Monday, 11th August 2008
RELIGION MATTERS
Maybe it’s because the MLP is in the throes of proving that nothing much really changes, but religion has become the topic du jour in a couple of ways of late.
Most recently, the Archbishop made a robust statement about how Christians were duty-bound to oppose divorce. This provoked a maelstrom of comments, with the predictable lines being drawn in the sand. On one side, the sanctity of marriage, the need for strong families, mom and apple pie made the usual appearance, while on the other side, the trend was on the lines of “how dare the Church try to interfere in the way the country is run?”
Of course, I’m over-simplifying more than slightly, but that was pretty much the message.
On this one, I am firmly on the side of His Grace, which might, given my blog a couple of episodes ago in favour of divorce, have caused you to splutter and choke in whatever beverage you imbibe while reading this. Diet Dr Pepper (a.k.a. Dr Pepper Zero) is amongst us, incidentally, though I haven’t actually tried it out yet – at least there’s an alternative to Coke Zero for Dr KMB and Joe Muscat to slurp.
OK, now that you’ve recovered from your choking fit, let me explain why I am on the Archbishop’s side.
The role of a religious leader is to educate and to lead, not necessarily in that order, but the function is carried out by doing both together. We live in a tolerant and free society, in which religions are allowed to flourish, whether they are mainstream or peripheral, Christian or Jedi Knight, and if you allow religions to exist, you allow them to teach and preach. There are times when I think that the outward manifestation of religious fervour should be banned, but as long as mutual tolerance and understanding are given breathing space, allowing us all to live together, I don’t think we need to be so fundamentalist about banning religious noisiness.
The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the Archbishop, and forgive me for sounding patronising of a gentleman who has struck me as being eminently down to earth in his dealings with the secular world, has every right to put forward the position of his Church with as much strength as he can muster. This is not to say that he has the right to mount a Jihad as the country moves towards accepting divorce as one of the means of regulating the civil contract of marriage, as I believe it is high time that it should – today before tomorrow, to resort to barbarisms.
But I somehow don’t think that the Curia is stupid enough to buck the trend: it’s not as if divorce will become mandatory. Good Catholics will not be forced to divorce, they will just have the right to, if their conscience, which is theirs and theirs alone at the end of the day, for all that they are guided by their leaders, allows them.
Moving on, with another apparent inconsistency, I propose, in the full knowledge that this will raise howls of derision and that no political party will touch it with a barge-pole (except perhaps Emy Bezzina’s bonkers band) that references to religion in the Constitution be eradicated. It is time, in my opinion, for Malta to become a secular state once and for all.
I am not generally so strong on this sort of thing, recognising that the country’s traditions are such that Catholicism probably still deserves its privileged place, but a particularly inane letter on Friday 8th August said, amongst other things, that illegal immigration has to be controlled because in a couple of generations, we will experience a decline in the Catholic population and a rise in the Muslim one.
The philosopher concerned then put forward the thought that pressure will mount on Parliament to remove Catholicism as the sole official religion of this country, ban the celebration of Christmas and maybe even the consumption of beer and spirits.
Just where does anyone get off making such stupid remarks? Admittedly, this was part of a letter that condemned irresponsible columnists (I thank you) for agitating for the prosecution of the hero of the revoltingly rabid racists (I thank you again) but really – if using exclamation marks wasn’t so naff, I’d employ three.
If having an official religion gives rise to idiocy such as that, then we’d better not have an official religion at all, because its very existence is raising the consequential idiocy quotient to dangerously high levels. In an effort to stave off the howls and bellows of the xenophobes, let me point out that I am just as opposed to having Islam replace Christianity (like there was ever any chance of that) But if the references to Catholicism being the country’s official religion lead to people wrapping themselves in its standard in order to be able comfortably to demonstrate singularly un-Catholic feelings towards their fellow man, then please, let’s avoid having Catholicism polluted by association with these disgusting people.
If you have even a shred of tolerance, and are concerned at the way this country is going in its acceptance of its responsibilities as part of the civilised world, have a read of the letter to which I’m referring,
and also have a look at the sheer volume of overtly racist comments that follow any article which touches on illegal immigration and refugees. Known men of the Left, incongruously, were foremost in smugly trumpeting that the 120 souls at risk were not our problem and we shouldn’t even think about rescuing them, because they were in Libyan waters. True, this is the state of the law, as Maj. Consiglio quite properly pointed out when describing the AFM’s position, but the true tenor of many of the comments was not of respect for the law.
Quite the contrary, it was of gleeful exultation at the fact that a Philistinian interpretation of our international obligations would have allowed us to wash our hands of these human beings, if push had come to shove and the Italians not taken responsibility for their rescue. Many of the comments had echoes of Chev. Maurice Mizzi’s noble sentiment, expressed in Balzan’s bi-weekly rant sheet, that the AFM should make it known that henceforth it will tie up its boats and let the migrants drown.
Oh well, as long as we have an official religion, that’s all right then.
RSS
Comments
Saliba, Francis by name and a medical doctor by profession, dug his heels on this one. I simply ignored his tedious attitude. But then, one would get all sorts, wouldn't one?
Nonetheless, Saliba, by night, ponders on his pointed ways. He is human after all.
Strictly speaking, he wasn't "telling the truth" when he said he was quoting verbatim Matthew ch5, but if we are honest, we will note that the leaving out of the word "from" was just a mistake. Therefore, to be fair, one cannot say that Jo Said was lying.
Let's discuss substance, and not bicker on simple linguistic errors.
"Righteousness", "holiness", in a Christian context it is basically the same thing, or is it not?
I have not insinuated anything. I proved conclusively that you were not saying the truth when you wrote that you had quoted "verbatim" Matthew Ch. 5 (all 48 verses?) in a comment restricted to 200 words. I challenged your authority to substitute in the Beatitudes the word "holiness" for "rghteousness" which is the word appearing in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, the New American Bible and the Authorised King James Version. The Maltese word used by Prof. Saydon is "is-sewwa" not "qdusija".
Instead of giving civil, pertinent answers you resort to degrading "ad hominem" invective and gutter language. You pour opprobrium on your own head.
But to get someone who tops the psychiatry class to consistently call others names and still thinks that he is grand and snazzy, humble and Christian, assertive and dominant, authoritative and relevant, well-meaning and loving at the same time, beats the living daylight out of me. Don't know about you, but hey I thought eccentrics were bad enough.
Seems this fella has a copper trait in him. But I forgive him for insinuating I'm a liar. God bless his soul.
You do not disclose the source of your quotation from the Beatitudes. It is certainly not taken from The Revised Standard Version of the Bible from the New American Bible or even from the Authorised King James Version all of which speak of "righteousness" not "holiness".
In any case the relevant point is that your pretence that you have ever quoted Chapter 5 of the Gospel according to Matthew (all 48 verses of it) is not true at all.
I quote again from Matthew 5, word for word, letter for letter: Blest are they who hunger and thirst for holiness; they shall have their fill.
And holiness does not contemplate hard-headedness, as I humbly know it. Sometimes I wonder: is this what the Catholic church is made of?
My "humility" does not involve allowing my detractors to pour scorn on the legitimate use of medical qualifications to which I am entitled by my academic training, my possession of relevant ceritificates from the state and the university, without defending myself.
Well, Francis Saliba sure isn't 'dotto' in the beautiful virtue of humility. It's in the Bible!!!!
Many thanks for your offer to e-mail me Chapter 5 from the Gospel according to Matthew. That would be an unnecessary expense because I have long been in possession of at least ten copies of that gospel in different versions and languages.
The point at issue is whether or not it is true that you had quoted "verbatim" Chapter 5 (all 48 verses) in any of your comments. I contend that you did not do so.
Let us leave it at that.
Please lets not bother other bloggers with silly comments any more. If you wish to, I would scan the quote from the bible and send it to you. My email address is josaid@sky.com
I am a Christian and a happily married man. Been so for the last thirty years. My wife and I married each other in God, and that is the way we'd love it to remain, till death do us part.
The values our two children received from us, admittedly more so from my wife, are the Christian values. And we are all so thankful to our Lord for the blessings we received throughout our lives.
But, and this is a big but, we would never dream to impose our faith on anyone. Faith is spread by example and not by dictate. If the Catholic Church is worried about 'members', that is very indicative of its failure in spreading, by living and not by preaching, the ways of Jesus.
The fact that spiritual directors are still urging the state not to enact in favour of CIVIL divorce, goes to show how they are only worried about quantity and not quality - power not love.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Do not try to trace the comment where JoeSaid quoted Matthew 5 "verbatim" because he never did so. I do not think that he is using that word correctly. It is Latin, not Italian, and somewhat more difficult to use properly than "dottore", ANCORA and ASSAGGIO.
I would appreciate it very much if I were allowed to confine myself strictly to the subject of divorce legislation. But these blogs are being continuously appropriated by a small vociferous lobby of anti-Catholics, atheists, agnostics etc intent on using them to promote their particular type of unbeleif. As for JoSaid himself, he keeps on nagging me to discuss the crime of theft (vide his latest comment) and other irrelevancies. At the same time he expects me to confine myself to the blog subject. How, on earth, could anyone satisfy such people and why should anyone even attempt to do so?
I am not at all annoyed by being addressed as "dottore". I am actually academically and legally qualified to that title. As a matter of fact I was top of my class in the Psychiatry examination (among other subjects).
He even lost the thread of this blog - CIVIL divorce. He has to try to shoot the messenger, like all gutter journalists do, hasn't he? Hypocrites did not only exist in biblical times, I gather.
He conveniently did not refer to the meaning and interpretation of the 'commandment' do not steal. I gave a couple of examples that can be listed in that category. Does he have more to add? Seems not. So, it is not the list of don't-s, or knowing them parrot-like, that matters as one can, for instance, easily get used to compounding with creditors and turn oblivious to the wrong-doing; pear-shaped, I would say.
It is living and being positive (yes, in loving terms) that is Christ-like. Yes is a yes and a no is a no. Love is truth, mercy, humility, righteousness, poor in spirit, happiness and all that is positive. This holism leads to holiness.
So let us not deprive others of their happiness.
Is it possible to get married in Malta, lawfully (thus recognised by Government etc) in a Registry Office (or some other non-Religious institution)?
And (bad way to start a sentence I know) if it is, can these people obtain a divorce as the marriage was completed outwith the Church, or are they are dictated too by Church morals as well (even if non-practising etc)?
You most definitely did substitute the word "righteousness" with another word "holiness" in the Beatitudes. It is not true that I only mentioned the word "inspiration" casually, en passant, but in a most most emphatic manner so as to draw attention to your obsession with your personal "yearning for inspiration" in preference to "the study of the bible". I am quoting your written words verbatim. Why deny your written words?
If I continue with this mad exchange of comments pointing out to you what you did actually right down and its implications I will soon be having nightmares of inspired gurus standing infront of the LOVE monument at St Julians Bay singing "Love, Love, Love" and proclaiming that there is no Judgement Day except for the painting in the Sistine Chapel.
I bid you adieu before you send me bonkers.
How can one, LIVING and BEING the beatitudes (trying, anyway) impose on his fellow countrymen one's own belief? Faith does not do that. That is why the good attitudes should be at the core of this topic. We are not discussing our Christian faith, here. It is the civil, secular right of a couple that signs a document saying they'll live together, to mutually annul that same document. Who are we, and who are our representatives in parliament, to suppress that right?
Did I ever say I'm holy? Not to my knowledge. I always say I am a sinner. But then I do not refer to my note book, ermm ''1... do not'' 2...do not'' ''3...do not'', ahhh its listed number 5, therefore I can't. And if I can't, you can't. Toddlers do that.
How on earth could you allege that I missed your use of the word "inspiration" or that it is not in my "diction" (sic) when you yourself quote me as referring to your "inspirational guidance" (to make it easy for you, your para.1, line 3, first two words.
I did not miss your note on the Beatitudes which I know so well that I can tell you that you have taken the liberty of substituting the word "righteousness" by "holiness". I do not see the relevance of the Beatitudes to this blog. Presumably you believe that your attempts to revise the Bible and to give it a new and illogical interpretion is a sign of "holiness" on your part and anyone drawing your attention to this error is persecuting you because of your "holiness".
Just an 'assaggio' for the dottore to mull on. If he wishes to stumble upon more of HOW TO BE and not of what not to do, Matthew 5 should do it.
The problem is that there is an infinite list of what one should not do. Some examples would be: do not cheat on tax, do not charge high fees, do not evade VAT, do not cheat on stamp duty, do not contemplate devious schemes, do not take advantage of others, do not be a parasite, and so on.
I prefer to LOVE, difficult as it is.
He has had a bellyful of my deliveries, he says. He should take a walk, this dottore. That should clear his frustration. But then, on second thoughts (and here I'll gladly use my 1 2 3 - count to ten) I should not use a sword for a sword.
He must have missed reading the note on the beatitudes. He would not have come storming in here as he did, had he done so. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for holiness; they shall have their fill. Blessed are they who show mercy; mercy shall be theirs. Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of slander against you because of Me.
...cont'd
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D
You contend that the Decalogue was intended solely for the Israelites of the time of Moses because those people still needed "baby food" which you later exemplify as "1-2-3" . According to this dottore "1-2-3" was a medicated talcum powder intended for babies' bottoms but poisonous if administered to them by mouth. This must be one of the inspirational guidances achieved by you when "reading it (the gospel) with yearning" whilst refraining from "studying the gospel". There is no shred of evidence that Christ made any modifications to those "guidelines" in fact He is on record as praising a genuine Israelite for observing them. I ascertained that from gospels which have always been at my disposal since childhood
I am still trying to decipher your "Now you spill it - and in full swing" when I clarified that my doctorate was in medicine. But, please, whatever you do, do not (repeat do not) try to help out. I have had a bellyful of your "hawwadni halli nifhmek".
Silly you? Naaa. Do not blame yourself. Blame the ones who did not allow us students to read the bible, remember? The 10 commandments were guidelines given by God to Moses for the chosen people to follow in order to live as God would want them to, because those people still needed baby food. Jesus came to make perfect those guideline which you prefer to call 'rules'. And He told us, is telling us, Love is the only commandment I give you.
Mr Grima, if one loves, one does not steal, does not lie, does not hurt others, or does one? So if you prefer to eat baby food like 1 2 3 and so on, stay at that level. But don't blame me for moving on - please?
silly me., I thought that the 10 commandments were rules given by God to Moses for the chosen people to follow in order to live as God would want them to, and even sillier as I go along I thought that Jesus Himself gave us the rule to love our enemy and to turn the other cheek.
You state 'The rules are clear and it is down to individual conscience' - quite contradictory, I opine. Our conscience cannot have, and has, no rules. Love has no rules. Faith has no rules. On the other hand, clubs have rules. Organisations have rules.
The beatitudes are the fruit of LOVE and they are far from being rules. They are attitudes, good attitudes. One does not have to be a scholar to know how to love. One does not need any rules to be of good attitude. Our conscience nags because we know we're doing wrong. We just tagged that particular feeling as a 'conscience'.
And we were all brainwashed to think (and to establish) our conscience as another brick in the wall. How mistaken are we to think that. Remember the triangle (trinity symbol?) with an eye at its centre 'watching' us? How cruel was that? And this coming from the ones who establish the Catholic rules.
So who am I, coming back to divorce, to even think to partake in a referendum, let alone vote, to suppress my neighbour who is free to decide for him/herself?
When I wrote my comments I never thought of the electoral manifesto. If a divorce law is settled by means of a referendum, the populace may accept or reject a divorce law. Why should the general majority be given the chance to neglect broken families to move on by noting no in a referendum? In general Maltese families are healthy units and divorce is required by a small portion of society. Hence the issue is settled by a simple majority in parliament. It seems that you are confident that if a referendum is held over 50% will vote in favour. I hope so but I am not so sure. So why risk when the need for using such a tool is not required?
Ahhh, a doctor of medicine, I see. Now, you spill it - and in full swing. How hard it is to get through to those full of logic, and logic only! So let's spoon-feed.
You study with your mind, your brain. Inspiration belongs to the heart (soul - I bet you never found that in your studies of the anatomy, dottore). More to the point, if one allows his state of mind to 'logically' search for answers, one gets boggled. However, when one meditates in inspirational humility in our loving God, one is enlightened. How do you think Peter, or Paul for that matter, found Jesus? Do you still believe, like toddlers do, that Paul was struck off his horse by the hand of God? Literally?
If you were around when (sic) Jesus lived (your quip, this) how would he have talked to you? Would he have asked you to STUDY his words? He is telling NOW (you even ignored this) ''open your eyes and see''.
But it seems you got stuck with the judgement riddle. Enjoy.
I am a reader, collector, counter and general dogsbody
at our local Catholic church and am aware that some communicants have been divorced and in some cases re-married-but who worries about such details? The rules are clear and it is down to individual conscience.
On my visits to Malta I frequently attended Mass at St Lawrence church in Vittoriosa (it held a particular place in my life) and was not worried as to the status
of individuals of the congregation but was disturbed by the chatter of teenagers at the back of the church.
I also attended sung Mass in the Co-Cathedral and was surprised to see the choir chattering in between singing
and understand they were paid for their services. Yes, I am digressing again but I am somewhat disturbed at the attitude to religion in Malta and the wittering that passes for discussion in such as this blog.
I did make another attempt to fathom how "not to study the bible" and at the same time to "read the gospel" while "yearning for inspiration". The only inspiration I got is that you are still talking gibberish and that God apart from being exceedingly merciful and forgiving is also a just God and that he will be there to pass judgement (Matt:35:31-46
Got me there - good one.
Gibberish? Study and read have two distinct meanings my friend. The inspiration I asked you to pray for is precisely the word you opted to leave out. Reading whilst yearning for inspiration is totally different to studying, don't you think?
I am so impressed by your confidence in matters spiritual, that I must thank God for being poor in spirit, myself. Pharisees, I think He called them, the ones who told Him He was talking gibberish from His hat. Please dottore (you insist on it too) come down a couple of rungs, if you may. The judge and reward you mention is simply put so as we mortals understand our Creator. If you opt to take God literally, that's your choice.
Don't you realise that you are writing gibberish when you urge me "not to study the gospels" and at the same time "to read them" all in the same sentence?
Don't you realise that I do not have any real doubts about your possible access to better information but that I was only hinting gently that you were talking through your hat?
Don't you realise that you cannot selectively endorse those sections of the bible that extol the infinite goodness of God and his love for all creation and at the same time skip and ignore those other passages that state just as clearly that He will judge and reward? Any other interpretation would be a licence to sin.
I took your advice matey, adjusted an antenna that I didn't know that I had
and now I have the pleasure of receiving you in duplicate.
Much obliged
Your statement ''Since I was born two millennia too late I must necessarily rely on the gospels for information about Christ and his earthly mission'' just goes to show that you have not listened even though though you have ears. Christ is here NOW. The coming of our Saviour happens every moment, but it is up to us to recognise HIM in our neighbour. We do not need Josephus and Suetonius to inform us. The bible is not information, but FAITH. You doubt very much if I have access to better information than you do. Open your eyes to the fact that your doubt is your problem. God's love and mercy for man and the need for man to love God, his neighbour and even his enemy does not contemplate justice as we mortals view it. That is why I urge you not to study the gospels but to yearn for inspiration whilst reading them. Blessed are the poor in spirit.....
@ Peter Prictoe
adjust your antenna mate.
3. Understanding someone entails seeing where that someone is coming from. Therefore I find it a good practice for anyone to read the bible (and other religious texts) if one is an atheist/agnostic, and to read atheist/agnostic literature if one is religious. This helps us to get a clearer picture of who we're dealing with, and would help us shed any prejudices we might have.
4. However, even if we act on point 3, this does not mean that we have a clear picture of every religious/atheist/agnostic person on earth. Since, as indicated in point 1, we are all products of genetic inheritance and environment (including education), we are all necessarily unique. So, although we might have a general idea about groups, this will not necessarily tally with particular individuals.
5. Learning about other beliefs (or disbeliefs or doubts) helps us better understand other people's points of view. It also keeps in check our natural inclination to persuade and any remorse/anger we might feel when we fail. Keeping in view the above, especially point 1, will give us a realistic view of our limitations of persuasion, and thus avoid (to a certain extent) disappointment.
Thanks for reading.
Kenneth.
1. We are all products of our genetic inheritance and of our environment. Though sudden complete reversal of ideas is possible, it is somewhat improbable. If drastic changes in our world-view happen at all, these changes will take time. This makes taking things too personally when we face disagreement not only futile but absurd. It is to be expected that people will differ in opinions and that in all probability, we cannot convince people to reject or amend their world-view in a day.
2. Belief, disbilief and doubt are not things we can consciously control. Try as hard as we can, we can never disbelieve that the sun is hot. Try as hard as we can, we can never believe that the sea is dry. Try as hard as we can, we can never be sure whether we'll still be alive tomorrow. Religion is no exception to this general rule. Those who believe, disbelieve or doubt the existance of God cannot help doing so. Grasping this fact helps us to understand others.
Cont...
I will continue following this tread but will not reply any more to Mr. Cassar's writings because it is in vain
Your statement ''Since I was born two millennia too late I must necessarily rely on the gospels for information about Christ and his earthly mission'' just goes to show that you have not listened even though though you have ears. Christ is here NOW. The coming of our Saviour happens every moment, but it is up to us to recognise HIM in our neighbour. We do not need Josephus and Suetonius to inform us. The bible is not information, but FAITH. You doubt very much if I have access to better information than you do. Open your eyes to the fact that your doubt is your problem. God's love and mercy for man and the need for man to love God, his neighbour and even his enemy does not contemplate justice as we mortals view it. That is why I urge you not to study the gospels but to yearn for inspiration whilst reading them. Blessed are the poor in spirit.....
@ Peter Prictoe
adjust your antenna mate.
And who are we to judge who goes where anyway? I thought that was God's prerogative.
By the way, no one is forcing anyone else to divorce, so what's the fuss all about?
Come on...A Attard had to have you rescue him from his blunder by spoon-feeding him with a reply which he repeated.
When someone depicts others to be evil and them asks the question of what happens when they meet their "maker", everyone knows what he implies.
You refused to be judgemental and "take the bait", which was no bait at all, but an honest question. A Attard was already being judgemental when he depicted all atheists, agnostics, non-Catholics and non-practicing catholics (ignoring God's words) as acting unashemedly (implying that they should actually be ashamed). Now, suddenly, he is trying to give the impression that he is not judgemental.
Pull the other one!
There you go again jumping to the wrong conclusion. I refused to bite a baited hook and declined the invitation to be judgemental and to express my irrelevant opinion about the assignment of divorcees, or any other person, to heaven or hell; that is absolutely beyond my competence or my ambition. I simply followed Christ's injunction not to judge lest I be judged myself.
It is people like you who claim to have all the answers (in the Bible). I certainly do not.
Any one with average IQ would know what you implied.
You wrote: "All those who today are unashamedly and willingly ignoring God's words and worse still feeling cool, modern and hip in advertising sin will one day meet Him. An then?"
I won't answer your question myself this time. I'll let you do it yourself.
To summarise, you wrote that all those who bla, bla, bla...advertising sin will one day meet Him. An(d) then?
Then what, A Attard?
Of course, tolerance or acceptance of other beliefs etc does not mean moral relativism. Some beliefs that rest on reasoned and established opinion which are justified through moral philosophy and not just blind faith (such as the right to life, freedom of religion, racial and sexual equality, and the prohibition of the infringement of basic rights under the pretense of religious observation - like sharia law - should be enforced by law.
What we should be considering is what effect divorce would have on the social state of Malta. I make it clear that I am in favour of divorce being permitted. If Catholic Ireland can manage with it so could Malta.
The current run of recriminations on this blog is pointless and boring -though you Maltese might wish to continue in that style but for myself please include me out.
I hope that this comment gets to you for I have had problems when transmitting.
A simple majority vote in parliament would only be appropriate if the issue of pro-divorce legislation had featured unambiguously in the party's electoral manifesto. Even so it suffers the disadvantage that an electoral manifesto is a complex document dealing with a multitude of issues and it cannot be assumed that the voters for the elected party were all in agreement with all that was on offer. The reasonable assumption is that they were not.
An ad hoc referendum, even if not binding, will settle the issue of the will of the majority and removes all doubt if it the majority rules with respect for the rights of the minority or if the minority is imposing its will on the majority.
You pasted my comment ad litterum and as you can see there is no mention of hell, you added the hell part. I do not have an answer for the question "and then?" You seem to have an answer to all questions lucky you. I do not.
I find that to be too radical for my taste.
How about 'references to religion in the Constitution be removed?'
I still wonder if a culture can thrive without a religion that gels it together.
Take Constantine, he took on the Christian religion for empire-gelling purposes, divorce-at-the-time and all, which helped keep the various factions somewhat united.
On second thoughts, I would rather change our present religion to one that is more gentle and realistic on modern-day society.
The rigid nature of our present-day religion has translated into a DIY Catholic religion each-to-his/her own co-habitate in village A and recieve Communion in village z; a veritable 95% Catholic out of which some 70% may be virtual Atheists or Agnostics.
I agree with you that the Archbihop is duty bound to speak against divorce. Of course, people equally have every right to disagree with him, particularly (but not exclusively) non-Catholics.
Now to answer your questions:
"Will the divorce law solve these (family) issues?"
Of course not. It will only give people a chance for a fresh start where the marriage fails.
"Will citizens still push for divorce, if divorce cases take years to settle?"
Yes, since separation cases many times also take years. Annulment cases all do. I speak from experience (over 5 years in my case).
"Will a special court be taking care of family issues?"
I would suppose that the family court dealing with separation cases would be the same taking care of divorce cases.
"On a final note, divorce should not be decided by means of a referendum but by a simple majority vote in parliament. After all referendum's in Malta are non binding!"
Irrespective of what we think, I believe that this is what will actually happen.
Divorce is to be introduced in Malta on the principle that state and church are two seperate entities. After I read this blog and browsed through the comments I have the impression that most people are seeking an expedient process to solve family issues. Will the divorce law solve these issues? Will citizens still push for divorce, if divorce cases take years to settle? Will a special court be taking care of family issues? Many questons are still unanswered and need to be clarified. On a final note, divorce should not be decided by means of a referendum but by a simple majority vote in parliament. After all referendum's in Malta are non binding!
Actually it was you who first alluded to hell. You wrote: "All those who today are unashamedly and willingly ignoring God's words and worse still feeling cool, modern and hip in advertising sin will one day meet Him. An then?"
And then, hell, I suppose. If not, what was your point exactly? If there's no hell, whatever it may be, there would be no reason to fear God, which would make your comment irrelevant.
Regarding newborn babies and newborn kittens, you are misrepresenting me. What I actually say is that both have an equal right to life, and not to be treated as objects. Of course, each species values its own kind, but just like a mother values her own child more than other people's child, this does not mean that she may kill others' children. This is not fundamentalism. Whole books have been written on this topic, but 200 words are not enough to explain further.
I am not saying that it is wrong to believe in God. All I'm saying is that there is no hard evidence either way.
Being a fundamentalist does not mean disagreeing with me. It means forcing faith on others.
Even though I did not ask you to judge, but only to say what you believe, your answer is satisfactory. It implies that you simply do not know (since, as you say, it is not up to you to judge). That's a far cry from threatening people who are in favour of divorce with hell-fire, which some people have been doing, particularly in other blogs. Now I'm assured that you're not such a person. I only asked to be sure. Now that I know, I have no problem debating further.
As for being offended if you mention Christ, I'm not at all offended. Irrespective of whether Christ is God or not, I admire him as a person who was quite revolutionary (in the positive sense) for his time.
As for my question being silly and impertinent, I hope that my reply shows that it was neither silly nor impertinent. You will know that there are some people who do believe that divorcees will surely end up in hell, and with such people, reasonable debate is futile. As for impertinence, it was not at all impertinent. If it is on topic, you can ask me anything.
Seriously.
I think it is only you who mwntioned hell, you insist of giving your own one track interpretation to every argument.
It is ok to beleive that a newborn baby and a newborn kitten have equal value in life but not ok to beleive in God, is that not fundamentalism? In your book if your do not have liberal, leftist, atheist ideas than you must be a fundamentalist, a bigot and a racist.
I give you the same answer that Christ gave when He was asked to intervene in a dispute about inheritance "Who has appointed me to be a judge"?
Please do not be offended if I mention Christ - I cannot help it since He plays such an important part in my life. And that is the last silly and impertinent question from you which I will deign to answer.
Be serious and come again.
Do you believe that all divorcees will end up in hell?
This is a relevant question, since the topic is divorce, and hell has been "brought up" as one of the arguments against divorce.
I am experiencing connection problems but to Dr Saliba I say
Amen
Since I was born two millennia too late I must necessarily rely on the gospels for information about Christ and his earthly mission. Josephus and Suetonius are not very informative in that respect and I doubt very much if you have access to better information than I do. Of course He insisted continuously on God's infinite love and mercy for man and the need for man to love God, his neighbour and even his enemy. But he spoke just as frequently and just as emphatically about God's justice and his judgement at the end of time. Study your gospels seriously and you must come to the same conclusion.
Let me rephrase: not everyone believes in God therefore not everyone believes that they should live an "exemplary life" just because they fear the final Judgment Seat. Their actions are not a result of scaremongering but a result of the society they live in and interact with. Their minds are not filled with thoughts of an after-life but with they enjoy life as it is now.
May I just point out that this notion of being "good" throughout life to get eternal compensation is also extremely naive and egocentric. Tajjeb...you're heping out so that you get the reward not because you feel you should!
Albert Spiteri, not that ABC needs someone to defend him, but your claim that "he does not know what he's talking about (narcissism)" is contradicted by your other claim that "he did have to refer to wiki for a definition". If he looked for a definition, he must know what he is talking about. However, somehow I rather think that he mentioned wiki just so that people who have no idea what they are talking about, do not take ABC's word for it, but look for themselves.
I only like to add this: Seeing that you wrote "narcistic", apparently it is you who needs wiki.
Instead of being an internet troll (here's another word to look up in wiki), how about discussing the article in question?
Our neighbour is suffering because society conditioned the bible words. It interpreted them as it pleased and to its liking.
Surprise, surprise. I received calls too Jo. It's nice to be Bocca's recurring nightmare. His ilk deserve it.
Congratulations on your wisdom to live in accordance with the belief that eventually we will all find ourselves before the Judgement Seat. Like myself, you evidently believe that this Judgement Seat will not be found to be empty. That is much wiser than living a life based on the supposition that there is no Judgement Seat only to find out, when it is too late, that it is actually there and that it is very much occupied!
I beg your pardon I did not threaten anyone. I just stated a fact that sooner or later we are all going to die and meet our maker.
You have the cheek to call people fundamentalists
@D. Attard
I am not joking or is there anyone writing here immortal. I am not.
P.S. I did not mention any established religion i just mentioned God
What if you don't meet the Big Boss?
Your fundamentalist apocalyptic threats do not scare anyone anymore.
I hope u were joking. If you weren't please accept the fact that not everyone is a Roman Catholic . You are free to follow your religion of course, let others figure it out for themselves.
Let there be no misunderstanding. I am a practising Roman Catholic and live in accordance with the precepts of the Church. I am of advanced years and live comfortably with the thought that at any moment I might find myself standing before the Judgement Seat,
It may be that that seat is empty but I am not concerned for I accept that God may only be an extension of my own intellect.
Although I sometimes wonder if all the priests in this country share the same view as the Catholic hierarchy in Rome, but continue to serve in silence.
I’m sure that there are a few who think, hey! Divorce isn’t such a bad thing after all; at least it’s a means of escape from a brutal marriage.
There are probably many priests who have come across families whose marriage has unequivocally broken down, but because of the churches guidelines have little alternative but to advise them to try and sort things out, without mentioning the ‘D’ word.
Marriage is no bed of roses; it comes with all sorts of problems, but as most sensible people are prepared to sit down and talk things over, then a solution can often be found.
That is why I am not convinced that this country would be inundated with divorce applications (as many people fear) if ever divorce were permitted.
If we continue to increase in number can we ask for a referendum so that this issue will be in our hands , or that will increase more the work of the curia to scare the population and describe all those in favour like hell boys!! ( I am referring to the film character )
Can I ask a question to the religious leaders : How can a priest divorce from god ( not from faith ) and we others can’t avail from the same rights ?? e.g. A priest can get out from his obligations and is free to even get married BUT can a married couple get out from their obligations and be free to do as they please ??? For me that is hypocrisy .
If I am wrong tell me please , but with facts
Thanks
This time the title "Religion Matters" got me. So I read what you wrote. And again you were biased and cruel.
As for looking for a definition. Any sod can look for a definition The intrisit meaning of a word or expression do not necessarily get given in a dictionary or wiki. This is a case in point. I do not take you on for not agreeing with me. Simply because you enjoy hurting others who do not agree with you!
Do you enjoy acting like a playground yob?
Incidentally a State Religion can - and sometimes does - live happily with a very secular and tolerant state (The UK and Denmark are but two examples) as long as other guarantees and institutional players are in place. Most importantly: a rabidly free media and a liberal ethos (expressed through political parties and other institutions).
The way I see it the Catholic does permit divorce on their own terms only they call it annulment.
A faithful son of the Vatican since converting from the C of E half way through my life and our shared faith has helped us through some sticky patches
Familiarity with the USA, Britain and Malta shows aspect of religion very different in each state - though all three display hypocrisy and I am particularly critical of Malta.
The situation in Malta is highly unsatisfactory and in the interest of personal happiness, the welfare of children and national unity must be addressed. I am of the opinion that marriage should be a secular contract with an option for religious participation.
Everyone has the right to freedom not only those who have money to buy the holy and profane .
I acknowledge that the curia is like a political party and has its right to defend its position ( I don’t want to sound that I am against the EU ) BUT is it also our right to have a choice as EU citizens or for this one we are not Europeans ?
About the secularisation of this island did we as Maltese confirmed the EU constitution as proposed i.e. that in the EU there will be no official religion , can it be the constitution as proposed overrule our constitution ? Than what ??? I know that it has stalled but what if it didn’t ?
Now there will be someone that will try to mix and scare us with the abortion issue . That issue is clear, the absolute majority is against of even thinking of it !!!
My religion is that I am Maltese and an EU citizen and will live with all my norms and values !
Now I am ready to be lynched .
So long as this situatuion prevails, I don't think there is any point in removing it.
The arguments about the separation between state and Church are valid, in any case.
Michael Falzon
America stresses the separation of religion and state whilst we in England have an established church but mostly ignore it. Malta has-well I am preaching to the converted.
The Anglican Church (Episcopal in the USA) has , in practice, accepted both women priests and divorce but is now riven by male vicars marrying each other in England and the consecration of openly gay Bishops in the USA. Protestants in the Dark Continent of Africa hold up their hands in horror at the White Man’s Burden and put away the pots in which they were accustomed to boil missionaries.
The Church in Malta (PN at prayer) is now supine and divorce should be recognised as in all civilised states. We practising Catholics can carry on with monotony-sorry monogamy-but no way should you impose it on
your fellow islanders and in particular your growing number of followers of the Prophet who are accustomed to having several wives. What about all those
mothers-in-law though?
Narcissim: according to Wiki (about your level of intellect) it's when someone is obsessed/in love with themselves. Where in this blog do I demonstrate this? Not that I'm not, but there's no evidence here.
LIkewise, "pseudo intellectualism": where is there even any genuine intellectualism, much less the ersatz variety?
If you want to call my stuff a waste of time, fine, but do please extend the courtesy to the Times' readers of using concepts the meaning of which you know.