Wednesday, 29th July 2009
What's worse? What's better?
On Monday 27, Prime Minister Gonzi meet members of the Today Public Policy Think Tank who presented him with two of "their" reports. The first report - For Better. For Worse. Remarriage after Legal Separation - has been in the public domain since last May. The other report, which was still unpublished, is about the affordability of Malta's social security system.
Probably the Prime Minister will soon have a visit from Progett Impenn which will present their own report. Progett Impenn is made up of Caritas Malta, the Diocesan Family Commission and the Cana Movement. This report is called For Worse not for Better.
Not a right
There are some slight differences between these two reports. One is for the introduction of divorce, one is against it, for example. A lead author signs the Think Tank's report while the other members of the Tank sort of sat on the fence. We don't know whether they are in favour or not of the introduction of divorce.
We just know that they think that the report is made of good stuff that is worthy of discussion, or something to that effect. The report of the Progett Impenn has a clearer paternity and maternity since both ladies and gentlemen compose the pool of writers.
The three organisation that make up the Progett adopted it as their own. We were also told that besides a main drafter the compilation of the report was enhanced by the contribution of others, all of whom agree with its contents.
There is a very important similarity between the two documents. None considers divorce as a basic right. There arguments in favour or against its legalisation are based on their respective analysis of the state of the family in Malta. This differentiates these reports from, for example, the position taken by Dr Joseph Muscat, leader of the Partit Laburista.
Dr Muscat had publicly stated that divorce is a right. He is so convinced that he told The Sunday Times (August 3, 2008) that we do not need a discussion on whether or not divorce should be introduced in Malta but rather a discussion about the type of legislation that should be enacted.
He also showed his readiness to present a Private Members Bill in Parliament if the Prime Minister commits himself to give a free vote to his MPs. I think that if someone believes something to be a right he/she should constantly and consistently try to get it legalised and not wait for someone else to do something about it.
The beef? What beef?
Back to the Think Tank and the Progett.
In my column in The Sunday Times (240509) I strongly criticised the Think Tank's report.
"As I always do when I receive reports of this kind, I immediately go to the page giving the bibliography and the references. I was shocked. How could the report of such a prestigious institute include such an amateurish reference list? The list refers, for example, to "Emery: ‘Inter-personal Conflict and the Children of discord and Divorce'." What is this?
Is this an article taken from the News of the World, an academic paper, a book, an opinion piece downloaded from the Internet, an entry in Wikipedia? ... I browsed through the report and I could notice statements of utmost importance peppering different pages; but not one of them was supported by a reference to a source."
The lead author of the Think Tank's report said that my writings show that I was either intellectually bankrupt or intellectually lazy. He said that I should commented on the report's beef (so to speak) not about its methodology.
The report of Progett Impenn does just that. Let me give you a medium rare taste of what Progett Impenn is stating about the other report:
i. The Think Tank Report got its statistics wrong in quite a number of instances. These are some of the mistakes which Progett Impenn say the others committed:
- inflated number of those who had their marriage declared null by the Ecclesiatical Tribunal;
- wrong number of separated couples between 2006 and 2008
- couples are identified as individuals;
- percentage rise in marriage breakdown is mistakenly calculated;
- confusion between separation, declaration of nullity and divorce;
- according to the report many of those who are separated, cohabit and have children when less than one fifth do so.
ii. Another grave mistake is that the Report states that children of a cohabiting couple "have no legitimacy".
iii. Although the author insists that he is impartial, he penned a report having 20 pages are in favour of divorce and two are positive about marriage.
iv. The Report says that divorce legislation does not cause more marriage breakdown without bothering to substantiate this claim. On the other hand a very recent study (referred to in the bibliography list of the Report) carried in 18 European countries concludes that the introduction of divorce legislation caused a 20 per cent increase in marriage breakdown.
It seems that there is not a lot of beep in the Think Tank report!
Way forward
According to the report of the Think Tank or the majority or minority of its members who support it the way forward is the legalisation of divorce.
According to the report of Progett Impenn the way forward is the strengthening of family ties. They proposed:
- The setting up of an Inter-Ministerial Committee to plan and execute a holistic strategy in favour of marriage and family;
- Marriage and family courses included as part of the curriculum at every level of education;
- A strengthened National Family Commission to propose and monitor legislation, administrative decisions, curricula and media productions which promote the family based on marriage and
- Family-friendly housing policy especially for low-income couples wishing to get married.
