Ingrid Bianco
No place for ifs and buts
Marriage is indissoluble. This is a fact. This holds good for both civil and religious marriages. In both cases, the parties promise love, understanding, respect, fidelity and trust till death do them part and not till divorce do them part.
I tend to be very categorical when it comes to a lifelong commitment such as marriage. What we have to understand is that marriage is a bilateral contract, which, unlike other contracts, has effects not only on the two parties to it but also on their offspring, on their extended families, on their friends and on society as a whole. There is, thus, in my opinion, no place for ifs and buts.
I find it very hard to understand how people who say they believe in marriage can also say they are in favour of divorce. This, in my humble opinion, is a contradiction in itself. If I knowingly and freely enter into a marriage I am presumed to know all of its obligations and implications – first of which is its indissolubility.
Thus, isn’t it a contradiction if, on the one hand, I am promising “till death do us part” and, on the other hand, I am acknowledging that divorce can bring an end to this promise? Doesn’t this imply the marriage vows are taken lightly and that their real significance is ignored?
So, again I ask, how can one be in favour of marriage but also in favour of divorce? Shouldn’t a person who does not believe in the indissolubility of marriage refrain from marrying? I think it is not only illogical but also dangerous for a person to enter into marriage and promise to love and honour the other party till death do them part while, at the same time, having the “peace of mind” that such promise can be rendered meaningless by opting for divorce.
I am sorry but I am not happy knowing that in 20 years’ time my children will have this option when preparing to set up their own family. I would like my children to enter into marriage knowing this is a lifelong promise, a promise that will bring them tears of joy and tears of sadness but which is interminable. I want them to look at marriage with optimism but also with a sense of sacrifice and humility and faith, faith in God and faith in themselves so they may overcome all the difficulties in their marriage.
Divorce is anything but free from problems of its own. Maybe some of them are obvious and apparent but other underlying problems are seldom mentioned in divorce discussions. What about all those separated parents whose mind is today at rest knowing that their separation contract or court judgment contains those reassuring words: “no third parties are to be present in the presence of the minor”? Have we thought that all this will have to end with the introduction of divorce and consequent second marriages?
And what about those couples who were separated and rediscovered each other and were re-united after maybe five, 10 years of separation; who maybe also had another child to crown their reunion? These situations will become rarer and rarer when divorce and remarriage become possible.
And what about those minor children? Why should they have to endure the break-up of a parent’s second or third marriage? Because that is exactly what will happen – recognising that, just as we may give up on first marriages, we may also give up on any subsequent marriage. That’s what divorce is all about. And second and third marriages will bring about more children who have to go through the trauma of one or multiple parental breakups.
So I ask: Is this what we really want? Is this the society in which young couples planning their marriage and future want to bring up their children? Are these the situations parents wish for their children and grandchildren?
Why not consider the situation in Europe and the United States while we’re still in time? Why are we ignoring the fact that in America half of all American children witness the break-up of their parents’ marriage and half of these also experience the break-up of a parent’s second marriage? That 40 per cent of American children are being brought up without their father? That in neighbouring Italy the divorce rate rose by 74 per cent in 10 years, between 1995 and 2005?
Is this the society we augur to ourselves, our children and our grandchildren? Instead, why don’t we start off by working and thriving to strengthen our families; to help young couples overcome financial difficulties? To support working mothers by creating family-friendly structures and working environments? To speak to our children and teach them that marriage requires patience, respect, unconditional love, commitment and self-sacrifice? To prepare our young couples to be able to find a balance between their conjugal life, their children, their work and their house? To help them use their finances wisely and make do and be thankful for what they have? To tell them that marriage is fun, self-fulfilling and rewarding? And, most importantly, we need to set the example.
Wouldn’t this joint effort provide much better results than an easy-out option? Yes, with no ifs or buts.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
49 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mrs Elizabeth Sammut
Apr 28th 2011, 20:30
Can someone please tell me whether the Church in Malta has broken away from Rome and set up its own sect with its own set of rules? I have always been and still am a practicing Catholic. Fourteen years ago I separated from my husband after a marriage of 30 years. When I approached my parish priest to discuss annulment I was advised that I should file for divorce as soon as possible because the Church will not issue an annulment if there was no legal divorce. My priest also told me that if I was divorced I will still be welcomed in the Church and that I will still be able to participate in The Holy Eucharist. Speaking from experience, more irreparable damage is done to children raised in dysfunctional and abusive two parent families than to children of divorce. Furthermore there are many devout and divorced Catholics worldwide. The Catholic Church, here in Canada, ministers to separated and divorced Catholics with compassion and love not
condemnation. I did get divorced and eventually did get an annulment. I am not and have never been evil and the only evil in my life was when I was in a marriage that had no hope of repair. The God that I always believed in did not want that life for me. Also I would like to say to Joe Zammit that according to your posts you come across as a demented fanatic maniac very comparable to the Taliban. Take a pill.
Mr David Farrugia
Apr 27th 2011, 20:21
Probably this lady never experienced being beaten black and blue by a husband who occasionally wanders in search of other female partners.
When a couple is separated, when a marriage has irrevocably failed, it stops there. The marriage is no more. If there is no love, there can be no marriage. End of story.
Mr Alex Buds
Apr 27th 2011, 19:24
Joe Zammit: you are clearly not some poor woman with an abusing husband beating the pulp out of her and terrorizing the children.
Go tell that poor woman that divorce is negative, so it is not her right. Go tell her it would not be positive for her. Go tell her she is evil for even thinking about it. Go.
Carima Achokwu Magdi
Apr 27th 2011, 18:57
This is what Ms Ingrid Bianco thinks but what about what passes through other people's minds?
I for one do not agree with her.
Example: I am happily married and do not want to separate or divorce but there is another couple who is not doing well and after trying and retrying they didn't succeed to make things work.
Who am I to decide for them that after they separate they should remain like this and not have an opportunity later on in life (if they want it) to find someone who will love them once again just cause I am comfortable and happily married?
No one enters in a marriage thinking "U iva, mhux there is separation!!?" so even if divorce is introduced no one will enter in a marriage thinking "U iva there is divorce!!" otherwise they will not enter a marriage in the first place. Everyone enters in a marriage thinking that the person he/she is marrying are the love of their lives. No one knows what the future holds and how a marriage can break.
She mentioned that ...."What about all those separated parents whose mind is today at rest knowing that their separation contract or court judgment contains those reassuring words: “no third parties are to be present in the presence of the minor”? Have we thought that all this will have to end with the introduction of divorce and consequent second marriages?"
The court says so but I do not believe that a lot abide by it (which I do not blame seeing how things are at the moment). Still people are having partners and live with their partners just cause they cannot get married since the law says so. In a way there is much more instability this way than if they were permitted to get married and live as a family.
She even said..."And what about those couples who were separated and rediscovered each other and were re-united after maybe five, 10 years of separation; who maybe also had another child to crown their reunion? These situations will become rarer and rarer when divorce and remarriage become possible."
To this I say have faith in God cause if it is meant to happen it will happen just the same. No one knows what the future holds for us.
In the last paragraph Ms Ingrid said that instead we should thrive to strengthen our families; to help young couples overcome financial difficulties...etc...etc..
Can't we do that all the same without taking the right of unhappily married couples to divorce and continue with their lives?
Actually I wonder why these ideas are spoken now and no steps have been taken before to make these ideas turn into reality.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 27th 2011, 16:36
Rights are positive. Divorce is negative, so it is no right. Rights entail duties. Divorce entails no duty (not even to remarry), so it is no right.
The European Convention on Human Rights is reticent on divorce, so divorce is no right.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is mum on divorce, so divorce is no right.
Therefore, any argument depicting divorce as a right in view of introducing it in our legislation is flawed right at the start.
