Matthew Xuereb
Divorce: Bishops to call on faithful to do their duty
The bishops will issue a pastoral letter today, being the last weekend before the divorce referendum, urging people to use their civic right to show what they believed in and ensure a bright future for Maltese families.
Gozo Bishop Mario Grech hinted yesterday that, in this letter, the bishops would call on people not to abdicate their civic and Christian duty and vote according to their values.
“We have a civic and Christian responsibility to make our input and have a say. Whatever the result, we should live this historic moment with happiness and Christian hope. We should show what we believe in by voting and making our contribution to ensure a bright future for our families and the country,” Mgr Grech told a packed parish hall in Fgura last night.
“We will do what the Lord sent us to do and spread the good news,” he said.
The Bishop insisted the Church was not imposing its views, as much as divorce was not being imposed on the country.
He spoke about the importance of the family, saying that if families were not healthy, society would not be healthy and adding that people’s quality of life would be undermined without the family.
“What future are families being offered if we are considering building them on sand rather than solid ground,” he asked.
He acknowledged that there were families facing problems and also that there were different forms of families. “We cannot be insensitive to these realities,” he said, adding: “We cannot ever offer a solution that is wrong.”
Giving an example, he said offering a teenager who got pregnant an appointment at a clinic was the wrong solution. Sending a hungry person to steal from the grocer next door was also the wrong solution.
Bishop Grech referred to a homily he gave last Sunday saying people who were not in full communion with the teaching of the Church were not in communion with Christ and could not receive Holy Communion. He said he was misquoted and invited people to read the full text on his Facebook page.
Fielding questions, he told a man who asked whether he should go to confession for voting no because he would be hurting so many people who were already hurt, Mgr Grech replied: “You should not feel guilty for making the right choice.”
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...
72 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Alex Buds
May 22nd 2011, 06:01
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.
Alfred Falzon
May 22nd 2011, 10:16
@Alex Buds
Sweeping statements like yours paying lip service to Christian beliefs, not Old Testament ones but inspired by Christ's teachings on marriage: "What God hadth joined together let NO MAN put asunder" are out of context and do more harm than good to the "yes" campaign!
Double standards and a distorted image of marriage as projected by a so-called progressive society, spearheaded by champagne-Socialists and other self-proclaimed "Liberals", will eventually lead to the "law of the jungle" as has happened in many Western countries where wedlock inside or outside the Church is today subject to the whims and fancies of either of the partners with practically little or no consideration to the innocent offspring who has/have to bear the brunt of such crass irresponsibility and selfishness!
Now, who is the overtly evil one for that matter?!
Lino Busuttil
May 22nd 2011, 12:24
Lets put Religion out of it for a moment. I find the Archbishops statements within their right to express themselves in such a way, as in their belief this helps protect the stable and not so stable but salvable marriages. However there are few points to consider here. 1. No fault Divorce is proposed, it is not the ideal one when we lack the proper legislation regarding other aspects of marriage, e.g. where is the civil duty to prepare couples before (civil) marriage? 2. The church is at fault for taking a decade to decide on annulments, now it is too late to fix date isn't it? 3. Consequence of point 2, partners would already have moved on and had children with other partners, how is that reconciliable with not granting them annulment basing it on the pre-marriage and consummation of marriage principles.4. If a man marries a new wife after divorcing who is making good for the differnence in his contributions to the state to support the first wife's pension etc.and if he abuses of the no fault divorce and marry more than twice? 5. There is a lot of confusion with Religion and State. They should be separate, and a referendum should have never been propsed but a whollistic law of the family properly planned and passed by those who got themselves a hefty rise recently, for such a job.
Ms D Galea
May 22nd 2011, 20:06
Mr Alex Buds, will you willingly pay double your national insurance and more income tax to help subsidize the extra new social services that will have to be forked out when Divorce is voted in ? Mere words , false guarantees and threats of imprisonment will not pay the bills to help ex-wives who are left abandoned after twenty or thirty years of marriage.
Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior
May 21st 2011, 22:49
The Yes campaign is after in punishing the honest spouse (victim) who has been betrayed, by REWARDING the betrayer with a NO FAULT divorce.
Does this make sense?
Disgusting and dishonest at best.
JC.
Alfred Falzon
May 21st 2011, 18:17
The silent majority will be fulfilling its duty next Saturday, irrespective of what some may think regarding the future of our children's inalienable rights within the family as the cornerstone of MALTESE society.
We are not the least deterred by local or foreign theatricals, for we believe in righteousness!
And may righteousness prevail over foreign imported lifestyles that are today wreaking havoc with countries that have lost their moral fibre and are insensitive to the sufferings of those wives, husbands and children who have fallen prey to the dictates and whims and fancies of unscrupulous "spouses" who abandoned them for so-called "greener pastures" feigning "civil rights" (sic)!
Solidarity for better or for worse should be the order of the day and let those who deride and abuse of marriage be penalised for life!
Malta should set an example by enacting tougher legislation to this effect and not reward those who capriciously forsake their family to satisfy their immoral ego and debauchery!
We stand foursquare with all those exemplary mothers and fathers who put their children's interest and welfare above all other considerations and refuse to be carried away by empty promises!
