Vatican cleared bishops’ IVF letter
‘No rift between dioceses’
The bishops have denied there is an internal rift between the dioceses of Malta and Gozo on the Church’s position on in-vitro fertilisation, insisting that the recent pastoral letter “expresses their mutual position on the matter”.
Archbishop Paul Cremona and Gozo Bishop Mario Grech explained yesterday that, due to the sensitivity of the subject, they first sought the “informal advice” of the Vatican.
The Times reported yesterday that a number of priests refused to read the pastoral letter on Sunday because they opposed its “spirit” and “wording”.
According to Church sources, during internal preparatory meetings on the Church’s position on IVF, Mgr Grech objected to a “soft” position proposed by the Archbishop’s theological advisers and insisted on an outright stand against IVF.
In their pastoral letter, the bishops described IVF as “morally wrong” and encouraged couples “not to concede to the temptation of taking easy solutions” by resorting to IVF.
"Our mission must be one with Christ"
When contacted yesterday, Mgr Grech dismissed the idea that there were any differences with the Maltese Curia on the issue and, as a sign of unity, the bishops replied through a joint statement to questions sent separately by The Times.
They recognised that some priests had not obeyed the Church’s directive to read out their letter during Mass and said that they were appreciative of the fact that “a large number of priests are in communion” with their position.
“Our mission as bishops makes sense only if it is one with Christ. This unity can only be guaranteed if it is in conformity with the teachings of the Magisterium.
“This applies also in the case of priests,” the bishops said.
Moreover, they let it be known that “since the pastoral letter deals with a very sensitive issue, before its publication it was sent to a theologian at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for his informal advice”.
While observing that “some people took offence”, they said it was not their intention to cause offence in any way.
“On the contrary, because we mean good to all, we made reference to the dignity of the children born with the process of IVF as children of God; we mentioned an openness to the grace of reconciliation for those involved and we also appealed to scientists in order that they may continue to seek ethical methods that may be for the benefit of couples who are facing problems with infertility.”
In their reply, the bishops did not say whether the Church would be taking any disciplinary measures against those priests who refused to read the pastoral letter to their congregation.
Likewise, they did not explain why they chose to publish the letter just a day before the government released a draft Bill on the subject on July 27.
Pastoral letters are normally published on a weekend and there were only few and extraordinary occasions when similar documents were published on a weekday.
See bishops' statement in full: Bishops statement on the Pastoral Letter ‘Celebrating Human Life’
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...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
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...
140 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Clifton Carl Barbara
Aug 15th 2012, 10:19
Mr Saliba once again you failed to focus on the here above subject.
But never the less I’ll reply.
Regrettably you started your argument with the wrong foot.
There are some Maltese that don’t take advice from a parish priest.
Depending on the advice I personally prefer the experts of medics or lawyers.
If Q.E.D stands for 'quod erat demonstrandum', can you kindly prove it ?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 14th 2012, 09:53
The simple truth is that the irreligious are insatiable.
If a confessors advises a penitent, his advice is criticised because it is alleged that his advice is not that of the local church..
If a parish priest quotes Christ on a billboard he is criticised because it is alleged that the opinion expressed is not that of his bishop.
If a bishop teaches something in his diocese then it is alleged that his lesson is not that of the archbishop.
If the bishops seek confirmation from Vatican circles, that opinion is discarded because it is not the opinion of H.H. the Pope in person.
At the moment we are stuck at that stage but there are speculations that it will be alleged soon that the Pope's decision is not that of God - in any case hasn't his existence been disproved by science (!sic). In any case it would be against "nature" and the ultimate criterion is "doing what comes naturally". Isn't that what Annie sang in "Annie get your gun!" Who needs a more authoritative argument?
Q.E.D.
Clifton Carl Barbara
Aug 11th 2012, 11:45
@Francis Saliba
A. It’s irrelevant if you wish to include “AUTHORITY IN”
B. Mr Saliba, clearly you can't see the forest for the tree. Atheists, humanists and secularists have nothing to do with this subject.
It’s all about liberalism… who is not democratically elected must not be considered an authority.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 13th 2012, 19:24
@ Clifton Carl Barbara, Aug 11 at 11:45.
We have to agree to disagree. I disagree with you that all authority comes from the people. Ultimately all authority comes from God.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 14th 2012, 08:52
@ Cliftom Carl Barbara Aug 11 at 11:45.
You may call it what you like, liberalism, atheism, humanism (a misnomer because they are not more human than anybody else) or secularists - they are all false labels meant to hide the basic underlying hostility to all religions in spite of the fact that it is a fundamental human right to choose and to practice the religion of one's choice. Liberalism indeed!
Christopher Grech
Aug 9th 2012, 13:02
@ Charles Caruana
I do not belong to any church, other than the spiritual church of Christ. No denominations, as it is supposed to be. The Bible does not formulate churches or religions, but men make them. Regarding the sola scrittura, it is not the invention of the 16th century, but Satan has worked with efficiency even in the first centuries after Christ.
Men, priests, bishops think that they are better than God's word. Group bishop meetings, also known as councils as the first one called Council of Nicea, the
The agenda of the synod included 5 agendas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea:
This means that distorsions to the original belief structure occurred far before 16th cent. Note that Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325, was only baptized in his death bed. The idea is to have religion as a control mechanism, and it worked to a great degree for rulers!
Joe Xuereb
Aug 9th 2012, 01:34
@ Nicholas Balzan (Today, 20:52). Mr. Balzan, parental authority is a different kettle of fish and you know it. One could say that god elected himself, not very democratic, and yet he wields immense power. The pope is elected by cardinals I believe and yet has power over millions who had no hand in the papal election. I am sure there are other examples still.
@ Jimmy Magro (Today, 16:14). The Church does indeed show a neurotic aversion to sexuality generally. It prohibits it without actually telling us why ('the wages of sin is death' is too cryptic and therefore shies away from the truth). I could write a volume about why unbridled sexual activity is undesirable and I am an atheist.
This article and the debate that has ensued is not so much about science being in conflict with the Church. Rather it is about common sense and being able to do something (about sterility) when until the not too distant past, the only 'cure' for infertility was abject resignation. The Church has, and continues to do, a lot of good which is what is expected of her. She is not perfect. On the other hand, Science - and one certainly doesn't have to type a couple of words on the search engine to find all one needs; too burdensome - has progressed in leaps and bounds, common knowledge to the ordinary man in the street who wouldn't know a bunsen burner from a drinking straw. What was feasible (with regard to infertility, it was more a question of 'grin and bear it' with a blessing, a prayer, and on your way. Now we know differently and it certainly has nothing to do with being wiser than god. In any case, the idea that the Church/Christ instituted marriage as if such did not exist before is misleading. A marriage contract of one sort or another existed from much earlier (I believe that in ancient royal dynasties marriages between siblings were not unheard of; ostensibly so as not to dilute power and property. In some ways this has echoes among the landed wealthy in RC Europe when children were despatched to religious orders so as not to weaken one's financial base via dowries and splitting up of family fortunes when the heads of the family passed away.
Francesca Abela
Aug 8th 2012, 22:52
The church should keep it's nose out of state policy. It is nothing to do with priests what a couple needs to do to have a child, after all they should look at it as more souls to convert and leave well alone.
Francis Attard
Aug 8th 2012, 20:50
An interesting article about the issue can be found at this link:
http://www.bmei.org/jbem/volume5/num3/mccolley_a_response_to_baby_making.php
Peter Camilleri
Aug 8th 2012, 19:08
What I really find amazing (as emerging from the majority of the comments below) is the number of people who have obviously never studied either medical science or moral theology, but are under the delusion that they have become experts in both fields simply through owning a computer and being able to type in a keyword or two in an internet search engine, thereby gaining access to information which they can barely (if at all) understand, and the reliability of which they are completely unable to assess.
Nicholas Balzan
Aug 8th 2012, 21:44
Are parents an authoruty in their family? Do children elect their parents, democratically or not?
Clifton Carl Barbara
Aug 8th 2012, 19:01
Who is not democratically elected must not be an authority.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 20:07
Authority in religious affairs does not come from the plebs - it comes from God. Anyone who does not believe in God would be non-suited to debate that authority.
Nicholas Balzan
Aug 8th 2012, 20:52
Should parents have no authority on their children then?
Mr Edward Caruana Galizia
Aug 8th 2012, 23:30
Parents have authority over their children because if they don't and their children do something terrible, the parents are held to account because their children are their irresponsibility. So it pays parents to have authority over their children, if not for the benefit of their children and bringing up kind, honest and altruistic adults, then for their won personal good.
However, we aren't children and the Church is not our mother or father. The Church is just another institution in this world. It has absolutely no right to dictate to any government what to do, nor should it scare its congregations into siding with it just because a government wants to pass laws that the Church does not agree with for religious reasons.
Doing so goes against one of the very fundamental values on which the Church was built. The separation between State and Church sounds like a liberal ideal, but it is at the core of Christianity. In fact this actually is in the Bible, and is said by Jesus, so the Church has more reason to follow it. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"-Matthew 22:21. Jesus himself made a clear distinction between the two, and the Church must do the same.
No they are not democratically elected. They have no right to try and govern us.
Clifton Carl Barbara
Aug 9th 2012, 07:25
@Nicholas Balzan
If children are old enough to vote than yes parents should have no authority.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 9th 2012, 13:32
.
"No (the bishops) are not democratically elected. They have no right to try and govern us. (Edward Caruana Galizia yesterday at 23:30)
Stating what should be obvious, but isn't.
The bishops are not trying to govern us - they do not even one single vote when laws are being passed in parliament. They are only trying to teach those who do not pretend to know everything already.
Clifton Carl Barbara
Aug 9th 2012, 20:21
@Francis Saliba
A. Not everyone shares your opinion… “religious affairs does not come from the plebs”
B. The bishops are not “Stating what ‘should’ be…” The bishops want to ban the use of IVF, for everyone with indifference to the once that needs this treatment.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 10th 2012, 14:08
@ Clifton Carl Barbara, yesterday, 20:21
I do noT expect that everyone would share my opinion.
I did not say that " ,,, religious affairs does not come from the plebs”. I said "AUTHORITY IN religious affairs does not come from the plebs".
The bishops TEACH what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of the Church. They do not ban. It is the state through parliament that banns and legalizes. Your aim is clearly to muzzle the Church so that its teaching would be unable to influence the moral code of voters and members of parliament. At the same time you do not object that all others, be they atheists, humanists, secularists etc to push their own agenda as to what should be banned and what should be legalized.
How do you justify that discrimination?
renald williams
Aug 8th 2012, 18:20
Quote from article - Our mission as bishops makes sense only if it is one with Christ.
This unity can only be guaranteed if it is in conformity with the teachings of the Magisterium.
Agree 100% that a christian be one with Christ :
but the teachings of the Magisterium; are not always in conformity , with the teachings of Christ.
Start reading the New Testament, especially the Gospels, like Luke… peace and health wishes.
Francis Sammut
Aug 8th 2012, 20:07
Agree 100%.
Eugene Sapiano
Aug 8th 2012, 17:32
The fact that the bishops' pastoral letter was cleared by the Vatican means nothing since they are both conservative entities, and offered nothing new to childless couples.
The fact that some priests have completely ignored it did not shock me in the least, only the letter did so, after all priests have a loving heart like others, especially if they were asked by some childless couples whether they could resort to IVF and in most cases they are only told to proceed and only avoid including a third party.
What about those couples who cannot do otherwise; it's true they can always go abroad but not everyone can afford it, and after all they are Maltese citizens like everybody else.
Those who are saying that Malta's IVF bill resembles that of Germany are not saying the truth, since only in the case of embryo freezing but sperm and ova donation are allowed.
Why not form an organization for a more liberal IVF law as was done in the case of divorce?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 16:53
@ Robert Agius today at 12:45.
Signore,
When the Church teaches it shows faith in its Teacher not faith in its audience. It assumes that many in that audience would not always obey Christ and therefore it provides the means of salvation for those who desire to be saved, not necessarily for those who do not “give a damn”.
@ C Bonnici, today at 13:00.
Congratulations for understanding that divorce and IVF are not the same. Next, please learn that Christ in the New Testament bible did not approve the Mosaic divorce. IVF couldn't be mentioned in the bible because it did not exist at that time and Christ addressed his audience.
Jimmy Magro
Aug 8th 2012, 16:14
One remain baffles with fixation the Church has on sexual matters.
1. you cannot have sex unless you are married
2. you cannot marry twice as you have more than one partner
3. you cannot have IVF as it is not through sexual intercourse
Why all these CANNOT.
As if God spoke always about sex in his sermons.
Then there is the seperation of State and Church.
Then we have the fact that not all citizens are Catholics in Malta.
So - there is nothing wrong that the Church speaks out - but this has its liabilities too. By taking always an ultra conservative position the Church is losing its followers.
I would prefer to see a local Catholic Church that speaks out about social injustice, political injustice, discrimination, poverty, and other situations which are breaking the social fabric of our society.
This is what the Catholic Church has done in Latin America, which can be easily applied to Malta.
C Muscat
Aug 8th 2012, 17:15
Jekk taghtik fastidju li temmen it-taghlim tal-knisja ..temminx.... li temmen mhux bilfors imma jekk int konvint f dak li temmen. Kellu bzonn hawn xi istituzzjoni bhal knisja li taghmel daqstant gid
Nicholas Balzan
Aug 8th 2012, 21:00
You may prefer a church 'that speaks out about social injustice, political injustice, discrimination, poverty, and other situations which are breaking the social fabric of our society.' (1) You may be sure it does – it is not her fault that you know nothing about it. (2) You may make a church of your liking yourself. But it would not be the Church of Christ. (3) 'Why all these CANNOT?' First of all negative commands leave the mot freedom (you can do all else). Secondly, so are the Ten Commandments. Were these made by the Church? Or are (pretending to be) wiser than God?
Jimmy Magro
Aug 9th 2012, 22:09
@ C Muscat & Nicholas Bezzina
With people like you, not able to discuss the issues, the Church will continue to lose its support as has happened since the sixties. I never said that the Church is not doing good things but it has always been ultra conservative when it somes to sesual matters. IVF, Divorce, homsexuals, contraception, etc etc.
There are so many things which is making our society weaker...these are the isues that the church need to voice its opinion.
By resricting freedom of choice, the church is interfering in personal issues that should be dealt by the individual.
Joe Debono
Aug 8th 2012, 15:23
church has lost a lot of power with every scientific discovery throughout the centuries ...
of course none of the medical or scientific discoveries will ever be fully accepted - if they people loose faith, who will be funding all the richness the Church has?
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 16:12
Read the letter of the Bishops or at least the article above; "and we also appealed to scientists in order that they may continue to seek ethical methods that may be for the benefit of couples who are facing problems with infertility".
Lucienne Dimech
Aug 8th 2012, 16:36
Mr aquilina please so now the church is there to try and tell the scientists how they should do their work. Scientists have been are and will continue to be our hope for new discoveries that may help us lead a better life. Or maybe we should close down all labs and open more places of worship to find the solutions?
Joe Debono
Aug 8th 2012, 20:27
@ Joseph Aquilina
i'm sure that one day science will help us find other forms of life!!
and then what? change the bible? cause there is nothing about other life ..
and whose image will have God .. Man's or the 'aliens'?
