When God has spoken

On continental Europe and the rest of the modern world, the expression “making a comeback” is associated with something positive, the comeback of a former rock star or sports hero. But in Malta, one of the few places left on earth where civil affairs conveniently congregate with those of the Church, it may be apt to use this expression when referring to a negative period in our history ­- the “mortal sin” era.

I simply cannot comprehend why many so-called seasoned Catholics of Malta prefer using God as their lifelong attorney in order to have their raison d’être accepted by the rest of the populace. Jesus himself did not try to judge others, nor even attempted to threaten his sly enemies with the power of his father.

In 2011, most Maltese are learning how the Church works. In times past it has managed to weave its fanatical stories for its followers, declaring that God may strike those who do not apply its rules and regulations and therefore decide to go the other way. This is what happened in Malta in decades gone by. But the present looks worrying too. It seems that the Church is ready to go back down that road. The divorce issue is a clear sign of the Church’s will to staunchly keep the Maltese under its umbrella. I say this because the Maltese ecclesiastical authorities seem to imply that God has given them a divine right to do away with the middle-man and impose (no free will) their dogma on generations past, present and future.

It clearly appears that instead of preaching collective knowledge, which was supposed to be Jesus’s main goal, the Church prefers sticking its finger into the rights of Maltese society. Perhaps the gravest mistake that the so-called conservatives are making is that they are trying to conserve a position which is no longer sustainable in this day and age. Neither God nor his son Jesus have ever tried to stop someone from improving his life and achieving happiness. Each man and each woman are born free with the blessing of God. When I say free I mean that each man and woman are free to choose whatever they think can make their lives better. Why then does the Church try to decide for us what is good and what is not? Divorce and remarriage have been much-debated issues for literally thousands of years. The Bible cannot and does not resolve every issue or cover every situation.

For example, under the Law of Moses, if a man’s wife found “no favour in his eyes...some uncleanness in her”, God permitted divorce, which in the Hebrew means “a cutting off.” It was not simple separation, but a complete severing and annulling of the marriage bond. A biblical divorce and remarriage did occur under these Scriptural conditions of (1) some uncleanness being found in the wife and (2) a “bill of divorcement” having been given her by her husband. One can notice that the Word of God in the Old Scriptures labels this man as “her former husband.” Thus God seems to recognise his right to remarry after divorce, if the divorce leading up to the remarriage was for biblical reasons. In fact Israel’s men had taken Gentile wives and were under conviction to divorce them. It is critically important to see that the seemingly permanent marriage bond in these scriptures is broken “not under bondage” when the doubting spouse divorces the believer. The same principles in Moses’ Law and in Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:3-9 apply (that is, a divorce obtained under biblical conditions dissolves the marriage and subsequent remarriage is permissible.) The two biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage are: 1) marital infidelity (sexual unfaithfulness) by the spouse; the innocent party may divorce and remarry, and 2) a Christian’s unbelieving mate departs from the Christian; the divorced Christian is free to remarry.

So I have one question to ask those who are so high spirited against the introduction of this civil right. What is the definitional difference between the word “divorce”, a word which defines the dissolubility of the marriage bond, and the word “annulment”, which declares that a marriage never really existed?

If God, as they frequently remind us, is against divorce because of marriage dissolution and family breakdown issues, than God must certainly be also against “annulment” because it works the same and produces far more bitter effects, especially on children. For how can you explain to a child that his/her parents were married when he/she was born but, (and here comes the irony), if they were granted an annulment they were never really married after he/she was born? Funnily enough our ecclesiastical authorities are demonising the former word but then defending the other. Why is that?

In God, appearance and heart must match. If they do not, we produce hypocrisy. Therefore let us heed Jesus’ warning not to “teach for doctrines the commandments of man...making the word of God of none effect through your tradition” (Mark 7:7,13).

As I have already stated, God in His Bible lists certain scriptural divorce and remarriage situations. Yes, let’s obey the word of God in this critical area of people’s lives and have the same compassion and tolerance that He Himself has demonstrated.