Monday, 11th August 2008
This is not the way to debate divorce
Dr Joseph Muscat, leader of the Labour Party, told The Sunday Times (August 3) that we do not need a discussion on whether or not divorce should be introduced in Malta but rather a discussion about the type of legislation that should be enacted. This statement of Dr Muscat does not augur well for a mature discussion on the subject.
Whenever a new infrastructural project is announced people now clamour for an Environmental Impact Assessment and only God knows what. How will the traffic be affected? Are there any worms around whose habitat will be destroyed? Will the level of dust increase in the area? What will be the visual impact? And so on and so forth. This is how things should be done and I am sure that Dr Muscat would clamour for such studies.
But when the country is faced by the possibility of a piece of legislation which would radically change, not the habitat of a couple of worms, but the paradigm of marriage, Dr Muscat states that there is nothing to debate. It’s a done deal for him; the little problem is the paperwork stating the how. Incredible and unbelievable!
No place for anti-divorce Labour MP’s?
Dr Muscat told us that he would propose a Private Member’s Bill for the introduction of divorce:
i. After the Prime Minister promises to give a free vote to the PN members of Parliament;
ii. After considering the individual views of all MPs who are in favour of the introduction of divorce; and
iii. After seeking the opinion of moderate citizens outside Parliament.
Dr Muscat is so adamant to forge ahead without any real discussion that it seems that he does not even consider talking to anti-divorce Labour MPs before he – their leader – introduces a Private Members Bill of such momentous importance! An inclusive attitude towards the way politics should be done surely means that a leader should consult, on such an important subject, those within his own party that do not agree with him!
This is not a lapsus. It’s a strategy and a policy. He is repeatedly dividing the country between conservatives on one side and moderates and progressives on the others. His article in The Times of August 4th is just another example. He is advocating an alliance of those he dubs as progressives and moderates against those he dubs as conservatives.
The Prime Minister is described by him as a conservative because ten years ago he had said that “divorce is not a solution”. But the logical conclusion of Dr Muscat’s reasoning would also label as conservatives the anti-divorce Labour MPs. Dr Adrian Vassallo qualifies for the title thanks to his letter in The Sunday Times of August 3 and Dr Marlene Pullicino thanks to her opinion piece in L-Orizzont of August 4th.
This is not a very inclusive attitude I believe.
PFP no, divorce yes
The Labour Party, quite justifiably, took the Government to task for taking Malta into the Partnership For Peace (PFP) without getting an electoral mandate for this. It seems, for Dr Muscat, that the introduction of divorce is less momentous that the membership of PFP since he thinks that no electoral mandate is needed for the introduction of divorce legislation.
None of the major political party hinted, let alone lobbied for, the introduction of divorce before the last general election. The only party which had divorce on its platform got a trashing at the polls. In the absence of any hint of electoral support, divorce should not be shoved down the throats of people by MPs who never uttered even a public murmur in its favour.
Some form of electoral approval is needed. This can take the form of either a pre-electoral promise or a referendum. I do not agree with Dr Muscat that a referendum on the topic “simply amounts to passing the buck.” Let the people decide.
Persuaded yes; bullied no
The pro and anti introduction of divorce lobbies are complex and varied. There are people of different political and religious persuasion on all sides of the divide. There are happily married people who are in favour of the legalisation of divorce. There are people who are co-habiting who are against its introduction. On Monday August 4, Dr Marlene Pullicino wrote a very courageous opinion piece in L-Orizzont. She said that she is living with another separated person but she is still against the introduction of divorce.
In such a situation should the different sides dig their trenches deeper by saying that theirs is the only position and move forward or should they try to debate openly and reasonably the controversial topic? Should not the discussion be guided by the drawing of a realistic picture of marriage and the family and also possible effects of both positions?
Ranier Fsadni in last Thursday The Times proposed the setting up of a Human Development Index to get a realistic pictures instead of myriad assumptions one way and the other. Should not the discussion be widened to include ways and means of strengthening and helping families and married couples in difficulty? That would be a point of contact between the different sides.
Let us discuss without politicising the issue and without taking fundamentalist religious attitudes. Let is discuss without prejudging the issue by taking the position that only one position is possible.
There are also those who like me are still open to conviction about whether divorce should be legalised or not in Malta. I can still be persuaded either way but I will not be bullied or bulldozed into taking a position.
RSS
Comments
I have just read the comments received on my previous post. All I wish to say that it is true that not all marraiges succeed but could it be that most percentage from those which do not succeed is that such ministry is being taken lightly? I am Christian and am Proud to be Christian, however, in life not everything goes the way we planned it goes eh? That's what I meant that it's life. It is true that Divorce has alot of advantages, however I do not agree with it because as i said in my previous post: "What unites God shall not be Unbound by Men"
There are some exeptions where I agree about divorse for example a couple is forced together and not leaving their freedom but there's a solution for that Annulation of Marraige which passes through the Kuria.
@ Kenneth Cassar
Here I am debating The Marraige in Church and not Civil Marraige
@ Miriam Cassar
Being realistic does not mean that we need to take the easy way out of the Sagrament of Holy Matrimony sometimes Life is though and we need to fight for what united us.
If my marriage fails then why can i not get a divorce?
I would try to fix problems i had but if nothing works i should be allowed to divorce if needed.
No-one goes into marriage with the intention of getting divorced but sometimes it just does not work out.Every single one of us knows someone who is separated or unhappy in their marriage for one reason or another.
Alot of them do stay together "for the sake of the kids" which i am not sure is a good thing.
The children will still feel the friction betwen you two and i feel it would be worse than actually living separate lives.
Then again what do i know.This is just my own opinion.
Morals ? preventing separated people from having a proper family. Now that is real morality!!
Social Integrity ? Pretending we do not have marriages that break up and ignore the fact that we have co-habitation is actually social ignorance. How about you look up social exclusion as well
Respect ? If we respected everyone's right to personal freedom without imposing religious beliefs on others we may be somewhere closer to a definition of respect.
How many other ostriches does this country have?
Please note:
1. People who do not marry in Church do not care what the priest says during the ceremony of those who do.
2. People who marry in Church still have the right to change religion.
"Yes It's true not all marriages succeed but they that's life" - very "Christian" of you.
I do not wish you to go through the extreme hardships of a marriage break-up, but if you do, if you want, you can keep on carrying on the effects of your decision yourself. It is none of you busybodies' business what others do with their life.
I think that we shouldn't even be debating divorce at this day and age especially when so many marriages are failing for various reasons. If this was not the case you might have a point, but reality is prooving otherwise. The way I see it, people who favour divorce actually believe in the institution of marriage so much that they want to remarry but cannot because they are being denied that choice. Who are we to deny people that option?
Yes It's true not all marraiges succeed but hey that's life. One must keep on carrying on the effects of his decision. One thing that has been long lost is the TRUE LOVE. This is no Fairy Tale Love but the Love that unites us all.
Jesus sets forth only one exception to His condemnation of divorce.
He said, "that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery," (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).
This is the only exception: when fornication or adultery has already so wounded the marriage relationship, and it cannot be healed, Jesus does not require, but permits divorce.
Naturally there has been divergency of opinion on this within church theologians of decades.
Thanks. Actually, if the bible is correct, and if Jesus was "of the seed of David" through Joseph (his father), then Jesus would have been the rightful heir to the throne. Incidentally, this simple fact brings to doubt (to put it mildly) the "virgin birth", since, if it was a virgin birth, then it would not make sense to say that Jesus was from the lineage of David through Joseph, and if he wasn't, then this would mean that the prophecy regarding a messaiah coming from the lineage of David would not be about Jesus.
With apologies to Dr Francis Saliba.
But back to divorce....James Coleiro's question is a relevant one...did not Jesus permit divorce in the case of adultery?
Dr. Francis Saliba is proving to be a lost cause beyond reason. Now that you have painted him into a corner her simply resorts to pityful comments such as "not accepting you as a spokesman for chistians and non christians alike".
Your rationale on Christ (as depicted in the New Testament) is quite correct and he was the pacificist revolutionary.
However the way Roman Catholicism spread throughout the world was far from the pacifist manner christ preached. Hundreds of thousand were tortured, burnt or put to the sword in the name of Christ.
Anyhow can we get back to divorce now. I read that Christ permitted divorce in cases of adultery for example. Can someone illuminate me on this??
However, you don't have to be a spokesperson for anything to understand that:
Being offended by someone who "downgrades" Christ to just a human being means being offended by all non-Christians.
You may be a "Dr", but apparently you are no good at common sense and logic.
Again, are you really offended by those who do not believe (or doubt) that Christ is God), or is it just me you personally bear a grudge with?
@ Kenneth Cassar
If I do not accept you as a spokesman for any or all the non-Catholics still less do I accept you as a spokesman for Catholics.
If I do not accept you as a spokesman for any or all the non-Catholics still less do I accept you as a spokesman for Catholics.
1. You (if it is you) wrote my name instead of yours.
2. You claim that it is offensive for non-Christians (most of whom do so deliberately) to "downgrade" Christ (which in essense means not believing Christ is God). As for your mention of Che Guevara, I already explained that he is not one of my heroes. Gandhi perhaps would be.
If you calm down, you'll realise that for Christians, all non-Christians "downgrade" Christ (from God to just a human being). And if you look up "revolutionary" (wikipedia would help) you will find two types of revolutionaries - the pacifist and the violent. I was under the impression that Christians do believe that Christ was/is a pacifist revolutionary. After all, it takes a pacifist revolutionary to change "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek".
In view of the above, you will either see your mistake, or prove you have a personal grudge against me.
HELP................. Dr. Francis Saliba has become Kenneth Cassar!!!!!
Dr. Saliba (provided you re Dr. Saliba) I suggest you read 'The God Delusion' by Prof. Richard Dawkins. Its a top best seller.
You may just be inspired by parts of it!
I wrote that you personally offended my own Catholic sentiments by deliberately downgrading Christ to a mere revolutionary as if he were some outdated Che Guevara. Four days later you return to the fray and try to taint me unjustly with sentiments of anger against all non-Christians who, according to you, not me, all downgrade Christ in the same fashion. As I have told you already I do not accept you as a genuine spokesman for all other religions.
Realistically, what is going to change if we legalise divorce ??
Nothing much in practical terms - some marriages will still break up for a number of reasons as is the case today. The main difference is that the ever increasing 'co-habitation family' will start to finally decrease in size and people get the chance to a second marriage, albeit a civil marriage.
Does divorce need a referendum??
Divorce has been legalised throughout the world as an act of Parliament and Malta should be no different. It would ensure we avoid the fundamentalism mentioned by Fr. Borg.
So what about the role of the church??
The church has every right to guide its flock and preach to people not to divorce. The church has no right to impose its faith on anyone, least of all on the Government and Maltese Parliament, who have a duty to be a government and Parliament for all citizens not just a certain section of citizens.
Now that I have given you plenty of time to calm down, are you still offended by all those who "downgrade" Christ by doubting or disbelieving in his divinity? Or is this personal...are you just angry at me personally.
I don't have to be a spokesperson for all non-Christian religions (or agnosticism/atheism) to know the simple fact that in the eyes of Christians, all non-Christians "downgrade" Christ.
So again, I ask...are you still angry at the millions of non-Christians who disbelieve (or doubt) the divinity of Christ just because they were not born in a Christian country or just because there is no hard proof of his divinity, no matter how much you claim otherwise (without hinting at any evidence yourself)?
Legalising divorce increases the burden on society over and above that which occurs today in case of separations because it pretends to put a seal approval by the majority when this is not the case. A nefarious attempt is being made to have the law is passed intentionally and deliberately without testing the nation's will.
As has always happened elsewhere the legalising of divorce will open the floodgates to spurious "breakdowns" of marriages entered into casually and with inadequate preparation relying on the easy availability of arranged "no fault" divorces, divorce "by mutual consent" and collusion simply to change partners.
This has always happened elsewhere and there is no reason to suppose that matters will evolve differently here. Societ as a whole will be the loser.
I think that this blog is dealing with very serious issues and it is not the right venue for your jokes.
Yes of course...now how about answering my question and actually saying something of substance?
Here it is again in another form just in case I was not clear the first few times I asked.
Divorce has a social cost...agreed so far. Separation also has a social cost, and all the things you mentioned as pertaining to divorce also apply in separation. My point is that in my opinion society is already paying this cost in the event of separation, so what's the difference if divorce is introduced?
I think you will agree that this is a valid question, and your answer will determine whether or not you in fact have made a valid contribution to this debate, and whether or not you are willing, and indeed able to provide some justification for your position. Please note I use the word position in the loosest possible way seeing as it is still unsubstantiated.
Did you at least find the joke amusing ? :-)
and anyone else who finds the English language neither plain nor simple but fraught with ambiguity.
I do not provide "clarifications". I expose and denounce the cheap and silly trick of tampering with my written word, illogically criticising the manipulated version and expecting me to provide an answer.
Priests do not and cannot decide the outcome of referenda/elections. They teach and spread the gospel truth. This is just one of the many factors which form public opinion. Consulting this opinion and legislating accordingly is evidently more democratic than focussing solely on the sectorial interests of a minority hell bent on disenfranchising the majority.
Apart from countries where divorce legislation fas been introduced, and Malta is not one of these yet, I am not aware of any right to divorce, either under divine law, under natural law (for those who find the concept of God repugnant), or any other charter of fundamental human rights to which Malta is a signatory
I got it wrong again :(
Moreover I will not try to persuade you that the fact you keep on having to provide clarifications to various people of what you consider to be "plain simple english" could possible mean that your English is neither plain nor simple and is in fact fraught with ambiguity.
Now tell me how are the negative effects of divorce so different from those of separation? You have as yet failed to answer this. All that you mentioned regarding the social cost of divorce is in fact already occuring with regards to separation.
If you want to substantiate your claim then the onus is on you to show why it is so different.
Re Humour:
A Polar bear walks into a bar and says to the bartender, "I'll have a gin.........................................and tonic."
The bartender asks, "What's with the big pause?"
The bear says, "I dunno, I've always had them."
If you are married and you are against divorce then there's no need to panic. Just don't divorce! It's simple as that. Let the people who want to divorce do it. You can stick to your own bleleifs no matter what.
My comment is in plain simple English and it does not leave room for you to speculate whether, as you put it, you are "totally wrong" or only just "wrong". Moreover, I will not try to persuade you not to laugh at your own "humour".
You said
"Has anyone else noticed the rather high proportion of self proclaimed atheists, agnostics, irreligious and frankly anti-Christian and anti-Catholic commentators in the blogs about divorce legislation?"
I may be totally wrong but this statement seems to refer to people on this blog, amongst others, because it says "blogs"! But hang on a minute is says "the" blogs not "these blogs" so I could be wrong.
Be that as it may its an interesting discussion between non-specific anti-christian amoral people on one side and side and the religious right, fundamentalist arch-conservatives who want to impose their religious beliefs on a whole country while spewing off unsubstantiated arguments in a vain attempt to justify themselves on the other. Not that I am referring to anyone in particular however :-) Its just an observation about unidentified people on non-specific blogs :-) :-) :-)
I will give you mine.... it is shameful!!
I used the phrase "anti Christian" and "anti-Catholic" without pointing fingers at any one. In plain English I never called anyone names no matter how you twist and turn tying yourself into knots.
However where the teachings of the Church are concerned I don't feel that people who claim to be Catholics can afford to differ. They are there on black and white and as Catholics, we ought to embrace such teachings, which after all, are based on the gospels. It is certainly not always comfortable and most times, we face a conflict of loyalties; but personally, when I balance the two options - to be or not to be (Catholic) - the first always weighs heavier.
Some things come at great personal cost but this is next to nothing when seen in the light of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
As students of Theology, we are indeed offered a wide spectrum of teachings but no one can educate the heart more profoundly than Jesus Christ himself. Once we allow Him to enter, He leaves an indelible imprint upon our lives. As a result, our own personal agendas pale into insignificance. This is my reality.
Although I am still waiting for you to substantiate the blanket statements you made on this blog, this shall be my last comment. This is not because the discussion has been saturated after 6 days, but because a logical debate never even took off the ground
I don't know exactly when the Church started looking at sin in any other manner than a poor one but if this is the case, I must have missed it.
You can vouch as much as you like for whomever you like since as I told Fr Joe, that is my reality! You obviously have you own and you are free to to talk about as everyone else is.
With regards to meeting several of God's advisors in the past 5 years - you may have not, but I did. I met too many holier-than-thou people, males and females, some of whom were so absorbed in this attitude and so quick to judge others that they were oblivious (or rather wanted to be) to their own realities back home! Malta is not big enough a closet to hide so many skeletons, so before before people start preaching they should have a very good look at themselves, their relationships and their family!
