30th 2011, 11:42
No to divorce?? You tell that to a woman with three children that had her husband leave her for a younger girl and does not have enough money to feed her children cause her ‘moral husband' does not give her a penny. I don't see the church doing God's will to take care of these single mothers. Practice what you preach and if the church does not want divorce back it with something like supporting these single mothers. If divorce is legal these dead beat fathers would have the law after their check book and that’s moral.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 30th 2011, 13:36
You forgot to mention that with divorce, the very violent husbnd can remarry another VICTIM! Not to mention the danger that many will claim that they hve been beaten, so that they get the divorce! We had one recently! Divorce does not solve all problems. Actually, it may double them. Ask the silent children.
victor caruana
Mar 30th 2011, 11:18
We are given the impression that the Matese Catholic church is unversal. One wonders how the rest of the world has succeeded in settling this issue of divorce and experienced economic and social development in leap and bounds...
We had the task of making europe more christian-remember, this was malta's role according to saint fenech adami. Now that we failed miserably in that objective we are trying to dig our heads furher in the sand of darkness.
E Formosa
Mar 30th 2011, 16:37
". experienced economic and social development in leap and bounds.." .......You must be referring to frogs....Ghandek ragun......tghir ghal Eddie
Albert Spiteri
Mar 30th 2011, 11:17
(Continued from previous)
"7. Jesus answer to the Pharisees, quoted in Matthew and Mark: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" means that the Pharisees had no jurisdiction in matters of divorce. Only the couple, alone, could decide whether to terminate their marriage.
8. God's goal for marriage is permanence. All couples should aim for this goal. However some cannot attain it. For them, divorce and subsequent remarriage -- though regrettable -- is permissible and is often the least worse option.
9. Paul instructed the members of the church at Corinth that the ideal goal for a separated or divorced couple are to seek reconciliation or to remain celibate. However, a divorce is permissible in the case of desertion. He says nothing about remarriage. But from the rest of the Bible one can assume that remarriage was permitted after desertion".
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_ok3.htm)
Albert Spiteri
Mar 30th 2011, 11:15
With deep respect towards Bishop Mario Grech I point out that:
"1. The message of the Bible is consistent:
2. Genesis 2:24 does not preclude divorce and remarriage.
3. No passage in the Bible directly states that marriage is permanent.
4. Divorce and remarriage was permitted in the Law that God gave to Moses.
5. Jesus later acknowledged the unchangeable nature of the Mosaic Law.
6. Ezra and Malachi ordered couples in inter-faith marriages to divorce. This might have been because their marriages were viewed as illicit. There is nothing in the text to indicate that the Hebrew men were forbidden to remarry.
(continued)
Paul Barrett
Mar 30th 2011, 11:06
Quote: Mgr Grech said that when the personal judgment of a Catholic disagreed with the teachings of Christ as delivered by the Church, that Catholic would not be free of “guilt” if he did not bring his judgment in line with the teachings of the Church. Unquote.
I have a great deal of respect for members of the Roman Catholic Church and their devout followers. However I began to question both judgement and the line of teachings of the Church during the daily beating with a ruler that I got at school.
Catholics are not being forced to make use of divorce legislation which is quite rightly not recognised by the Catholic Church but my conscience tells me that I have not the right to prevent others the freedom of a secular law because of my own personal or religious beliefs. The best words in this article if you have a personal conflict of guilt would appear to be: "solve the conflict by abstaining."
edwin formosa
Mar 30th 2011, 16:26
this has nothing to do with following a well-informed conscience . This is making up your own mind and telling the conscience to accept your decision .
E Formosa
Mar 30th 2011, 16:54
"I have a great deal of respect for members of the Roman Catholic Church and their devout followers. " You constantly show that in every line you type
acassar
Mar 30th 2011, 10:50
Gozo Bishop M.Grech said Divorce and any legal measures that break down a marriage are “intrinsically bad” ......Why was he so cautious not to mention the word Co-habitation, but only referred to it as" Any legal measure" ? Who is he protecting ?
Ramon Casha
Mar 30th 2011, 10:37
Church: You should vote according to your conscience.
Grech: Yes but if your conscience disagrees with me you're gonna burn in hell for all eternity. So, no pressure.
The local church seems to be moving towards a schism.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 30th 2011, 11:16
I see that from your last contribution, you have been promoted! It seems that you are the Pope now, able to decide what schisms threaten us! Cogratulations.
And what is poor Malta heading towards, if we introduce divorce, according to you, Mr Casha? Healthier families? Pure bliss? Bye, bye problems? Fantsyland?
Ramon Casha
Mar 31st 2011, 06:33
Schisms are not decided on by any pope. In fact they generally happen against his wishes.
As for "what Malta is heading for", there will be healthier families yes, and some problems will finally be resolved, though not all. Fantasyland seems to describe what some people are living in when they apparently think that without divorce, all marriages succeed.
N Borg
Mar 30th 2011, 10:23
How can the congregation present at Xewkija and anyone reading this article about Mario Grech's homily not end up in fits of laugher? "will of god"? "guilt"? "teachings of christ"? Seriously? It is insulting that human being is trying to spoonfeed others with such non-sense, illogical and non-evidence based claims. It's very sad that 50% of our population listens to such rubbish during mass every single Sunday.