Nicholas Balzan
Aug 8th 2012, 21:34
To Lucienne Dimech
The Bishops are not telling scientists what to do, but only encouraging them. They can also advise them what not to do if that be wrong – as parents do to their children they love. Criticism must only follow when things are read properly, and not misread or misquoted. If you know no scientist who are (or were when in life) practising Catholics, please make some research, and you may be amazed by some of their 'discoveries' that we appreciate so much today .
Joe Xuereb
Aug 8th 2012, 15:16
@ Matthew Azzopardi (Today, 13:59. Mr. Azzopardi, you say that Man is born religious. Islam - I have this on reliable authority - asserts that everybody, including me and thee, are born Muslim. Hence the conflict, and for what?! For endless, futile conflict and worse?
I was born atheist, and from where I stand, so was everybody else. I think you would have been nearer the mark, Mr. Azzopardi, if you said the Man is born needing a religion. This because, Man's awareness once attainted, he discovered pretty quickly that human consciousness is, in fact, quite unbearable. This because life is about toil, sickness, warfare on any scale, and finally, ignominiously, a finite death. Horrendous! So Man looked about him for an antidote to this awfulness and he found the answers in the sky, those sweeping, frightening, life-giving - and destructive ones like earthquakes, etc. and even infertility just like a field can turn fallow, or left so for a purpose - natural phenomena. That our holy day is called Sun-day is not a coincidence. We are told that none of this would have been so had we not sinned. But we did and so, the toil, etc. As I understand it, that was Old Testament stuff. In any case, Man was still left with a cruel card - death. So, having started spinning a 'religious' system based on messages from the sky, he spun some more and came up with that very New Testament about eternal life and salvation. Sounded good at the time but two thousand years on it is not quite standing up to scrutiny. Maybe Man is coming to realise that life, in spite of its undeniable awfulness, can also be sweet. And not surprisingly, oftentimes very exciting (as in new discoveries and breakthroughs only this week). Even if pain is never far away. Having reconciled himself to this reality, maybe it is our real destiny to accept, and indeed welcome, death as the final respite.
I cannot say I ever pondered a career within the Church. In some ways I commiserate with the bishops, etc. because their's is a tough job with so many unruly children (of god?), within and outside, the Church.
Nicholas Balzan
Aug 8th 2012, 21:40
There is a lot of truth in what you say. But not all the truth. If one has not the faith, one simply cannot understand the things of faith. It is useless ridiculing what we don't understand.
Anthony C. Azzopardi
Aug 8th 2012, 14:53
Then the Vatican is as close minded as our local Curia
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 16:14
“On the contrary, because we mean good to all, we made reference to the dignity of the children born with the process of IVF as children of God; we mentioned an openness to the grace of reconciliation for those involved and we also appealed to scientists in order that they may continue to seek ethical methods that may be for the benefit of couples who are facing problems with infertility.”
Does that show a closed mind mentality?
Clifton Carl Barbara
Aug 8th 2012, 18:31
@ Joseph Aquilina
It’s up to each individual to decide what and what’s not ethical and we should not let two nosey bullies to decide for everyone in present and future.
Nicholas Balzan
Aug 8th 2012, 21:42
Clifton Carl Barbara
If every individual has to decide for himself what is ethical or not, who will blame anyone who decides it is ethical for him to steal your car?
Charles Grixti
Aug 8th 2012, 14:13
That is why they say, "il lhuta min rasa tinten".
Mr Joe Frendo
Aug 8th 2012, 14:00
May I kindly ask, the church, ... after seeking the 'ethical methods', that is doing all the tests, operations and artificial insemination which are 'acceptable' as advised by the Church, one can then opt for IVF or still not?.
Moreover, 'seeking the ethic way' .. is it at a cost or free? ... putting a side the physiological effect on the seeking ' Couples'. Does this create Commerce too as stated in the Pastoral letter like IVF does?
Appreciate your guide!
Joe Xuereb
Aug 8th 2012, 13:47
Further thoughts. Unproductive couples, as I suggested earlier, could opt for the divorce - not available until recently -and the fertile one could start again, elsewhere. But what if the unproductive couple happens to be deeply religious and reject divorce, outright. The letter suggests that IVF in not an option so they should grin and bear a childless, frustrated, angry(?) - the religious are allowed to be angry? - and look forward to their reward for their steadfast rectitude when they will be in the company of billions of 'children of good'. So this is what this is all about. It rather makes a nonsense of 'freewill' and damnation. Or reward. According to free choice. And this is what it is all about, control by fear and guilt. Time was when any 'faux pas' I committed was due to my Catholic guilt. It was hurtful then but I am wiser now. And no, it does not mean that one can behave whichever way one wants with impunity. Far, far from it!
I feel I could write a satirical play about all this. But I won't bother because it would go the way of 'being stitched. Or that other one, the one about leaving well alone what ain't broken, and rectifying that which is.
The commenter who said that the letter may be addressed to the young(ish), productive or not, is spot on. The elderly who spend half their time in church and the other half planning their next visit their time, begging the neighbour/sister/whoever to put a freshly-laundered hankie on the next seat to theirs to reserve it for the late-comer who is running late finishing her devotions at home. Does this still happen or is it a symbol of things past when churches filled up pretty quickly? When the veil was obligatory and bare arms were covered by elasticised tubes of cloth - kmiem finta, in other words, false sleeves - to hide the shame.
Respect in the house of god we used to be told but more likely a cringing neurosis about the human flesh and its exposure. Within reason of course. Dress-codes are the norm but one does not need to go to extremes. Men must not wear shorts (difficult one in a Maltese Summer), but tourists? ogling gold-leaf and damask for the fifth time in a morning? Maybe things have changed as things are wont to do.
Philip Micallef
Aug 8th 2012, 13:18
It is time for the Bishops to let go. They are doing more harm than good by contineous hammering of what they perceive to be morally right. The People, nowadays, are more mature and informative in taking the right decisions. The time of the Big Brother/Guardians is over and done with, forever. Power to The People.
Matthew Azzopardi
Aug 8th 2012, 13:59
Sorry..i but its because is the mission of church the bishops won't stop talking for it is there job to be light to tell what is God's will to humankind !! the problem is today we live e divorced society where faith and living are separated from each other!! God has created man soul and body as one and not as two different things.. man in his nature is religious.. you might stop believing in God.. but be sure you 'll put your securities somewhere else so they will repay you back when you need help!!
Charles Grixti
Aug 8th 2012, 14:23
@Matthew Azzopardi
Perhaps the it is about time that the Church stick to the Gospels and the Bible where Christ never mentioned or had any interest in human reproduction, instead of coming out with theories and moral pronouncements that have nothing to do with Christ or his teachings. Its mission indeed. If making sure that humans reproduce uncontrollable is one of its stated aims, then it should start right at home by allowing nuns and cleryg to go forth and mulitply, God knows we have a shortage of people as it is.(Sarc). And its notion that human life is sacred smacks of hubirs and ignorance.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 21:07
@ Charles Grixti today at 14:22
Christ is not recorded in the N.T Bible as showing an interest in human reproduction because he was addressing an audience of his time to which birth control and IVF were meaningless and inexistent issues.
Joe Debono
Aug 8th 2012, 21:49
@ Francis Saliba M.D.
Christ never mentioned anything about sex before marriage - yet it happened..
any reference to this subject is mostly found in the old testament
Matthew Azzopardi
Aug 8th 2012, 22:46
at Francis Saliba... may be there wasn't the IVF problem but don't worry there was birth control... who do you think invented the first condoms... the Egyptians used animals skin to stop the flow of sperm... take a ride to Pompey and see all the ways to avoid pregnancy ... man wasn't born this last century go and read the book of
Genesis and you will find how Onan of of the sons of Judah, son of Jacob died because he practiced Onanism so not to give offspring ti his brother.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 9th 2012, 13:42
@ Joe Debono yesterday at 21:49.
I wasn't that stupid as to write that whatever was not mentioned by Christ did not exist. I also believe that Christ must have said and done many things that were not recorded in the bible - the gospels say that much.
When I discuss Chrtianity I confine myself to Christ and his teaching - as the name Christianity clearly implies.
Joe Debono
Aug 9th 2012, 19:43
@ Francis Saliba M.D.
you already made reference to something that existed but that Christ didn't speak about... who knows, maybe after all Christ didn't know about IVF..
and by the way - the Gospels you speak about are nothing versions of what Constanstine wanted to write to please his people and gain power over them
Tony Micallef
Aug 8th 2012, 12:53
Here we go again !!!
And all this because our Bishops are promulgating the authenticity and the veracity of the Catholic Church's teachings to those who want to listen.
Many of the protagonists antagonising the teachings of the church should have known better.
The history of the Roman Catholic Church is imbued with such deja' vu scenarios.
But Jesus' words still echo in our hearts, even today....."And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" ( Mt16:18)
This gives me and many others peace of soul and mind.
I eagerly await the guidance of our bishops.
They not only have a duty but they have every right to guide the faithful.
Kevin Cassar
Aug 8th 2012, 12:46
You know there is a problem, when something so insensitive and offensive cannot be detected, even though it is checked and approved by more than one person. For those who, likewise, cannot see anything wrong, try to imagine how you would feel if you had failed for many years to reproduce naturally, and someone tells you that you are "taking easy solutions" by resorting to IVF. While I disagree with the Bishops' position, I am not objecting to the message but rather the callous way of presenting it.
Steve Pace
Aug 8th 2012, 14:26
could not have said it better !
I Bugeja
Aug 8th 2012, 12:08
"While observing that “some people took offence”, they said it was not their intention to cause offence in any way."
YES we heard this plenty of times
"because we mean good to all, we made reference to the dignity of the children born with the process of IVF as children of God"
NO if you believe that everyone is equal then you do not need to point out that these are equal as much as the others as you start creating a rift. Old habits never die.
M Borg
Aug 8th 2012, 12:02
cont re my last post.
References:
1. Donum vitae (Respect for Human Life), Instruction on respect for human life in its origin, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987. (Available from Catholic Insight under the title "Vatican, High Tech"). Note: see also "Moratorium" in News in Brief, under Great Britain, p. ????
2. Encyclical letter Humanae vitae, No. 14, AAS 60 (1968), 488-489.
3. Donum vitae.
Charles Grixti
Aug 8th 2012, 14:28
The Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, alias The Inquisition had no problems snuffing out lives in the most cruel ways during the last centuries. Now we are to believe they are the champions of life and from which all moral and ethical teaching spring forth. They must really think that there is a fool born every minute.
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 16:17
@Charles Grixti
Democracy produced one of the worst dictators that put foot on this world? Should we flush democracy?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 16:22
@ Charles Grixti, today at 14:26.
The cruelties that you attribute to the Inquisition did not happen "during the last centuries" - they happened many centuries ago, (spot the difference!)
You may care to learn that those cruel methods of meting out justice were not something peculiar to the Inquisition - they were standard practices by all tribunals, much more so by civil tribunals than ecclesiatical ones. More often than not, the cruel sentencing was carried out by the civil authorities because in those unenlightened times, when church was not separate from state, being a heretic often meant that you were considered to be also a traitor to your ruling prince. The citizen was expected to practice the same religion as the ruler - anything else usually meant that you were a traitor supporting a rival claimant to the throne, hence the death penalty.
Joe Debono
Aug 8th 2012, 20:08
@ Francis Saliba M.D.
nothing happened these last centuries ??
do you read all the news?
do you know that the church was informed what was happening during the holocaust? it had the power to stop everything but decided to remain silent because of political situation
do you know from where the money to build the Vatican came?
have you forgotten L-Interdett? ordered by the church in Malta?
M Borg
Aug 8th 2012, 12:00
Catholic Church teaching
A human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization of an oocyte (ovum) by a sperm. This fact has been recognized by the science of Human Embryology since 1883, and is still acknowledged today. The Church teaches that a human being must be respected-as a person-from the very first instant of his existence as a human being, and therefore, from that same moment, his rights as a person must be recognized among which in the first place, is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. The Church also teaches that from the moral point of view a truly responsible procreation vis-à-vis the unborn child, must be the fruit of marriage.
Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an "inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning."
IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life.
What about research on a human embryo?
The Church teaches that medical research must refrain from operations on live embryos, unless there is moral certainty of not causing harm to the life or integrity of the unborn child and mother, and on condition that the parents have given free and informed consent to the procedure. Since stem cell research on human embryos, in practice, invariably causes the death of those embryos, it too stands condemned.
In summary, the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF in and of itself, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos.
Andrew Busuttil
Aug 8th 2012, 12:32
The is just a long list of misguided and paternalistic arguments which are unlikely to convince anybody with a brain larger than a few grams...
The Church should therefore reverse its attention onto itself and question instead the morality of its Unholy motivation of disseminating defective teaching, based on half truths and nonseguital arguments!
Victor Pulis
Aug 8th 2012, 13:09
Will these embryos rise from the dead body and soul in the last judgement?
Only serious answers please.
Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 11:58
@Sinjuri Saċerdoti dizobbidjenti,
Kultant bl-għerf kollu tagħna nippretendu, li tant nifhmu u li tant tagħna biss huwa t-tajjeb u s-sewwa!
Dan jiġri meta dan l-għerf tagħna jitla għall-rasna, u lanqas biss iħħallina nifhmu sewwa, dak li nkunu qed naqraw u nisimgħu, dak li s-Superjuri tagħna jkun qed jippruvaw jwasslulna biex jfehmunha, u jgħalmuna!
L-isbaħ doni huma l-obbidjenza u l-umilta!
U qatt ma għandek tikser jew tisfida l-kelma u l-ordni tas-superjuri tiegħek f’dik l-istituzzjoni li inti tagħmel parti minnha, speċjalment fis-saċerdozju!
Għax allura dawk in-nies li semgħu l-quddies ta’ dawn is-saċerdoti ġew imċaħda mit-tgħalim tal-knisja, għax sempliċiment dawn l-erba għorrief suppervji saċerdoti ma qrawx il-messaġġ li l-isfiqiet riedu jgħaddu lill-poplu!
X’arroganza wieħed jista jagħmel mal-poplu u mas-Superjuri tiegħu iżjed minn din l-azzjoni ta’ dawn is-Saċerdoti?
Xi dritt għandkom Sinjuri Saċerdoti li messaġġ mibgħut mill-isfijiet lill poplu ma ixxandruħx lill poplu li ġie l-knisja jisma il-quddiesa tiegħek?
Jekk dan mhux abbuż mill-poplu ta’ Alla, xi’ jkun abbuż?
Dawn is-saċerdoti għandhom jitolbu żkuża lis-superjuri ekleżjastiċi u lill-poplu ta’ Malta u Għawdex!
San Ġorġ Preca huwa eżempju kbir lis-Saċerdoti Maltin u Għawdxin fl-ubbidjenza u l-umilta, żewġ doni li lill Dun Ġorġ Preca għamluħ Saċerdot ta’ veru irrispettat u maħbub minn kullħadd, li wasal għall qdusija!
Nissuġġerixxi li meta l-Isfijiet jagħmlu xi ħaġa simili u jiriduha li żgur tasal għand il-poplu, għandha tiġi irrekordjata u kopja tintgħat lill kull fejn issir il-quddies u tinstema permezz tal-PA.
