Sunday, 24th May 2009
Voting in the election for the European Parliament
I know many people who will not bother voting in the elections for the European Parliament. The reasons are varied. Some are disappointed by the government. Others are not too happy with the Opposition. They feel that not voting would send a message one way or the other. Others – and their number is unfortunately on the increase – are disillusioned with politics. Most I know will not vote, as they believe that the European Parliament does not make a difference. Some others just do not care a lot about the EU.
This kind of indifference is in the air. Even parts of government give signs of a lukewarm attitude towards these elections. Had this been a general election, government would have done everything possible to avoid conflicts with the doctors and the transport sector, to mention just two examples. But since this is not a general election it seems that such conflicts are ok. Is this a sign of maturity (“we’ll do what we have to do in spite of elections”) or a sign of lack of co-ordination among the government front bench?
The EU itself is holding a campaign to try to get people out to vote. This, after all, is not just a Maltese problem. This lack of interest is a problem across all of Europe. The EU sponsored advertising campaign is welcome news to the Maltese media who are suffering from a dearth of advertising. Whether it will manage to get people to vote is another matter.
A right and a responsibility
The Bishops of the member states of the European Union do not share the apathy shared by others on the European project. In a statement released last March, they stated once more “the Catholic Church has supported the project of European integration since the very beginning and continues to do so. Every Christian not only has the right but also the responsibility to be actively engaged in this project by exercising his or her vote.”
What a different tone from that of the Eurosceptics among us who try to justify their scepticism by reference to Catholic belief and values!
The Bishops say more. “The participation of Christians is essential in order to rediscover the ‘soul of Europe’, which is vital to fulfil the fundamental needs of the human person and the service of the common good.” Pope John Paul II as well as Pope Benedict have repeatedly spoken about the rediscovery of the “soul of Europe.”
Pope Benedict XVI met, on May 22, with Presidents Georgi Parvanov of Bulgaria and Gjeorge Ivano of Macedonia. Meeting separately with the two presidents, the Pope offered a similar message to each: “make an effective contribution to building a Europe faithful to its Christian roots.”
The Bishops are conscious that there are shortcomings and say so. However, they say, “the process of European integration deserves to be appreciated, in spite of some shortcomings. For this reason we, the Bishops of COMECE, support and promote the European Union as a project of hope for all of its citizens.”
The Catholic Manifesto
The Bishops then move on to say what Catholics expect from those that they elect to the European Parliament. Their eight point plan is the following:
1. to respect human life from conception to natural death as integral to all European Union legislation, programmes and policies;
2. to support the family founded on marriage – as understood between one man and one woman - as the basic unit of society;
3. to advance the social rights of workers providing them with working conditions which respect their health, safety and dignity;
4. to endorse economic governance based on ethical values in order to achieve sustainable human development within the European Union and at global level;
5. to promote justice in relationships of the European Union with developing countries through financial assistance and innovative partnerships;
6. to demonstrate solidarity by shaping policies that help the weakest and poorest in our societies (in particular people with disabilities, asylum-seekers, migrants);
7. to protect creation by fighting climate change and encouraging a moderate lifestyle;
8. to promote peace in the world through coordinated and coherent external EU-policy.
Local silence
While the bishops have made their presence felt on the European level, it is a pity that the Church in our country is almost silent. I would have expected our Bishops to publicise locally the position that they have taken in Comece (association of the EU Bishops) much more than they did.
Have political parties been lobbied about this manifesto? Why was the statement not distributed to all the homes in Malta and Gozo? The magazine Flimkien would have been ideal for such an initiative. Or why did the Church not buy advertising space in the newspapers to publicise the eight points mentioned above? Such actions could have influenced the electoral manifestos of the political parties. I heard through the grapevine that the Bishops would eventually publish a pastoral letter. Now it is too late.
I appeal to Catholic voters to present the manifesto of the EU Bishops to the several candidates belonging to different political parties who are doing the rounds asking for their vote. While others, quite rightly, are lobbying for their views and values we should do the same for our views and values.
Malta needs to elect five people in the EU Parliament who are efficient and effective. We need people who will vote the way we want them to vote i.e. they should vote in a way which is consonant with our values.
RSS
Comments
Belief is only a word. Nurture, tradition, etc. dictates that believing in a God is a - belief. Moving away from tradition, one's nurture, one's tribe one can also end up not believing in a God. In other words, a non-belief in God is a belief. It's only a word. And that is where any similarities between the two beliefs part ways. The belief in God promies whatever it is that it promises. A disbelief (but still a belief) in God promises nothing other than a totally different perspective of the planet and of the self. The self-primarily. It is a perspective of every changing horizons. New discoveries round every corner. As Dawkins described it 'a very exciting journey'. My one encounter with the man, a few minutes' dedicated attention span to the man on some TV channel. I don't need to read him. I have known theism. And found it lacking. I risked and found atheism. It works for me. Belief God. Disbelief God. LIVE Godlessness. Same difference.
Not necessarily, Andrew. There are mature students at university and they also are sitting for their exams.
Thoroughly enjoyed yours and Kenneth's exchange.
Good luck in your exams.
Somehow I take it that you are still a youth. Let me just express that I think you're a very brave one to express your beliefs and convictions in such a public forum. Prosit Andrew. from someone who is probably old enough to be your mother :)
@Kenneth: Glad we agree on this one :) When in my analogy I say that randomness is introduced by the wind, I do not mean that the fact that there is wind is unpredictable - it is, considering variations in atmospheric temperature, pressure etc. What I mean is, that the fact that the wind blew at the time you were actually holding a certain card in your hand is completely random. If, say, the time between turning cards over is different each time, then what is to say you would have reached card 'x' by the time the wind blew, and not card 'y'? In the same way, some environmental factor can push a species down one path or another according to the current gene pool of that species.
Well, I have not completely "disappeared" from the newer blog post ;)
We have most certainly gone far off-topic in this one, but some will agree that the topic Andrew and I are discussing is perhaps much more interesting than the boring elections ;) If you want my opinion on that, to be honest I haven't read (I don't watch much television) anything much of substance from most of the candidates. Voting in the elections, for me, has become like choosing the "lesser evil".
Children grow up. As adults, life is tough. Choices, painful ones, have to be made. The boundaries of yesteryear, once resisted and resented, are given an airing. They are not resisted now. They are embraced and welcomed. As grown-ups with the potential for responsible, painful reasoning, they opt for the abdication of responsibility and wallow within their boundary walls. Often uncomfortable but hey! they are promised a reward. Childhood all over again. Circle squared. Infantilism rules OK. Many can not handle this compromise.
They seek solace in instant gratifications like alcohol, sex addiction, drugs, shopping thereapy, stocks and shares and all the other ills going. These become the equivalent of abdication of responsibility. Religion by any other name. Yesteryear termed an opium by one Marx.
Cont...
"it is environmental factors which then introduce an element of pure chance into what is selected as 'beneficial', and what is discarded by nature".
In a certain sense, this is true, but when one considers that the environmental factors themselves do not happen by pure chance, then the effect is determined.
But while we are on this topic, let me describe something that occurred to me that will explain what a good "scientific approach" would be (which sort of links to our previous argument on scientific theory and religious faith).
I happen to be a determinist, in the sense that I believe that everything is in a sense predetermined (ruled by cause and effect) even at the molecular level. I believe that this is the only logical conclusion unless one believes in the supernatural.
However, Daniel C Dennett (I read the review) in his book "Freedom Evolves" claims that this is not necessarily so. At the moment I am reading his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", and can't wait until I finish it so that I'll read "Freedom Evolves". So while I still maintain my deterministic beliefs, I'll reserve judgement until I read the book.
"So essentially we're saying the same thing as regards evolution? In that case what are we bickering about? :D"
Good question. I'll just believe that we were saying the same thing differently, but stressing on each's won subjective interpretation...if you like ;)
"With regards to the deck of cards analogy though - say the wind blows into your hands, and reshuffles the cards - that increases the probability of something being random".
Here we go again...it is still not "random" in my sense of the word, because the cause is the wind. If we could (we can't) follow each of the wind's "particles" and its effects on each card (direction, rotation etc), it would immedialtely be obvious outcome of the cards could not have been otherwise. As for the wind, it too had its cause...and so on.
The same applies to everything. In one sense, you can call it random. In my (I would say deeper and usually hidden) sense, it is not, and could not have been otherwise.
No wonder you've disappeared from the newer post. Your'e still posting on this one!!
I've enjoyed reading your exchanges although I must admit its way out of my league.
Good luck for that major exam Andrew.
Let’s stop all apologising, we are human and our emotions and deep rooted beliefs get in the way of reason.
I can understand people fulfilling a need with religion. Religion gives some people a sense of belonging, they feel very secure following a set of rules, governed by the carrot and the stick. They find the idea of “eternal life” comforting, in defiance of nature which continuously gives us the message of “impermanency”. Any religious or spiritual laws that go against the laws of nature do so at their own peril. Nature will always prevail; it is ever-changing and nothing physical will last “forever” in its current form.
Back to the point, whilst understanding why some need a religion or a spiritual path, with all due respect you have returned to Catholicism because that is what you know, that is what you are comfortable with, hence the influence of nurture and culture pop up again. Being brought up as a Catholic, after being an Atheist if you felt the need had to follow a spiritual path, why haven’t you chosen Buddhism?
With regards to the deck of cards analogy though - say the wind blows into your hands, and reshuffles the cards - that increases the probability of something being random. When there is a genetic mutation, it occurs within the limits of all possible mutations (say a lethal mutation would immediately kill the offspring), as I had said; it is environmental factors which then introduce an element of pure chance into what is selected as 'beneficial', and what is discarded by nature.
I personally don't find John Falzon's comments as overly offensive (even from a Christian perspective - and I was one, so I have an idea on how his comments would be percieved by Christians).
I think that when one cites personal experience in support of the God hypothesis, it is legitimate of one to ask about those personal experiences. Of course, one is always entitled not to respond and end the debate there.
That said, I'm glad you find my posts respectful. But I think you were too quick to judge John. I don't think he was disrespectful. Sarcastic...perhaps...but there is room for some sarcasm in debate, as long as one does not overdo it.
If you find the time to read the article I posted a link to, you will see that we are basically disagreeing only because "chance" and "random" have different (sometimes contradictory) meanings, depending on their use.
When you say that "Genetic mutations are random (within the limits of possibility, of course)", you must be using random in the sense of "not designed". When I say that genetic mutations do not happen "by chance", what I mean is that genetic mutations are physical events that fall within the remit of "cause and effect".
The article I mentioned (and linked) gives an example to explain where the disagreement between calling mutation a chance event or not, lies.
Suppose I shuffle a deck of cards and reveal the top card. It happens to be 10 of hearts. Now one could in a manner of speaking say that the 10 of hearts resulted to be the top card "by chance". On the otherhand, if one followed each movement of my hands and the movement of each card while I was shuffling, one would see that the top card could not have been anything but the 10 of hearts.
My comments had no intention of being disrespectful to you or anyone else on this blog. My apologies if I came across that way, my sarcasm has taken the better of me. Most Atheists I know are very decent human beings, and I do not want to harm to our reputation.
I am convinced that the religion and the God you follow are simply as a result of your being born in Catholic country, of Catholic parents. Had you been born in India you would have been a Hindu and had you been born in Iraq you would have been a Muslim.
If that is not nurture, culture and tradition what is it?
I am not an idiot - I do not think without speaking. Secondly of all, I do not believe in God because of 'nature and nurture'. It is not 'ingrained' in my head by culture to believe in God. I believe in God because I want to. If you have a problem with that, then it's just that, your problem.
I'm not going to bother answering any more of your posts, unless you know how to argue in a respectful and intelligent manner like Kenneth.
"his effects are observable and make sense ....... The effects I'm talking about are subtle and often on a very personal nature."
Can you honestly say that you are capable of isolating the effects of years of nurture, tradition and culture from reality?