No MP, no person can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. Christ tells all our MPs, all voters that what God has joined together let no MP, no voter put asunder. Any MP, any voter who votes for divorce is betraying Christ.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Mr Alex Buds
Apr 27th 2011, 03:33
(1) Divorce is a basic human right. No ifs and buts about that.
(2) Basic human rights should never be subject to referenda, since human rights owed to a minority could be sometimes undesirable to a majority. No ifs and buts about that either.
Mr Paul Barrett
Apr 27th 2011, 01:17
Yet another head in the sand opinion which tries to blame divorce legislation for all the evils in the world.
Divorce legislation approved or not, will not prevent the increase of marriage breakdown, cohabitation and individuals who decide that they are not prepared to commit themselves in marriage.
That divorce legislation may allow one the opportunity to rebuild a family unit recognised by law following a period of legal separation is in the interests of society as a whole. Everything else sprouted regarding divorce is absolutely total garbage being given out by people who have been brainwashed from birth or just have not the ability to see common sense.
Mr John Cassar
Apr 26th 2011, 22:10
This is probably my last post on this site as my very valid comment shared by others never gets published. My feelings represent fair comment and are shared by others but are always censored when I constructively criticize what I perceive as a major imbalance.
Why is it that it seems like only anti-divorce opinions are being aired on the TImes? Every two days it's anti-divorce, anti-divorce, anti-divorce by people we never heard of.
I used to have an issue with a one sided Xandir Malta many many years ago but in 2011, this is somewhat ridiculous.
Gerry Cowie
Apr 26th 2011, 20:18
Perhaps Ingrid Bianco might like to answer the points made below. My assumption is that she is expressing an opinion based on an ideal which most of us share.
Nobody in their right mind would wish marriages to fail, and there are lasting marriages for both those who are, were once, or are not of any religious persuasion, which has to be applauded.
Regrettable, society has gradually been eroded by secularism and humanism, which have stuck their oars in mainly in their desperate attempt to deny God's existence and His connection with any of His creation.
Whether one regards this issue as strictly religious or strictly secular, or even both, I for one have particular concerns about consistently violent partners in a marriage. What is Ingrid's solution here, I wonder?
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 26th 2011, 19:40
In marriage there is love; in divorce there is and there cannot be love.
In marriage the spouses declare that they love each other. So in marriage there is love. This love must be maintained for ever. If anyone fails, the marriage does not fail. The failing spouse is obliged before God to restore his failing love. Even if this is not obtained, marriage remains for ever. Divorce has absolutely no place in marriage.
Spouses solemnly declare that they are taking each other for life. That vow cannot be revoked.
Pro-divorce people should be ashamed of trying (in vain!) to render marriage cohabitation. A marriage with the possibility of divorce is cohabitation.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Pro-divorce people are waging a lost battle. Time will tell!
Mr Joseph Calleja
Apr 26th 2011, 18:10
" So, again I ask, how can one be in favour of marriage but also in favour of divorce? " Ms Bianco for the same reason that one can be in favour of marriage and in favour of annulment ". They both dissolve a marriage, one and the same. The church is very much aware that marriages sometimes fail and in your studies you should have come to that same conclusion. That is why the church condones annulment but I'm sorry to say, annulments cost a lot of money and most of us don't have it. Maybe you are not familiar with annulments issued and controlled by the church. Annulments go even further than divorce because an annulment erases any earlier signs of marriage, you know " What God put together, let no man put asunder?" Why is it that the church can ignore those vows when it comes to annulments? How convenient is that? No Ms Bianco, an annulment is a divorce, so that creates your ifs and buts.
George Debono
Apr 26th 2011, 17:36
“””No place for ifs and buts””” - The titles sums it up.
Faced with a battered wife, it might go something like this: --- “Sorry, Mrs So-and-so but there are no ifs and buts, marriage is for ever. if you have a violent husband who repeatedly beats you up, it is your problem – you have to stick with your violent ( alcohol-abusing, etc…) husband because marriage is indissoluble and this is a fact. Tell your husband that he promised love, understanding, respect, fidelity and trust till death do you part and not till divorce do you part.”
And so on and on ------- . Ms Bianco your entire piece is sanctimonious nonsense. It is totally lacking in compassion and has no bearing on the true reality faced by many unfortunate couples. It is detached from reality,
You need to work with some social cases and you might get real and see things from another perspective.
Mr Marco Cremona
Apr 26th 2011, 15:10
It seems the author of this piece is living in cloud cuckoo land (i.e. in a world of fantasy) and is completely detached from reality and I only need to quote her to prove my point:
She says "What about all those separated parents whose mind is today at rest knowing that their separation contract or court judgment contains those reassuring words: “no third parties are to be present in the presence of the minor”?" and
"And what about those couples who were separated and rediscovered each other and were re-united after maybe five, 10 years of separation; who maybe also had another child to crown their reunion?"
Any further comment is superfluous.
Mr James Grech
Apr 26th 2011, 14:55
@Joe Zammit
What twisted comments are you posting? From where did you get this logic that you're using? "In divorce there is no love. Therefore, in divorce there is no marriage". What a load of puking statements? Not one of your comments actually takes into consideration marriages that have broken up. Can you tell us what is the solution for these marriages? Cause it is easy for to condemn and to cry devil and hell, but those people (adults an children) that are already living in hell due to such broken marriages, need a solution. Remember what Jesus said: "those of you without sin, cast the first stone". Where do you stand?
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 26th 2011, 11:44
Where there is no love there is no marriage.
In divorce there is no love.
Therefore, in divorce there is no marriage.
How can you expect love out of an evil like divorce? Christ himself, who knows more than us tells us that divorce is to our detriment. Christ tells us that after divorce, the next marriage will be adultery. How can there be love in adultery when the couple will be living in sin, separated from God and on the path to hell? This is hatred not love.
Such a life will please only the devil who hates us. God does not want divorce for our own good.
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 14:49
"In divorce there is no love.
Therefore, in divorce there is no marriage."
Exactly - when one resorts to divorce there is no marriage. That is why one resorts to divorce - to make the non-marriage an official fact!
Amanda Bennetti
Apr 26th 2011, 15:02
Well put Mr Zammit
"Where there is no love there is no marriage" , therefore if the love no longer exists then neither does the marriage
Mr Joseph Calleja
Apr 26th 2011, 18:16
Divorce is:
A solution for all those who fall under domestic violence.
A solution for those who are mentally and physically abused.
A solution for those spouses who are cheated on day after day.(Adultery)
A solution for those who cannot bare to see their children physically and mentally abused by the other spouse
A solution for those who see their spouse come home drunk and reek the smell of another woman/man.
A solution for those whose marriage has already failed.
ANNULMENT=DIVORCE. One and the same
Divorce is not a disease like you would like everybody to think it is, but a cure for a failed. marriage which has no other recourse. Divorce is only there for those who need it. Divorce is a human right which should be afforded to all
Mr John Doe
Apr 26th 2011, 19:36
Its my personal opinion that a responsible adult should accept the inalienable truth that he/she is neither perfect , nor has the power to control all situations in his/her life. Consequently while no body enters a marriage thinking or wanting to get divorced annulled or separated I don't think those that wish to prepare for the worst case scenario should be deprived of the right to the level of intimacy that only marriage can bring you.
Divorce is a democratic right, that should not be isolated due to the main belief systems that are in place. Minority rights and separation of church and state were two of the biggest issues that triggered the French revolution and the birth of modern democracy and even the notion of having to vote on this issue puts us, as a country hundreds of years back.
Mr M Vella***
Apr 26th 2011, 11:18
Were there is no love there is no marriage, whether divorced or not.,Not every body is lucky to have a strong, faithful marriage,for those who their marriage failed it is better to divorce and marry again then to cohabit.If you are happy in your relationship, don't interfere in others, remember it might happen to you!!
.Don't cohabit but marry so vote YES FOR DIVORCE.
Henry S. Pace
Apr 26th 2011, 11:08
Well said , Ms Bianco you have exposed the argument with perfection. Some time ago I urged Joe Azzopardi of Xarabank and Emanuel Micallef of Favourite channel to do respective programmes on Divorced/separated couples and children. I urged both presenters to bring forward children of cohabiting parents to voice their frustration in these matters. Children seeing their parents sleeping with other partners in their homes really hurts them and is a great frustration.
I also suggested that these children should be under the guidance of the Commissioner of Children in such programmes. However, neither Joe Azzopardi nor Manwel Micallef did ever present such a programme. It looks quite obvious to think and ponder.
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 11:18
Mr. Pace the situation you are describing already exists with co-habitation after legal separations of Church annulments!
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 26th 2011, 11:02
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.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Mr William Flynn
Apr 26th 2011, 11:44
The comedy in all this is that there are men, who have kept their distance from the opposite sex and retained their virginity through middle and into old age, who belong to organizations that demand celibacy (like Catholic priesthood and M.U.S.E.U.M.) and who insist on telling grown adults how to live and giving them gratuitous sexual and marital advice according to a book of doubtful origin, full of nonsense that does not pass scientific scrutiny.
To top it all, the present religious furore concerns the particular topic of divorce. Perplexingly, other religious men, including Christians, consulting the same old book, and quoting the same verses, accept as a valid way to end an irreconcilable marriage in order to give people new hope in a new one.
Divorce legislation is a secular matter, nothing to do with religious beliefs, it will not be compulsory and therefore will not affect those who don’t wish to have anything to do with divorce it for all types of reasons – including religious ones.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 26th 2011, 11:00
The two characteristics of marriage are Unity and Indissolubility. By Unity we mean one man and one woman. In case of more than one woman (bigamy) or more than one man (polyandry) there is no Unity.
The Catholic Church has not invented marriage. Marriage has been created by God in creating human beings males and females. This was from the beginning. Christ's words on marriage apply to all people, Catholics and non-Catholics. So, in every valid marriage, independently if it is celebrated in a religious way or not, it is God who is joining two together. And no human person has the power, let alone the right, to put asunder what God has joined together.
The formula: Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation applies to all marriages. With divorce there are no marriages but cohabitations because when they want, all couples can divorce and enter another fake dissoluble marriage. Of course, those intending to keep married until death consider their marital union as marriage and understandably they do so correctly.
I'm following the Pro-divorce movement arguments and to date they have not proffered one single valid argument in favour of divorce. They are just deceiving themselves, starting from their ludicrous logo.
Either Marriage or divorce!!
Mr Joseph Calleja
Apr 26th 2011, 18:24
Mr Zammit, here is one valid argument after you give me one valid argument about annulment. See Mr Z annulment =divorce and nothing else. The only difference is that the government of Malta sanctions annulments because the church tells it to do so, even though annulment and divorce are one and the same with different interpretations by the government. If the government sanctions annulment then it should also sanction divorce which is one and the same. We are not that gullible to believe otherwise.
Mr William Flynn
Apr 26th 2011, 10:56
Settle down Ingrid Bianco. Divorce is never going to be compulsory on you or on your children. No one will even suggest it or advertise it to you or them. It will likely not happen to you or your children; it will be available only in case of irreconcilable differences and as a last resort. No one likes divorce but sometimes it's the only option; like an imputation.
I have lived 45 years, all my married life, in a country where either I or my wife need no reason to obtain a divorce. We're still married. There are millions in the same position.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 26th 2011, 11:05
Christ was clear 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).
Divorce is 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”
On July 13, 1917 the Virgin Mary told the three children of Fatima that “many go to hell on account of the sins of the flesh”. Among the sins of the flesh there is adultery. Padre Pio had regular mystical contacts with God, saints, angels and devils, and used to say that "divorce is a passport to hell".
Divorce leads to hell because it transgresses God’s categorical law on marriage, namely indissolubility. Divorce purports to do what it cannot do, namely to dissolve a valid marriage.
Let no one try to deceive God by planning to live in sin and die in grace. Such a plan will be the devil’s snare. You die as you live!
Mr M Vella***
Apr 26th 2011, 11:21
@Joe Zammit,if there was no excommunication for paedophile priest why should there be for others trying to sort out heir lives.
Alla biss jista jiggudika, u min jiggudika ikun iggudikitat.
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 10:25
@Mr. Vella:
1. re Jesus not against divorce, read the following study by Fr. Mark Montebello:
http://markmontebello.blogspot.com/2009/07/ghaliex-il-knisja-hija-kontra-d.html?spref=fb
...and on the fact that love is giving and not taking - well that might be love in general but in marriage it has to be "give" from both sides - otherwise you are talking about martyrs not married couples.
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 10:32
@MR Vella - just copy and paste the address I posted above for your - You cannot siply click on it.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 26th 2011, 11:13
Mark Montebello mhux il-Knisja Kattolika!! Il-poplu Malti jisma' mill-Knisja Kattolika u mhux iblah jisma' minn Mark Montebello!!!
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 11:17
Mr. Joe Zammit - Fr. Mark Montebello huwa presbiteru li jirraprezent il-Knisja Kattolika. Huwa persuna li studjat u ghamlet ir-ricerka li inti zgur m'ghamiltx! Iblah min jirrepeti bhal pappagall bla ma jkun studja. Bir-rispett kollu Mr. Zammit imma kapaci naccetta hafna aktar dak li jghid Fr. Mark Montebelli milli tghid inti. Grazzi tal-kompliment veru Kristjan li ghamiltli.
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 13:28
I did not say that the give should be one-sided. What I said was that the attitude should be one of give and give and not expecting anything back. That is love. Giving and expecting something back is commerce.
Of course it follows that since the couple enter the bond of marriage through love they should both have this attitude, if love is real. If both go into marriage with the notion, give and give, each one of them will be getting something in return. The difference lies in the fact that they should not expect that return. And when differences crop up, which they do, I kinow, I have been married for 45 years, the only solution open to love, REAL LOVE, is forgiveness and not divorce.
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 14:19
I thought that I asked you to quote Jesus, not Fr. Mark Montebello.
In that blog you find his personal interpretation, contradicted by other biblical scholars.
http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 14:48
Mr Vella. I quoted Fr. Montebello because he did the research, the conclusions of which I find satisfying and convincing enough. Should you feel that what he says is wrong maybe you should reply to him in his blog as others did so that people like me can be illuminated. That is how people learn and that would be sane discussion. Obviously Fr. Montebello does quote Jesus in his study and even tells us the right context in which those words were uttered - something many keep failing to notice!
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 14:52
Mr. Vella if there is give from both sides then it is a give and take situation. As I said earlier - nobody would ever go into a marriage knowing that it would just give and no take. Your comparison with commerce is erratic in this discussion as we all know what we are tackling here. When one is in a marriage which has ended it is either that nobody is giving love or just one is giving love and the other only receiving, if not even hurting the other partner. That is not a marriage anymore. With your same arguments Mr. Vella then we should also abolish annullments!
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 15:07
Mr. Vella - your link - http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html - if anything, confirms that the exception clause exists.
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 17:53
Of course it exists! The contention is not whether the exception clause exists or not but on its interprtation; whether Fr Mark is right or other biblical scholars. I suggest you read :
http://www.ndtime.net/exception_clause_matthew_19_explained.htm
or The Jerome Biblical Commentary, New Testament page 96 par 132
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 19:06
Mr. Vella I don't think Fr. Montebello got his conclusions from limbo! Why don't you counter argue what he says by adding a comment in his blog. He will reply back. It is a way for us to learn more on the subject. A good discussion is always sane.
Mr Joseph Calleja
Apr 26th 2011, 19:06
@ Mr Joe Zammit
Joe Zamit mhux il-Knisja Kattolika!! Il-poplu Malti jisma' mill-Knisja Kattolika u mhux iblah jisma' minn Joe Zammit ! Din taqbel mahha Mr Z. Ix-xafra taqta min-naha tat-tnejn. Tghidx hmerijiet.
@ Tommy Vella
" And when differences crop up, which they do, I kinow, I have been married for 48 years, the only solution open to love, REAL LOVE, is forgiveness and don't forget to say Yes Dear whenever possible. Nobody gets married with the intention of divorcing but sometimes marriages fail. Mr Vella you and know how hard it is to keep a marriage going, a lot, and I mean a lot of give and take and sometimes even that is not enough. I don't want a divorce but who am I to stop others from getting one? We stay married because we choose to stay married not because someone else tells us too.
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 19:15
Mr. Vella - the link you posted takes for granted that "pornea" should be translated to "fornication". Taking such things for granted when they are contested so heavily by scolarly clerics is not very convincing to me. Moreover - why would one talk of Divorce when the bethroted couple were not yet really married? One talks of divorce only with regards to marriage not bethrotal! (engagement as in the times of Jesus).
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 21:04
Mr Micallef, I am a Catholic. When faced with conflicting interpretations I obviously will take the official one. Only the church has the magisterium to teach, not individual priests. Let Fr. Mark's assertion pass the test of catholicity and then maybe I will subscribe to it but till then it's the universal church's voice that I will pay heed to. Jesus told us: "Let the person who has ears hear" (Mt 11,14).
I rest my case.
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 21:47
@ Joseph Calleja
So, in order to fix a crumbling wall I shake or remove the foundations of the whole house. A very clever ploy!
Mr Matthew Grima
Apr 27th 2011, 16:49
Do you keep patching the wall here and there to cover up the actual mess?
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 09:04
"I find it very hard to understand how people who say they believe in marriage can also say they are in favour of divorce." - A simple answer to a simple question....because we are humans not robots. Secondly, you might not be aware of this - but Jesus was not against Divorce neither - only the Church is against it but not its founder!
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 09:30
If we are humans then that means that we can really love. The pity in marriages to-day is that people think that the relationship in marriage is give and take, as in any other business concern. I give you my service and you pay me back. What a wonderful thing marriage would be if we enter it with the mentality that where there is love there is no taking, it's just give and give. And giving when the other is ungrateful is the epitome of love, the same way that Jesus loved us. And that was his commandament, "Love each other as I have loved you". Of course this isn't true just for marriage it is true for any kind of love but marriage is the height of love where the couple give up everything and everyone else for the one that they love.
Could you please quote where jesus said that he was not against divorce?
Before anyone else comments that this is true for Christian marriages and not for those who do not believe, marriages of believers and non-believers are both based on love.
Peter Galea
Apr 26th 2011, 10:26
Why do all those against divorce not mind their own buisness. What a cheek they want to impose and dictate what others do. No one will force them to divorce but they want others not to divorce. They twist facts and forecast immaginary stories because of divorce like a holy prophets. They are against divorce but not against cohibiting, seperation and of course not against annulment. They say that children will suffer as if these couples have no hearth to love. Do children of properly maried couples not suffer when they see their parents fighting and abandon them. Those who vote against divorce make a big sin.
Mr Joseph Micallef
Apr 26th 2011, 10:49
"Of course this isn't true just for marriage it is true for any kind of love but marriage is the height of love where the couple give up everything and everyone else for the one that they love." - with divorce we are dealing with a situation where "the one that they love" is no longer so ie, the love has died. Having said that, in marriage there must also be what's called chemistry, compatibility, and even romance (even though many might believe that romance is simply fairytale stuff - which it isn't). Reducing marriage to a sacrificial love situtation is not doing anybody any good. Nobody would resort to get married with the pre-supposition that it will be a one way deal!