Għandha wkoll tiġi stampata u titqassam lill-kull persuna li tattendi il-quddies biex issegwi waqt il-qari, u biex wara teħodha magħha d-dar, u jekk ikun hemm bżonn tgħaddiha lill nies oħra li forsi għal xi raġuni ma marrux il-quddies f’ dik il-ġurnat!
Dan hu li qed jagħmel il-ħsara lis-Soċjeta, li kullħadd qed jippretendi li sar jifhem f’kollox, u jekk mhix prużunzjoni u suppervja din, x’inhi is-Suppervja u prużunzjoni?
Victor Pulis
Aug 8th 2012, 12:52
Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
Qatt ghaddilek minn mohhok li jista'jkun li l-isqfijiet ghandhom zball? Forsi l-gherf taghhom tela '
ghar -rashom?Kien hawn hafna kazi fejn l-isqfijiet u anke l-papiet kienu zbaljati fid decizzjonijiet taghhom.
Dominic Carbonaro
Aug 8th 2012, 13:33
@ Mr Nenu Aquilina.
Prosit Sur Aquilina ghal-kumment tieghek u jien ninghaqad mal-hsibijiet tieghek mija fil-mija. Sacerdoti li jmorru kontra li jghidu l-isqfijiet , Sahansitra ihawdu l-imhuh bhal ma gara fuq id-divorzju fejn deher car li minnhabba l-agir ta xi sacerdoti li jahsbu li huma ghorrief aktar mill-isqfijiet, Faxxa kbira mill-poplu li hi fil-principju kontra id-divorzju thawdet u baqaw id-dar u ma ivvotawx u ghal dan l-agir, Quddiem Alla xi hadd hu responsabbli. Lis-sacerdoti li jahsbu li jifhmu aktar mill-isqfijiet nghidilhom biex minflok iparlaw u jaghmlu hsara lill-knisja jimlew halqhom bl-ilma ikun jiswielhom ahjar. l-isqfijiet ghandhom responsabilita u missjoni kbira x'jaqdu u hija resposabilita taghhom li jwasslu it-taghlim tal-knisja fuq issues bhal IVF etc u inheggeg lis-sacerdoti kollha u lill-poplu li jhobb lill Gesu kristu sabiex ninaqdu haga wahda u nitolbu u nghinu lill-isqfijiet taghna fil-missjoni taghhom u mhux naghmluha ta bravi. Sacerdot li ma jaqbilx mal-isqof tieghu ghandu javvicina lill-isqof tieghu u iwassal hsibijietu, Pero sa hemm u ghandu ibaxxi rasu ghal-kelma tal-isqof. B'hekk tispicca is-suppervja u il-pruzunzjoni.
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 14:32
@Victor Pulis
Before you speak why don't you check the official position of the Roman Catholic Church regarding IVF. Maybe afterwards you'll understand why the Bishops are right!!
Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 15:45
@Victor Pulis,
Meta il-knisja tagħlem u mhux turi opinjoni lanqas dubbju ma jried ikollok jekk int nisrani membru tal-knisja ta' Ġesu Kristu!
Dak li jonqosna issa, li l-qassissien jibdew jinqdew mid-dubbju ta dak li jgħid l-isqof fit-tgħalim tiegħu!
Dawn ma humiex eżempji tajbin lill fidili tal-Knisja ta' Kristu minn Saċerdoti li suppost jafu aħjar!
Iva bħala nisrani għandu jkollok fiduċja f'dak li jgħidu l-Isfijiet meta jkunu qed jgħalmu lill-fidili, bħal ma kienu qed jagħmlu fiċ-ċirkulari dwar introduzzjoni ta' l-IVF, Sur Victor Pulis
Victor Pulis
Aug 8th 2012, 18:38
Sur carmel Nenu Aquilina l-isqfijiet huma nies bhalna li jaghmlu l-izbalji xi kultant. Dak jonqos issa li naghmlu l-isqfijiet infallibbli bhall papa! Meta l-knisja taghmel zball tghidu ghax dawk bnedmin u bhal kull bniedem iehor jizbaljaw. Ghalhekk xi minn daqqiet niddubitaw meta l-isqfijiet jidhlu fóqsma xjentifici. L-izjed meta l-opinjoni tal knisja tista'taffettwa anke nies li mhumiex insara bhal fil kaz tad divorzju.
Joseph Brincat
Aug 8th 2012, 11:53
Simon Ciantar
Today, 09:40
@ IVF since the latter involves the killing of several embroyes and the selective choosing of only one....
it takes just 1 sperm to get pregnant. Even the slightest amount of 'pre cum' can carry thousands of sperm.
so GOD allow the rest to die !!!!
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 16:18
embryo = sperm + egg, life begins when sperm meets egg. I thought that was obvious at this point.
M Borg
Aug 8th 2012, 11:52
This bunch of " very modern priests " that are cropping up in Malta are doing harm to the church.
Don't they realise that they are causing scandal by their actions ?
They are the same ones who did not give a clear picture of what the church wanted during the divorce referendum. The "modern " ones.
If they now think that they know more than the Vatican, because we are now told that the Bishops had the go ahead from the Vatican, they should call it a day and leave the church.
We Catholics want to follow the true church, we do not want priests who make it a habit of going against the will of the Vatican and Bishops.
william cauchi
Aug 8th 2012, 11:49
''Vatican cleared bishops’ IVF letter''
Oh how comforting. The Vatican cleared so many official declarations in it's history, in the past and not so past. The list is endless, which eventually the Vatican had to re-consider, conveniently forget all about it or had it sanded over.
The best way is to say, oh yes they did, good. Now we were given the power to decide and everybody will make his own personal decision.
What really hurts is that the Catholic Church say it is universal, but it's teachings and ways vary so differently from country to country. When i was still a practising Catholic and travelling the world, your are surprised how differently the Church communicates with it's fold. Where it still has some power, it's all fire and brimstone, where the fold has diluted, it's all so mild and ''let's talk and discuss'' and ''let's hear your opinion'' and ''please do your best''.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 11:44
@ Francis Sammut, today at 11:09
I am not aware of any Malta Church official spokesman “putting down” his foot, being “all knowing” or breathing “fire and brimstone” during the divorce referendum campaign – quite the contrary. I experienced only a “ … mistaken, weak and shilly-shalliying, soft approach …“ that enabled the divorce lobby to pretend that the Malta clergy was not averse to the proposed divorce legislation, and that one could vote for it with a clear conscience. That lie was not countered until it was much too late, during the last few days of the campaign, when it could not prevent abstentions by the faithful on an unprecedented large scale.
Francis Sammut
Aug 8th 2012, 20:24
You are not aware! What can I say? I am aware, people in general were aware.
James Camilleri
Aug 8th 2012, 11:43
@Joseph Huber
God did not create test tubes as well as other scientific and other medical paraphenalia. Man did with the ability God gave him. So accroding to your logic we should not operate, lengthen life, intervene when one is sick. We should do away with doctors as well, don't you think so? After all what they are doing (doctors) is nothing more than replacing God's intervention and interfering and meddling with lives He created. Don't tell me that that is different because if you follow the logic you presented it amounts to the same thing.
Mr Joseph Huber
Aug 8th 2012, 11:22
The negative comments in the blog are clear evidence that what the Chruch teaches touches some raw nerves because deep down all denigrators are more than certain that what is being said by the ecclesiastical authorities is not an opinion but evangelical truths i.e. nature cannot be dabbled with to accomodate majority or minority opinions. God created them man and woman to unite and procreate and He certainly didn't create test tubes and laboratories to replace His actions.
Victor Pulis
Aug 8th 2012, 12:35
If god crerated man and women to procreate why are there couples who cannot?! This is where science comes in to help. Just like when someone gets an organ transplant or undergoes an operation to save one's life...For example when one is shot and the bullet is removed...
Paul Pulis
Aug 8th 2012, 13:12
If God wanted man to fly he would have given him wings. If God wanted man to go under water, he would have given him gills.
Such were the arguments when the pioneers of science ventured in these fields.
Matthew Azzopardi
Aug 8th 2012, 14:11
at victor pulis .one has to distinguish transplanting an organ and playing with genetics. God has put the birth of children as a result of an act of love between a couple. I fully understand the suffering of the couples that result barren in their act of love... but as Christians we were given the Cross which is superior than any other thing... and as one of the hymns that is the church sing in the holy week says that the cross is the bed of love where the lord got married to us..its in mystery of God's love the cross will turn to a crown of victory!!! Peace
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 14:37
@Victor Pulis,
Donating an organ does not involve the life of a third person.
Victor Pulis
Aug 8th 2012, 16:15
Matthew Azzopardi if some christians were given a cross to bear by not having children why are there non christians who are infertile?
Joseph Aquilina donating organs is not natural either!
Matthew Azzopardi
Aug 8th 2012, 18:44
Victor Pulis .. you are right... i might seem a little maybe for today's multi-culture and multi-religion as a Christian fundamentalist.. In Isaiah 9 , 1-5 it says the people who walked in the darkness saw a great light... its true the light is Jesus Christ .. life is equal to every one being a Christian means having the light to understand and live your life . That's why the Church has never stopped announcing the Good news... so to be the salt and the light of the earth..so as st.john says in the Gospel so the others though maybe they will never convert to God but they will recognize that there is a God and they will give praise to the father. Its true friend without JC life is meaningless!!
Joe Xuereb
Aug 8th 2012, 11:18
Religion, and one's faith in it, is about absolutism and it cannot afford to be seen as anything other than that.
The bishops, their hearts in the right place absolutely, are quite correct in their stance and any priests who refused to read the message should be formally investigated. Alternatively, they could resign their position.
The matter is addressed to the people generally, more specifically those who are still part of the congregation (but its contents are available generally as on here, the media). It applies particularly to those couples who are having difficulties having children, the causes of which could be any number of reasons when the matter becomes a medical one, primarily. Couples afflicted by childlessness may or may not have the convictions of the bishops and they are in turmoil because of their condition. This has to be borne in mind as they are human over and above the strength, or otherwise, of their faith. I can understand the bishops stating that EVEN children conceived 'unnaturalally', ie via IVF, are children of god. And nothing wrong with that
as it is said in well-meaning good faith. This could be seen as a concession of sorts on the part of the 'letter'. However, there is considerable back-tracking when the bishops make it clear that ideally, couples should be patient and accept their cross, be patient, even resign themselves to never having children. This is easier said than done. Couples who desperately want children but cannot have them, and are expected to accept this with saintly passivity - when they are not saints, not yet! - are going to feel their relationship put under unbearable strain. Not a happy couple, one under constant threat of disintegration now that such is formally allowed and the 'guiltless' partner can seek fruition elsewhere. The sterile partner can then join a nunnery or monastery. Problem solved! Alternatively, they may resort (as a last resort) to conceive via IVF and bring up their offspring as best they can. Whether to see their child as 'a child of god' will be up to them. The important thing is that they have a child which is what they set out to do in the first place. The marriage is saved.
About the 'joined seed' having a soul right from the split-second moment of conception: this can be debated - with more than a little help from the scientists among us - until one is blue in the face, and still not come to a satisfactory conclusion. After all, there are instances when abortion is warranted. As in a husband who has to decide whether to let his wife go giving birth to their FIRST child, or the baby. The thinking being that if the wife dies in child-birth, he can always find a second wife to sire as many children as he wants and still be on the right side of god.
I qualify the above by saying that I have not sired any children and never felt the need to. Unless I am much mistaken, there is no compulsion for one to have children and one can live quite fruitfully with that. If one feels one has to have children, and the pressures on newly-wedded couples are enormous what with that none-too-delicate question cropping up from relatives/friends and nosey neighbours, then the pressure is on. And we are only human. Made in god's image who only begot one child, and he never married. Or so the story goes!
In the final analysis, if it is depleted birth rates that the bishops, and the Vatican for that matter, are worried about; they needn't get their mitres in a twist. Enough children are being born and in multi-cultural Malta, particularly so (or most certainly,potentially so).
Nicholas Balzan
Aug 8th 2012, 14:11
Quite insulting!
cesco di luigi
Aug 8th 2012, 11:14
what's the use of reading out a letter when the people attending are all so old they won't be using it anyway?????
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 11:32
It is clear you have not gone to mass for a very long time...
C Calafato
Aug 8th 2012, 12:15
If you are old am only 35, just had a baby myslef, and might have needed IVF if i wasnt lucky enough to concieve anturally..... SO please talk for yourself. If you are part of the club you have to adhere to its rules. If you are not part dont critisize the rules just ignore them and go on living your life.
Barney Camilleri
Aug 8th 2012, 13:11
cesco di luigi
Well said my friend, I happen to be one of those sheep. Two things come out of your statement.
First, St. Paul says: to make a bishop he must be a father, with children; Titus 1:6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly etc., etc., it means to St. Paul consider age as a form maturity no wonder those are the most common nowadays in church.
Second, If you are familiar to any cemetery you be surprised to find resting all ages. So do not count the age, count the wisdom of the elder.
One last thing my good friend, it is true that I won't be using it. But allow me to thank the Grace of God that gave me such a sweet life. I sincerely hope you will have the same blessing.
Paul Azzopardi
Aug 8th 2012, 11:09
The church in Malta always seems to want to put its stamp on anything it can have it opinion on, but everyone knows the maltese church is outdated. Especially after the showdown they had with the public on divorce i would say they really need to adapt ,otherwise I don't see why we should even bother about what they think.
M Borg
Aug 8th 2012, 11:45
Did you read the above piece before writing your comment ?
Did you read that what was written was approved by the vatican ? So why is the church in Malta outdated according to you if it is just following the teaching of the whold Catholic church ?
Criss Camilleri
Aug 8th 2012, 11:09
Will the two bishops be starting another crusade against IVF, the way they did against the Divorce from Civil Marriage? Should you do, which I'm certain you will not go against the pn, just be prepared to another HUGE loss.
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 14:38
Christians are not afraid to lose, as long as the truth is being told!!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 16:31
@ Criss Camilleri, today at 11:09.
Who wins and who loses is not determined by the passage of laws in earthly parliaments. And that hold true whether you are an atheist or a believer in the existence of God.
Robert Agius
Aug 8th 2012, 19:58
Christians are not afraid to lose, as long as the truth is being told!!
Such as that the earth is the centre of the universe, creationism, the original sin and that when we die and go to heaven, we go at the age of 33?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 9th 2012, 18:20
@ Robert Agius Aug 8 at 19:58
Your choice selection of Christian truths is not mine nor is it the version of any reliable Christian I can think of.
C. Vella
Aug 8th 2012, 11:00
But why now? IVF has been in Malta for the past 20 years. Didn't the faithful need guidance then? Answers please.
P.S. well done to the priests that refused to read the letter. These priests get my full support even though soon they will have to face the wrath of those fanatics they have defied.
M Cassar
Aug 8th 2012, 10:58
So does an INFORMAL opinion of ONE theologian amount to Vatican clearance? One wonders what the Vatican says to Italian gynaecologists?
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 11:34
If the subject interests you so much that you are willing the comment and ask questions here, then why not do a simple google search to see the position of the Vatican about IVF.
carmel callus
Aug 8th 2012, 10:55
Shame on those few priests who refused to read the Bishops' pastoral letter.
Franco Attard Trevisan
Aug 8th 2012, 11:15
the shame is on our country for having such closed minded bishops like these!
Matthew Azzopardi
Aug 8th 2012, 14:14
at Franco trevisan progress could mean regress!!! if you cut the roots of tree be sure it will dry and fall down!!
Richard Mifsud
Aug 8th 2012, 10:35
Over and over again the church is showing everyone how outdated it is... Please start living the present and look how to improve the future of your followers and not live hundreds of years in the past!!
charles caruana
Aug 8th 2012, 11:15
Nothing dates faster than those who are always up to date. Only animals, certainly not human beings or societies, live without a past.
Christopher Grech
Aug 8th 2012, 10:26
I gasped when I read that "Our mission must be one with Christ"!
It cannot be further from the truth. See my letter to priests showing what is wrong with what the church says, and what is written in Scripture!
http://100777.com/spiritual/lettertoparishpriest
charles caruana
Aug 8th 2012, 11:25
Gasp away to your heart's content Mr Grech - just remember that the reformation and sola scriptura occurred in the 16th century. You exclaim at the mission of the Church to be one with Christ - to which of the thirty thousand and plus Protestant denominations do you belong pray? and which of them are one with Christ? They cannot all be right!
Peter Gee
Aug 8th 2012, 10:17
Aren't we all children of God?
C. Vella
Aug 8th 2012, 11:04
Very good point. What about the parents of those children conceived through IVF. Do they stop being children of God? Is the church on the verge of starting a crusade against these parents?
Elaine Debono
Aug 8th 2012, 10:17
Perhaps its about time that the Church explains its standings to the commoners ... instead of just stating it is against ivf, why don't the bishops and priests explain that there is much more than meets the eye ... why don't they explain that the number of unsuccessful tries could be devastating on the couple, why don't they explain the risk of possible disabilities incurred by the embryo during transfer, why don't they explain the expenses involved - both financial and emotional, why don't they explain the loss of viability after freezing the embryos? The general population needs to see the whole picture (or at least most of it), not just a statement saying that the Church is against ivf!
Nicholas Balzan
Aug 8th 2012, 10:48
to Elaine Debono. –
I do not mean to speak for the Bishops. But the duty of the Bishops is not to explain all aspects of a process – whether financial, emotional, medical, etc – but to show the 'doctrinal' aspect involved – which makes things right or wrong. Other aspects may influence on the 'morality' of an action, but the doctrinal aspect is the main determinig factor.
And please, do not confound 'doctrinal' with 'indoctrination'. Doctrine points to the 'truth' – indoctrination is always condemnible, as it is against truth.
J Cauchi
Aug 8th 2012, 10:05
'Some people took offence". Yes, I am one of those. And I was offended not because I am in any way involved in IVF procedures, but because I immediately realised that the words used in the pastoral letter were highly insensitive and unacceptable to the majority of catholics with deep catholic feelings. I am really not interested whether or not the bishops sought any advice or from whom it was taken. The fact remains that the words uttered in the pastoral letter were not only insensitive but offensive, both to the couples who used IVF and to the children born through this procedure themselves. I am four square with those priests who had the courage to show their unwillingness to be insensitive and offensive to other human beings. The leaders of the Church must realise that by acting in this manner in the 21st century are doing more harm than good to the catholic religion and to the catholic church itself. This let alone the other fact, that the Bishops failed to explain the reason why the pastoral letter was published just one day before the publication of the draft law. Was this a coincidence? I am certainly sure that it isn't.
charles caruana
Aug 8th 2012, 11:05
Some, and eventually many, were offended by the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, so what? Should he have watered down and sugared over the bitter pill of truth, to make it more palatable to those whose taste buds are allergic to it? The truth may hurt, but it is the only healer. And who do you take yourself to be, Mr Cauchi, to speak in the name of 'the majority of catholics with deep catholic feelings?' Did you by any chance consult them individually? Instead of baselessly claiming the words of the letter were insensitive and offensive, parroting the usual suspect and maverick priests, you and they had better show where and how anything in the letter contradicts or betrays the real Magisterial teachings of the universal Church. Of course you would be four square with the sensitive and inoffensive priests who would follow the gentle Jesus that would never displease the crowd in case they might crucify him.'The leaders of the Church must realise' - 'must' - no less! Again, who do you think you are Mr Cauchi, to dictate to church leaders not only their pastoral strategy but also their timing tactics? Did anyone dictate to you the timing of your post here? Beyond petty coincidence, one thing you can be sure of Mr Cauchi is this - the path to the Kingdom that Jesus promised is narrow, hard and painful, not the wide, confortable road that you and the usual crowd pleasing suspects hanker for. And in this, He was neither sensitive nor inoffensive.
C Agius
Aug 8th 2012, 11:23
Where did Our Lord Jesus Christ talk about IVF ? What rubbish !!!
charles caruana
Aug 8th 2012, 12:00
@ C Agius
Ms Agius, you seem to think that a triple exlcamation mark can compensate for a pathetic incompetence in argument. Think again.
V. Cauchi
Aug 8th 2012, 10:04
Sending a pastoral letter to "a theologian at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for his informal advice” is not consulting the Vatican. The situation remains as fluid as ever and we could have several local Churches, or Dioceses, saying the same or different things in a wide circle of circumlocution. No one knows where we really stand, other than on the general basis of the Bible and the Church's teachings, especially when comparisons start being made about what different Dioceses are saying and how they say it. To add to it all, the Universal Church may not want to be caught in the Humanae Vitae situation of 1968.
So I think the guiding principle par excellence should be the Fifth Commandment, You shall not kill, and the teaching that the soul is instilled in a human being right at the moment of conception. Every individual can then interpret this commandment and teaching according to one's own formed conscience, in which the Church firmly believes.
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 10:02
"Likewise, they did not explain why they chose to publish the letter just a day before the government released a draft Bill on the subject on July 27. Pastoral letters are normally published on a weekend and there were only few and extraordinary occasions when similar documents were published on a weekday."
So when should they have published it; after the law has been passed? Are we now questioning even the right of the Roman Catholic Church to inform its followers on what is deemed as right or wrong? Is this the democracy that is being proposed?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 09:54
" ... Mgr Grech objected to a “soft” position proposed by the Archbishop’s theological advisers and insisted on an outright stand against IVF."
Absolutely correct. The mistaken,weak and shilly-shalliying soft approach employed in connection with the divorce referendum must never be repeated again. Theological and philosophical discussions among the clergy should be restricted to internal church fora and not bandied about in public confusing the faithful and for the delectation of inveterate enemies of religion.
Gerry Cowie
Aug 8th 2012, 10:20
Here, Here! Dr Saliba. Well put. There are too many opportunities for the Church's enemies to pounce!
Robert Agius
Aug 8th 2012, 10:32
Problem is, there is an abyss between Theological and philosophical discussions. The former should be discussed and more importantly - followed, by certain people who are free and entitled to do so, and who the less they interfere, or worse - impose on others, the better.
Victor Rodenas
Aug 8th 2012, 10:47
We are not the Church`s enemy,we and those Priests just want the Church to move forward with time.Morality changes,..Abraham (our Father) morality was to have sex with his maid because his wife could not bear children any more.In Jesus`s time, if my brother died and they had no children I was morally obliged to make my brother`s wife pregnant......morality is always changing but the Church always drags its feet when there is something new or if it feels threatened.See what the Church did to Padre Pio and Dun Gorg Preca,.........eventually the Church makes them Saints.What about Mgr.Saydon,..it took him more than 20 yrs.to translate the Bible from the Greek and Aramaic into Maltese, the Church offered no help and he had to fork out all the money from his own pockets. Shame.Do not get angry with me,I am nobody,...but those Priests are a nobody too.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 8th 2012, 10:49
All this goes to prove what a mess the Church is in! An absolute mess! Mind you it is not short of fidili as your contributions clearly show.
Francis Sammut
Aug 8th 2012, 11:09
Dr. Saliba, you commented about ''The mistaken, weak and shilly shalliying, soft approach employed in connection with the divorce referendum, must never be repeated again''. I beg to differ. When you say, 'The approach employed in connection with the divorce referendum must never be repeated.' there I agree, totally, but not for the reasons given. In fact, in my humble opinion what happened before and the at the end result of the divorce referendum, was a reflection of how wrong the Church was in Her approach when commenting, criticising and condemning anyone who didn't agree with what these leaders of the Church were saying. (especially Mgr. Grech and some of the Monsignors) The anti-divorce lobby, didn't help, either, with their shallow and mistaken arguments brought forward! Trying to put your foot down and being all knowing, above reproach and right, is just not on, in this day and age. People need solid, down to earth arguments, not fire and brimstone!. They need to show some compassion, charity and above all humility. I'm afraid many people didn't see any of this during the divorce referendum campaign. As Jesus once aptly said: 'I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice!'
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 11:16
@ Robert Agius today at 10:32.
You do not fool or decive anybody by your use of improper "coloured" terms. The Church does not IMPOSE on anybody - it teaches.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 11:20
@ Victor Rodenas today at 10:47.
I did not call you, still less did I call any priest an enemy of the Church. You chose to wear that hat yourself.
M. Vella
Aug 8th 2012, 11:20
Absolutely correct according to you. God was always portrayed as being gentle and sensitive with the pains that the world creates. It is just for the local and universal Church to dish their guidlines but the end does not justify the means. People are not ignorant any longer and they can make choices. The Church is digging its grave by the minute and a character or two at its helm are sinning of pride and prejudice big time!
charles caruana
Aug 8th 2012, 11:52
@Victor Rodenas
Of course, neither God, nor Jesus, nor the Church can dictate morality - only Time can do it , isn't it so Mr Rodenas? Do we call this Chronoethics or Chronoidolatry? Next time I am in a deep moral quandary I will rush to consult my kitchen clock or study calendar. Ask yourself, Mr Rodenas, what was the reaction of Padre Pio and dun Gorg Preca to the persecution they suffered at the hands of some members of the Church? Did they publicly disobey it as some local priestly wiseacres - much more educated and intelligent than the saints of course - have done? Is the difference between the former and the latter mere sanctity perhaps? Please don't get angry with me for uttering such inanities?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Aug 8th 2012, 11:57
M. Vella. Today, 11:20
God shows that he is "gentle and sensitive with the pains that the world creates" not by approving what is wrong but being infinitely merciful and forgiving to those who repent. The Church can only promote that message by its teaching. It does not have the authority to dilute it so as to accomodate a rebellious world.
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 12:09
@Victor Rodenas
I can see a murderer saying "I am not a killer, I just want the state laws to move forward with time". The fact is that the Church speaks the truth and does not compromise with the truth.
Victor Pulis
Aug 8th 2012, 12:44
I say they shouild discuss the whole matter in private and in Latin! That woild really bar any information from the uneducated flock! The flock of sheep should obey without question or else be damned short of being burned at the stake.
Robert Agius
Aug 8th 2012, 12:45
@ Dottore
If it teaches, then it should have faith in the ones that listen, or want to listen. Others might not give a damn, or listen and understand that church is still battling the shadows of the medieval times.
C. Bonnici
Aug 8th 2012, 13:00
@ Francis Saliba, divorce and IVF are two different animals. Whereas the Bible, itself, permits divorce, subject to restrictive conditions, it does not justify IVF.
Victor Rodenas
Aug 8th 2012, 14:51
@ Joseph Aquilina. Of course the Church makes mistakes like anybody else,...then after many years it makes an apology.
C Muscat
Aug 8th 2012, 09:47
Prosit lil Isqfijiet li ma qaghdux iduru mal-lewza. Qalu t-taghlim tal-Knisja u min irid jimxi mal-kuxjenza INFURMATA issa jaf x ghandu jaghmel. Kull min irid jimxi sew mat taghlim, sew kjeriku jew lajk jaf car x inhu t-taghlim tal-Knisja li tirraprezenta lil Kristu.
Ahna nimxu b konvinzjoni u ma ghandu ghalfejn nisparaw ghal hadd.
Dwar iz-zmien, ma nafx ghalfejn qeghdin tistaqsu ghax f din sa issa iz-zewg partiti hsiebhom biss fil-voti u qed jipprovaw izommu id f'id. Jidher li forsi l-hazin ta din l-issue ser jitnaqqas jekk innaqqsu l-aborti ta l-embrijuni.
U kull min irid jara l pastorali din mill-ewwel kienet u ghadha fuq il-website tal-knisja.
Victor Vella
Aug 8th 2012, 09:46
When contacted yesterday, Mgr Grech dismissed the idea that there were any differences with the Maltese Curia on the issue and, as a sign of unity, the bishops replied through a joint statement to questions sent separately by The Times.- One hopes that the church in Malta Must always show signs of unity because in the past the church buried people in the Mizbla, not on such delicate and personal issue about IVF, bit because they were labour.
Simon Ciantar
Aug 8th 2012, 09:40
The Crux of the problem is that the process of IVF entails the incubation and eventual destruction of several embroyes. I cannot understand how one can be against abortion and in favour of IVF since the latter involves the killing of several embroyes and the selective choosing of only one.... This is the core of the problem of the church and should be of every christian and indeed human being , if we believe that live starts upon conception than i cannot see how one can be in favour of it ... if one believes that life starts after week x than that is another thing ....
Luke Lanzon
Aug 8th 2012, 10:23
Well the embryo won't have any brain activity i.e. no pain whatsoever till it's like 4-6 weeks so unless you believe in a divine power and somehow think we are sacred, then I don't see anything morally wrong.
Reuben D. Spiteri
Aug 8th 2012, 11:35
@ Luke Lanzon
An embryo is a full human being. The only difference is that it is still undeveloped and cannot live outside a woman's womb/suitable environment. Brain activity or not it still is and remains human.
I would be totally OK with IVF if it enforced that only one embryo can be created and impregnated at a time. I don't approve of mass embryo freezing in any way whatsoever.
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 8th 2012, 12:11
@Luke Lanzon
But the embryo still contains life.
Victor Pulis
Aug 8th 2012, 17:20
Reuben D. Spiteri
I would be totally OK with IVF if it enforced that only one embryo can be created and impregnated at a time. I don't approve of mass embryo freezing in any way whatsoever.
But there are some here who commented that unless the baby is conceived in the normal way (intercourse) it would still be wrong in the eyes of god! And so the confusion among the flock begins just like in the case of divorce!
Joseph Brincat
Aug 8th 2012, 09:38
RELIGION IS A MATTER OF BELIEF !!!!
Archbishop’s theological advisers and insisted on an outright stand against IVF.
NO PROBLEM , YOU CAN NOT STOP THEOLOGICAL !!!
J Degabriele
Aug 8th 2012, 09:36
Don't dig the hole deeper Curia Pls! And how can you say that IVF is an easy solution? Do you have any idea of what couples who resort to it go through? The heartbreak, the doubts, even 'humiliation' to get new life on earth? All this not counting the expense!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 8th 2012, 10:46
How can they now say that it is an easy 'problem' when Malta's top clerics had to go running to the Vatican for 'confirmation' of what they set out?
Please choose the reason of your report below: