Mgr Anton Gauci, Victoria
Right decision on divorce
Obviously, as a priest, I do not dream of entering or even merely touching on the frays between Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and his opponents, whoever they may be. But, again as a priest, in no imaginable way would I hesitate to utterly show my total disapproval at accusations that Dr Gonzi should have resigned on the divorce issue. My old friend Lino Spiteri reminds me of these accusations by Dr Gonzi’s opponents (January 30).
Apart from what Almighty God has told us on this particular subject of divorce in Sacred Scripture, if I err not, Dr Gonzi is a member of the Catholic Church. As such, like all other believers, he is bound to embrace her dogmatic teachings above all contrary religious assertions. And we know that, according to the Council of Trent, divorce is nothing short of a heresy, marriage’s indissolubility having been defined by the Council in its 24th Session. This not to mention other occasions of the same teaching by the Magisterium.
Where God’s laws come in, nothing can justify a believer sustaining contrary tenets. Before God and the Church, the fact that members of Parliament, even if all of them, voted for the introduction of divorce is absolutely no reason why a Prime Minister should have backed them. It would have made him a heretic no less than those he would have backed!
So Dr Gonzi simply showed that he preferred to be faithful to God rather than to offend Him, deny Him all allegiance and put himself out of the Church. That is all it amounts to, whether we like it or not! And whether, for some human reason or other, we approve of it or not! Accusing a person for being loyal to God’s laws simply indicates that we have abandoned God and His laws for contrary teachings and utterly human interests!
I think it is about time also that we pastors, fearlessly showing ourselves loyal to God’s injunctions in this now particular matter and disregarding all human contrary considerations, show the faithful the seriousness of offending against a Dogma of the Faith! It is not a question of defending Dr Gonzi but of defending God’s laws. And in a most serious matter! A Dogma of the Faith which, yes, makes heretics of those denying it by their assertions, actions and behaviour.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
21 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Victor Pulis
Feb 10th, 08:21
Dr. Gonzi voted against after he had made sure the law would pass through parliament. What would have happened had there been a danger the law wasn't going to pass?
George farrugia
Feb 9th, 23:59
Very well put and extremely wise words indeed.
It is a pleasure nowadays to read his profound and articulate letters to the media
Mons Gauci has definitely mellowed over the years.
He now speaks from the heart influenced by his love for the Church coupled with a lot of social discern .
What a pity he did not speak on the same wave length in the 60's era
The late bishop Pace would have died a happier man!!
Mr F J Brincat
Feb 9th, 19:08
And remember children, all heretics have to be burned at the stake.
Joseph Calleja
Feb 9th, 15:35
Is Dr Gonzi the PM of the Maltese islands or the PM of the Catholic church. Nobody is questioning Dr Gonzi's faith, but as a PM his first obligation is to the Maltese people and not his faith, if not, then he must resign immediately. The church in Malta cannot dictate to the government anymore on how to run the land, that was the archaic rule of the old days and Dr Gonzi and the whole cabinet has to learn to separate church and state. Mgr Anton Gauci, stop trying to scare us with the babaw and the ever after, after all we are here and now.
Edward Mallia
Feb 9th, 14:41
Dr Gonzi was the person who wanted a referendum in the first place. And this very probably because he thought the people's verdict would go 'his way'. In fact the referendum was out of place. The way the Private Member's Bill should have been treated -- once that became unavoidable -- was by debate and vote in Parliament. Dr. Gonzi got it wrong: the people voted the other way. That left him in an awkward position. Not because he was under any obligation to conform personally to the people's verdict as most of his political adversaries argue, but because he had to guard his political backside, while appearing to appeal to 'a Catholic' conscience. So at the vote he voted against, but protested loudly that he had only done so when he was sure that DIVORCE would get parliamentary approval, as 'the people' (for which read 'a good slice of PN voters') had decreed. Having sat on a wall, Dr. Gonzi had a great fall. Not even Mgr.Gauci can put him together again on that one.
As for Mgr. Gauci's assertion that the Council of Trent had decreed divorce to be a heresy, that can only be termed as a 'slight' case of exaggeration. Quite apart from any definition internal to the church of Rome, and there arenone that I know of that define divorce as 'heresy', one might remember that the Orthodox church permits divorce with remarriage by virtue of its interpretation of Matthew 19. I seem to remember that at the inauguration of the Pauline year some two years ago, Pope Benedict XVI recited the creed (in Greek) with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Hardly likely something the Pope would have done with an arch-heretic.
Ronald Cauchi
Feb 9th, 13:41
Dr Gonzi is quite free to be loyal to God as a private person. As a prime Minister he owns loyalty to us the citizens and we in our majority have voted in favour of divorce. If this upset his religious sentiments he was quite free to resign.
Etienne Bonanno
Feb 9th, 13:31
Divorce is indeed a heresy for Catholics - hence Catholics are free not to get one.
They are however not free to impose their dogmas on others who do not share their beliefs.
It is a credit to the Maltese people that they realized this basic fact of living in a modern democracy.
It is a disgrace to you and other clerics like you that you still seek to deny people their freedom through the threat of fire and brimstone.
Is is possible that you have still not realized that this kind of pronouncement was a major factor that caused the vote swing in favor of divorce?
With regards to Gonzi's vote, the basic fact of the matter was that the government vote following the referendum was superfluous and unneeded. The people had voted - their representatives should not have been made to.
william cauchi
Feb 9th, 12:01
Jesus said so many things, but as always we choose those that we like and discard all others.
Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, or you too will be judged, for in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
Thus this apply to you Mgr. Gauci.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 9th, 11:17
A Prime Minister represents the electorate, not God.
Karl Consiglio
Feb 9th, 11:44
What if the electorate didn't want to help migrants and leave them drown? He would have to bow his head to that?
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 9th, 12:06
@ Karl Consiglio:
Ah, but then a Prime Minister is also bound by international laws and treaties. Do I have to spell everything out?
William Flynn
Feb 9th, 12:20
Karl Consiglio
What about you stop being a stirrer? LOL
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Feb 9th, 12:46
Karl, No the PM does not need to bow his head to the electorate's wishes. He has the option to resign. So long as he remains PM, he must respect their wishes - or else resign.
Karl Consiglio
Feb 9th, 13:44
William Flynn,
Otherwise it will get stuck to the buttom
Pat Hobson
Feb 9th, 10:54
The PM must first answer to the needs of the public. If he has a conflict of conscience, then he should have resigned. The PM went against the will of the people.
Alfred Fenech
Feb 10th, 13:27
Wait for the PN votes to support the PM. There may be a surprise waiting.
Karl Consiglio
Feb 9th, 10:53
@Mgr Anton Gauci,
Malta now has divorce,
get over it!
Victor Pulis
Feb 9th, 10:50
according to the Council of Trent, divorce is nothing short of a heresy, marriage’s indissolubility having been defined by the Council in its 24th Session.
This does not apply to civil marriages.
Are all those who voted for divorce banned from the church's sacraments?
William Flynn
Feb 9th, 10:35
Anton Gauci is dreaming again. Lawrence Gonzi and those in his cabinet who voted against the Divorce Bill were 110% wrong.
Parliament is not a seminary, a church or a bible class. There are thousand of Catholic politicians who are able to leave their religion outside the doors of parliament and every politician in Malta has to learn to do the same or lose their seat.
That action by LG et al is going to cost the PN plenty at the polls for only 33% acted on the advice of the bishops at the referendum. The PN deserves the looming drubbing; they should have sacked the LG and his Junta.
Malta is a secular state. Now may I recommend Anton Gauci write that line a hundred times and try to memorise it?
Ramon Casha
Feb 9th, 10:25
"Dr Gonzi is a member of the Catholic Church. As such, like all other believers, he is bound to embrace her dogmatic teachings above all contrary religious assertions."
Therefore, as a member of said church, he can continue believing that divorce is wrong for his entire life. However, as a member of parliament and as head of government, he has other considerations.
First, that not everyone in Malta is a Catholic, and that not everyone who self-identifies as a Catholic agrees with the church's teachings on everything. It is up to the church to convince, not the government to impose, the church's teachings.
Second, that once this matter was put to the vote of the people - at the PM's own insistence - all members of parliament were ethically bound to respect that wish as expressed in the vote. I myself was in favour of the introduction of divorce, and would have been disappointed had the vote gone the other way, but if it had, I would have expected the members of parliament to use their vote accordingly, or to abstain if they felt that their principles would be violated by doing so.
Once the decision was taken to go for a referendum, every member of parliament should have voted according to their conscience during the referendum itself, but once the results were in, to vote against the result implies that they feel they are superior to the common citizen. They are not, and should not think of themselves as such.
In the past, Malta along with many other countries had more of a nanny state mentality where the government treated the citizen as children, prohibiting them from watching things the authorities considered "bad", preventing them from getting a divorce even if they wanted to, etc. In today's world, the role of the government should be reduced and the individual allowed to make their own choices as far as possible.
maria grech ganado
Feb 10th, 21:20
spot on, Ramon, but there are also other considerations
1) the government recognisies the vaidity of a divorce obtained abroad - which introduces discrimination insofar that not everybody can afford to ge one abroad
2) not everyone can get a Church annulment either - especially if they have no influential relations
3) the fact that a civil marriage - actually conducted legally IN Malta - is recognised as valid renders it absurd that one cannot get a civil divorce because of a religious taboo. It was once necessary to register the marriage civilly even if it had been performed in a Church. This made it possible to dissolve the former without having any recourse to the Church, should one lapse. Or should a Church marriage have been undertaken for reasons which despite a formal training were merely immature or material. True marriage requires a certain complementarity between the partners which cannot always be tested till they form a family. I am sure a miserable marriage was NOT what God wanted for his creatures.
4) anyway, my vote had nothing to do with approving divorce, but with having compassion enough to allow the possibility of choice to those who, with the best of intentions walk into the jaws of a trap., Without choice, we are all pressurised into situations we can't think clearly enough about simply because we are not allowed to.