J Farrugia
Mar 30th 2011, 10:39
it's your words that are insulting, N Borg. Not only insulting but outward arrogant. If you dont believe in God it's your problem but white is white and black is black and no grey areas are allowed. You either follow God or go your own miserable way. Why castigate the learned bishop when he is preaching God's word? Trying to be ridiculous? Your funeral not his. And the bishop is the pastor not the theologians. They have to walk his way and not their personal ambitions or emotions. We cannot be emotional to human failures and not trust in God. if God is rubbish for you, it is certainly not for true catholics. And thank God you dont live in a fundamentalist state or you will be beheaded for blasphemy.
Darren Abela
Mar 30th 2011, 11:03
@J Farrugia
Maybe we should thank not only God that we dont live in a fundamentalist state so that we wont be beheaded for blasphemy. Maybe we should thank those who in the past fought and even sacrificed their life so that we can be free from fundamentalists and particular institutions and inquisitions. Yet, there are still those who want to monopolize the "Truth" once more, and quote from books etc and try to silence everyone else. But all in all the tide is turning at last and seems no effort can enslave free people once again. Just a bit of patience because in Malta, due to our distance and geography etc things always take a bit longer, but that's normal, nothing serious.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 30th 2011, 11:06
''Will of God?' 'Guilt?' 'Teachings of Christ?'...such non-sense.' What is 'sense', according to you, N Borg? Ufaithfulness? Cheating? Violence? Not keeping one's word and dignity? Abandning one's OWN children? 'Recycling' one's own spouse? Some 'sense'!
You try to ridicule as 'very sad' and 'rubbish' because you have no concrete, serious argument to proove the contrary. As the always say, N Borg, TRUTH HURTS! There's NO AVOIDING IT!
Benjamin Cassar
Mar 30th 2011, 11:23
@Joe Farrugia.
which God do you follow? your God? or the God of the holy bible? cause if your a catholic then you serve a totally different God than the One in the Bible that your so called fathers Preach!!!!
Divorce is excepted in the bible ( only for 2 reasons) so saying that god does not except divorce is not 100% correct!!!!
The church does not want the divorce just to keep its power on whom she wants and gain more money as she did all these years! the bible describes also such institution as Vipers!!!!
Blind leading the blind!
N Borg
Mar 30th 2011, 12:06
Farrugia: contrary to what you may think, not believing is not a problem, neither is it a state of misery. One this is for sure, the years of brainwashing have worked very well on you.
Grima: If you believe that some deity is against divorce, then please don't divorce yourself, and don't stop anyone from doing what they believe is right for themselves or their family.
I find the divorce argument to be quite simple. Anti-divorce is imposing on the whole population, while the pro-divorce is not imposing at all on anyone. Once the divorce legistlation is introduced, those who were against can continue to live their life in peace, and likewise for those who were in favour, with the addition that they would have an additional civil right.
Additionally, I don't know why you are claiming that divorce automatically implies cheating, recycling and all this. So this is also happening right now with seperation and annulment I presume?
E Camilleri
Mar 30th 2011, 10:17
using the same thinking the church has been breaching God's will with its annulment procedings. The church allows annulment, as if a marriage never existed, but is finding it difficult to accept divorce! Divorce has nothing to do with the church, its a civil issue.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 30th 2011, 11:11
Very few use that argument, E Camilleri, especially those who have no idea of legal practices. ANY contract can be declared null and void, if it is found tha some cheating, use of force, or other, existed BEFORE the contract was signed! It was better of you to ask a lawyer BEFORE writing your comment!
If annulment does not exist, do you mean that if one is forced by threat or violence to marry, that marriage is VALID? Or if smeone marries, while hiding the fact that he is ALREADY married? Do you consider THIS as a valid marriage. Thankfully, you are not a lawyer!
victor pulis
Mar 30th 2011, 12:44
God of the old testament permitted divorce and even bigamy Deuteronomy 21: 14-17
@ JFarrugia do you have the same Catholic values towards illegal immigrants?
K.Anastasi
Mar 30th 2011, 14:45
@ Joe Grima Brussels
Then, by your own admission, you agree with Divorce.... Hypocrisy does come to mind though.
E Camilleri
Mar 30th 2011, 16:29
@Joe Grima Brussels
I may not have an idea of legal practices, but unlike you I have common sense! You yourselve, as K. Anastasi rightly corrected you, are defending the right to separate a couple, be it by annulment (which you agree to it) or anything else.
Joe, no marriage certificate will keep a couple together, its only the respect & love they have to each other which will keep them together. Grow up, and learn. Don't allow the catholic church to continue thriving on the ignorance of its followers!
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 30th 2011, 17:13
K Anasasi. Please don't put YOUR words on MY lips. I NEVER said that I agree with divorce, I was writing about annulment. It is strange to hear about 'hypocricy' from someone who vows to love and cherish unto death, and yet deep in his heart holds the 'right' to divorce! If you don't call THAT hypocricy, then what is???? As for my part, I LIVE the promise I made yeas ago, as I treat walking away from one's promise as hypocricy!