Monday, 22nd June 2009
It's the majority, stupid
Does something become good just because many people do it or want that it be done? Is the majority the measure of all things? Is it the source of morality? Is it the final arbiter of what is good or what is bad? Does the majority decide what is the common good?
If the majority decides that anyone with a dark, or light skin for that matter, be confined to prison just because of the colour of his or her skin, will that be an action conducive to the common good? Don't we have rights that are intrinsically ours because we are humans and not because they are given to us by a majority? Is the majority answerable to nothing?
These are some of the questions that come to my mind following last week's blog on "Doing the decent thing .... Decently." The blog elicited very few comments in contrast to several of my recent blogs that made it to the top two posts of the Most Commented category. However it elicited three very interesting and challenging comments from Etienne Bonanno.
He wrote:
"I would have thought that in a democracy, the populist will is taken to be the common good by default. Otherwise who decides what the common good happens to be? The party in power? The church? The finance capitalists? Within which context should the "common good" be evaluated? Is there such a thing as a "common good"?
Failing to take the populist vote as the closest approximation possible to the "common good", how does that make such a system different from a dictatorship?"
I would like to dialogue more than discuss these points with Mr Bonanno, and with anyone else who cares to join in this search for an answer or tentative answer to the above questions. I will put forward the position of the tradition I belong to and believe in hoping that others would do the same for their own philosophical or religious tradition.
A Utilitarian approach
Those who adopt a utilitarian approach look at the common good as that which represents the greatest possible "good" for the greatest possible number of individuals. Mr Bonanno seems to belong to this school of thought. Their argument would run along these lines: Define the private interest of individual "A". Add the number of persons who would consider that as their own their private interest as well. If the number happens to be a majority, then, hey presto, one has the common good.
If the interests of that majority changes then the common good changes as well. In this perspective, the common good does not have an intrinsic grounding. It depends on the shifting will (or whim) of the majority.
Let us consider this example. Citizen "A" believes that having a slave is in his or her private interest. The numbers of citizens who share this view are a majority. Therefore, slavery is for the common good. It becomes the law of the state.
This positivist approach considers that rights can be given or denied as the majority decrees. This position is defective as it does not consider, for example, the rights of the minority who then are made slaves. The dictatorship of the majority can be as cruel and heartless as the dictatorship of the minority. The majority is not necessarily right.
Being human includes having rights
The tradition I come from takes a different perspective.
Every human being has rights because he or she is a human being. Our rights are enshrined in our nature. They are not granted by the pleasure of the majority and so they cannot be withdrawn by a different majority. If a majority decides to take away any of anybody's basic human rights the majority will probably have its way as the majority has the de facto right to enact a law. However, that law would not be for the common good as it flies in the face of basic human rights. It is an abuse of the common good.It is in the interest of the majority to respect the rights of the minority, for example.
The "good" cannot, thus, be looked at as that which is most convenient at one particular point in time to a particular majority. The "good" is what will help each one of us live to the full our humanity. The person who becomes rich by selling slaves or by using their labour is not only offending the basic and inalienable dignity of the slaves. He or she is also offending his or her own dignity. The dignity of every one of us is fully respected only when the dignity of others is also fully respected.
I cannot be fully free when others are denied their freedom. Solidarity is not a slogan but a constitutive element of our being human. The common good is, therefore, that which promotes the ultimate good of all and not that which finds the support of a particular majority at a particular point in time though it denies basic rights. Human nature more than positivistic decisions should be the locus for the search and discovery of the common good.
The Catholic position
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the common good "is to be understood as the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily. The common good concerns the life of all" (para 1906).
It then outlines three essential elements of the common good. It includes:
i. respect for the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person and for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensible for the development of the human vocation, such as the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.
ii. the social well-being and development of the group itself. Authority should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.
iii. The common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order.
Concrete problems and difficulties
There are problems and difficulties. Let me outline just a few:
i. In a pluralistic society, it is difficult to arrive at a consensus about the best way forward for people to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily. How are we to proceed in such circumstances?
ii. What are we to do with the so-called "free riders", i.e. those who take the benefits that the common good provides while refusing to do their part to support the common good?
iii. How can one promote the common good in a culture imbued with the spirit of individualism? How can one persuade people to sacrifice some of the things which guarantee their self interest for the good of others?
I have not answered all the questions I myself have put forward. The dialogue that these questions can evoke lies interestingly wide open.
RSS
Comments
Welcome back Christine. Hope you had a good break.
I am happy either way and will leave it entirely up to you. I shall be watching both blogs.
Sorry I've been away from the computer for nearly a week! Shall we carry on with this or shall I presume we've moved on to the new topic??
The Church is the ultimate arbiter. Many would see that claim as only a grab for power. Your comments to Sharon about marriage annulments are illustrative. You are only reporting the Church's position but don't you think that what you describe is a lawyers' paradise. Three wise men engaging in an endless debate about the precise meaning of certain phrases in canon law and of "consent", carefully considering precedents, until eventually they agree on whether to instruct the almighty to amend his books or not! Their decision could go either way but it is binding. No questions. No appeal. In the meantime the poor couple will rot in hell on earth. What is defective consent? Does the Church really consider there could be that many couples who do not really mean "I do" at the altar? And would a deeper pocket help?
As for the strong supporting the weak, evidently only with the intent of ensuring the convictions of the strong prevail. What if other solutions are better? Will there still be Christian brotherly love and charity forthcoming?
Looking forwards to your comments.
Next we need to define "common good". Again you do not provide a precise definition but you seem to equate this with Catholic doctrine as enbraced by the majority. Only the Church can define exceptions. Two points:
1. What about those who do not enbrace the Catholic faith and their right to freedom of worship? Your faith is important to you and you want to live accordingly. Does not the same hold for those of different creeds? What is wrong with the principle of "live and let live". Believe what you want to believe, conduct your life accordingly and let others do likewise.
2. For the sake of argument we will have you migrate to another EU country - a Protestant country like UK, Netherlands or Germany. What would your definition of "common good" then be. The majority there holds the view that the Catholic Church is repressive and retrogressive (but will not stop Catholics worshipping in their faith) and where the rights for divorce, contraception, termination, homosexuality etc have been enshrined in law for decades. Would the common good then be the values of the majority or should we switch to minority rules?
For one whose thinking is in "holiday mode" you are doing very well! I am sure you have worked very hard and deserve a break.
