Divorce campaign: We wish we could have contributed more - Archbishop
Archbishop Paul Cremona said today that he wished the Church had been in a position to make a bigger financial contribution to the campaign against divorce.
"We did our duty when he made a financial contribution to the campaign for divorce not to be introduced in our country," Mgr Cremona said during Mass for the activists of the anti-divorce movement (Zwieg bla divorzju).
Earlier, the anti-divorce movement said its campaign had cost €236,000 and it received a contribution of €180,000 from the Church. (See separate story at http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110622/local/church-contributed-180-000-to-anti-divorce-campaign.371916 ).
Mgr Cremona said he wished that the Church could have contributed more for the movement to inform the people about the harm of divorce.
Mgr Cremona thanked all those who had worked to defend the permanence of marriage.
He said that although the anti-divorce movement was secular and worked independently of the Church, it had, like the Church, worked to inform the people in favour of permanent marriage.
He said the Church continued to have a duty to protect marriage, and its work to benefit society would continue.
Its work would continue not only through financial means but also through the services of hundreds of volunteers who served in the Cana Movement and in parishes to prepare couples for marriage.
The Church, he said, was the only institution in Malta which prepared couples for marriage and sheltered children who did not have a proper family environment. Those couples whose marriage ran into trouble found help from the Church.
Thousands of young people received their formation from the Church, first and foremost. The Church was also the institution which helped drug addicts.
The Church's heart was always with families, and it had therefore contributed financially to keep divorce out.
Mgr Cremona urged society to contribute more for Malta to have strong families since that was the best for the people and families.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
165 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alfred Fenech
Jun 24th 2011, 19:18
Money badly spent. There are plenty of poor people who need it badly. Thats were marriage is suffering.
Thats reality. Besides the sick who cannot afford the medicine. If the church claims that this is done already, then its never enough. Devorce is like a good medicine for some people who would like a second chance. Maybe the church is happy with pogguty u tfal iltima bla isem missirom. This will also regulate maintenance for separated couples. The people have now spoken and our supposed elders have to listen whether they like it or not.
C Muscat
Jun 24th 2011, 13:41
Monsinjur Arcisqof ghandek tkun taf li kulhadd jista' jitkellem minbarra int. U ghandek tkun taf li kulhadd jifhem barra int. U ghandek tkun taf li dak kollu li taghmel il-knisja bih u minghajru l-istess. U ghandek tkun taf li l-artijiet li tajt lil Malta ma jiswew xejn. u ghandek tkun taf li n-nies ta kontra l-knisja behsiebhom jiffinanzjaw lid dar il-providenza; lil istituti; lid-djar tax-xjuh(ghax minn hawn ser jibdew jaqalaw il-flus bilhaqq); u lil dawk li tghinu minghajr daqq ta trombi ma hux ser ikollom bzonn iktar ghax dawn is-sinjuri ser jaghmlu kollox tajjeb.....LOL
Ms pamela hansen
Jun 24th 2011, 11:15
No crusade then!
Mr M Borg
Jun 24th 2011, 14:14
No, you are right !! it was not a crusade.
It was just the Church doing her duty towards her followers .
Mr Philip Micallef
Jun 24th 2011, 10:37
By what figment of the imagination can the Bishop conclude that the introduction of divorce would threaten a stable marriage. The concept of a permanent marriage smaks of an imposition when taken literally, and as esposed by the Archbishop. I laud the church in preparing couples to shoulder the responsibilities of married life and am afraid the State is not doing enough in this respect.
Anthony Cassar
Jun 24th 2011, 06:36
I wonder what the difference between financing a lobby group and actually forming a lobby group is? But then wait, perhaps the answer to this question would emerge when one considers whether the one financing the lobby group did so publicly or not! Everyone has a right to lobby for what one believes but where does one place honesty in using a front?
Henry S. Pace
Jun 23rd 2011, 15:31
@ Peppi (Joe) Azzopardi
'Jien ma naqbilx mal-Knsija. Jien nahdem biex issa jkunu jistghu anke jizzewgu l-omosseswali kif ghandhom dritt. '
Din hi item ohra mill-Agenda tieghek, Sur Joe? Zweg bejn l-istess Sess mhux naturali ghax il-kelma zweg hidik bejn Ragel u Mara. Ahjar ma dibdex inhawdu l-imhuh kif gara fir - Referendum dwar id-divorju
D. Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 16:37
kulhadd irid jindahal f hajjet haddiehor,ha jihdulek xi haga minn tieghek l omosesswali jekk ikollom dritt jizzewgu???? x affarijiet dawn!!!!
Philip Hili
Jun 23rd 2011, 23:04
@ Henry S. Pace
Sur Pace, rajtu beda hiereg l-gherf, ara l-kumment tas-sur david vella isfel!!!
Ms Rita Smith
Jun 24th 2011, 00:23
Mela Peppi qed jiggennen. Dan prezentatur mohhu f'postu. Dan hu dritt ukoll issa? Mela veru ma jafx xi jfisser zwieg! Ahjar ma jdahhaqx nies bieh.
Rita Smith
David Seychell
Jun 24th 2011, 06:45
@D Vella
Ha jihdulek xi haga minn tieghek jekk persuna ikollha d-dritt tizzewweg sitt nisa? Ha jihdulek xi haga minn tieghek jekk grupp ta' 4 persuni bisesswali (tnejn irgiel u tnejn nisa) ikollhom id-dritt jizzewwg kollha lil xulxin? Ha jihdulek xi haga minn tieghek jekk persuna jkollha d-dritt tizzewweg kelb?
Il-punt mhux dak. Il-punt huwa li dan kollu jmur kontra l-iskop taz-zwieg.
Mr Philip Micallef
Jun 24th 2011, 10:39
Vera xarabank Sur Joe. Taf kif ghandek taghmlu l-marketing.
Christopher Hayes
Jun 23rd 2011, 13:13
The only difference between the separation law we have had for several years and divorce is the matter of civil remarriage. Both mark the effective end of a marriage. From a religious perspective, there is nothing to distinguish the two since both seek ' to put asunder what God has joined'. So why did the Church behave as if the introduction of divorce threatened to throw open the portals of hell? What message, precisely, was it trying to get across (at a cost of € 180,000, no less)? If it is so concerned for the offence that we might give to God by introducing divorce, do we offend Him any less by legal separation and subsequent cohabitation? The post-referendum backlash against the Church is hardly surprising. Its seemingly irrational stand has laid it open to accusations of moral dishonesty and of seeking to protect its temporal interests over those of its followers.
Mr M Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 17:17
You are right in one thing only. The church is " concerned for the offence that we might give God ".
It is the church's duty to teach what is right and what is wrong to prevent all " those who believe from committing sins ."
"The matter of civil remarriage " as you put it , is what the church was trying to prevent. Not all those who seek separation will cohabit. However the church was trying to get the " message across " that all those who remmarried after divorce will be living in perpetual adultery.
For those who believe, and you might not understand this if you are not a practicing Catholic, the church will spend money to save souls.That is her moral duty and there is nothing irrational about the stand that the Church took.
You are wrong in saying that " the post-referendum backlash against the Church is hardly surprising. ". The words " post-referendum backlash " are out of place. All those who are saying things or writing against the church now wrote against the church and the Bishops during the referendum campaign.So, while it may seem " hardly surprising " to you this reaction was expected.
The Catholic Church is used to this and it will not stop her from doing her duty in the future.
Christopher Hayes
Jun 23rd 2011, 18:13
<<Not all those who seek separation will cohabit. However the church was trying to get the "message across" that all those who remarried after divorce will be living in perpetual adultery.>>
But not all those who divorce will go on to cohabit or contract a new civil marriage. So where is the difference? Estranged spouses who are cohabiting with new partners are already living in perpetual adultery, as you put it. Whether they contract a civil marriage or not does not detract from the adulterous nature of their relationship. So, again, where is the difference?
You stated that not all those who seek separation will cohabit by which, presumably, you mean to say that it is possible to separate from one’s spouse and not live in a state of sin. If it is indeed possible how could the dissolution of the civil marriage conceivably alter this? A legal separation dissolves the marriage contract in all but name. So how does divorce change things?
<<It is the church's duty to teach what is right and what is wrong to prevent all those who believe from committing sins>>
But at what point in the process is the sin committed? Is it in the fact of separating/divorcing one’s spouse? Or is sin only committed should one engage in a new and therefore’ adulterous’ relationship after separation/divorce?
Mr M Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 18:50
@ Christopher Hayes.
The Church believes in the insolubility of marriage, but the Church knows that in certain cases some couples will need to separate.
The Church is not against this, but the Church does not allow cohabitation. Divorce is nothing but a legalised form of cohabitaion and it goes against the Church's teaching. It is the Church's duty to teach this, and to let practicing Catholics know that the coming of divorce legislation will not change anything where the Church is concerned.
A legal separation " dissolves the marriage contract " , but Catholics are still married in the eyes of the Church.
The Church knows of the many children who will suffer because of divorce, part of " Her campaign " was to point out this.
This may be news to you, but there are those who think that they will now be able to get divorced, remarry and still call themselves " practicing Catholics. "
Ms Rita Smith
Jun 24th 2011, 00:27
From what I can read between the lines you are not even Catholic. Go and read the bible if you can because there it also mentions a marriage that is proved that have never been can be dissolved and if people want to cohabutate, yes it is a sin but people who seperate and do not remarry are not sinning. Sorry you have a lot to learn about Catholic catecism.
Rita smith
Victor Pulis
Jun 23rd 2011, 12:20
Lil dawk kollha l-vvutaw IVA. Jekk joghgobkom toqghodux tirrispondu lill tal LE. Issa r-referendum ghadda, intrebah u ntilef. Il flus tal knisja marru kollha ghand il medja li kienet favur id divorzju skont il muviment LE ghax jien nispera li l-media li kienet kontra d-divorzju (RTK,Il-Gens, In Nazzjon, Il Mument, Radio Maria...) kienet tirreklamalhom b'xejn. Nispera ghall inqas!!
Philip Hili
Jun 23rd 2011, 23:08
@ Victor Pulis
Sur Pulis,
Haga ghadna ma nafux!
Il-finanzjarjament tal-"le" il-maggor parti tieghu gie minn ghand il-knisja.
Il-finanzjarjament tal-"Iva" minn fejn gie?? Nahseb ghandna dritt li nikunu nafu hux!!!
Victor Pulis
Jun 24th 2011, 11:19
Jien la jinteressani min iffinanzja lill LE u lanqas lill IVA. Qatt ma staqsejt. Li naf hu li l-flus li tat il knisja spiccaw fil but tal media li ssapportjat lill IVA! il logika tghidli li min issapportja lill LE ma kienx jehdihom flus ghar reklami. Mela il flus intefqu f'reklami fil gazzetti u stazzjonijiet pro divorce!!!
Philip Hili
Jun 25th 2011, 12:56
@ Victor Pulis
Jun 23rd, 12:20 - "Lil dawk kollha l-vvutaw IVA. Jekk joghgobkom toqghodux tirrispondu lill tal LE." Yesterday, 11:19" - "Jien la jinteressani min iffinanzja lill LE u lanqas lill IVA.-"
Tista' tiddeciedi u tkun konsistenti please. Pero' taf ilghala ma jinteressakx hux? Halli ma timbarazzax lill-PL peress li kien qal li dan is-suggett ma jixtieqx li jkun ballun politiku u spicca biex Joseph kien l-ewwel wiehed li ghamlu politiku. Ara kieku, kien jinteressak!!
Mr William Flynn
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:56
MaryJo, ever heard of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum? Did you know that Voltaire's works were prohibited to be read by the popes? As well as Sartre and many others?
Do you realize they still are condemned even though the Index was abolished?
The church would have burned ay the stake the best brains the world has produced if it could.
The church can say and believe what ever it wants as long as it keeps it within her churches and stop trying to rule politics and interfere with the lives of those who are not part of the church.
Ms Rita Smith
Jun 24th 2011, 00:39
Maybe you have read what a desperate death Voltaire died.
Rita Smith
Victor Pulis
Jun 24th 2011, 11:24
Because of his well-known criticism of the church, which he had refused to retract before his death, Voltaire was denied a Christian burial,(Rings a bell?!) but friends managed to bury his body secretly at the abbey of Scellières in Champagne before this prohibition had been announced. His heart and brain were embalmed separately. On 11 July 1791, the National Assembly, which regarded him as a forerunner of the French revolution, had his remains brought back to Paris to enshrine him in the Panthéon. It is estimated that a million people attended the procession, which stretched throughout Paris. There was an elaborate ceremony, complete with an orchestra, and the music included a piece that André Grétry composed specially for the event, which included a part for the "tuba curva". This was an instrument that originated in Roman times as the cornu but had been recently revived under a new name.[14]
A widely repeated story that the remains of Voltaire were stolen by religious fanatics in 1814 or 1821 during the Pantheon restoration and thrown into a garbage heap is false. Such rumours resulted in the coffin being opened in 1897, which confirmed that his remains were still present.
Buried in the Pantheon with a million mourners in attendance. Very far from a desperate death I should think.
Mr Joe Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:55
Who attends mass knows what are the church's belives, if you don't like them do not attend.
No one is forcing anybody or stealing money from anybody.
Do you still think that the church must only be a charity movement?!
CATHOLICISM IS RELIGION. WAKE UP. Either you belive or you don't.
Do you know what is the duty of every catholic. To spread Christ's word.
So should the church do. MONEY WELL SPENT CONTRIBUTED BY TRUE BELIEVERS.
Mr Matthew Grima
Jun 24th 2011, 12:12
Christianity is a religion.
Mr elton grech
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:55
This...all of this... is stupid hot air...and we who engage in it, are even more stupid!
Victor Rodenas
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:34
First of all we have to thank the Church for its sterling work it did and is still doing to orphans,drug addicts etc,but I do not think that more money would had affected destiny.Those who think that Malta would not have its divorce too,now, or in the near future must be living on the Moon and also have their head buried in the sand.Malta is an Island but it is not isolated from the rest of the World,the majority of youngsters want divorce and it is that what counts.......those Maltese who emigrated to Australia ,Canada,Great Britain,USA etc were not afraid to go there because there is divorce in those countries,..they went and raised families there,of cource some divorced....because they wanted to....divorce is not forced on anybody.....many prefare to cohabit.
Victor Pulis
Jun 24th 2011, 11:27
Do annulled parents abandon their children (which incidentally are born out of wedlock) and what about separated couples? do they abandon their children? Frequently, the hardest battles during divorce proceedings involve the custody of the children with both parties wanting to bring up the children.
Mr David Smith
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:32
Think of the Church's contribution to the No to Divorce camp, as an investment - an investment against having more children, unwanted by their parents, in Church homes. Because that is what divorce will lead to....more abondoned children.
Mr Steve Zammit
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:30
@ Mr Geoff Gibson,
The precious ornaments and expensive works of art, are DONATED by the public and not bought by the church.....get your facts right.....Also, why shouldn;t the house of GOD have such things in it...
To everyone: The poor and needy have to be helped by everyone and not just by the church. Every one must do their bit...how easy it is to point fingers
Mr William Flynn
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:19
So had the bishops contributed more, would their apology have been longer? So much for their apologies.
The bishop’s enemies would be inclined to think they wish the bishops had contributed more so they would have lost more; but then, is the money theirs to spend? Every cent came from the donations of the poor, the gullible and the ignorant in the hope that it goes to good works not political donations.
The anti-divorce drivers may have been lay but they certainly were not secular. No secular person would erect a religious likeness to try to make a political point. And people don’t need anyone to “sell” them the idea of a permanent marriage which everyone strives for. Permanent is not the same as indissoluble.
I can’t think of a worse place than at any Catholic organization for a couple to get their marital training.
Cana would insist on no contraceptives which would likely cause the woman becoming a human sow with perhaps 20 pregnancies in 20 years; and all that entails to her health, her and her spouse’s sex life and the marriage’s economic success; not to mention the fertile ground for the seeds of infidelity and separations thrown in.
This report clearly shows once more there’s no contrition and the bishops will do it again if they can turn the clock back.
They can dream of what might have been but let’s at least make sure they cannot interfere in the future. Blast Article 2 off our Constitution.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 12:18
It seems as if Mr Flynn’s dream and hope of Article 2 disappearing won’t be realized.
In case you missed it last Friday Mr. Flynn: “Dr Muscat said that he did not see any problem with the article in the constitution stating that Malta’s religion was Roman Catholic. This was because the constitution also safeguarded freedom of worship.” That’s the PL.
As for the PN if they wanted to do away with it they had 25 years in which to do it but they didn’t, so it does not seem as if they want to.
So who’s left?
Maybe you should put your money where your loud mouth is and run for the general election on your own ticket. After all if also a stray dog in Strada Stretta would win a seat in Parliament with the sole promise of dismantling Article 2, you’d be sure to make it. Then, who knows, maybe you could take all of Malta to Thomas More’s Utopia.
Mr William Flynn
Jun 23rd 2011, 13:50
I am taking down the names of all the commenters who say that Article 2 won't be removed and place them next to my framed list of those who used to tell me over the years in these columns that if I want divorce to come to Malta I should come and stand for election as do it myself.
Spending time as a parliamentarian in Malta would be very nice but only compared to having an acid bath.
Since Mr Vella is so interested in my dream, I'd like to give him this picture of kindly drawn courtesy of the Times of Malta’s current Poll with the help of nearly 8000 "brush strokes”.This is the Times poll:
How do you think the Prime Minister should vote on the Divorce Bill?