Although these seems to be a chasm between the two groups I am sure that both have the good of the family at heart and that both believe that the institution of marriage should be strengthened. They differ on the way forward; and this is by no means a minor difference.
What do you think is the way forward?
RSS
Comments
I understand your concern. I could only understood the Commandments better when praying to Father for His guidance, and this took a number of years. When someone does something for years (perhaps after the Nicean creed), it is difficult, to unlearn it.
We think that the host is the body of Christ, but it is not. This is one of Satan's greatest deceptions, and in this regard, he is so good. Ever noticed that the host has IHS written on it? Is this to honour Isis, Horus, and Seth, Egyptian Sun gods? No wonder the church "chose" SUN-day to worship, and have Christmas Day, as the ancient SUN-god worship feast. I look at what the church DOES not SAYS.
@ Arthur Soler
We are in this world, as a prison, the choice was ours, by chosing Satan or his word. We have rules to follow, and the Bible are those rules. We can disobey them, and face the consequences, or to obey them and be blessed. After all man made the wars, and God allowed it to happen, so as to learn lessons, sometimes the very hard way, as part of our spiritual training.
You state that..."Christ is very clear now on this. We should also abide by the Old Testament, but as well as The New.' Well. if one reads the Old Testament carefully and thoroughly, one would surely conclude that it is a most violent "holy" book, if not the most violent. In it one finds a substantial number of examples of murder, genocide, slavery and oppression of women, all sanctioned by God.. If you doubt my word, I will be happy to forward you the specific references by chapter and verse. For a start however, try [Leviticus, chapter 20] and [Exodus, chapter 21] and [1 Timothy, chapter 2] and let me know what you think.
The God of the Old Testament was not a nice guy...and that is putting it mildly.The Old Testament is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
Thinking that the altar is a representation of God, or not is the question. God is everywhere, and hence, humans want to do things thier own way. I cannot understand why you say that you do not bow, when the priest lifts up the host, you bow down or knell. In Mass you knell down quite a few times actually.
I agree that Christ came to redeem us, but that is to give us a second chance. (Actually God gave us many more chances, but we continue to disobey)
@ Sharon Abela.
The definition of diocese of the Catholics is one thing, but God sends us messages enbedded within the word, to state otherwise, like a pun!
See http://jahtruth.net/defin.htm to understand why I wrote that.
As to why we should also abide by the Old Testament, see what John wrote for us:
(In Christ's own words):
5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Christ is very clear now on this. We should also abide by the Old Testament, but as well as The New.
You state that..."Man could not redeem itself. Only God could redeem mankind so God sent His son the second person of the Godhead to become man. Through the passion and crucifixion of Christ as a human, but also God, our redemption could be effected."
Can you please help me better understand why mankind needed redemption? From what, or for what? We know that Adam and Eve never existed (except in the fictional biblical narrative), so there could not have been any Original Sin. But even if they did exist, and even if they did commit Original Sin, why would all of mankind be held responsible? As far as I know, human beings never elected Adam nor Eve to represent them....God did.
If you take this one step further, God would have known when he created Adam and Eve that they would mess up and disobey him. Given the pain that all mankind has suffered since that inglorious event, would it not have made more sense for God to create a man and a woman who he would have known would have acted more responsibly?
Below is the etymology of Diocese. I am quoting two sites just in case you do not believe either one to be the proper meaning
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=diocese
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diocese
I reuse to comment on your other remarks (readers are intelligent after all) and shall refrain from replying on this trend of argumentation. Anyway it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Christopher the altar represents the table of the Lord and all the congregation gathered around it does not in fact bow at the altar but participate (symbolically) in the Last supper - the offering of Christ’s body and blood for the redemption of the sins of mankind.
Man could not redeem itself. Only God could redeem mankind so God sent His son the second person of the Godhead to become man. Through the passion and crucifixion of Christ as a human, but also God, our redemption could be effected.
One last comment, when you wrote "which has been bequethed by Christ himself".
Christ came to abolish religions, not set up one. Petrus means stone, and not rock. Most Bibles get that wrong, except the King James Bible, which says stone. One false translation, big difference. Christ did want to set up a community of people of The Way, but not the Catholic Church which is truly: Out of the way.
This is why Dioceses are made up, by the Catholic Church. They are Catholic priest areas of influence. Dio means God in Italian, and hence Dio-cese means to be effectively ceasing from accessing communing with God.
If 2 billion are adherents to the Catholic church, may it be that this way is so wide? Strait (not straight) is Christ's way, and not take the easy path. Christ thought to pray to Father 24/7, and not in Church, once a week. Ok some do go to church more than once a week, but read Matthew over and over, and you will see what Christ meant.
The Catholics are by far, the most plagued idolatry religion. Idols everywhere. No wonder I call it pagan.
Christ never undid the past, and hence if you beleive the Bible (and MOST do NOT, including the church itself), than are we now going to disagree with the Master (Christ) and his teachings?
I never said that I would revert to Judaism, but Christ never did undo the prophets or the Law. If you and the Church fail to see this, then they are not going as Christ says. Christ did observe the passover as well, and so why dont we?
Is it because that the Church is so ingrained with its own teachings that we have forgot Christ's teachings? That is so, and perhaps I would need some 3 volumes to explain this to all so called christians, who think they know or understand Christ.
It may be best to read the Bible, to understand Christ. Use the King James version, as that is the best translated one.
The Bible starts from Genesis, and all too often preachers give advise to read only the New Testament, and hence obtain only half the picture, of what God really wrote to us.
I strongly disagree. You are missing the wood for the tree with these arguments.You are looking through a magnifying glass and fail to see the bigger picture.
If you feel Judaism suits you more it is up to you, but you cannot expect the Catholic church leaders to undo 2000 years of teaching and practice which has been bequethed by Christ himself and his desciples and followed up by theologeans etc, because Sabbath is to be taken literally to be Saturday, I honestly do not think it matters, as long as a day of rest is dedicated to God in which he is honoured. I do not think that Muslims get confused during their prayers that when they're on holiday in the southern hemisphere, in Mecca the sun sets and rises at a different time from their location.
Also images have a dual significance:
1. for Christians/Catholics...religious as well as artistic relevance,
2. for non Christians/Catholics ... mostly artistic relevance.
When one looks at a picture of loved ones one does not feel love for that piece of printed paper, but what it represents.
Having said that I do concede that idolatry can exist in other non-religious respects.
If we are to obey Christ, we should read the following from Matthew.
Most people still would not believe Christ's words below, but then are we now going to argue with what Christ said:
Matthew:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least COMMANDments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
There you have it, Christ would NOT do away with the Law (God laws via Moses) and the Prophets.
Now if we are to disobey Christ's own words, now we are much more conscious of it, should we do so.
Of course that God DOES make a difference on His Day is Saturday or Sunday, otherwise He would not state it as a Commandment.
The very first lesson in the Bible, in Genesis, we learn that God instructed Adam and Eve to eat of anything in the Garden of Eden, but not from the tree of knowledge and evil.
Now priests teach (falsely) that people have a choice of which day is the day of the Lord. In essence it is a choice to break the Commandment or not. It is that simple. It has NOTHING to do with Mass at all. In fact, if you do go to Mass, more often than not, you also break the 2nd Commandment, as people bow to alters, which do not represtent God at all.
Satan is so successful in this regard, because not many people know him, or know of him. Without knowing his existance, people cannot know how to defend themselves properly, and get caught in his lies, most of the time.
Christ's teachings are good, but they certainly do not do away with Moses's laws either. If we obey Christ, we should read Matthew, continued..
Thanks for your reply. I say what I mean, and mean what I say on the question of idolatry. The Churches think that the statutes are a representation of whatever they want, but it still does not mean that they are not idols.
I will repeat the 2nd Commandment for you: (which is not thought at cathecism)
Deuteronomy
5:8 Thou shalt not make thee [ANY] graven image, [or] ANY likeness [of ANY thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the waters beneath the earth [neither shalt thou possess them if others make them (ch. 7:26)]:
5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the "I AM" thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate [or disobey] Me,
5:10 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love [and obey] Me and KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.
There it is ANY images of ANYTHING in heaven. Satan just loves to treat the Commandments with futility.
Continued...
Are you suggesting another Iconoclasm by any chance?!
I think you are confusing the meaning of 'representation of' with 'idolatry'. Some unfortunately do look at statues with excessive reverence, and mistake the representation of for its meaning, but it is not the case of the majority of Catholics. True Catholics know the difference!
Also does it really matter if the Lord's day is a Saturday or a Sunday? As you well know Saturday mass is equivalent to Sunday mass.
You say 'your church' what do you mean? Do you not know that it is US/WE who make up the church? The church is not the building! The building is a meeting place just like any other meeting place, serving a specific purpose. I already told you in another posting that man likes to decorate his surroundings. I am sure that you have embellished your home..does that make you a bad father and husband, seeking material things? I do not think so.
I am sorry but I cannot understand what exactly your crusade is. I think that you ought to focus more on the teachings of Christ, and you will notice how futile these arguments are.
I agree, most of the arguments put foward against divorce could easily be used against separation. The possibility to separate does not reduce the comitment to marriage so why should divorce be different?
There is a problem with many people that think that divorce is an easy way out but they fail to realise that this depends heavily on the law. Divorce just gives a chance to start afresh.
Another thing is that the law should be just, a divorce obtained from abroad should not be recognised. If I can't have it , no other maltese citizen should!!!
And he is right again in stating that there is no need for a discussion.
Fr. Borg, in civil society, private matters are just that: private, not for public consumption.
The Maltese Church-leaders still think that they can butt into people's personal lives and dictate legislation.
@d attard
They -- the soul-savers -- also say that God works in mysterious ways. Indeed, He does ... once the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by the Irish (God bless 'em), on October 28th, Malta will truly become European, and every Maltese will be equal before the Law.
That means that Maltese couples who want to end their marriage will no longer be barred by outdated, faith-based legislation. Malta will have to follow EU laws, and the ECHR (European Court for Human Rights) will be there to see that no Maltese is denied any basic right.
So, Fr. Borg, enjoy the less-than-90 days remaining in your iron grip of the people. Bring back this topic on Nov 1st.
I can give you the best denomination of what to believe now. It is neither Catholic nor Protestant or any other religion. It is not a religion, but rather what Christ's disciples used to call themselves as "The Way", that is the Way of Christ.
Christ came to abolish all religions and the Bible and Koran is ample proof of this. Should anyone wish to challenge this statement, be my guest.
Christ would never break the Commandments like ALL Christians do! It is NOT an overstatement, it is a fact.
See my letter to the Archbishop of Malta, here:
http://100777.com/node/1931
All the church has to do, to understand that they are breaking the Commandments, is to either read Exodus or Deuteronomy.
If the priests do not get the Commandments right, can you expect them to be good in other details as well? And yes, breaking the Commandments, is a mortal sin.
This is about your soul, after all, should one believe in it.
Regarding divorce, unless one reads the Bible, one cannot understand much. The Church does not understand divorce, because it plauged by traditions of men, strictly prohibited by Christ. It is so alien to Christ's teachings.
ps i find your paraphrasing most interesting. You interpret my suggestion as something that would be the salvation of our country.
There is nowhere in my recommendations that suggests this opinion, yet i will not, not even for a moment, think that you have applied the paraphrasing ploy to try to ridicule my original opinion. I find your brand of sarcasm as being that of the kind and intelligent type. prosit and keep it up.
Given the thin line between the two dimensions of christian religion as compared to the significant gap in work ethic underpinning the two expressions, such a strong protestant presence may work wonders for a maltese state of utter mediocrity.
You say that "Divorce should be discussed as being the aftermath of a broken marriage and not the precursor". That would be ideal, but, once divorce is introduced, marriage will have an escape clause: "I love you till divorce do us part".
I see this as dangerous as it allows couples to experiment with marriage, rather than seriously think about it. The latter seems to be happening already, but with divorce legislation the whole attitude towards marriage changes. And it is this change in attitude which should be a cause for concern.
@Lorraine Spiteri:
Part 2.
This does not mean that the approach to the sacrament of marriage could not be worked upon, but it will be an arduous uphill climb. Can you truly envisage that life could ever revert to a modicum of what it used to be a few decades ago when there could have been the possibility of working on receptive minds.
Young “minds” nowadays have too many influences from sources which incessantly work against our religion. Even from the education sector, we have seen that our youth is undermined against our beliefs. (See Fr. Joe’s blog “Value free or without value” – April 24, 2009). It is almost with trepidation that we profess we are Roman Catholics nowadays. You can feel the waves of silent derision washing over you when you are in the company of youngsters. A diehard like me can actually feel it but I am mature enough to ignore it, but imagine the peer pressure on susceptible minds!
Part 1.
Ms. Spiteri, your argument takes me back many, many years when I myself would have had the same kind of conviction about “marriage is forever”. But now I view marriage through different eyes and I no longer feel so self-assured. I have seen enough marriages that had started out enveloped in such an idealistic aura, but sadly very few still retain it.
The older generation, sticklers for tradition, might live it out – tradition dies hard- but this does not exclude the fact that even for them, deep down in their hearts, they do not question the sense of staying in a marriage which does not bring them satisfaction.
I have seen married couples where you do actually feel that Christ is present but they are too few and far between, which automatically leads you to believe that they are the exception. I would heartily wish this blessing on all married couples for there is nothing more fulfilling and rewarding than living a marriage in harmony with God. But life does not mete out this good fortune to everyone.
Continued……
I could not agree more with the above statement by Ms Spiteri, however, Catholic guidence should also teach the fact that marriage is fun, an adventure, a growing together, a romance, with all its implications, without excessive 'indhil' (butting in so to speak) between the married caouple. Because I think that at times teaching and homelies are too concerned with negative 'do's'.. rather than positive ones, an attitude which drifts couples away from the church and away from one another. Some nuptial homelies are already about, sacrifice, patience, abstinence...sounding like a chore..come on ..they are still in the fervour of their love!
The church needs to teach couples not only how to naturally plan their family, and raise kids as good Catholics, but also teach couples the need to continue enjoying eachother positively and updated - 2009!
Of importance is the realization that unnecessary and/or excessive expenditure adds pressure to the family, and working mothers. I think if we are aware of and accept our limits in life, whether they are material, physical, or intellectual (obviously without regarding oneself/others inadequate ).. we'll always be happy.
:)
Marriage is essentially, not just a rite but a spiritual union, and its intention is to strengthen the life paths of the couple, at whatever cost. It is essentially a spiritual path, and not as we are used to it, a human-flesh experience. God created the man-woman union for a purpose, a sort of a yin-yang Chinese ideology where the male and female aspects of every person blends in with the other.
For those seeking a way out of marriage, when in essense we should stay in it, there is yet a way out of it, should there be some "iniquity" before the Lord. Yes the Old and New Testament also provides these safety valves too. Even the Koran has divorce. St. Joseph was about to divorce Mary, until an angel came to inform him, that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, she has done no wrong.
I am perplexed at how the priesthood class does not take into consideration what scriptures say.
One article about marriage, should be thought to all: http://jahtruth.net/marguide.htm
It considers spiritual, not worldly matters.
I assume divorce legislation is introduced when a country has a marriage problem. The surge in "marriage breakdowns" after the introduction of divorce legislation can easily be interpreted as regularising the position of couples that were already de facto separated. I think it's better to address the root causes of divorce than stick our heads in the sand and ignore failed marriages.
The state needs to focus more on child support within the community: after school activities, child care centres for working parents and preventive child support that takes a holistic approach.
I did not happen to be watching ‘Xarabank’ when the above statement was pronounced, however I would hazard a guess that the priest in question could have been referring to couples who are led into a hasty marriage because circumstances dictated such a step as the preferred solution after finding out that the girl was pregnant. Promiscuity has a way of dealing these unpleasant surprises as we all know!!!!
As you say “The discussion should limit itself to valid marriages. Divorce does not apply to those who can apply for annulment…” Would you consider the case mentioned above as a valid marriage? The couple in question must have agreed to take the step but it could also be a case of unconscious coercion - their mental state at the time saw only marriage as a solution.
I have often heard it said that abstaining from sex is impossible for today’s youths. Why???Were our hormones dormant in our young days or were we more of a disciplined society?
Regret, my statement should be redressed to anti-divorce “activists”
Now back to your post.I believe that most couples today are of good will. The majority of us have young relatives trying all their best to pay back quite a hefty mortgage, staying in watching DVDs to save money, working extra hours or have a part-time,rolling their sleeves up to finish their apartments in their free time, a reality which is far from the stale statement blurted out by a prominent clergy at the end of a Xarabank program saying “iz-zaghzagh il-lum filli qed jiddevertu u filli sabu ruhom mizzegwgin”
Most of the young couples are in love with their partner, but they are also aware that the present does not reflect the future.
The discussion should limit itself to valid marriages. Divorce does not apply to those who can apply for annulment as the word itself imply.
@ Fr Joe Borg
I compliment your blog and also agree that education at an early stage should be included as part of the curriculum, but will it still include the church’s teaching, not to use a condom/ don’t make love to your partner before marriage?
It is in fact a sad case that you presented and one which should be taken into consideration especially if it is a case that has happened a long time ago when the term “poggut” was so very derogatory. Nowadays that term has lost its sting –it has become so commonplace that it no longer hurts to be referred to as such, but I do concur that it could rub a sore wound for the older generation.
As to Fr. Joe’s question, “What do you think is the way forward?” I would not hesitate to say that the way forward, besides all that has been put forward in his article, is to bring back the sense of discipline that we have lost throughout the years. We are no longer prepared to make sacrifices for we want everything our own way. In my time commitment had to be honoured, or at least - to be quite truthful - to be SEEN as being honoured, for human nature will rebel in times of adversity, and ways and means to ameliorate an unhappy situation would drive one to drastic measures. One must not rule out that clandestine affairs were not uncommon.
I agree with most of what you said, but what about those whose marriage has failed already, for some, long ago and after councelling etc, and have been co-habiting and even have children, however know of the impossibility of having a stable marital status besides a family unit? Why do they have to tick the 'separated' or 'co-habiting' box, with its cruel Maltese translation of 'poggut'.. Just because they do not have an alternative? I myself have mixed feelings due to this aspect, on the issure of legalizing divorce.
@Fr Joe..to answer your question:
"What do you think is the way forward?"
I would have "Marriage and family courses included as part of the curriculum at every level of education; " as the top priority on the list. The rest should follow, because as Jessica said, people who do not feel they are ready to marry should not go before God and commit themselves, no one is forcing them to do so after all.
The right to marry and to found a family is a fundamental right. Likewise protection of the family by society and the state is a right. Therefore the absence of divorce prohibits those individuals with a failed marriage to try again to marry and form a family. A right is always a right whether first or second marriage.
Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
•(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
•(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Part 2
I know of church marriages where one of the members is an atheist. The atheists ignore the fact that they are making a vow with God as witness, for to them God does not exist. (Is it sufficient reason to get an annulment on these grounds if marriage does not work out?)
Couples who find it impossible to live under the same roof cannot be constrained to stay together. If, for their own good, separation is an alternative, then I feel it is their right. Probably they do not have grounds to get an annulment just because they find that they are not compatible.
“The only difference in divorce is that one has the right to remarry” you say, and I can see your point, but I am not prepared to take sides either way for I still have to be convinced.
Part 1
Mr. Mifsud, I am not a blinkered fool who does not know what is happening around me. Far from it!!! And I am not campaigning against divorce for I myself feel that if society does not change its mentality, divorce will eventually be legalized.
But let us try to see life, as we are living it, in an objective way: Why do couples get married in the church if they are already predisposed to leave each other if things don’t work out? They are reneging on their vows (for better or for worse) even before they bind themselves in marriage. So marriage is already null and void to my way of thinking - for the good intention is missing. (Is it sufficient reason to get an annulment on these grounds, I wonder!)
Continued….
Couples are facing sexual problems, indifference towards each other, gambling, and abuse of all sorts.
Our society is still wearing blinkers in 2009
“So divorce/separation, in such cases, is not the aftermath of a broken marriage but rather the solution”
Ms Debattista your crusade should be against separation in the first placeThe only difference in divorce is that one has the right to remarry.
Church and state should ban separation altogether, forcing couples to live with each other under one roof.
I do not quite agree with the above!
Very often young courting couples, nowadays, discuss the outcome of their marriage in case it does not work out and they start off already with the idea that they would separate if it does not work out - not working out could be anything from shirking responsibility for certain jobs around the house to more serious issues such as an attraction towards somebody else.
We are already seeing here that separation/divorce is for them something that they can fall back on. It is the mentality that although they profess the marriage rites that “marriage is for better or for worse” they do not feel that they could take it literally. To them they are just a few words to be uttered as a tradition. So divorce/separation, in such cases, is not the aftermath of a broken marriage but rather the solution pre-discussed for their mutual convenience
This is all about comparing divorce to legal separation. The discussion can't be serious if we get people like fr Borg arguing that divorce destroys marriage. Divorce should be discussed as being the aftermath of a broken marriage and not the precursor.