"everybody should be given the chance to lead a fulifilling life". Precisely. But there is a clause. We "cannot 'bend' certain parameters". Immediately this raises the issue of defining these "parameters", which you do not, though the ensuing comment suggests that what you have in mind is exploitative behaviour of egotistic individuals. That happens anyway. It is human nature. Look around you and you should have no difficulty recalling people who can be ruthless and would take advantage of any situation that arises. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the freedom to be yourself. We are talking about things the world agrees are basic rights - the right to safeguard your health, through contraception if necessary. The right to terminate a marriage or a pregnancy that threatens the health of the mother (about to be endorsed by the UN as a basic human right). The right of homosexuals to establish an intimate confiding relationship with another human being, etc.
"But what about the morality of not relieving suffering when we can?"
As I was saying, re for eg a mother whose health is endangered through pregnancy. Well its true that the Church considers artificial birth control morally illict but in such a case, the values inherent in the sexual act of the married couple would take priority, and it would seem that moral justification is given for its use, in order that the 'unitive' aspect of the marriage is not damaged.
Similar line of reasoning with a marriage that is harmful to the couple/children. The Church on many occasions has advised certain spouses to separate and live apart. Obviously it draws the line at them contracting a new union. This is because sacramental marriage is indissoluble.
And so on............ I hope I have expressed myself clearly......... now that the exams are over my thinking and writing faculties are already in 'holiday mode'!!!!!!!!!!
"But what about the morality of not relieving suffering when we can?"
Right you are....... I apologise for not having been clearer. Anzi that's what I mean..... the stronger members (who also suffer certain difficulties - but who, through their inner strength can cope better with life's challenges) should support the weaker ones (who are less capable of facing problems and difficulties)
One way of doing this is through the common good - in the sense that everybody should be given the chance to lead a fulifilling life. But we certainly cannot 'bend' certain parameters - fis sens li kulhadd jaghmel kif jaqbillu l-aqwa li jkun fulfilled (again I may be unclear, here).
Of course, each case has its own merits. You mentioned for eg a mother whose health is endangered through pregnancy......according to Church teachings (forsi ser tghid "din Church teachings biss tikkwota!!" - imma jiena fuq dawk nibbaza l-hajja tieghi. I don't do this in a 'fundamentalist' way but I weigh my options carefully before. Most of the time, I tend to concur with the reasoning behind them - it doesn't mean I expect everyone to do the same).
Absolutely. Religion can provide comfort to the faithful at times of crises and that may suffice, but quite often more practical help is required. Being in a close confiding relationship and having an open mind help a lot as does support of the right kind. Coercive support that rigidly pushes individuals into conventional wisdom can be very destructive. What works for one in one situation will not work for another or in a different kind of situation. That is why a plurality of options is necessary so that we can responsibly choose which is best at any one point in time. Tolerance is the key operative word. We may disagree with some of those options or even object to them but do we have the right to deprive others, who see things differently, from utilising those options? One can only concur with Fr Borg's comment above that "The common good is, therefore, that which promotes the ultimate good of all and not that which finds the support of a particular majority at a particular point in time though it denies basic rights".
Life is not a bed of roses but why do we have to pile up the thorns? When problems arise that need resolving, why do we have to give priority to the "common good" rather than the welfare of the individual? What is the "common good" anyway? Why does one have to conform with the expectations of the crowd that is not in his shoes and can afford to smugly sit back and philosophise? Why can't a woman whose health will be threatened by another pregnancy go on contraceptives? Why does a woman carrying a child with severe malformations, incompatible with life, have to go through 9 months of hell? Why should anyone in a destructive marriage have to remain trapped in the relationship simply to conform with the crowd's notion of some almighty plan. Why cannot someone, created a homosexual seek fulfillment in another human being's love. These are real problems faced by real people on a daily basis. The means to help these people exist. Those sitting comfortably can afford to tell the suffering they are amassing a reward for later. Easy solution. But what about the morality of not relieving suffering when we can?
I had understood prfectly fine the first time round. But thanks for having the patience and for re trying :)
@George M Sant
I too think that it is very healthy to discuss and learn from people of different viewpoints, without imposing or pontificating. I also agree with Christine that life has indeed many difficult moments, which in my opinion are not always resolved just by having faith in God. Nonetheless I find it helps:) Discussions with spouse/partner, family and good friends'support and being open to knowledge, also form a very important part of the equation.
The comment you addressed to Sharon is very very true. I share your sentiments about being able to discuss things with some of you in such a challenging way.
I just wish to add that although it's true that we are indeed blessed to have such opportunities which some other people may not have, speaking for myself, my life is not always a bed of roses. It takes a lot of courage and determination to make lemonade when, on occasion, life offers you lemons!
You are very right to state that not everyone has the necessary qualities to take charge of his life, but this is where society should take over and promote the common good, so to speak. The weaker members of the community need the support of the stronger ones in order that everybody will be able to lead the 'good' life, which is after all, part of God's plan for humanity.
Maybe I wasn't clear......... let me try again :)
A marriage is declared null if it is proved that at the time of CONSENT, there was a defect - which would mean that there was NO sacrament. I agree with you that 'a sacrament is mark for life' but in this case, it just never existed, because it was never there in the first place.
Let's take two examples:
A + B marry, their marriage develops problems - it is proved by the ecclesiastical Tribual that at the time of consent, there was a defect so in actual fact, their marriage is canonically invalid. Their marriage is declared null.
C + D marry, their marriage fails too - however evidence shows should that at the time of consent, there was no defect. Their marriage remains valid.
Have I mixed you up even more? These are the facts. I am not going into the merits of what constitutes a defective consent (I've listed some examples already below) - that's even more complicated.
Thank you for your kind feedback. I assure you nothing I say should ever be taken personal. Indeed I am deeply touched by the sincerity with which you and Christine and others talk about your perspective. I have found it illuminating even if I disagree with your view points. Our experience of life has been different. If I can say this in the nicest way possible, we have a comfortable life. We are intelligent, well educated, secure and surrounded by love. We are able and willing to question and every time we do we are that much more in control of ourselves, better able to revise our position if we have to. It is not the real world. There are thousands much less fortunate than us who lack the qualities necessary to take charge of their lives. Trapped in a bitter and unhappy situation, sometimes betrayed by those they trusted, they can only fall back on their indoctrination, compounding their conflicts, unnecessarily inhibited from taking the positive steps needed to a freer, more dignified life. Extremists do not worry me. The faithful masses who, being a majority, consider they know what is best for all, do.
A new blog on the definition of "God", from a Catholic perspective will be of much interest. Has the Catholic definition of "God" particularly over the past 100 years changed?
I'm sure that you did not consciously mean to put everyone in the same basket, (religion wise) but that is how I felt you came across. But no harm done, thanks for the clarification, no need for apologies anzi.