'No' according to his conscience and the PN position......25%
Abstain as long as the Bill is still approved......7%
Yes because that was what the referendum majority declared.......66%
Total number of votes: 10005
Well over 70% don’t want a NO vote (which is what the bishops wanted) and reflects strong support for the removal Article 2 from our Constitution. Surely if the Maltese population was really “Catholicissima” and wanted Article 2 in our Constitution,
1. The referendum would have returned a strong NO result and we wouldn’t be seeing any polls on how the PM should vote.
2. If there was even a modicum of anything resembling majority support for church authority, which I have never seen in all my years, no poll would show anything resembling these numbers.
Article 2 doesn't belong on the Constitution of a secular nation. The people have shown they don't wish gratuitous religious advice from bishops and bishops need to learn to listen to the secular state instead.
All in good time Mr Vella…all in good time.
Mr Andy Farrugia
Jun 23rd 2011, 16:01
Flynn, your persistence in repeating your mantras is ludicrous, but then so is your folly.
Mr William Flynn
Jun 23rd 2011, 16:17
Thank you Mr Farrugia. You're a tad late today and as usual no sensible argument just a blank shot from behind the bushes and run for it.
And you'll be delighted to know your name is now added to my regular stalker Mr Vella's name for my "Article 2 will never happen; it's a folly" list. That's two in one day.
But it isn't a long list. Only a few names so far if you include the resident cut and paste "the YES vote only won by 2%" apologist. Where is he today? On that’s right he only posts after 8pm Malta time.
Be my guests Knock yourselves out I'm going to sleep.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 17:53
You are worse than Joe Zammit, the one you loathe and used to denigrate so much.
It seems as if you have found a gem in this current poll of the Times. Let's analyse it. A poll on the internet cannot be taken as a scientific random sample of the population. Do you grant me that?
So you will have to take it as a raw number. I did not pay any notice to the poll as to me it is highly unimportant. So according to the numbers you gave, if I understood correctly 66% of 10005 want the PM to vote yes and you are taking that as the percentage of those who want to do away with Article 2.
So 66% of 10005 = 6603 persons or to be more exact 6603.3.
For the referendum we had 325103 voters on the register. So all you can say is that 2% (or to be really just with you let me say 2.03114089 %) of the population want article 2 (according to you, highly doubtful to me) removed from the constitution.
I have the honour of having you remember my name to make me eat dust but that will be in the very very very far future. I won't even be around then. Thanks for your attention to my arguments.
Ms Rita Smith
Jun 24th 2011, 00:46
I do not think you are Catholic. To me you seem to have no Religion at all. So please can you let the Chruch of Malta teach the Maltese right from wrong. With you arguments go somwhere else. You are not welcomed haere.
Rita Smith
Ms Rita Smith
Jun 24th 2011, 00:51
Dear Mr Flynn that survey is the most rediculous. You know why? Because I voted 3 times. That's how exact it is. A true copy of the referendum result where 92,000 did not vote. That was also a clear result!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rita Smith
Mr Matthew Grima
Jun 24th 2011, 12:15
Rita, I don't have a religion, am I not welcome either?
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:11
Jien (u kulħadd) għandi kull dritt
nemmen li rrid,
nesprimi ruħi kif u kemm irrid,
nassoċja ruħi ma' min irrid,
nonfoq flusi fejn u kif irrid, u
nikkontribwixxi bi flusi għall-kampanji li rrid.
Għaliex il-Knisja le?
Hu ovvju li ħafna psewdo-liberali
lanqas għandhom l-iċken idea ta' drittijiet tal-bniedem,
inklużi d-drittijiet ta' għaqdiet tal-bnedmin
bħall-Knisja.
Minkejja t-taparsi liberaliżmu,
il-maġġoranza li qed tikteb hawn
qed turi preġudizzju enormi
kontra dik li llum hi minoranza,
in-nies li vvutaw kontra d-divorzju kif kellhom kull dritt,
inkluża l-Knisja.
Fejn hu kliem il-filosfu tal-liberta' u tal-illuminiżmu, Voltaire?
"JIEN NITQABAD SAL-MEWT BIEX INTI TKUN TISTA' MA TAQBILX MIEGĦI."
Dak li qed naraw illum, anke f'dawn il-paġni,
hu liberaliżmu falz
li jhedded il-libertajiet l-aktar bażiċi.
Nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż fejn il-Knisja ma tistax titkellem.
Nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż fejn
ladarba tkun tkellmet il-maġġoranza f'referendum,
kulħadd irid jivvota bilfors bħall-maġġoranza.
Kulħadd bilfors, bħall-politburo Kommunista.
Nibża'.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:40
Issa ghax tinsab f'minoranza qed tiggieled ghad-drittijiet tal-minoranzi? Fejn kont qabel ir-referendum? Forsi kont l-Indja, fejn il-Knisja Kattolika qed tiggieled FAVUR is-SEKULARIZMU, ghax hemm tinsab f'minoranza?
Nibza mill-ipokrezija.
Mr Mark Zerafa
Jun 23rd 2011, 12:02
Ta' Psewdo-Liberali li jien, naqbel mieghek li ghandek dritt temmen li trid. Imma t-twemmin isir perikoluz meta jigi impost fuq haddiehor. Issa li r-referendum ghadda, xorta ghad ghandek id-dritt li thaddan it-twemmin tieghek, li tesprimih u li tghix hajtek skond dak li temmen. Kieku r-referendum ma ghaddiex, kulhadd kien ikollu joqghod ghal dak li temmen int. Imma ghidli, minn fejn sa fejn tassumi li jien Kattoliku bhalek, u li bil-fors, irrid jew ma rridx nghix skond dak it-twemmin? Iva. Nibza'. Minn elementi fis-socjeta' taghna li johonqu d-drittijiet tal-individwu li jghix hajtu skond twemminu. Li jcahhdu lill-individwu mid-dritt li jsib il-ferh f'hajtu. Nitwerwer.
edgar agius
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:07
Is this Catholic Malta?
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:23
No.
Ms Rita Smith
Jun 24th 2011, 01:03
Oh Mr Gibson I can see what a true Christian you are. Christian is derived from Christ's name and you know what? Christ hated divorce. So what kind of Christian you are may I ask?
Ritya Smith
Mr Geoff Gibson
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:51
For all those that attend Mass and contribute to the collection. Your money was spent on a political motivated campaign. The remainder went towards making your church look nice, decked out in precious ornaments and expensive works of art.
Next time you find yourself struggling for a few euros to feed the family, take a look inside your church and see how well your money was spent.
Mr Joe Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:54
Who attends mass knows what are the church's belives, if you don't like them do not attend.
No one is forcing anybody or stealing money from anybody.
Do you still think that the church must only be a charity movement?!
CATHOLICISM IS RELIGION. WAKE UP. Either you belive or you don't.
Do you know what is the duty of every catholic. To spread Christ's word.
So should the church do. MONEY WELL SPENT CONTRIBUTED BY TRUE BELIEVERS.
Mr John Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 12:00
Dear Mr. Gibson, if you attend mass yourself (since you seem not to from your comment) you would know that when the church collects money (ghall bzonnijiet tal-knisja) for it's own maintenance, embelishment or even the church feast, the priest states it clearly. Hence, if you don't want to contribute your money to such things you may choose not to.
On the other hand, when used for special causes (vocations, campaigns, missions etc) the church too makes it clear what the cuase it for. For this reason, EITHER attend mass and know what goes on OR please keep your redundant comments to yourself if your intention is only to harm the church.
Mr Geoff Gibson
Jun 23rd 2011, 13:18
@ The Borg family.
I have attended Mass on several occasions. What I didn't see or hear was a clear indication where my donation would be going. I also stopped going because I didn't see any reason to keep being preached at week after week, when I already led my life with a decent set of morals. A set of morals determined by law and my own (clean) conscious , not by what someone else forces upon me repeatedly.
Before you jump to conclusions, I am a christian.
Ms Rita Smith
Jun 24th 2011, 01:00
Mr. Gibson
We are proud that our Churches are like they are. Nobody is forced to give out money. The Church does not keep a register to see who gave or who did not. That's why maybe your Churches in England are always empty because they look like ghost towns. Give us a break
Rita Smith
Mr Joseph Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:48
Qatt ma kont nobsor u kelli l-icken ideja li f'Malta hawn din il-mibeda kontra l-knisja u l-kleru, mhux ta' b'xejn li l-valuri marru daqshekk lura. Nispera li dawn l-antiklerikali m'ghandhomx lill-uliedhom fi skejjel tal-knisja u qeghdin jiehdu edukazzjoni privata b'xejn, ghax vera jkollhom wiccu ma jisthiex.
Mr Charles Falzon
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:13
Le mhux mibgheda imma meta tara flusek minfuqha hekk tirrabja....daqs kemm hawn istituti u nies foqra lil min il knisja setghet tat il flus kien hemm bzonn jonfqu daqshekk fuq id divorzju? Sorry imma ma naqbilx.
Mr Joseph Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:39
Min jaghti flus lill-knisja ma jaghmilx kundizzjonijiet, min ma jaqbilx ma jaghtix u ma jkun gara xejn.
Mr John Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:55
Mr. Cassar you are so right. We go fooling people saying that Malta is 98% catholic. This referendum made me realise how many people are all-out against the church, telling it to shut up as though it wishes to harm society!