All that glitters is not gold!
Mr M Borg
May 21st 2011, 18:16
@ Voctor Laiviera (11.48)
" I am no lawyer "
You said it yourself , you are no lawyer, so why try to find some wrong when there is none ?
On the otherhand what you are getting at is not written in Chapter 102 of the Laws of Malta, however if you had to look up a Chapter of the Laws of any Communist country I am more than sure that you will find what you want there.
Malta being no Communist country, the Church has every right to teach her members, what is right and what is wrong . The Church has every right to tell us that divorce is against God and His church and that if we vote yes we will be going against the teaching of God. No true Catholic can vote Yes.
You can rest assured that all lawyers will tell you that the Church is doing what is her legitimate right to do,
that is educate her members.
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 21st 2011, 19:11
Mr M Borg, you must be disillusioned about lawyers. No disrespect but the first thing the lawyer is going to ask is " Show me the money" and then he will tell you exactly what you want to hear. Oh by the way I am no lawyer either. Dr Schembri is a lawyer, why not ask her?
Mr M Borg
May 22nd 2011, 14:49
@ Joseph Calleja
" I am no lawyer " was written by Victor Laiviera, I find nothing wrong in the law as it is written, if anything it is Vicotor Laiviera who should ask Dr Schembri , I do not need her advice.
Mr d. attard
May 21st 2011, 18:04
The Church has ignored the pain of so many, a pain that will peak when a no victory will be announced on a wave of crying maddonas hysterical nihilists and jesus freaks who have no idea what the gospel says. It has in my opinion treated catholics and maltese with disdain and a behaviour far removed from that found in other civilized catholic communities the world over. In my opinion the church in malta has shown itself to be medivial and has showerd itself in shame. The prologue to the church's cathechism concludes - Above all charity ...teachings ... have no other objective than to arrive at love ...a spirit that catholic communities the world over enjoy, a spirit that is being denied to us maltese...shame once again on our medivial church...
Mr Wally Vella-Zarb
May 21st 2011, 17:27
@ Mr Victor Laiviera
"Is the Church above the law?"
Of course it is! Even a cursory perusal of the infamous Family Act that was passed by the EFA administration should remove any doubts about the matter.
The net result of resorting to the same tactics that were used in the sixties will be that the church in Malta will lose an even greater percentage of adherents than it did during the 1962 and 1966 elections. As someone has already told them, some of the local church's hierarchy have not learned the lessons of that dark period.
The real loser in the forthcoming referendum will be neither the 'NO' , nor the 'YES' camp; it will be the church, thanks in part to the antics of a 'cowboy' masquerading as a 'shepherd'.
Ms Sabrina Borda
May 21st 2011, 16:58
The Bishop wants to bring us "good news" !!! Alleluia !!!
Sounds like a good idea for a change considering what a hassle he's been making many people endure.
Yet, I do not believe him because It might have something to do about the Church's track record, especially these days.
I have a feeling that the Bishop .... though in one breath he insists he is not wanting to impose his views.... he still insists he will pressure with "his input and have a say",.. no doubt.
I also have no doubt that his pastoral letter will intimate if not directly warn, that it may be a sin for people to do their moral duty....if they wish to vote for a Civilian Law to take place and not to vote according to his own conscience and His book.
This is what all this is about, suppression, due to a simple lack of understanding, which is not giving anybody any good news.
He wants to enforce his beliefs on all the populace as he feels it is his christian duty to do...yet he says he does not want to partake in the divorce debate because that is a civil concern, and yet.... here he is.
The threats about 'not being one in holy communion with Him' loom here, just as he says we should not feel guilty to make the right choice,... as long as it is his.
This bishop cannot see that we do not wish to build on sand, and that we would like to move off and away from it and rebuild on solid ground. I can only wonder what he really would prefer if he insists on leaving things as senseless as they are. It is so strange, and then to leave people suffer it is conscienceless.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is underpinned by an understanding of basic human needs and values. The Bishop may not see this as a sustainable personal development for each and every human adding to better social environment for the future because it may not be in his book, and so he may feel there is no basis of a society where people care for others that do not use his book, he abandons those calling for help.
Good news for the Bishop seems anything that his book commands. Even if it does not include human reason.
Wait for it, he is however going to be bringing warnings and intimations of them galore whilst at the same time he promises we are not to feel guilty how ever we vote. Very odd indeed.
"Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now and the way to be happy is to make others so", ( borrowed from one book of billions) (R. G. Ingersoll, 1876)
Is that too much to expect for a Bishop ?!!.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 21st 2011, 16:33
Conscience is reasoning.
No conscience can contradict the express and clear words of Christ about the evil of divorce: What God has joined together let no man put asunder! No conscience can genuinely go against this clear commandment of Christ on the necessity of the indissolubility of marriage and the intrinsic evil of divorce.
A conscience that suggests divorce to anyone is diabolical. The devil is pleased with divorce. God does not want divorce. This is the clear teaching of Christ and the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
If your conscience tells you something against the infallible teaching of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, do not follow your conscience. Your conscience is not infallible. Your conscience is subject to the teaching of Christ and his Church.
If you follow your conscience in disagreement with the Church, you are grievously stubborn and proud. Your stubbornness and pride will lead you only to hell. All those in hell appeal to their conscience for being there ... for ever... without any hope of redemption... there for ever!
Conscience is reasoning!
Mr Joe Zammit
May 21st 2011, 16:33
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 Brincat
May 21st 2011, 16:21
GIVE THAT BELONGS TO CAESAR TO CAESAR,
AND THAT BELONGS TO GOD TO GOD
IT IS YOUR DUTY TO VOTE WITH CLEAR CONSCIENCE.
DO NOT LET ANY ONE MANIPULATE YOUR MIND
BY VOTING " YES " WITH CLEAR CONSCIENCE IT IS NOT A SIN
DIVORCE WITH CLEAR CONSCIENCE AND NOT REMARRY IS NOT A SIN
HOPE I HAVE HELP YOU MY FRIEND
Mr Tony Camilleri
May 21st 2011, 16:02
Ma kellkomx ghalfejn tfakkruni Eccellenza.
Hekk se mmur naghmel nhar is-Sibt.
Se mmur nivvota u se nivvota IVA.
Daniel Laus
May 21st 2011, 15:43
Thank God for not having to study a third Mortal Sin Election for by History A Level ( Well i just did it this morning) :-D
Mr Joseph Bonnici
May 21st 2011, 14:42
Sounds familiar, back to the sixtys.
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 21st 2011, 13:52
Mgr Grech replied " YOU SHOULD NOT FEEL GUILTY FOR MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICE.” I agree. But what is the right choice? My right choice is to vote Yes for divorce in the referendum. So I am OK with the Bishop. I can go to confession and receive communion with no guilt what so ever. I hope all pro and anti divorce people understand that. To most people voting yes for divorce is the right choice and I hope the Bishop and the anti divorce movement have no objection to that as long as I, myself as a person feel that I am making the right choice? So the next time anybody tells you something negative about voting yes for divorce just remind them that you feel you are making the right choice by voting for divorce. Don't judge lest you want to be judged.
Mr M Borg
May 21st 2011, 18:44
Are you by any chance taking over from Mgr. Grech. Do make it offical if you are !
Tonio Bugeja
May 21st 2011, 13:48
REMEMBER ONE THING-
In this referendum, we are NOT voting for a divorce to untie a marriage beyond repair.
We ARE voting for a no fault divorce wherein any married person who happens to sleep on the wrong
side of the bed, and in the morning decide, that this person wants to walk away, NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
This is a leap in the darkness......
Mr David Farrugia
May 21st 2011, 17:32
And who is so stupid to spend 4 years in separation and go through the hassle of divorce, just for the kicks of it? So people really lack grey matter.
Mr JOSEPH AGIUS
May 21st 2011, 13:40
The duty of the faithful before casting their vote is to read what Fr Mark Montebello has to say in today’s paper. This is the Church of love and understanding that people want to love and follow. One whose essence is love, understanding and common sense.
One should think that there are several religious people who share such a view but who would not like it to be known that their bishop had pulled them up by the ears. Many of us certainly read with a sense of disgust those who frighten the ‘faithful’ with ‘possible’ links to abortion and to prophesies of societal doom and even eternal damnation. Medieval at best.
The bishops want to “ ensure a bright future for Maltese families”; but isn’t our present day the future of thirty years ago. What has changed in the teachings or the initiatives of the bishops in these years? With separation and cohabitation ever on the increase they can hardly boast of outstanding achievements. We did enjoy their ‘solution’ of annulments; but these too have been on the increase. I imagine that the Maltese Curia cannot be very proud of its achievements in this regard. And this despite that it did not have to fight the ‘evil’ and ‘grave dangers’ of divorce. But for our ‘next’ future they will assure us it will work. How will they achieve it this time round? Could it be a case of “pious illusion”? Or are there other explanations?
Mr M Borg
May 21st 2011, 13:24
@ Paul Barrett (10.06)
" The Church is grossly exceeding and sbusing both its power and influence in this matter which does not effect and influence in this matter which does not effect it or any ot its devout members. It should not be trying to influence the vote one way or the other. "
Meanwhile Paul Barrett is free to let us know his views on this matter every day. Views which he hopes will
influence the way people vote ..................seeing that he always writes against divorce, I guess that makes it OK.
" Which does not effect it or any of its devout members "
I do hope that you know that the church is made up of people , so contrary to what you wrote, the Church has a right and duty to educate her " devout members " about the consequences of divorce.
It is the Church's duty to explain the effect of divorce on Catholic marriages.
So while you use this website to try to influence people, the Bishops will issue a " pastoral letter " which will be read in Church it teach her members .
The Church is not making a slave of anyone. No one is forced to go to church.
Mr Paul Barrett
May 22nd 2011, 03:20
@ Mr M Borg.
Please, if you are going to quote me, please either type it accurately or obtain some lessons from Mr Joe Zammit on how to copy and paste.
In quoting you in return: Quote: The Church is not making a slave of anyone. No one is forced to go to church. Unquote.
You did not mention that all children are forced by the constitution to have the Roman Catholic religion thrust down their throats throughout their years at school. Parents are scared not to take their children for baptism and communion lessons in case they are refused places in school or later in life refused a "good job". - I am not joking here, I have had this straight from the parents of school children just a couple of years ago when they were finding it extremely difficult to persuade their children to go to the lessons and also to take their children attending different lessons with their extremely busy work schedule.
If no one is forced to go to church then why should members of the Church be persuaded by the Church to vote on a civil matter which does not effect the Church. This is inflicting Church rules and standards into State matters which effect all members of society and not just members of the Church who, in this particular case are not effected by the proposed new law in any case.
Nicolette Tanti
May 21st 2011, 13:05
Why should one sacrifice one's life if the couple are not compatiable, there is where the children suffer.
Mr Angelo Camilleri
May 21st 2011, 12:54
To me the church is acting like a bully just as usual even if it does not concern her!! or does it? will it be loosing money if divorce gets voted in?
Martin Busuttil
May 21st 2011, 12:36
Mela, illi nivvutaw IVA huwa dnub. Ghallinqas hekk qed jghidu xi whud.
Allura, bl-istess ragunament, li tkun EGOJIST, dak mhux dnub ukoll.
Id-divorzju huwa (ha nghid hekk), il-medicina ghal dawk li sfortunatament, iz-zwieg taghhom falla. Allura ma ghandhomx dawn in-nies ikollhom il-kura.
Min minn fost dawk li qed jghidu li huwa dnub, jekk ikollu lil xi hadd ghal qalbu li jkun ma jiflahx, li ma jtiehx il-medicina halli jfieq. Zgur li mhux se jcahhdu minn dan id-DRITT.
Ghalhekk, ghalfejn ahna ghandna ncahhdu lil min sfaxxalu z-zwieg tieghu/taghha, milli jekk ikollhom ic-cans li jerga jkollhom hajja felici fi zwieg iehor.
Iva, nhar is-sibt, 28 ta' Mejju, jiena flimkien ma marti, li ghall-grazzja tal-hanin Alla ghandna zwieg felici, se mmorru u nivvotaw IVA, biex dawk li ma kollhomx ix-xorti taghna, IKOLLHOM CANS IEHOR FIL-HAJJA.
Mario Grima
May 21st 2011, 12:24
The pastoral letter should call on the clergy to stick to their religious duties. While accepting the fact that the clergy can have their own opinion with regards divorce, their foremost objective in their priesthood obligations should focus on how to live and preach Christ's teachings to the faithful, especially where tolerance is concerned.
These last few weeks we have witnessed quite a bit of drama from our bishops, which in my opinion will keep honest catholics away from the church. This is what happened in the 60's, a period which the church tries so hard to make us forget, it is history being repeated. The only real difference is that most people are not gullible like those of 50 years ago. If the bishops really think that people give a hoot about what they say, especially if they are non-religion matters, they are mistaken.
Alfred Gatt
May 21st 2011, 12:02
Yes, now is the time for Catholics to do their duty. It is no use grumbling that we are being pushed into the sacristy, when we have a great chance to show our belief in Christ's words. Whilst not denying the hardships involved in broken marriages, still there are instances when something of great value comes before. This question of divorce is one of these instances, when the family institution as it is in our country, needsto be kept alive now and for our future generations. Christ underwent the greatest suffering to do his Father's will. So we, as his followers, are asked by Him to listen to Him, and in this instance to say NO to divorce, despite the contrary views that have been aired.
Mr Victor Laiviera
May 21st 2011, 11:48
I am not a lwyer, but I am strongly of the opinion that this is uncostitution and illegal.
Chapter 102 of the Laws of Malta, the Electoral (Polling) Ordinance, Part V (Corrupt Practices) Article 55, reads as follows:
55. 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 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.
This Article is further referred to in the Constitution Chapter VI, part 3.
Is the Church above the law?
Mr A Grech
May 21st 2011, 11:19
With the same reasoning of these guys no business should ever go bankrupt and throw all it's workers out because it's wrong and has a bad effect on people. So it should be enforced on the business to give all it's workers minimum wage and bizarre working conditions so they can keep their jobs.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
May 21st 2011, 13:41
"So it should be enforced on the business to give all it's workers minimum wage and bizarre working conditions so they can keep their jobs."
You are saying nothing new! When there are hard times companies that are known to be employee friendly try to keep all the jobs by reducing the wages of everyone - including management. This in an economic way is much better for both the company and the state. Why? It is good for the company because it can keep the same productivity. It is good for the state because less people are unemployed and can therefore continue to maintain their families and contribute to the economy in general. In fact companies that fire people usually have a very hard time to recover after a recession since they would need to re-enter into a re-hiring process which is costly on its own right.
Giacomo Bosio
May 21st 2011, 11:19
http://www.thezimbabwemail.com/thumbnail.php?file=Robert_Mugabe_Vatica_872981983.jpg&size=article_medium
1st May 2011 Mugabe receiving Holy Communion during the Mass celebrating Pope John Paul 11 beatification
Mugabe is a declared Polygamist.
He is also responsible for abuse of Human Rights of his fellow countryman , and for the murder of thousands
The Vatican requested Italy to ptovide a safe passage for Mugabe to go to the Vatican - even though Mugabe is under an EU travel ban.
The outcome _ Mubgabe receiving Holy Communion
Mr Edward Camilleri
May 21st 2011, 14:16
Unbelievable! Mugabe is loathed by everyone for his past & current actions. And not only he is welcome at the Vatican, but received Holy Communion!
It goes to show how shallow most christians can be. And then they want to impose on others by voting NO in the divorce referendum, when they already have similar legislation (annulment) in their canon law.
Charles Massa
May 21st 2011, 15:12
Nnaqbel mieghek.
Mr James Galea
May 21st 2011, 17:32
Only because NO ONE is threatening to withold Holy Communion from anyone. The Bishops have made this clear. It is on your conscience - only, hopefully, a fully formed conscience. Why is this so hard to understand /
Mr Joseph Brincat
May 21st 2011, 11:15
This issue is all about whether we want our civil rights to be at PAR with the REST of the world.This is simply a secular matter distinct from an ecclesiastical one. Why it got so complicated is beyond me.
We are a free country and we should therefore all vote according to our wishes WITHOUT any imposition or indoctrination from anyone! By would be simply exercising our civil rights in a democratic country.
(jb)
Mr Joseph Aquilina
May 21st 2011, 13:46
So should we legalise abortion just because other countries have abortion? Should we legalise drugs? You can argue that everyone should be free to do what he/she likes, but that is not being responsible and that is not the way to contribute to a solid society. Truth is that countries that lack social values have a high rate of suicides and are in general unhappy countries. Do you want that for Malta?? just so that it can be on par with other countries! Do you want that for the future generation of this country? In Malta we are free and we should freely decide that we want strong families and strong principles.
M Falzon
May 22nd 2011, 15:25
There was a time when the idea of married priests was beyond the wildest dreams of most Roman Catholics. But now, 14 years after the church began accepting married Episcopal clerics into its priestly ranks, another unprecedented event is taking place.
A Catholic priest is getting a divorce.
Fr. William Bry Shields, Episcopal priest now serving as principal of McGill-Toolen High School in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mobile, will soon be divorced from his wife of 18 years.
When a Mobile judge approves the out-of-court settlement the couple reached on May 10, Shields will become the first active Roman Catholic priest in America to be divorced.
Shields, 43, married Ruth Ann Shields, an obstetrician and gynecologist, in 1977. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1984. Ruth Ann Shields filed for divorce 10 months ago, citing incompatibility. The couple has five children, including twin girls born in 1986.
Neither William Bry Shields nor officials of the Mobile archdiocese would comment on the matter and few details of the settlement are known. But according to the priest's attorney, Joe Sullivan, Ruth Ann Shields will maintain custody of the children. The church would not be responsible for child support or alimony payments, he said.
The Shields' divorce promises to fuel debate among Catholics over the already controversial issue of married priests - especially the question of whether the church should allow all of its priests to be married.
SO THE PRIEST CAN DIVORCE....BUT US PEOPLE CAN'T.......THIS IS THE BIGGEST CRAP I EVER SAW IN MY LIFE.
SOME OF THE PEOPLE HERE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SIN OF GETTING DIVORCED....SIN???? ITS A HUMAN RIGHT NOT A SIN.IS A FREE CHOICE OF A HUMAN BEING.TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN BEING DAMAGED BY A DIVORCE? HOW ABOUT KIDS LEAVING IN A FAMILY WHERE A MOTHER DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THEM AND LEAVES THEM GROW UP ON THE STREETS OR AT GRANDPARENTS WHILE SHE IS PARTYING, OR GROWING UP IN A FAMILY WHERE THE FATHER COMES HOME DRUNK AND BEATS THEIR MOTHER UP,OR LEAVING IN A FAMILY WHERE PARENTS ARE FIGHTING ALL THE TIME AND SWEARING AT EACH OTHER?WHAT ARE THIS KIDS GONNA BECOME?THEY DONT DESERVE A CHANCE TO HAVE A PROPER FAMILY AND BE HAPPY?
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO IS GONNA VOTE NO TO DIVORCE....I TELL YOU WHO.....UNEDUCATED LOW LIFE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO RESPECT FOR OTHER HUMAN BEING......THE BUNCH OF WOMEN WHO ARE STAYING HOME DOING NOTHING BUT GOING OUT TO POLISH THEIR NAILS AND DYE THEIR HAIR AND ASKING THEIR HUSBANDS TO WORK 5 JOBS TO PROVIDE MONEY FOR THEM CAUSE THEMSELFS AS USELESS AND CAN MANAGE ON THEIR OWN,HUSBANDS WHICH ARE USED TO HAVE A SLAVE HOME DOING EVERYTHING IN THE HOUSE WHILE THEY ARE DRINKING THEIR BRAINS OUT IN THE STREET CORNERS.....THIS ARE THE PEOPLE WHICH ARE GONNA VOTE NO TO DIVORCE.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT RELIGION AND CHURCH....RELIGION IS A PRIVATE MATTER, EVERYBODY IS FREE TO BELIEVE IN WHAT THEY WANT.... A PERSON WHOS GOING 5 TIMES A WEEK TO THE CHURCH DOESNT HAVE MORE FAITH THAN ONE WHO GOES ONLY ONCE A MONTH.THE FAITH AND THE PRAYER IS A PRIVATE MATTER AND THE PERSON IS FREE TO CHOOSE WHEN AND WHERE HE OR SHE EXPRESSES IT.HOW IS IT POSSIBLE DURING THE LEVELS THE 14 -15 YEARS KIDS TO BE ASKED TO ASNSWER WHAT OPINION THEY HAVE ABOUT DIVORCE AND BEING WARNED THAT IF THEY SAY SOMETHING PRO DIVORCE THEY WILL LOOSE POINTS IN THE TEST......SHAME ON THE PEOPLE WHO LETS THIS THINGS HAPPEN..... IN SCHOOLS, RELIGION SHOULD BE A SUBJECT OF GENERAL KNOWLEDGE WHERE YOU LEARN ABOUT ALL RELIGIONS OF ALL COUNTRIES CAUSE THAT'S WHAT SCHOOL IS ABOUT NOT ONLY ABOUT THE RELIGION AND CHURCH IN MALTA CAUSE IN THIS CASE WHY SHOULD WE LEARN ABOUT GEOGRAPHY, HISTORY,FOREIGN LANGUAGES SINCE ONLY MALTA EXIST IN THIS WORLD?
Alfred Falzon
May 22nd 2011, 21:23
@M. Falzon
If the Catholic Church is now accepting married Episcopal priests in its fold then it must be really in a quandary.
His wife is now filing for divorce, you write!
This makes us wonder whether the Catholic Church is now seriously in contradiction with itself and its teachings.
A married priest and now a divorcee! Even if against his will!
If this is true, there is need for a lot of explanation.
The Catholic Church in Malta is duty bound to speak to its faithful regarding such allegations and not bury its head in the sand as it did with its pedophile priests!
I hope that this is just hearsay or rumours being spread to put the Church in a bad light!
Mr M Vella***
May 21st 2011, 11:14
" Zwieg dejjiemi " Min ma jixtieqx dan lil uliedu ? Izda bejn li tixtieq u r-realta tal-hajja gieli jkun hemm bahar jaqsam ! U jekk, Alla hares qatt, xi hadd minn uliedek jitkissirlu z-zwieg, xi tridhom jaghmlu IPOGGU, jew JIBQGHU WAHEDHOM GHAL GHOMORHOM ?? Mhux ahjar ikollhom cans iehor fil-hajja jekk jergghu jiltaqghu ma persuna li tkun thobbhom , li jkunu jistghu jergghu jizzewgu u b'hek ikollhom ferm aktar stabilita f'hajjithom. U jekk ikollhom it-tfal, dawn ma jitwieldux barra z-zwieg ?Meta bniedem jibqa poggut m'huwiex meqjus li qieghed fil-kuntest ta' familja.
Victor Pulis
May 21st 2011, 10:34
Fielding questions, he told a man who asked whether he should go to confession for voting no because he would be hurting so many people who were already hurt, Mgr Grech replied: “You should not feel guilty for making the right choice.”
That is not an answer. This man feels that voting no will condemn many already suffering individuals. The bishop's answer seems to say you are doing right by making sure these people keep on suffering.
Victor Pulis
May 21st 2011, 10:31
he(Mons Grech) said offering a teenager who got pregnant an appointment at a clinic was the wrong solution.
So what does the good shepherd propose? That we let the pregnant teenage girl give birth on the pavement? May i remind him of another teenage girl who had to bear her child in a manger because no one wanted to help her.
"Sending a hungry person to steal from the grocer next door was also the wrong solution.'
Of course it is. The solution is to provide a means for the man to earn his bread. Or in case of disability provide him with food yourself. But it is cruel and unchristian to let him starve. Telling him 'Alla jghinek' and 'I will pray for you' will not fill his stomach.
We want solid solutions not pie in the sky.
Mr Louis Cutajar
May 21st 2011, 13:21
Jekk smajt id-diskors sħiħ tal-Isqof ġewwa l-Fgura huwa stess tenna li l-knisja stess mhux biss parlat imma kienet hi stess li dejjem għenet u provdiet l-għajnuna lil dak l-aktar fil-bżonn. Daqs kemm wettqet dan il-knisja żgur li l-ebda partit politiku ma wettqu, ma nisa mswatta, istututi tat-tfal, anzjani, caritas ma' niex bi problemi ta' droga, azzard, nisa msawwta u hafna oħrajn.
Victor Pulis
May 21st 2011, 10:18
The bishops can rest ssured that on 28th May the Mltese will do their duty and vote in favour of the oppressed and the suffering like the good christians they want them to be.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
May 21st 2011, 13:49
The oppressed will be those woman or man that will be forced to get a divorce even though they still believe in marriege. The oppressed will be those that will marry someone only to realise that they are only just another number!! The oppressed will be those children that will be forced to call "Mother" someone who is not really their mother, or call "Dad" someone who is not really their father!! Those will be the real oppressed if divorce becomes a common thing in Malta!!
Ms Francesca Abela
May 21st 2011, 10:16
How about the Bishops issuing a pastoral letter about the barbaric cruelty to animals that is happening so often and also the indiscriminate killing of protected birds ? I have always done my duty in life, I do not need to be told.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
May 21st 2011, 13:52
Animal cruelty is a sin and an issue addressed by the Church more then once. Let me remind you that the current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is also known as the "Green" Pope because of the many green initiatives and talks he has done!
Mr Joe Gatt
May 21st 2011, 16:43
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Let me remind you that `Talk is Cheap` EXTREMELY Cheap. I offer my tears to your needs, how about that? Now we are even.
A `No` vote means imposition, a `Yes` vote offers a way out of a desperate situation to `Those That Need It`.
A chance to try at least to rebuild their shattered lives.
Mr Paul Barrett
May 21st 2011, 10:06
The Church has every right to request the members of the Church not to make use of or recognise divorce legislation as it is a voluntary law as opposed to a compulsory law.
The Church is grossly exceeding and abusing both it's power and influence in this matter which does not effect it or any of it's devout members. It should not be trying to influence the vote one way or the other to suppress the freedom of choice of the general population as this is basically interference in the writing of State laws which effect the whole population and not just members of the Roman Catholic Church.
Ever since this matter was first raised by a Private Members Bill, there have been a barrage of false claims being blamed on divorce and a number of subtile and not so subtile religious threats against the population to vote no both from the Clergy, prominent members of society and religious fanatics. The head of the pro-divorce movement has been blacklisted on purely religious grounds in believing in the right for people to have a free choice.
So many years have gone by since Independence and still we seem to be the slaves.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
May 21st 2011, 13:58
Yes, it does effect the Church and I will give you one example. A couple marries with the Church. After a few months the man (it could be the woman) finds another partner. The woman forgives the husband and being Catholic decided to try and save the marriage. The man prefer the “new” woman he has and files for divorce. This will mean that a divorce is being imposed on the first woman even if she wanted to try and save the marriage. Divorce is not something that effects ONE PERSON but at least TWO OR MORE persons, therefore – on principle it must at least be something that the two would want and not just one. The proposed law will allow someone to get a divorce after he she has been separated for four years even if the other party does not want a divorce. This means that divorce will be imposed and will soon become a tool of injustice!!!
Mr JOSEPH ZAMMIT
May 21st 2011, 10:03
Jon O’Brien, the president of Catholics for Choice, spoke a lot about the Divorce issue in Malta-- Dealing honestly with marital breakdown
In an article on The Malta Independent, O'Brien says that although the Maltese Church has every right to voice its opinion against divorce, it still has no right to dictate what should be the outcome of the referendum.
While it is certainly legitimate for the bishops to counsel Catholics against divorce, it goes against Church’s teachings to oppose the law itself.
Some of the loudest voices are those of the local Catholic hierarchy, including the bishops and members of Malta’s Church Tribunal. Of course, they have the right to have their say, but I have serious doubts as to whether they are accurately representing the views of Catholics or the totality of Church’s teachings.
http://www.independent.com.mt/news2.asp?artid=125650
Mr JOSEPH ZAMMIT
May 21st 2011, 10:03
Jon O’Brien, the president of Catholics for Choice, spoke a lot about the Divorce issue in Malta-- Dealing honestly with marital breakdown
In an article on The Malta Independent, O'Brien says that although the Maltese Church has every right to voice its opinion against divorce, it still has no right to dictate what should be the outcome of the referendum.
While it is certainly legitimate for the bishops to counsel Catholics against divorce, it goes against Church’s teachings to oppose the law itself.
Some of the loudest voices are those of the local Catholic hierarchy, including the bishops and members of Malta’s Church Tribunal. Of course, they have the right to have their say, but I have serious doubts as to whether they are accurately representing the views of Catholics or the totality of Church’s teachings.
http://www.independent.com.mt/news2.asp?artid=125650
Mr JOSEPH ZAMMIT
May 21st 2011, 09:57
Dealing honestly with marital breakdown. Jon O’Brien the president of Catholics for Choice had this to say, among other things:
While it is certainly legitimate for the bishops to counsel Catholics against divorce, it goes against Church’s teachings to oppose the law itself.
Some of the loudest voices are those of the local Catholic hierarchy, including the bishops and members of Malta’s Church Tribunal. Of course, they have the right to have their say, but I have serious doubts as to whether they are accurately representing the views of Catholics or the totality of Church’s teachings.
In an article on The Malta Independent, O'Brien says that although the Maltese Church has every right to voice its opinion against divorce, it still has no right to dictate what should be the outcome of the referendum.
http://www.independent.com.mt/news2.asp?artid=125650
Mr M Farrugia
May 21st 2011, 09:52
Jekk inti veru Kattoliku minbarra l-ligi tal-pajjiz trid ukoll tghix u tgagixxi skond il-Ligi ta' Alla.
Mr JOSEPH ZAMMIT
May 21st 2011, 09:26
“We will do what the Lord sent us to do and spread the good news,”---This was the same battle-cry of the crusades, the same cry of the destruction of the Cathars in France.
The good news of the Lord was Love and compassion--Love one another. Murders and mass killings were not his Good news--whether is is killing of the body or of one's FREE Beliefs.
Mr M Borg
May 21st 2011, 09:19
" A man who asked whether he should so to confession for voting " no " because he would be hurting so many
people who are already hurt, Mgr Grech replies You should not feel guilty for making the right choice. "
Mr Paul Barrett
May 21st 2011, 13:20
I agree with you here. You should not feel guilty for making the right choice to vote yes for divorce legislation even though you yourself will never even dream of making use of it.
The wrong choice of course is to prevent other people who may be of a different religion and possibly less fortunate than yourself from the freedom to choose to end their failed marriage and have another chance at a legally recognised civil marriage. That not everyone who obtains a divorce would wish to or indeed will go forward and obtain a civil marriage is irrelevant - they should have the freedom of choice.
Mr ALFRED MICALLEF
May 21st 2011, 09:18
Does your "do your duty" means stopping others from obtaining their human rights ? Why not
preach to your followers not to use this law when available ? Bullying the Maltese people and
repeating the past ! The church has always been proved WRONG.
Mr John Cassar
May 21st 2011, 09:17
A final attempt to sway voters by using the religious arguments. I am not surprised given the poor performance of ZbD to date.
Interestingly enough Mgr Grech claims he was misquoted. That makes a laughing stock of all those who chose yes in the online poll (do you agree with the bishop of Gozo 's comments)
Mickey mouse come home! ( with apologies to John Bundy)
Mr James Cauchi
May 21st 2011, 09:17
The Bishop should set an example within his faith and slam the decision to make this issue a referendum in the first place.
This he would do so if he were accepting of the fact that a 'No' result would affect the liberties and rights of citizens while a 'Yes' result would erode the integrity of the Catholic faith.
The referendum that should not be - the one where the integrity of a religion is pitted against the rights of a valid minority.
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 21st 2011, 09:03
"The bishops will issue a pastoral letter today, being the last weekend before the divorce referendum, urging people to use their civic right to show what they believed in and ensure a bright future for Maltese families."
It is a civil right to vote it is also a civil right to live life the way we see fit within the laws of the country.
Neil Bugeja
May 21st 2011, 09:18
Divorce is NOT a civil right!! This is the misconception which the pro-divorce movement is giving! If it were a civil right, i.e. a right throughout the world, it would be very simple to get divorce - just go to court and say that "I have the right to divorce this man". It is a civil right to live freely, but that right gets compromised when you make a LIFE COMMITMENT with someone!!
I would just like to say that there are many people who are against this type of divorce, not the concept of divorce - they are against the fact that one partner can decide to divorce (even if the other is unwilling) and not give any reason whatsoever! It is the mentality of "I got fed up" and "I don't want to make sacrifices" which this divorce is bringing in! If only they had thought about the law a bit more and not tailored it perfectly to suit the needs of certain people, many more people would have been in favour, including me
Mr Ernest Vella
May 21st 2011, 09:27
The right to vote is a Fundamental Huma Right but the "right" to divorce is not a right. If so report Malta to the Courts of Human Rights.
Mr Joseph E Briffa
May 21st 2011, 09:55
Who is denying this option?
Alistair Busuttil
May 21st 2011, 10:09
members of the clergy shouldnt have the right to vote for the referendum for the simply reason they dont have the right to marry,oh sorry they can still leave their vocation if they want
Mr Jo Camm
May 21st 2011, 10:46
Mr Sciberras - You said nothing new, everybody knew that.
What you did not notice was that the bishops will speak to their followers - as they have the right and duty to do.
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 21st 2011, 12:54
Mr Bugejaj said "Divorce is NOT a civil right!! This is the misconception which the pro-divorce movement is giving! If it were a civil right, i.e. a right throughout the world..." As far as I know it is a right in every other country bar Malta and another thrird world country.
Mr Paul Barrett
May 21st 2011, 13:12
@ Neil Bugeja
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick which is not surprising with all the smoke and mirror ridiculous arguments being put up by the anti-divorce movement and their followers.
You refer to the "no fault" divorce by your words I QUOTE: many people who are against this type of divorce, not the concept of divorce - they are against the fact that one partner can decide to divorce (even if the other is unwilling) and not give any reason whatsoever! UNQUOTE. The "no fault" divorce just means that a couple have agreed between them all the different aspects associated with the split including any financial support and any child care. All this means is that they do not need to waste Court time (and indeed legal fees and Court costs) in washing their dirty laundry in public and drawn out arguments in Court. If either of the couple have any factor that they do not agree on then it is not a "no fault" separation or divorce.
David Caruana
May 21st 2011, 13:13
@ Neil Bugeja:
"If it were a civil right, i.e. a right throughout the world, it would be very simple to get divorce - just go to court and say that "I have the right to divorce this man""
That's exactly how it is! "A right throughout the world" - except for Malta and the Philippines!
"just go to court and say that "I have the right to divorce this man"" - same here! Then come back to Malta (only if you had enough cash to support all this) and the Maltese State will also give you its blessing on your divorce. You cannot have such discrimination in a democracy!
Mr Joseph Aquilina
May 21st 2011, 14:03
Divorce is a civil right as much as it is a civil right to drive over 200km/h on Maltese road just because I am using my car. You can't because doing so could and would effect others (those driving on the same roads). Divorce is the same thing. IT DOES NOT EFFECT JUST YOU but also the wife/husband and if any the children.