Movement against divorce threatens legal action
Unless the Divorce Movement stopped its bullying tactics, the Movement against Divorce would call on the police commissioner to take legal action against those who were making disparaging comments, comparing the common good to Nazism.
In a statement, the Movement Against Divorce accused the Divorce Movement of "bullying" those of a different opinion.
For three times, the Divorce Movement had compared the concept of the common good to Nazism and this was worrying and despicable especially in view of the millions of innocent people who had suffered because of this belief.
This, the Movement Against Divorce said this was clear proof that the proposed divorce did not make sense and the arguments being moved by those pressing for it were aimed at pecking on the values of lifetime marriage.
Moreover, the Movement Against Divorce believed that the concept of the common good had been used for hundreds of years by the biggest thinkers who based their policies on solid values.
It appealed to all those taking part in the debate to be mature, respect different opinions and stop bullying.
However, if ethical and moral values were not enough for these people to see reason, it would call on the police commissioner to take legal action, it said.
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...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
92 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Julian Zarb
Apr 18th 2011, 08:14
We seem to have some grave misconceptions here as to what it means to be a RESPONISBLE and COMMITTED citizen and catholic.....we seem to want to make up our own lifestyles here, rather like making a choice from an A La Carte menu!
I like that, I hate that, I may choose that then again I think it is better to choose the other! But, in truth responsibility and real commitment is about having our principles well and truly implanted in our belief that we have a choice in life but we also have an obligation.....and our obligations and responsibilities certainly do not include acting like some spoilt child who wants his own way each time or he will stamp his feet and bellow as hard as he can to get attention.
That is exactly what many are doing in this issue on divorce: "I want this and I am prepared to make a scene if some one else says no!" This is an issue that calls for maturity, responsibility and is a true test to the practicising Catholic..we should not fail!
Ms Anna Callus
Apr 17th 2011, 21:54
If this wasn't tragic, it would be amusing. I am tempted to recommend splitting this country into two independent states; one secular and one religious, where Adultery and Homosexuality would once again be criminalized, where a Church tribunal (the return of the inquisition?) would suffice for the administration of justice and so forth and so on. Grow up citizens and heed the wise words of Him who so many like to quote: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's".
Mr M Borg
Apr 17th 2011, 23:47
@ Ms Anna Callus
You are right. If it wsn't tragic, it would be amusing.
There is no need for adultery to be criminalized but I am sure that you know that " when you render to God the things that are of God " adultery was and still is a sin. There is no need for the return of the inquisition, if you believe in the Catholic faith , divorce goes against the will of God.
Ms Anna Callus
Apr 18th 2011, 08:01
@ M Borg. That's exactly it. If you believe.....then just follow your beliefs and let others do the same.
Mr M Borg
Apr 18th 2011, 10:47
@ Anna Callus
Np one is forcing anybody to believe. But we cannot have people who want to say that they believe in the Catholic faith, people who say that they are not against Christ and His teaching as long as they can do what they please.
The church can never be in favour of divorce. So no one can say I am a practicing Catholioc, but I am not agaist divorce. If you are in favour of divorce or make use of divorce you are going against Christ no buts abiout it.
No one can choose what to believe in and what to deny.
Mr Matthew Grima
Apr 18th 2011, 12:41
No one is telling you to be in favor of divorce M Borg, you should be in favor of letting others chose what to be in favor of, why is that so hard to grasp?
Mr M Borg
Apr 17th 2011, 21:25
@ Joseph Calleja
" I like many others are deeply in favour of divorce. I do not consider myself against Christ."
" You are entitled to your beliefs and I am entitled to Mine."
Make up your mind Mr Calleja , you cannot dictate what you want to belive in when it comes to the Catholic faith. You either belive or you don't.
Divorce is against the Catholic faith, it goes against the Sacrament of Marriage, so you cannot be in favour of divorce and at the same time say that your are not going against the will of God.
People who remmary are living in perpetual adaltury.In the eyes of the church they are living in mortal sin and as such cannot receive Holy Communion. By your vote in favour of divorce you will be giving people the right to go against the will of God.
I am not here to judge you but you cannot say " you are entitled to your beliefs and I am entitled to mine. That is not unless you are referring to another religion. If your beliefs are my beliefs than they should be the same. As you wrote you are free to vote as you please , but remember no one has the right to decide which part of the Catholic faith to believe in and which to deny.
Mr Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
Apr 17th 2011, 10:12
Sinjuri Maltin u Għawdxin,
Mhux bulying tkun qed tagħmel meta tgħid li inti kattoliku jew kattolika prattikanti, imma imbgħad tkun qed tgħin u taħdem biex jiġi legalizzat id-divorzju li mhux fil-pjan ta’ Alla l-imbierek?
Għax Alla fil-pjan tiegħu ma daħħalx divorzju, anzi ż-żwieġ fil-pjan t’Alla kien żwieġ bejn mara u raġel fil-ġid u fid-deni fil-mard u fis-saħħa sal-mewt!
Għax jien bħala kattoliku prattikanti nemmen li kieku d-divorzju kien ħaġa tajba , siwja u ta’ ġid għall-bniedem u għall-umanita kollha sħiħa, Alla kien kapaċi bħal ma kien kapaċi f’kollox, li jagħmel pjan bi’ żwieġ bid-divorzju!
Imma Alla li tant iħobbna u jaf x’inhu tajjeb u ħażin għalina l-bnedmin, għamel pjan għalina l-bnedmin biż-żwieġ mingħajr id-divorzju!
Jekk ma timxix fuq il-pjan li ippreparalna Alla li ħalaqna, fuq lima pjan trid tfassal ħajtek ħuti Maltin u Għawdxin?
U allura mhux bulying huwa dak li tipprova tillegalizza d-divorzju, li mhux u qatt ma kien fil-pjan nobli t’Alla mill-bidu tal-ħolqien?
J. Falzon
Apr 17th 2011, 21:22
Jien mhux Kattoliku, u Malti daqsek. Għala m'ghandix ikolli d-dritt għad-divorzju meta m'għandi x'naqsam xejn mal-knisja u alla tieghek?
Min ma jridx divorzju, MA JIDDIVORZJAX. Int meta tmur ħanut ma tixtrix kollox, imma għandek issaqsi l-owner biex ineħħi l-affarijiet li ma tridx inti minn fuq l-ixkaffa?
Mr elton grech
Apr 18th 2011, 09:16
Sewwa ghidt,
l'aktar meta tqis li dan hadt mhu jgieghel lil knisja tibdel l idea taghha fuq d divorzju, ma nistax nifhem ghal dal panic u krucjati!
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 17th 2011, 09:22
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, as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, has never resorted to divorce in her 2000-year-old history.
Christ does not want divorce for our own good. The devil wants it for our detriment. Whoever loves Christ is against divorce; whoever wants divorce is with the devil and against Christ. Thus is the eternal truth!
Mr Paul Barrett
Apr 17th 2011, 11:28
Dear Mr Joe Zammit
Quote: This is a command not an advice and it is so serious a command that amounts to a grave sin if it is ignored. Unquote.
There can be no religious "commands" to the population in general within a secular state and therefore your meaning and implication of punishment for committing a sin and indeed your whole comment must be aimed at those who actually live in total fear of the unknown.
Your entries are somewhat similar to those e-mails that circulate now and then - the ones that say "if you do not pass this on to at least ten of your friends within the next hour you will have bad luck for the rest of the day" (My comment is that if you pass the e-mail on to ten friends, you will not have ten friends at the end of the day LOL).
Mr Joseph Calleja
Apr 17th 2011, 17:59
Mr Zammit excuse me but who are you to judge me? " whoever wants divorce is with the devil and against Chris ". I like many others are deeply in favour of divorce. I do not consider myself against Christ. How dare you accuse me of being against Christ? Who are you? I don't mind you being against divorce but accusing me of being against Christ because I favour divorce is a big sin on your part. You are getting to be a fanatic and very abusive about this whole thing. Only God has a right to judge another human being, so please back off. You are entitled to your beliefs and I am surely entitled to mine but don't judge and condemn people who do not agree with you. You are very wrong on this one and if in doubt consult with your Bishop. Mr Zammit I hope you read this comment because I know you mean well but you are going about it the wrong way. I was hoping Mgr Cremona will read this too and maybe he can explain the harm you are causing. No Mr Z, favouring divorce is not a sin and if it is, it is still up to me to decide if I am in favour or not. Hate and prejudice is a sin. and you seem to enjoy that.
Ms Lina CARUANA
Apr 16th 2011, 23:09
Many people who are sceptical about religion do not seem to understand that reiigion has served as a basis for values entrenched in charters for the common good even if secularized. Similarly to what happens with nature and the environment when man stamps his fingerprints not everything goes well. After all religious values have an appeal to all people whatever religion and the common good is very much linked to religious values as a basis. Disputing the existence of religion in the matter for divorce is like separating the core of man's being from inside him, for whatever happens humanity always has a pull for the sacred and religious. Resistance to it is simply negation and that can be painful.
Mr Carmel J. Caruana
Apr 17th 2011, 05:00
Dear Ms Caruana,
Man has been a social being long before religion came into the scene. Whether a person is capable of creating a good balance between his own interest and that of the community has historically been shown to be little influenced by religion - it depends mostly on whether the person is genetically predisposed to be such andon the home environment that he/she had during his/her upbringing. The genetic disposition cannot be changed but the home environment can if it is not suitable. The worst home environment that a child can have is one in which his/her parents are simply together because of financial convenience or because society makes it so difficult for them to create another loving partnership. in such circumstances the child grows in a loveless environment.
Mr d. attard
Apr 17th 2011, 09:48
national debate all takes place in order to make decisions that are in the interest of societ, therefore for the common good. This is not a science and debate and academia must be on-going and dynamic. It is when some body comes along stating that it has some magic powers and that all it stands for represents the common good that the search for the common good gets distorted and that debate gets silenced. Take the divorce issue. Millenia of debate and searching has brought all the countries in the world to have their own divorce legislation. There should be no doubt that this overwhelming endorsement of the divorce mechanism has been the result of all these nations implementing structures that serve their common good. A danger arises when any single body professes that it owns the values that will exclusively lead to the common good.
Mr Joseph Borg
Apr 16th 2011, 21:59
Jiena meta nisma`lil min jghid li jekk tivvota ghad divorzju ma thobx lill Gesu, ghallura sa hemm jghaddi r-referendum ma ghandix ghalxiex nidhol go knejjes, u wara naraw, jahasra ma nistax nifhem kif dawn in-nies ma jirrejalizzawx xi hsara qed jghalu lill-l-istess knisja.Ghal min ghandu bzonn id-divorzju mhux paroli fil-vojt ghandu bzonn imma rimedju biex ikun jista jibda hajtu mill gdid bhal ma ghandhom ic-cittadini l-ohra tad-dinja taqta l-uniku pajjiz iehor fejn ghadhom isalbu n-nies fuq is-slaleb u jifflagellaw lilhom innifshom.
Mr Dominic Fenech
Apr 16th 2011, 21:52
Bullying the establishment. Must be a first.
Mr Andy Farrugia
Apr 17th 2011, 15:01
Being one of its leading lights - the establishment, i mean - you would know a thing or two about it.
Mr Dr. Geoffrey Schembri Adami Med. Vet.
Apr 16th 2011, 21:10
Ms. Mizzi and all those in favour of the introduction of divorce who liken those who defend the indissolubility of marriage with Nazism, should reflect the following words of BLESSED CARDINAL CLEMENS GRAF VON GALEN (1878-1946), the courageous Archbishop of Munster whom Hitler considered as his greatest and most dangerous enemy as well as that of Nazism, and vowed that once the war would end Von Galen would pay a very high price for having been his harshset critic:
“Christianity asks to be unconditionally faithful to God, but also to serve men, created in His image. This is what the saints did, and some of them even shed their blood to remain faithful to God’s Commandments and the Teachings of Christ. The martyrs confessed with their blood the Truth: that is to love and serve God comes before anything else, even if this may displease and cause discomfort to certain people. It is necessary to obey God before obeying men. Our conscience does not belong to anyone else but God. So, also to us, who wish to love any serve Him before anything else, may God give us wisdom and fortitude that never, for selfishness or out of fear of others, we agree with what is sinful and evil, and displeases God who loves us and whom we should love, and to stain our conscience in order not to be different than the rest, especially to gain or serve the favour of others, common mortals, who although in contradiction with God’s Commandments and the Teachings of Christ, appear to be strong and powerful, but in reality, their strength and power is not destined to last very long. Let us defend Christ and His Teachings! Let us defend what belongs to God and what is His alone! Let us, with Peter, tell Jesus: ‘Etiam omnes ego non’ – ‘Lord, if all are ashamed of You and abandon You, I will not!’
Who wants to give to the people and to the state, values that are different than those that originate from the Teachings of Christ, defying these values as though God and His Commandments do not exist, is out of the true faith of Christ. Conscientious objection to what contradicts God’s Commandments and the Teachings of Christ should lead to their refusal by Christians who want to remain faithful to God.
We Christians are an anvil, and not the hammer. If the anvil is strong, firm and solid enough, so it will last much more than the hammer, and when the hammer is out of use, the anvil will still be in use to give form to what needs to be forged. To be forged now are all those who are marginalized and ridiculed for having spoken and defended the truth. They suffer unjustly and without fault, for having defended boldly God’s Commandments and the Teachings of Christ, without compromise and unconditionally. When the hammer will certainly hit them hard, when they are attacked for being on the side of the truth of Christ, it will injure them deeply, but God will surely assist them to sustain them and their faith in Him and in His Word.
Have you, or I, the right to infringe God’s Commandments, and to displease Him immensely? The Good Lord has given us Christians the task to call what is white white, and what is black black. Any state law that is contrary to God’s Divine Law with regards to human dignity, life, family and the indissolubility of marriageas God established right from the very beginning of creation and as He wills it, not only condemns the country to self destruction and terror but also leads the entire nation to internal decomposition. If people do not follow God’s Commandments with regards to any of these, then there can never be any justice, and peace or happiness will become impossible.”
Blessed Von Galen harshly opposed any legislation that was contrary to God’s Law, including divorce, and at the same time was the most prominent anti-Nazist in Germany, right from when he was appointed Archbishop of Munster just a few months after Hitler took power in 1933, that he rightly remained known in history as ‘The Lion of Munster.’
Ms Rebecca Bartolo
Apr 16th 2011, 20:50
Im really fed up with this whole situation. At mass I hear about divorce, at our lady of sorrow procession I hear about divorce ... give us a break, let us make our own mind up and stop pushing people away from church. The government should of just entered divorce through parliment and put an end to it ghax l'injoranza li qed nisma kontra id divorzju huwa ta' barra min hawn !!
Ramon Casha
Apr 16th 2011, 20:45
So they don't like the comparison to the Nazis. Let's consider some alternatives.
How about racial segregation that existed until recently in the US? It was "for the common good" that the minority blacks were prohibited from attending schools for whites, or sitting at the front of a bus, or owning weapons, or voting.
It doesn't even have to be a numerical minority. For a number of years, colonial powers including Britain maintained a repressive rule over many countries, based on military rather than numerical superiority. Again it was "for the common good". Same in South Africa until very recently. Everyone* "knew" that it was in everyone's best interest that whites dominate both government and industry.
* "everyone white, of course.
Homosexuality was a crime until quite recently, and still is in some places, because it is "for the common good" that gays are locked up or forced to pretend to be what they're not. Even today people say it's for the common good that they are denied the right to get married.
In Saudi Arabia, it is "for the common good" that all women are required to have a male guardian at all times, that they are prohibited from driving, and that they are not allowed to be in the company of a man who is not their husband or family member. Some extremists believe it's for the common good that any female who is discovered to be dating a stranger should be killed.
Stalin maintained that it was "for the common good" that subversive individuals were rounded up and executed.
In the US, after the pearl harbour attack, everybody with Japanese ancestry was taken to internment camps, even when they'd been Americans for several generations. This too was "for the common good". Right after the 11 September attacks, anyone who looked vaguely Middle Eastern, or had a funny accent, or had an Arab/Muslim sounding name, was subjected to invasive searches whenever they travelled, or were denied boarding outright, because that was "for the common good."
Whenever "the common good" is used to deprive people of their rights, it can be a dangerous tool, since to can be used to justify almost anything.
Joseph Vassallo
Apr 17th 2011, 00:08
You forgot the most relevant to Malta.... When Italy entered WW2, all Maltese who had learned to speak Italian (then an official language) were either interned or shipped off to Uganda among other unlikely places. That too was decreed to be for the common good.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 16th 2011, 20:30
“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.
Join in the battle between Christ and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Ramon Casha
Apr 16th 2011, 20:51
"Christ is not saying 'in case of unfaithfulness' but in case of fornication. Fornication is had between two unmarried persons."
How exactly do two UNMARRIED persons divorce? THAT'S what makes no sense.
"Otherwise, what sense do the words of Christ make when he told us "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder?"
Good point. Are you so sure that your God has joined a couple together when a man beats his wife, or when the woman habitually cheats on her husband? If I believed in a god, when a marriage fails irrevocably I'd take it as a sign that their relationship was NOT his handiwork.
Mr Joseph Brincat
Apr 16th 2011, 21:37
SORRY MR JOE ZAMMIT BUT
YOUR COMMENT IS ONLY ON A MATTER OF BELIEF
NOT ON REAL LIFE
Joseph Vassallo
Apr 17th 2011, 00:41
Yet again, Joe Zammit is confused in his thinking.
For one thing, the church (representing God) does not "put together" any marriages; marriages are put together by human couples who think they want to spend their life together. The church only blesses their union because the sacrament is administered by the couple itself.
"Except on the grounds of fornication" means what it says on the label if we still believe that the scriptures are to be taken as written; of course, there are those who like Joe Zammit don't have qualms about tailoring scripture to suit their own intentions. Fornication is carnal knowledge is fornication from whichever angle you look at it, so you may call yourself a shepherd sir, but don't assume that we accept being treated like goats; not even like lambs, in fact.
Christ did not write the scriptures and anyone pretending to be knowledgeable on the subject should know that it has been written and rewritten but not 2000 years ago. It wasn't so long ago that we were told that Limbo does not exist after centuries of being told that if a child dies before being baptised, it would spend eternity in Limbo.
I beg to differ also on whether the ROMAN catholic church is the only "holy Apostolic Church" since the implication is that anyone not belonging to it will be damned for eternity.
Mr Zammit, your assertions are nothing short of ridiculous unless your mission is to distance everyone who is endowed with some grey matter, away from religion and from the church. I can tell you without hesitation that your indoctrinating assertions have caused me to have a crisis of faith such as I have never experienced before in all my years. You have made me consider that there may be more truth in the belief that religion is man-made for the sake of governing those who will be governed and those who will allow themselves to be brainwashed.
I just hope your intentions are good because I am not alone in this crisis.
Mr Mark A. Sammut
Apr 17th 2011, 14:13
@ Mr Casha
Be careful which translation of the Gospels you refer to.
There is a whole science, called hermeneutics (or exegesis), which sheds light on the difficulties encountered in interpreting (biblical) texts.
Also, you might wish to read Prof. B. Ehrman's books on textual criticism of the Gospels... however, beware that if you forget that tradition surpasses the text in the interpretation of the message, you might lose your way...
Mr M Borg
Apr 16th 2011, 19:49
@ Paul Borg
How can you say that you " left no victims behind " ?
It is easy for you to say that. However we have to ask your two wives and children, if you had any ,to know if they have suffered because of your actions.
Seeing that you are in your third marriage, are you proposing that marriage should be a state one can try, throw away and move on to another at will. Do you put any linit to the number of marriages one can enter ?
Broken marriages do leave victims behind, you know .
No wonder divorce causes so much misery.
Mr John Cassar
Apr 16th 2011, 20:43
@M Borg
" we have to ask your two wives and children, if you had any ,to know if they have suffered because of your actions".
You comments epitomize everything that is wrong with MAD. Since you have no idea what the situations were , get off the pulpit and stop judging people. I know one person who had two church annulments (in Malta to be exact). Should we ask him the same questions as well or because it's a church annulment we bow our heads in reverence!!
MAD advocates prohibition of a right that is in existence worldwide (even for Maltese who file for a divorce abroad. I advocate solidarity with those less fortunate at marriage than myself and will therefore vote Yes.
Victor Pulis
Apr 17th 2011, 10:48
Broken marriages do leave victims behind, you know. M Borg
As does annullment.
Mr Chris Mifsud
Apr 16th 2011, 19:39
"It appealed to all those taking part in the debate to be mature"
Yes because its sooo mature to link divorce with abortion and euthanasia... LOL
The Anti-Divorce movement are desperate. Divorce is a civil right and they should not try and stop it.
Mr M Borg
Apr 16th 2011, 20:03
Anybody who does not see a link between divorce,sbortion and euthanasia is living in a world of his own. These " civil rights " always follow each other.
We have married couples saying that divorce is their " civil right. " How can anyone stop them from ending their marriage if they want it ?
We have mothers saying that no one can tell them what ot do with thier bodies and that abortion is their " civil right ".
We have sick people telling us that no one can foce them to live if they want ot end their suffering , that euthanasia is " their civil " right.
So before calling anybody immature, be mature enough to get your facts right.
M. Grech
Apr 16th 2011, 19:28
Who's really bullying whom. The anti divorce movement is apparently even resorting to using children to generate emotions against divorce. Where's is the Commisioner for Children....OOOps forgot that she was an MP representing the party which is officially anti-divorce...What a shame.
Daniela Attard
Apr 18th 2011, 11:41
I took an 8 year old to the procession and I did not wish this 8 year old to be exposed to something like that. She ended up asking me how come politics and religion is being mixed? What am I supposed to tell her? Yes it is embarrassing that in this day and age we cannot seem to separate the two and the curia still think it's acceptable to meddle in politics and in the state's affairs.
I am not saying divorce is a good thing, it's distressing and I hope that I never need to use it or go through it myself but I do not know what my future holds so yes I would like the option to be there!!!
Mr M Borg
Apr 16th 2011, 19:25
@ Daniela Attard
There is no need for you to feel sick or embarrassed because you happen to be Maltese.
If you wanted to hear arguments in favour of divorce the procession of Our Lady of Sorrows was not the place to go.You should have stayed at home and watched a film, I am sure there would have been some sort of divorce person in the story.to make you happy.
The church has every right to make its views known. There is no bullying in this.
I am also sure that no one bullied you into going to the procession, so why complain ?
Joseph Vassallo
Apr 16th 2011, 20:26
She went to a procession not to be whitewashed and brainwashed. The church has to promote its cause in the proper forum and proper context not drum up steam at every opportunity to bang its point home. Do I want to go to church knowing that I'll be hearing the same mantra over and over? I think not.
To qualify my point of view, I will state that I have been separated for 25 years and having lived abroad for many years, had the opportunity and means to obtain a divorce but declined to do so. Even after all these years, I still have no intention to divorce but I do not believe that the rest of the population has to be of the same mind as I am, on this subject. Who am I to be impose on you what steps to take to change your life?
I do not believe that individuals' marriages are ordained by God; people choose their spouse and people make mistakes.
Reuben D. Spiteri
Apr 16th 2011, 19:04
I don't think that the pro-divorce movement should bring up the argument of women being abused at home. As I know it for a divorce to be an option a couple must have been married at least four years. I don't really know but I think it takes much less time to kill or drive a person insane, so this whole argument is just empty words.
I think that rather than divorce, what needs to be introduced are better preparation courses for young couples on what marriage means. All they see these days are Hollywood stars divorcing left and right and therefore don't realize that it should be a LIFETIME commitment. The Cana courses mainly specialize on how human reproduction works I think (don't really know as I didn't go). Trust me you folks at Cana movement: the young generation is all too aware on how to get a family going.
Mr Alex Ciantar
Apr 16th 2011, 19:02
The anti divorce movement is claiming it is being bullied whilst they threaten to take legal action ..................now who is really bullying ? it is clear that the anti divorce movement have no arguments to present to resort to hitting below the belt and playing dirty in this manner.
Shame on them all!!!
David Caruana
Apr 16th 2011, 19:42
Now you're talking some sense!
"The anti-divorce movemnet is feeling lost. They have realised that the Maltese people are not stupid. "
lol
Mr M Borg
Apr 16th 2011, 19:00
The anti-divorce movemnet is feeling lost. They have realised that the Maltese people are not stupid. They have now relised that many have not fallen into the trap they laid when they put forward the dishonest loaded question.
A question which is full of guarantees which in reality cannot be guaranteed.
How can anyone, even if this person is in favour of divorce, say that trying to save marriages is not in the common good ?
How can anyone compare the concept of fighting for strong mariages to Nazism?
This form of argument is usually used when someone knows that he/she is fighting a losing battle. Calling your opponent names is the worst form of defence. It just shows that you do not have any solid points to prove your point.But then, we all know that no one can defend something which will change the state of our marriages for ever.
That is why we have to vote no for divorce.
Elaine Compagno
Apr 16th 2011, 19:24
You got one thing right.
The anti-divorce movement IS feeling lost. Lost and devoid of new ideas.
The divorce movement need not have any fancy ideas and excuses. All it needs is to promote common sense and reason - which I hope most people possess.
M Piscopo
Apr 16th 2011, 18:44
Divorce is a minority right. Those who oppose the introduction of a law that makes it possible FOR THE MINORITY WHO NEED IT to obtain a divorce are like those who reason that there is no need to have parking spaces dedicated for handicapped. These idiots don’t use a wheelchair themselves, none of their family members are disabled, and they don’t have any handicapped friends. They don’t give a damn about the suffering and difficulties of others. Anyway, these geniuses argue, "Why should the majority suffer just because there are a few who can’t use their legs properly?" Well, if you think such reasoning is selfish, egocentric, shocking and deplorable, it is just as unfair as those who want to deny a minority whose marriage is irrevocably broken their right to a fresh start.
Elaine Compagno
Apr 16th 2011, 19:18
Also selfish, senseless and simply 'mad'....
Reuben D. Spiteri
Apr 16th 2011, 19:19
I don't think this is quite a good analogy Mr/Ms Piscopo,
Divorce is throwing the dust under the carpet and pretend nothing happened when what you should have done is knowing who you're actually marrying for starters. Unless we're talking about marriages who occur after a couple gets "hit by lightning" only to find afterwards that the tree is burning up, other couples go through practically years of knowing each other before tying the knot, so if you didn't pay attention to what your partner was made of, I'm afraid it's your own fault to an extent.
Helping a disabled person is a humane thing to do; help a fellow out and cut his travel distance and adversities a bit so s/he doesn't suffer as much. Even if the disability was brought upon the person by his ignorance, recklessness or downright stupidity, people get hurt badly in a matter of seconds and are scarred for life literally not knowing what in the world hit them. They didn't have years to mull whether they should have done what caused their disability.
On a final side note, people who had a spouse who hid sensitive information from them get what's called an annulment, which in case you folks don't know, lets one marry again as the first one was not valid as it wasn't based on honesty between the two. On this I will say though that the church doesn't shy away from charging these unfortunate folks obscene fees, as I've heard from an acquaintance of mine who had to fork out some real cash for her case of domestic abuse.
I'd be in favour of faster proceedings and little or no fees in cases of annulment, but divorce I don't.
Michael A. Saliba
Apr 16th 2011, 18:37
It's very ironic, not to say blatantly cheeky, for the Movement against Divorce to accuse the Divorce Movement of bullying, when M.A.D. themselves are pursuing a situation where a majority, or the state, can bully an unfortunate minority into submission and lifetime misery. I'm sorry but the curtailing of individual civil liberties and rights in the name of the "common good" does in fact smack of a far right, or far left, mentality. So the analogy brought up by the Divorce Movement is accurate.
I know, let's withhold antibiotics from all sick people, so that there will be less chance of bacteria becoming resistant to drugs, which surely is for the common good. Or let's reintroduce slavery, so that although a minority will suffer, the majority can live a better life, once more for the common good....
What the M.A.D is advocating is similar. Shame on you.
Mr G Mangion
Apr 16th 2011, 18:35
Le ghad Divorzju f' Malta LE.
inthom ta favur id - divorzju, Tistaw tkunu M' Alla u ma xitan f'stess Hin ?
Li hu Zgur u, li qed tiprovaw thammgu il - Knisja taghna ! rajt Artikolu fuq gazzetta lokali dal - ghodu
bir ritratt ta Ommna Marija uzat ghall din il progabanda/ Krucjata kontra il -knisja
Ahjar teqirdu lil min tellef mat - 3000 vot Godda !! minflokk ................... SA NIVOTA LE GHAD - DVORSJU
BIL QALB BIR RUH U BIL - GISEM
l- Ipokrazija ma taghmilx Gid, DENI BISS.
G. Mangion
Victor Pulis
Apr 17th 2011, 10:54
SA NIVOTA LE GHAD - DVORSJU
BIL QALB BIR RUH U BIL - GISEM
Mr. G Mangion
U jien se nivvota IVA bil MOHH
u xorta vot wiehed se jkollna t-tnejn li ahna.
Mr John Caruana
Apr 16th 2011, 18:15
Ghalkemm jien konvintissmu li d-divorzju huwa ta' hsara kbira lis-socjeta, l-attivisti tal-Moviment favur id-divorzju, bl-atitudni taghhom, aktar qeghdin jikkonvincuni biex nivvota halli d-divorzju ma jidholx f'Malta.
Mr Ali bin abdullah
Apr 16th 2011, 18:01
Divorce may be a solution to few people who went through hard times but as a matter of fact and from the wider perspective, divorce causes more confusion and havoc rather than reducing it, in a society so Malta should be really careful about introducing divorce.
Mr Paul Borg
Apr 16th 2011, 17:53
Anti divorce campaigners are hypocrats, they are being motivated politically, and behind this riteousness is the Church. I was divorced twice, and found happiness with my 20 year old 3rd marriage. I left no victims in my trail and I thank God for the strenght I had to make the absolute correct decisions. If I had a second and third chance, I definetely will not deprive others of making the decision. I wiil vote YES , cause I beleive in a sane and healthy society.
Mr M Borg
Apr 16th 2011, 19:11
@ Paul Borg
How can you say that you left " no victims in my trail " ?
It is very easy for you to say that . However we have to ask your two wives and children, if you had any , to know if they have sufferend because of your actions.
Seeing that yuu are in your third marriage, are you proposing that marriage should be a state you can try, throw away and move to another at will ? Broken marriages do leave victims behind, you know.
No wonder divorce causes so much misery.
Daniela Attard
Apr 16th 2011, 17:13
How about the our lady of sorrows processions being turned into mass anti divorce sessions last nights? Isn't that bullying? Isn't telling someone who is unhappy in their marriage for whatever reason that they have no option also bullying? These people make me sick and embarrassed to say I'm Maltese
Mr Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
Apr 16th 2011, 16:59
Sinjuri Maltin u Għawdxin,
Mhux bulying tkun qed tagħmel meta tgħid li inti kattoliku jew kattolika prattikanti, imma imbgħad tkun qed tgħin u taħdem biex jiġi legalizzat id-divorzju li mhux fil-pjan ta’ Alla l-imbierek?
Għax Alla fil-pjan tiegħu ma daħħalx divorzju, anzi ż-żwieġ fil-pjan t’Alla kien żwieġ bejn mara u raġel fil-ġid u fid-deni fil-mard u fis-saħħa sal-mewt!
Għax jien bħala kattoliku prattikanti nemmen li kieku d-divorzju kien ħaġa tajba , siwja u ta’ ġid għall-bniedem u għall-umanita kollha sħiħa, Alla kien kapaċi bħal ma kien kapaċi f’kollox, li jagħmel pjan bi’ żwieġ bid-divorzju!
Imma Alla li tant iħobbna u jaf x’inhu tajjeb u ħażin għalina l-bnedmin, għamel pjan għalina l-bnedmin biż-żwieġ mingħajr id-divorzju!
U allura mhux bulying huwa dak li tipprova tillegalizza d-divorzju, li mhux u qatt ma kien fil-pjan nobli t’Alla mill-bidu tal-ħolqien?