You refer to a particular credit - I did not. This is a general thing.
If marrying someone civilly or cohabiting naturally constitutes a sex life with that same person, the parties involved are considered to be in an irregular position and living in sin. Sin is what it is according to the teachings of ...
You have substantiated nothing. My surname is spelt Saliba not Cassar.
When I refer to "self proclaimed" (and I emphasise that "self proclaimed") atheists/agnostics by their own chosen appellation I could not possibly be calling them names! Unless of course you are, illogically, stating that these "self proclaimed atheists/anostics" were also calling themselves names.
Now, do you understand? Still no? Pity!
On an earlier blog...
"Who identifies the moral basis for pretended "human rights" (and obligations) in the case of frankly amoral and immoral individuals, agnostics, atheists etc" You tried to wriggle yourself out of that one!! :)
Now that is my substantiation Dr. Cassar.... still waiting in earnest for yours, even though I know it will never come!! I would also use the word defamation wisely.
And kindly don't speak to me about ability or otherwise to engage in a civil and logical exchange of opinions, particularly with regards to the latter.
I cannot help notice that the title to Fr. Borg's piece would work quite well as a title to this blog.
Please substantiate your accusation that I have "now ....... resorted to name calling". By stooping to blatant defamation you are condemning yourself and destroying any pretence of an ability to engage in a civil and logical exchange of opinions.
I too fail to see where Maria got her concepts on civil marriage. I sat through the same credits as her and I can assure you that none of the lecturers have ever given that impression. I am starting my final year at University and with reference to the past four years, I can safely vouch that all our lectures are delivered in a spirit that does justice to our Catholic faith. Issues are properly presented in the light of contemporary culture and, as mature students, we are always encouraged to dialogue on the subjects we are following.
In her comments, Maria is no doubt referring to the credit entitled Sexuality and Marriage. I can confirm that we were presented with a complete panorama pertaining to various traditions/religions as well as different perspectives regarding marriage (both religious and civil) vs co-habitation, divorce, etc.
I feel it's not ethical for her to boast about being "the pride of my lecturers" and having encountered several of "God's advisors" in such a disdainful manner. Her overall comments about the Faculty certainly do not reflect the attitude of the majority of us students studying theology at University.
Re, the lack of people who have responded to the bishops' call, it must be the intimidation.... ha ha........ Or maybe on second thought it could be that they, like you, rely on the regurgitation of doctrine and would not have a leg to stand on in a logical discussion, Your downright refusal (or inability) to add substance to your arguments is very revealing. Different to preaching to the gullible converted eh??
@ Byron Camilleri. According to you I am not a Christian because I would like to impose a non-legalised-divorce situation on everyone. Can you quote where I wrote that divorce should never be legalised in Malta?
Isn't this debate a lost cause for the church? Isn't it better to debate on how marriages can be improved, rather than saving the unsave-able? Quite simple actually.
you make an important statement:
We need a well researched and interpreted picture of marraige and the family in Malta and several scenario if different measures - including different divorce legislation - are adopted.
I agree in toto.
Once we agree that Divorce is indespensible, the real debate starts: what kind of Divorce?
I made proposals on another blog based on global experience:
A divorce must be certified by a Court of law.
Divorce settlements such as Mediation and Collaborative Divorce, which negotiate mutually acceptable resolution to conflicts, should be encouraged. Approval of such divorce arrangements should be almost guaranteed.
Joint Custody to be the norm as this keeps number of Divorces low.
No-fault based i.e. the dissolution of a marriage does not require an allegation or proof of fault of either party to be shown. Applicant/s need to show separation for 30 months. Divorce application can be made by either party or by both parties jointly. This limits hostile conflict.
Common reasons for no-fault divorce to include incompatibility, irreconcilable differences, and irremediable breakdown of the marriage.
A simple divorce should be available for short marriages (under 3 years) having no children, and minimal or no real property.
This issue has long been decided world-wide and there is no current meaningful debate. Divorce is today taken as read.
Research is however ongoing to ensure that structures continue to evolve in the general good.
There is also no doubt that, ideally, all marriages should work out and children be raised in the loving environment of a deep mother/father bond.
Unfortunately this is not the case with a number of marriages that break down.
One of the reports you bring to our attention states that youth whose parents remained married were compared with reports from youth whose parents were divorced by end of the period...
You will no doubt appreciate that ensuing results have no relevance to the Yes/No to Divorce issue but is a measure to estimate obvious damage caused by 'family breakdown'.
Any data relevant to issue should read the negative impact on children in post-break-down trauma and revised impact post-divorce.
Parent-children relationships improve significantly post divorce when the pre-divorce family sample consists exclusively of problematic relationships leading to separation/Divorce.
You can not want to know where I got it from as much as you like.
It does not change my reality!
You would not interfere in OUR private life, in something which will not effect you by any means.
The Church's message should be directed ONLY to the Christians, and urge them that divorce is not the answer, and not IMPOSE on the whole society.
We should be guided by well designed, executed and analysed research. It only 3% of accidents happen on zebra crossing we will deduce one particular conclusion but if 60% of accidents happen on zebra crossing we will tend to draw a different conclusion. We need a well researched and interpreted picture of marraige and the family in Malta and several scenario if different measures - including different divorce legislation - are adopted.
However, you made an allegedly factual assertion that the cost of social services will increase when divorce is introduced. You must agree that any attempt to pass off something as a fact must be substantiated by facts. You write about the "increased incidence of "engineered" marriage breadowns by mutual arrangement and manufactured evidence". This happens today in annulment cases and you will always find people trying to beat the system.
Let us be honest here.... your assertion on the cost of social services issue is just your gut feeling.. a simple shot in the dark. Not that it is wrong to have a gut feeling... I have them too, even on the divorce issue, however it is unfair to try to pass them off as irrefutable facts.
Fr. Borg wrote the following in his piece - "Should not the discussion be guided by the drawing of a realistic picture of marriage and the family and also possible effects of both positions?" I agree wholeheartedly with him on this point.
Divorce may be a justifiable and responsible act. It is an expression of sin in the sense that the partners have failed to attain the ideal, but it is not an unforgivable act. In such a context divorce may be a creative, positive and affirmative response, ethically justified as that option which best approximates fulfilling the Great Commandment in the midst of limited alternatives.
Thank you for snippets from selected research data.
This data observes human behaviour so that human culture can evolve for the better of humankind.
This data does not form part of a debate to review the existance of divorce but a process to render structures more robust.
As an example, zebra crossings are today accepted world wide.
A report that 3% of road fatalities happen on zebra crossing is not intended to do away with zebra crossings, but to make them an even more safer option to cross busy roads.
This is the way that mature societies function.
No Maria I do not know from where you got your poor idea of civil marriage. I am sure you did not get it from the lecturers at the Faculty of Theology. No one I know would speak of civil marriage as being akin to a contract for selling/buying cow dung.
Let me share an experience from the earlier years of my teaching career. Together with Fr Peter I was doing orals to students. I was so embarrassed by some of the things the students said. Fr Peter came to my rescue. “I guess you must be wondering from where the students got these mistaken concepts that they are providing in answer to your questions. Don’t worry. Students will always say that it was you who said these things that you could never have said. I know from experience.” What a sigh of relief that statement was!
What you describe as "unsubstantiated presumptions" would be accepted by others (just as entitled as you are to hold and express divergent opinions) as facts resulting from everyday common observation and widely reported in all the media throughout the world.
Just like you I have my own list of people who could, with advantage, be kept out of the polling booths. Probably so has everybody else. I would not dream of divulging my list on-the air or off the air.
The reason is obvious. With all its many defects a democracy bases on universal adult suffrage appears to be the best available when compared with despotic regimes, monarchies and aristocracies, oligarchies, theocracies and contaminating bureaucracies.
Actually I asked how this is so different from what is already happening in separation cases but never mind :-)
The fact is that Dr. Saliba has yet again failed to answer a simple question. He can never pass off unsubstantiated presumptions as legitimate answers. I too suggest that he stops repeating himself
On the point of the dissolution / rescission of civil contracts, this can take place by mutual consent between contracting parties. In the case of divorce it would have to be a dissolution since rescission involves the parties being restored to their status prior to contracting. The effects of a rescission are more akin to that of an annulment.
What a breath of fresh air your comment about unions - religious or otherwise - is! I always thought you stood out amongst your colleagues, and you do. With regards to your interpretation of how I speak about civil unions, don't be so shocked. You know where I got it from. I must be the pride of my lecturers! However, I never meant to come across as being dismissive about it. In fact, I value civil unions very much.
Dr Saliba, if I ever had the pleasure of speaking to you "off-air" (so to speak), I would tell who - if I could hijack the democratic system for a while - I would ban from the voting boots! In my dreams....
I can tell you why you guessed that would start a particular comment with "I never said or implied that". By now you must have discovered that I am not caught out by the cheap and dishonest trick of distorting my written word and then criticising the "modification".
I have already described the increased "tab" which society will have to pick up after divorce is legalised because of the increased incidence of "engineered" marriage breadowns by mutual arrangement and manufactured evidence precipitated by easy divorce. I won't keep on repeating the same thing for the benefit of those who are too lazy to look for them.
I came from a strict upper middle class family..I even went to Saint Charles Borromeo School 1-8 grades with John Wayne's grand kids and Frankie Avalons kids..these were my friends! I remember the discussions of Divorce in my school. I used to think.."my parents will never divorce..I never heard them fight!" Until that day came my mother told me, the news.
My life was never going to be the same. I feel that the Catholic Church has TOO much judgement on the way LIFE goes. DIVORCE>ABORTION>even better...would allow my dad to ask my mother of 20 years marriage..for an annulment SO he can REmarry in THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 10 years later! Does this make me a BASTARD CHILD in the eyes of the church or the eyes of GOD? The years gone by always wanting to be close with God since I was a child..In search of the truth, I found my self going through hell. I was so afraid I might be choosing the wrong RELIGION ...
I fail to understand your difficulty with the meaning of the word "forensic". This is not given any special interpetation by me and which I am using according to the standard dictionary definition.
Your argument challenging the competence of voters in a referendum applies with equal force against voters in a general election. Are you, by any chance advocating the elimination of univeral suffrage? Hope not!
ScienceDaily (Jan. 11, 2008) — The typical distancing from parents by adolescents is exacerbated by divorce for fathers, but not for mothers, according to a recent study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.
"Historically, teens distance themselves from parents and increase involvement with peers," says co-author Dr. Alan Booth, distinguished professor of sociology, human development and demography at Penn State. "Coupled with divorce, this distancing may result in further declines in father-child closeness."
Parental divorce creates an immense pressure to decrease father-child closeness, supplemented by the many barriers created by a father's physical separation from the children. Fathers, who often are the less involved parent before divorce, would have to increase their investment in the relationship just to maintain pre-divorce levels of closeness, which the vast majority of fathers do not do, according to the study.
More information from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109094337.htm
ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2007) — New research is challenging the notion that parents who divorce necessarily exhibit a diminished capacity to parent in the period following divorce. A large, longitudinal study conducted by University of Alberta sociology professor Lisa Strohschein has found that divorce does not change parenting behavior, and that there are actually more similarities than differences in parenting between recently divorced and married parents.
"My findings that parenting practices are unrelated to divorce appear to fly in the face of accepted wisdom," states Strohschein. "Undoubtedly, some parents will be overwhelmed and unable to cope with the demands of parenting in the post-divorce period, but the expectation that all parents will be negatively affected by divorce is unfounded."
More information from http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20080811/fr-joe-borg/this-is-not-the-way-to-debate-divorce
ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) — The data are in. Divorce is bad for the environment. A novel study that links divorce with the environment shows a global trend of soaring divorce rates has created more households with fewer people, has taken up more space and has gobbled up more energy and water. A statistical remedy: Fall back in love. Cohabitation means less urban sprawl and softens the environmental hit.In the United States alone in 2005, divorced households used 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water that could have been saved had household size remained the same as that of married households. Thirty-eight million extra rooms were needed with associated costs for heating and lighting. In the United States and 11 other countries such as Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Greece, Mexico and South Africa between 1998 and 2002, if divorced households had combined to have the same average household size as married households, there could have been 7.4 million fewer households in these countries.
For more information visit: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203190625.htm
Simple my dear Watson, Sherlock Holmes used to say.
I still do not agree with your interpretation of what is forensic and what isn't though.
In the event of a referendum, you, I and citizen Joe will be asked to vote one way or another based on data which the electorate will have acquired in the previous weeks/months irrelevant of their competence on this issue. I think you are far from incompetent though! If anything, lets just say these are sociological matters (bordering on the legal). One is certainly allowed an opinion which will eventually translate to a yes or a no vote.
No, I had no intention of asking you to supply statistical evidence with regards to your third paragraph. Like you, I have no time to waste with unsubstantiated subjective "data". I don't think it contributes positively to any discussion. The change of partners, financial gain ploys, manipulated "evidence" of adultery, mental cruelty, incompatibility and the hardship on children is already present in our society. Since we still have no divorce, one cannot attribute it to it!
@Dr. Saliba
Everything you mentioned is already happening in the context of separation. Your argument fails to show how the introduction of divorce would be an added cost . What you are trying to prove is far from obvious. What you actually said was "repercussions on the whole of a society that in the end will have to pick up the tab for any consequent rise in the cost of social services etc." We can't be blamed if we took it to mean financial cost now can we, as a result of your lack of clarity. I have put forward an argument rebutting yours regarding financial cost already which you failed to reply to and I am now asking again how is the social cost you are alluding to so different from that incurred by separation?
Oh and I keep up with the news by the way...I am on the Times website after all!
I never said or implied that minority interests should be "quickily dismissed". I said that that they must be respected but by that I do not mean that they should be imposed nolens volens on the majority.
The legal implications of civil contracts is definitely a "forensic" problem completely outside my competence to discuss.
The "tab" which society has to pick up is the opening of the floodgates to marriages supposedly meant to last a lifetime but which, ab initio, are only selfish agreements relying on the provision of easy divorce allowing for any eventual change of partners, or for financial gain, by such ploy as "no guilt" divorces, divorces obtained by manipulated "evidence" of adultery, mental cruelty, incompatibility etc. and to hell with the effects on children being kicked about from one household to another.
I am anticipating your next question to supply you statistical evidence by asking you instead to open eyes, read the newspapers, listen to the news because I have no time to waste proving the obvious.
I asked pretty much the same question asking the good doctor to back up his claim. What can I say? Don't hold your breath :-) I suspect he has no justification for making such a statement...If he did he would surely have made it by now. On the other hand he may in "good company" believeing it and that is enough for him it seems.
Speaking of good company here's a nice list of Atheists and Agnostics: Aldous Huxley, The Buddha, Charles Darwin, Ben Franklin, Bertrand Russell, Voltaire, Nietzsche, John Stuart Mill, Sigmund Freud, David Hume, Naom Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Umberto Eco, Desmond Morris, Salman Rushdie, Auguste Comte, Jean Paul Sartre, Erich Fromm and last but not least Woody Allen :-) Hardly a bunch of amoral and confused deadbeats is it? And many of them notable for their contributions to science, the arts and indeed civil liberties and the general advancement of humanity.
By the way the proofs for the existence of god Dr. Saliba alludes to are for the most part "hijacked" neo-platonic pagan ideas with a slight change in vocabulary. All Aquinas did was rip off Aristotle.
The vast majority of the pro-divorce people who make their voice heard here do not constitute the entire pro-divorce lobby! I agree with you that there are times when our democratic system is hijacked. Having said that, I also think that the interests of any minority should not be quickly dismissed.
What forensic questions are you referring to?
As far I know, I only asked two questions - one to Fr Joe for which still remains unanswered(and it is not forensic anyway!), the other was addressed to you.
Following your statement "It (divorce) has repercussions on the whole of a society that in the end will have to pick up the tab for any consequent rise in the cost of social services etc.", I asked you to elaborate and give us some examples because I truly believe that there still exist some people who need more data to be able to take an informed decision in the event of a referendum.
Is this a forensic question? Since you made that statement, I assumed you had what to back it up with!
....and my bachelors degree is in Theology.
Your comment is completely "out of subject".
I never accused anyone of trying to hijack any "debate". I complained about hijacking the "democratic process" by trying to introduce pro-divorce legislation whilst deliberately denying the general public an opportunity to expres an opinion either by means of a referendum or, less satsfactorily, in a general election for which the political parties express their intentions in their electoral manifesto.
Those who hijack any debate in this country are not those few (when compared to the population) who have time to waste (I do!) by contributing to these blogs. The hijackers are those few key-people in this country - elected as well as un-elected - who form part of a cobweb - a very interesting cobweb - which covers the political arena and every other aspect of life in our country. Be it St John's Co-Cathedral, be it Government decisions, the cobweb is there for all to feel and touch, and this cobweb also includes prominent people who lead our more important newspapers and other means of media.
You claim that not all the pro-divorce lobbyists are against the democratic process of consulting the general public's opinion by a referendum or any other clear mandate in a general election. The vast majority of those who make their voice heard in these blogs do object and in no uncertain matter. They are clearly attempting to hijack the democratic process and substituting it by government of the minority interests.
My doctorate degree is in medicine and I am mystified why you are depositing forensic questions in my lap. I have my own convictions about the wisdom, or lack of it, of opening the doors wide to arranged "divorces" based on manufactured "evidence" of adultery, mental cruelty, incompatibility etc. But if I were to express them, in all probability, you would be among those who, with justification, would fault me for meddling in legal matters outside my competence.
My involvement in this controversy is to plead for everyone, including Catholics, to express their opinion without being intimidated by cries of fundamentalism and for our due democratic processes not to be shelved simply to increase the possibility of pro-divorce laws to be passed against the possible wishes of the majority.
I reject your pretended competence to isolate my phrases out of their proper context and also your presumption to explain to me what they mean. Your "expertise" is restricted to an easily detected penchant for blazen distortion easily detected by readers of this blog
1. What offends me is your own personal downgrading of Christ to that of any revolutionary. Do not drag in practitioners of other religions for whom you have no authority to act as a spokesman.
2. Nowhere did I claim possession of any unique evidence that needs disclosure to others. When it suits you, you do not understand plain English.
3. Being in the very good company of eminent authorities who also believe in God and who have also convinced themselves of the proofs that God exists is much more relevant to me than your opinion
@ Dr Saliba
This blog is very much about traditional religious beliefs vs humanism.
Now what about your claim that divorce will increase the cost of social services? Would you care to back that up or would you prefer to talk about something else?
This obviously does not apply for Catholic (church) marriages.
So I cannot understand what the bishops and the anti-divorce lobby (especially those who keep on quoting and misquoting Scriptures) are on about when they oppose the introduction of divorce legislation!
This blog is not the proper venue for discussing the relative merits of traditional religious beliefs as opposed to humanism. I contribute to it only to object to the insidious and undemocratic attempt to impose legislation surreptituously because the pro-divorce lobby is anticipating that the majority of the electorate would not vote in its favour. That is the only possible motivation for its insistence that the public be not consulted by a referendum and that the electorate be denied the opportunity to express itself during a general election where the issue would feature unambiguously in the electoral manifestos of concerned political parties.
1. Being offended at the "downgrading of Christ" means being offeded by the millions of believers of other religions. You must really be an angry person.
2. You claim that you are in possession of evidence without giving it. Not a good "apostle" at all. Don't withold your evidence. Share it.
3. Being in "good company" is irrelevant to the truth or a matter.
4. Wishful thinking and clutching at straws is no evidence at all.
Good bye.
I would appreciate and answer to my questions from Fr Joe and Dr Saliba.....
Why is, "let them marry hastily and if anything goes wrong simply pull out the divorce card" any better? And if they do divorce, simply go ahead and marry until you're somehow "lucky"?
It would have been instructive however had some arguments not routed in doctrine and the Scriptures been brought by the anti-divorce exponents of this blog. I am truly interested in hearing these but they have been conspicuous by their absence, in spite of my constant requests for wild declarations to be substantiated. Religious arguments are all well and good, honestly, but are not valid for the purposes of deciding on the introduction or otherwise of any legislation in a secular state.
What conclusions am I to draw from this refusal to discuss, not just on this blog?
Like I said in Andrew Borg Cardona's blog, this will probably be my last reply before taking a short break, since things are getting too personal and off topic. A detailed reply to your latest reply to me may be found in ABC's blog.
I'll only add the following, before I let you have the last word.
1. Am am honestly amazed that someone like you would be offended by an agnostic saying that he admires Jesus as having been a person who brought revolutionary positive changes that are still being felt today. If you want my opinion of Che Guevara, he was a deluded individual who believed that the ends justify the means. I do not admire him at all (much to your surprise, I presume) since he approved of violent means to achieve whatever ends.
2. As for my genuine intention to find out (about the existance of God, and in that case, which God), you will perhaps be surprised to learn that apart from having read several atheist/agnostic books (which I doubt you ever have, so every idea you have of atheists/agnostics must be prejudiced), I regularly read books about all religions, including Christianity.
In case you do not realize it please note that you are being offensive to me and to all genuine Christians when you downgrade our Christ, "the Messiah, the holy one of God" to the level of some outdated Che Guevara.
It may be your own genuine opinion that there is no evidence, either way, about the existence of God. Perhaps you are not even all that interested to find out. I am of a different opinion and I am in very good company in my belief.
One of the least pleasant of my experiences as a general practitioner was to be present at the deathbed of people who had spent their life scoffing at those who believed in God, in the possibility of proving his existence and in his promise to judge. Believe me it was always an instructive but shattering experience for the moribund person himself, his family and friends and also for myself.
@ Dr Saliba
You said "I simply catalogued four independent instances where the source of any presumed "moral" right is not at all clear."
Please explain how a humanist (agnosticism and atheism fall under this category) system of ethics based on empirical evidence and human experiience that is accessible to all is less clear than deriving an ethical system deriving from a god whose existence is a matter of faith and beyond empirical investigation. May I also remind you that the greatest atrocities have been commited in the name of religion and some god or another,I cannot remember the last humanist crusade or witch hunt to be honest. Nor do humanists emarginate gay people or any other minority. Do unto others as you would have done to you so long as they are heterosexual Catholics is it?
I'm really on the edge of my seat for this one I must say!
It would also be nice if you could answer Maria Gauci's query asking you to develop your claim that social service costs will be increased. Otherwise you may be guilty, of, dare I say it... a non sequitur!
Furthermore a good number of people, mainly women and children, continue to require social services (therapy, social work, support, protection etc) because separation does not allow them to, ironically, separate from the negative situation. Divorce on the other hand will allow them to move on and possibly actually reduce the need for social services, since a major stressor will be removed.
I repeat: in practical and financial terms there is not much difference between separation and divorce when it comes to the provision of social services. Does someone out there really think that divorce is more harmful to kids than separation? Whats your line of reasoning?
These observations are based on years of experience in the field by the way.
The fact is that the Church is against divorce legislation simply because divorce according to Catholic doctrine is an evil. Again, nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is your imposition of this view and trying to legitimise it by alluding to "common good / harm to society / proof that divorce legislation has failed in countries where it has been introduced" drivel, which at the end of the day is nothing but a smokescreen.
Do you remember the story in Greek mythology when Zeus prohibited humans to use fire just because someone in some place had used fire badly? The issue of Divorce is just the same and some are acting like Zeus (most probably in a genuine way) but ultimately divorce will be introduced. The only question is when and how many will be left in “psychological pain” till then?
The state imposed the Civil marriage act in the 70s as a separate act from the religious act and to have a mature debate we must separate completely these two. The Church have every right to discuss the issue but by mentioning social arguments and not religious or theological as we are speaking of a required update of the Civil law by the Maltese Parliament and not the Canon Law by the Vatican.
"Dr. Saliba, anti-divorce advocates had to date not brought an argument against divorce which is not rooted in some quote from the Scripture."
Believe me, as someone quite neutral in this debate, pro-divorce have done nothing better except calling me "close-minded" or "Stay out of this! It's private."
The Church is making more sense to me at the moment and your assumptions about the "homosexuality" and "adultery" issue continue to show that neither the pro-divorce people have too many convincing arguments.
I apologise for sinning the Atheistic sin of being "close-minded".
It is not possible to carry out a pertinent discussion with you.
In the section where one declares "other income" ALL the income from dividends , rent etc is added with the spouse who earns most money even though the income is earned by the other spouse.
How's that for supporting the family? Why should people get married? In this day and age one is better off financially if s/he is separated with a child of an unknown father. The State is encouraging these lifestyles and discouraging married life.
In another blog, you told me "Please do not be offended if I mention Christ". I replied that I am not offended at all. In fact I have nothing but admiration for Jesus Christ who was revolutionary (in the positive sense) for his time. The least you should do is to reciprocate when I say that there is no evidence neither for nor against the existance of God, and that it all depends on faith.
"Speaking for myself I am totally unaware of any superior arguments from you personally that could possibly persuade, let alone, intimidate me".
I never meant to intimidate you. In fact, if you read my post again, what I said was "the Church and all Catholics have every right to voice their opinion without fear of intimidation. However, if some Catholics are intimidated by superior arguments, that is not my problem".
Of course, you would claim that yours are the superior arguments. In any case, neither of us has managed to convince the other.
"They only make me despair of ever being able to get through to you in your tangle of sophistry, irrelevancies and non sequiturs".
I'm sorry to hear this. I'm not at all frustrated at not ever being able to get through to you in your tangle of sophistry, irrelevancies and non sequiturs. I'm only replying for the sake of other readers. I don't think I could ever convince you anyway, considering you get your morality from only one book written by fallible humans 2000 years ago.
"I consistently rely on Christ's teaching as expressed in the Gospels".
Fair enough, that is if you disregard the evil bits in the old testament, I'm ok with that.
"On the other hand you quote or damn the Leviticus according to your needs at a particular moment".
Actually, I quoted Wikipedia not Leviticus. I only did that so that anyone may check regarding my definition on the Golden Rule. It turns out I was right.
"Please be consistent and refrain from quoting the Old Testament like a devil quoting the scripture for his purpose".
I don't need to do that. The old testament writers did a good job of it themselves.
"It is the brazen attempt to impose pro-divorce legislation on the nation".
What is the nation if not the collection of individuals comprising it? Divorce legislation cannot be imposed on anyone. Everyone is free not to use it.
"Please, don't upset me by pretending that my version of the Golden Rule tallies with yours. In my version the love of God is an essential ingredient ; on the other hand you call into question his very existence".
To repeat: I extend it to God if he exists. How so, you may ask? Simple. If God exists, by extending the Golden rule to all his creation, I would be extending it to him. "That which you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me". Do you really think God would care whether we call his existance into question? No bible quoting please. Think for yourself.
Cont....
I just want to say something to you all straight-laced people. If you ever saw one of my relatives after a beating from her drunken husband, you would soon shut the heck up.
If you don't want to divorce, don't ... simple really! Priests divorce from their 'marriage' to the church when they leave priesthood don't they? Double standards. Can't wait to see the back of you all...if it was up to a lot of my friends they would change all your churches to parking lots! How many of you bloggers are under 45 yrs old? Anyone?
But then, I believe in 'Live and Let Live'.. You live your life, and you let ME live MINE! I believe that everyone is free to do as he must.
I have made it quite clear, often enough, that the "imposition" I am alluding to is not that of a forcing anyone to divorce. It is the brazen attempt to impose pro-divorce legislation on the nation, by subterfuge bypassing the democratic expression of the public opinion in an ad hoc referendum or, at least, by including the proposed legislation in an electoral manifesto.
Please, don't upset me by pretending that my version of the Golden Rule tallies with yours. In my version the love of God is an essential ingredient ; on the other hand you call into question his very existence.
I consistently rely on Christ's teaching as expressed in the Gospels. On the other hand you quote or damn the Leviticus according to your needs at a particular moment. Please be consistent and refrain from quoting the Old Testament like a devil quoting the scripture for his purpose.
Speaking for myself I am totally unaware of any superior arguments from you personally that could possibly persuade, let alone, intimidate me. They only make me despair of ever being able to get through to you in your tangle of sophistry, irrelevancies and non sequiturs.
Of course, this is not to say that some marriages would not still fail. But the numbers, I believe, would be greatly reduced.
Since you say that the introduction of divorce is an imposition, would you equally say that the fact that people may already separate, have hundreds of other partners outside of marriage, live with how many members of the opposite sex they like, etc, is also an imposition?
If this is so, would you suggest that cohabiting outside of marriage should be made illegal?
I had noticed you misunderstood my hypothetical case but I wanted to make my point : in such cases only a Bill of Divorce ( or whatever the name given ) would be the only solution for our "hypotethical couple"...
One last comment: Once divorce is introduced in Malta ( tomorrow or in 10 years time) it is up to the Church Pastors to enlighten and strenghten their faithful in the blessed sacrament of Matrimony. They ( Pastors) need to make it even more clear to their followers that Catholic marriage ( once contracted in good faith without any impediments ) cannot be dissolved not even by the Church itself , even though around them ( catholics ) see divorce available to all. Moreover, special support ( be it spiritual,emotional, economic, psychological, legal, etc ) need to be set up in the Church for those whose marriage is "on the rocks" - as the common jargon goes.
@ Dr Francis Saliba.
Therefore, my attitude does not show an underlying cause for an immaginary animus against the Church's plea for faithful Catholics to make their voices heard and not to be intimidated.
I repeat for the n'th time that the Church and all Catholics have every right to voice their opinion without fear of intimidation. However, if some Catholics are intimidated by superior arguments, that is not my problem.
Regarding opposition to democratic processes, democracy includes safeguarding the rights of minorities.
As to imposition, no one is forcing anyone to divorce.
"Christianity adopted the ethic (Golden Rule) from two edicts, found in Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.") and Leviticus 19:34 ("But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God"). Crucially, Leviticus 19:34 universalizes the edict of Leviticus 19:18 from "one of your people" to all of humankind". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity )
As you correctly say, love of God is Jesus's extension of it. However, the Golden Rule is basically the same, transcending religions, cultures and philosophies.
Your version of the Golden rule tallies with mine except that you do not extend it to non-human animals while I extend it to God if he exists. How so, you may ask? Simple. If God exists, by extending the Golden rule to all his creation, I would be extending it to him. "That which you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me".
Cont...
One reasoned and substantiated argument against divorce which does not involve bible thumping please!!
Another thing. The anti-divorce lobby's main argument hinges on the 'disintegration of society' gambit. They should explain how the European country with the largest percentage of atheists - the Czech Republic - manages to be a model of a peaceful, tranquil and just society.
Far from being an illustration of an impairment of intelligence on my part it transpires that my query was most opportune. Your definition of the Golden Rule does not tally with mine and with that of Malta's practicing Catholics which anticipates the love of one's neighbour by extending it upwards towards God whereas you extend it only laterally towards the rest of the animal kingdom.
This attitude explains the underlying cause for the animus against the Church's innocuous plea for faithful Catholics to make their voices heard and not to be intimidated. It explains the brazen and selfish opposition to the democratic process of testing the wishes of the electorate in a referendum or by a clear committment in the parties' electoral manifesto. The aim is not to protect the "rights" of a minority but to "impose" it on the majority and to disenfranchise the Maltese electorate in the very important of pro-divorce legislation.
Yes, unfortunately I misunderstood an important part in your hypothetical. In that case, since the first marriage is only a civil marriage, if there is no divorce only a civil annulment would do to let any of them re-marry. And by the information you give, in that case, a civil annulment cannot be granted, since both would have married in good-faith (by which I mean that there was no deceit from either of them).
Regarding the Church declaring or granting an annulment, yes, declaring is the correct word, though in practice it amounts to the same thing.
And yes, I agree that there is a lot of confusion regarding civil and religious annulments, but that does not apply to me. I've been through both (with the same person), and my first marriage has been declared null by both courts (civil and ecclesiastical).
If you read well the imaginery case I have put forward, the first marriage was NEVER contracted under Canon Law but ONLY CIVILLY...so Church authority is null in this case ( as you suggest)...and by the way the Church DOES NOT grant an annulment but only DECLARES it as non-existent at the time of contract for a defect that existed before or at the time of contract....again if you read well my piece I presumed in the case put forward that "..no civil annulment can be declared" From what is being penned it looks there is a great confusion/misinformation/misconcepts as to what is civil marriage or catholic marriage civilly accepted, annulments etcc SURE THERE IS NEED FOR A DEBATE as Fr. Joe Borg writes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210163203.htm
I stand to be corrected, but in this case, the Church would have to grant an annulment for the first marriage (which would also be valid as a civil annulment as the law now stands). If the Church does not give the annulment, the second marriage cannot take place.
Regarding the link you provide, yes, the results of that study are correct to note that divorced people who don't re-marry obviously has effects on the environment, since, as the report says, it means that for every divorced person who lives alone, this means two homes instead of one.
However, I am surprised that a study which claims that it is scientific, fails to mention that if divorced people re-marry, this cancels out the environmental harm. Here's how it would work (using just four people to simplify matters):
A marries B, and C marries D. They need 2 homes in all. Now let's say both couples divorce.
If A, B, C and D stay single after the divorce, they will need 4 homes (twice as much as if they stayed married).
However, if A marries D and B marries C, they will need only 2 homes (same as if they never divorced).
What the report also did not mention (since it was only about divorce) is that the opposition to condom use is also harmful to the environment than divorce could ever be, since the religious prohibition of effective birth control helps overpopulation.
Can you enlighten me on what you call the repercussions of society at large and how you correlate the introduction of divorce with increase in the cost of social services? Please, please put some substance to your arguments instead of trying to mislead and indoctrinate people with blanket statements which have no basis in fact.
You also failed to answer my point on the decriminalisation of homosexuality and adultery. What would have happened had than been put the vote then?? What stance would the Church have taken on the issue? I do not think anyone is in doubt on which stance it took.
Cannot you understand that a non-Catholic, even if forming part of a minority group, has the right to live the life of a non-Catholic? Do you have an inkling of the meaning of minority rights?
DrFrancisSaliba writes: "Kenneth Cassar declares that his personal morality is based "on the golden rule (which predates Christianity by thousands of years)" and which he applies to the whole animal kingdom. He does not identify this "golden rule" at all. I wonder what is behind this compulsive urge of some commentators to attribute to me things which I did not say and which are so readily ascertainable".
The Golden Rule, as anyone with some degree of intelligence knows, is to treat others as you would like to be treated in similar circumstances.
If DrSaliba's morality does not include the Golden Rule, perhaps I have given his morality too much credit. I apologize for that. If it does, then my assumption was correct all along.
DrSaliba also writes: "Civil legalistaion of divorce is not a private matter restricted to two individuals. It has repercussions on the whole of a society that in the end will have to pick up the tab for any consequent rise in the cost of social services etc".
I have already explained that any bad repercussions from divorce are no different from marriage separation followed by cohabitation with others. Should this be illegal as well?
What you wrote was: "Who identifies the moral basis for pretended "human rights" (and obligations) in the case of frankly amoral and immoral individuals, agnostics, atheists etc in the absence of specific codification?"
Not much difference. Lumping agnostics and atheists with amoral and immoral individuals is much the same as saying atheists and agnostics are amoral and immoral.
What would you think if I wrote something like: "Should frankly amoral and immoral individuals, Christians etc. be taken seriously?"
You say that you simply catalogued four independent instances where the source of any presumed "moral" right is not at all clear. Neither is the bible a clear source of moral rights. After all, the God of the Bible orders "his" people to perform genocide, kill all men and children, and rape and keep as slaves the women. You should read the bible some time. If you say that such parts of the bible are mistaken, that is because you use other measures for moral rights to be able to select from the bible. After all, if God is infallible and omnipotent, he cannot change from a tyrant to an altruist.
To be continued...
I always read your comments which I often find insightful and carefully thought out!
Earlier you said: "It (divorce) has repercussions on the whole of a society that in the end will have to pick up the tab for any consequent rise in the cost of social services etc." Can you please elaborate?
"...given that catholic moral theology is taught at University, does this mean that university students are actually being lectured to about the immorality of homosexuality and contraceptives?" - Yes
"Or do they 'debate' the word of god in that hallowed Faculty?" - Not exactly, but I've encountered several of God's advisors in the past 5 years at the Faculty!
!
Politicians do not have to carry out referenda before raising taxes for the obvious reason that any voter with a trace of grey matter in his skull knows that in electing members of parliament he is automatically empoweing them to take those fiscal measures which are necessary to tackle an evolving economic situation.
The same cannot be said for pro-divorce legislation when its protagonists clamour, sinisterly, that it be deliberately introduced behind the voters' backs, without a referendum and without a clear electoral mandate especially when there is an undeniable strong demand by a large section of the electorate to be consulted.
Civil legalistaion of divorce is not a private matter restricted to two individuals. It has repercussions on the whole of a society that in the end will have to pick up the tab for any consequent rise in the cost of social services etc.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203190625.htm
I do not believe that agnostics or atheists are amoral or immoral and I did not say that. Please check it out. Neither did I "put them in the same basket" in the sense that there is no difference between them. I simply catalogued four independent instances where the source of any presumed "moral" right is not at all clear. Kenneth Cassar declares that his personal morality is based "on the golden rule (which predates Christianity by thousands of years)" and which he applies to the whole animal kingdom He does not identify this "golden rule" at all. I wonder what is behind this compulsive urge of some commentators to attribute to me things which I did not say and which are so readily ascertainable.
It is clear as crystal that the proposed attempt to sneak in such a hot issue as pro-divorce legislation deliberately avoiding a referendum or a definite electoral mandate is devious and undemocratic. That is what I would call a calculated and a deliberate "imposition" and not the bishops' urging the faithful to make their voices heard or to vote to their informed conscience!
Re: your reply to Maria Gauci.
If a civil (not church) wedding is not a contract, then what is it? Of course you can say that its a promise, but you will acknowledge that some promises may be broken, depending on the circumstances.
Suppose I collect money for charity, and for this purpose I promise to run a marathon every year for the rest of my life. Now, suppose I have an accident which leaves me paralysed. Will I be expected to keep my promise?
Now, regarding your question: "If one of the two married people does not consent to a divorce do you think that it should not be granted since we do not have two consenting adults?".
Well, it is not in anyone's interest to stay with a person who no longer wants to stay with you. But let's say that the other person still insists on living as a married couple. With or without divorce, this person cannot legally force the other to stay living with him/her. Therefore the only reason for this person to deny the other divorce would be revenge. Should we base our laws on revenge?
Answer: I think that a divorce - or any other dissolution of contract - cannot be granted if one of the parties does not sign the dotted line. One would probably have to go to court over such a matter and a judge will decide whether the party concerned is withholding his/her consent frivolously or for valid reasons. Just my opinion.....I have no idea how it’s done but it certainly cannot be unilateral.
Back to my question FrJoe, do you agree that every (civil) contract entered into by two consenting adults should, upon agreement of all parties, have the necessary measures to be dissolved?
I certainly agree that calling 'homosexual acts' and contraceptive use 'immoral' is awful and preposterous, respectively. Incidentally, since this is, I quote, 'catholic moral theology', and given that catholic moral theology is taught at University, does this mean that university students are actually being lectured to about the immorality of homosexuality and contraceptives? Or do they 'debate' the word of god in that hallowed Faculty?
In any case, I'd be wary of saying certain things in Siberia - the nights are cold and very, very long. Ideal for a lively divorce debate though.
1. Dubbing something as immoral does not mean that it should also be illegal.
2. Your point about Maltese getting divorces abroad is a valid one indeed.
How awful are these Catholics! How disgusting! They pretend that people talk to them and dialogue with them. Preposterous. They should all be sent to Siberia where they can meditate on their retrograde and perverse moral teachings.
PS Perhaps being sent to Siberia during the Maltese summer will not be such a bad idea after all.
An answer: You give me the impression that you consider marraige as just a civil contract. I think that when two people marry they are doing something more than when two people contract, for example, a deal to sell and buy cow dung.
A question: If one of the two married people does not consent to a divorce do you think that it should not be granted since we do not have two consenting adults?
I will put a question forward to you. In whom should responsibility for decisions of a moral or ethical nature be vested? Who should find these moral bases you are talking about? Our unelected bishops?
On your second rhetorical question.... divorce legislation is not enforced upon everyone. It is an optional law which one can choose to utilise. You fail to realise that not legalising divorce affects the lives of thousands of prople negatively. Legalising it would not impose divorce on you. It will just keep the state from sticking its nose into other people's business.
No, I do not agree that this should be put to the electorate since this is a law which protects an individual's freedom to determine his own life. Had the decriminalisation of adultery or homosexuality had been put to the people's vote, it would still be illegal till today!
The argument that the issue was not in electoral manifestos is immaterial and an excuse to delay the inevitable.
The answer to the question, as you put it, would be "nothing could justify that".
However, since divorce is not imposed (anyone is free not to divorce), what would justify it is the recognition of the right of people not to have religious beliefs imposed on them, even if the religious are a majority.
We can certainly never agree on what constitutes moral rights (and obligations) seeing that you already pre-judge agnostics and atheists as amoral or immoral.