I repeat my same comment below:
If you attend church and really practice the teachings of the church, you should have never been in favour of divorce. Hence you would have been happy to have your money used for a cause you believe in and for this reason it was not wasted.
Better than spending it on the church feasts and fireworks, don't you think?
Mr elton grech
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:56
liema hi din l iskola tal knisja li toffri edukazzjoni privata b'xejn? jaqaw dawk li imbaghad jitolbu donation...u jghidulek ta' kemm trid tkun ukoll?
Ms Rita Smith
Jun 24th 2011, 01:07
Mr Elton Grech
Mur qabbel id-donation mizera li jiehdu l-iskejjel tal-knisja ma skejjel privati u tara li l-Knisja veru taghallem b'xejn.
Rita smith
Mr Steve Zammit
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:38
What about the pro-divorce? How much did they spend and who gave them the money?
Why can't the church voice its opinion? We have every right to do so....
Does anyone know how much money the church spends on its schools and other institutions every year?
How many people who have complained againts the church send their children to a church school, and perhaps just donating a few euro!!!
Mr Raphael Vassallo
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:08
'Does anyone know how much money the church spends on its schools and other institutions every year?'
Church schools are financed by the State.
Mr Steve Zammit
Jun 23rd 2011, 16:22
They are not!!!! Who told you? The state has enough schools to finance...
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Jun 23rd 2011, 22:07
of course the state finances church schools. kemm hawn min qas qed jghix f dinja. mhux talli il gvern qed ittijhom il flus imma jitolbuk taparsi donation kull term......................
Mr John Cassar
Jun 24th 2011, 07:33
Steve, you check your facts. The church schools are financed by the state (ie by the tax payer's money) and then the church goes out and lavishly spends 180,000 on a misleading campaign.
I guess the election just cost the tax payer 4.18 million now.....
Mr Steve Zammit
Jun 24th 2011, 10:39
The state contributes to the teachers' salaries...that's true!! Ghankhom ragun!
However there are other expenses in running all these schools, don;t you agree!!!! Not to mention all the other institutions and the money involved....And again, our children attend these schools...
@ Mr. Seychel, jien qed ngthix f'dinja, u kif....nghix f'dinja b'nies li ghandhom kull dritt li jesprimu wriehom kif jahsbu li hu tajjeb u ta gid ghal kulhadd....tista taqbel jew le!!
@ Mr. Cassar, your comment is not just! Why misleading? Why lavishly? Didn't they have the right to voice their opinion. If I believe in something I will be willing to support those who are campaigning in its favour...even financially.
j brincat
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:35
Wasn't your brainwashing enough?
You could have used the money for a much better cause.
Now you are reaping what you sowed.
(jb)
Olvin Galea
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:32
Dear MGR Cremona
The more money you where to invest the bigger the defeat would have been!!! You managed to raise a destructive campaign that only a few managed worst in Malta's history (i.e. MLP REF CAMP). it was a campaign that instead of explain and I say pinpointing the beautiful example of what marriage is, you wasted your time and money trying to debate arguments against divorce exactly the same way the Labour Party did on Malta Referenda on EU membership and needless to say that the result was the same. People have different reactions to certain campaign. If the church wants to win the people then serious argument and moderate discussion is the only way forward.
Our Church like Our Lord Jesus Christ needs to be positive and argue in a positive manner!!!!
Mr Alfred Hili
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:07
The church teaches the Gospel of Christ. If you are a Catholic, then you don't seek to change the church history od faith and morals the moment your circumstances become difficult,
Olvin Galea
Jun 23rd 2011, 12:32
I never tried, all i am saying is that the church made a whole mess out of the campaign using the wrong arguments when it had the best options. Had they opted to explain better the nice value of chatolic marriage probably the result could have been different.
Mr twanny borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:25
il-propoganda tal-pl waqfet kontra l-knisja ghax issa hekk jaqbel. veru ippokriti!
Mr twanny borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:23
il-knisja ma tkellmitx bizzejjed kontra d-divorzju fejn aktar tfal se jbaghtu minn qabel u aktar nies mhux se jikkonciljaw minhabba l-erbgha snin fejn wiehed ma jkunx irid li l-erbgha snin jerga jibdewlu u jitlef iz-zmien li jkun ghadda.
Alistair Busuttil
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:12
mela briganti,hallelin,ilpup ma kienux bizzejjed ,xi hadd ghandu definizzjoni ohra?
angelo cilia
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:11
This annulment racket must be worth a bundle of dough to the maltese papist church to spend 180,000 euros to protect its monopoly. And this fool thinks if they shelled out more it would have gone their way.
Some faith ! ...Some hypocrisy !
Tony Dalli
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:50
I am a practicing catholic, attend mass and hate no one. I always drop a couple of Euro during collection.
Notwithstanding I voted in favour of divorce. What bugs me most is that part of my financial contribution was handed out to the contra faction.
I have a dilemma, should I stop attending mass or maintain my practice but stop contributing financially.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:59
You can do what your coscience tells you.
Either way I think that you will be the loser. If you stop attending mass you won't be getting what you think that you are getting now from it. If you attend and stop contributing you will just be making yourself a scrounger, being able to donate to some good causes but not doing it.
Mr Geoff Gibson
Jun 23rd 2011, 13:26
@Tony Dali
If you find benefit form attending Mass, then carry on attending. If you don't like where the church spends it's money then do not contribute...it's not compulsory
If that leaves you feeling guilty, why not place your normal mass contribution into your favourite charity collection box? Could anyone object to that?
Simon Azzopardi
Jun 23rd 2011, 13:41
Tommy Vella, donating to a cancer charity is money well spent that is used effectively. There are various forms of Charity, and the church (if it is at all) is not the only one.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 14:48
@Mr Azzopardi
You should polish your English comprehension. I never said that donating to the church is the only way to donate to charity.
I was answering Mr Dalli on his choice of attending the mass but not donating. He would be making use of a service while not supporting the charity that that service supports. For me that would be scrounging.
Ms Rita Smith
Jun 24th 2011, 01:14
You are free to do as you like but how wrong you are saying you are a practicing Catholic. Divorce is not in the Catholic dictioinary. You went against it's teaching and better find another Religion if you are having so many questions about what to do. Only you can solve your problem my friend.
R Smith
Simon Azzopardi
Jun 24th 2011, 09:16
Tommy, I guess we agree to disagree on that!
Charles Sammut
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:44
O f course you could have contribute more!
By keeping your mouth shut and not meddling in State affairs.
Have you got anything to say about Annullment and IVF ?
...and the beat goes on....and the beat goes on.......
Mr Patrick Gatt
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:42
The world was once ruled by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. It was called the Dark Ages.
Joseph Debono
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:41
I have the feeling that even this simple report of the archbishop thanking all those that worked and still work for the permanence of marriage will attract more than a hundred comments. There is a simple truth that many secularists forget. The church cannot fashion its message according to the polls or according to mainstream. The church has to speak where marriage, life, the rights of the poor and the weak are involved, irrespective of whether these topics have a socio-polticall or civic connotation or not. And a secular country is duty bound to safeguard the rights of all to speak on these subjects. The church will continue to do its best to support marriages and to contain the damage that is caused by the proliferating marriage splits.
Peppi Azzopardi
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:32
Ma nistax nifhem din ir-rabbja lejn il-Knisja. Jien ivvutajt iva. Jien ma naqbilx mal-Knsija. Jien nahdem biex issa jkunu jistghu anke jizzewgu l-omosseswali kif ghandhom dritt. Izda mhux biss nifhem li l-Knsija ma taqbilx mieghi izda ghandu jkollha id-dritt u anke d-dmir li tghallem li z-zwieg huwa ghal dejjem u jsir biss bejn mara u ragel. X fiha stramb li l-Knsija tghin b'mod finazjarju lil grupp ta persuni li b mod volontarju hargu fil-pubbliku jghidu dak li jemmnu? Ahna li naqblu mad-divorzju ma nistghux nippretendu li ahna qeghdin fuq in-naha tal-verita. Kieku, per ezempju, hawn malta titressaq ligi biex terga tidhol il-piena kapitali, jien inwaqqaf jew nidhol f moviment li jassigura li dan il-qtil pre meditat mill-istat ma jidholx f'Malta. U nippretendi li l-Ghaqdiet tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal Bniedem f'Malta johorgu gidhom biex dan ir-referendum ma jghaddiex. Issa ghal certi nies il-qilla li nhoss jien kontra l piena kapitali ihossuha fuq id-divorzju. Ghandhom dritt? U jekk jemmnu hekk ghala iridu nghalqulhom halqhom?
Mr Mark Zerafa
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:57
Jien bhalek ivvotajt IVA. L-IVA tieghi ma kinitx biss ghad-divorzju, imma kienet kontribut ckejken ghas-sekularizzazjoni tas-socjeta' taghna. Din ir-"rabja" mhix ghall-knisja per se, imma ghal-indhil eccessiv taghha fil-ligijiet tal-pajjiz u l-imposizzjoni tat-twemmin Kattoliku fuq cittadini li ghandhom twemmin differenti (jew l-ebda twemmin). Din ir-"rabja" hi ukoll reazzjoni ghan-nuqqas ta' sensitivita' tal-knisja lejn dawk li qed ibatu.
mary jane aquilina
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:02
Peppi issa ghaqqad grupp favur il-kacca ghax dawk ukoll minoranza (refernza ghax il-bicca taz-zwigijiet mhumiex imkissrin u dawk li ser juzaw id-divorzju huma minoranza nispera) siehbi. Ma ghandhomx dritt joqtlu ghasafar ghal gost?
Mr Alfred Hili
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:26
Now that the people have voted yes for divorce, now that our culture seems to want to treat marriage as anything except a sacrament and a life-long commitment, the church must make sure that those Catholics who are married in church are well prepared for it. The spouses must be aware especially of their lif-long commitment, their openess to children. If marriage is to be treated (or even worse celebrated) as a temporary arrangement rather than a permanent covenant, then there is little to say that fornication is wrong, or for that matter, adultery.
David Seychell
Jun 23rd 2011, 12:31
Peppi Azzopardi
"Jien nahdem biex issa jkunu jistghu anke jizzewgu l-omosseswali kif ghandhom dritt."
Homosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us. In fact, some gays do choose to get married and have children too.
But let us for a moment imagine that we accept to discard the essential prerequisite of marriage to be a union between a man and a woman only, so as to accommodate gays who want to marry a person of the same sex on the basis that they are in love and committed to each other. In that case, a bisexual who loves a man(bisexual) plus a woman (bisexual) would have a legitimate claim to redefine marriage again so that it becomes a union of two or more persons, because just like we would have discarded the essential opposite-sex prerequisite on the basis of the love and commitment principle, consistency would require us to also discard the two-persons-only prerequisite basing on the principle that the bisexual is in love and committed to the two other persons. And what about a man who loves six women? And then what if a woman claims that she loves her dog? Just like we would have discarded the essential opposite-sex prerequisite on the basis of the love and commitment principle, consistency would require us to also discard the human-human-only prerequisite basing on the principle that a woman is in love and committed to her dog -just like the Imam ones said. The different possibilities would be limited only by our imagination.
Marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN only because children are ALWAYS the result of a union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN only.
Philip Hili
Jun 23rd 2011, 23:16
@ Peppit Azzopardi.
Ara veru...........l-ewwel itkeskes, u titfa' l-hatab fuq in-nar, u imbaghd tilghaba ta' qaddis.
Pepp mhux ahjar tillimita kliemek forsi izjed johrog gid?
"Jien nahdem biex issa jkunu jistghu anke jizzewgu l-omosseswali kif ghandhom dritt."
Fliema universita' attendejt biex taf li iz-zwieg bejn l-omosseswali skond int huwa "dritt"?
Kabbruielek wisq rasek Pepp!!!! u min kabbarlek rasek issa qieghed jaqlahha!!!!
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:32
There are two Catholic churches in Malta. There is the church of Abel. It does an enormous amount of good amongst the people, and those involved, go far beyond their call of duty. their deeds and actions are too numerous to mention here and we will always be in their gratitude. Unfortunately, there is the other side there is the church of Cain. Trying to undo, by their actions, the good being done by the other side. What a pity.
Mr Joseph Brincat
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:08
THE MALTA CHURCH
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION CAMPAIGN AGAINST
DIVORCE WAS > OUR MONEY > WASTED AND
HE WANTED TO WAST MORE MONEY >>> ????!!!!!
Mr John Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:52
Mr. Brincat, it is YOUR money if you attend church. Which in turn, if you attend church, you should have never been in favour of divorce. Hence you would have been happy to have YOUR money used for a cause YOU believe in. If you do not attend church, your comment here is useless.
better than spending it on the church feasts and fireworks, don't you think?
Mr Matthew Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:25
Do you donate money to the church? if you don't then no one has wated your money.
If you do donate money then it's up to the church on how it is used.
Mr William Flynn
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:39
What's this rubbish that if people don't donate to the church, then it's not their business what the bishops do with the church's money?
Does the church pay income tax? If not, (and I don't really know) Maltese tax payers are subsidising (and therefore donating to) the church whether they want to or not and whether they are Catholic or not.
The parents and grandparents and ancestors of those who don't contribute any more, contributed and paid money to the church over the centuries, big time; including death-bed bequests.
Every red cent the church owns belongs to the people and should be directed for the good of the people not wagered on political adventures out of sync with the wishes of the greater majority and which are destined to failure.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 12:42
@ Mr William Flynn
Could you inform us about the amount you contributed to the Church? We, who do contribute, trust her enough to keep on contributing without asking her for any rendering of accounts.
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:07
Talk about FALSE EXPECTATIONS. I thought he was different. My mistake
Mr michael catania
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:48
Same here Mario I too thought that he was honest and humble but by his comments as printed puts him back in my estimation of him.
Charlie Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:56
Mario Sciberras et alia: What did you expect? A bishop who does not 'fight' tooth and nail against divorce? Go on: please tell me! What did you expect? He had a duty to fight against the introduction of divorce becuase divorce goes against Catholic teachings. In this matter, he is not at fault.
Beppe Pisani
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:01
imma dawn in-nies possibli jaghmlu xi tlettax il-sena jistudjaw, specjalment kif jahseb il-bniedem????!!!!
sur arcisqof ghandi grazzja mieghek imma lanqas kieku ma tajtu l-miljuni ma kien jaghdi r-referendu ghax is-sewwa jirbah zgur!!
u fejnu l-isqof ta' ghawdex?
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jun 23rd 2011, 08:50
Jien (u kulħadd) għandi kull dritt
nemmen li rrid,
nesprimi ruħi kif u kemm irrid,
nassoċja ruħi ma' min irrid,
nonfoq flusi fejn u kif irrid, u
nikkontribwixxi bi flusi għall-kampanji li rrid.
Għaliex il-Knisja le?
Hu ovvju li ħafna psewdo-liberali
lanqas għandhom l-iċken idea ta' drittijiet tal-bniedem,
inklużi d-drittijiet ta' għaqdiet tal-bnedmin
bħall-Knisja.
Minkejja t-taparsi liberaliżmu,
il-maġġoranza qed turi preġudizzju enormi
kontra dik li llum hi minoranza,
in-nies li vvutaw kontra d-divorzju kif kellhom kull dritt,
inkluża l-Knisja.
Fejn hu kliem il-filosfu tal-liberta' u tal-illuminiżmu, Voltaire?
"JIEN NITQABAD SAL-MEWT BIEX INTI TKUN TISTA' MA TAQBILX MIEGĦI."
Dak li qed naraw illum, anke f'dawn il-paġni,
hu liberaliżmu falz
li jhedded il-libertajiet l-aktar bażiċi.
Nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż fejn il-Knisja ma tistax titkellem.
Nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż fejn
ladarba tkun tkellmet il-maġġoranza f'referendum,
kulħadd irid jivvota bilfors bħall-maġġoranza.
Kulħadd bilfors, bħall-politburo Kommunista.
Nibża'.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:11
Jien nghid ghalija, nibza nghix f'dinja fejn il-Knisja Kattolika fejn jaqblilha tattakka b'kampanja ta gideb lis-sekularizmu, u fejn jaqblilha (bhal fl-Indja, ghax tinsab f'minoranza), taghmel kampanja favur is-sekularizmu.
Ray Gatt
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:35
Il-Poplu tkellem, u il-maggoranza tal-Poplu stmerr il-kampanja qarrieqa u giddieba li ghamlet il-knisja/il-PN/u tal-Le sabiex tbezza lil poplu specjalment dak anzjan. Taf li l-knisja baghtet nies fl-iskejjel governattivi sabiex ibezzghu tfal ta' disa' snin. Imisshom jisthu. Il-knisja ghanda u kella kull dritt taghti l-opinjoni taghha, izda il-limiti qieghdin hemm ghal kulhadd. U x'differenza hemm bejn il-knisja u l-politbura komunista???
"Nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż fejn ladarba tkun tkellmet il-maġġoranza f'referendum,
kulħadd irid jivvota bilfors bħall-maġġoranza".
Xi drittijiet kien ikollha il-minoranza li ghanda bzonn id-divorzju kieku rebah il-LE. Jien ghandi dritt inkun kuntent f-hajti jew insib lil xi hadd bhalek li tipprova tisraqli dritt civili u thallini fil-limbu.
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:40
Kenneth Cassar:
Jiena nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż
fejn ħadd ma jista' jitkellem dwar twemminu
għax jaqbżu jgħajruh sekularisti mill-aktar aggressivi.
Nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż
fejn sar politikament inkorrett
li tgħid li teżerċita dritt mill-aktar bażiku,
li hu d-dritt ta' twemmin ħieles
u li dak it-twemmin ixxandru pubblikament.
Nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż
fejn il-qtil tal-għasafar huma u jbejtu ma jitħalliex (u sewwa),
imma sekularisti aggressivi diġa' bdew jagħmlu l-argument
biex il-bnedmin jibdew jinqatlu f'ġuf ommhom.
Nibża'.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:32
@ MaryJo Camenzuli:
Anki jien kieku nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż fejn ħadd ma jista' jitkellem dwar twemminu, izda dan il-pajjiz mhux Malta.
Is-sekularisti ma jghajjrux nies ghax jesprimu twemminhom. Is-sekularisti jiddibattu u jargumentaw kontra twemmin zbaljat. Il-fundamentalisti jinterpretaw dan bjala attakk aggressiv, ghax jemmnu li huma ghandhom il-verita' kollha li ghandha tigi mposta fuq kullhadd.
Anki jien kieku nibża' ngħix f'pajjiż fejn ikun politikament inkorrett li tgħid li teżerċita dritt mill-aktar bażiku,
li hu d-dritt ta' twemmin ħieles u li dak it-twemmin ixxandru pubblikament. Izda dan il-pajjiz mhux Malta. Biss nitolbok tirreciproka billi thalli hielsa jesprimu ruhom dawk li ma jaqblux mat-twemmin tieghek.
Nibza ukoll nghix f'pajjiz fejn nies bhalek ihalltu lil min hu favur l-abort mas-sekularizmu, bhallikieku is-sekularisti kollha huma favur l-abort. Bazikament, nibza mill-pregudizzju u l-gideb sfaccat.
John Carmel Navarro
Jun 23rd 2011, 08:43
So first an apology a matter of minutes prior to the end of voting time in the referendum, to the way the Church conducted itself. Now brazenly admitting how much money the Church poured into the doomed campaign by the totally misguided anti Divorce League. Dear smiling nice Archbishop there is a hole in the bucket which needs urgent plugging.
Mr Joe Gatt
Jun 23rd 2011, 08:58
Mr Stefan Kottmann-Soler
If the Church had contributed more financial assistance, it would have wasted more of it`s money, the result would still have been the same if not more votes for the `Yes Campaign`
In any case the Church at the present time, is too Rich and Powerful for the loss to have made any effect.
So it is no big problem for the church to throw people`s contributions away.
The Church should have helped the needy instead.
If one has to donate to a good cause, one needs to be careful and donate to an accountable and trusted institution
Mr Sandro Cremona
Jun 23rd 2011, 08:42
To have done better would be to contribute lessand not more. And the money spent on the poor the church keeps nagging everyone to contibute to.
Marica Agius
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:02
Facli li tghid lil haddiehor x'suppost kellu jaghmel. Facli tikkritika u tikkundanna. Hu aktar difficli li tibni, ssewwi u thobb. Il-Knisja dejjem kienet ta' mira ghal kull attakk min dawk li jiddeciedu li jippersewgwitawha. L-aghar mhux meta l-kritika tigi minn barra imma minn dawk li huma Mghammdin fl-istess Knisja ta' Gesu Kristu. X'ironija! Xogholna hu li nhobbu lil dawn hutna li ddecidew li minhabba pika jsawwtu lill-persuna tal-Arcisqof mahbub Pawlu Cremona.
L-effett tal-mibgheda hu qsim, pika u hazen.
L-effett tal-mahfra hu MHABBA.
Inhallu lll kulhadd fil-liberta kif wara kollox gara fir-referendum. Kien ikun hafna ahjar li flok niddeciedu ahna l-kbar u li suppost maturi, immorru fl-iskejjel fejn insibu hafna studenti batuti minhabba 'ommhom jew missierhom' u naraw huma x'riedu ghax wara kollox huma l-vittmi.
Issa nirrispettaw ir-rizultat tar-referendum ghax hekk titlob demokrazija.
Jalla nahdmu favur il-familja u l-ghaqda. Il-bqija kollu paroli fil-vojt :Made in Malta.
Il-paci maghkom.
Mr Charles Falzon
Jun 23rd 2011, 08:36
Forsi l flus il knisja gabithom minn fuq dawk li japplikaw ghal annulament?????? Ara tigux thabbtu l bieb biex tigbru l flus ghal xi haga issa ta.
Ms Sabrina Borda
Jun 23rd 2011, 08:07
The IVA movement won the referendum without any money at all.
There is no amount of money the Rich bishop could throw to buy decent people out.
The people of Malta won with good REASON alone.
Mr M Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:37
Maybe you were not in Malta during the campaign !
Maybe you were not here to witness the anti- church campaign by all those who were in favour of divorce.
Maybe you were not here to read all the articles printed in favour of divorce on certain newspapers.
Maybe you were not in Malta when certain TV stations were airing in favour of divorce and against the church .
If the IVA did not spend any money on these, then this proves that IVA was helped for free ???
The Archbishop was not trying to " buy decent people out ", the Archbishop was trying to pass on the message that " decent people " do not resort to divorce or cohabitation .
Mr Tommy Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:04
A purely senseless comment. How were the billboards, adverts, mailshots paid for and by whom?
Ms Sabrina Borda
Jun 23rd 2011, 12:52
@Mr Borg,
Maybe this and maybe that, so many maybes coming from you in defence of a church that obviously has much more money it wishes to throw away according to these headline news here. It is not as broke as it claimed earlier during the campaign.
One thing is for certain, the Rich bishop cannot accept that we have a democracy in Malta where his money has no power over good REASON. You and the bishop may not like it, but for Malta this is great for decent people the right to claim dignity as their own.
It is only some like you who believe that those who have to, or need to resort to divorce are not decent people. The majority of Malta together with Europe showed you and the bishop they disagree, evidently showing your knowledge of decency may be very limited.
Mr Stefan Kottmann-Soler
Jun 23rd 2011, 07:55
Well, we're glad you didn't contribute more then.
Victor Pulis
Jun 23rd 2011, 07:53
He could if he wanted to!
Mr W Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 07:30
He still doesn't get it !! You could have poured more money in ....but the outcome would have been the same Mgr Cremona.
I think even this comment will do you no help!
Mr John Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 07:26
Evidently you have not learnt anything your grace.
I misjudged you because from the looks of it you are no different from the men in black that surround you.
The initial statements you had made about church and State being distinct and functioning separately are long forgotten now.
guido cutajar
Jun 23rd 2011, 07:24
Mgr Cremona u kullhadd............Naccettaw jew le, il fatt jibqa li kien hemm element ta politika. Ghalkemm ma dehrux, kien hemm il kuluri BLU u AHMAR. Nemmen li l-anqas kieku il knisja harget il miljuni ma kienet ser tghamel id differenza. Fl`opinjoni tieghi it tort kien kollu gej min naha tal partit nazzjonalista. Ghax...A. Kien membru parlamentari nazz. li bdieha, B. Kien il P.M. li ried li isir ir referendum, (ghax haseb li qeghedin nejxu fis snin 60 ) .u l-aktar importanti. C...Ir referendum ghamluh fiz zmien hazin, ghax il poplu qeghed imxebba min dan il gvern, u ried jibaghatlu messagg. " Jien l`ewwel wiehed ". Issa ma hemmx x`tghamel...qeghed nigu bhal l-Ewropej, mhux hekk riedet il knisja......Mons.?
M Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 08:30
Ghalfejn ma tkellmitx il-knisja qabel ir-referendum tal-EU? Ghalfejn ma hargitx fil-berah dak li kien qed jippreokkupaha? Fejn Kontu? Tinsewx li issa l-Maltin jafu li ahna Ewropej daqs haddiehor u jisthoqilna drittijiet daqs haddiehor. Now its tooooo Late!!! Ghalxejn tibku....messkom tkellimtu car qabel ir-referendum tal-EU!!!!!
Plus hekk.... ahjar dawk il-flus tuzawhom biex tghallmu l-koppjij qabel jizzewgu u anke tghamlu laqghat ghall wara z-zwieg ukoll.
Ezempju iehor car: Fejn qeda l-Knisja bhalissa? Araw daqsxejn..innotaw... ma tkellmet xejn dwar il-500euros li ried jaghti Dr joseph Muscat karita'!!!! Din mhix ipokrezija?
Araw ma semmiet xejn kif l-MP's hadu 500 fil gimgha u l-poplu maghfus!!!
Fejn hija l-knisja? Din mhix ipokrezija? jew ghanda xi agenda mohbija? jew ghanda xi simpatija ma xi partit politiku?
Mr Ronald Cauchi
Jun 23rd 2011, 07:20
@ Mr Carmel Callus
The church has never donated anything to any body. What it has done is collected money from people either by false promises in the form of indulgences or through straightforward begging. Some of it has been spent on worthy causes, thats true, but most has been spent on its engrandisment and now on fighting civil liberties.At the end of the day its always the poor who pay for everything be it in paying taxes to Caesar or tithes to the Church.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:45
But there's a difference between paying taxes to Caesar or tithes to the church, the former are mandatory with fines and imprisonment if not paid, while the latter are purely voluntary.
