Catholics for Divorce urge yes vote
In the forthcoming referendum on divorce, it is only a 'yes' vote which warrants the absolute respect for the dignity and rights of persons, and the recognition and respect for their legitimate rights, the Catholics for Divorce group said.
The group said that the referendum is not about giving or denying moral or religious legitimacy to divorce. It is about accepting or refusing whether the State will continue to have a right to impose a particular morality on the whole population irrespective whether its citizens are Catholic or not.
"Whether Catholics stand in favour or against divorce as such is beside the point.
"We consider it deceitful for our Catholic brothers and sisters to present the referendum issue in this way, thus misleading many a conscientious Catholic.
"Though we, as Catholics, may be a million times against divorce, never once can we be in favour of a state imposing the will, beliefs and practices of one particular creed, be it Catholic or not, on citizens who do not share that faith. It is for this reason that our duty, as Catholics, is to vote 'yes' in the forthcoming referendum.
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...
115 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Fred Forrett
May 26th 2011, 17:59
Let me clarify the statistic: Currently 25% of U.S. children are in a single parent home. Between 40% and 50% of children at some point of their childhood will be in a single parent home.
Single parents will bring home a boyfriend or a girlfriend, that’s why at any given moment it can drop to 25% Many times these people brought home are abusive to the children that are there. I know this from personal experience and public statistics.
You can confirm these stats online.
It IS a related stat that young people don’t even bother getting married anymore and that the HPV infection rate is 25% for teenagers. (Believe it or not, sex outside of marriage is one of the products of not upholding marriage.)
I live here and I worry for my children. I wish they could be more a part of the world, but the world has gone crazy.
When Gay marriage was legalized in Canada, proponents argued that it would not lead to polygamy. Well they’re considering polygamy now. Proponents of polygamy say it will not lead to bestiality; but crime reporting and statistics now show the upward trend.
I AM CERTAIN Malta is looking at a Pandora’s box.
Ms D Galea
May 21st 2011, 20:17
You cannot be a Catholic AND in favour of divorce.
Mr A Cardona
May 21st 2011, 09:43
If true love exists between 2 persons no matter what exists in this world would divide them apart. There is no perfect relationship or friendship. Quarrels and trouble have and will always exist. Life is like that... up and down.
Love is made up of respect, trust and communication. Destroy one of these pillars and eventually the relationship will collapse. Unluckily there are those who get married and things end up really bad however as we all know the majority do not. Divorce is not going to change the happy marriages.
Personally i do not agree with divorce BUT as the law is that a divorce is recognized from abroad is pure hypocrisy. Its either accepted or not from everywhere. It is the politicians who created such a situation (as usual). The church is doing its duty.... the Bible says NO.We lack people like Mgr. Grech. He is a man of honor. He is not a chicken and said the plain truth in what he BELIEVES in. Likewise is Mr. JPO. Love them or hate them few are the ones who have the courage they have.
Just do whatever YOU believe in. Just do NOT do one thing ... Stay at home and let others decide for you.
Claire Apap
May 20th 2011, 20:46
What I find really funny is how people have made it a fact that young people will vote yes for divorce and older people will vote no. I am 20 years old and do not agree that divorce should pass for couples who are also married with the Church. I have been married to my husband for over a year and if I did think I would divorce him (for ANY reason) I would only marry him civially not religiously. The only reasons worth leaving a person one can get an annulment which averages 3-7 years so get and divorce will still take 5- 7 years so I think this is only a reason for people who do not want or do not feel the need to work on their marriage, because marriage is constant, but rewarding work. I believe that if this idea that marriage is all pretty and rosy would be replaced by the idea that we have to work hard to please our partner and ultimetely ourselves we would have many more successfull marriages. I know some people will not agree with me, but the beauty of democracy is I can still say what I feel about this subject. I hope people will think before they vote. You do not NEED to vote for what other feel. They have their vote you have yours. Believe what your values and morals tell you, not what other peoples' values and morals tell them .
Ms Rudi Mcbeal
May 20th 2011, 23:54
Right on, Claire. Good to see young people like yourself who commit with such maturity and responsibility. Divorce, in the way how it is being proposed will in NO WAY be beneficial for the country in general. If the IVA camp really had that minority who are really suffering at heart they would have at least proposed something completely different.
In my opinion the arguments that the IVA camp are coming up with are pathetic - on the other hand the NO camp are spot on and they know exactly what they are talking about, especially when they mention what the situations in countries where divorce is legal, I can put my hand on my heart and say that they are correct.
I wish you a very long, happy married life.
Mr Joseph Borg
May 21st 2011, 11:30
Jiena Clair nirrispetta l-opinjni tieghek personali li inti kontra d-divorzju u ghalekk jidhol u ma jidholx id-divorzju jekk il-quddiem tista tigi bzonnu tista ma tuzahx, pero li jixxokjani huwa li bil-vot tieghek kontra dhul tad-divorzju qed timponi fuq haddiehor li jiddivorzja meta jista jkollu bzonnu.Jiena tal-faccata tieghi jista jizzewweg b`ghoxrin sagrament, dik affari tieghu pero dak ma ghandu ebda dritt jimponi fuqi xìnhu tajjeb ghalija.Ghalek naqbel li pazzizna bhal kull pajjiz iehor fid-dinja (barra l-Filippini fejn ghadhom isalbu n-nies fuq is-slaleb u jifflagellaw lilhom innifishom) ghandu jkollu qafas ta`ligi responsabli tad-divorzju.Id-drittijiet fundamentali tieghi ma`humiex inqas minn ta`kul cittadin iehor dinji. Ma naf bl-ebd pajjiz fid-dinja li dahhal id-divorzju u wara irrejalizza li ghamel zball u rega nehhieh.Emendaw il-ligi biex itejbuha iva imma li nehhewh le.
Gerry Cowie
May 20th 2011, 20:05
The Yes movement continues to make itself the best weapon of the No movement by miles! Their campaign - apart from Catholics for Divorce - is spent attacking the Church and the Curia in a most unconstructive and disingenuous way.
Would Paul Barrett please give absolute proof of the so-called financial motives of the Church which he mentions below? I have just GOT to see this!
Mr Guido Farrugia
May 20th 2011, 20:24
According to earlier posts by your goodself it's none of your business..... so be it.
Mr andreas bone
May 21st 2011, 04:06
@gerry cowie
seriously, its really a no brainer to come to the conclusion that this makes part of the church's agenda.
Mr Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
May 20th 2011, 18:53
Sinjuri Maltin u Għawdxin,
Jiena nemmen li meta Alla ħoloq id-dinja u kull ma jinsab fiha, inklużi aħna l-bnedmin, ma ħalaqiex għall-insara biss, imma għal-ġenerazzjonijiet kollha preżenti u futuri!
U meta Alla għamel il-pjan qaddis tiegħu mingħajr il-moda tad-divorzju, ma għamlux għall-insara biss, imma għamlu wkoll għall ġenerazzjonijiet kollha peżenti u futuri!
Id-divorzju ħolqu l-bniedem b’suppervja, li ħadha kontra l-Pjan u l-kelma t’Alla!
Għax id-divorzju jimmina u jeqred il-valuri ta’ l-għaqda taż-żwieġ dejjiemi u tal-familja b’saħħitha Maltija!
Kull bniedem f’din id-dinja, xi’ darba meta jmut bilfors irid imur jagħmel il-kontijiet mal-Mulej, u dan il-Mulej żgur ser issaqsiena.
Inti kont taf li l-pjan tiegħi jien għamiltu mingħajr id-divorzju għall kull persuna fid-dinja kollha, għax-id-divorzju hu ħażin għall kull bniedem?
Aħna x’ser nirrispondu!
Ngħidulu għax f’ Malta għandna lill ta’ l-IVA, u qalulna li din il-liġi tad-divorzju m’għandiex x’taqsam mar-reliġjon, din hija liġi ċivili, u f’Malta biss ma teżistiex!
Il-Mulejj nistħajlu jgħidilna, għaliex ksirtuli kelmti, għaliex ħarbattuli l-pjan qaddis tiegħi li għamilt b’imħabba kbira għalikom u għall-uliedkom!
X’mistħija taqa fuqna, l-art tiblana inkunu nixtiequ, imma żgur issa ma nkunu nistgħu nagħmlu xejn!
Bis-suppervja tagħna l-ħsara nkunu wettaqnija, lill Mulej inkunu sfidajnieħ, inkunu weġġajnieħ bil-kbir, sa kasbarnieħ bla qies, meta morna nivvutaw IVA favur id-divorzju!
Ngħidulu lill-Mulej, Daħqu bina dawk ta’ l-IVA , dawk li smajna minnhom!
Dik l-iskuża biss nistgħu ngħidulu lill Mulej, għax imbgħad ikun tard wisq!
Mhux għalhek biex ikollok kuxjenza infurmata u nadifa kif ser tivvota, bilfors trid tikkonsulta ruħek ma’ dak li għamel u ma’ dak li ma għamilx Alla!
Nikkunsultaw ruħna ma’ dak li qal u li jridna u jippretendi li nagħmlu Alla l-imbierek!
Mela allura ħabieb, aħsiba sewwa, ikkonsulta ruħek sewwa mall-kelma t’ Alla, u tħalli lill ħadd jidħaq bik, ftakar dejjem fi’ kliem il-Mulej u dak li jried minnek, għamel dmirek u mur ivvota LE, għall-uliedek u għall-pajjiżek kif irid Alla sidek!
Mr Raymond S. Vella
May 20th 2011, 19:16
Skuzani ta, nixtieq nghamel kif ghidt int pero ninsab ftit imfixkel. X'tixtieq ezatt int? li "nahsibha sewwa u nikkonsolta ruhi" jew "immur nivvota le"?
Zgur fhimtek hazin, ghal bhal donnu l-ewwel fhimt li qed ittini ghazla biex noqghod attent u nikkonsulta u ninforma l-kuxjenza, imbaghad qisek kont ga taf li tridni nivvota LE.
Nghid jien ma stajtx ghidtli mal ewwel li dak li temmen int hu l-verita u allura nikkonsulta jew ma nikkonsultax, ghandi nivvota LE? Mhux hekk is soltu nghamlu ahna, li nemmnu fih ahna hu l-vangelu u allura nistghu niggudikaw lil haddiehor kemm irridu?
Kemm hu difficli hux li min ma jahsibix bhalna u jhalli lil min (dawk tal iva) jidhaq bih jidhol il genna eh. Imma forsi jekk nghidulu li dahqu bina, jaf ihenn ghalina wkoll, dejjem jekk ma jghidlix li dawk li jridu dejjem il koabitazzjoni kienu fethuli ghajnejja kemm il darba u jien bqajt ma smajtx minnhom :(
Ms Lina CARUANA
May 20th 2011, 18:52
@Mike Rizzo
but first you must see the difference between imposing divorce upon others on the pretence of being a Catholic when one is not abiding by Catholic guidelines. That is not correct because it is an imposition placed on a half truth.What do these want, splitting hairlines to justify legally as if religious morality is peddled by human wisdom and not by God's judgement! Why do they want to bring in Catholicism if they are saying they want a secular treatment. This is material for the vulnerable.
Mr Mike Rizzo
May 20th 2011, 19:20
Nobody is imposing divorce on anyone. Giving people a choice is not an imposition. Denying them a choice is an imposition.
"Why do they want to bring in Catholicism if they are saying they want a secular treatment?"
Simple. Because they recognise that their belief in God is not shared by everybody, and this needs to be respected. They want to show that there are tolerant Catholics out there who respect the rights of others who have different beliefs.
Mr Geoff Gibson
May 20th 2011, 17:56
Vote 'Yes' and you give everyone in the island the CHOICE to obtain a divorce. Catholics are still free to choose to maintain their marriage and never divorce. By voting 'Yes' you give the freedom to non-Catholics (or Catholics in problem marriages) the chance to start again.
Vote 'No' and all you are doing is imposing religious beliefs on the entire population, a good percentage of which are not Catholic. That just sounds like a dictatorship.
My honest feeling? There are several in the 'No' camp who are scared that if divorce is made legal, their partners will take the opportunity to finally leave them because they are already unhappy. They hope by keeping divorce at bay, they don't have to face the fact their own marriages are in tatters.
(and before anyone jumps down my throat, I didn't say EVERYONE in the 'No' camp is voting for this reason)
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 22:24
@Geoff Gibson.
No true Catholic can offer to anyone, Christian or not, the choice of divorcing or abstaining from divorce. Genuine, informed Catholics know that Christ forbade divorce for everyone and that universal prohibition stood from the beginning of time.
Mr M Borg
May 20th 2011, 17:09
@ Marthese Vella
" Practicing Catholic and will vote Yes. My religion gives me guidelines on how I should live, but it doesn't tell me to impose them on others.
Can you let us know what religion you follow when you wrote " My religion " ?
I am sure you cannot be referring to the Roman Catholic faith bacause the " guidelines " we have been given are very different to your " guidelines ".
" The Church can never accept divorce . " Fr Rene Camilleri
" Catholics do not really have a free vote in the divorce referndum " Fr Rene Camilleri
" If one is not in communion with the teaching of God one cannot receive Holy Communion ." Bishop
Mario Grech.
Mr Alex Buds
May 20th 2011, 17:19
The Chuch accepts divorce in most countries worldwide, except Malta and the Phillipines.
Besides much worse things like pedophile priests, in all countries worldwide, including Malta and the Phillipines.
Mr Mike Rizzo
May 20th 2011, 17:35
@ M Borg
The "guidelines you have been given" were not given to you by the Roman Catholic church. They were given to you by a few individuals who happen to be members of the Roman Catholic church - there are other members of the Roman Catholic church who will express different views.
And of course these so-called guidelines are ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. For example the quote you gave "The Church can never accept divorce." does not imply that you should vote No in the referendum. Just becauise the church cannot accept it within its community, it does not mean that is should impose this through the state.
Life is not black and white. Religion is not black and white. A church that encourages debate and tolerates different views is a stronger church than one which seeks to impose any particular interpretation.
Mr M Borg
May 20th 2011, 19:21
@ Mike Rizzo
Can you tell me the interpretation you choose to give to what Fr Rene Camilleri said :-
" Catholic do not really have a " free vote " in the divorce referendum ".
I am sure you will try to give many ?? different interpretations to the above, however to me that would be just playing with words.
The meaning of the above is very clear to me and in no way ambiguous.
Ms Manquareiel de Caveden
May 20th 2011, 20:35
@ Mr M Borg to me that goes against this Maltese STATE law: 'Every person who directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence, or restraint, or inflicts, or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual
injury, damage, harm, or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at any election, or who by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance, impedes or prevents THE FREE EXERCISE (my emphasis) of the franchise of any voter or thereby compels, induces, or prevails upon any voter either to give or refrain from giving his vote at any election, shall be guilty of the offence of undue influence.'
Ms Manquareiel de Caveden
May 20th 2011, 16:48
'Kattoliċi - Iva għax Dritt' seem to be the only Catholic group that officially recognize Jesus Christ's teachings about divorce, if what he said in the gospels of Matthew and St. Mark is to be held true! Jesus was not against divorce! He accepted it if there was a case of 'porneia', which included a number of illegitimate sexual acts. These were acceptable grounds for divorce according to Jesus himself, the man so many people in Malta like to kiss on holy pictures! Why do so many Catholics refuse to see the truth! I guess accepting his word is most difficult for Catholics themselves! Look it up! It's in the gospels! Matthew 5 and 9 and Mark 10! Wake up guys and at least listen to the man you profess to adore and worship and love! Apart from all this, please remember that the referendum is about CIVIL law NOT CANON law. Cheers!
Mr ALFRED MICALLEF
May 20th 2011, 18:36
CORRECTION !!! Canon law is NOT a law. It is simply a club rule for the club members
to obey. Laws are implemented and enforced by the state ONLY.
Ms Manquareiel de Caveden
May 20th 2011, 20:27
True but that what Church members call it, they refer to it as Canon law. Moreover, some of those rules have civil effects, for example through the concordat signed with the Vatican by the Maltese government. We must not forget that the Vatican is also a state.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 20th 2011, 16:22
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 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 was clear also on the evil of adultery and said that, if one divorces his spouse and enters another marriage, one lives in adultery. (Mk 10, 2-12; Mt 19, 2-9). In the first letter to the Corinthians, St Paul says: “Do not be deceived; neither … nor adulterers… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor.6, 9-10).
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". He knew what he was saying and no one could belie him. It is not a joke to go to hell … and to hell for ever!
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 validly contracted 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 Joseph Calleja
May 20th 2011, 16:34
"You die as you live!" The rich people will be very glad to hear this? I'm sure.
Mr twanny borg
May 21st 2011, 16:10
naqbel hafna n-nies ipokriti jew ma' Alla jew max-xitan aghzlu! li kont qassis ma nibzax ma inqarbinx lil min imur kontra t-taghlim ta' Kristu. jien ghazilt li ma nivvutax minkejja li naf li jmur kontra r-religjon imma allanqas mhux ipokrita.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 20th 2011, 16:22
Catholics for divorce are false Catholics.
Catholics for divorce are betraying Christ.
Catholics for divorce are pleasing the devil.
Catholics for divorce are living in sin and are on the path to hell.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it’s already guaranteed!
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 20th 2011, 16:32
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=Cohabit
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 Joe Gatt
May 20th 2011, 19:20
@Joe Zammit
God is love, he place human kind on planet Earth and gave them freedom of choice to go to heaven or to go to hell, people create their own destiny, if this was not so, God would not have created Hell.
God would have made everyone to finally join the kingdom of heaven.
Joe you are rewriting the rules here, condemming people to damnation.
Do you think by any chance that you are as powerful as the Lord Almighty?
Mr S Schembri
May 21st 2011, 07:17
Divorce is:
‘A solution for all those who fall under domestic violence.’
No, it is not. Separation is.
‘A solution for those who are mentally and physically abused.’
No, it is not. Separation is.
‘A solution for those spouses who are cheated on day after day.(Adultery)’
No, it is not. There is separation and there can be a case for annulment.
‘A solution for those who cannot bare to see their children physically and mentally abused by the other spouse’
No, it is not. Separation is.
‘A solution for those who see their spouse come home drunk and reek the smell of another woman/man.‘
No, it is not. There are many ways how to address this problem. Divorce is not one of them.
‘A solution for those whose marriage has already failed.’
No, it is not. On what bases can one say they a marriage has failed? One has to ask what effort was invested into the relationship not to make it fail.
‘Annulment =Divorce=Cohabit’
Wrong.
Annulment means that marriage never took place.
Divorce means that a couple gets separated and are free to enter into another marriage with the society having to pay for their lack of preparation and commitment.
Cohabitation is when two people decide to live together without any commitment. They leave when they feel like.
‘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 no cure at all but an illness that can be forced into our society. The more it gets spread the more couples will start making use of it as it erodes the commitment in marriage. A marriage bond does not happen by itself.
‘Divorce is only there for those who need it.’
Divorce leads to a divorce mentality.
‘Divorce is a human right which should be afforded to all.’
Divorce is not a human right.
Mr Matthew Vella
May 20th 2011, 16:00
Li tkun 'Kattoliku' (ta' l-isem) u tivvota 'IVA', forsi nifihma xi darba, imma li tghid li int Kattoliku u tiftahar li ha tivvota IVA u tipprova tikkonvinci Kattolici ohrajn jivvutaw IVA, qatt ma jien ser nifihma.
Jekk int veru kattoliku qatt ma tista taqbel mad-divorzju u jekk taqbel normalment toghod kwiet u ma tghid xejn ghax taf li dan immur kontra r-religjon tieghek.
Ghalhekk jew inthom 'kattolici' ta l-isem jew ma inthom kattolici xejn.
B'bin tridu tidhku??
Deo Catania
May 20th 2011, 16:14
Jekk int vera kattoliku tkun kontra l-annullament ukoll. Mela niftahru li dak li jghaqqad Alla ma jhassru hadd u nikkundannaw lil min hu favur id-divorzju ghall-infern pero mbaghad ahna niehdu l-annullament. Almenu ahna nghidu li naqblu mhux noqoghdu ninhbew wara l-annullament. Hallina siehbi, ahjar tiftah mohhok.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 20th 2011, 16:18
Divorce goes against your religion yes, granted, but it doesn't go against every Maltese's religion and/or beliefs.
Imposing your beliefs on others goes against your religion (Catholic) Mr Vella, so I guess you're a "kattolicu ta l-isem" as well.
David Caruana
May 20th 2011, 16:55
Xebaw jidhku bik habib u b'dawk kollha li belghuha li ma tistax tkun Kattoliku u tivvota IVA.
IVA, TISTA' TKUN KATTOLIKU U TIVVOTA IVA GHAD-DIVORZJU
Mr Alex Buds
May 20th 2011, 15:55
Those voting no, as well as the religious fundamentalists posting on this board, are practicing a vindictive, uncaring, inhuman, and egoistic form of Christianity from the Old Testament which has nothing to do with the spirit of love and forgiveness of the New.
Because their marriage is fine, or they have no marriage, they have no problem with throwing their less fortunate brethren under the bus. Shame on them for they are the truly evil ones.
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 20th 2011, 14:56
For those of you, who insist on voting no on divorce, let me ask you this one question:
How would you like for me, the church or the government, to come into your home and dictate to you and your spouse how to conduct your personal life? Because voting no for divorce is just that. Nobody forced anybody to get married (except in odd cases). So why are we denying anybody from getting a divorce? Marriage, divorce, annulment is a very personal decision and who am I or you or anybody else to interfere with such a complex decision between the two spouses. Forget the religious part of it, if you can. This is strictly a civil matter and that decision should only be made by the two people involved. This is such a complex and personal matter that even the Government of Malta found it hard to get involved and dumped the whole thing on the citizens. Washed their hands off the whole complex situation. I really believe that the church is fighting for control; otherwise they should have left the citizen to vote freely. Contrary to what some say the church is very much involved in the divorce initiative, as a matter of fact the church picked up where the incompetent government left off. The divorce initiative should have been resolved in Parliament and not by a wasteful and unnecessary very expensive referendum. Whether the initiative passes or not, it is creating a lot of animosity and hate among the citizens of this country. It has happened before and it is happening again. Shame on the government and shame on the church for creating such a divide. If people want to do bad they do badly and if people want to do good, they do well, so please stop instilling confusion and hatred among the congregation because this is separating more families than divorce ever will? What are the church and the government going to go after next? Cohabitation? That ship has sailed and out of reach. Vote whatever your heart tells you too without feeling guilty whether to vote Yes or No. Don't let guilt sway you one way or the other. Try not to be judge and jury for somebody else's personal life. Live and let live. Decide wisely and then cast your vote. No matter how we vote, we all have something to lose, all we can ask is to let me and my spouse make that big decision, whether we want to divorce or not. It is our decision and definitely not yours.
Mark Spiteri
May 20th 2011, 14:53
i cannot understand one thing: Why all these movements using religion to promote their views. Please, as I understand it, leave this personal. Everyone should vote on a personal basis, without anyone trying to urge me what to do. What a pathetic country!
Mr l Azzopardi
May 20th 2011, 14:19
when are we going to understand that in Malta we have many more realities than the Christian one.
How can you impose Chatholic rules on those that are not or when their religion does not impose any restriction with regards to divorce....Its about respect and tollerance towards other citizines who pay taxes like anybody else in this country.
Ms Marthese Vella
May 20th 2011, 13:54
Practicing Catholic and will vote Yes. My religion gives me guidelines on how I should live, but it doesn't tell me to impose them on others.
Amanda Bennetti
May 20th 2011, 13:48
When are people going to realise that this is not a religeous issue. If divorce is introduced it will be for the civil marriage. The church will not recognise it and no one is asking it to do so. If a couple divorce and one of them is totally against divorce then no one is saying that they have to get remarried. In their eyes and the eyes of the church they are still married and everyone will respect that but the other person is free to remarry civilly should they wish to do so. What I cannot understand is that if the church annuls a marriage then the state recognises that fact and accepts it and if one divorces in another country it is accepted yet divorce is not allowed!
Ivan Scicluna
May 20th 2011, 13:39
Areas of the world where religion is allowed to influence matters of the state: The Islamic countries of Middle East Africa, and Malta!
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 14:50
Perhaps you should learn the difference between "allowing religion to influence" matters of state (an unavoidable result of the fundamental human right to choose and to practice different religions) and the totally different situation in theocracies (e.g. certain Islamic states) that deny the fundamental human right to practice the religion of one's choice
Your lumping together the theocratic Islamic countries of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, with the totally different democratic republic of Malta proves that you do not appreciate the difference.
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 20th 2011, 16:43
@ Mr Saliba
Mr Saliba all that lumping together the theocratic Islamic countries of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, with the totally different democratic republic of Malta proves that Malta is the wolf in sheep's clothing, because Malta is exactly the way you explained the Islamic countries all in one. Same principle, DO AS I SAY? Religion like the Muslim religion still rules Malta and this anti divorce movement proves my point.
Mr Joe Gatt
May 20th 2011, 19:25
@Mr Saliba Francis
Live your life and let others live theirs, ie do not dictate and interfere with other`s. That`s what I say.
Mr Saliba Francis
May 21st 2011, 17:37
Joseph Calleja
It is a lie to suggest that " .. Malta is exactly the way you explained the Islamic countries all in one. In the theocratic Islamist states I mentioned you would not dare to be disrespectful to the state religion as you are disrespectful to the Catholic Religion in Malta with impunity. You know what would happen to you."
David Caruana
May 20th 2011, 13:00
Malta is a free country in a free world.
Yes, these individuals have every right to call themselves Catholics. After all it's Catholics, not Catholics®
Actually, it's refeshing to see the people claiming what is rightly theirs - their faith!
Mr Dominic Chircop
May 20th 2011, 11:58
I am a Catholic and am wholeheartedly voting YES.
I am relishing the prospect of seeing the spectacular divorce between the Curia and the Nationalist Party.
Are they married ? Or just they hopped into bed together ? If the latter is true, they may need the pogguti law being proposed by our PM !!!
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 13:51
The self declared "Catholic" who proclaims that he will cast his vote in direct opposition to official Catholic doctrine is precisely what Christ and the Bishop of Gozo had in mind when referring to "wolves in sheep clothing"
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 20th 2011, 15:07
@ Mr Francis Saliba
“Church can never accept divorce, but its no sin to vote for it," Fr Rene Camilleri.
That might clear up some of your misconceptions?
Mr Matthew Grima
May 20th 2011, 16:20
Joseph, he'll probably not read that or forget it in an instant.
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 18:36
@ Joseph Calleja & Matthew Grima.
If Fr Rene Camilleri actually wrote and meant it that, as a rule, "it is no sin to vote for it" (i.e. to vote "yes" for divorce in the referendum) it is up to him to expound on what you quote him as saying. I suspect,that he was maliciously quoted out context, in a calculated attempt to impart a meaning he never intended. It would be up to him to expose that malicious imputation - just as Mgr Charles Vella did.
Your quotation does nothing to persuade me to vote "yes" in the coming referendum. My well informed, inexpedient conscience tells me that I would be sinning if I connived in any way in the introduction of the proposed divorce laws. I do not feel the need nor do I accept lessons how I could tamper with my conscience so that voting "yes" would not remain sinful.
Mr ALFRED MICALLEF
May 20th 2011, 11:55
Zgur li bil -passat taghha il-knisja qatt ma tista tkun xi agent jew xi raprezzentat tat-tghalim
ta Alla. U allura jiena naghazel li r-relazjoni tieghi ma Alla ma tkunx via l-knisja u hadd u
hadd ma jista jikmandani. Inutili toqghod ixejjer u tikwota versi mill-kotba ghaliex l-ghazla
ta hajja religjuza nghazilha jiena mal-kuxjenza tieghi. Dawk in-nies li llum qghedin
jippritkaw kontra l-ligi tad-divorzju qghedin jghamlu bhal dawk in-nies li ftit snin ilu
bezzghu lil-Maltin mill-progress, insulentaw u kasbru lil nies li kienu qeghdin jahdmu
ghal-progress. Dawn huma l-istess nies li kienu jsaqsu kief qieghed timxi sesswalment
ma martek, dawn huma l-istess nies li ngannaw li-nanniet taghna sabiex ihallulhom
godhom u il-propjeta sabiex imporru il-genna. Dawn huma nies li l-istorja dejjem
ippruvathom li kienu qieghdin jghidu ic-cucati, dawn huma il-veru FORZA TAD-DLAMIJIET.
Illum dawn in-nies qieghdin jbezzhu billi Malta tghamel aktar progress u tghamel
il-ligi tad-divorzju bhad-dinja kollha. MA JEZISTI L-EBDA PAJJIZ FID-DINJA li reggha
irtira l-ligi tad-divorzju, ghallura din hija prova li din il-ligi kienet success u ta beneficcju
ghal-poplu taghhom.
Tarcisio Bonello
May 20th 2011, 11:42
I don't believe these people, they have everything mixed up in their mind. If you are a true and convinced catholic and would like your fellow human beings, of whatever creed, to lead and have the best life possible you would therefore promote the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Wouldn't anybody in his or her right mind say so ?
Or maybe methinks that they could be Wolves in Sheep's clothing or the Classic FALSE PROPHETS.
Come on then pull the other one !!
Mr Mike Rizzo
May 20th 2011, 14:04
The key word is "promote" - which is not the same as "impose".
If you vote "no" you would be using the state to impose your beliefs, which is very different from promoting your beliefs but letting people make their own choices. What would Jesus do?
Mr Matthew Grima
May 20th 2011, 14:42
The wolves in sheep's clothings are the ones that forget that their "Lord Jesus Christ" is said to thought that you should be tolerant, compassionate and loving, but do not bother about it as it doesn't float their boat.
Ms Lina CARUANA
May 20th 2011, 11:29
If you think you are going to call yourselves Catholic by substituting Christ's Church with your own regulations say so. This is not a correct way to present yourselves because a Catholic has to profess his faith and not simply give it lip service
Mr B. Cachia
May 20th 2011, 13:45
They're not saying that one can get divorced, cohabit and do what one wants and still call oneself a Catholic. What they're saying is that Catholic norms cannot be turned into a set of State laws, but must remain something that you choose freely.
The Maltese Government allows the importation of contraceptives, has decriminalised adultery and so on, and virtually all Maltese support those measures, yet they are still Catholics and know that, if they personally commit adultery or use contraceptives they will be distancing themselves from the Church.
Mr Mike Rizzo
May 20th 2011, 14:07
Professing your beliefs is not the same as imposing them on others. This referendum is about the latter. Can't you see the difference?
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 16:05
@Matthew Grima
Could you please better organize your thinkiing beyond Christ "is said to have thought" something or other. Don't you have a copy of the New Testament to which you could refer? Christ preached love of God and neighbour, even an enemy, but I cannot trace any recommendation that we should assist those who oppose his teaching that marriage is indissoluble.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 20th 2011, 16:48
So you're asking me to quote something from the bible that specifically says "that we should assist those who oppose his teaching that marriage is indissoluble".
I'm sorry I can't. So in turn, can you please quote where in the bible, jesus tells us that what should be a state issue, remain a state issue?
Mr Mike Rizzo
May 20th 2011, 17:02
@Francis Saliba
Matthew Grima's wording is correct. The New Testament is only one view of what Jesus Christ said. There are other views in historical documents that have been suppressed by the church.
Have you ever thought about why you believe the New Testament is the "one truth"? Would you necessarily believe the same thing if you had been born and raised in another country where the dominant religion is different?
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 22:14
@Matthew Grima
Let me assure you that Christ did not say anywhere: "what should be a state issue, remain a state issue" that is your worthless invention. In connection with the payment of tax (not marriage) Christ stated that tax should be paid: "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's".
At the same time, Christ added significantly to give unto God what is God's. I anticipate your usual feigned ignorance as to what Christ meant by "what is God's". Let me spell it out for you. Christ was precisely referring to the marriage bond as it existed from the very beginning of time as one of the things that belongs to God and which "no man should pull asunder". "No man" refers to state institutions run by man, including Caesars.
I know that you take some inordinate pleasure in pretending to be a fool by asking silly questions. You are fast approaching the limit after which you won't be getting any answer from me.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 21st 2011, 13:49
I won't be getting an answer because you cannot provide a straight one.
So from that line you can say that it's about taxes? As a lot of people say, the writing in the bible is vague, open to interpratation, you see it that way, I don't, to me, anything which is Caesar's should be Caesar's, including civil marriage.
I do not believe in any god, hence I do believe that marriage is god's, so your point is moot with me. Marriage is a contract, a legal one. Whilst the church's contract is for those who bother about it in the first place, there are a number of people who agree with me, just look at the number of civil only marriages this year. You cannot control that because of your god. Nomatter what the bible says, as it is just a book like any other book for those who are not in your club, but you want to control them too. I only mention what is written in the bible because you lot keep bringing it up in this issue.
Mr Mike Rizzo
May 20th 2011, 11:16
A very well-written and objective statement. Well done. Some common sense at last !
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 11:12
There is no "respect" at all, and there is no shred of "dignity" for anybody in this divorce bill that unashamedly empowers any libertine marraige breaker to impose his/her will on the spouse, the children and society, without even having to pretend that there is any justification, except that he has abandoned the marital duties for four years.
Mr Raymond S. Vella
May 20th 2011, 13:05
Respect and dignity?? you mean towards those who dont happen to be in our club? No matter how much twisting we can do, we can never erase our dreadful past, and it will haunt us for ever.
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 13:58
@Raymond S Vella
No, I do not mean respect and dignity restricted to those who happen to belong to "our" same club. In a civilised society, acting respectfully and with dignity, even towards enemies, is a certificate of maturity.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 20th 2011, 14:40
So now non-catholics are enemies Mr Saliba?
Mr S Schembri
May 20th 2011, 11:07
I would honestly like to invite the Catholics for Divorce group for
a formation meeting with the title: Christians faced with the question of Divorce
Venue: St Anthony’s Friary, Ghajn Dwieli (Next door to Mcast Paola)
Date: Monday, 23rd May 2011
Time: 7.00pm - 8.00pm
Speaker: Fr Hayden Williams OFMCap
Everyone is invited to attend.
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 16:14
@Mr Matthew Grima
Instead of asking me silly questions, please invest in a good dictionary and the assistance of a facilitator to help you understand my simple English.
I did not say anywhere that I consider non-Catholics or any other group of people to be enemies.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 20th 2011, 16:43
Well done Mr Saliba, attacking me personally, even suggesting I have special needs, just so you can win an argument?
How low can you go? Is this what god teaches you?
I'm pretty sure you mentioned enemies somewhere, who are your enemies then?
"In a civilised society, acting respectfully and with dignity, even towards enemies, is a certificate of maturity."
Mark Galea
May 20th 2011, 11:01
I think it is very devious of this group to call themselves 'Catholics for Divorce'. This is not a religious issue. I shall be voting NO not because I'm a practising Catholic. As a Catholic, I can never divorce whether or not it is legalised. I shall be voting NO for society in general. Look at the mess that other countries which have had divorce for many years are in. Hardly a family structure left in countries like the U.K. at all. The mentality that a promise can be broken will, little by little, gnaw its way into our youngsters, who will eventually see it as normal and acceptable that promises made can be broken. Incidentally, I really wish to congratulate Dr Arthur Galea Salomone for his calm, and firm stand in favour of the NO movement during yesterday's TVM debate. And by the way, the rude comments about preferring another speaker by one popular newspaper's representative ensured that I (and I'm sure many others) will not take its partisan views serioulsy ever again.
Mr l Azzopardi
May 20th 2011, 14:29
The mentality that a promise can be broken will, little by little, gnaw its way into our youngsters, who will eventually see it as normal and acceptable that promises made can be broken
And you blame that on divorce!? Have you considered politicians??
Deo Catania
May 20th 2011, 14:49
Nahseb ghadek tghix Hagar Qim mir-ragunar tieghek.
Mr Michael Buhagiar
May 20th 2011, 11:00
dont call yourselves catholics. Catholics can NEVER vote YES for divorce. It is the duty of all catholics to vote NO to divorce. Those who dont are committing mortal sin. and this is a truth and a fact; and not a threat! "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Christians and catholics must never defy God. And the Church should take the necessary steps to excommunicate this Carmelo Hili and his followers for apostasy. Those who dont toe the Church's line should be removed from our Churches and should not share the Communion with the other true catholics.
Mr Mike Rizzo
May 20th 2011, 14:09
Get a life mate!
Deo Catania
May 20th 2011, 14:46
Michael, you like Joe Zammit and others pretend to be the personal messengers of God but in reality you are just putting off people away from the catholic church. I do not want to be called Catholic if being one means believing in the crap you want us to believe in. Just go ahead and excommunicate all of us voting YES, we won't miss you. Who are you or Mario Grech or any other priest to forbid people from receiving the Holy Communion? are you God himself perhaps? I think not.
Mr Joe Cordina
May 20th 2011, 10:49
I totally agree with this article. I have always stated that one cannot impose on others, so let there be divorce and each and every person can decide on his own what course of action he/she would take in case of a broken marriage
David Caruana
May 20th 2011, 10:40
Great initiative by Catholics for Divorce!
"We, as Catholics, may be a million times against divorce, never once can we be in favour of a state imposing the will, beliefs and practices of one particular creed, be it Catholic or not, on citizens who do not share that faith."
That's the true spirit of compassion and love, which if I'm not mistaken, are at the center of Jesus's teachings.
Mr William Borg Barthet
May 20th 2011, 11:35
Indeed. It is a truer Christian who follows the teachings despite the law, rather than because of the law.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 20th 2011, 10:35
Divorce is the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage by a human person. It is always a grave sin. Christ himself has pointed this out to us: “What God has joined together let no man put asunder” (Mk 10.9). The Catholic Church in her Catechism speaks clearly about the evil of divorce and says that “it is a grave offence against the natural law” (Par.2384). So Christ and his Church put our minds at rest about the intrinsic immorality of divorce.
This leads to the question of voting for divorce. Morally speaking, voting in itself is an indifferent act. It becomes good or evil according to the object of voting. Voting for something good is morally good, voting for something evil is morally evil. Besides, abstaining from voting against an evil when an evil is at stake is equally evil.
In our case we have no divorce legislation. So, can one vote for divorce without sinning seriously against God? The answer is definitely “no”, because if divorce is intrinsically evil, voting for evil is also intrinsically evil. Abstaining wilfully from voting against divorce is also evil. It is a grave sin of omission.
Another principle of morality explicitly says that the end does not justify the means. So, also under this principle, even if one were to gather good effects whatever they might be as an effect of voting for divorce, once voting for divorce is evil, one cannot take this step for any reason whatsoever. It is never morally lawful to cooperate directly or indirectly in an act which is in itself evil, even though one anticipates the very greatest good as a result of the act.
If Jesus were among us and being faced with a vote for or against divorce, divorce being of any type, how would he vote?
There can be no justification before God and his Church for resorting to divorce or for voting for divorce. Both are grave sins and both undermine the indissolubility of marriage which is so dear to God.
Mr Robert Agius
May 20th 2011, 11:41
I'm pretty sure that if Jesus was among us he would slap you in the face.
Michael A. Saliba
May 20th 2011, 12:06
Joe, I have already pointed out to you a few days ago that the proposed law deals with the CIVIL marriage, i.e. with what MAN has joined together (not God). Thus you are effectively saying, in addition to "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder", also that "what man has joined together, let no man put asunder". You are therefore trying to put man at the same level as God.
This is heresy. If you vote NO in the divorce referendum I very much fear that you may be risking damnation to your eternal soul!
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 20th 2011, 14:18
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=Cohabit
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 Vincent Cassar
May 20th 2011, 10:35
Many ultra-Catholic commentators provide anecdotal evidence and illusory correlational data to substantiate their arguments against divorce as a Civil Right. They tend to selectively or conveniently forget that the divorce legislation we are voting for is a civil remedy after the marriage has broken down. Arguing about the "ruins of divorce" is not a relevant issue in this referendum as suggested in the new legislation.
In addition, NO ONE is in favour of divorce; the issue is whether we want a civil mechanism that creates closure for, and after, a BROKEN and UNREPAIRABLE marriage or whether we want these individuals to go on with their lives with unfinished business!
These ultra-Catholics also refer constantly to the "teachings" of Christ. Interestingly, in his second Volume of Jesus Of Nazareth (Holy Week), the author (Pope Benedict XVI) makes an interesting premise that the cleansing of the Temple signified Christ's firm believe that state and religion should be kept apart which is why the Romans did not arrest Christ for social unrest on that day and also why the Pharisees wanted to get rid of him as they associated him with the Romans. Apparently Jesus wanted to make firmly separate that which is civil law and that which is divine law! However, alas, not in this Country.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 20th 2011, 10:34
Catholics for divorce are false Catholics.
Catholics for divorce are betraying Christ.
Catholics for divorce are pleasing the devil.
Catholics for divorce are living in sin and are on the path to hell.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it’s already guaranteed!
Luke Desira
May 20th 2011, 12:53
dude, you should die, you'd """surely""" go to heaven.
Deo Catania
May 20th 2011, 14:32
spjegalna x'inhu annullament mela. mhux biex tparla l-istess paroli biss tajjeb. kemm tifilhu tghidu cucati? hawn miljuni ta' nies fuq wicc id-dinja, x'garanzija hemm li ghax tnejn izzewgu se jkunu jaqblu f'kollox u li se jkollhom zwieg perfett? qed tirrepeti biss cucatli li tghid il-knisja Maltija.
N. Galea
May 20th 2011, 14:54
My goodness Mr Joe Zammit... you have no idea how sorry I feel for you!
You surely have been brain washed! LOL ur comment is as if a kid is writing down what his teacher said word by word without even reading it... just copying it and repeating it!
The devil? .... I mean seriously??? you think you would go to hell if you vote yes? I think hell would be here on planet earth if marage does not work and you have to spend the rest of your life with a person you dont love anymore... that is hell!! and not divorce! and who the hell ARE YOU to say that divorce pleases the devil? Its just a statement which the church has been trying to scare people with!
Why dont you mention all the lies that are being told to old people? They have been scaring old people that if they vote yes for divorce they will not receive their pension anymore!!! and you are talking about evil? what do you think of this?!
J. Debono
May 20th 2011, 10:24
To be a catholic you have to abide by the rules of the Catholic church!!
If you do not agree with the church - you can always change to the church of England, protestantism, orthodox, muslim, hindu whatever!!
Mr B. Cachia
May 20th 2011, 10:51
To be a Catholic you have to abide by the rules of the Catholic Church but you do not have to turn them into laws of the land and impose them on all and sundry, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Mr Mike Rizzo
May 20th 2011, 11:19
Which Catholic church? The Catholic church of Malta, or the Catholic church in the rest of the world? They are not the same !
Mr Andrew Grech
May 20th 2011, 12:02
yeah one could change religion, but in Malta he/she still wouldn't be able to get a divorce would they! Keep living your way but do not impose your way of life on others. A yes vote would allow individuals to have a choice, now if they are catholics all they need to do is not to divorce.
eugenie camilleri
May 20th 2011, 10:20
How absurd. By the same logic Catholics will be asked to vote for abortion next????
Mr Andrew Azzopardi
May 20th 2011, 11:04
Not so strange. There are organisations called 'Catholics for Choice' in the United States and elsewhere.
Ms Gillian Snook
May 20th 2011, 11:37
eugenie camilleri,
Try and stick to the topic which is Divorce - we all know what you are trying to do.
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 10:03
What is definitely most deceitful, is to pretend that there is nothing wrong for a true Christian, who accepts that it is wrong for him to divorce, and yet s/he could, with a clear conscience facilitate the divorce by others, when Christ's prohibition applied to everyone and from the beginning.
The pro-divorce campaign is clearly based on a deception.
Deception 1.
The proposed bill is very different from, and superior to, the Nevada style easy, “no question asked” type of divorce that destroys the concept of marriage as a durable and stable union essential for the well-being of society as a whole. . That is not true. For all intents and purposes, the JPO-Bartolo bill is practically the same, except for a longer waiting period, that could be much reduced later.
Deception 2.
Divorce is a solution intended as a cure for the tribulations of an irreversibly broken down marriage. Not true. It is thinly disguised as a panacea for some distressful situations only but, in reality, it is a passport for all libertine marriage wrecker/s to impose their desired divorce on children, an unwilling partner, and all society without any necessity to prove just cause.
Deception 3.
The bill “guarantees” that maintenance responsibilities etc will be guaranteed. This is not possible unless the taxpayers are forced to become the guarantors.
Deception 4.
The Church is opposing divorce from base financial motives. That is not true. The only certain profiteers would be lawyers specializing in this line of business.
Deception 5.
The opposition to divorce laws is a return to the deplored situation of the sixties. Not true. The Malta Church hierarchy is strictly restricting itself to its teaching duties. It is leaning over backwards so as not to be accused unjustly of “imposing mortal sin”. The church hierarchy is being much too prudent in fact, so much so that honest and respected church dignitaries are being maligned as supporters of the divorce bill even when they strenuously deny that false imputation.
This barrage of deliberate deception should alert the intelligent voters and put them on their guard at the imminent referendum.
Ms G Portelli
May 20th 2011, 12:17
The Alpha and Omega of all Deception
No one in Malta has the ability to reach a state of reason that is capable of an informed conscience on the matter of civil divorce except for Dr. Saliba and those of his persuasion. The No camp needn't come up with sound arguments and truthful research regarding civil divorce they only need to play the religion card overtly,surreptitiously or in full blown Savonarolesque wrath, there's an a la carte menu to choose from as the whim and occasion dictates. Equivocation is the tried and tested modus operandi to confuse minds.
Mr Saliba Francis
May 20th 2011, 13:45
@Ms G Portelli.
Don't you understand plain English when you become furious?
I DID "come up with sound arguments", without any "equivocation" and giving clear illustrations of five deceptions in current use by the "yes for divorce" movement. I expected intelligent, sound counter arguments instead of which you "come up" with an incomprehensible collection of cliches and personal invective typical of a "Savanarolesqe wrath".
What can I say? Please try again when you are calmer using arguments not worthless personal opinions.
Mr E Phillips
May 20th 2011, 13:48
So having verbally attacked those of a non religious persuasion for supporting the introduction of divorce, some, who have seen fit to confer upon themselves the title of “true christians”, are now attacking those they would describe as lesser Christians than themselves. Egotism at its best.
This despite the fact that the majority of other Christian denominations (including Catholicism) accept that divorce is part of modern day thinking and behave accordingly.
Two points stand out to me.
1) I believe there’s a passage somewhere that reads “….sell your possessions and give to the poor, then follow Me”, which I’m sure the “true Christian” would do, and has done.
I know we’re going to have the old chestnut of not taking certain things literally, it’s good that individuals can be selective on what should be taken literally and what should not.
2) I don’t recall ever having come across a reference in the same book, that refers to voting for anything or voting in a certain way as being sinful.
The same book uses the word “you” or “you’re” many times, relating I presume, to the individual reading at the time. Are there any passages that inform the reader to impose their belief process on others?
If any proof is needed of the egotism, the last sentence of your note is all that’s required.
Mr Paul Barrett
May 20th 2011, 17:41
@ Mr Saliba Francis
Trying to bury the wood in the trees - smoke and mirror arguments just do not cut it.
Deception 1. No deception: There has never been any assurance that divorce legislation will never be amended in the future.
Deception 2. No deception: The yes movement has never claimed that divorce legislation is intended as a cure for marriage breakdown. It is a possible option for an individual from a broken marriage to pick up the pieces of their life and offer hope of a new relationship under the umbrella of a civil marriage.
Deception 3. No deception: JPO clearly explained that divorce legislation would guarantee that all aspects of financial support and child custody would be formally agreed before a divorce certificate would be issued. There was no guarantee that an individual would fork out the money – actually this is no change from the current Court directives associated with legal separation yet no one seems to be objecting to that.
Deception 4. No deception. The Church is opposing divorce from base financial motives and anyone with a brain can see that. The Church is a business enterprise and if the Church can not retain it’s command and control over the population then income, not just from annulments (which may or may not be a loss maker) but from every other source will dry up.
Deception 5. Yes, I agree there is some deception. How deceptive the Malta Church hierarchy is being is quite a debatable point. It is indeed leaning over backward to stay just within the law regarding threats of a religious nature to influence the outcome of a voter in a referendum.
Ms G Portelli
May 20th 2011, 23:21
LOL !! Why would I indulge in Savonarolesque wrath? I am inclined to see the difference between the Republic of Malta in the 21st century and 15th century Florence. My bet is that it is Sir's amygdala that is in overdrive and not mine. Sir gives us ample proof of how he views the world and the place of others in it. Sir is so enamoured of equivocation and the status quo that Sir cannot help himself but to come out fighting in true al-salibiyyun fashion. What ever happened to the Archbishop's caution of no crusades?
Mr Joe Pak
May 20th 2011, 09:58
On being a (true) Roman Catholic.
The Second Vatican Council in its Constitution on the Church, No. 25, clearly teaches the obligation of Catholics to accept and live by all those teachings presented in a binding manner by church authority.
Pope John Paul II spoke very explicitly on this point during his visit to the United States in 1987 when he addressed the United States bishops as follows:
"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the Church's clear position on abortion. It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teachings.
"It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium [ teaching office ] is totally compatible with being a 'good Catholic' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments.
"This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere."
If I claim to be a true Roman Catholic and, above all, a follower of Christ, how can I vote in favour of divorce? On the other hand, if I am not a true Catholic, I have every right to vote in favour, although common sense, and a wish to ensure the future stability of this country and its morals, should dictate that a "no" vote is more appropraite and sensible.
Mr M Borg
May 20th 2011, 09:41
" Whether Catholics stand in favour or against divorce as such is beside the point " says who ?
" The church can never accept divorce " Fr. Rene Camilleri
" Catholics did not really have the option of " a free vote " in the divorce referendum " Fr Rene Camilleri.
" Catholics who are not in communion with God's teaching cannot receive Holy Communion " Bishop Mario
Grech.
The pro-divorce going round distributing leaflets with what Mgr Charles Vella said will never make a true
Catholic vote for divorce. Funny this being done by a movement who is out to stop the church from imposing
a particular morality on the whole population., what twisted logic is this ? Using a priest to hit out against
the church ?
Religion apart It is because we know of the outcome of divorce, it is because of the ruin divorce brings in other countries that all of us " Catholics or not have a duty to vote No in the forthcoming referendum."
Francis Attard
May 20th 2011, 09:38
Ghal darb'ohra nerga nghid li min hu veru Kattoliku, m'ghandu qatt jivvota favur. Gesu kien jghallem li d-divorzju hu hazin u min jaghmel il-hazin hu suggett ghal kastig t'Alla. Kristu ghallem ukoll li hadd ma ghandu jaghmel deni lill-ghajru, anki jekk dak ghajru ma jkunx jemmen f'Alla. Ghaldaqstant il-Veru Kattoliku m'ghandu qatt jghati l-ghodda lil xi hadd li biha jista jmur kontra r-rieda t'Alla u eventwalment ikun suggett ghall-kastig Tieghu.
Mr J Xerri
May 20th 2011, 10:00
Sur Attard, dan jghodd biss ghal-ligi tad-divorzju?
Mr joseph saliba
May 20th 2011, 10:27
Apart from Catholic, sin, bishop, offsprings, etc..MARRIAGE is about keeping one's promise. DIVORCE is about swallowing it back.
George Azzopardi
May 20th 2011, 10:28
Jien Kattoliku u ha nivvota IVA bis -sahha ghax nemmen li kieku Kristu kien hawn llum kien jaghmel l-istess u jghid le ghal-intoleranza u iva ghal bnedmin li jkunu hielsa. Ghalura ghalkemm jien qatt ma nista niehu d-ddivorzju ghax jien kattoliku qatt ma nista ncahdu lil min mhuwiex u ghandu bzonnu.
Mr B. Cachia
May 20th 2011, 10:49
Li 'ma taghmilx deni lil ghajrek' ma tfissirx li timponilu stil ta' hajja li lilek jidhirlek li hu tajjeb. Hu veru li l-liberta xi kultant hi ghodda li biha wiehed jista' jaghmel hsara lilu nnifsu imma dak mhux argument biex innehhu l-liberta tan-nies.
Mr Jo Camm
May 20th 2011, 10:58
Sewwa qed tghid Mr Attard, naqbel mieghek. Il-Madonna qaltilna "Agħmlu dejjem it-tajjeb lil ħaddieħor. Anzi, dak li tixtieq li jagħmlu lilek innifsek, agħmlu lil ħaddieħor. Tkunx egoist, taħseb fik innifsek. Allura min hu VERA Kattoliku ma jistax jghid li jrid id-dovorzju ghal haddiehor.
Dalghodu f'kartellun ta' gazzetta kien hemm b'ittri kbar hafna: MORRU VVOTAW. dan hu l-appell tieghi li dawk li ma jridux id-divorzju (li jfisser deni lil-haddiehor) imorru JIVVOTAW 'LE'.
Francis Attard
May 20th 2011, 11:00
Sur Xerri, jien ma nafx ezatt xi trid tghid. Ahjar tispjega ruhek ahjar halli nkun nista nirrispondik.
Sur Azzopardi, tista tghidli kif taf Kristu x'kien jaghmel kieku kien hawn? Ma nista qatt inizzilha li Hu stess kien imur kontra dak li Hu stess ghallem. Bir-rispett kollu, int ma tafx x'inti tghid.
George Azzopardi
May 20th 2011, 13:10
Sur Attard, naf x'qed nghid u ghax anke f'dak iz-zmien Kristu kien jehoda kontra l-qassisin u farizej.
Hu kien anka, kemm l-darba, jgibinha ezempji li jzomm ma nies bhal samaritani. Nahseb li bhalissa hawn hafna farizej li qed jipruvaw ibezaw. Hasra li iktar qed jaghmlu hsara milli gid. Oqodu attenti ghax qed tbedhu n-nies mil-knijsa!
N. Galea
May 20th 2011, 15:21
Prosit George Azzopardi, Kemm qed tghid sewwa! Hafna hafna nies qed jitbedu mil knisja u taf min lizjed? tad daqs tieghi bejn 18 - 25 sena! Ghax wara kollox id divorzju ha jafetwa lilna ukoll il futur taghna!!!!!!! Jiena f'Alla nemen il- knisja wisq saret tal-biza! Filfatt diga ma kontx qed nersaq lemm u min meta inqalat din il bicca tad divorzju aktar u aktar ma ghandix hajra nersaq lejn il knisja! Plus hekk jekk ma jaddix id divorzju mhux ha nhabbel rasi ghax zwieg bic civil diga bizejjed ghalija! ( Laqwa li lil min nghazel biex inqatta hajti mieghu jkun hemm bizejjed imhabba u pediment sod bejnitna!) u ma nizewigx bil knisja. u emnuni bhali hawn hafna ghax ovjament ma nies ta listess eta' tieghi nitkellem u hawn hafna li tilfu il fiducja fil knisja! sa ghanki bil pastazti li qed tghamel twerwer in nies dwar divorzju! bhal ma jqarrux jew jqarbnu in nies jew sahansitra jghidlu lix xjuh li jekk jivutaw iva jaqtawlhom il penzjoni.... uejja!
George Azzopardi
May 20th 2011, 16:15
Sur Galea .. ftakar biss li Kristu m'ghandux jehhel ma dawn il-qatta farizej li bhac-cwiec qed jaghmlu iktar hsara milli gid!.
N. Galea
May 20th 2011, 17:22
Miss pls :P haha
Lanqas xejn kif diga ghedt fAlla nemen u dejjem nitlob u ma nghamel hsara lil hadd! Pero fil knisja le, tlift il fiducja.. sfortunatament id dar ta Alla qed jmsexxuha huma... memx xtghamel! Nimxi a modo mio!!!!