Mr Malcolm Seychell
Apr 16th 2011, 16:48
dawn tal le, qalu li mara tissawwat ma ghandux dritt ikolla divorzju...... jmissa kull mara msawta itellahom il qorti ukoll. ara vera trid tkun taliban kristjan
Mr Saliba Francis
Apr 16th 2011, 17:22
Il-ligi favur id-divorzju kif proposta ma hix ligi biex tghin lin-nisa msawwta. Dik hi l-iskuza. Il-ligi tippropini divorzju facli lil dawk li ijarrku z-zwieg taghhom u li jfittxu ghazliet ohra minkejja l-effetti hziena fuq it-tfal u s-socjeta'.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Apr 16th 2011, 19:26
Wait a moment, as it is right now, a woman (or man) suffering any form of abuse (physical or mental) and married with the church can apply for annulment and will most probably get it!!
Mr Saliba Francis
Apr 16th 2011, 16:46
Resorting to likening the anti-divorce movement activity to that of the Nazis or of Taliban fundamentalists only exposes the despair of the pro-divorce movement and their inability to persuade by logic.
Mr Gordon Pace
Apr 16th 2011, 16:44
Mela l-mara msawta qed jghidulha biex tibqa msawta, u ghax issa ghax iltaqghu ma "problema" huma qed jibdew jheddu. Mur gibhom qed jissawatu!
Insomma, xejn gdid - do as i say but dont do as I do.
Mr M Vella***
Apr 16th 2011, 16:40
If Malta won't vote yes in this referendum, it will always remain stuck in idiotic Maltese closed extremist traditionalist mentality.We are all going to burnt at the stake by the church ,ONLY the Maltese who will vote against divorce will have a place in heaven. ALL the rest of the world id damned. According to our beloved Maltese church
BEWARE OF THE DEVIL WITH HORNS AND FORK AS WE WILL ALL BE DOOMED TO HELL
Let the people choose on their own free will, I am sure that the majority of the people will vote with their own minds.
Mr charles caruana
Apr 16th 2011, 16:38
Legal action? Of course not, rather the anti-divorce movement should publicly thank the person who displayed such profound, historical expertise in Nazism and such deep intellectual acumen in applying it to the local situation. Of course, some biased minds might attribute the Nazi accusation to a bout of hysteria brought on by shallow thinking and lack of solid arguments. They would be obviously wrong.
In any case, the anti-divorce movement should be thankful, for their work is being done for them. With friends like the one who made the Nazi accusation on their side, the pro-divorce lobby needs no enemies
Mr Marius Zulgis
Apr 16th 2011, 18:06
Events leading up to divorce, such as one spouse beating another, drug-taking etc. are intrinsically evil. How can a marital status, or lack thereof, be "evil"?
Mr Victor Zammit Mckeon
Apr 16th 2011, 16:31
Divorce is instrinsically evil.
Mr Gordon Pace
Apr 16th 2011, 17:02
so is child abuse. The church is is no position to speech what it cant practice.
Mr Kevin J Vella
Apr 16th 2011, 16:31
So, if I remember correctly, there was an argument for discussing the matter with a sense of maturity. I believe the dictionary definition of the word revolves around notions of level headedness, reasoning and a show of respect for the other person's view no matter how opposed it is to one's own. Nowhere in my copy of Webster's does it include such terms as unrestrained mudslinging or cry-baby appeals to human emotion if the other side isn't playing fair or threats to spiritual redemption. Oh, and fair play is reasonably within the definition of maturity. How is it then that both sides are not being mature? How do you expect the people to act maturely if none of our leaders or would-be beacons for public opinion are not acting with a good measure of decorum. Boys and girls of the Church, the movements for Yes, the movements for No, the government and the opposition, now please behave the whole lot of you or there will be no sweets for you and it's bed without TV and dinner. Grow up please and leave the people in peace. You make us all sick!
Mr Edward Camilleri
Apr 16th 2011, 16:30
The Movement against Divorce should stop "bullying" those that want divorce to be introduced, since if divorce is introduced they (those against divorce) will still have the option not to use divorce if they ever need it. However if divorce is not introduced, then those that need Divorce are left with no option!
Therefore those against divorce are out of line and go against democracy and against any rational thinking!
Mr Maria Camilleri
Apr 16th 2011, 16:26
so M.A.D "appealed to all those taking part in the debate to be mature, respect different opinions and stop bullying", however, if you disagree with them and make your views public, they'll sue you.
Erm. Mature. Very Very mature. I am definitely going to vote YES now.. YES to the Common Good and YES to freedom of expression. MAD. just MAD.
Mr Lawrence Fenech
Apr 16th 2011, 16:15
Mela l-ewwel skond id-demokrazija hallejna barra 3,000 vot, wara dahlet Kastija bil-leave galore kontra il kodici tac-civil, wara diehla il-Qorti, issa imiss sentenza kapitali ghal kull min jivvota "IVA" u fadal il-PBS biex taqqad il-borma qiesna dehlin ghat-tielet gwerra mondjali.
Mr Paul Barrett
Apr 16th 2011, 16:02
The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" spring to mind.
Mr David Farrugia
Apr 16th 2011, 15:34
Don't know whether I should laugh or cry. The Movement Against Divorce (MAD) has really hit the bottom this time!
M. Falzon
Apr 16th 2011, 15:21
So they are considering taking legal action against the pro-divorce movement because of the so called "bullying", then they are ready to deprive tens of people who are suffering real bullying in their marriages of taking real action. All this because they embrace "true" Catholic principles.
Mr P Borg
Apr 16th 2011, 15:04
The above article basically translates to: "Waaa Waaa, I want my mommy!!!". For god's sake, grow up you bunch of whiners
Victor Pulis
Apr 16th 2011, 15:03
Where and when is the auto da fe taking place?
Philip Hili
Apr 16th 2011, 14:57
Way back, when the Maltese newspaper "il-Mument" printed a full page photo of "Hitler" and compared to something ( I forgot what was the subject), bothe the editor and the newspaper were fined.
Franco Rizzo
Apr 16th 2011, 14:44
"However, if ethical and moral values were not enough for these people to see reason, it would call on the police commissioner to take legal action, it said."
Erm, who's the bully here?
Mr Marius Zulgis
Apr 16th 2011, 14:31
These people are doing the work of the Pro-Divorce camp. Do carry on you're doing a great job.
Victor Pulis
Apr 16th 2011, 14:31
Touchy, touchy but I suppose every little thing counts in the fight against the evils of divorce. We have already called on divine wrath to bear on the devils of divorce now let's rope in big brother in the form of the law courts.
Mr Carmel J. Caruana
Apr 16th 2011, 14:07
"Movement Against Divorce believed that the concept of the common good had been used for hundreds of years"
So now the anti-divorce movement want to convince us that what they are doing is "for the common good"!! Sorry to disappoint them but the days when they could get people to believe that are gone.
The common good at this moment requires that the country introduces divorce! The common good requires that they dont impose their antiquated beliefs on us all.
Mr Michael Aquilina
Apr 16th 2011, 14:07
@Adrian Cardona
Exactly what I was thinking
Mr Joseph Brincat
Apr 16th 2011, 14:04
The usual reaction from cobwebbed mind who fail to remind their 'faithful' that this is ALL about increasing our civil rights.
(jb)
Mr Mike Abbot
Apr 16th 2011, 13:56
maybe the movement should report the church to the police commissioner then.
Keith Gauci
Apr 16th 2011, 13:55
Dawn biex serjeta tal-Moviment Kontra d-Divorzju?? Semplici huma ma jemmnux fid-drittijiet ta' l-individwu. Ghalihom il-gid komuni jigi qabel id-drittijiet ta lindividwu. U allura ma ghandhomx ghalfejn jiddejqu!!! Ahjar jaraw il-hnizirjiet li saru l-bierah fil-purcissjonijiet tad-duluri.
Mr M Farrugia
Apr 16th 2011, 14:58
his masters voice
Mr M Farrugia
Apr 16th 2011, 15:09
Min qieghed jipprova idaħħal il-Knisja fin-nofs qed jipprova jaqla affarijit minn zniedu jew inkella qed jara it-telfa gejja. L-Arcisqof qal li mhux se jaghmlu krucjati u fil-fatt hekk qed isir. Li l-knisja isemma lehina ma jfissirx li qed issir xi krucjata. Fuq kollox ghand huwa dritt taghha ukoll. Forsi qed tinhema skuża għat-telf li se jgarrab il-Moviment favur id-divorzju.
Mr steve Micalled
Apr 16th 2011, 13:53
I honestly dont see the fuss! there are bigger and more important problems than divorce? Like Unemployment? children gong to school with no lunch? affordable housing? but as in most cases this divorce is for the ones that can afford it! let's face it there s no moral issue? if only the money spent arguing this silly topic was spent on education, unemployment, sustainable & affordable housing not just Villas & Mansions?
Frank Portelli 2BFRANK
Apr 16th 2011, 13:52
However, if ethical and moral values were not enough for these people to see reason, it would call on the police commissioner to take legal action, it said.
Reporting them to the Police Commissioner is "Rather Cool" -- at least according to some friends of mine ----- Joan of Arc , Jacques de Molay, Giordano Bruno.
Dr Frank Portelli
Albert Spiteri
Apr 16th 2011, 13:41
This movement should and must realize that it is judged by what it and its dirigents express themselves. What would one call a person who refuses to acknowledge minority rights and express himself so? What would one call a person who insists that whoever is against his view is in mortal sin and will be subject to eternal infernal punishment? What would one call those, that movement, that uses a public manifestation of the highest level, to dish out what is highly controversial and highly emotive? I would be happy to be so enlightened.
Philip Hili
Apr 16th 2011, 17:30
Dear Mr. Spiteri,
What would you call a person who refuses to acknowledge MAJORITY rights and express himself so?
The pro-divorce people are of the opinion that the minority should oppress the will of the majority and end up with a situation where the minority rules?
Mr Vincent Cassar
Apr 16th 2011, 13:39
This is cheap publicity.
Adrian Cardona
Apr 16th 2011, 13:37
Actually I think it's the Church and these do-gooders that are doing most of the bullying. Just read those pathetic 12 points they published. If threatening people that by not going out to vote it means they don't care about their family and their children is not bullying...then what is?
Mr John Pisani
Apr 16th 2011, 13:13
Dawn tal-Moviment Kontra d-Divorzjubis-serjetà li qed jghidu???? Dawn huma nies professjonali??? Bl-argumenti taghhom il-Moviment tal-IVA ghad-divorzju jistghu ma jaghmlu xejn ghax bl-argumenti li qed jghidu tal-LE qed ikomplu jikkonvincu lill-poplu kollu biex jivvuttaw iIVA. Issa anke daru biex juzaw lill-Knisja fil-puricissjonijiet tad-Duluri li saru lbierah. Ara x'inhu gej fil-Gimgha l-Kbira mela???
Mr Wally Vella-Zarb
Apr 16th 2011, 13:00
These persons actually have the nerve to go to court and complain about "bullying"????? Unbelievable! As I have said before, the Anti-Divorce Movement seems to have more funding than rational arguments.