I think that Christianity, especially Maltese Roman Catholics are very tolerant of other religions, you can only have a look at Fr Joe's blog on Mosques, to see this for yourself, and to make a note on who was the more intolerant.
Also you have to try to refrain from comparing us (Maltese Catholics) with other religions, nameley for two reasons.
1 Since your corrispondence is with us you need not compare us to the extreme religious practices in other countries. What is being twisted there is not being twisted here. If the church has dues to pay on certain issues, it should do so, but it must not be held responsible for all the atrocities which occur in other countries especially by other religions.
2 I think that if one's aim is to make people aware of their extreme ways, one is barking up the wrong tree, if one is addressing educated Catholics in the West.
:)
Whether one likes it or not, enbracing any religion inevitably distorts reason. You have to make a leap of faith somewhere and that's where you part with objective reality. I am not saying that is necessarily wrong as far as the individual is concerned. It might be helpful in his/her pursuit of fulfillment. It could even be destructive for that individual to give up his faith. Problems arise when religious individuals start insisting they are right because they have God on their side and everyone has to bow to their proscriptions, however erroneous and destructive they might be.
I have not come across too many atheists who are not tolerant of termination. Scientific and medical evidence does not lend support to the anti-abortion movement. It is also a fact that all major health authorities world wide and most Western governments endorse termination including the Catholic governments of Italy, France, Portugal, Belgium and now Spain.
I certainly did not intend to "trade insults" and I do not think Mr Falzon did either. I honestly cannot understand where offence could have been taken. Nonetheless I am happy to apologise if I unwittingly did.
You are too correct in pointing out that religion is not the only social force that leads to oppression and conflict. Dictators and politics play their part too. However, dictators come and go and so do political movements. Religion has been a constant and unwavering cause of atrocities throughout the annals of history. It still is. I am of course talking about all religions, not just Christianity.
The comparison with the holocaust would be valid if the Germans insisted they were right in slaughtering the Jews because God told them so but would consider it wrong if somebody else's god instructed it. No the Jews have no right whatsoever to "avenge" themselves of the Germans but they did have an absolute right for compensation after the war. That has been settled. Joshua lived thousands of years before Hitler. His story is still used today to justify Jewish atrocities against the Palestinians and their ongoing sequestration of other people's land.
Thank you Christine. However I have even greater difficulty understanding this logic, and I am a Catholic! Of course not all failed marriages can be declared null that is my whole point. Also important to note that I made it very clear that I was not considering capricious examples.
If a sacrament is a mark for life, how could it never have been there for some cases, for some reason? Especially after it may have produced children? I cannot for the life of me understand this logic, honestly. If the brand was made for 'x' amount of years, how can it never have been made? I honestly think that the flaw is in the offering of annulment as a means of remarriage (second chance) for some and not others. If the 'brand' was made it remains there, like a tattoo..it can be surgically removed or removed in the old fashioned way (they used to place half a bread loaf out of an oven over it I think)..the scars heal differently, the former heals far better than the latter but the mark will always remain, indicating that there was once a tattoo.
Thanks for your good wishes.
Well, I think we were the last people there yesterday - everyone else had finished their exams LOL
Actually this post came in quite handy - one of the questions I answered was regarding the Common Good :)
BTW I agree with you 100% that this is definitely not the place to throw insults.
@Sharon Abela
What I said was “the more individuals are constrained by their religious “belief system”, the less they are willing to allow others the freedom of choice”. In all fairness this constraint can be caused by any belief system, it does not have to be religious, it can be political or social/cultural. The evidence as shown by history, is that religious belief systems seem to be more dominant, powerful and longer lasting in cultures. No insults intended, just straight facts.
I too am “sure there are atheists who do not subscribe to the termination of pregnancy as a right of choice”, they have my respect too. Your statement seems to imply that the point is being missed. The point is to allow others, minority or not, that unless they commit an illegal act, or an act that is harmful to others, free choice should be allowed, without any judgements from the rest of the community.
Regarding the Joshua experiment that George Sant mentioned, have you any doubt that if the same experiment was conducted to the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany, or an Islamic fundamentalist school in some totalitarian Islamic regime, you would not get the same chilling results?
There was nothing to stop the family they left behind from finding happiness, security and fulfillment in a second marriage either. Many do.
Take care. Focus on your exams. We shall be thinking of you.
Thanks for your good wishes :)
"There are many other separated individuals who found happiness, security and fulfillment in a second marriage that worked very well for themselves and their children".
What about the family they left behind? It may not be such a happy situation for them.
Part 2
One last thing and this is the crux: not every failed marriage can be declared null. The task of the Tribunals is to seek the truth so that justice can be emitted. Sometimes justice constitutes not only declaring a decision in favour of nullity but also in favour of validity. In case of doubt, the Tribunal always rules in favour of the marriage bond.
Regarding the priesthood, the sacrament is binding forever. The priest is given a dispensation from the priesthood, which enables him to resume a secular form of life. This means that although the church divests him from his duties as a priest, mass, confessions and the administration of sacraments, he still remains a priest.
Hope this clarifies.
Part 1
“If God's law regarding sacraments is so rigid then why can the sacrament of marriage be dissolved through annulment, and the sacrament of ordinance be revoked?”
This information came from a very reliable source. I can assure you its correct. Your argument has one fundamental flaw.
The church does not annul the sacrament of marriage. No one, not even the Pope has the authority to annul a sacrament for by its definition a sacrament is a mark for life (sacramentum derives from the Roman military when a new soldier was literally branded with a mark on his skin by way of initiation)
Where annulments are concerned the Tribunal makes 'a declaration of nullity' (annulment is the colloquial jargon)...a declaration of nullity means that the Tribunal declares that there was no sacrament IN THE FIRST PLACE due to a defect at the moment of consent....for several reasons: either lack of discretion, inability to assume the obligations of marriage, simulation, deceit, error...etc
Bear in mind is that whereas it is a everybody’s (natural) right to marry, it is not a right to have one's marriage declared null. It is a right however to seek a declaration of nullity.
I believe I have not commented on this particular tread. I am catching up with a backlog. It seems like I have not missed much. It is a burning question though.
Do you not think that you are generalizing with your comments on how religion keeps a mind underdeveloped, especially when you are discussing Western cultures? I for one refrain from throwing insults, I think you should do the same :))
Certain principles are not a matter of narrow mindedness. I'm sure there are atheists who do not subscribe to the termination of pregnancy as a right of choice.
@George M Sant
Regarding the experiment you mention...in Maltese we say 'il-kelb il mismut kull ilma jahsbu mishun'...can you imagine if that experiment had been done after the holocaust and the question was whether Jews would be justified in avenging themselves of the Germans, what the outcome would be? And that was not a religious war . That experiment could even apply to other secular disputes, and still gives you similar resutls of overwhelming difference between one version and another. You could easily appliy it to the local political parties especially during the turbulent times of the 80's. Religion is not necessarily the culprit. I think that it is a cocktail of exploited and twisted ideologies, used to manipulate followers, with a measure of ignorance/fanaticism.
Good luck with your exams.
Maturity means accepting that life is not one big holiday. Commitment calls for responsibilities which if shirked can only lead to chaos - social structure depends on family structure.
However, if married life becomes absolutely untenable, one cannot force the couples to stay together, because negative consequences which follow will hardly contribute anything good to society.
Notwithstanding, it is heartbreaking to witness so many failed marriages nowadays and I wonder if a good percentage of them could not have been saved had the mentality not become so accepting of an easy way out, whether it be annulment or divorce.
I have no doubt your comment are honest and of positive criticism. That's what we are here for - to share and to learn from one another.
You have unloaded many points - please give me some time and I will try and carry on with this discussion at a later stage. At present I'm cramming for my last Final exam!!!
@ George
I see your point 100% - I agree with some; disagree with some others. Will respond later. But ultimately even a democratic society will never be able to please all and sundry. Some stands have to be taken and I think it stands to reason that these should be taken in favour of the majority.
Quite right John. Religion offers comfort in enabling you to believe there is an all powerful being (Big Daddy) looking after you and have you believe that it has the means by which you can access Him. The price you pay is rigidity of thinking, a narrow view of the world and humanity, territoriality and intolerance. I had occasion to relate a psychological experiment carried out in Israel on another blog which I would like to reproduce here as it sheds light on what is happening here. Apologies to those already familiar with it:
Eight year old primary school children were asked what they thought of the story of Joshua. Most considered Joshua was justified to slaughter all the men, women and children (and their beasts too!) so as to avoid contamination of his race. Some time later they were read an identical story but placed in modern times and about a modern non-Jewish leader. Even more children insisted that leader stood condemned. Chilling isn't it. That is what religion does. What hope for peaceful coexistence with Palestinians when those children grow up? What hope of Christians accepting and supporting divorcees, homosexuals, etc.?
For the last time, I did not amend a single word. Those two quotes are from two different comments. I copied and pasted.
The full paragraph was:
"I trust you are not suggesting that individuals can only engage in activities that the larger community considers are to its benefits? Democracy has nothing to do with the dictates of the majority. It is about every single individual having an equal voice and equal rights to behave and think as they please so long as they do not injure the community. Note - injure not affront especially if affront arises out of warped and outdated mores."
Now feel free to use your browsers search function to verify if you want, but I consider this pretty much closed and won't comment further on it.
I do not think that any amount of hostility between commentors (from either side) is a healthy environment for a positive critical debate :)
Both parties are headstrong, so let us be mature about it and accept eachother for what we are, otherwise might as well move to other pastures.
:)
You are absolutely right in saying “The point remains that in a democratic society each individual should be free to forge his own destiny and not be a slave of the majority.”
Precisely that has always been the point of contention. If one is pro-choice, one is labelled pro-abortion, if you stand up for the Muslim minority you are a Muslim or anti-Christian, if one is willing to support a law that allows divorce, it is as if you are incapable of understanding the consequences of such a law. There are negatives and positives with all the above issues, however the right of the individual to “forge his own destiny” should never be denied.
I will stick neck out and go one further, the more individuals are constrained by their religious ”belief system” the less they are willing to allow others the freedom of choice.
I am copying and pasting for your convenience Mr George M Sants's sentence from which you have excised the word "physically". You must have back tracked some eleven whole pages to "mine quote" it because it was posted presisely two days and six hours ago! His attempt to distinguish between "physical" injury (prohibited) and moral injury (allowed) is obvious.
"Morality should consider everyone free to think and act as they please so long as they do not physically injure (not affront mistaken sensibilities) society".
2
NB I am not discussing marriages which fail due to capricious reasons.
Perhaps it is a mistake to think that people who choose to remain single do so out of choice. Does a mother/father who remain single after separation give more love to their children than those happy in a new relationship? I do not think so. I do believe that many are committed to the Catholic faith and thus abide by its rules/laws. Again for the latter divorce will not make a difference, even if they are very unhappy because they see a reward in the sacrifice. But for those who have found that a new 'physical' love overrides their faithfulness to the Catholic faith, albeit they too were part of the latter, divorce may be a solution, especially if there are children from the new relationship.
If God's law regarding sacraments is so rigid then why can the sacrament of marriage be dissolved through annulment, and the sacrament of ordinance be revoked?
How does the moral underlying the 'common good' vary between separation, annulment divesting of priesthood and divorce?
Unfaithfulness is unwise and quite often ends up in 3 people getting hurt. Not uncommonly however, it is a symptom of serious problems within a marriage, though not always.
When a marriage has ended and a couple separated, why is it that the individuals cannot or should not seek happiness and fullfillment in another relationship? No doubt many separated people "bravely forged a new life for themselves...without taking on another partner". But are we not judging by appearances and jumping to conclusions? How did they feel about their lives? A failure? Sad? Frustrated? Lonely? Is it not indeed sad if such individuals longed for happiness and companionship but were trapped in a life of loneliness by convention and erroneous mores.
There are many other separated individuals who found happiness, security and fulfillment in a second marriage that worked very well for themselves and their children. The point remains that in a democratic society each individual should be free to forge his own destiny not be a slave to the whims of the majority.
1
My comment is an honest one and of positive criticism so that we are clear :)
My point is that the 'common good' varies according to time frame and context. let me give an example. Until recently the 'common good' was that teenage girls who became pregnant were hurried up the altar so as to hide the 'sin' and start a family. For some (especially the older generation) it worked and are happily married. More recently this practice was stopped because everyone realized that two wrongs do not make a right. So the common good of teenage girls changed from marrying to hide the 'sin' to becoming single mothers at the expense of exposing their 'sin' but at the same time giving themselves a better chance for future happiness, and making the right choice in marriage which could be, not necessarily with their child's biological father. As Jessica said for those who are indeed either solidly married, or solidly Catholic, divorce will not make a difference even if it had an offer of a cruise around the world with it. But for those who do not subscribe to these examples divorce is a second chance for happiness.
cont...
Thank you for your support. Fortunately the vast majority of contributors are intelligent able to check the facts for themselves and form their own opinion as to where honesty, integrity and substance lie. I suspect the rest are best ignored. Rational argument will not persuade them and they thrive on the attention. As Euripides put it "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish".
On with the main job of debating majority rules!
Thank you for pointing us to Mr Fsadni's article. Yes there is a price attached to divorce, financial and emotional. In an ideal world all couples would continue to enjoy bliss for ever and ever. Unfortunately that is a fairy tale. With the best of will and intentions, relationships do break down irretrievably.
A rising divorce rate can hardly be blamed on the legalisation of divorce many decades earlier. Much more likely it reflects current deteriorating social and economic circumstances in that particular country increasing stress on relationships.
Yes, a whole new level of sophistication and infrastructure will be needed. From educating couples into the potential difficulties they may face at various stages of their married life, making available professional help for dysfunctional relationships and the provision of support for ailing families. What is not helpful is stigma and social pressure for a couple to remain together no matter what the personal cost. No, nothing man made is perfect. New problems will arise. That is not a reason to not correct an unjust situation. Problems after all are mere challenges that can lead to further growth.
You are absolutely right in pointing out there is a cost to divorce, financial and emotional. The cost of being trapped in an unhappy and destructive relationship can be even higher. Imagine a relationship characterised by bitterness and hostility between the parents, with the children inevitably getting caught between the two and used as pawns in their quarrel with one another. It is possibly the most destructive experience for children, perhaps second only to actual physical and sexual abuse. Quite often children are left with numerous personality problems and go on to have serious relationship problems in their own right. On the other hand children cope reasonably well with divorce and do not usually inherit such legacies. Divorce is a single event. It is finite; you can get over it and adjust to a new lifestyle, painful as it may be at the time. Being trapped in a destructive and often abusive relationship is a life sentence.
What are you on about? I copied and pasted the quote out of Mr. Sant's post. I'm looking at it again and it's identical. Perhaps you are mixing up the quotes.
Don't even try to turn this around on me, I haven't made up a single thing and I'm not the one mining for quotes.
Unbelievable.
The chronoligical order in which Sant used the words "creed" and "morality" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that IT IS YOU who are "quote mining" because one has to scroll downwards for eleven pages before digging out your quotation. It is you who are "altering facts" because IT IS YOU who clipped out the adjective "physical" from his comment where he tried to make a distinction between "physical" and moral violence.
@ Dr Francis Saliba
A typical Dr Saliba slippery reply, one simple legitimate question doctor:
What does “God” mean? Define “God”. What does “God” mean for you?
You advised me to look up “a Catholic Catechism book”, and when I do and seek your help, or indeed anyone’s for a simple explanation, you back down. We are talking about a template for a god for the two billion Christians out there. The “an old man in a white beard” was only one extreme, which you choose to use to slip out of another corner, in fact you did not to refer to the other extreme “white light that emits love and warmth”.
God is everything that isn’t and isn’t everything that is! How can two billion Christians be satisfied with an answer like that? The New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia’s definition of “God” sounds like an episode from “Yes Minister”, where the answer keeps chasing its own tail.
I suppose you are right doctor, it is all a matter of faith (does not have to be blind, deaf will do), and the more faith you have the more virtuous you are.
It also put pressure on married life since the couple did not find enough time for each other. In actual fact they spent more number of hours in the company of colleagues rather than with their spouses. Such a situation is bound to create marital problems and eventual separation.
So is divorce a solution? To my way of thinking, separated couples are now favouring a relationship with very loose commitment: They are predisposed to enter into a relationship and “hang” there until something “better” comes along - a marriage gone wrong is not conducive to the re-entering into another binding commitment. For such a new life-style divorce is not going to change anything. This does not mean that there are not others who genuinely would like to remarry and have a family. In that case it would be advantageous for them – Hence, for those who are in a stable marriage, and those who are cohabiting with no intention of getting married, whether we have divorce or not is not going to make a difference. But for those who are in an unhappy marriage and want to remarry and have a family, divorce is the solution.
As an “ideal” marriage for life is the common good, but the way society has changed since the economic development and industrialization, it is debatable whether a marriage can withstand the pressure exerted on it as a result of the so called progress.
It comes as no surprise that the mentality has changed to one that is concerned primarily with the individual. A higher standard of living led to consumerism. New demands were continually created and the fact that women were now joining the work force made it possible to meet these targets.
Newly married couples (both working) were increasingly drawn to buying their own house which inevitably put financial pressure on them and constrained them to postpone having a family. This led to change in values as regards human procreation by accepting abortion and the use of artificial contraception.
Continued…
Re 1 - I cannot agree with you more regarding your comment about infidelity. But dont you think that legalizing divorce is kind-of encouraging infidelity towards one's original family. And I say 'family' because as you rightly stated, in such cases, it is not only the spouse who suffers but also the children. So yes, certainly infidelity is a grave lack of moral duty which does great injury.
Re 2 - Granted there are some extremely difficult situations in which the couple have no option but to separate and live apart. But that does not necessarily mean that either of them or both, have to contract a new union with another partner, does it? I know many separated people who have bravely forged a new life for themselves (and with their children) without taking on another partner.
To your last question I sincerely dont believe that divorce can ever be for the 'common good'. For some yes, but I don't think for the majority.
“Quote mining” and “taking some very strong liberties with the written word” is what you are doing, not I, - and I will prove it to you.
I had quoted the most recent of George M Sant’s comments and I quoted it exactly - check it out. One has to scroll eleven pages down To dig out and mine your quotation one has to scroll down eleven whole pages only to discover that you had taken the liberty of omitting the word “physically” from his original “physically injure”. Your deliberate alteration is significant because it masks the fact that Sant was making an artificial distinction between "physical" and "moral" violence.
YOU are trying to "make up facts" and you are retouching the written comments. I substantiate what I write. Try it sometimes!
1. It is perhaps unjust for the happily married to say that the present situation is providing a realistic account of what the people understand by common good. Unfortunately some are not as lucky. Infidelity is not criminal behavious in the same manner as murder/stealing etc, but still a grave lack of moral duty towards the spouse and children.
2. For some it is too late but for future marriages, guidence in both a secular as well as in a religious manner can emphasise that marriage dissolution, be it civil or before God, brings about more disadvantages than advantages. Many have realized this and it worked. Others cohabit within an 'apparently married' union, and opt to stay because it does not make financial sense to separate.
But the question is...is the above result demonstrating 'common good'?Catholic or secular?
Are the couples 'wearing masks' experiencing 'common good'?
Will divorce, provide a situation of 'common good'?
You are completely making up the facts now. What I quoted in my last post was what he originally said, your quote was the latter. You are quote mining and is making a very crude attempt at character assasination. So yes, you are definitely taking some very strong liberties with the written word.
C. Grech:
I can't believe we are down this road again. What your God is saying, another God contradicts. Your God's law is not my law and don't pretend it to be.
Do not blame me if someone first writes "whichever mode of morality they choose" and later feel obliged to change their wording and substitute "creed". That is something totally different because a sense of morality can exist in the total absence of any religious creed. I am not the type of person to take liberties with the written word used by other commentators. I assume that they write what they mean and that they mean what they write.
There is such a thing as a Bill of Divorcement. The Greeks/Hebrews call it "put away" and has the same meaning.
Read Deuteronomy 24: 1-3
Wisdom 25:26
Jeremiah 3:8
Matthew 5:31-32
Mark 10:1-12
Koran Sura 2:229
There you are, it exists in the Old and New Testaments and also in the Koran!
There are some rules and regulations, and it should not be taken lightly, either. These are God's rules. Why not adopt them?
I find it so ridiculous that the Church has its own divorce proceedings, called annulments, when God Himself, made things so much more simpler. Humans always seem to complicate matters greatly.
It is NOT my opinion, but God's, as stated in the Scriptures.
I've read all your comments and I appreciate that everyone has a different opinion on this matter. I was merely reflecting mine.
For those skeptics who still believe legalizing divorce is the better option, read Ranier Fsadni's article on today's Times http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090625/opinion/divorce-beyond-the-soundbites
I think a doctor should be able to behave above such childish games and pettiful quotemining. It's incredibly dishonest.
If you actually read what Mr. Sant said in it's completeness, rather than picking out a single meaning and trying to make a point, you would actually be able to engage in a fair levelled conversation.
Just reading what Mr. Sant said previously is enough to see how disingenious and dishonest your comment were:
"[Democracy] is about every single individual having an equal voice and equal rights to behave and think as they please so long as they do not injure the community."
I have no time to waste on someone who entertains the silly notion that God is “an old man in a beard in Heaven, knowing what each one and everyone of us is up to” and “A God that is willing to punish the prostitutes (but not the paedophile priest), divorcees, abortionists and the gay community”
After you acquire a genuine desire to seek God I would advise you not to jump in at the deep end of the pool if you are so susceptible to vertigo.
As usual you have not bothered to read the whole posting. The discussion was about the oppression of basic human rights through a preference of one religious code of morality over another. It was not about anti-social behaviour.
Yes the state does have an obligation to ensure the freedom of all, to conduct their lives according to their creeds. As it does to protect society from intolerant and blinkered bigots intent on imposing their will on humanity in their narcissistic pursuit of power and domination. Many would regard that as anti-social.
Deuteronomy 17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the "I AM" his God, to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes, to DO them:
17:20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn NOT aside from the Commandment (The Covenant), [to] the right hand (right-wing politics), or [to] the left (left-wing politics): to the end that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
Many people can see the Democracy (demon-crazy) Deception and refuse to vote, so the wily politicians made-up special rules to allow themselves to rule using only a majority of the votes, even when the number of people who vote is only a minority of the population. How can that possibly be conceived to be the rule of the majority? Of course it is not the rule of the majority; it is a confidence-trick.
Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the "I AM" thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the "I AM" thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger (a Gentile) over thee, which [is] not thy brother.
17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt (slavery - employment under man-made laws), to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the "I AM" hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites (TheTorah):
The politicians would have us all believe that this is the will of the majority. That is the politician's idea of what they call democracy.
When did the 95% of people, the overwhelming majority, ever vote for the right for themselves to be poor and vote for the tiny 5% minority to possess their own (the poor people's) share of the nation's wealth, that the poor majority's ancestors have fought and died to protect?
The Ruler of the Universe has prohibited democracy because He knew that the rich would use it and other means to deceive and rip everyone else off; keep the majority down and poor; just as He wrote, via His Prophets in The Bible.
He gave the world, via Moses, the perfect system of government, under which there is no poverty; no poor people and consequently no need to resort to crime to survive.
He prohibited the writing of laws and economic policies by humans, in order to protect the majority from abuse, and oppression created under the home-made laws of the rich and powerful.
(Continued)
Democracy, which has become the Cure-all Mantra, quoted incessantly by all western politicians, is a LIE and a confidence-trick, that they and their puppet-masters are now trying to deceive the rest of the world with, and are using their economic and/or military-muscle and means to force other nations to adopt, so that their puppet-masters can use the politicians to help them to rip-off all the other nations too, just as they have done already to the vast majority of their own citizens.
It is very simple to see that democracy is a lie and a confidence-trick. All you have to do is analyse what it is supposed to be and then compare that definition to the reality.
Democracy is supposed to be the rule of the majority. Government of the majority of the people, for the majority of the people, by the majority of the people.
Let us now compare the smooth deceptive definition, to stark reality.
In the western world approximately 95% of the wealth is possessed by approximately 5% of the people. (continued)
I am only a layman doctor, and my head is spinning, can you please translate, in a nutshell, in simple English for simple people like myself, what the above spin mean?
Does it mean that God is everything that isn’t and isn’t everything that is? Now that really makes a lot of sense, and covers all possibilities.
Doctor, I however went one further, as somehow I knew you would not have a direct answer to my simple question, I have taken the liberty of asking ten Christians for their definition of God. The extreme answers varied from “an old man in a white beard sitting on a golden throne in heaven, judging who goes to hell and who goes to the kingdom of heaven” to the other extreme of “ God is a white light that emits love and warmth”.
Should I stick to the head-spinning Catechistical version? Are Catholics meant to know the above nonsensical definition of God?
I took your advice doctor, I looked up The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, here is the definition of God:
"God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. Physical or real composition is either substantial or accidental -- substantial, if the being in question consists of two or more substantial principles, forming parts of a composite whole, as man for example, consists of body and soul; accidental, if the being in question, although simple in its substance (as is the human soul), is capable of possessing accidental perfections (like the actual thoughts and volition of man's soul) not necessarily identical with its substance. Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts -- a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God".
Pause for a moment and digest carefully the following pearl of wisdom addressed to you:
“It (the state) has a responsibility to ensure everyone is free to seek and find fulfillment and to abide by whichever code of morality they choose”.
Conscientiously put into practice this means that government should legislate to empower the robber to rob and the murderer to kill.
Please note that I said “digest carefully” not “swallow blindly”!
@ Charles J Buttigieg
Irrespective of what the topic is, it always comes down to the imposition of one's beliefs on to others. Why do people that follow a religion, any religion not just Catholicism, insist on controlling the lives of others and deprive individuals of choices? The state should be protecting the rights of the minorities by legislations that do precisely that. That is what we are supposed to do if we want to call ourselves a first world country, otherwise we might as well live in totalitarian Islamic state.
"I am also a believer in the indissolubility of marriage. I also agree that no one has a right to impose his beliefs on others. But in the case of the State, I believe that it has a duty to shape its citizens with respect to morality."
I too strongly share this view, but nothing is stopping citizens to do otherwise (due to different circumstances), the result being, many 'irregular' family units and children with legitimacy issues. So in this case which is the common good?
You say "If the State doesn't protect the family by legislating if its favour, then who will?"
I think that the citizens themselves have to be taught to realize that the family unit is their responsibility to nurture and sustain. If the state wants to share the same view of the church's teaching regarding the dissolution of marriage, it should manifest its importance through non-religious teaching prior to marriage.
For many a civil marriage may be more convenient (easier dissolved ?), however a church wedding has very romantic connotations and is still highly saught. Sadly some do not fully realize that the latter is a tie before God, and carries deeper moral responsibilities.
"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned". The problem is which religion? You agree that civil law should be distinct and separate from ecclesiastical law. But then you opine that Christian morals are absolute. And what about those who do not belong to that faith? Why should they not have any rights under civil law?
Rest assured that the "sad situations" I quoted exist by the thousand the world over. They have no option but to suffer in silence, with no voice and no hope of ever getting out of the hell life threw them in. They forcefully illustrate a principle, not "individual cases". And how are we to define what is "dignified". Some may consider a homosexual act as undignified. Others may consider the oppression of homosexuals by pious Christians, preventing them from finding fulfillment in another's love, as a violation of human dignity. The state has no right to shape anyone in any direction at all. It has a responsibility to ensure everyone is free to seek and find fulfillment and to abide by whichever code of morality they choose.
You do not need my help. You need a Catholic Cathecism book.
By not including divorce in legislation the State is not saving or helping couples. It is only stopping people from being united in a happier relationship. It surely does not help in stopping physical and/or verbal abuse, love affairs, alienation and any other situations that may undermine a marriage.
By not including divorce in legislation, the State is also providing grounds for discrimination, as those who can will divorce abroad, whereas others who can't will have to endure their situation.
"I am a believer in that the sacrament of marriage has no ‘sell by date’, but I do not have a divine right to impose my belief on others. The Maltese and the Philippines Governments are giving that right to themselves and the majorities are lauding them."
I am also a believer in the indissolubility of marriage. I also agree that no one has a right to impose his beliefs on others. But in the case of the State, I believe that it has a duty to shape its citizens with respect to morality. It must legislate in favour of what is morally correct. I don't think it's a question of 'pleasing' either the majority or the minority.
Aristotelean ethics state that the family is not only defined by the law, but also is empowered and in many ways supported and reinforced by law. If the State doesn't protect the family by legislating if its favour, then who will?
For the sake of establishing the existence of God, what would be your definition of “God”?
This is a very legitimate question, one needs to know what you are really trying to prove, for the sake of all other contributors on both sides of the argument. Is your definition of God, similar to the definition of God by all other two billion Christians? Perhaps since they all follow the same God of Abraham, is it like the other three billion people?
Surely, at least in the Catholic religion there has to be a united front with One Definition of the One God?
My advice to err on the side of prudence regarding the existence of God could only have been addressed to atheists (whether atheists of convenience or the genuine article) and not to myself ,or others like me, who need neither carrot nor stick to believe in God.
Of course I know that Nietzsche was claiming that the belief in God was dead. What is the point you are driving at, exactly? That God really existed but only the belief in him was dead? Or that both the reality of his existence and the belief in him were both dead? In both instances he was palpably wrong because today, a century later, the controversy about the existence of God is still very much alive and far from being dead.
Look who is playing with words!
@ Christine Galea
I fail to understand why you directed your comment to me. Did I say that rights do not have their attendant responsibility, but does the right, in real terms, honour the presupposition of the duty towards the rights of the minority? Tell me Christine why are the poor-unhappily married and separated Maltese and Philippino couples deprived from their right to seek new matrimonial bliss and the affluent enjoy that right? Why are some of our parliamentarians shirking-off their responsibility and insisting for a popular choice by referendum? Isn’t the Maltese majority, which has the right to live by the teachings of the church, suppressing the right of the minority which has a different outlook on moral standards?
I am a believer in that the sacrament of marriage has no ‘sell by date’, but I do not have a divine right to impose my belief on others. The Maltese and the Philippines Governments are giving that right to themselves and the majorities are lauding them.
Of course, not everyone is of the Catholic faith – so natural morality can also be guided by civil law, but not everything that is legal is morally right: eg the legality of abortion does not mean that it is morally right.
You bring some very sad situations as examples and no one can refute their seriousness but each has to be considered on its own merits I think. They cannot be thrown into one basket. All being considered maybe the underlining principle here should be that anything which violates human dignity is wrong.
"Whose morality?”
Well, to begin with, moral law is knowable to reason. We judge the morality of an act by asking three questions:
- Is the action good or evil in itself?
- What is our intention in choosing it?
- What will be the consequences of the action?
As humans, we are each responsible for our actions because God gave us intellect and free will. So, as free human beings, we cannot regard moral life simply as obedience to rules that limit our human freedom of choice. But although we are free, our choices must reflect a right ordering with a view to perfect our rational nature.
Now the relationship of natural morality to religion has long been debated; indeed philosophy maintains that right moral action is entirely independent of religion. However for those of us in the Christian faith, the two are essentially connected, so as a necessary consequence we follow Church teachings as to the nature of morality.
How about theocracy? Is that not the best way forward? All men are equal in front of God, and in the appropriate God's laws on earth?
There are no laws for the poor and laws for the rich.
What does the majority usually do in today's society? Do they not try to impose the party system of thier choice into thier view of things, and that might hurt some minority groups?
When nazism and facism ruled Germany and Italy respectively, they were perhaps the larger parties, but perhaps not the absolute majority. Later on, with prop-a-ganda, these nations thought that only dictatorships were making sense, but later to thier own dismay, they felt conned.
Some quotes that might make you ponder:
"One man with courage makes a majority." Andrew Jackson
In 1952 Joe Stalin stated in a speech -
We will never have to fight a Democratic society.
We will not have to fire a single shot nor shed a drop of blood.
All we have to do is infiltrate and control their labor unions,
their educational systems and make them
spend themselves into destruction!
"Law is often the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."-- Thomas Jefferson 1819
"It may well be that the greatest tragedy of this period of social change is not the glaring noisiness of the so-called bad people, but the silence of the so-called good people."--Martin Luther King. Jr.
The good doctor knows very well Nietzsche was only refering to the “belief of a god” that is dead. On the other hand, the genuine Atheist knows very well that either people with vested interest are keen to keep God alive or people like Dr Saliba, who in his own words choose to “Any prudent person would err on the side of caution.” That is, believing in a God, just in case there is one, like some kind of insurance policy or a two-way bet.
Whose moral law? How do we define "human dignity"? What about the morality of imposing one's moral beliefs on all and sundry even when they are patently wrong and oppressive, out of keeping with the rest of the world? What about the indignity of ostracising those whom God created differently oppressing them into considering themselves unequal and barring them from finding fulfillment in an intimate relationship with another human being? What about the morality of sending an 11 year old girl to her death after suffering years of humiliation and abuse which left her pregnant, a pregnancy her body is unable to cope with. What about the morality of a bishop standing at the altar invoking the authority of God and a civil law that gives his organisation preferential status, to protect those close to him from prosecution? What about the morality of seeing children's lives destroyed through growing up in a pathological family where the parents hate each other but are trapped together by "morality". Morality should consider everyone free to think and act as they please so long as they do not physically injure (not affront mistaken sensibilities) society.
Call it a utilitarian approach if you choose to, as long as the approach is practical, useful, functional and sensible, it allows individuals to choose their religion, their sexual orientation, their right to abort, their right to divorce etc. Part of the “common good” is respecting other people’s choices.
The opinion of the majority is constantly evolving, what is considered wrong today could be seen as right tomorrow. What is important and non-negotiable is the respect of the majority for the minority.
4. Shouldn't rights be linked inextricably to obligations? One fundamental human right is the right to food, but can I expect to knock at any door and be fed if I refuse to work for my food?
Notwithstanding all the talk about fundamental human rights, however, still I have not seen an answer to my previous questions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as is any other piece of legal legislation is open to interpretation. Besides, the "common good" does not equate simply to the observance of fundamental human rights. Again, I ask, who decides what constitutes the common good?
One last point. I have been very careful in my previous comments NOT to imply that I subscribe to the populist vote "ad ogni costo". I have been attempting to play the "devil's advocate" so to speak. In fact I do believe that certain principles should be beyond the reach of the populist vote. The introduction of divorce, I definitely do not believe should be one of them.
3. That brings me to my own question - if the enforcement of fundamental human rights impinge on the ability of a society to survive are they still the "common good"? Is it possible that in some situations upholding one group's rights leads to the trampling of another's? In that case, shouldn't action be taken to find another solution that does not trample either, but upholds both? Are the fundamental rights of the majority any less important than those of a minority? ...
Hmm. Interesting how you go from discussing divorce in your previous blog to racism and ultimately to slavery as if to imply that divorce = slavery in some way. Apart from that, a couple of points...
1. Although based on a foudation of philosphical thought encompassing centuries, fundamental human rights legislation is just that - legal legislation set up after WWII and ultimately the result of a democratic process - hence our rights *are* in fact granted by a majority. In addition to that, in order to have any meaning beyond the paper they are written on they require a legal and enforcement framework. Lacking that, man has about as many fundamental rights as does any monkey living in the jungle canopy.
2. You equate slavery with a racist state. That is not necessarily correct. I should have first asked you what you had in mind when you mentioned a "racist state" in your previous comments. If you want to discuss slavery in the context of the "common good" you should first link your discussion to a particular time period where slavery was practiced...
I trust you are not suggesting that individuals can only engage in activities that the larger community considers are to its benefits? Democracy has nothing to do with the dictates of the majority. It is about every single individual having an equal voice and equal rights to behave and think as they please so long as they do not injure the community. Note - injure not affront especially if affront arises out of warped and outdated mores.
Two consenting adults have a right to engage in a homosexual act behind closed doors. A pregnant woman with her health threatened has every right to terminate her pregnancy in order to protect her health. A couple whose marriage has broken down irretrievably and has become destructive to the couple and to their children, not only have a right to end the relationship, but a duty. And an equal right to then look for happiness, security and fulfillment elsewhere. Muslims in a catholic country have a right to have a place of worship. And in each case the community has the responsibility to ensure the freedom of the individual to exercise his rights, don't you think?
"We can all reach for our individual goal, within the frameworks of society and the respect of others".
Of course we can: in fact for French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain, the common good is the shared good life of a community of free human persons. He said that it was possible to achieve a balance between community which has its own shared good life and its individual members, who are free to take their own decisions and fulfill their own wishes and expectations.
But isn't there a difference between 'individualism' understood as 'being an individual' and 'individualism' as meaning 'the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism'? I understood Fr Joe as meaning the latter.
"The majority is not always right but it still rules and many times suppresses the rights of the minority groups and this happens in Malta probably more than the rest of the free world. Typical any legislation which impinges the Catholic religion"
One cannot simply speak of rights, but also of duties and responsibilities. This is because every right presupposes a duty towards the right of others.
The majority is not always right but it still rules and many times suppresses the rights of the minority groups and this happens in Malta probably more than the rest of the free world. Typical any legislation which impinges the Catholic religion.
Some quick notes on your final problems and difficulties, of which you put a little too much concern on.
1. Pluralistic societies work as long as individual rights are respected. It is when ideological injunctions are imposed on people of differing opinion we have a problem. By respecting all beliefs, while still allowing free discussion, criticism and debate, individual rights will be catered for.
2. You will never eliminate those, but they can be minimised through control mechanics in relation to aid, social welfare and similar systems, combined with moral and ethical teachings.
3. Why is indivudualism in conflict with the common good? We can all reach for our individual goal, within the frameworks of society and the respect of others. Whether you are a priest such as yourself, or an atheist such as I, we can still enjoy the same rights and benefits.
Also, being an atheist doesn't stop me from strongly agreeing with the three essentials of common good of the catechism, as described by you.
And no, majority opinion does not make things right.
“…can we say that the will of the majority constitutes the common good in a democracy? If a vast majority decides in favour of a racist state will that be for the common good? Since racism is bad will it become good just because many people want it?
He could have also give examples in tolerating acts of marriage rape and laws against homosexuals in the recent past. The general aptitude and changes within our law upon such subject, had been introduced in Malta quite recently, most probably because of the will of the majority in a democracy and certainly not because of the involvement from any religious institution or their members.