Would it be possible for you to share your "clues to his existence" ?
When Dawkins states that 'if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work', is it a counter argument to the claims of creationists who insist that random chance cannot explain evolution? What I am insisting above is that randomness and chance do (with an emphatic yes) bring about evolution - completely the opposite of what creationists claim, and this is why I am quite confused by your resistance to randomness and chance as explanations for evolution.
Genetic mutations are random (within the limits of possibility, of course), and the environmental influences on those genetic mutations causing selection pressures on strains which are (randomly) more adapted to the changed environment are pure chance. These two categories (genetic mutation and environmental change) encompass within them so many variables I think that it would be impossible to claim chance does not play a role.
As a last note, it is slightly on the strange side, me here arguing in favour of chance and you arguing in favour of non-chance evolution - just think about it :)
@Kenneth: But the selection pressures working to produce speciation are just that: chance events! Thanks for the article, I'll have a read through when I have a bit more time!
This from Wikipedia; obviously it's not the scientific authority, so I've posted some other links (don't have any time to go reading through papers right now):
'Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment. The other major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role that chance plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce.'
http://www.counterbalance.org/evolution/chance-frame.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.full
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
"I also see no problem with organisms struggling to survive against one another (predator/prey) in the context of God; I do not think it has any bearing on the matter whatsoever".
It would have no bearing on the matter if you did not believe in a personal, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God. Evolution through natural selection is amoral. Is your God amoral?
"If you suggest that science proceeds without faith on certain occasions, then you are mistaken".
Depends on what you mean by "faith". If you mean complete belief in something on which there is and/or can be no evidence, then science does not proceed with "faith". If, on the otherhand, you mean belief that certain hypothesis might prove to be true, but keeping in mind that they may be false, then you would be correct - however, no one calls that faith.
As for the multiverse theory, it does explain a lot. However, I have yet to read one scientist saying that on present knowledge, the multiverse theory is undeniably true (Dawkins certainly doesn't).
On whether the theory could ever be testable, I believe you raise the white flag too easily. Darwin himself did not actually believe that the theory of evolution through natural selection could ever be scientifically tested and proven. But then, he did not have the present day knowledge on genetics, and could not predict the emergence of Watson and Crick to trash all doubts through the discovery of DNA.
"Genetic changes do not anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection pressures on the species. Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process".
Read more at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
Apparently Dawkins is not contradicting himself. You have some reading to do. Maybe then you could explain how evolution is a "chance process"? Citing sources would help.
You also say that "the fact that we are Homo sapiens and not Eikenella corrodens is chance...", but then contradict yourself by going on to say "...due to millions and millions of years of selection pressures working on different organisms causing speciation".
How can you not see that if we are the result of specific selection pressures, our evolution to Homo Sapiens is NOT a question of chance? My definition of chance is: "The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have NO ASSIGNABLE CAUSE". What is your definition?
Next 6th June will be a very close election. The strategy that the Nationalist Party and all the nationalist media to support the Government is to give an impression that PL will win the election by a landslide. This strategy is working well withing the PL because I know many labour supporters that are not going to vote next Saturday because they are believing the PN strategy.The Pl is currently a minority party and if his supporters will not vote it will be another defeat.
Proof of God, as it were, is obtained through a personal search, and not through scientific inquiry. Hence, there is no need for me to 'prove' to any one God exists. It is their own decision to believe.
I see no problem with science and religion being taken together, since neither excludes the other - and that is the mistake of certain atheists. Science requires some faith, while religion requires reason, and these must go hand in hand. If you suggest that science proceeds without faith on certain occasions, then you are mistaken. You will see what I mean if you look up the multiverse - Kenneth disagrees with me on this point - but the multiverse does explain a lot of unsolved problems for physicists, albeit there is no proof and it will never be testable as a theory.
I do not suggest, in any way, that belief in God or an omnipotent being should be imposed on anyone - however, I don't believe that 'evangelical atheism', as you call it, is all that different from a religion. Lack of belief in the divine is a belief nonetheless, as I have said before.
I think it's you who misunderstand evolution if you think the process is not chance. The fact that we are Homo sapiens and not Eikenella corrodens is chance, due to millions and millions of years of selection pressures working on different organisms causing speciation. As I said before, since God is out of time, the fact that man would exist (in time) has no bearing on his attitude towards us and love for us, since any moment in time is, for him, the same moment.
Anyway, as to further replies, I suggest we shift to the new blog anyway. Sorry for the delay and the relatively short reply but I've got another major exam on Friday.
@John: I said that God is not scientifically provable because he isn't; as I said, it's his effects in our lives which give us clues to his existence. I think it is very narrow minded of you to suggest these 'effects' are hurricanes or earthquakes, and that just shows a lack of knowledge about the religion you disagree with. The effects I'm talking about are subtle and often on a very personal nature.
I also see no problem believing in chance in the setting of, say, evolution, or an asteroid hitting the earth. One can calculate a percentage chance of an asteroid hitting the earth - it will not, definitely hit the earth. It's effects on life then come about as pure chance. Or a volcanic eruption - the eradication of a species may come about by pure chance.
Well we certainly agree on one thing. “God is not provable”. The reason being there is no such thing as a man living in the sky, who gave us ten commandments and tells us that if we do not follow these commandments, we will burn in hell for ever .......... but he loves us!
Faith is believing without proof or evidence, if that is what you seek fine, but do not try and push that “his effects are observable and make sense”. What effects are we talking about, a hurricane or a storm? An earthquake to punish people living in sin or Aids perhaps to punish the gay community as some Christian fundamentalist in the US suggested?
It is about time that Atheists take an evangelical (as in good news) stand and push their belief or should I say non-belief, to counterbalance the damage and absurdity of religions.
By the way, there is a difference between disbelieving in evolution and misunderstanding evolution. If you believe evolution through natural selection is about chance, you clearly have not understood it well enough. If evolution was about chance, we would not be here, since all mutations would have equal opportunities, thus cancelling out the possibility of the evolution of species. If evolution was about chance, "we" would all be bacteria or some more primitive organism.
If evolution is the work of an omniscient & omnipotent God, that sure would make God wasteful and indifferent to the sufferings of His "creation". Why would He create predators/prey (or guide evolution that way)? Why did millions of species have go extinct before we came to the scene? Not very efficient.
You say that for Dawkins, chance is absolute. You then go on to justify this claim by saying that mutations come about through chance (strictly speaking, they don't...we say they do because we cannot discern all causes and effects at the molecular level). You also say you believe in evolution. Therefore, by your own logic, you also believe that chance is absolute.
I neither believe that Dawkins holds chance as absolute, nor do I believe that you do. But if for Dawkins, chance is everything (given your reasons), so is it for you.
You say that "God is apart from time - God has no time (or he would not be God)". That argument is circluar. It is like saying "I won an olympic medal...If I didn't, I wouldn't be an olympic champion". The statement assumes what it is supposed to prove.
Cont...
You say that God is not scientifically provable. I agree. So is any other supernatural/superstitious claim. But that does not mean he is above science, if you don't assume his existance. The onus is always on those who make extraordinary claims to provide evidence for their beliefs. Hence the "tooth-fairy" example someone gave. One should also note that the demand for "respect of beliefs" is a debate-stopper when the topic is precisely those beliefs. After all, belief in God is as much a leap of faith as belief in tooth-fairies.
Also, (blind) faith and reason cannot go hand in hand, since blind faith is the abdication of reason. As for the call for faith in general, it is simply a way of saying "trust me, I'm right". Atheists have no problem with a "God" manifested in nature. But when one claims that God is a personal God who answers prayers and created the world specifically for us, then it becomes more than a matter of trust.
Cont...
Having said that, if the God hypothesis works for you and helps you to traffic with life, as seems to be the case, then stick with it. Just keep an open mind and remain aware there are alternative explanations. You have made a good effort to explore these other explanation and now it boils down to your personal decision. I have no problem with people believing in God but equally am very intolerant of those who insist on ramming their god down everybody's throat and insist on imposing their views on the whole of society, as most formal religions do.
The difference between religion and science is that science works this way: It formulates theories on existing knowledge...tests this knowledge...and if the tests produce contrary results, it rejects the theory. Also, science is not about dogma. Science is beliefs in testable claims with a commitment to reject the beliefs if found to be false. Science works by what can be seen to work...testable and tested hypothesis. Science IS provable.
You mention the "multiverse" theory. "Multiverse" is just a theory. It may or may not be proven true or false. For this reason, no scientist will demand that everyone believes in the theory, and serious scientists will not hold the theory as dogma themselves. Untestable scientific theories are not held religiously (pun intended) as dogmas.
Cont...
Science distinguishes between a hypothesis and a theory. Hypotheses are the means by which knowledge advances. They are nothing more than a hunch and are not regarded by scientists as valid. On the contrary, once a hypothesis is formulated, science strives to prove it wrong. This is a crucial difference between science and theology. Theology is dogmatic in its assumptions rigidly insisting all inferences from its dogmas must be correct. Science on the other hand insists that its inferences must be assumed to be wrong until all efforts to prove them wrong fail. The philosophy of science is that it is impossible to prove anything right and one can only prove something wrong.
A theory is an explanation of a scientific law which in turn represent verified observations. Theories have to be regarded as basically correct and well supported by evidence but still subject to change in detail as knowledge advances. An example is how the theory of mechanism of evolution changed from survival of the fittest to elimination of the least fit.
Speculating on the nature of God when His existence is not established may not be a fruitful exercise.
My reference to "heated emotions" was not directed at you personally but intended to reflect the fact that discussions about religion are often based on beliefs not facts, beliefs that are reiterated passionately with little attempt at verification. The need for economy of words in these submissions can at times detract from clarity. There is no argument about your absolute right to make your opinions heard and I agree with you that your submissions are quite lucid and logical though we may disagree on the premises on which our respective arguments are based.
But God is apart from time - God has no time (or he would not be God), and hence the fact that there would be a 'human' during the time span of the Earth was/is/will be a constant for him (i.e. God is unchanging, a constant and hence the God of now is exactly the same God as there was before the Earth formed and before the Solar System came to be, and thence before our Galaxy came into being, and, stretching the limits of our imagination to before our Universe began - keep in mind the theory of the universe being a yo-yo, by the way).
@George M Sant: As an aside, I do not get heated and emotional while typing away at my keyboard. The only thing I want to do is make my opinion heard and be free of misunderstanding. Of course, take these words of mine as you will. I do not think the way I write is illogical.
@Kenneth: Hey, sorry if I have apparently misunderstood Dawkins (yet again). I do not think so, though.
I myself am a firm believer in evolution, naturally, and anyone who seeks to deny the proof there is for it is not really using his/her head. That, however, is beside the point. The belief in the random is a belief in chance, I fail to see how the two can be separated in the context of Dawkins. Chance, within itself, is random, after all.
A mutation arises randomly and by chance - an accident as it were. Again, the selection pressures placed on an organism favouring one mutation above another are down to chance. It is chance that placed an organism in a specific ecological niche at a specific point in time, exposed to specific environmental factors and changes. Say, the fact that we are 'human' and occupying such varied ecological niches etc. is essentially pure chance.
The same thing applies to my worldview. God is not scientifically provable; in my world view, he is above science, but science is a manifestation of his greatness (say, evolution is beautiful, for example). However, through my life, my experiences etc., I feel that I have evidence that God does, in fact exist (say, unlike the Tooth Fairy - I would expect some atheist to show a certain respect for our beliefs without degrading them when discussing in a logical manner - it's only fair, considering I do not debase your beliefs - this directed at JX).
The belief in a God is thus a leap of faith. Faith and reason go hand in hand in Catholicism, and the fact that we do, actually, put a lot of thought into what we do is occasionally forgotten, and religion is dubbed 'superstition'. I cannot provide proof God exists in the scientific sense of the world. God is not provable, but his effects are observable and make sense.
@John Falzon: I have no problem with atheists at all; I happen to have many friends who are atheists, and naturally this often engenders some discussion.
The argument of the 'onus on the believers' is, I think, the argument of Russel's teapot, which Kenneth had kindly explained to me some months ago. Unless I'm mistaken Kenneth? One point I would like to make though, is that when looking at religion and faith in God, it's often not really about 'what is provable'. As I had mentioned once, science occasionally formulates a hypothesis because it makes sense and fits into current theory, or what is observed - it is not, in essence, provable in any way (say, the hypothesis of a multiverse). It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence around us. The onus is then on the scientist to prove himself wrong; he cannot, however, do that if the hypothesis is essentially untestable scientifically.
Of course conscience is not a Roman Catholic construct! In fact, most (if not all) atheist scientists believe that conscience has evolved in humans, and there are scientific explanations of conscience and how it came to be. This makes it not surprising at all that several different races and religions (or atheists) throughout all history show a similar "gut-feeling" about moral dilemmas and the way they would resolve them, as several scientific investigations have shown.
"For Dawkins 'chance' is absolute. Chance is everything".
You have misunderstood both Dawkins and evolution through natural selection. Evolution and natural selection are not about chance. The only thing that is "random" is mutation, which then natural selection "works on". In fact, far from being about chance, natural selection is very deterministic.
So no, to Dawkins (and me), chance is not everything. In fact, if chance was everything, we wouldn't even be here, since evolution works by necessity (the opposite of chance).
You got it very wrong about Dawkins. In fact, Dawkins has been called a determinist and reductionist (which is the opposite of "chance". I should know...I have read all Dawkins' books more than once (and not just his single book on atheism).
It is always refreshing to see the “believers” show respect for the “non-believers” and vice versa or course.
Just one tiny point, if I believed in the Tooth Fairy, and I am pushing that belief on to others, the onus to prove the existance of The Tooth Fairy is on me and no one else.
The onus is on the believers to prove the existence of a God, and not on Richard Dawkins or indeed anyone else to prove that He/She/It does not exist. Unfortunately blind faith for some of us is just not good enough.
I am afraid you misunderstand Dawkins completely. It is not chance that he talks about but probability. Chance is a random event and imponderable. Probability can be measured and has predictive value.
The question you need to ask is what is the probability of the existence of God or of Catholics being right on anything from basic dogmas to sexual morality. The questions translate into what is the evidence for the existence of God (for and against) and what is the evidence supporting any of the basic dogmas of the church or its teachings? Once you answer those questions it becomes possible to discuss matters logically and rationally, based on facts not heated emotions.
The extent to which these two poles (inhibition (conscience)-disinhibition) develop is genetically determined and this goes a long way towards explaining why some individuals are so inhibited and others so disinhibited. The mechanisms are multifactorial which means that most of us fall in the middle - not too inhibited and not too disinhibited but veering to varying extent towards either pole.
There is plenty of scope for nurture too. Upbringing can reinforce or suppress the manifestation of biological drives to a not inconsiderable degree. So can self analysis and so can psychotherapy which by definition strives to help people modify their thinking patterns and behaviour. The extent to which change can take place, however, is biologically determined.
A world of complexity arises here as that which is acceptable and desirable in one culture, or even for one individual facing particular circumstances, may well be viewed very differently in another. Which one is "morally correct"? Such differences have launched crusades, the inquisition and wars and are at the root of so much interracial conflict all in the name of their "true religion".
Well done on a well researched contribution. You deal with the philosophical issue of "conscience". It is important to understand however, that conscience has a biological not a spiritual basis. It is "seated" in the part of the brain known as the prefrontal cortex, at the base of the frontal lobes, just above the orbital cavities. A lesion there can transform the most inhibited and "conscientious" person into a disinhibited, egocentric and callous individual. Surgery on the prefrontal cortex is still performed today in highly selected cases of severe intractable depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders.
The opposite pole of emotional excitation and aggression also has a biological basis. These drives are controlled by the part of the brain known as the limbic system and the amygdala. In the heydays of psychosurgery ablations of these parts of the brain were not uncommonly performed to control excessively aggressive behaviour usually with dramatic results.
as in 'little by little 'you'll get used to' my little foibles.......and we'll live happily for evermore, a` la Jessica DeBattre.
Joe Xuereb (1 day, 12 hours ago)
They are always going on about why marriages fail, couples separate. Would it not be more useful to spell out why marriages sometimes succeed. Then people will be able to say, Oh! I/we never thought of that, I think I/we'll try that'. Who knows?! it may be the shot in the arm that I/we need. Or not. Come on you lot, stop all this angst about failure. Rejoice in success.
Give us the glass half full. And make sure it's not imxellfa (chipped).
Ms Debattista. I am sure volumes have been written about the phenomenon 'falling in love' , madly and so on. The one that sticks in my mind is that given by M .Scott Peck in The Road Less Travelled. To be approached with caution.
Andrew, use of the brain is limited to biological structure. cont./
A short excursus on ‘Conscience’
Part One
Some think that Conscience is a Roman Catholic construct. In fact it is a term from Stoic philosophy. If I recall correcting the first variant of this concept is a word in Greek ‘syneidesis’ which literally means ‘knowing with’, meaning the self-awareness in forming moral judgements. The Latin translation ‘conscientia’ was used by Cicero and Seneca. The latter calls conscientia ‘a sacred spirit seated within us, an observer and guardian of good and evil’. This concept as consciousness of one’s own behaviour served to dispel fear in those who did nothing wrong and a continual sanction to those who have strayed.
Part two - conscience
This concept gained momentum by NT times and in the Pauline (Apostle Paul) usage it meant the possession of all by which we evaluate the moral worth of our behaviour in the light of our beliefs; at times appearing as witness for the prosecution and at times as witness for the defence. Jerome used another variant of ‘syneidesis’ namely ‘synteresin’ literally ‘spark’ the scintilla of the soul ‘scintilla animae’ still flickering after sin. In typical attempt to do justice to both authorities later theologians applied the Pauline ‘syneidesis’ as the actual exercise or judgement of conscience and Jerome’s ‘synteresin’ as the innate permanent capacity in us in the light of which we make our judgements. Aquinas used another variant, namely ‘synderesis’ as the ‘habit of conscience’ and ‘thinking honestly, long and hard’ with a dash of prudence. A final note: in Greek the ending ‘-sis’ denoted an ongoing process. No comment necessary.
Slightly out of context to the current trends in the conversation, but I just thought of something vis-a-vis Dawkins, God etc., as a reply to further down below (with reference to the 'three Ds'.
For Dawkins 'chance' is absolute. Chance is everything. If chance is everything, then I think you must admit, there is a chance God exists, or a chance that Catholics are right. It may be a very small chance, in your opinion, but then again, it's a chance nonetheless. This is a loophole in Dawkins' argument which I think he himself admits.
Hence, keep this in mind next time you try to dismiss what people with a different religious opinion to yours think. I fully respect your beliefs or lack thereof in any entity, but from some of your comments below, it seems you do not respect our beliefs and just dismiss them as myth - when there's always the chance they're not.
Mr. Xuereb, I used the collective term in my comment because unfortunately the scenario I presented is a very common one. I feel sure that many heterosexuals who read my comment will identify with it. But if you prefer to see it as my personal problem feel free to believe it. I have no problem with it.
P.S. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy either.
Life can at times become unbearable especially when outside influences start working against our better judgement. We are fragile for we feel life passing us by and we are not getting any younger. And other people seem to know better and they are taking what they feel is their due, for after all we only live once.
We start doubting, questioning, (in our hearts) for tradition runs deep and we are faithful to tradition and we do not like to give the others the satisfaction of knowing that they are wearing down our beliefs. But it is inevitable that when bombarded from all angles we are bound to be marked, at times superficially and the wound will heal but if we are struck where we are vulnerable, it is not that easy to heal.
We turn to God for strength but now when we need Him most, He seems so far beyond our reach.
And we have thus reached yet another crisis which with His help we can overcome if only we can persevere.
Part 1:
When we are young, we see life through rose coloured lenses and everything looks so enticing and exciting and we are bound to fall in love with the image not the essence and we feel we know better even if we are cautioned to reflect on what we are truly feeling. But we are helpless in the grip of our passions and we commit ourselves to marriage – for life.
Then we grow up and our vision is clearer and we start to see each others’ irksome qualities (which had always been there but in our youth, we were blinded to them.)
We try to make it a mission for a sacrament is holy and not to be taken lightly.
On occasions we are beset with other attractions but we do not succumb or try not to succumb for passions wear off, and we are wiser now.succumb for passions wear off, and we are wiser now.
Continued…
Yesterday I promised Joe Xuereb to reply at length to his comment. So before I shut myself off from the world again, this is my offering.
First off, the Catholic Church has three levels of Magisterium (Official Teaching) – Sacred, Ordinary and General. The first one is the highest of all – it requires FULL ASSENT from her faithful only. For the Ordinary Level some dissent from non-fallible teaching is faithful dissent though "Ordinary teachings allow for the possibility of error and so ordinary assent allows for the possibility of dissent. However, this dissent must be limited in extent, just as the fallibility is limited in extent." (from site cited below). On the General Level anyone may dissent.
For more extensive information click here:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm
I remember posting about faithful and prudent dissent on another of Fr Joe’s blogs but I don’t have the time to look for it. This link might help:
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm
Excuse me for seemingly copping out from writing my stuff but my books and copious notes :( are waiting for me… (My conscience is pricking me…)
I would love to write about the origins of the word ‘conscience’ …maybe later.
Bye world!
"A priest who does not believe in god" Joe Borg blog 14th November 2007
A bit late but still relevant. I was not around in 2007 and I was a believer of sorts anyway.
That said..........
I now maintain, insist that a gallery of framed PhDs on the wall,(very impressive CV) along with other idolatrous effigies, avails not the achiever if he (or she as we are here reminded, trying to nod at trendiness but succeeding only in falling flat on the face) insists on hanging everything on a hook marked tooth-fairy.
What good does it do a man to achieve the world's riches if he ends up losing his soul? Or words to that effect.
I only scanned the self-congratulatory laurels, but beyond that, I could not stay the course. Once discredited, what is the point?
I was away from the computer all day today…in seclusion cramming for my
last exam. That means no internet not to while away precious time posting
comments or do useless quizzes on Facebook…Since I can resist everything
except temptation, I try to stay away from everything…
I gave a quick scan to see if there are any comments directed at me. My
beady eyes espied two: one from Ken and the other one from Joe Xuereb.
@ Ken
Why do you have to be so literal? I was just joshing with you and Franco
about my PC problems! I am losing pounds by the minute bending myself
backwards trying to make you understand me.
@ Joe Xuereb
You told me this: VG 'their purpose is to help us (Catholics) form our
consciences according to our belief. So of two with different beliefs -
operative word - which one of the two will succumb to the other with a
neck wound?
At crucial crossroads, it is always a matter of conscience then. I can’t
give an answer for everybody. I will post at length tomorrow about this
interesting topic for my brain is shrunk to the size of a pea.
I agree with you too :)
I think you've expressed yourself very clearly. I agree with you :)
The Church does not try to guide the moral thought of an atheist or a Muslim or a Jew - anything it says is precisely for those who want to listen. A teaching is not a criticism or condemnation of people who do something wrong, but a guide; If not, we may as well condemn ourselves. We all go wrong somewhere, and often, but again, we believe in forgiveness for our shortfalls.
As an aside, our need for forgiveness is not out of some sense of trying to hide what we've done under the rug. Doing something wrong remains wrong, but it is a means in which we believe we can fully repair our relationship with God.
As a conclusion, the Church does not tell non-believers what to do - it is the believers who live according to what they believe in. So 'suppressing oneself' is more of an act which one decides to commit oneself to rather then an act one is forced into out of fear (the 'do this or else' sort of thing).
Back to studying.
@Kenneth: OK, then we agree about that! Now as to this:
'I accept you for who you are, but you must suppress your nature because it is sinful.'
Suppressing certain urges does go part and parcel with being a Catholic or Christian, for that matter, as I'm sure it is with some other religions. Again, however, I fail to see a bishop with a whip out to get you every time you go against a Church teaching. One of the core teaching of the Catholic faith is forgiveness - and it is our fault if at times, in the past, we as a Church have forgotten this exceedingly important fact.
Following the teachings of the Church is completely up to personal discretion - hence, people deciding to suppress their urges (whatever they me be, sexual and otherwise) do so out of their own free will. Therefore criticizing the Church for guiding the moral thought of believers, as some set out to do, is just not on.
My "Don't assume the worst of your adversaries" comment was due to the impression given that I somehow might have relished your problems with your computer, or otherwise would have ridiculed your "lack of expertise".
But thanks for your comment about me. I also assume the best in people...some see it as a weakness, but I don't.
You did not give me that impression (regarding conversions). I was only making a point considering where the debate was leading to.
Regarding priests having understanding about things other than religion, I already made myself clear in my previous reply after you posted me that link. I agree with you here. However, the onus is always on the speaker to show his competence and knowledge on the topic, and this applies to everyone, including me.
When I read something, I try to consider what the writer has to say, and to try to shield myself against any preconceived opinions I might have about the author. Truth is often obtained by confronting and examining different opinions. That is why I put great value on freedom of speech.
Regarding homosexuality, what you/the church is basically saying is: "I accept you for who you are, but you must suppress your nature because it is sinful". I don't see it as much of an improvement from "I don't accept you at all". We are who we are, and consenting adult homosexual people do nobody any harm through private sexual acts.
Kenneth, rest assured that never for a moment do I doubt your sincere and kind disposition. I have mentioned it various times in other blogs, if you recall.
I find your comments very informative, balanced and well researched, and from the self-professed atheists who regularly contribute to Fr. Joe’s blogs, I find you as the one who is the most open and honest, and the less belligerant (if at all).
However, this is not in any way different to the way in which heterosexual premarital sex or some other action into which someone can easily fall is considered ‘wrong’. If I never get married, should I suddenly blast the Church because I’ll never have sex, if it is my personal decision to follow a Christian life? I’d never be performing the ‘heterosexual’ act in the same way a homosexual will never perform the ‘homosexual’ act if it is his/her decision to follow Church teaching. So it is, in fact, the choice of those particular homosexual people to follow that particular moral code. I do not think they would feel ‘guilty’ or ‘rejected’, even if they did fall into something they themselves considered wrong, because they believe in God’s saving grace.
I hope my thoughts were not too confused, I found it a bit difficult to express them concisely and clearly!
It is unfair to say 'The Church has no right to interfere', as some people have hinted (not yourself, of course). In the same vein, we may as well say that 'DLH has no right to interfere' or ‘BLM has no right to interfere' or 'FKNK has no right to interfere', simply because we do not agree with their point of view.
@Christine: No problemo!
@Joe: I would like to make a comment about your statement that 'religion and its adherents expect homosexuals to be silent, guilty and thus undermining their own worth'. I beg to disagree with this statement. Religion in no way judges a person or attempts to make the person feel guilty.
Being homosexual is not wrong within itself (i.e. the homosexual person is not a bad person); the Church has said this on many occasions. Every person is a beautiful creation, be they straight, homosexual, ugly, pretty or just plain big (yours truly :D). What I think you take offence to is the fact that in Catholic moral teaching, the homosexual act is deemed inappropriate.
@Kenneth: Hey, sorry if I gave you the impression I thought you were trying to convert anyone to atheism! I didn't, so that was not what I intended by saying I'll be giving the books a pass! But once again, thanks for the link. If I have time (in summer anyway) I may wander into a bookshop and decide to peruse one or two of them.
In the case of above though, I think that it would be highly unfair of some of us to assume Fr Joe (or the Church for that matter) has no understanding of things other then religion, and can give no input into, say, our approach to politics or the way in which a country is run. Just as the NGOs, LGBT community and anyone else can make their (informed) opinion felt, so can the Church.
You're welcome Joe :)
"Religion and its adherents expect homosexuals to be silent, guilty and thus underming their own worth. And I am worth it."
Re the above comment which you made, please allow me express my opinion that I don't agree with the first sentence.
I am however one hundred percent in agreement with the second part of your comment. Yes - you are worth it - we all are Joe. God made each one of us unique - created in His image and after His likeness, endowed with a God-given dignity that must be recognised in every person from the moment of conception until natural death.
This is the principle at the core of all the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church. No one's worth is undermined - anzi in my opinion, these teachings stress the importance of a person's worth much more than some other secular ideologies do.
So why not......"be free, be valid, esteem yourself" because even if - and this is an exaggeration at most - no one else esteems you (because I am sure you esteemed by many - you are indeed held in high esteem by your Creator.
Thank you. Christine G. I wouldn't have written this without you.
Please don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you will have fun when you have some trouble (like PC trouble). Also don't assume that all people who disagree with you would ridicule you (publicly or privately) when you show that you have no expertise on anything.
Because I value truth, I would wish for those who hold different views to have equal time and resources as me. It is silly to shout victory when the reason you gain the upper hand is because your "opponent" has some disadvantage that has nothing to do with the ideas he/she defends.
I hope this much is clear. So please don't confuse me with another person (whom you also mentioned), particularly since the other person is a Christian, not an atheist. This is not to say that all Christians are like that person - but similarly, not all atheists are alike. In essence, my point is: Don't assume the worst of your "adversaries" just because they are your "adversaries".
Thank you.
Thanks for your input. I would like to make myself clear on 2 things.
1. It is neither my intention, nor is here the appropriate medium, for me to "convert" people to atheism. The limitation of time and space (and time-lag between posts) forbids an appropriate discussion of this type of debate. Saying nothing is sometimes better than saying not enough, and this applies to "both camps" (religion/atheism). I will only discuss atheism when either it is brought up by someone else and/or it is somehow misrepresented or misunderstood; or when it is relevant to the topic (for instance, if Jesus forbids divorce, it is relevant to say that to atheists this is not an argument against divorce).
2. Some people think that all atheists believe that priests should not meddle in politics. I don't. I only believe that their opinion has equal weight to other non-expert opinioons on issues where they have no expertise, and less weight against experts. Of course, it is logical to say that their opinion would have more wieght when they have expertise on a topic. But expertice is not to be assumed. It is to be shown and proven.
i wish to thank all of you for you thoughts and opinions. some i agree with, some i don't whist others never even occured to me! i must admit that i use the links y'all provide. must say there is so much i know nothing about, and to think when i was younger i thought i knew it all. again thanks and this includes fr.joe. whilst i think that god is an illusion manufactured by man, my mind remains open to being convinced otherwise. the way fr.joe writes makes me wonder and research. so there you go, from a person who whilst stupid would like to rectify it
thanks
VG 'their purpose is to help us (Catholics) form our consciences according to our belief. So of two with different beliefs - operative word - which one of the two will succumb to the other with a neck wound?
I just thought I would share this with you. Its from Pope Benedict XVI's message on the occasion of the 43rd World Communications Day. He's referring to the interchange of ideas in cyberspace - pretty much like what we are doing!!
"Such encounters, if they are to be fruitful, require honest and appropriate forms of expression together with attentive and respectful listening. The dialogue must be rooted in a genuine and mutual searching for truth if it is to realize its potential to promote growth in understanding and tolerance".
Thats a really good link you've posted Andrew. Thanks. It sure will come in handy.
"What would you know? Appeasing sops don't work with me. Besides, I would dare anyone to judge"
Why should anyone participating in this forum need to do that (judge you)? We're all here to discuss a topic not one another's lives - except for an occasional comment here - and there's no harm in that, is there? So far we know that Kenneth's madly in love with his wife and rightly so; Jessica's husband is called Joe and by the looks of it he's a computer wiz; Victoria, Andrew and I are all sitting for exams at the moment, and Sharon wisely advises her kids (who by the looks of it are also sitting for exams) 'mohhkom hemm" .
Besides these little snippets of information, aren't a lot of interesting ideas are being shared? I agree very much with Jessica's comment:
"I do not deny that children would be aware that their parents’ marriage is not “ideal” but the fact that their parents stay together notwithstanding their differences, is in itself a positive message that they are transferring to their children. Children hate to see their parents separate even as grown ups".
Very very true Jessica.
Please.
CG. 'and quite honestly(?) I don't think anyone would choose to judge you on that'. Really? What would you know? Appeasing sops don't work with me. Besides, I would dare anyone to judge. I don't live in a glass house. They do. So watch it.
I was criticised for veering off theme. Really?! So off theme (but not moi) that methinks we are back to square one - Queen Victoria's Square, Cafe` Premier, in front of Palace of Thinking.
Falling in love. Nature's intense way to make sure impregnation/conception takes place. Fallout never guaranteed I hear. Never tried it. No my cup of chay. So, people fall in love. And soon out of. Then true loving with the mind takes over. For some. Very few. The rest cling on for dear life. To teach the child/ren marital solidarity. And so the charade goes on. And on. And on. Circle squared.
I also enjoyed reading Polkinghorne.
By the way, thanks for the link; again, however, I'm not convinced by atheism and have decided not to try exploring it further. I know that might sound slightly silly, but there you go.
By the way, as a nod in the way of Fr Joe and article, I thought I'd post this. Sorry if I've used articles from the same website before (I think I had done so when we had discussed 'Hug her Instead of Excommunicating Her' last March), but I happen to find it quite informative.
http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080520_1.pdf
@Christine: Couldn't agree more with you!
“,,,,,And sometimes, what is best is that the children's home is not a permanent battlefield.”
Man is an adaptable animal, and in times of adversity nature has a way of striking a balance. I believe that in certain marriages, although to you it may appear that the couple is living a lie (and probably you are right by human reasoning), other factors come into play. It could be that instead of a “permanent battlefield”, the home atmosphere is rendered less tense by the spouses, who are mature enough to realise that breaking up a marriage would be more detrimental to the well being of the children, and automatically and unconsciously, maybe, transfer their sexual energy into other activities from which they could derive their self-fulfillment. It could be anything from practicing a sport or activity of their choice to the developing of a particular talent.
I do not deny that children would be aware that their parents’ marriage is not “ideal” but the fact that their parents stay together notwithstanding their differences, is in itself a positive message that they are transferring to their children. Children hate to see their parents separate even as grown ups.
Computer Technology. I thought it was obvious to all and sundry hehehehehehehehehehehe
"equally wrong" in line 3 is referring to the fact that despite couples enter the marriage more experienced nowadays, some times it still results in the dissolution of the marriage.
Sorry about that but in an effort to fit all in 200 words I tried to take a short cut, only to realise the ambiguity it created.
:)
Mohhkhom hemm (I prefer saying that to my kids rather than good luck somehow) to those sitting for exams:)
"No Kenneth, you are mistaken, they do not stay together not to “appear “wicked” in the eyes of their neighbours”, although there might be such cases".
Of course...I never implied that all of them did. Perhaps I had in mind the type who would send their pregnant unmarried teen children to Gozo.
I do acknowledge that some others choose to live a complete lie just to "preserve the nucleus of the family at least until their children are grown up". Whether this is beneficial to the children is debatable.
I believe that children are smarter than we usually give them credit for, and will notice the huge cracks in their parents' relationship. I know of children who got a better relationship with both their parents after their parents split up. But of course, we should not generalise. The point is that it is up to the parents to choose what is best for their children. And sometimes, what is best is that the children's home is not a permanent battlefield.
Why are you still posting comments?! You should be studying. Mur ahdem!
LOL I should have said that I agree with you that not all Christians are misinformed or uninformed....I thought about saying this but I forgot! It happens to me all the time...
@ Jessica
Yes, I am going through the throes of exams....besides the examination of conscience everyday :P
You are both right, because true that couples enter the marriage experienced in many aspects, and true that the older generation at times remained faithful to the bond of marriage, (despite not always faithful to the respective spouse), equally wrong in my opinion. In some cases (I am not generalising) the couple forget that we do not live in an ideal world, or some fairy tale world and that people change and wrinkle, hair falls, and must not forget the gravitaional pull :) etc. Sadly some fail to see the beauty inside. Also opinions and views evolve and change, for both. Now some consider this as growing and maturing together, others see it as growing apart. It is up to us (general us) to teach youths this, and not to enter into a marital bond, unless they understand this. It is also up to us (those who are happily married by whichever means) to keep our perspectives right and todiscuss and nip problems at the bud. True that one cannot force the other spouse to love, however one can try his/her utmost not to let his/her spouse fall out of love. I prefer to think positive :)
No Kenneth, you are mistaken, they do not stay together not to “appear “wicked” in the eyes of their neighbours”, although there might be such cases. They stay together because they feel that it is of paramount importance to preserve the nucleus of the family at least until their children are grown up. They feel that they have to educate by example even if it entails sacrifice. Growing up children acquire values and knowledge according to the behaviour of their parents. In cases where marriage is in crisis, children are bound to feel its negative effects and it is an extra effort on the husband and wife to try and preserve a sense of normality.
Society is a structure made up of families. Now if the family is in crisis society is bound to suffer
Thanks :)
@ Fr Joe and Oscar
I think it would be a very good idea. I look forward to this post-mortem.
@ Kenneth and Jessica
Re "Catholic marriage is for life"........ interesting debate....wish I had more time to join in!
No, you misunderstand me...I didn't think of enabling Java too, my suggestions probably would have got the same result, but in a longer time. So if that makes you stupid, it makes me so as well ;)
Sometimes its the clever people who miss the simple things ;)
Exactly! But I’m a stupid woman you see (?) and maybe of the old school. Next time I’ll heed your advice. After all I asked for it. Whatever got into me not to take it? :-))
@ Victoria: I do not recall reading anything about you sitting for exams. In any case if you are, I hope you do well.
@ Christine Galea: I enjoyed reading yours and Kenneth’s exchange of views. You did not mention what course you are following. Hope to have you back soon, and Good Luck in your exams.
"But life doesn’t owe us anything. We can only work on making the best of it - Hear, hear. You should have written that in capitals :)" - Straw Man argument.
Life does not owe us anything (and nobody is saying so), but equally, life does not deny us anything except the biologically/physically impossible. Write that in capitals, too.
Life does not owe us anything because life's what WE make it. But of course, some people would wish to run other people's lives for them.
Cont...
So no, it is not "they" (who would separate at the first hitch) who are clamouring for divorce. It is them who regognise the simple basic fact that it takes two to make a marriage work.
Some of the "older generation" would not opt for divorce only because they would rather live hell than appear "wicked" in the eyes of their neighbours.
Life does not owe us divorce. But life does not even impose marriage and the staying in the married state. Life is what WE make it. Marriage is human-made, and life "owing us anything" has nothing to do with this.
Christians often tend to forget that Marriage predates Christianity, and that divorce predates Christian marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
When I said that Catholic marriage is for life, and that I do not understand how true Catholics (not just Christians) would want divorce, I certainly did not mean that they have to live together. If that were the case, I would have used "sparation" instead of "divorce". True Catholics don't divorce and don't use condoms. You might tell me that everyone makes mistakes, but in the case of many modern Catholics, the use of condoms and the agreement (if not use) with divorce is not a mistake. They agree with both on principle. Are they really Catholics? Is Catholicism a "pick and choose" religion? I think not.
Also, please note that different morals to those preached by Catholics are not necessarily held because older generations are seen as "backward and immature". Some morals stand for all time, some others need updating or even outright rejection (permission for slavery, stoning to death of people, etc). It is also wrong to believe that those who favour divorce as an option would separate at the first hitch. However, it takes two to make a marriage work, and one cannot "force" one's spouse to love and respect one's "other-half".
Cont...
"But life doesn’t owe us anything. We can only work on making the best of it"
Hear, hear. You should have written that in capitals :)
@ Joe Xuereb
When I referred to "weaknesses" I was quoting you in your earlier post, where you said you were a free-thinker "with manageable weaknesses". I was not definitely referring to orientation or anything like that. It's not my business to comment about something like that. I have absolutely no problem with people's orientations whatsover. I'm sorry if you feel offended in any way but you have totally misinterpreted what I wrote.
Re point 2 of the Manifesto. It doesnt sound to me like it's condemning homoexuality. It's just a definition of marriage as it should be understood - no condemnation anywhere.
"You have misunderstood and misinterpreted the Church-State Agreement. Consult a lawyer".
Well, in that case, I have actually been misled by a lawyer. In any case, if I ever need to, I guess I would have to consult a different lawyer.
Oh...you only had to enable Java? Sometimes the simplest solution is the last thing one thinks of!
Most probably, installing a flash player (like Macromedia) or another browser (like Firefox) - both free and harmless downloads - would have either re-installed the Java software or asked you to enable it...but your husband saved you a "lot" of time (nowadays 10 minutes are seen as a lot of time) by detecting that you only had to enable Java, which somehow got disabled.
Anyway...glad the problem is solved ;)
Thanks and good luck for your exams too.
Can't understand why you directed your "more serious" comment at me (no one ever said you were misinformed or uninformed) but I must admit I like the way you made your point :)
“....Catholic marriage is for life, and so, I do find it incomprehensible how people would want divorce while still calling themselves Catholics.”
Kenneth, unfortunately not everyone has a blissful marriage and I can even hazard a guess that a lot of marriages especially of the older generation are only suffered because couples still adhere to the promise they made in their youth. Couples stayed together because as Catholics, it was ingrained in them that marriage was for better or for worse.
Today couples enter marriage sexually experienced, probably feeling that the older generation was backward and immature, and yet they are the ones who are quick to separate at the first hitch. And it is they who are clamouring for divorce, for the older generation, even if divorce were possible, would probably hesitate to take the step. The younger generation, who feels itself so open minded, liberal and mature, who sees religion as something antiquated, to be humoured, its rules to be ignored, want divorce because they feel life owes it to them. But life doesn’t owe us anything. We can only work on making the best of it.
"As a believer, I am neither misinformed or uninformed".
Just to be clear (although I already explained myself), I never said anyone here is misinformed or uninformed about everything. But everyone here (including me) may be misinformed or uninformed about some things.
Like I also said, for one to imply that anyone (be he a bishop, a pope, a prime minister, a scientist etc) is well informed about everything, and so has an authority - in the scientific sense of having sufficient knowledge to be qualified - in speaking authoritively about everything, is a gross exaggeration.
I hope we at least agree on this.
I also hope this does not further distract anyone...there's always the shut-down or close-window button in that case ;)
Good night.
Thank you for the tips Kenneth, but did not try them. I was afraid I would mess it up even further. I bet Franco is bursting again :-))
Actually I just had to enable the Java Script but I waited for Joe to do it. (Franco, shut up!)
About the joke: “Thank God for men” – no harm in giving men some self-importance.
“Thank men for God” – no harm in letting you believe it. :-))
Nassumi li qed tosserva l-andaenti tal-Kampanja elettorali mill-partiti u kandidati... nixtieq qabel jew ahjar wara, taghtina kritika tieghek dwar il-kampanja. Ghalkemm mhux dejjem qbilt mieghek f'kollox... nasigurak li naghti hafna kas l-opinjoni tieghek :)
You have misunderstood and misinterpreted the Church-State Agreement.
Consult a lawyer.
Mr. Cassar is not the only one to be confused. Other posters are confusing the meaning of the right to freedom of expression.
No fair-minded person will deny Fr. Borg and his fellow priests -- Bishops and Pope included -- the right to teach their Faith's tenets. Priests have as much right as anyone else to state their opinions.
The trouble begins when the Church insists on legislators voting according to the Church's wishes at the expense of the human rights of individuals who do not share the Church's beliefs.
In Malta, all the legislation that the Bishops of COMECE want for the EU is already in place. Should the Treaty of Lisbon be ratified, all things will change in Malta. Maltese law will have to be compatible with the Treaty.
The Treaty will put all Maltese citizens on the same level as all the other EU citizens, with the same rights and freedoms and equality before the Law. And that includes the right to Divorce, and to seek Abortion. The right to same-sex marriage will likely follow in due course.
Question: Should Malta leave the Union?
I am glad that your problem is solved…men can be useful sometimes :D
@ Christine
Good luck in your examinations…don’t let Ken distract you
On a more serious note.
As a believer, I am neither misinformed or uninformed.
As a citizen of this country and a believer (they are not mutually exclusive though I do not foist my beliefs on unwilling listeners) I try to canvass aid from various sources to help me form an opinion on particular issues, especially the more pertinent ones. As a believer, I give due attention to what the Magisterium has to say of course and try to follow the teachings. I am not a dogged follower, though. The opinion I form is based on a process of discernment grounded on all the information I have gleaned from various sources. I am not the only one, there are many like me.
And if you allow me a little atheist joke I just made, a Christian woman would say (like you did) "thank God for men". An atheist woman would say "thank men for God" ;)
No offense intended - just thought it might be funny.
That was my point...the "joke" makes no sense...but I modelled it on the other joke that I "did not understand". But I think we both said enough about this.
And finally, you are as much uninformed on all topics as priests (or anyone) are knowledgeable on all topics - therefore, not really. So no, just in case I did not make myself clear: You are not uninformed on all topics (probably on some), but so are those you describe as having "proved time and time again that (they are) very well informed on most counts" - which is at best a gross exaggeration.
Now get back to your studies! ;)
Hooray !!!!
Problem solved.
Thanks to Joe, (my husband back from work).
Thank God for Men!!!! :-))
Victoria, thank you for your concern. I appreciate :-))
Pastaz =D
@ Jessica
I am awaiting your email
I don't believe you Franco! I don't think you really mean it! Not since we made up on Facebook (remember)?
OK quit sniggering. It doesn't suit you. Can you help me?
Oooooooppppppppssssss I don't get the joke........ please explain. Told you it takes me ages to grasp some jokes LOL
BTW if I fail tomorrow's exam you'll hear from me!! May we please resume our discussion at a later date on some other post?
U tal-ahhar, I don't consider myself uninformed if that's what you were implying.
Now may I study please??
You did not mislead me. I understood your point. In fact, I even said that I basically agree with the gist of what you said.
I only wished to add to it. In fact, with my addition, I seem to have anticipated your later reply.
For instance, when you say that "the Church confirms that it does not usually interfere in the technincal content of an issue per se but it feels that it is its reponsiblility to guide the people as to the ethical and moral values regarding it", I anticipated your reply by explaining that morals may change with scientific discoveries (blue-eyed robots example).
re science vs morals
Sorry if I misled but I feel you may have have misunderstood my point.
By quoting that para from Dignitas Personae, I wished only to demonstrate how the Church confirms that it does not usually interfere in the technincal content of an issue per se but it feels that it is its reponsiblility to guide the people as to the ethical and moral values regarding iit. In this particular case the Instruction is speaking about biotechnical issues which is why it is referring to "medical science".
I'm not sure if I've explained my point properly. Hope it clarifies.
send me an email on mimosa@di-ve.com and I'll give you the contacts of a great IT man.
"The Church, as an Institution, has proved time and time again that it is very well informed on most counts. As regards its individual representatives, in most cases, many of them are too as I have found through my own experience".
No disrespect meant, but many times the uninformed see the slightly informed as experts.
One last try...it you're using windows explorer, try installing Firefox, or another free web-browser...it might work.
The comments window probably uses flash. Have you checked your flash-player? If you're not too technical, you might wish to re-install it just to be safe, and try again. If its not that, I don't know what the problem could be.
Ok, fine, it is that I did not get the "alien" joke. But now that I got it, here's another joke.
A psychologist tells a chef (who has no idea in psychology), that he shouldn't give psychological advice to anyone. In comes a woman, who tells the chef: "I did not know you were a flower!".
I hope you will see the similarity. I think it would also do well on South Park ;)
Somehow I really don't feel it matters that - like Kenneth - you didn't get the joke either :)
No disrespect meant at all but you've told us time and time again who and what you are and quite honestly I don't feel that anyone would choose to judge you on that. We all have assets - and weaknesses - manageable or not - but do we need to discuss them on a public forum? Speaking for myself, I don't think anybody's feelings can ever be refuted. However, in this case, with your "clarity of vision" it would be nice if you could focus on content then we may all carry on enjoying this debate. After all, you yourself admitted that "content is everything".
So regarding your comment about inanities which "emanate from the church, whether as Institution or its individual representatives...that are only worthy of a quick scan at most" - I beg to differ. The Church, as an Institution, has proved time and time again that it is very well informed on most counts. As regards its individual representatives, in most cases, many of them are too as I have found through my own experience.
Sorry! Vic, Tried rebooting but did not help. :-))
I need the experts!!!!
HELP!!!!
I basically agree with the gist of your latest reply to me. Of course, everyone is entitled to share their views and values. However, people who are considered as "leaders" by a significant number of people, have an added responsibility of being informed about what they choose to speak about.
Also, while I repeat that morals should not be derived directly from science (or nature), yet science should inform our morals and may guide them. To give an example, what if it were scientifically discovered that people with blue eyes are robots who look like humans with sentience and consciousness, but are actually not? (yes, I know this is absurd, but its just a hypothetical). Then this scientific discovery (if it could be proven beyond any doubt) would show that we would have no moral responsibility towards "people" (robots, actually) with blue eyes.
As for the alien "joke", it's not that I did not get it. It's that it is not applicable, as I have explained in my reply to Victoria starting with "Back from the ciggie break..."
"Let them snigger, we can do so much more than tinker with computers...Let's give the boys here something to brag about :D"
You'd think so...I didn't even think about rebooting, perhaps because I unconsciously assumed (is it possible to unconsciously assume?) that it wouldn't work. But what if it did? One cannot know unless one tries.
Never mind the texture. Feel the width. ie quality over quantity.
You could try to understand that from an atheist's point of view, whatever 'inanities' - which I never do, unlike coffee - emanate from the church, whether as Institution or its individual representatives, these are only inanities that are only worthy of a quick scan at most. But than I'm an atheist. And a homosexual. Which means that as far as I am concerned, women are fine because there are no hormonal blinding flashes to hamper my quest to find them. It leaves me with a clarity of vision that is impossible to define and put into words. Fact. And not a cloak in sight. Still less a dagger. Or a ciggie even. Held in the hand as a weapon but only managing to backfire on the holder. I am a free-thinker. With manageable weaknesses.
I won't ask what you mean by 'inance' CG. As I suspect it is not worth finding out.
I don't think it matters that you didn't get the 'alien' joke :) As a matter of course, I did (for a change - because I'm sometimes accused of being a bit slow to get a joke).
Focus on the topic at hand....... you mentioned (referring to priests) "that If they really are not knowledged about a topic, I agree that they should not comment".
Let's refer this comment to the Church in general, rather than individual priests. Here, I agree with Victoria that "the Church, being a stakeholder in society, has the right and duty to inform her faithful".
I can illustrate using an example from the lastest Instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Respect for Human Life, Dignitas Personae. Para 10 states quite clearly that the Church "does not intervene in the area proper to medical science itself, but rather calls everyone to ethical and social responsibility of their actions".
Everyone is entitled to share their views and values. Here might I add that it might be a good idea to do so by sticking to content and without passing certain inane judgments on one another (Joe Xuereb please note).
"The Church, being a stakeholder in society, has the right and duty to inform her faithful".
Of course, but like JX said (in other words), to inform her faithful, it must first be informed herself. Of course, I'm not saying that JB necessarily isn't, but the statement is still true, regardless.
And by the way...maybe there IS a God after all...Barcellona won yesterday and taught Ronaldo a lesson in humility!
From one blonde lady to another... :P Have you rebooted?
I am sorry this is all I can do when my computer gives up on me...I just wrote in so that you won't feel ignored...Let them snigger, we can do so much more than tinker with computers...
Let's give the boys here something to brag about :D
Pity I don't smoke - I would have asked if I may join you then we'd continue the discussion viva voce :) As things stand, in no time at all we'll have Fr Joe on the Most Commented list again!
Back to business.
Back from the ciggie break. Now, also for the record, Joe Xuereb did not say that "(JB) has no rights as a citizen of this country to give his views about issues pertaining to his nation".
What he actually said was that "Priests should keep out of stuff they know nothing about". I would agree with this statement, with the following clarification:
1. It depends on whether particular priests really know nothing about the stuff they are commenting on. If they really are not knowledged about a topic, I agree that they should not comment (more so if done with a presumed authority). If they do know about the stuff, of course, they have every right to comment.
2. The same applies to anyone, not just priests.
So in essence, the alien comment strictly speaking does not apply. I know practically nothing about mechanical engineering, so basically I should not comment on it. And yet, this does not make me an alien (in the metaphorical or literal sense)
No wonder I did not understand the alien "joke".
Oh, oh, oh and another oh...as JB would say :P I get worked up now too eh? :)
I really do not want to bang on and on about the alien bit but then there might be someone out there who will not humour me.
With regards to the camp dig...I know you are a free-spirit Ken ruhi...but I tend to like JB's posts so that puts me firmly in his...It doesn't mean, though that I do not find myself in agreement with what the other side might have to say...you of all people know that I am not dogmatic in my beliefs. I just don't agree with how some put their divergences across. If you consider yourself to be a free-thinker, I consider myself to be someone who does not dismiss anybody's opinions out of hand for the hell of it. The world would be so boring if everyone had the same mindset. The Church, being a stakeholder in society, has the right and duty to inform her faithful. However if one does not consider him or herself a member; one word of advice: If it doesn't apply, let it fly.
Off to a coffee break now
Everything is moving perfectly (ON MY LAPTOP) except that when I click the bar 'comment on this article', the page does not open. Is there a wizard amongst you who can help me 'cause I am lost ?
And stop sniggering at my ignorance!!!! There are oither things I can do very well, bit this is not one of them.SO PLEASE HELP ME!!! :-))
I still don't see what aliens have to do with this ;) If aliens exist, they too would have the right to speak on any issue they want (if they could speak)...but maybe that's because I'm an internationalist (or if aliens exist, a universalist)...and maybe that's why I didn't get the joke, or better still thought there was more to it than that.
No need to get all worked up on this...it was just a passing comment.
And just for the record...I'm in nobody's camp. I'm a free-thinker on principle and in practice.
Now I'll join you in your ciggie break ;)
Gee, Ken, I didn't think one has to spell out everything...not to you, at least.
You know what, it wasn't such a cloak-and-dagger remark...JB got it but then we're in the same camp. Figure it out...I'm off to a ciggie break...
The way that Joe Xuereb wrote about Fr Joe's post implied that the latter has no rights as a citizen of this country to give his views about issues pertaining to his nation. I didn't think I would be taken to task for highlighting precisely this...but then this is Malta and one is taken to task just for breathing.
"13. In line with the Church-State Agreement on the Recognition of Civil Effects of Marriage and Declarations of Nullity Delivered by Ecclesiastical Tribunals, the parties may then (after declaration of annulment by the ecclesiastical tribunal) register the (ecclesiastical) Tribunal’s decision WHICH HAS BECOME EXECUTIVE in the Court of Appeal of the Civil Courts. Such a decision will then have effect as if it were a decision by a Court".
http://www.maltachurchtribunals.org/faqs.html
"There are many instances where a person had a Catholic Church marriage...got a civil divorce, married in a civil ceremony, then petitioned the Church for an annulment which was granted, and proceeded to a new church wedding".
True. But of course a Church annulment has to be given for one to re-marry in Church.
"Also, in Malta, the Civil Law trumps the Canon Law. Civil courts can annul any marriage without consideration of who performed it".
You might wish to check again. This was once true, but the law was amended. Now, if you marry in Church, you have to get a Church annulment to remarry (irrespective of whether you choose to re-marry in Church or not).
The project of the EU has been and is being constantly hijacked by an elite in the bowels of Brussles who are not answerable to anyone but themselves.
I hope that our MEPs irrespective of their partisan affiliation will insist that NO MORE changes are carried out unless the people know exactly what is being adopted [or imnposed] in theire name.
Transferring power from the periphery to the centre demand acceptance at the grass roots level.... by referenda.... no matter how flawed the exercise.
It is infinitely preferable to the underhand methods employed over the years in national parliaments and at the highest levels of the EU, methods that have had disastrous effects in various areas.
Maybe the moribund principle of subsidiarity when rediscovered and resuscitated will be more than a catchword.
I still hope that subsidiarity is still central to Catholic social thinking and should not be sacrificed on any altar, European or otherwise.
There are many instances where a person had a Catholic Church marriage ceremony, abondoned the marriage, entered a new common-law relationship, produced offspring, got a civil divorce, married in a civil ceremony, then petitioned the Church for an annulment which was granted, and proceeded to a new church wedding.
Also, in Malta, the Civil Law trumps the Canon Law. Civil courts can annul any marriage without consideration of who performed it.
But this topic is about the Bishops of COMECE calling for the election of representatives who are faithful to the Church. As if that really mattered.
The moment that the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified, all barriers to Divorce, Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage will come tumbling down. Seeing that Malta is the last European bastion to cling to these antiquated laws which are an affront to human rights, the Curia and the Government are in for the shock of their lives.
What will they do? Will they join the Eurosceptics?
Ah, sweet schadenfreude!
I am one of those 'like Joe Xuereb', he who enlightens himself by using a god-given brain. And he homosexual to boot. He seeks, and finds, emotional entanglements with men, some of whom are theists. But that's another stand-up show. In the meantime, those like JX
know of the Dawkins fellow but choose not to read him. Delusion? Who needs it? Not those like JX. Or KC. As for CG...........
Excuse typos. I write like I think and submit. I do not edit. Content is everything. As they say. Never mind the texture. Feel the width.
What's with this "alien" thing? Joe Xuereb didn't call anyone an alien. The first mention of "aliens" was made by you in a reply to Joe Xuereb. So what's the deal? Am I missing something? And what do you mean by "this applies to both camps"? What applies to both camps?
The joke isn't funny if only the joker understands it.
Allow me to answer a few of your questions myself.
If divorce is permitted by the state, this is similar to annulment except for the following: For annulment to be given, it must be proven that the marriage went ahead because either one partner was not cognisant about some important details regarding his spouse (before the wedding), or else he/she was intentionally deceived. To give an obvious example, if the wife had an affair resulting in pregnancy before the wedding, making the husband think the child is his, this is grounds for annulment. In this case, the court/curia declares that the marriage never happened.
One other difference is that in annulment, neither partner has to give alimony to the other (except where it concerns any children), because annulment is a declaratin that the marriage never really happened, while in divorce and/or separation, alimony is usually given. In the case of divorce, this might take the form of a one-off lump settlement, if I am not mistaken.
Also, with a Church annulment, one can re-marry in Church. With divorce, one cannot. And as the law in Malta stands, people marrying in Church cannot opt for civil annulment only.
So you're an alien? that's why your posts are out of this world then...
This applies to both camps...the pro JB and the anti-JB lest I am accused of being a bootlicker...
I think that the church and the state need to cut eachother some slack, otherwise one will suffocate the other. I am a Catholic but appreciate the fact that not all Maltese citizens are conformant to the Catholic canons and are equally deserving of a chance at happiness especially regarding marriage. However having said that I do believe that marital union should be a lifelong commitment especially for Catholics, thus I cannot conceive the idea of divorce within a Catholic context. Now forgive me for sounding 'ignorant' but if divorce is permitted as a state law does this mean the ability to remarry in the same manner as if the union has been annulled? And before God? Or as if the union was a civil marriage? What exactly changes if the law changes? Also and more importantly not all the moral issues on the Catholic manifesto are deemed as moral outside the religious context. Surely abortion and euthenasia should carry more moral weight than divorce. As Mr Kenneth Cassar stated, who is to decide what is universally naturally morally right (or wrong)? A problem with defining anything under the sun (or above it:) nowadays. Chicken and egg situation?
Of course, a culture of life is by huge bounds preferable than a culture of death, provided it is not too rigid to exclude exceptions to the general rule (if I understand you well, we are in agreement on this point).
Regarding people drastically changing being no "license for divorce", that depends on one's concept of marriage. Like I already said, the Catholic concept is a sacramental binding for life (no matter what) - and so, in Catholic doctrine, people may separate but never divorce and re-marry.
However, secular marriage is very different. Secular marriage is just a contract. Of course, one could always say that "a promise is a promise", but everyone will concede that sometimes the breaking of a promise is justified, depending on the circumstances (for instance, I am entitled to break a promise to buy you an expensive gift, if I lose my job and go broke, since the keeping of that promise would require that I perform a greater evil (theft).
Of course, the responsibility towards children (where there are any) always remains, and this applies both to separation and divorce.
And don't worry...we're not digressing much...(point 2 of the Catholic Manifesto).
Some women are very blessed :)
And yes..... people do change - drastically sometimes - but that's not a licence for divorce. Even if seen only from a secular stance, being married holds many many commitments and obligations - towards one's spouse, towards one's children - so there will always be negative reperussions - even in the event that the couple 'agree' in principle to terminate the 'contract'.
But, we're digressing again!
"such a method dismisses exceptions to the general rule"
Rather than dismissing exceptions, I think that CLE leads us beyond the specific issues to our commitment about the meaning of life, leading us to promote a "culture of life" rather than a "culture of death".
You stated: "While a "sanctity of life" ethic protects the vulnerable, it denies (relatively) painless release for terminally suffering patients".
I dont think it actually "denies" it.
CLE has four levels: we've seen the first.
A second level of consistent ethics stresses the distinction among cases rather than their similarities. We need different moral principles to apply to diverse cases. In the case of dying patients (to stick to the example you mentoned) one needs to distinguish between 'proportionate' and 'disproportionate' means of treatment. Ordinary and proportionate means of treatment are morally acceptable of course.
A third level is how we relate and commit to principles to our public witness of life.
The fourth is the relationship between moral choices and concrete political choices.
Use this link. It takes you straight to the source of CLE who is the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. In my opinion, it's much better than Wikipedia. www.clevelandcatholiccharities.org/prolife/Consistent.htmwww.clevelandcatholiccharities.org/prolife/Consistent.htm
For want of a better term, I'll describe my situation as one in which I am nearly constantly thinking about her, derive great pleasure in giving her gifts (especially out of the blue - and not only on special occasions), and treat her as the best friend (and an equal) that she is. You might say that I am every woman's dream...except that not every woman is my wife - and that makes all the difference ;) Calling this love does not even begin to describe it.
So this should make it clear that I do not support the divorce option out of self-interest.
Good luck on your exams. Take your time...I'm not pressuring you to answer immediately.
Regarding divorce, I would agree with you that Catholic marriage is for life, and so, I do find it incomprehensible how people would want divorce while still calling themselves Catholics.
However, secular marriage is another thing. Secular marriage is just a contract between two people - and contracts may be cancelled if both parties agree. Of course, where children are involved, things are not so straight-forward - however, separation followed by change of partner is no different from divorce, and it is legal - so why not divorce?
I am married (not a Church wedding), and am literally obsessed with my wife ("in love" is too mild a term to describe my relationship). I cannot even dream of living without the treasure I have found in her. However, I recognise the possibility that people can change - drastically in some cases. I also recognise that some people are not as lucky as me (second time lucky in my case), and make errors of judgement in selecting their husband/wife.
The Consistent Life Ethic (CLE) - the Wikipedia article - made some interesting reading, so thanks for that. However, here are some observations.
While a CLE is a sure-easy way of avoiding moral dilemmas with easy and consistently applied solutions, such a method dismisses exceptions to the general rule, which makes me suspicious, to say the least. Let's take euthanasia, for instance. While a "sanctity of life" ethic protects the vulnerable, it denies (relatively) painless release for terminally suffering patients, who most probably would be long dead anyway were it not for modern medicine and technology.
The problem with the CLE is that it streers clear of moral dilemmas and does not judge each case by its own merits - because it sees all individual cases linked by a supposed "sanctity" of life (again...a definition is required - but whose definition? And is ALL life included? What about plant life?).
The closest I can get to this CLE (which I consistently practice, or try to) is that unnecessary harm (and not just killing) should be avoided whenever possible. That is why I am a vegetarian (and I'm glad that vegetarianism is included in the Consistent Life Ethic).
Thanks for the books you recommended. Please give me some chance to do some further reading on the concept of natural moral order before I get back to you. I'm in the middle of exams and I don't have too much time on my hands!
Regarding my stand on divorce: It is my firm belief that marriage is for life. I agree that in some cases, there are couples that have no option but to separate - but that does not mean that divorce is a solution. Separation is different from divorce.
I very much support the idea that the family - based on sacramental marriage, between one man and one woman, as a covenant of love - which is created forever - for the purpose of nurturing the couple and the good of their children - is the foundation upon which a strong and healthy society is built. I won't bargain on this one I'm afraid Kenneth.
I would agree with Bishop Grech that human law should be morally good. The problem is who decides what is morally good. This would certainly seem to require some compromise.
As for "natural moral order", this is such a vague concept, loaded with different and conflicting interpretations, that without a detailed definition, it is a meaningless term. And even if a definition is provided, who decides what constitutes "natural moral order"; and if we understand "natural" the way I understand it, should we extrapolate morals from nature? I don't believe we should, as this would have very dire consequences. Human morality many times finds itself at loggerheads with what is "natural". One example is care for the weak, when "nature" suggests the "survival of the fittest". Another would be sexual promiscuity, which seems perfectly natural although not necessarily moral.
Thanks also for your book suggestion. I would also suggest (on the topic) the book "Godless Morality: Keeping religion out of ethics", by Richard Holloway (ex-Bishop of Edinburgh, Gresham Professor of Divinity in the City of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society.
And out of curiosity, what is your take on the divorce issue?
The point is
“2. to support the family founded on marriage – as understood between one man and one woman - as the basic unit of society;”
1. Does this support extend to families founded on the various types of marriages, that is civil, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or whatever or does it extend solely to Catholic marriages?
2. Does this support extend to second marriages by divorcees that is between a man and a woman who had previously been married?
3. Is civil marriage between Catholics supported or does it extend only to civil marriages between non-Catholics?
4. If all marriages between a man and a woman are supported by the Church why should the Maltese be the only Europeans who cannot have a family founded on marriage because they had the misfortune of a failed first marriage?
Thanks for your replies.
"Should a Catholic politician push for legislation that caters only for Catholic morality and its adherents?"
In a recent address Bishop Mario Grech said "one expects that for a human law to be morally good, it is to reflect the natural moral order". Surely a politician - Catholic or not - should push for legislation that reflects such natural moral order. Natural law is common to all human beings, irrespective of colour or creed. It lies at the basis of all Catholic teaching.
Whether one agrees with what the Church teaches or not, I think that the challenge facing us today is that of embodying a "consistent ethic of life" in the candidates we support to hold office and in our own direct involvement in forming public policy. This ethics holds for all cultures, all religions - because its agends touches human life and human dignity.
If you wish to read more, google-search "A consistent ethics of life" or "Seamless garment".
Yes Aldo. I pointed that out myself!
I will immediately state that the Bishops have every right to issue the guidelines mentioned here (irrespective of whether I agree with all of them or not - which incidentally I don't).
But here's the thorny issue. Should a Catholic politician push for legislation that caters only for Catholic morality and its adherents?
The dilemma faced by a principled Catholic politician is no different than that of a vegetarian chef working in a non-vegetarian restaurant. Should the vegetarian chef refuse to cook meat because he is persuaded that it is morally wrong to kill animals for food? Some vegetarian chefs decide to cook meat anyway (since it is not their restaurant), while others either change job or change restaurant (a vegetarian one). The other (unreasonable and unworkable) option is to force the restaurant owner to cater for only vegetarians.
The principled Catholic politician is in a similar situation. He is faced with three options:
1. Legislate in a way that caters for different beliefs/opinions (with obvious limitations - for instance, legalising murder is out of the question).
2. Get out of politics and join a lobby group.
3. Impose religion in his/her legislation.
In the event that the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified,with the result that it becomes binding on all member states, then a possible outcome, for Malta, will be something like this:
Ms. Newly-Pregnant wanting an abortion and denied the medical procedure, will take the Maltese Government to the European Court for Human Rights ("ECHR"), citing the Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantess every citizen of the Union equality without exceptions.
There won't be much room for the government to defend such a suit.
And there will be others, and others and others ... not to mention those seeking divorce, and those seeking same-sex marriage.
Then what? Will Fr. Borg join the ranks of the Eurosceptics and argue for the withdrawal from the Union as allowed by the Treaty?
(The Pope's condom conundrum will look like a child's fairy tale compared to what's in store for the Maltese Government, and for the Curia over the next few years.)
This is just a post script to my last entry.
If you wish to read more besides what I've already posted, regarding what Wilson has to say about Dawkins, key in Culture Watch for Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary.
I can't say whether Ms. Galea has actually read the God Delusion. What I can say is that big chunks of her arguments are copied and pasted from http://www.kingsway.co.uk/Shop/Products/85528/Home/Books/Living_the_Life/Family_Social_Issues/Cultural_Issues/Deluded_by_Dawkins.aspx
Apology accepted – I can assure you I have read Dawkins and I’m not impressed. I tend to favour Wilson and McGrath. You raised a number of points and much as I would like to carry on with this discussion we really are out of line with this :)
Just a short comment on “To a resurrection that never happened? And if it did, prove it”
It would take much more than the 200 word limit to go into this. May I suggest you access the following site: http://sguthrie.net/resurrection.htm. It won’t offer you any ‘scientific’ proof but it makes sense.
Maybe Fr Joe will give us the opportunity to discuss this topic on another post.
Over and out.
"to support the family founded on marriage – as understood between one man and one woman - as the basic unit of society;"
I am intrigued by the above statement in the Catholic Manifesto for the European Parliament. Does this apply to Catholic Marriage or to all marriages between one man and one woman? Thus civil marriages are good or not? Furthermore does this apply just to first marriages or also to second marriages. Thus is the Catholic Church defending the second marriage by divorcees or should these second marriages be broken up? Does the Catholic Church defend second marriages by non-Catholics.In the eyes of the Catholic Church are civil marriages valid or not? Is there a difference between civil marriages between a Catholic man and a Catholic woman and civil marriages between non-Catholics?
I missed your post with your direct Dawkins quote, so I apologise for suspecting (wrongly, it transpires) that you have not read Dawkins' book.
My edition is the Bantam Press 2006 edition (black cover), but I won't check again, since although the pages differ, now that I see your quote, I remember having read it. Yet, there is no mention of the Gospel of Thomas, and it is a well know fact that many "Gospels" were deemed heretical (and even burned along with the heretics (remember the Cathars?) centuries before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is no great feat for Thomas Jefferson to have known about this.
But in any case, if this was Wilson's best case against Dawkins, that's a bonus for Dawkins. Of course, I don't think you believe so, even though I cannot think why you deemed it necessary to mention it, if not to "shoot the messenger" - not a good way of making a good point.
Dawkins may be "far out of his depth" in parts of The God Delusion (although this is debatable), but not nearly as much as the evangelists are in many parts of the Bible. So should we take THEM seriously?
Regarding no mention of "the most central Christian case for the existence of God: the resurrection of Jesus Christ", well, could this be that there is no evidence of it? If there is, please direct me to a non-biblical source, since it is circular to say that the bible is true because the bible says so.
In reply to Wilson's claim that “despite seventeen centuries from skeptics from Celsus to Crossan, no plausible alternative explanation has ever been articulated”, I would say "alternative to what? To a resurrection that never happened? And if it did, prove it, and only then would you be entitled to ask for an "alternative" explanation.
Buddhists believe that the Buddha attained Nirvana. Can you provide an alternative explanation for that? Same goes for the resurrection.
Am I right in suspecting that you have read Wilson's criticism of Dawkins' book without actually reading Dawkins' book? That is no way to form an informed opinion.
We have indeed digressed from the main topic of this post!!!
Apologies to Fr Joe.
“Dawkins made a mistake on a simple claim that has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of God”.
To be fair, on this I must concede that this ‘blunder’ has nothing to do with the existence of God per se. Having said that, as Wilson notes in his book, Dawkins is far out of his depth in so many sections of The God Delusion, that it is a wonder anyone should take him seriously.
Indeed Wilson finds only three chapters in the Dawkins’ book which actually deal with the question of the existence of God. And the most perplexing thing to Wilson is that there is not a single mention of the most central Christian case for the existence of God: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the linchpin of the Christian worldview and, to quote Wilson, “despite seventeen centuries from skeptics from Celsus to Crossan, no plausible alternative explanation has ever been articulated”. Continues Wilson, “a historical minefield awaits those who try to explain the resurrection in rationalist terms”. Indeed the resurrection “is to materialists what satellite photos are to the Flat Earth Society”.
No disrespect meant Kenneth but I disagree that there is any such "fabrication" or "misinterpretation".
I have found the passage the critic is referring to in my edition of The God Delusion. Clearly, we have different editions of the book (mine is by Transworld Publishers, London 2006) since the page number you quoted doesn't tally with mine. In this case, Thomas Jefferson was indeed writing to his nephew and not to his predecessor John Adams.
Let me quote it for you: "I forgot to observe, when speaking of the NT that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well as those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists. Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiratin, as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics".
Jefferson is undoubtedly referring to the Apocrypha, which were not accepted into the official Canon.
No disrespect meant Kenneth but I disagree that there is any such "fabrication" or "misinterpretation".
I have found the passage the critic is referring to in my edition of The God Delusion. Clearly, we have different editions of the book (mine is by Transworld Publishers, London 2006) since the page number you quoted doesn't tally with mine. In this case, Thomas Jefferson was indeed writing to his nephew and not to his predecessor John Adams.
Let me quote it for you: "I forgot to observe, when speaking of the NT that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well as those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists. Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiratin, as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics".
Jefferson is undoubtedly referring to the Apocrypha, which were not accepted into the official Canon.
Cont...
*If Dawkins did make that claim (which I have shown not to be the case), it would still not necessarily be a blunder. It is true that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1945, but one should note that the Dead Sea Scrolls were only copies of copies of copies of copies....etc, like all scripture was before the invention of printing. This makes the possibility that there existed a copy in Thomas Jefferson's time very probable, and that he might have come across a copy as possible (although probably unlikely).
The claim by Dawkins that "Thomas Jefferson, who lived in the 19th century, told his nephew in a letter about the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and so on", would indeed perhaps have been a blunder*, except that it is a complete fabrication.
The closest I could find is the following: "In the farsighted words of Thomas Jefferson, writing to his predecessor, John Adams, 'The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter'" (The God Delusion page 97). His critic's blunder (or intended misrepresentation...take your pick) stems from the fact that Dawkins mentioned the Gospel of Thomas in the preceding page!
But even if it was Dawkins' mistake (which I have shown it is not), it would only prove that Dawkins made a mistake on a simple claim that has nothing to do with the existance or otherwise of God. Similarly, you will find several contradictions and blunders in the Bible, which in themselves say nothing about the existance or non-existance of God.
Cont...
@christine galea & joe xuereb & anyone else who wants to have a truly interesting read:
The following link will take you to the website of a poet, lyricist, musician, singer and (more recently) philosopher (my term, he'd probably hate being called that, so as much as being called a 'rock legend!) - Ian Gillan. He's now 60-something and has seen, read and done a lot.
He also claims no affiliation to any religion, but I think that his reasoning is better than most of those 'extremists' that range from the dangerously fanatical believer to, precisely, Dawkins.
I hope you enjoy reading it too. If you do enjoty it, perhaps you may also try his songs - either with Deep Purple or some of his excellent solo work.
here goes... http://www.gillan.com/friends45.html
If it is any consolation, I, for one will be voting not that my vote will be toppling the scales, for unless there is a drastic shift in public opinion, many will prefer to give it a miss. And we can surmise which section that will be. The other section is probably counting the days in its eagerness to do its “duty”.
You have made it quite clear that the church has fallen in your expectation as regards the publicity which it should have given to the eight points in the Catholic Manifesto. It does not augur well for our country if the church prefers to keep silent about such important matters. To me, as a “layman”, ignorant in such matters but inquisitive as to the reason “why?”, I cannot help thinking that the church is being much to wary not to appear as interfering, probably because of the virulent attacks against it about certain recent issues that had raised the ire of many.
By the way, Fr. Joe, now that you have owned up that you are an alien, is there any other secret that you are closely guarding? :-))
"The EU sponsored advertising campaign is welcome news to the Maltese media [...]Whether it will manage to get people to vote is another matter."
In addittion I think that the negative advertising of both the major political parties is an insult to anyone's intelligence.
@jcmicallef
I have listened to the program 'Analysis' and found it very interesting. Thank you.
The keyword of the discussion, as with anything else when one discusses diversity is 'INTEGRATION' and has to be a two ways. The mono-cultural ghettos form due to the lack of integration. Tolerance or acceptance is only a start. Multiculturalism (legal type) works only if BOTH sides (ie the people) want it to work.
People have been emigrating to other countries for centuries, many of our grandparents did.
Some migrants resisted integration, or were met with resistence, while others did not. Racism, ignorance, religious fundamentalism, ethnic behaviour, narrowmindedness to a particular style of living or fear or mistrust of what/who is diverse, are some of the factors that come to mind, when considering why integration does not take place. Diversity in culture always lured people to experience new cultures some did so to benefit whereas others did to exploit.
Sure, “we are all free to choose our source of inspiration” and you are certainly free to “stick with the two Ds”. However re Dawkins, I feel slightly perplexed how you can refer to his arguments as “common sense”. Suffice it to say that two credible authors Alastair McGrath and Andrew Wilson both find his arguments against the existence of God quite thin. To say nothing of some real howlers in his anti-theistic rant (I am referring to his book "The God Delusion"). Consider his claim that Thomas Jefferson, who lived in the 19th century, told his nephew in a letter about the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and so on. Only trouble is, no one even knew these existed until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1945!! Wilson – in his criticism of Dawkins (“Deluded by Dawkins?”) –concludes by noting that someone, even more nasty, aggressive and belligerent than Dawkins – Saul of Tarsus – in the end bowed his knee to the risen Christ. Dare we hope that the same outcome awaits Professor Dawkins and the likes of him.
You say that "If you and yours ever gave me reasons to believe there is no God, or that the Pope is not God's representative on Earth, I'd believe you. I have thought, read and searched and am convinced in these things, however".
Care to name which books on atheism and agnosticism you have read? And please be honest - even your religion tells you so.
As for me, well, I have read the Bible front to back several times...I was also raised as a Catholic and educated in a Catholic school (and I assume so has Joe Xuereb). Your problem is that you tend to forget that most atheists know their parents' religion very well - while the same cannot be said of believers knowing atheism well - you simply assume that atheism is nihilistic or "belief in nothing".
If you are interested in reading some atheist literature (even if just to know your "enemy"), I would suggest some books listed here: http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/2338165?shelf=atheism-agnosticism
http://www.timesofmalta.com/mepelections/blogs/alan-deidun/20090526/no-to-divorce-and-to-values-a-la-carte
I know that immigrants were not the subject of Fr Joe's blog, but since many tend to go that way...I decided to give my part...sort of.
I would endorse the Catholic Manifesto, but sometiems find that this contradicts - or clashes with - the pro liberal arguments. They say nothing explicit about the Catholic beleif, but I am quite sure that if one did really believe and understand what Catholic (or, even better, Christian) belief is all about, these 8 points would make much sense.
Nontheless, the part of my soul did enjoy reading Joe Xuereb's contributions....
To all the others who feel that my comments are 'unsavoury and uninspired' I say: we are all free to choose our source of inspiration. Tooth-fairies? Darwin? Dawkins? Take your pick. I have been through the first one and IT failed miserably. For the moment and I sticking with the two Ds. They deliver common-sense if nought else.
To stay in theme. About unsavoury and uninspired comments and those offended by them.
I will fight till the bitter end for your right to be offended. You see dear, giving yourself the option of being insulted may leave you open to personal growth (as opposed to being stuck). And I will fight for this right because I am damned if I am to accept information being withheld from ME just so that you can remain ensconced in your smugness. No way Jose`!
To all who accuse me of intolerance, may I say I put up with idolatry, drunken revelry, petards, statuary all over, sanctimoniousness, etc. I don't complain. I shut myself away. One thing I will not tolerate are mosques mushrooming. I protect (paradoxically < atheist homosexual) that which you should.
And please - all readers - stop insinuating that the host country and its citizens are to blame because they emarginate the foreigners. It's the foreigners that emarginate themselves becasue they do not want to accept the culture of the hosting country.
See...or rather listen to it here (copy & paste this link to browser)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/2009/03/000000_analysis.shtml
Alternatively:
Go to: www.bbcworldservice.com
click on programmes (second tab, top)
click on Analysis (further down, middle of the screen)
and then, if you managed to make it till here, click on 'Multi culturalism in the UK'
Happy listening...and reflections!
This particular blog is not the usual opinion piece. It is neither a defence of the Catholic faith, nor a sermon about any of its tenets. It is, in fact, a propaganda piece cleverly calling for the legislation of the criminalization of abortion, the abolition of divorce, and the denial of same-sex marriage.
Fr. Borg knows very well that nowhere in Europe will this Manifesto be accepted. However, seeing that in Malta, all the atrocities of the desired legislation are already in place, the blog is a call to retain the status quo, or in plain English, to let the tyranny of the dominant-pew reign supreme.
As if points 1 and 2 of the Manifesto weren't insulting enough to a significant sector of the Maltese public, point 7 has to include "encouraging a moderate lifestyle." This coming from Bishops living in luxury! The Bishops, must have a sense of humour after all.
Rediscover of the 'soul of Europe'. By ensuring a steady influx of people who would not recognise this soul if it were etched on their skin.
Entreating presidents of Bulgaria and Macedonia to uphold Christian values. Sounds hollow to me.
Church in Malta is silent. But Joe Borg makes up for this lack big time. Unwittingly, to the detriment of said Church.
The bishop's Catholic (not a European majority surely Joe) Manifesto. Basically an encapsulation of the above with JX's take on it.
Pointer 2 - 'to respect human life from conception to natural death' - nothing natural about the arrogant promise of an after life. By implication, no humility equals no respect for human life. Respect for life is acknowledging that you have one throw of the dice - deal with it.
There may well be other points but I only scanned the column. I suspect the bits in between would have enlightened me further. But not in the way intended by the writer.
And this in a nutshell is why people are indifferent to voting. Priests should keep out of stuff they know nothing about.
There is no point and clearly no more motivation from voters (including me) to heed your call or the past and present incumbents heading the catholic church! If anything, they are responsible for the sorry state Europe is in today. So please refrain from trying to make the issue of voting in the EP elections as something that still can have an influence on my life. If anything it can sure make an impact on the 5 or 6 hopefuls to the gravy train of Brussels!