Any attempt of the sort from me would be futile, since apparently you subscribe to the view that morality can only come through divine revelation.
Now here's where you are wrong (if the above is the case). If you read the bible, particularly the old testament (same God), you will learn of a God who sends "His" (is God racist?) people to perform genocide, and orders the killing of all males and infants and the taking of women as slaves and prostitutes. There are countless other instances of what can only be described as barbarity, but I won't waste too much space.
Now tell me...how do you know that what Jesus is reported to have preached is to be taken as "Gospel truth", and not what is reported in the same Bible collection to be the direct orders from God the tyrant? I would guess that it is your ingrained moral sense that tells you who to choose.
Of course, other moral questions are not as clear-cut, and are open to debate.
Atheists and agnostics have morals, I don't know why you group them with amorals and immorals. Read Richard Dawkins.
Two rhetorical questions:
Who identifies the moral basis for pretended "human rights" (and obligations) in the case of frankly amoral and immoral individuals, agnostics, atheists etc in the absence of specific codification? Is the decision to be left in the hands of the individuals concerned with society as an impotent bystander picking up the pieces in the ensuing mayhem?
What could possibly justify any political party, even a democratically elected one, resorting to the subterfuge of imposing legislation for which it has deliberately not asked a mandate in spite of a pervasive general concern and when the issue is not a newly emerging unpredicted situation?
However I would like to ask Fr. Borg how he thinks the church has contributed "without taking fundamentalist religious attitudes" to date. All we hear from our bishops are the usual blanket, unsubstantiated and totally misleading declarations like "divorce has failed in countries where it has been introduced", quotations from the scripture, and speaking about "the common good" and similar mumbo jumbo, as if it is some determinate objective entity!! Yes we want the church to participate, intelligently however.
One other thing, has the fact that Labour MP Adrian Vassallo is a conservative ever been an issue of contention? He speaks about "traditional values handed down by our forefathers" and the evil of secularism for Pete's sake!! The fact that he militates within the MLP just reconfirms David Friggieri's apt observation the we are indeed a funny country!
In the case of divorce, I also assume that if one of the parties getting married is not "a consenting adult", then the marriage contract is null and void. (As far as I know, this is recognized even by the church.)
But back to my question, do you agree that every (civil) contract entered into by two consenting adults should, upon agreement of all parties, have the necessary measures to be dissolved? Just asking......
As it happens, I have no time to waste.
Evading a question (from Maria Gauci) by asking another question is hardly fair, don't you think? This is why I am sceptical that if you are convinced that divorce is necessary and on balance not harmful, you would still not say it publicly.
1. Correct. Some people confuse human rights with civil rights. Civil rights are dictated by parliament. Human rights are dictated by morality. Of course there will be disagreement in both cases.
2. Ascertaining that there is a majority in favour of divorce should not logically precede any attempt to legislate for it. After all, politicians don't make a referendum before any new tax.
3. Agreed to a certain extent. Working out the detalis pertains to all elected representatives. That is how parliament works.
4. Yes, the Church has as much right as anybody else to express its point of view. Expressing one's point of view is not imposition.
5. There is no difficulty with Fr Joe Borg's present blog. The only difficulty is to the Father himself if (as he claims is possible) he is persuaded that divorce legislation is needed. Somehow I can't envision him declaring it publicly, if he is convinced.
I agree with you...how can a Catholic priest say he is open to conviction on the matter?
1) Divorce becomes a civil right only after the appropriate legislation has been passed - so far this is not the case.
2) Ascertaining that there is a majority in favour of divorce should logically precede any attempt to legislate for it. - this is not being done.
3) In a democratic society working out the details of such legislation pertains to whoever has been democratically voted into power or at least in consultation with it - otherwise it would only be an exercise in futile opportunism.
4) The Church has as much right as anybody else to express its point of view to Catholics and non-Catholics alike so that an informed electorate could exercise wisely exercie its constitutional right to elect to parliament the candidates of its choice. Mispresenting this as an "imposition" or as a "theocratic state" is a dishonest distortion.
5) There is no difficulty with Fr Joe Borg's present blog because he has no control over the ensuing exchange of comments.
Joe Borg knows well that so-called 'moral debates' in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the US become very very political, pitting one side (conservatives, the religious right - call it what you will) against the other (liberals, moderates...). What has distinguished Malta is not the strong presence of The Church (strongly present in all countries) but the glaring absence of a strong institutionalised liberal voice over the past 25 years.
Ironically, Malta might have just found that voice in the bosom of a party that threatened to keep us rooted to the past, stranded in splendid isolation on our small little rock.
But we're a funny country...
I feel that these are two seperate issues that should be kept seperate.
The introduction of Divorce is indeed a foregone conclusion yet a decision has to be a deliberate one and should not get sucked into the debate on the the parameters of Divorce.
The Anti-Divorce lobby should bring forward its arguments in the face of overwhelming arguments in favour of the introduction of Divorce (reflected in the fact that Divorce is available in all nations of the world, including all individual states of America and tollerated by all major (except the Catholic) Christian denominations.
Parliament may then vote on a proposal that agrees 'in principle' on a divorce bill and empower a parliamentary committee to present recommendations of specifics, based on detailed research as proposed by Dr Borg.
The Church and/or its agents have absolutely no role to play in this. The Church is a priori against divorce - as it has every right to be - on the basis of Revelation, and can therefore never 'debate'. One can only debate if one is in principle open minded. The Church will state its position, period.
Which also means that Fr. Joe Borg is, unintentionally I think, misleading the readers of this blog. He has said that he is open to being convinced either way, but is he really? Can he ever be? What would be the consequences if he were to be convinced, openly, in favour?
There is something wrong, very very wrong, about a blog on divorce prompted by a Catholic priest. The Church's official version is that divorce can never be accepted because it goes against god's wishes. Fine, one is free to believe that, but please let's be honest about it. In any case, why is Fr. Joe Borg so reluctant to start from that premise?
That Marlene chooses not to marry again is her own choice, and we should of course respect that. However, other people should be allowed another go.
The claim that people who divorce necessarily keep on divorcing is a myth. A good example would be Paul McCartney, whose second marriage, despite his wealth (he could get any woman he wanted), lasted for over 30 years, and only ended with Linda's death.
Divorce is a JOKER in the hands of those who want to get married with a back door open and when things get tough it will be played. I am certain that seperated people today have tried once, twice, three and even four times before throwing the towel and calling it a day. Those who will get married with the JOKER in their hand will not try as hard. Marraige is hard, very hard and Marlene knows that well. She knows that if the JOKER was in her hands when her sacrifice was great she would have used it before. I know that if the JOKER was in mine I would have used it and would not have tried so so hard and would have thrown away a very good marraige.
continued......
JM does very well in opting to discuss HOW to legislate rather to discuss its introduction. The latter would be a waste of time. Isn't equality and justice a good enough point for you to be convinced? Don't you realise that not all Maltese are Roman Catholics? The Church has absolutely no say in it, because of course its doctrine prevents it from having it (well there's annulment against cash of course).
Divorce should be made available. Ours is an increasingly secular society and the introduction of divorce will further bring forward this reality, at last!
So you mention Joseph a dozen or so times as if he invented Divorce, but I am sure it is all done in good taste and with not a hint of opportunism. Well done Father.
Despite being a priest you show immense courage by being 'still open to conviction about whether divorce should be legalised or not in Malta' even though your Bishops have declared that divorce and cohabitation causes breakdown of marriages.
Malta needs brave people like you.
Who was it that said that the difference between a divorce and a legal separation is that a legal separation gives a husband time to hide his money”?
After all, statistics show that the majority of those seeking Divorce are women. The fact that we are the only nation in the world not having domestic divorce puts a greater onus on us.
We should remain a world relic. Such jolly fun.
p.s. and i have no doubt in my mind that if in the final analysis your opinion should fall on the anti-Divorce side, this would have been done after the most ardent deliberation possible. What a jolly Father!
I do not wish this to be interpreted as a personal attack on Dr Marlene Pullicino, who displayed courage not only in this instance, but also when criticizing the new leader of the MLP on TV knowing full well that he would probably be elected as new leader.
However, I simply cannot understand why she would be against divorce and all for separated people living with other partners, seeing that the effect is identical, and both are viewed as a sin by the Catholic Church.
Of course, like our good Father, I am also open to persuasion on this point.