Mr Saliba Francis
Jun 23rd 2011, 06:50
Teaching plainly from the beginning, with one voice and without equivocation that promoting divorce in any way was against God's will and therefore sinful on most occasions, would have been cheaper, and more effective, as was the case in our neighbouring diocese of Gozo.
Charlie Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 04:46
Those who say that the money should have gone to help people in need, are wrong and are barking at the wrong tree. The Church is not there to give alms to the poor only but is there to impart a message. The Church was right in dedicating money towards a mission it deemed to be important and part of its Message - the wider one.
Why is it that every time the Church organises some kind of meeting, it has to do it in the form of a Mass?
What I find wrong is the fact that the Church helps those who find problems in their marriage - I cannot understand that. Yes, indeed, the Church helps all the various strata of society as mentioned by the Archbishop, but when it comes to a marriage was turned out ot be a failure, the Church can offer one thing: annulment which is not available to all.
@ Peter Korsten - The Catholic Church has always been against divorce. In Malta, the Church is allowed to make its voice heard as much as it wants. No harm about that. It's when the Church starts intimidating legislators that things go awry.
By the way, I invite people to stop moaning and grumbling about being in need. If people are in need, do something about it. 'Thallux il-bajtra taqa' f'halqkom'!
Mr Peter Korsten
Jun 23rd 2011, 19:50
Yes, I fully respect and defend the right of the Church to made itself heard. To wish anything different would be pure hypocrisy.
But the fact of the matter is that the Church has a lot more power and influence than I have, and whilst the Church undoubtedly believes what it does to be best for everybody, I do not agree that everything the Church does is beneficial for all. Most of what it does is beneficial, there's no doubt about that.
But not all, and its meddling in civil and political affairs is an example of the not-so-beneficial activities. Leave politics to the politicians; it's not like we have a shortage of Catholics among them.
Mr Lawrence Fenech
Jun 23rd 2011, 04:22
You fought a losing battle and wasted a large sum of money that could have been spent more wisley. Had Gonzi shown proper leadership and more aware of the pulse of the people he could have also put the Euro 4,ooo,ooo to a better cause. We had a rich government that has now made a poor island, millions have been wasted up to the Euro 500 per week from 2008 for a better what? I pity a government who in these modern times gives a population a cost of living of Euro 1.26 cents, what mentality is this?
Ray Gatt
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:14
It's €1.16.
Mary Borg
Jun 23rd 2011, 02:37
shame on you, all this money down the drain just to oppose a CIVIL law .............ara tahlux xi 200,000 euro ohra meta kollna r-referendum dwar il-ligi civili tal-abort!!
Mr Emanuel Farrugia
Jun 23rd 2011, 02:36
"What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?"
First of all, no matter what view one takes on the issue of divorce, it is important to remember Malachi 2:16: “I hate divorce, says the LORD God of Israel.” According to the Bible, marriage is a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). God realizes, though, that since marriages involve two sinful human beings, divorces are going to occur. In the Old Testament, He laid down some laws in order to protect the rights of divorcees, especially women (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people’s hearts, not because they were God’s desire (Matthew 19:8).
The controversy over whether divorce and remarriage is allowed according to the Bible revolves primarily around Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. The phrase “except for marital unfaithfulness” is the only thing in Scripture that possibly gives God’s permission for divorce and remarriage. Many interpreters understand this “exception clause” as referring to “marital unfaithfulness” during the “betrothal” period. In Jewish custom, a man and a woman were considered married even while they were still engaged or “betrothed.” According to this view, immorality during this “betrothal” period would then be the only valid reason for a divorce.
Emanuel Farrugia former Executive Secretary Mtarfa Local Council
Mr A Bonello
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:56
Mgr Cremona this was not a money issue.Do you really think that you could have changed peoples minds by spending more?People pretty much made up their mind well in advance and you would have had no chance BUYING IN to the pro divorce voters.
Mr B. Fenech
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:53
Kolla Katoliki intom tghidli qalbi ;)
Philip Hili
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:17
Il kampanja tal-"Le", issa nafu li giet iffinanzjata mill-Knisja, skorn il-curia.
Il-kampanja tal-"Iva" ser inkun naf min iffinanzjha? Kunu rgiel mal-poplu Malti issa!!
Ray Gatt
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:12
X'kampanja hi tal-IVA???. Mela insejt li kull ma kellhom kienu erbgha posters u ftit air time fuq it-TV u Radio. Mhux fuq Net u 101. Possibli ma' ndunajtx li bejn iz-zewg kampanji kien hemm bahar jaqsam? IVA GHAD DIVORZJU - u ir-rizultat hadd ma' jista jhassru. Lanqas EFA. Il-knisja kienet qieghda tajba qabel id-divorzju bil-mijiet iwarbuha kuljum, u issa bl-indhil taghha bhal ma ghamlet fis-60ijiet kompliet tgharraq is-sitwazzjoni.
Philip Hili
Jun 23rd 2011, 23:28
@ Ray Gatt
Eh! iva, tajba din!! Jigifieri il-moviment "iva" ma ghamilx kampanja?
Forsi ghax kien hemm Jos + ic-chairman jew xi ssejhulu tas-super one imdahhlin?
Tajjeb. Imma kien ikun izjed xieraq li almenu jiddikjaraw bhal ma ghalet il-knisja l-involviment taghhom sew finanzjarju u anke fiziku fil-kampanja ghax nghiduha kif inhi, trid tkun altru MAZZUN biex tibla' li l-moviment iva ma ghamilx kampanja!!
Malcolm Debono
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:12
The church definitely needs to get it's priorities right. Seriously, wouldn't it had been better if the money was used to help those in need rather than wasting it on propaganda?
Mr K.M Edwards
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:00
I agree with some of the "yes" side below - The Church's real opportunity, rather than spend money, was to be CLEAR on what Catholics could or could not vote for in good conscience.
The festa of San Gwann Battista is on June 24. How timely to follow the example he set. When his king was living with a divorced woman, who happened to be his brother's "ex", San Gwann called it for it was - adulterous and sinful.
He didn't apologize after making his point.
The king likewise "made a promise" to his step-daughter to give her anything even up to half his kingdom. When she asked for something wrong, the head of San Gwann, rather than breaking his promise he chose to honor it and commit the greater evil of cutting off San Gwann's head.
This proves a couple of things:
1. Divorce is evil.
2. The Church should speak clearly that rather than saying it is "not necessarily" a sin to vote for divorce, it is infact a great evil to do so.
3. Politicians who made promises to legalize a great evil are less culpable for breaking an evil promise than keeping it.
And by the way, San Gwann ate honey and locusts and had no roof over his head. In short, his campaign against divorce required substantially less than 180000 euros.
Sometimes even an archbishop should pay heed to the example of a saint.
Ray Gatt
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:04
Cut out the parables crap Mr. Edward. The people have spoken simply because all the sin and hell rubbish that the church and individuals like you come out with is outdated for today's day and age.
Is this why they're always collecting money in church and sending envelopes at home pretending to be for the missions here and there.
ALL HYPOCRITES.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:05
Where is your proof that divorce is evil?
Mr Joe Gatt
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:10
Mr K.M Edwards
`San Gwann ate honey and locusts and had no roof over his head.`
Regarding the latter, the Archbishop could take up camping?
Re your first suggestion, It sounds to be a very healthy diet indeed, Yummy Yum, but eating Locusts nowadays may be a problem, since there is a campaign to destroy them by pesticides.
How about some Fat Juicy Rats instead? Hmm... Nice and Tasty
Mr Peter Korsten
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:49
"Mgr Cremona said he wished that the Church could have contributed more for the movement to inform the people about the harm of divorce."
I wish I had €180,000 to inform people about the harm that an unelected, undemocratic organisation does to the freedom of the individual.
L Galea
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:44
Very well said. Hit the whole argument in one sentence.
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Jun 23rd 2011, 07:18
Maybe you cannot donate Euro 180,000 but you can surely stop donating to any organisation which the church is involved in. Il ftit tal-hafna jaghmel id-differenza.
Ms D Galea
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:46
Your eccellency, I am sure you meant well and have all the best intentions in the world. But as long as you remain surrounded by your predecessor's old advisors in most matters to do with the church's temporal and spiritual administration , people's confidence in the church will continue to plummet.
That money should have gone to help the childrens homes and other church-run institutions and not wasted on an ill-advised and poorly conceived pr exercise that gave the opposite result then that expected by the church.
A couple of homilies made on the same lines as the original letter signed by those seven clerics would have been a lot more effective and acceptable to voters then all that fire and brimston stuff that went on .
Malta has progressed quite a lot since the old Don Camillo/ Peppone-era days.
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:24
How much of the balance of the money DONATED to the No movement came from Church related organisations?
Mr George Attard
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:15
Curia - Give it up already, you lost! all the campaigning and money 'you would have spent' was never going to change the minds who wanted divorce.
get over it!
Mr Frederick Attard
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:05
Your statement Mgr Cremona goes to show that you did not understand or learn anything out of the referndum. You seem to think that had you devoted more money to your campaign, you would have won the argument against divorce. It is sad that you think this way, not even if you had pumped three times as much the amount you declared, you would still have lost. You see, you are not addressing the real issue here because you keep chosing to ignore the facts of what life today is all about. How very sad of you and Mgr Gouder that is leading your Ministry!!!
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:39
They ignore everything which doesnt suit their finances. Divorce is a normal practice all over the world and even the church abroad asks you to get divorce first before you apply for an annulment.
But obviously here they have a monopoly over the state(thanks to EFA and Gonzi) so for annulments people have to spend money and in return the church can get some income.
Your observation is perfect about the no campaign. Mgr Cremona could have invested a million euro or more because they would have achieved the same result. When the people want change nothing will stop them till the change happens.
Europe knows something about this stupid reasoning. They spend billions of euro over multiculturalism and people still reject it, and the more time passes the more people are coming agressive towards it because it is anti nature and do not want it.
L isqof immissu induna li il poplu tkellem u qalilkhom tindahlux iktar f hajjitna ghax ma nafdawkhomx u ma naqblux maghkom.
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:03
Talk about FALSE EXPECTATIONS. I thought he was different. My mistake.
Philip Hili
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:29
@ Malcolm Seychell
Tkellem ghalik please!!!
Mr Joseph Scerri
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:02
@Mgr.Cremona
Eccelenza,
It would have been much better that that money was given to families that cannot make ends meet and the end of each month like those for example who cannot afford anymore to pay for electricity. I'm sure you know that money probleams break marrages now a days. But the church doesn't speak agianst all the high prices and taxes in fuel ect we have to pay. Now that you lost the divorce battle, may be you start a new battle in favour of families who are living just near the poverty line and under.
JS .
Michael Hudson
Jun 23rd 2011, 11:35
Dear Mr. Scerri, your comment is the best. Very well said. That money could have helped a lot of families which cannot make ends meet.
Mr carmel callus
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:02
@Charles Micallef. The Church has been, for ages, donating money etc to the poor and the hungry...what about you?
@ Kenneth Grima. You show hatred for the Church ...nahseb li int imissek u ghandek ghalfejn tisthi u mhux l-Arcisqof.
Mr Fabian Borg
Jun 22nd 2011, 23:00
Ironically had they just shut up they could have done better.......
Ms A. Axisa
Jun 23rd 2011, 08:45
Imbaghad mur oqghod b'halq in-nies!
Il-Knisja la tista titkellem u lanqas tista' tiskot hawn Malta.
Fejn hu d-dritt tal-kelma? Fejn hi l-liberta' tal-espressjoni?
Kulhadd ghandu din l-opportunita'..mela ghaliex il-Knisja le?
Walter Joseph Attard
Jun 22nd 2011, 22:43
I said No to divorce! In my opinion the Church must have been harsh and told its people VOTE NO from the begining! If you are Nationalist or Labour does not count to this decision! It must have ruled out the word SIN!!!! Ruled out that the church would not let people to communion! Some priests made mistakes and the WHOLE Church paid for those mistakes! Dr Gonzi must have looked at what the constitution say's!!!!! He had two choices, one to let an early election or to leave the issue for the next elections!!! BUT one weel is SO LONG IN POLITICS " The English Say" but whar if Dr Gonzi lost an election two years earlier!!!! Dr Pullicino Orland won a battle but not the War, the war is lost in the next election for him! Dr Gonzi would have problems in two years time unless....... he gives out the benefits of wage increses and subsidies to the people out there with lower income and higher prices for lots of services given out there! This matter was a vote against Dr Gonzi and Not for divorce! In fact the other 30% circa who did not vote were either confused or they did not want to commit therselves against the church or the party they sided with. Dr Muscat has influenced the people too but now why is every issue politicesed? The law must now be respected, let divorce in, its not the peoples choice but how Dr Gonzi handled the matter!!! The church has now just one aim ....educate the people who recieve the sacrament of marriage! YOU ARE EITHER IN OR OUT! ITS A LOST BATTLE.........TIME WOULD PROVE THAT WE HAD BEEN BETTER YEARS AGO WHEN THE WORD SIN WAS SIN!!!!!! This archbishop is too goodddddddddddddddd !!!!!! With appologies to critiscise but MALTA WILL REMAIN MALTA PN OR PL!!!!!
Gordon Borg
Jun 22nd 2011, 22:25
shame on you, all this money down the drain just to oppose a CIVIL law .............ara tokorbux li maghndkomx flus issa
Kenneth Grima
Jun 22nd 2011, 22:14
@Mgr.Cremona
Meta l-haqt int kelli fiducja hafna fik imma jiddispjacini nighd li inti vera deluzjoni kbira. Tal-misthija Mgr.Cremona li hraqtu hekk dawn il-flus kollha meta stajtu taghmlu tant gid bihom. Fejna il-kuxjenza taghkom, ara vera tliftu it-triq ta Kristu x'misthija fikom.
Sandro Pace
Jun 22nd 2011, 22:51
Jekk nigu f'dan, u la dahhalt lil Kristu, il-Knisja ippridkat il-kelma ta' Kristu 'Li jghaqqad Alla ma jifirdu hadd'. U jekk nigu f'dan ukoll, jekk hemm xi hadd li tielef it-triq ta' Kristu huma dawk li kkampanjaw ghall-'Iva'. Ghax ghenu biex tigi michuda din il-kelma. Facli wiehed jigustifika ruhu bis-separazzjoni bejn Stat u Knisja. Imma l-punt jibqa li ma jistax ikollok zewgt Allat.
Ghal min jemmen dejjem......
Marc Buhagiar
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:17
@Sandro Pace - what of those in a civil marriage (bir-registru)? Should they not get a shot at divorce because of selfish 'Christians' like yourself?
It is ok to have a religion, but imposing it on other people is wrong.
Philip Hili
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:27
@ Sandro Pace
Prosit tal-kumment tieghek.
Issa ha terga' tinqala l-bibja. Dalwaqt nibdew naqraw kwotazzjonijiet mill-bibja, IMMA MHUX KIF SUPPOST TA, IZDA KIF JAQBILLHOM!!
Issa naraw jekk jghidux minn iffinanzjon lil tal-"Iva". Nahseb li s-sur Michale Falzon zgur li le ghax ftit ilu ma kellux biex jaghmel rapport fuq il-bini u talab lil Gvern biex jiffinanzjah!!!! U kumbinazzjoni rajt xi tnejn bil-kopp qabel tidhol il-Belt ghax issa ma tistax toqghod f'bieb il-Beld jigbru ghal din l-assocjazzjoni tal-bini li s-Sur Falzon huwa ic-chairman taghha.
Mr Kevin Tanti
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:09
Ghidta int fl-ahhar. "Ghal min jemmen". U ghal min ma jemminx jew mhux kattoliku, b'liema dritt iccahhdu minn dritt CIVILI
Ray Gatt
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:52
Taf min ghandu zewgt Allat Sur Pace, dak li lil fidili tieghu heddidhom li l-ghada tar-referendum ma' jkunux jistghu jitqarbnu. Dak li jabbuza mit-tfal innocenti u jhassrilhom hajjithom. Jew xi hadd bhalek li ssabbat fuq il-mejda u tghidli LE ghad drittijiet civili tieghek. Tahseb li Kristu japprova dawn l-affarijiet? Egoismu u Ipokrizija grassa.
Issa hudu pacenzja kolla kemm intom ghalien dak li iddecida il-poplu ma' jhassru hadd.
Gordon Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2011, 22:13
"The Church, he said, was the only institution in Malta which prepared couples for marriage and sheltered children who did not have a proper family environment. Those couples whose marriage ran into trouble found help from the Church.
Thousands of young people received their formation from the Church, first and foremost. The Church was also the institution which helped drug addicts."
Although those causes are noble those kind of services could be contributed by the state. I like the Church because it essentially embraces good values but don't like their struggles for 'power' and 'influence'.
Charles Micallef
Jun 22nd 2011, 22:05
They would have been more fruitful if they donated the money to the poor and the hungry according to the teachings of God instead of wasting good money on a lost cause!,
Mr G Micallef
Jun 22nd 2011, 22:17
Innocent children of future divorced couples might disagree.
Gordon Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2011, 22:55
Mr G Micallef ->> disagree you say? its always better than having parents who are 'pogguti' - that gives children no rights whatsoever. That's what makes me believe that the Church's struggle was all about power - it feared that the 'church marriage' will lose its importance if divorce was introduced and would be relegated to second class. The status quo of having partners living with each other having kids without any legal recognition whatsoever isn't beneficial to anyone; more so children or women (whose partners may as well just walk away anytime....)
Ray Gatt
Jun 23rd 2011, 09:39
No Mr. Micallef. What about innocent children of cohabiting couples who are not even allowed to be baptised and according to the church are living in sin. Do you think they'll agree?
Mr Tommy Vella
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:47
@Gordon Farrugia
Do you mean to say that from now on we will have no more pogguti?
Please choose the reason of your report below: