Choice of one’s principles
I agree with Ian Grech of Marsascala if he insists on people’s right to “choose one’s principles” (May 25). But this is always to take place within the perimeter of God’s laws. And never against them. Before God, all people, whatever their belief, are the Almighty’s creation. I am pretty sure Mr Grech agrees with me when I assert this.
If people are God’s creation, they always come under His laws. No matter their belief or, even, non-belief. Yes, people have “a right to a good life” but, again, always within the perimeter of God’s laws. And never against them!
I absolutely do not forget “that the campaign was only ever about giving the people who needed it a right to a good life”. Yes, “a right to a good life” is alright. Also I am by all means for it! But always as long as this goes not against God’s laws!
Mr Grech’s fantasy is very fertile. I have never said that “the republic does not exist”. What I say is that any republic, or kingdom for that matter, comes under God’s laws and should not go against them. For no “end”. Mr Grech knows that the end does not justify the means! Here the Church does not come in at all. I only insist on God’s laws!
He concludes by noting that “the principles of the Church are not valid for all”. So what?! Again, I repeat that, here, I am only concerned with God’s laws, not with “the principles of the Church”.
Of course, I definitely let pass, tainquam non essent, such remarks as “the Church – that underdog image” and “the torturing and burning of other human beings”. I am sure, if he is a real Catholic, he believes in the Church’s Magisterium. I honestly know not what he means to say when noting that “he does claim (again) the infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium after all”. Yes, I am sure he believes in the infallibility of this Magisterium! Not believing in what the Church’s Magisterium proposes “to be believed as divinely revealed” would make one a heretic (Denz. 1683 and 1792).
Popular Stories
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Gerry Cowie
Jun 8th 2012, 20:57
The main thing about the divorce campaign was not so much the tiny victory but the dirty anti-Church campaign which led to a huge number of abstentions which would have resulted in a higher number voting in favour.
I do hope that Ramon Casha's idea of what is moral and immoral is at some conformity with others! If there were no such conformity I wonder what society would be like? Same for Patrik Larsson and principles.
Shaun Azzopardi - why don't you set about searching for God and verifying Him yourself! He will help you!
You can always rely on the usual cabal of athiests, humanists, secularists and now heretics to come out in force whenever there is an article or letter with the slightest hint of religion. I think they are all secretly interested in God but afraid to admit it!
Alex Ciantar
Jun 9th 2012, 12:51
@ Gerry Cowie
"The main thing about the divorce campaign was not so much the tiny victory but the dirty anti-Church campaign which led to a huge number of abstentions which would have resulted in a higher number voting in favour."
And the church didn't fight dirty in this campaign too? I was amazed at how low it could get......only to be compared to the ferocious below the belt tactics of a political party during an election campaign!
Karl Consiglio
Jun 9th 2012, 20:18
"I think they are all secretly interested in God but afraid to admit it!"
Now wouldn't you like that Gerry? You possibly need that so as to enforce your own dwindling faith.
Francis Sammut
Jun 8th 2012, 15:10
Mgr. Cauci, did the Church go with God's Laws when centuries ago it introduced annulments for those who it saw fit they required their marriage to be dissolved, ie; to be declared null and void, (never happened!) children or no children? That is one Law that God (and later Jesus) never enacted let alone declared! In fact what we find in the Bible is this: ''What God had joined together, let no man put asunder'' Is the Church above God's Laws?
Patrik Larsson
Jun 8th 2012, 13:14
You can't first say everyone have the right to choose their principles and then limit that freedom to be only within your God's laws. Either we can choose principles or we can't. It's like saying you can have what ever principles you want, as long as they are the same as mine.
Then again, I suppose I'm just another heretic. Fortunately I'm in good company, as we are all considered heretics by some faiths, even the good Mgr Gauci himself.
Shaun Azzopardi
Jun 8th 2012, 12:36
Now, if only the existence of God was verifiable.
Ramon Casha
Jun 8th 2012, 12:12
Anton Gauci managed to contradict himself within the first two sentences. If people have the right to choose their principles, they have this right independently of any supposed laws by any supposed god.
First of all, it is not proven and indeed is inordinately unlikely that a god even exists, and second, even if such a thing were proven it would certainly not follow that such a god is the one described in the bible, let alone that we should follow the guidance of the self-appointed church as his representatives on earth.
I most certainly am not a "true Catholic", nor a false one. I am proud to be a heretic. The word heretic comes from the Greek "hairesis" which means a choice - a heretic is someone who can choose for himself, or who has made a choice. My choice is to reject the teachings of that entirely human and entirely fallible institution of the church, and make my own mind up about what is moral and what is immoral.
Please choose the reason of your report below: