Thursday, 5th June 2008
Paul, Apostle of Dialogue
Last Sunday – June 1 - Archbishop Cremona wrote to the Malta Today to answer its editorial of May 18, 2008 (‘A wake-up call’). I do not remember any previous occasion when an Archbishop of Malta wrote in to a newspaper in direct response to anything published therein
This is a first in the relationship between bishop and media and, consequently, it is worthy of note. Last Sunday’s letter by Archbishop Cremona was not just a first on the level of format it was also a first on the level of content.
Crusades are a thing of the past.
The Archbishop outlined his vision of the relationship that the Church and State ought to have. He had already done so, in a number of interviews, before his installation basing himself on Pope Benedict’s encyclical “God is Love”.
This position opens, in my opinion, a new stage in the relationship between the church and our pluralistic society.
The following are just two of his quotations from “God is Love” and they provide a clear indication of what I mean:
“[The Church’s social doctrine is meant] to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgement of what is just… The Church cannot and must not take upon itself the political battle to bring about the most just society. She cannot and must not replace the state” (n. 28).
“… The formation of just structures is not directly the duty of the Church… it has an indirect duty… the purification of reason and the reawakening of moral force. The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful… to take part in a personal capacity” (n.29).
Knights in sheep's armour
From my experience with several sectors of the Church in Malta I can tell you that the openness of this Archbishop's vision is in sharp contrast with the attitude of many, within his flock, for whom the crusade and siege mentality are still the order of the day. One augurs that the open vision of the Shepherd will eventually filter through and change the opaque vision of some of the rest.
From satanistic to statistic
Archbishop Cremona wrote about emotion-stirring subjects like marriage, the family, divorce and cohabitation without becoming emotional.
In his whole article he never suggested, as some feel they can do to help their case along, that anything contrary to what they are saying is evidence of a devil serving attitude.
Neither did he quote the Gospels or the teachings of the Church about these subjects. (He will undoubtedly do that during ecclesial functions.) Had he done so he would not have been outside his natural waters. On the contrary, as the leader of the Church in Malta his competence and authority on the subject are unquestioned. He preferred, however, to use arguments available both to believers and to non-believers such that a true dialogue, rather than a perceived talking down exercise, could be attempted with readers. That’s why he quoted statistics and experiences from other countries as well as Malta.
Here his competence is based on reasoning and logic not on authority. Someone else, it could be argued, can have different statistics and interpretations. Here I state, and with a studied desire to avoid sycophancy, that although is not totally unprecedented, it is very rare in Malta for the Church to participate in a social discussion as an equal participant. Not from the pulpit, not threatening fire and brimstone not even saying 'I know best'. Within this tradition Mgr Cremona's letter to the press never sought to inhibit the exchange, but to open it wide. He is proposing, not imposing. Such an attitude shows a leader who is confident of the strength of the arguments buttressing his position and a leader that respects those who have a different one.
Divorce law, Catholic supporter?
In my opinion, Archbishop Cremona's position is important because it would not demonise or condemn those within the Catholic community, who, basing themselves on the same or different statistics and facts, would reach a conclusion about the legalization of divorce and/or cohabitation that is different than the one generally reached by the majority of Catholics in Malta.
An important difference must be emphasized. Catholics are against divorce. Christ’s position is loud and clear. The question here is a different though difficult one. It is about the position taken by Catholics in the political and legal arena.
Archbishop Cremona rightly notes the responsibility of the individual Christian “to contribute in the political and social sphere, obviously in a way that is a logical consequence of his beliefs, otherwise he would be living in a dichotomy between his beliefs and his political stance.”
But one could argue that it could be legitimate for the individual Christian, after analyzing facts and statistics, to arrive at the conclusion that in the situation prevailing in a particular point in time in Malta measures should be taken to recognize rights emanating from co-habitation or to legalize, in some form, divorce. Such a position can only be taken after all steps have been done to strengthen marriage and the family in Malta. Strong families and stable marriages are the best option, divorce – at best – can be a necessary unpleasant fact of life (not to say “necessary evil”).
Get the facts right
Quite naturally, both camps should all get the facts right to make their participation in the divorce debate more meaningful.
Indeed, the Archbishop pointed to conflicting official statistics about the situation in our country and rightly says that “there is definitely a need to have a more accurate picture of the situation” in Malta.
He hastens to add however, that “for separated persons and their families, marriage breakdown is a tragedy and not just a number in a table of statistics.” The Church should show its belief in this statement by strengthening its myriad positive measures in this direction and setting right areas of weakness in this sector. For hallowed years the Ecclesiastical Tribunal has been the subject of debates, studies, discussions etc. Progress is still very slow and many are still unnecessarily suffering because of excessive delays. Will the Archbishop manage to bell the cat and reform the Ecclesiastical Tribunal?
Discourse not 'This way'
Archbishop Cremona made his points in a strong manner but always in an atmosphere of dialogue. “I hope that the majority – for or against divorce – hold their position and campaign for it because they feel it is the right thing for society and not because of some kind of blackmail.”
This statement shows respect towards those who are in favour of legalizing divorce provided they are there because they believe that granting an individual the possibility to divorce “is the right thing for society”. From context the kind of blackmail that he refers to is the possible pressure of what is called “Europe”. This is an unfortunate and non-specific reference. Is this Europe referring to the Council of Europe and its court in Strasbourg or to the European Union or to both or to the cultural milieu prevailing on the Continent? Many in Malta do not have a clear idea of the difference between the CoE and the EU.
The Archbishop appropriately argues: let us not prejudice the issue. For the debate to be really fruitful and sincere, each side should be open to the other one and to the different possible outcomes that it can indicate as being “the right thing for society”.
Archbishop Cremona writes:
“We cannot give the impression that that discussion has taken place only in those countries where divorce has been legalised. Sincere and open-minded discussion could lead also to the population’s conviction that only the strengthening of marriage is a solution. And even this is a positive political decision. It is unjust to present it just as a negative decision!”
It is not right to arrive at the a priori position that the “no” to the legalization of divorce is a negative position.
Let us dialogue and discuss the family, divorce, marriage, and co-habitation - but let us do so in a spirit of calm, guided by the true indicators of the situation of the family in Malta. Let us do so with brotherly love towards all. Catholics and non-catholics against divorce. Catholics and non-catholics in favour of divorce as a legal option.
RSS
Comments
You make several assumptions in your comment.
1. You assume that I am a Catholic (and a "cradle" Catholic at that).
2. You assume that the Catholic Church offers "certainty", when all it can reasonably offer is fixed rules. If any church offered certainty, faith would be redundant.
3. You assume that the Anglican Church has "no theology", where having no theology would make one an atheist. I hope you're not suggesting that members of the Anglican Church are atheists.
4. Lastly, and most importantly, you assume that just because I wrote that Fr Caruana said he envied the Anglican Church because he believes it is more progressive, it is necessarily also my opinion.
That's a lot of assumptions in one single post, dear Mr Prictoe.
The Church of England progressive?
It's all things to all men!
I was Cof E for 31 years and a Catholic for 57.
The Catholic Church offers certainty.
You Maltese cradle Catholics don't know that you are born.
The Anglican Church has no theology.
I wish you all the best and may God be with you in the very important missionary work you carry out in Latin America!
Thank-you.
Fr.John Caruana
carjohn@teracom.com.br
For instance, the Christian Orthodox view of marriage starts from a completely different presupposition. The Orthodox Church - same God, same Holy Scriptures - permits remarriage although this is not taken lightly. They consider marriage to be an act of grace and in cases when marriage looses its potentiality to become so, the Orthodox church permits remarriage. They speak of three deaths that can occur in a marriage - physical, moral and psychic death. They even use two different rites for the first and second marriage. During the ceremony of the second marriage, they pray to God for forgiveness and for the previous spouse/s. They thank God for giving them this second chance to live this economy of salvation - marriage.
The Catholic perspective, which as I said before I can understand based on its "punto di partenza" (not necessarily agree with), can be called several things...but enviable is definitely not one of them – especially from a pastoral viewpoint.
One fine day I woke up and tuning to the BBC TV there was the announcement of the marriage of Prince Charles with Camilla. As expected this news item lasted some three hours. And on the table there was a young journalist who was a specialist on the Royal Family. At one time he was asked whether the Church will bless this wedding - meaning of course The Church of England.The specialist replied that according to the Church of England if a divorced person will mary the person that was the cause of the breakdown of the legitimate marriage, then the Church doesn´t bless that marriage. If on the other hand, time passed by, and the divorced person met somebody else who had no responsibility for the separation, then the Church blesses that marriage. My immediate reaction as a catholic, was of envy - because it became clear to me that our Church accepting the principle of development of doctrine first proposed by the converted Cardinal Newman, could today fourty
years after Vatican II have not only a more pastoral approach, but I dare say a "pastoral doctrine" on the matter - if one can so put it.
I find this staement to be rather strange considering that:
1. ALL the countries of Europe, all the countries of Africa, all the countries of North America, all the countries of South America and all the countries of Asia (less one country) have legalised divorce. (and Australia too of course). i.e. practically the WHOLE WORLD.
2. All Christian denominations (including Orthodox Christianity), cater for divorce situations.
As a Catholic, the introduction of Divorce has no bearing on me personally because I have to abide by Catholic rules. As a Catholic, however, I do feel embarrased that my church precludes others who do not adhere to Catholic rules from having the opportunity to start a new married life when the first experienced has gone as dead as a dodo.
Like Mr.Larsson, I do not see any point why a separated couple should remain bound to each other in anyway - legally or otherwise - except in the nurturing of children (if there are any). But that is the way things are with the Catholic Church and I cannot see them changing (for theologically sound reasons). This is why I also think any debate on the matter of divorce on the Church's part is futile.
Things are different for other Christians (not Catholics) who have a different interpretation of marriage. Christians and Catholics are brothers in faith, but not equal!
I have great and sincere respect for the Catholic Church and her bishops. I also really admire Mgr Paul Cremona. I am also against divorce. Sociologically, it doesn’t make sense.
However, I firmly believe that time is passing and Mgr Cremona has not yet made the necessary changes that are so much needed for the Church right now. These, among others, would include different delegates and an improvement in the ecclesiastical tribunal.
For example Mgr Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici, the delegate for the priests, has been in his current position for seven years right now. Apart from this, before occupying the position of rector of the Malta’s Seminary, he also occupied the same post he occupies now. The same is with Mgr Charles Cordina. When is the Bishop opting to change these people around him?
Regarding "secular fundamentalism", one good example would have been the banning of harmless religious observance - but I doubt this ever happens in Europe in this day and age.
Dear Fr Borg, with all due respect, I believe you are mistaking "secular fundamentalism" (whatever that means) with anti-Muslim prejudice (if that is the case).
The France example you give would only be "secular fundamentalism" if all believers in any religion were denied the wearing of religious symbols. I don't believe wearing a cross is illegal in France.
The French case of banning veils (if that is the case) stems from either anti-Muslim sentiments, or alternatively, from concern about the threat of terrorism (people with covered faces could well be terrorists).
They have been heavily criticised for this move, largely from secular sources.
II. Bad choice of word from my end perhaps, the law states they need to stay married to the offender. The point remains though. How can you defend a law that forces someone to have a legal bind to someone who have cheated on them, abused them, abused their children, or simply does not match them and cause unhappiness. If the church wants to keep those restrictions on their congregations, feel free, but for the state to impose said laws on their people is simply wrong. I suppose this is one of the drawbacks of constitutionally relinquishing the right and duty to deem what is right and wrong, to the church.
i. Example of secular fundamentalism. In France you can go around three quarters naked and it's ok. But if a woman puts on a veil she will be baninished from public places because the veil is considered to be a religious symbol. Isn't this an example of secular fundumentalism.
ii. I know of no law which says than an abused spouse has to stay with the offender. Where does this exist?
Father Joe, I have no intentions to get into a debate with you. The answear to your question is found if one looks at the Church Today and where the Church was not so long today. I believe you would agree with me that the Church have come a long way. I guess the question is have the Church gone to far or not.
When I talk about divorce i am not referring to Annulment by the Church either. I believe Annulment is strictly a church prerogative. My only comment in this regards is that the Church is not equal with all that file for Annulment. The vast majority of annulments seems to be tied to One's status in Society. But once again that is the Church prerogative.
You are quite right in that children suffer a lot. To prolong the suffering any longer is wrong if not cruel at the same time. If two adults cannot reconcile with each other what good is it for the children to keep tha amosity going. In most circumstances one partner would have moved out from the family home already. So, I ask, where is the family unit. By allowing two consenting adults to file for divorce doesn't mean that either one of them will be dissolved from the well being of the children.
And what Fr. Borg, is secular fundamentalism and how is it fashionable?
You say above that we need to set regulations on what is good for society. Why not set regulations on what is good for individuals, as long as it's not detrimental to society? The current laws on divorce is causing enormous grief on quite a large group of people at this stage, while a removal of those laws would relieve them of this grief, while not harming anyone else. I cannot for the life of me understand how a thinking person can stand up and defend a law that forces, for example, an abused spouse to stay with the offender.
You claim that "Please do not bring the issue of Children at this stage. If the couple have gone through seperation this issue is irrevelant at this stage".
On the contrary, the issue is still relevant. Children need to be considered during every stage of a process that leads to separation or divorce of their parents. If this should not be the case then the issue of the rights of the parents is also irrelevant during the divorce stage.
Children suffer a lot, if not more than the parents, when a marriage breaks down. Their whole world falls apart. In a responsible society one would therefore expect that children are given due consideration and assistance during the entire process.
Archbishop Cremona's agruments against divorce were not based on Church teachings but on statistics and facts. One can have a different position and interpretation of statistics and facts. But the Archbishop and anyone else for that matter has the right and duty to state a position on a question of such importance for society,.
I seems that while fundumentalism of the religious type is receiving wide spread condemnation - as should be - fundumentalism of the secular type is becoming fashionable.
If the Church doesn't want to grant divorce that It's business; however by the same token, It should not interfere with the State right to do so. At the end the State is not imposing divorce on all of us. If a marriage breaks down and there is no chance of reconciliation why keep imposing undue hardship on both parties.
Please do not bring the issue of Children at this stage. If the couple have gone through seperation this issue is irrevelant at this stage.
I only wish that the local Church media moves with the signs of the times for I believe that the star quality of our Archbishop is being dimmed by the trite and purely functional Press Releases that are churned out occasionally. In the celebrity hungry mediascape, I think that the local Church should make the most of the Archbishop's talent for, what the Italians say, 'Bucare lo schermo'. His smile is good news in itself.