Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Clerical dueling on divorce
August, the silly season, this year regaled us with an unusual discussion which was heated but not at all silly. Perhaps thanks to the rising temperatures, some members of the clerical state got hot under the collar while debating - you guessed it – divorce but on the whole the discussion is quite civil and well mannered. One reverend gentleman answered another reverend gentleman without even daring to mention names; as if this is discussion between nameless ghosts.
The firebrand Dominican on the attack
Christ is in favour of divorce thundered Patri Mark Montebello OP in It-Torca. He wrote that the Church is against it due to political reasons, or something of the sort. Please don’t pressure me too much for a detailed summary as the logic of the learned Dominican eluded me in more than one paragraph. Since the author is known for his crystal clear thinking and writing, my lack of complete comprehension is quite natually due to my abysimal ignorance.
The Editor milked the cow skilfully and gave the article front page coverage. This effort to sell a few extra copies in such a dry season is understandable. Nay it is even a moral duty since anything which sells more copies guanantees jobs. The actions of the editor were honourable indeed!
The Curia did not co-operate in this noble venture as it neither released anathemas not long statements answering point by point what Montebello wrote. What a spoil sport!
Vella throws his weight around
Whatever It-Torca can do The Sunday Times can do better! They marshalled Mgr Charles Vella, a man of many talents and myriad valid contributions to the church. He is also a very colourful personality. True to form he supplied The Sunday Times (August 16) with colourful statements e.g. “Berlusconi is too honest” and “Craxi was merely hounded for being honest.” Will we perhaps one day see Saints Craxi and Berlusconi joining Saints Cosma and Damien as well as Saints Basil and Gregory in the Catholic canon of saints?
I agree that there should not be twinning between Church and state. Unfortunately the example given by Vella clouds the issue. St John’s Co-Cathedral is managed by a Foundation set up by the Governemnt and the Church. Within this scenario, only an arrogant Prime Minister would have heeded Vella’s suggestion that the Prime Minister should have decided on his own without the consent of the Archbishop.
Mgr Vella also spoke about divorce. He criticised Mgr. Gouder without mentioning him by name. It’s his right to do so; but his responsibility to substantiate his criticism. He then told us that “as a founder of the Cana Movement … he would not like to see divorce introduced ” and that “divorce legislation does not solve the needs of people.” What he subsequently said, which is not always clearly articulated and thus gives the feeling of contradictions galore, has to be understood in the light of these fundumental statements. Many objected to his statement that “the introduction of divorce doesn’t scare me” without contextualising it in his other statement that “if we prepare couples well for marriage then we shouldn't be afraid.” Like him, I say that there should be less prophets of doom in the Church.
Yes, but really no
The Editor of It-Torca tried to take more mileage by interviewing Rev Prof Serracino Inglott (edition of 16/09/09). The heading of the piece is “Id-divorzju ghandu jidhol taht certi cirkostanzi. Fr Peter.” The whole context of the article makes me suspect that instead of “ghandu” Fr Peter probably said “jista’”, which is a very different ball game. The heading shows the bias of the Editor. Fr Peter has repeatedly expressed his position on the subject, a position very close to mine. The heading should have been reserved to the new things that Fr Peter said. His position, for example, is different from that of fellow member of The Public Policy Think Tank Mr Martin Scicluna and the lead author of a report advocating the immediate introduction of divorce. Fr Peter, on the contrary, thinks that the present position of the family in Malta does not justify the introduction of divorce. For Fr Peter the introduction of divorce can only be justified when the number of cohabitating couples is larger than the number of those married. Will now Mr Scicluna direct towards Fr Peter the harsh adjectives he directed at those having a different position from his?
In praise of genuine discussion
Mgr Anton Gouder went on the counter attack in an “interview” of sorts with Il-Gensillum (22 August 2009). He answered a number of arguments put forward by Fr Montebello, Mgr Vella and Prof Serracino Inglott. In the pseudo-interview, there are references to “xi whud” and other general references but once more, no names are attached to the criticisms made. Unlike for example Mgr Vella, Mgr Gouder buttresses his arguments with references to a number of studies made in several European countries and Australia. Like him, I think that there is an important place for scientific studies and statistics in the discussion about the introduction or not of divorce legislation.
The heading of the “interview” highlights its most important aspect. “I believe that genuine discussion can only be beneficial” (tista’ thalli biss gid). This, and not the spirit of condemnation, should animate all of us. There is nothing wrong in different persons, priest included, putting forward diverse points of view on the subject.
The word of the Archbishop
The spirit of genuine discussion animated Archbishop Cremona’s contribution to The Sunday Times (23 August 2009). He referred to faith and statistics to defend the church’s thesis against the introduction of divorce legislation. I will comment on some elements of his article in my column in The Sunday Times of August 30. My only comment here is that the aricle of the Archbishop is a very good example of the slogan “the medium is the massage.” His use of a newspaper is another example of his programme of bridge building and dialoguing with others in the Church and society. This is the way forward.
Final reflection
I am neither scandalised nor awed by this clerical duelling. I think that it is healthy. I express one concern. While the contributions of priests to the subject are quite regular and prominent, the contributions of lay Catholics are few and far between. Generally they are reduced to the level of comments in blogs and letters to the editors. Why are our committed lay Catholics playing second fiddle in this campaign? This says a lot about our Church, I think.
RSS
Comments
As such, there's no conceivable teachings as to what is wrong or not.
Therefor, the teachings we are talking about are the Church's. Which is why we are discussing this topic.
Personally, simply stating that divorce is to be illegal at all costs is just ideologies of a closed mind.
I believe (legal) divorce should be granted only by court (so as to investigate why this happened). The same should apply to the church (as in, it decides to dissolve marital status).
Regards,
Christian Sciberras.
If things should go wrong, however, I cannot see what the church could do to stop me meeting somebody else and starting a new family. Why can’t we accept that unfortunately these days many things have changed.
Yes it is unfortunate, but things are different. Surely not for the better, but in my opinion it is as plain as can be.
One thing I would like to ask....is it possible for a Maltese couple to get a divorce abroad?
Excuse stilted style but was concerned about the 200 word limit. And I never push my luck. Not that I believe in fairy-tales, you understand. Anyway, I needn't have worried. I am well within the limit. So I'll be nice and wish you all good night. Hope you had a good weekend. Be good. If not, be careful.
I only do ( laugh) when they are adamant that they must carry on with their follies....such as being soooooo predictable !!!!!!! I am still laughing, and if you are not ...well ,de gustibus !!!!!!
I do not find anything to laugh at, or to ridicule, in the follies of my fellow men..
You are sooooo predictable!!!!!!! And I'm still laughing. I hope that you are too, as laughter does relieve tension and stress, as you would well know.
I am glad that you have discovered that as soon as you try to put words into my mouth, I will “predictably” expose you. Your latest attempt is to insinuate that I have ever said that you “are always wrong” and that I am “always right”. I do not understand how such a state of affairs could contribute to your merriment – but de gustibus …
You are sooooo predictable!!!!!!! We are all wrong and you are always right !!!!!
But, thank you for providing me and others with quality comic relief. We all need to laugh once in a while and thanks to you, I'll be laughing throughout the weekend, possibly beyond.
In return, I hope that you too have a great weekend Saliba!
The Egocentric Thinker
This style is about where the thinker believes absolute truth is. He believes it is within himself.
This person is absolutely convinced that his understanding of things is the absolute truth. This means he will not listen to argument or other viewpoints. This does not mean that he is egotistical or arrogant, although those could be true, and often are. He could have a very low opinion of himself, and retain that view regardless of any arguments presented. He can hold this view even after winning some prestigious award.
This person will go through strange mental maneuvers to avoid changing his view. He must maintain his "view of the world and the way that it "is" at all costs!
Egocentric thinking is common in small children. They tend to accept their first understanding of something as the absolute truth, and will not budge from that belief.
Some people stay in the egocentric mode all of their lives. They are difficult to deal with.
It's always good to remind us all of who we are dealing with.Nice Weekend Saliba !
It is you who are rpompously acting as a judge, by declaring me guilty of “intolerance” or that I believe in my “martyrdom” when there is no proof supporting those accusations. I am completely unimpressed by your inappropriate use of hackneyed phrases (“no balance or objectivity”) and your impotent angry resort to a dozen exclamation marks or a drawn out “sooo...” in substitution for logical argument. They only draw attention to your angry frustration at being systematically checkmated and exposed.
You are soooooo predictable !!!!!!!!!!!!!! You just did it again, and I’m sure that you will repeat it again and again, ad nauseam. The “enemies of the Church” are those who in your learned opinion and judgement, because you are clearly the supreme judge, acquire the reputation of “regularly submitting comments based on lies, deliberate distortions, misquotations and unjustified interpretations of the written word”.
You intense intolerance towards homosexuals and atheists, pro-divorce and pro-abortionists and anyone who does not agree with your opinions, is splattered across all your posts. You have not once acknowledged a valid criticism against the Church, because that “would provide ammunition for the enemies of the Church”. How absolutely childish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no balance or objectivity in your arguments and you believe that your “martyrdom” to defend your Church, even when it is clearly in the wrong, is somehow noble and justified. I think it simply reflects a level of immaturity of thinking which is quite uncommon.
So go ahead and tell me again and again that I have misinterpreted you words, or misquoted you. You will then prove me right that you are sooooooooooo predictable!!!!!!!!
Instead of “cordially asking me to advise all of you which is the correct version” please have the common decency to read my comments in full and to quote from them reasonably and not in disconnected truncated fragments that make no sense. There is no difficulty in reconciling my reference to “most of them (the critics)” in one comment with the other fragment a “handful of commentators” from a different comment. Even if you translate “a handful” to mean literally five in number “most” of that handful would mean any number of persons from three to five. That is elementary plain English.
You would not have to guess at all if you actually read my comments carefully. I am not on any intimate terms with the private lives of the half dozen commentators who make it a habit to divert all Fr J Borg’s blogs into an attack on the Church. Unlike you, I do not know how many of them fit in one or more of the five categories mentioned. That is one very good reason why I do not “address him by name”.
I have already explained that not ALL atheists, homosexuals, abortionists etc but only a MINORITY acquires the reputation of “enemies of the Church” by regularly submitting comments based on lies, deliberate distortions, misquotations and unjustified interpretations of the written word of other commentators. Please note that “atheism” is only another “religion” and its adherents can be accused with bigotry just as much as all the other religions.
P.S. Try not to hold down your finger on the keyboard so as to avoid meaningless long sequences of “o” and exclamation marks that do not add anything to your comments.
Quote 1 "that is I was referring only to a handful of commentators"
Quote 2 "It is difficult to reconcile your claim with the obvious fact that most of them ..."
Can i cordially ask you to advise all of us which is the correct version ? Quote 1 or quote 2. ?
In plain English the word 'handful' and 'most' don't exactly mean the same !
I do not resent homosexuals and therefore your impression, as usual, is absolutely groundless. If you had the slightest understanding of human male and female anatomy you would not make such a banal statement as normal heterosexual sexual activity being “not dissimilar” to that between male homosexuals! You would also understand why AIDS exploded outside Africa first among male homosexuals and with devastating result, later spreading to the rest of the population.
I would invoke God only to those who believe in Him and they would know that God hates the sin and not the sinner. Atheists insist that God does not exist at all and incongruously you insist that He hates platitudes. Try to be consistent!
Perhaps people would have to second guess you less if you actually were more direct about who you speak of. As far as I can tell, there is only one commentator on this blog that seems to fit your 5 categories, so why not do the honest thing and address him by his name?
You are soooooo predictable !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Every time somebody puts you in a corner you accuse them of “misinterpreting and distorting my (your) written words and inventing false meanings”.
Could you please explain how exactly I misinterpreted and distorted your written words, specifically:
- How do you distinguish between an atheist who is an “enemy of the Church” and one who is not? Or,
- A homosexual who is an “enemy of the Church” and one who is not? Or,
- A pro-abortionist or pro-divorce who is an “enemy of the Church” and one who is not?
Come on Saliba, be honest for once. In your eyes they are all “enemies of the Church”, and stop trying to use excuses that you are being misquoted or misinterpreted. It's so childish.
It’s a sad world that we live in, tainted with religious bigotry….. And, you’re not helping to make it any better, that’s for sure.
You are conspicuously wrong and, as usual, you are mischievously misinterpreting and distorting my written words and inventing false meanings evident to anybody who understands simple English and who does not wear blinkers.
I did not say: “ANYBODY (my emphasis) who is an atheist, or a homosexual, or a pro-abortion or pro-divorce activist is THE enemy.” That is your deliberate distortion. Without realizing it you give the lie to your accusation by quoting me correctly as referring to “… most of them (the critics) …” that is I was referring only to a handful of commentators - not to all atheists, homosexuals etc. I restrict my criticism to those commentators who regularly submit venomous anti-Church criticism and who compound their error by pretending hypocritically to be motivated by some interest in the well being of the Church. The true motivation for these venomous attacks is resentment towards the Church’s teaching. One critic had the gall to boast that he hated the Catholic Church with every bone of his body.
Let me help you out. Some conspicuous inveterate critics of Christianity on this blog are stretching our credulousness to breaking point by asking us to believe that their venomous attacks are inspired by their peculiar love for the well being of the Church. You dissociate yourself from that hypocrisy by clarifying that you are not anti-Church but neither are you interested in promoting its welfare.
My more plausible credible ulterior motive for the venomous comments is that their writers were proud atheists and/or homosexuals or abortionists or divorcees, or apostate and even one who boasted that he hated Christianity with every bone of his body. Of your own free will you chose to be included in that company because you qualified under three headings (only). Nobody had asked you or accused you of anything. I said what I had to say in a crystal clear fashion. I did not” hint” anything and I never mentioned you at all.
Don’t you read and understand your own writing? “…..most of them (critics) turn out to be hardened atheists and/or homosexuals with a liberal sprinkling of pro-abortion and pro-divorce activists”. Anybody who reads and understands English can surely understand what you mean…that “hardened atheists and/or homosexuals with a liberal sprinkling of pro-abortion and pro-divorce activists” are “enemies of the Church”. This is crystal clear…there is no other interpretation. In your mind, anybody who is an atheist, or a homosexual, or a pro-abortion or pro-divorce activist is THE enemy. I am not distorting your words nor your meaning. They are both yours and they perfectly demonstrate your un-Christian and hardened prejudice against anybody who does not support the Church’s doctrine. End of story. But, if you are happy “keeping your head in the sand”, then good luck to you.
One last thing……so, what if you were born Muslim or Jewish? Would you still be supporting the Church’s doctrines with the same fervour? Not likely.
Perhaps I'm just tired, but I have no idea what you just tried to say.
What is the credible motive? I just don't get it.
Also, not that I am anti-church, as you seem to imply, but at the same time I have no need to strengthen the Church either, which completely invalidates your second point.
You seem to hint over and over (and I don't intend to put words in your mouth, I'm simply trying to understand) that if someone is criticising the Church repeatedly, then their motives are somehow not as credible. Is that what you are saying?
You imply that if someone is trying to strengthen the Church, then their motive is, for some obscure reason, more fanciful. I really don't see how you come to your conclusions.
Trust you to string together such a profusion of false allegations and illogical non sequiturs in one single comment. My true colours are NOT those you ascribe to me. I never criticized en bloc homosexuals, Muslims and Jews as enemies of Christianity. I do not understand your twisted logic when you include my name with those categories as an enemy of the Church. Contrary to what you say I never drafted any definition of “enemies of the Church” and I certainly would never draft one that would include these people and myself for good measure! I have criticized only those commentators on these blogs who resort to underhanded methods such as malicious distortions and false attributions (vide supra). By themselves, sexual orientation and religious beliefs do not ipso facto make anyone an enemy of the Church!
My hat trick does not invalidate your points. It supplies a much more credible motive for the unremitting and unjust onslaught against Christianity in these blogs. This alternative motive should be actively considered with that other fanciful motive of an overwhelming desire to strengthen the Church through helpful constructive criticism.
Bravo! You continue to show your true colours and your remarkable prejudices against anyone who does not fully support or abide by Christian doctrine. “Min muxx maghna kontra taghna” is precisely your credo….no flexibility; no attempt to understand the other side’s position; no middle ground; no room for compromise…..just a hardened belief that you and your Church are right and everyone else is wrong. And therefore, everyone else is, de facto, “an enemy of the Church”.
So what if:
-you were born a homosexual due to genetic factors, or
-you were born to a devout Muslim family in Saudi Arabia, or
-you were born to a devout Jewish family in Israel
By your definition, all these people are “enemies of the Church” and horror of horrors, you would be one of them. But, despair not! God really loved you and was thinking about you personally Saliba when he decided that you should be born in a Christian country (better still Catholic), and with no”bad” homosexual DNA material in your genetic makeup.
Of course, God was quite nasty to all the other 5 billion non-Christian people on Earth. After all, he created them as “enemies of the Church”. Not nice.
3 out of 5 correct for me there. Although I don't know why that somehow invalidates our points, nor makes us enemies of the church. Again you seem to fall back on someone being an enemy as soon as they don't agree with a certain position.
According to you, the inveterate detractors of everything Catholic in these blog are not “enemies of the Church” but they are “simply honest critics”. It is difficult to reconcile your claim with the obvious fact that most of them turn out to be hardened atheists and/or homosexuals with a liberal sprinkling of pro-abortion and pro-divorce activists and the occasional boastful self-excommunicated apostate! With these “simply honest critics” as friends the Church certainly does not need any enemies.
@StevePace.
You do not shock me at all. I have been practicing medicine for over sixty years and your experience, and my own experience as a family doctor, have long persuaded me that this abominable vice is much more widespread than most people believe. That is why I resent the blinkered attacks specifically aimed on a numerically insignificant minority of sinning clergy and their superiors who are unjustly accused of protecting them
You’ve got it horribly wrong. The contributors to this blog are not enemies of the Church…simply honest critics. All of us who have expressed opposing views to the Church’s position on various matters, have also acknowledged the good things that the Church has done for society .
The real problem in this debate is your incredibly irrational need to defend against one and all criticisms of your Church, no matter how legitimate these criticisms may be, including those where the Church itself acknowledges its faults. You naively believe that this is necessary to ensure that you “don’t provide ammunition for the enemies of the Church”. Please!.. get real!!!!
It is precisely because of attitudes like yours that the Church continues to lose its credibility/ relevance amongst many of its followers. Most of Europe for example, is only Christian by culture and tradition, certainly not by religion. Logical people simply ignore the pontificating talk coming out of the Vatican on matters such as divorce, birth control and celibacy of priests, to mention just a few examples. But, if you want to keep “your head in the sand” and ignore the realities around you, then frankly, so be it. Enjoy fantasyland.
Enmity and hatred go together. Hatred is a powerful emotion. Very draining and damaging to the hater. I don't do enmity therefore, I don't do hatred. My life is too precious for me to debase it by futilities. I leave such emotions to the spiritually immature, the avowed - or is it confessed? - christians, as they call themselves. To them I say, good luck, my self-respect intact. I could write volumes about how THE CHURCH is the enemy. But I won't bother. We all know about churchy prohibitions, unwarranted, unexplained and unenforceable. To be one's own worst enemy is a saying that comes to mind.
I have my say. The church can ride it surely. Not unlike the divorce saga. I say yes to the option. Madam, you needn't worry. It is not compulsory. And if your marriage is that solid, what have you to worry about? Quite!
It is the comments that YOU submit yourself that determine whether you are friends or enemies of the Church, not your say-so, not my say-so. When reference is made to "enemies of the Church" it is up to you to decide whether that "cap" fits you or not. It would be most unwise to shoot yourself in the foot by protesting too much, too soon, and by rashly making excuses before being personally accused. When you criticize harshly the Church authorities you should anticipate that there will be people who will ignore you and others who will choose to defend the Church.
Those inveterate critics of the Church whose stock-in-trade is to "re-word", to misquote, to make illogical interpretations, to edit selectively written comments and to quote them of of context, do not strenghten their pretensions to a high moral tone and to any genuine desire to criticize the Church constructively.
How absolutely preposterous! Why do you assume that we are all enemies of the Church just because we do not share the same views? Is this not a debate amongst civilized people to share opposing views? And why do you assume that if you were to acknowledge the Church’s faults, you would be providing ammunition for the Church’s enemies? The Pope publicly apologized (albeit 400 years too late) to Galileo, because the Church was wrong. Did it provide ammunition to its enemies? I think not…it belatedly righted an obvious wrong. And the Church was also wrong it the case of Edgardo Mortara, and the Jewish children after the war. And, if it has not publicly apologized, then it should do so because it the right and civilized thing to do.
When people put their “head in the sand” they simply become unaware of the realities around them, and they live in fantasy land.
“Once we realize that imperfection is the human condition, there is no shame in being wrong, only in failing to correct our mistakes”. I’m not sure who the author is, but the quote is certainly apropos.
(From: Should there be more mosques in Malta? 9th May 2009).
.......However, he continues (Tettamanzi,il Milanes) saying that only by talking with Muslims will people discover if the common perceptions are true or true for everyone. Isolated, serious incidents caused by individuals must not push people into accusing all Muslims of the same crimes or to looking upon them with suspicion, says the Cardinal.
Tettamanzi urges all and one to abandon prejudices and stereotypes and begin open and objective dialogue with people of other religions, including Islam. Only through dialogue, he says, can people ascertain whether their fears, suspicions or doubts are justified or not. He also said that we need cultural initiatives that promote reflection, not provocation that only creates dead-end debates and sensationalism. True and fruitful dialogue with people who are different is currently a real emergency everywhere.
He continues along the lines that the Maltese should beware hindering the worship of other faiths lest it happened to them. And adds that freedom of worship is paramount - quoting the Constitution - and that Muslims need to have as many mosques as they need. Words to that effect.
By the way, it is people who would rather protect a paedophile brother than his innocent child victim that should be ashamed of themselves.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090817/fr-joe-borg/is-the-wish-for-a-just-society-a-futile-dream
"You should be ashamed of yourself".
I am not your child. Stop being so patronising.
You've lost credibility when you made it clear that you would not "openly criticize the Church" (even when it is at fault) because you would not "provide ammunition for the enemies of the Church", ironically providing at least one person you consider an "enemy of the Church" with a silver bullet.
Your exact words were: "You cannot recall any instance of my “openly” criticizing the Church because I am not such as an idiot as to provide ammunition for the enemies of the Church"
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090826/fr-joe-borg/clerical-dueling-on-divorce
For the benefit of those who weren't following the debate, the issue was the secret baptism of Edgardo Mortara in 1858, followed by his being forcibly taken away from his parents because they were Jews. Of course, Dr Saliba would not openly admit this was wrong, otherwise he would provide "enemies of the Church" with "ammunition".
It is useless arguing with someone who will not admit fault where it is crystal clear (thereby will not admit truth) if that hinders his crusade against what he perceives to be "the enemy".
Game over.
Anyone who reads plain English would readily understand that there is no contradiction between my two statements: a) “the Church is not always right and I never said that the Church is always right." and my other statement b): "I am not such as an idiot as to provide ammunition for the enemies of the Church." By admitting the generally known fact that the Church has not always been right in all things I am not providing any new ammunition for the enemies of the Church. Please do not even try to elaborate on what I “actually meant” because evidently that is way above your competence.
I will admit that I am wrong ONLY when I am wrong – not when you say so. You feel the need to guess wrongly and to speculate about my intentions – your latest attempt is your guess that I will next “lie for Jesus”. His truth is more than adequate to dispel your crude insinuations, your “rewording” and your false deductions. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I never said that one should not admit the truth – those are your words, not mine. My position is that intelligent people have every right to ignore the barbs of enemies of the Church knowing full well that there are people always ready to pounce on their replies and to distort them, to “reword” them and to misinterpret their comment. They use these fabrications as ammunition against the Church. These Christians are not some kind of chained performing bears obliged to dance to the false tune played by inveterate detractors of the Church. They are free to ignore them with contempt. That is not the same as their admitting anything
Quote 2 - "I am not such as an idiot as to provide ammunition for the enemies of the Church. " ...
"The correct phrase is “contradiction in terms” (contradictio in terminis)".. Spot on Saliba !
what you actually meant was.. "I am not such as an idiot as to be open minded to the possibility that the Malta Church party may be wrong " .
" Kenneth Cassar got it right when he said that I got it wrong. In effect "It is not the Church that is always right. It is Dr Saliba". ...
Therefore, Dr Saliba's self-praise and vain attempt at belitteling me, do not help his credibility in any way. I would rather that he pointed out to a single instance where he admitted to anyone that he was mistaken.
Funnily enough, I get the impression that everyone else (including Christians) think otherwise.
"DOES NOT MEAN that I claim to be always right".
Of course not, but still, you never admit you're ever wrong - and now we know why. It is because you would not openly admit the truth if the truth "provide(s) ammunition for the enemies of the Church".
One must first “learn” before trying to “convince” others. The ease with which I regularly prove that very often your arguments are hopelessly wrong DOES NOT MEAN that I claim to be always right. Try to be logical. It means that you cannot succeed to prove me wrong by the mischievous trick of distorting what I write by “rewording” or misinterpreting my comments and then shooting down, not my original comment, but your fabrication.
I am not “acknowledging" anything. I am accusing you of muschievously putting into my mouth words that I had never said.
You cannot recall any instance of my “openly” criticizing the Church because I am not such as an idiot as to provide ammunition for the enemies of the Church.
The case of Edgardo Mortara has no connection with the attack on Pope Pius XII because it happened a century before!
“Logic” and “syllogism” are inextricably intertwined. Kenneth Cassar tried unsuccessfully to dazzle me by dragging and misapplying the rules of syllogism. My pertinent reply could not have been “out of context”.
I'm obviously wasting my time. Goodbye.
"Any truly knowledgeable person would know that arguments are intended to make a point and to reach conclusions".
And any truly knowledgeable person would know that it is not necessary to use syllogism to make an argument or to make a point, that is if one knows what syllogism means.
It is better to consult a dictionary to ensure the correct use of a word.
You could use some internet dictionaries yourself. Making a point does not necessarily involve an argument. Nor does making a point require syllogism.
C.John Zammit was not drawing any conclusions about your comments. He was only making three points:
1. Since you mentioned "tactics of demagogues, gangsters and dictators", he only wanted to point out that he learned about this when he studied logic.
2. He wanted to question why you would wish Mgr Charles vella to amplify his non-objection to divorce legislation.
3. He wished to point out that you should thank the editor for editing your "crushing replies".
No syllogism...just two remarks and a question.
I'm no authority on logic. I just happen to know what syllogism means, though I must admit that I had to check with an internet dictionary, since I reckoned: "our learned doctor surely would not use the word completely out of context". It turns out that you did.
Okay, so you have finally acknowledged in your own words, that " the Church is not always right and I (you) never said that the Church is always right". Hallelujah !!!!!!!!
What is interesting however is that throughout all these various blogs, I cannot recall of ONE instance where you openly criticized the Church. For example, one would have LOGICALLY expected you to acknowledge that the Church was dead wrong in preventing the reunification of baptized Jewish children with their Jewish families after the war. Instead you argued that the New York Times article was suspect, and was intended by the "enemies of the Pope to tarnish his reputation and to impede the course towards beatification".
When the case of Edgardo Mortara, where the facts were uncontroversial, was then brought to your attention, you simply decided not the address same. LOGICALLY one would have expected you to acknowledge the Church's wrongdoings in this regard.
Kenneth Cassar got it right when he said that I got it wrong. In effect "It is not the Church that is always right. It is Dr Saliba".
But I will assure you that there are more serious cases of abuses in marriage than those you mentioned. There is rape and also child abuse. how about that horrific story from austria who abused his daughter and had children from her? What will the church say to that? Does anyone want to declare that his wife should be remain married to that monster? Is that a marriage by God or on a piece of paper and sustained by an arrogant church who all it does dictate the law and blaming it on God. God s marriage is a one of love, all others based on sex money and what have you is not valid. Innocent people should not wait for the grace of the church to realise that the marriage is null after 8 years. She should find the man she thinks is good for her, with the hope she wont repeat another mistake and she should not wait . Shame on all institutions who know about this abomination and leave couples waiting 8 years of their lives.
I think I like to answer your question. It is a very valid question. You question shows a lot of cruelty to people who are suffering due to the abuse you mentioned. It is true that there are many serious cases , yet the church as you said does not consider such as a case for annulment. I would grant them annulment because if a person is abusing his or her spouse then there is something wrong psychologically and they should be completely undone from the bonds of marriage. The State should be ashamed to know of these causes and let these people suffer when they can be easily and with care absolved and allowed to start a new fresh life. Those abusers should be branded and monitored. Just as pedophiles and other criminals are monitored. These monsters should be carefully untied from their married partner and carefully watched and if possible given the necessary treatment. As you said it is shocking that they have to wait so many years to be absolved. I shudder to be in those shoes. Just think how many people are in this misery and they say that marriage is holy!!!!
“True syllogism” my foot! Amateurish balderdash? Definitely, yes! “Lying” is not even mentioned in your major and minor premises. You cannot validly introduce it in your conclusion. Your “truly logical" syllogistic conclusion should have been: “Therefore I (Kenneth Cassar) do not convince you”
A valid syllogism (condensed for clarity) would be the following:
Major premise: Dr Saliba is not convinced that anyone would immediately report his brother to the police.
Minor Premise: Kenneth Cassar states that he would immediately deliver his brother to the police.
Conclusion : Dr Saliba is not convinced by Kenneth Cassar .
Speaking of syllogism, here's a true syllogism (and I'm using the word in its proper context, not to impress):
Dr Francis Saliba says: "You will never convince me that you really would immediately report to the police a hypothetical brother".
Now, here comes the syllogism:
Premise 1. You say that I would never convince you that I would report my brother.
Premise 2. I say I would report my brother to the police.
Conclusion inferred from premise 1 & 2: You think I'm lying.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090817/fr-joe-borg/is-the-wish-for-a-just-society-a-futile-dream
We now refer to marriage as the (hallowed) institution of marriage. It is an institution, however, with one very serious flaw. A flaw that can never be patched, or healed or plastered over. What brings people together is natural attraction. This leads to a very strong bond that ensures the survival/propagation of the species. But as anything else in nature, the bond is not permanent, and like the moon, it waxes and wanes. Rule one in Nature. Nothing remains the same. And most importantly, monogamy is not a fact of life. It is an aspiration. That needs working at. Like any aspiration. When the spark wanes, that is when the problems start to surface. As the saying goes. The problems of most marriages start in the bedroom. Because nothing worse in a bedroom than indifference . Time to move on. Better still, look closer at aspirations. You're wiser now. cont/.
I wouldn't go as far as emotional, pyhsical and sexual abuse. I would still ask: Why should a spouse who does all that is possible to save the marriage, but the other spouse simply walks away, be denied the chance to re-marry?
However without any sense of sarcasm and on the same adult level of discussion, what is your opinion on situations where there is emotional, pyhsical sexual abuse. Should the victim remain seperated without any possibility of re-marrying should she / he find a caring lovig new partner ? The church will not permit annulment if the cases arises after marriage. And what about a 29 year old woman. Should she wait 7 years for church annulment to build a new life with children ?
I think you got it wrong. It is not the Church that is always right. It is Dr Saliba.
"A lot of cases are awarded an impediment and thus cannot marry again because they would be declared unfit to marry for some reason understood by the church".
I don't know if a lot of cases have a ruling of impediment, but I think you're right that the Church may issue an impediment where one partner or both are ruled unfit for marriage.
I can think of at least one reason. If, for instance, the annulment is given for reasons of insanity, it follows that the person diagnosed as insane is definitely not fit for marriage.
However, impediment on one partner (or both) to re-marry in Church is not for the reason of being found the "guilty" party, but just because the investigation which is part of the annulment procedure finds that the individual is not fit for marriage.
In fact, marriage impediments can even be be declared even outside of annulment cases. That is why marriage bans (tnedijiet) are issued before the wedding - so that whoever knows any reason why one or both should not marry, one would speak out.
But thanks for the clarification. You are correct.
...... This is all a game of words. The church has a lot to explain and should admit and apologise now not in 400 years time. Recently I was shocked at the behaviour of John Paul II . Why should he apologise for things which happened 400 years ago? What was he trying to prove? Those unfortunates are long gone and burried. It is so easy for me to apologise for something done hundreds of years ago. I would ask and urge the church to start apologising today for the way it dishes out rules and condemnations .TODAY, not 400 years to come. That is an insult to all who have a brain. The state should care for those who expect of it to act civilly. The church has its duties to teach . It is not her right to try to block divorce. I do not like divorce , but there are people who need it desperately and start a new life. If a petrine and pauline divorce exist for the churchs personal interests then there should be Christine priviledge to help all those who have been tricked and led to marry .
I am glad that comments like yours create a real discussion. Was equally delighted when you mention you know a case like the one I mentioned. True research. I also like the mention of the Petrine priviledge. There is actually another the Pauline priviledge. Here the church is clearly abusing of marriage. While safegaurding the faith it uses divorce to safegaurd the other parts interests when it comes to the faith. What a load of crap. If divorce is bad it should be bad for all cases, but here we have a church who loves the God of the privileged. It preaches that God favoured the jews as the chosen, how could anyone have any other church. These are all serious flaws. Logical solution to Marriage is that A marriage is bound solely by the two with their incessant love for one another. Serious couples wont stumble over excuses. Serious couples sanctify their marriage with their love. Where there is love there is sacrifice. There is no greater love than that of the one who gives his life to the one he or she loves. That is marriage and it is solid as one...........
I do not expect, and I do not accept, any assessment of my “grades on logic” by anyone whose stock in trade includes the lie that “in (my) eyes, the Catholic Church, run like any other organization by fallible human beings, is unique in its ability to be always right”. You should know that I never said that and I do not even believe it.
And what about the Petrine Privilege... What value is the church giving to marriage ? It is said to act in favour of the catholic Faith ! It sounds more as if it is favouring statistics .
@Fr.Joe - "... Isn’t it natural that parents who value the Christian way of living would baptise their children when they are still babies? End of story. " ... Indeed it is ... If parents cannot live by the rules of the church , then the child should not pay for this situation and should be allowed to be baptized with other children .. and not in the sacristy like a second class citizen . Fr Joe says "the contributions of lay Catholics are few and far between." ...
I was very glad to read your last line. Why are our committed lay Catholics playing second fiddle in this campaign? . How right you are and the truth is frightening.
Unfortunately our church is a very medieval institution. Is it mistrust? Lay people are even sneered by other lay people.
In the Marriage tribunal there should be lay people there to hear causes and given the chance to partake and help in these difficult situations. It ironic that a bunch of unmarried priests decide on unhappy couples. All they do is apply the law, without considering that these unfortunates are suffering and living in a hell of pain. They just open their bundles of papers look at " the book " of canon law , and judge in the name of the Lord. It sounds so pathetic, I wonder what victor hugo would write about such a mediocre situation. Only married people can speak of marriage problems and they should be given the chance as good lay people to hear cases and give their valid experience in the matter.
I am following your comments with great interest but I must correct you on one point regarding an answer you gave to jessica debattista regarding annulment by the church. You said if the marriage is found not binding , never occured it shall therefore be granted annulment, hence both can re marry. I would like to correct you here. In many cases only one can remarry. A lot of cases are awarded an impediment and thus cannot marry again because they would be declared unfit to marry for some reason understood by the church.
Syllogism is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form.
No wonder you cannot find any syllogism in CJohn Zammit's reply to you. There isn't supposed to be any.
C.John Zammit wasn't inferring anything from any premise. He was simply making a point and asking some questions.
I cannot believe that you have the guts to criticize anybody about "logic". You cannot even admit that the Catholic Church was dead wrong in not returning Jewish children to their parents after the war, because those children were baptized. And, I suspect that you believe that the Catholic Church also acted properly in the case of Edgardo Mortara?
It is amazing that in your eyes, the Catholic Church, run like any other organization by fallible human beings, is unique in its ability to be always right. I give you full marks for all your faith (blind) in your God and your Church. I don't think you get a passing grade on "logic" however.
I am surprised to learn that you had “studied Logic some fifty years ago” because there is no trace of syllogism in your comment. But then you do yourself admit that you did not find Logic the easiest of courses and somewhat tedious. It shows.
As my mother used to say (a decent underdog but not an undergraduate of anything much) 'it is correct to know the evil ways of people, it is not correct to emulate them). If she never taught me anything, she taught me this. And as you say C.John, it is correct to study the methods of demagogues and despots and dictators - so that we do not fall into their traps.
"99% of all prophecies are done" - I have already challenged you on this elsewhere. You never produced any supporting evidence.
What claim that the Bible is the word of God? 99% of all prophecies are done, and 1% to go. There is a hidden code in the Bible that could not be other than something supranatural. See http://jahtruth.net/bibcod.htm
The Church is supposed to go with what Jesus or God said, right? If no, then there is a serious issue when man, not what the Bible said, diverges to any degree.
Yes the Bible is a leap in faith, but I can assure you, it is not in the blind!
"Generally they are reduced to the level of comments in blogs and letters to the editors."
Personally I think that both letters to the editors and blogs are very valid means of placing one's contributions. In fact I can't think of many better ways to make public one's opinions... especially if they (Catholics) do not toe the official church line in the matter. They're unlikely to be invited as guest speakers to church-run groups or to deliver the homily next Sunday, and the church is where most of the anti-divorce material is spread.
"While the contributions of priests to the subject are quite regular and prominent, the contributions of lay Catholics are few and far between. "
Are you assuming that, if they are not against divorce, then they are not Catholics? Although no polls (that I know of) have been published, I think that the percentage who are in favour of its introduction is large enough that it must include a substantial number of Catholics.
Faith Fate
You said:
"Sorry, it is not my fault that you fail to understand that my comment is a complete answer to your question. Read it once more, carefully, and do not waste your time studying the tactics of demagogues, gangsters an(d) dictators."
Your advice comes a bit late to do me any good. I studied Logic some fifty years ago. Teaching us how to detect the ways of those assorted rogues, was part of the course. It may not have been the easiest course; somewhat tedious, but certainly not a waste of time.
What I fail to understand is how you could, after the above, question Mgr. Vella thus:
"I would like Mgr Charles Vella to amplify his non-objection to “divorce legislation …"
(Sunday Times -- Aug 30th.)
Amplify? Mockery, eh?
So, the editor's heavy editing mangled your "circumspect but crushing replies."
Don't complain. Thank him.
@ Joseph Camilleri. I guess people who decide it best to sit on the fence are afraid of the consequences of being up front about their views. Now what could that fear be, I wonder?
Download = any taking data from from servers to affiliated computers for reading, printing etc
You can have first-hand information about Church annulments here: http://www.maltachurchtribunals.org/faqs.html#5
Unfortunately it does not answer your question, but the answer, I believe, is implied. In any case, you may always contact the Tribunal directly (there is a "contact us" button at the top).
And some more interesting snippets - http://www.nopedo.org/ko/pages/crimes.html
Frank (you are on candid camera now Frank). If the document claiming what it said in the New York rag was a fake, why would the author - obviously not someone overly fond of the then pope - why would he care whether the pious one was sainted or not? I know I wouldn't be. Because as an atheist, I certainly wouldn't recycle a sweaty glove and a stringy shoe-lace.
"You cannot have the word of God, in the Bible saying one thing, and all others doing another" - If it is really the word of God, I suppose not. However, prove it is the word of God. Isn't belief in the Bible a question of faith?
@ Jessica DeBattista:
Yes, I am sure. It may seem unfair, but annulment is not about punishment. It is about declaring that a marriage never happened. Plus, I have it from first-hand information that it actually works that way.
Kenneth, your conclusion makes perfect sense, but are you sure that that is the way it goes, because I have a niggling thought that such cases could in effect be decided in the way I mentioned. But unfortunately I am not sure. I would appreciate more information.
I will reword my statement. All discussions surrounding the divorce debate in this blog, or what the Roman Catholic Church has to say, or the political parties (yes ALL of them) are wrong.
You cannot have the word of God, in the Bible saying one thing, and all others doing another.
Ah...I notice that Edgardo Mortara is mentioned in the New York Times article (which people may browse, not download).
The document may be challenged, but are you saying that the whole Mortara affair never happened as well?
Here's a similar story whose authenticity is not challenged. It is about Edgardo Mortara, a child of Jewish parents who was baptised by their Christian maid, and then seized by the Vatican precisely because "a Catholic child should not be raised by Jews"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
I appreciate your reply and the way you would deal with the case. However, that would not be annulment. It would be divorce. Incidentally the civil and ecclesiastical definitions of divorce and annulment are the same.
Annulment basically means that the marriage "never happened" because for marriage to happen, it must be made on the mutual, informed and unprejudiced consent of the couple. If either (or both) are forced (or sufficiently pressured) into marriage, or else the wedding (not marriage) takes place when one of the couple is not cognisant of an important fact about the other which, if he/she knew about, he/she would not go ahead with the marriage, then that would be grounds for annulment.
All other cases are not sufficient grounds for annulment.
Now, if annulment is given (or proclaimed), then the marriage never happened. If the marriage never happened, both could (re)marry.
Kenneth, it is truly sad and since I am completely ignorant about how the church tackles such situations, I can only give my subjective view; I would grant annulment to Mr A but obviously not to Ms B. But that, of course, is my humble opinion which I'm sure is not the way the Church sees it.
I do not have to explain where your argument is wrong. Neither do I have to argue against the Bible in this instance.
What you said previously was that "All arguments put forward about divorce are wrong. Yes all of them".
It is you who are saying that your own arguments are wrong, since your arguments are a part of all arguments. If your arguments about divorce were right, your claim that "All arguments put forward about divorce are wrong", would be false.
If I said (and please note that I do not actually hold this opinion) that "Quite frankly I would not accept any version given by a Christian as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", what could this possibly mean other than "any version given by a Christian is an untruth" which effectively would mean that "Christians are necessarily liars"?
And by the way, do you believe that priests other than personal confessors, should report active paedophiles to the police? I do.
"Quite frankly I would not accept any version given by an advocate of divorce as the truth".
If you would not accept ANY version given by an advocate of divorce as truth, this means that ANY version given by an advocate of divorce would be untrue.
Possibly, what you meant to say is "Quite frankly I would not accept EVERY version given by an advocate of divorce as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", but I leave it to you to say whether this is what you actually meant.
Where is my argument wrong please? Do you want to argue against the Bible now?
Cont...
Regarding annulments, only relatively few cases have grounds for annulment. Add to this the fact that the reasons for declaring (or not) annulments have their own absurd logic. Consider the following:
1. Mr X and Ms Y get married. Mr X discovers that a week prior to the wedding, Ms Y had an affair with someone else and she is pregnant with the other's child, about which she says nothing prior to the wedding. This is grounds for annulment, and they both can re-marry.
2. Mr A and Ms B get married. Mr A discovers, a week after the wedding, that Ms Y is having an affair with someone else, and she is now pregnant with the other's child. This is no grounds for annulment. Ms B leaves Mr A. Mr A now has only one option - to remain celibate and without a wife for the rest of his life.
It would be amusing were it not so tragic, how a single week (or even less) either condemns someone to a lifetime of suffering, or else gives one the opportunity to start afresh.
One of you bright free “spirits”, who denies ever “gratuitously rewording anything”, rashly proceeds to provide an immediate example of that besetting sin. I wrote: “I do not accept any version given by an advocate of divorce as the truth”. This “free spirit”, whose freedom includes the “freedom to reword”, slyly translated that unambiguous statement into something radically different, that is: “advocates of divorce are liars”. Please tell him from me: NOTHING OF THE SORT. Lying implies the deliberate intention to deceive whereas inaccurate versions may be due to carelessness, ignorance or both but without any deliberate malicious intention to deceive. ELEMENTARY.
I believe that "fuss" is an unfortunate choice of word where the issue regards on how to deal with genuine human suffering. That said, I do agree with you that the Church has the right to abide by its teachings.
However, when one speaks of majorities and minorities, this should reflect the numbers of people effected. I have explained several times that with or without divorce, people whose marriage irrevocably fails, will choose to separate and even start other relationships if they wish to. All legally. The denial of the divorce option (to those who cannot afford to obtain it abroad) does not change this fact.
I also agree with you that the Church is not closing a blind eye to the suffering of unhappily married couples. However, since the Church is bound by its own dogmas, the only solution it can offer is legal separation followed by lifelong celibacy.
Cont...
"All arguments put forward about divorce are wrong. Yes all of them".
On careful reading, you will perhaps notice that if all arguments put forward about divorce are wrong, that includes your own.
The State has to make up its mind, and if divorce is in its agenda it has to discuss it in the context of a country which is still predominantly Catholic. If it wants to cater to the minority, which granted seems to be expanding by leaps and bounds - at least from the general feeling one gets from the contributors to such blogs - it has to take its responsibility accordingly.
Having said that, one must say that the Church is not closing a blind eye to the suffering of unhappily married couples! It has its own way of dealing with these cases and though it appears to be dragging its feet, and probably causing unnecessary stress - for when a couple separates, it is unlikely that there will be reconciliation - however, the Church does consider cases, which have grounds for annulment.
Furthermore, I never claimed that mine is the only possible reason. The probability is that there are several different reasons, some more weighty than others - which is to be expected considering that the question regards thousands of different people, each with their own personality, character, self-esteem, etc.
In any case, I look forward to your explanation in The Sunday Times. Not that it directly concerns me, but it will be interesting nonetheless.
On one hand we have the Labour party thinking that it is a human right to divorce which is wrong. We have the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) which is against it, and we have in-betweem arguments.
The fact is that the Bible does preserve to where it is possible the marraige, BUT at the same time, there is a leeway, whereby should there be some iniquity, the wife can be (put away - from the Greek translation), which means divorce.
All other arguments are against the Bible's teachings, and this is what matters!
I said Mgr Vella was ridiculed in blogs (yours in particular). In yesterday's Sunday Times, Mgr Vella said that the majority of comments were in his favour. Who is right: me or Mgr Vella? Both. Mgr Vella was ridiculed in blogs AND the majority of comments were in his favour (or were they? Makes no difference to my true and only claim that he was ridiculed in blogs).
I was apparently the only one to reply to your question regarding why so few Catholic lay people (if any) contribute to the debate other than through letters and comments.
I gave one possible reason, which might not be the actual reason. For that kind of question, the only answer possible is a speculative one. Proof would require a nationwide survey.
If the reason is other than the one I gave, I will wait for it to be given, and only then form my own opinion on whether the other reason is more probable than mine. That's how a non-dogmatic mind works. It forms an opinion with the available knowledge, but is open to revision just as soon as new information comes in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/world/09vatican.html?_r=1
Concerning divorce. No one is denigrating the church. Or destroying it. Humans tend to destroy themselves. Institutions, made up of humans, therefore, are destroyed at the hands of the members that make it up. I'll explain. Bear with me.
If I say divorce/separation/walking on hands and knees is an option, that is all I am saying. Nobody has to bow to my suggestion. One that exists - maybe even the hands and knees bit - in hundreds of countries. It is not a demand. Not compulsory. If a marriage is rock-solid, it can remain so. Close the front door and good-night. The church has, since yonks, shored itself up by quoting cana and sacraments and so on. Now some are showing different views. It's a free world. Divorce may or may not be damaging. A meaningless 'on the rocks' marriage IS very damaging. The church promises reparation. AFTER DEATH OF COURSE. Tell me another one. In a free world, there are some things I could and will buy. Some things I would not touch with a barge-pole. But then free-spirit is my middle name.
The reason why so few lay people take an active role is very different from what you say and is much more serious. I will be writing about it in The Sunday Times. (This is an advert.)
I'm not gratuitously rewording anything. What you said is this: ""Quite frankly I would not accept any version given by an advocate of divorce as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
I do not accept any version given by an advocate of divorce as the truth = advocates of divorce are liars. Elementary.
I also know the difference between disagreeing and ridiculing. That is why I used "ridiculing". And I believe Fr Joe Borg can speak up for himself. After all, my reply was addressed to him. Please answer your own questions, such as whether you agree or not that priests other than personal confessors should report paedophiles to the police, before answering others' questions.
Charles, you needn't apologise to Joe Borg for being off track with your comment. Fr. Borg is a very accommodating individual. Why, even a flourish of minarets (we say a pride of lions, why not a flourish of something) would not faze the man.
Dr. Saliba, looks like our friendship was not salvaged this time around after all. Please do not be disappointed. There are plenty more like me where I come from. Common as muck I am (now why did Eliza Doolittle, too late, CROSS my mind then?).
Nahqa ta"hmar = braying of an ass.
Hanqa ta"hmar = an attack of hoarseness suffered by an ass - possibly after braying too much.
Nahqa jew Hanqa kollu hin mitluf mieghek. Int ghandek Alla ghalik wahdek.
The personal opinion of Kenneth Cassar gratuitously re-wording, basically, that I have ever said that all advocates of divorce are liars does not reflect my own opinion.
“Disagreeing” with a Monsignor and “ridiculing” him are not the same thing elementary!
@CharlesJButtigieg
I prefer to be in agreement with Prof J Aquilina, rather than with you or anybody else regarding the admissible use of HANQA and NAHQA. “Il-hmar nahaq” (the donkey brayed) sounds better than “Il-hmar hanaq” that could be misunderstood as “the donkey throttled someone else” “or “the donkey made someone else hoarse”. The order of the root consonants should not be altered in derived words.
Thank you for explaining that what you claim to be “Fact One” and “FACT TWO” (my emphasis) are not facts at all. Confusion worse confounded!
‘Hanqa’ is the noun and ‘Mahnuq’ is the adjective. Guze Aquilina may have been talking about the sound condition of the donkey’s voice IE ‘hoarse’ (hanqa). The donkeys bray, in Maltese is referred to as ‘Nahqa’ hence ‘Nahqa ta hmar.....’ On the other hand Prof. Aquilina may have interpreted it as ‘The sound of the hoarse donkey...... ‘
In the 2005 Examiner’s report of the Secondary Education Certificate ‘Il-Malti’,the Chairperson of the Board of Examiners at the University of Malta, ruled that the correct version is ‘Nahqa ta hmar.....’ students that wrote’ hanqa’ got a zero mark.
He he he.....with apologies to Fr. Joe Borg for getting out of subject.
"Why do we have so many priest writing on the subject and so few committed Catholics doing the same?".
Simple. If even a Monsignor gets ridiculed in blogs because he holds a different opinion from that of his Church, imagine how a "common" Catholic would be metaphorically "ripped to shreds" by orthodox (not the Greek version) Christians!.
"Quite frankly I would not accept any version given by an advocate of divorce as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
So basically what you are saying is that all those who are advocates or divorce are liars! No wonder your posts, like you complained, get heavily edited. I wonder how this one actually made it through.
The thing is that to criticize one has to be fair. If you choose to comment on a particular interview, to be fair you do not choose to comment only on the parts that are convenient to your agenda. You conveniently failed to comment on the important parts, the ones I chose to reproduce.
But then again, I am a secularist...what do I know?
Don't hold your breath waiting for unequivocal replies from Dr Francis Saliba. He won't even answer a simple question as to whether he believes that priests (apart from personal confessors) should immediately report active paedophiles to the police!
See: http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090817/fr-joe-borg/is-the-wish-for-a-just-society-a-futile-dream
@ Joseph Galea. You're not confused at all man. You've got it all worked out. Couldn't have put it better myself. Bless.
Looks like your sense of humour is on a different frequency to mine, forget the symbolic Jack & Jill and the joke about how Jill got pregnant, take any two situations you like and try to convince me that the church doesn’t use two weights and two measures with regards to affording baptism to innocent infants.
Ask any couple from the ‘ingarzati’ community whether they managed to get their ‘illegitimate’ offspring baptised.
Ask any missionary how many times they had baptised infants and grown-ups in India, Pakistan and other non Christian country, whose parents are not Christians and living in sin?
And for those with a good sense of humour, The Church of England, in a bid to keep pace with the changing times, has begun promoting a “2-for-1” service that allows couples to combine a marriage ceremony with the baptism of their children born out of wedlock, buy one get one free. Humorous but very true.
‘NAHQA ta hmar qatt ma telghet il genna’....mhux hanqa.
HANQA ta papra,serduq,baqra,tigiega,qattus ecc.ecc.
@ Mr. Ciantar. Do whatever it takes to have a second stab at happiness. I am with you.
Ciantar, you could wait forever otherwise. The church is in turmoil, the enemy at the door. And how does it react. Not by being reasonable and flexible with you that is for sure. Why, one of its stalwarts even thinks that leaders of a religion very alien to catholic Malta should be allowed to buildi as many of their temples - to be duly filled no doubt - as they see fit. With Catholic leaders like this, I am afraid, Ciantar, the church is not going to change any day soon. Good Luck Ciantar. You have my blessing (and believe you me, that is quite an accolade). Same to you Mr. Short (I bet you're a six-footer, Lol!). You have to laugh. It is Sunday after all. Day of observance. And rest. And laying back. Look at ceilings. And think of - no, not England - Malta, and its quaint quirkiness.
Divorce is not accepted by the church. If we want to remain in the faith then divorce is not an option.
If divorce is made available, committed Catholics would not resort to it. If their marriage breaks down they might separate but would remain true to their vows and not seek to remarry.
If, on the other hand, they decide to forgo their faith and remarry (civilly) then it is between them and God.
The problem occurs when people want their cake and eat it - i.e. divorce and remarry in the church.
So I agree with Mgr, Charles Vella and say that "divorce doesn't scare me."
You can verify the facts quite easily at the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_kennedy . I am copying the relevant parts.
'Kennedy met Virginia Joan Bennett, known as Joan, while he was delivering a speech at Manhattanville College in October 1957... They were married by Francis Cardinal Spellman on November 29, 1958, at St. Joseph's Church in Bronxville, New York... They had three children together...By the mid-1960s, their marriage was troubled by his womanizing and her growing alcoholism.'
'In January 1981, Ted and Joan Kennedy announced they were getting a divorce. The proceedings were generally amicable and she received a reported $4 million settlement when the divorce was granted in 1982.'
'They (Kennedy and Vicki Reggie) became engaged in March 1992, and were married by Judge A. David Mazzone on July 3, 1992, in a civil ceremony at Kennedy's home in McLean, Virginia.'
Both the widow and former wife were at the funeral Mass.
Shame on you and your fellow colleagues who are inflicting so much pain to so many people in Malta.
Mgr Anton Gouder hundreds of years ago you would of made a perfect inquisitor because that is all you are doing condemning people who are crying out for a second chance to a life of unhappiness.
So for once listen to what’s happening around you and to someone who as you put it is your senior and obviously more learned then you and he is Mgr Charles Vella.
You are asking the wrong person because I do not know the circumstances surrounding the marriage and divorce of Senator Edward Kennedy. Quite frankly I would not accept any version given by an advocate of divorce as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yet Senator Kennedy was married in Church, divorced and found love, stability and happiness with his second wife whom he married in a civil ceremony. Why can this happen in America while here in Malta people cannot seek happiness in a second marriage when the first fails. Why is divorce and remarriage such an abomination in Malta? Why are the Maltese the only people in the Western World who cannot find happiness in marriage when the first marriage fails? Cannot the Maltese be trusted to think and care for themselves in such matters are marriage and family life? It seems that the Catholic Church does not trust the maturity of the Maltese.
The fact that Senator Kennedy was divorced and remarried did not seem to bother the Catholic Church in Boston.
May Senator Kennedy, the champion of the poor,downtrodden and dispossesed in America, rest in peace.
The blog now developed into a discussion about infant baptism. This is a very old argument in the Church. There is evidence that this practice hails back to apostolic times. The logic behind it is very simple. Parents give the best they can to their children. This is a basic principle. It should apply to matters material and spiritual. Isn’t it natural that parents who value the Christian way of living would baptise their children when they are still babies? End of story.
I am not discomfited by any stupid insult you are allowed to throw at me or at my religion. When I answer my circumspect but crushing replies are so heavily edited that I do not even recognize them. So, why bother with you? . “Hanqa ta’ hmar ma titlghax is-sema”.
Sorry, it is not my fault that you fail to understand that my comment is a complete answer to your question. Read it once more, carefully, and do not waste your time studying the tactics of demagogues, gangsters an dictators.
For starters. You wrote:
“Fact One.
Jill got pregnant when she went up the hill with Jack to fetch a pale of water. It happened at the precise moment when she bent down to fill the bucket.
Fact Two. You don’t need more details because you know that what I stated is the church’s normal modus operandum in these situations”
Both those “facts” are not facts at all. They are silly attempts to look clever and both are untrue. Jill is a mythical character who did not get pregnant in the way you suggest and I definitely need more details because I do not “know” that your vague incidents are “the Church’s normal operand operandum”.
Q.E.D.
Joe, I got this from an article in the New York Times. Here is the link. Hope that it helps.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/world/09vatican.html
Your answer does not answer my question, "Does this hold true for adults wanting a divorce?", which addresses a very specific issue: Divorce.
Irrelevant arguments are the favourite tactic of demagogues, gangsters and dictators. You are not in their class ... so why do you use their method?
@ Dr Francis Saliba & Fr. J Borg.
Just show me where my assertions are only speculative and need to be corroborated. Would I need to corroborate a statement in that we didn’t have any rain in Mellieha during the last 24 hours?
Facts are facts, you and everyone else know that nobody can deny my statement. Here is where I ask Fr. J Borg to break his silence and contradict me if he can.
Thanks for confirming the necessity to insist on non-existent corroboration before swallowing your wild assertions.
If it is any comfort to you, please rest assured that I would never dream of sharing beds or rooms with you.
@ Dr Francis Saliba
Fact One.
Jill got pregnant when she went up the hill with Jack to fetch a pale of water. It happened at the precise moment when she bent down to fill the bucket.
Fact Two. You don’t need more details because you know that what I stated is the church’s normal modus operandum in these situations.
Fact Three. I got what I expected from you......tidwir mal-lewza.
Have a nice weekend.
The Godfather.
My statement regarding an adult’s ability to choose to be baptized or not cannot to be extrapolated to all the other choices “about personal matters” because they may not be so personal at all if they impinge on the rest of society or if they require the sanction of civil law.
I am not at all surprised (I knew that all along) that many atheists (how is one a false atheist?) ignore religion, just as I know that many Christians ignore atheism. I don't suppose that you would call Catholic preachers who preach against atheism "false Christians" just because the majority of Christians ignore atheism.
To each his own choices. However, my point still stands. One ignores an influential institution that effects even non-participants at his own risk.
And how is it that a Christian abrogates the right to dictate rules for being an atheist when atheism is simply a statement of non-belief in a personal God?
Can you please give us your unique definition of atheism?
I need more details, from reliable sources that I can confirm before embarking on any comments on your version of the misadventures of Jack and Jill. I only know about about the one when they went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.
@ Dr Francis Saliba
Case 1. Jack and Jill live in sin, they had a baby and took him to church to be baptised, and the priest denied the sacrament to the baby because he was born out of wedlock.
Case 2. Jack and Jill were married at the registrar after getting a divorce from a previous marriage, according to our church’s rules they were living in sin. They had a baby and the church found no objection to baptise him.
I call that discrimination but you think it’s just. Have it your way.
Truth is that the rule was made when co-habitation carried the stigma of ‘ingarzament’ and ‘pogguti’ which was considered an uglier sin than a couple getting married outside the church. And you know this but you would never admit it.
PS. Please don’t come back suggesting that I condone co-habitation because whether I do or not is totally beside the point.
Good parents ,God parents an obvious mistake,you didn't need to be sarcastic. Incidently,we did later on become good parents to the girl's sister.
Metaphor is lost on you but that is hardly my fault.
I am sorry (well, not really) if my avowed atheism (according to Dr. Saliba, a self-confessed atheist, thereby implying guilt.....confessed.....I do not do guilt. I do avowal. I am a free spirit who rejects spirits of any kind).....I was saying....if my avowed atheism frightened, upset, threatened you. I am not responsible for your emotion outbursts any more than you are responsible for mine.
I don't do assumptions but seems pretty clear you dislike what I stand for. Knowing I am a staunch atheist you thought you'd use the ruse of blackmailing me into silence in order for me to prove my mettle and appease your antipathy. It didn't work. Because perfidy tends not to. Better luck next time Toninu. Must try harder. Nul points!
Please explain why you fail to understand my simple statement that anyone who had been refused baptism as a baby through the fault of others would be perfectly entitled to be baptized as an adult if he so desires.
Methinks cleverness is the will to use the brain and recognising that seeking a sound justice is the only thing we are about. With no fanciful frills and unverifiable promises.
I am not making any contradictory statements. You need to distinguish between the ceremonial trappings of a Catholic baptism and its essential sacramental nature. My point is that any person remotely aware of the Church’s teaching would know that the presence of a priest and the usual church ceremony are not essential for a valid baptism. What is absolutely essential is that the baptized person if adult - or its guardians on its behalf if a baby - intends to live up to the baptismal commitment. If these persons are living in open rejection of the teaching of the Church it can be assumed that prima facie this fundamental commitment is lacking. The Church is applying this rule uniformly without discrimination. Discrimination and is being exhibited by those who refuse to comply with the doctrine of the Church and who hypocritically pretend that their under age offspring would be accepted within its ranks
Maybe I’m not following your line of thought as I’m finding your statement contradicting. First you categorically state that “The Church cannot prevent the baptism of anybody.................and then you qualify your statement by adding “It does not give its approval and its blessing to any ceremony that does not conform to its concept of a genuine intention and a serious credible effort for the child to be brought up in the Catholic faith by the parents themselves or anybody else who assumes that responsibility with the undoubted approval of the parents e.g. godparents, legal guardians or other relatives etc.”
My whole point is that our church ‘discriminates’ between people who fall in the church’s criteria of ‘its concept of a genuine intention’.
"When the child grows up it can come to a decision on its own - without anybody else imposing."
How? By naming the child to some [parish] saint? By imposing religion upon the child?
If I never believed Christianity was the true way (at least for me) I've long since abandoned it. The people's mentality in Malta is the problem, not religion.
I remember a while back reading how the church rejects the belief of curses, yet a lot of Maltese still believe in the "evil eye".
You know what I think? Sometimes it isn't a matter of being religious, but a matter of manipulating it to your needs.
NB: I'm not opposing all your points, it's just that that particular statement is untrue.
Regards,
Chris.
I recently came across the following story, which I found particularly relevant to your position about baptism.
In January 2005, the Corriere della Sera reported the discovery of a 1946 Vatican letter, ordering French church officials not to return Jewish children to their parents, if they were baptized while under church protection from the Nazis. In effect, these were Jewish children that had been saved from the Nazis, and placed in Catholic Institutions and/or raised by Catholic families.
The 1946 letter indicates that Pope Pius XII himself approved the directive regarding these Jewish children. “If the children were entrusted [to the Church] by their parents and if their parents now claim them, they can be returned so long as these children have not received baptism" the letter stated, adding, "Children who have been baptized must not be entrusted to institutions that cannot ensure their Christian education."
This is quite remarkable. On one hand the Church deserves a lot of credit for saving the lives of innocent children. On the other hand, I wonder what right did the Church have in baptizing these children (knowing they were Jewish), and subsequently preventing their return to their parents, because they were baptized.
The truth Francisco is that I am a practising homosexual - at the ever so slight opportunity given half a chance.....as with every sexual being, does not exactly come on a tray a-begging, unless of course one has been with the same spouse for x number of decades. But that is a different hat box and I'd rather not go there, thank you buckets). And an atheist. You, on the other hand, are a fides difensor, a hooray henry (or Maltese equivalent), defending the indefensible. We could never sleep in the same room together, even separate beds. Why, we could never ever, even breakfast together. Pass me the marmaduke please Richard. And be snappy with it. We don't want it to evolve into marmite, do we now. You endless source of entertainment, you!
Your account of a 10 year old child whose parents had an unfortunate experience with marriages and divorces but who was baptized in Stella Maris Church and later grew up to be a good Christian mothering two baptized Catholics is a very good advertisement for the local Church practice. I very much doubt that you and your good wife were the “Good parents” of that child. Even without consulting the church records I would guess that you were only godparents.
"When the child grows up it can come to a decision on its own - without anybody else imposing."
Based on the above, I would, therefore, conclude that, adults should be free to make up their own minds about personal matters.
Does this hold true for adults wanting a divorce?
I'm defending nothing. I'm simply pointing out that if you think the catholic church is wrong, don't be a catholic. I'm not sure why you are having such a problem with that. You can follow the teachings of the bible and be a complete christian if you want to, without forcing an age-old institution to accept your tennants, rather than its own.
Please explain why you think a child should be baptised as a catholic, if you don't agree with the catholic church. You see, I'm not the one with double standards here.
Antoine Vella:
Why is someone who doesn't criticise religion a real atheist and someone who does a fake one? Your logic completely escapes me. Are people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Anthony Grayling etc fake atheists? Are you proposing they actually believe in God and just act like they don't?
What exactly is your point? Are you agreeing with me that the church is in the wrong when it denies baptism to children born out of wedlock or do you disagree with me?
The Church cannot prevent the baptism of anybody. It does not give its approval and its blessing to any ceremony that does not conform to its concept of a genuine intention and a serious credible effort for the child to be brought up in the Catholic faith by the parents themselves or anybody else who assumes that responsibility with the undoubted approval of the parents e.g. godparents, legal guardians or other relatives etc.
It is hypocritical to expect the blessing of the Church when the parents are in open rejection of its tenets. It is up to the parents to conform - not up to the Church to adjust its rules to accomodate the whims of any couple. When the child grows up it can come to a decision on its own - without anybody else imposing.
My point was not that you should shut up but that you are not as unbelieving as you think or claim to think. (You're only going to shut up "tomorrow" anyway - not just now. That's great, a la Maltija). I won't comment on your rather tortuous disquisition about routes since my navigational skills are less sophisticated than they should be and you've decided that I manage to travel only in straight lines.
Kenneth Cassar
"So no, real atheists (as opposed to what? fake ones?) should not ignore religion, and would be irresponsible if they did."
You would probably be surprised to know how many real atheists (yes, as opposed to fake ones) there are in Malta. You would be surprised to know how many actually do ignore religion without making a public fuss about it.
Let me highlight the worthless double standards which you are defending.
A few years back my wife and I acted as Good parents to a 10 year old Anglo-Maltese girl whose parents were both divorcees before they married, the mother was an atheist and the father abandoned his Catholic religion a long time ago. For reasons unknown to me the church had no reservations to baptise this child. In spite of her family background and the way she was brought up at home she lived up to her late acquired religion, got married in church and today she lives a very Christian life in England with her Protestant husband and two daughters both baptised Catholics.
This is not a made up story to prove a point. The baptismal ceremony was celebrated at the church of Stella Maris in Sliema about 20 years ago and the church’s records will confirm my story.
I feel like a parrot.
If you have an organisation, with a set of rules dictating what is required of its members and you don't agree with these rules, then you can choose one of the following:
1) Trying to change the rules
2) Follow the rules
3) Leave
You are obviously chosing 1, which is fair enough. The problem with this is obviously that now you are imposing your will on the organisation, demanding that they follow suit.
The church can have several reasons. Dr. Francis Saliba have already answered this (we are in agreement for once, yay). If you don't intend to bring up the child according to the tennants of the church (for example, in a home with two unmarried parents), then why should the church let you baptise your child?
You want to be catholic, act catholic. You want to be labelled catholic but not act it, then be a hypocrite.
So what is stopping you or friend from going through with it? I'm sure you are clear minded enough to see that the Catholic Church does not have a patent on baptism.
It says it clearly in the passage you quoted "repent, and be baptised...". This is a dictate to what you should do, not anyone else.
To me, as I have said before, it's a splash of water and some words. To you, I'm sure it's much more than that. To Christopher Grech the water bit is wrong, perhaps you should follow his way instead.
I'm sorry to be blunt about it, but I honestly feel that most people just want their children to be a part of the baptism to fit in with a social image, while not really pondering on what it would mean, nor what the most appropriate way is.
No I am not implying that the church should move according to popular opinion that would be a radical approach. What I am saying is that our church isn’t perfect and gross mistakes were committed in the past like burning people for their sins and the infamous holy inquisition and gross mistakes are still being made.
Instead of putting words in my mouth you need to give me one justifiable reason why a church should refuse baptism to an innocent baby because their parents are not married. Because the church says so- may be acceptable to you but it isn’t to me. And I still consider myself a practising Roman Catholic.
In Acts 2:37-38, the people who wanted to be right with God asked this question "What shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." So we see that everyone who wants to give their heart to Jesus and please Him will follow through with God's plan of baptism.
I think my idea of a bbq is the same as most peoples' idea of a bbq. My idea of fire is the one that burns your fingers when touched. If you want to reinterpret the word for fire to mean something different, feel free, but you are just complicating the discussion.
Also, the bible passages you quoted does not say you shouldn't baptise with water, but simply that it is the holy spirit that truly baptise you.
You seem to imply that the church should move according to popular opinion, not according to beliefs. My point is that the church have the right to set up their own rules and then it is up to you if you find these rules acceptable or not. Many find them unacceptable and in fact the entire protestant movement (in all it's weird clothes) is more or less based on a rejection of these values and interpretations, to different degree depending on which type of protestant you talk to.
You have to also accept that the sacrament of baptism is invented by the church, hence they can choose who should receive it or not. How can you force a priest to baptise your child, if this goes against his own beliefs?
If I want to play football, I don't bring a hockeystick insisting I should be allowed to use it during a match.
I do not know your idea of BBQs, but the fire of the Holy Spirit, is not the same fire of charcoal!
It is the Father or the Son of Man that sends the fire of the Holy Spirit upon humans.
This is how the apostles were filled with the spirit, before spreading the good word of Christ and God's Laws.
@ Patrik Larsson
What you are saying is to take it as it is or leave it. What you are forgetting is that we are talking about a religion not some item in the super market.
Church rules had changed over the years and change doesn’t come easy in an ultra conservative institution. It takes people to stand up and be counted before our church would move an inch.
I insist that the church is wrong when it refuses the sacrament of baptism to anybody, there are other rules I disagree with, are you telling me to leave the church because of some outdated rules made by people on behalf of the church? Is our church so dictatorial-I don’t think so?
Antoine, you seem to know much about rejected love etc. (what do I know? long experience has taught me to deal with rejection, either way, in an adult way. Babbling I leave to the babblers. They have their own sexual problems to deal with, as everybody does (called Human Condition). I have enough to contend with. How/why people choose to deal with their problems by burying their head in the proverbial sand - nought to do with me. May I suggest though, that having come out of the woodwork to moralise, they deal with the reality of what they see. Very tough I know. It's called travelling the route less travelled.
What are you proposing, that we barbecue our babies?
When one reads Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8 , Luke 3:16, John 1:33, they all confirm that Christ came to baptise from now on, in the Holy Spirit.
And also in Act 1:5
Acts:
1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.
1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His Own power.
1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Proving that from Christ onwards, it is the power of the baptism of fire via the Holy Spirit, that is of essence.
The Churches continue to ignore what Christ says, as usual, and baptise with water.
Regarding divorce, the church wants to meddle itself, promoting its own false gospels.
"does this mean that children are categorized by the faults ( if you want to call them so ) of their parents ?"
Some people do categorise the children according to faults. This should come as no news to you. I don't categorise them that way. My whole point was that if you want the church to perform a baptism, then you can't force the church to do this against its own rules, whether you think these rules are fair or not.
I'm completely with you on the adult baptism bit. I claim that all kids are agnostic and baptising them makes no difference to that. I did baptise my daughter, as it was important to my wife, while being completely insignificant to me. If I were to choose I would have preferred my daughter to be baptised at an adult age, if she wishes to do so.
My whole point is that if the church decides these are the rules they want their followers to live by, then the followers would have to follow suit. If the way the church does their business is so appalling to you, or your friend, simply stay out of it. Don't baptise your children to such a system if you find it so wrong.
Antoine Vella:
"Real atheists" don't believe in God. That's it. Being an atheist doesn't decide how resistant or passive you will be against religion. It's a ridiculous proposition to claim that you wouldn't be a real atheist unless you live according to how you think an atheist should live.
I cannot understand this obsession with people who clearly are not Catholic wishing to appear so. I am in perfect agreement with Patrik Larsson here.
Do these people, who clearly are not Catholic, really believe that their child will go to hell unless he/she gets a Catholic baptism?
When will people who willingly and persistently break Catholic rules - such as marriage before sex, no sex outside of marriage, no divorce, no contraceptives, no abortion - when will such people stop being hypocrites and stop calling themselves "Catholic".
It is one thing "sinning" and feeling sorry for the "sin". It is quite another to believe a practice opposed by the Catholic Church is not a sin.
One cannot ignore an institution that undeniably (for better or worse) influences a lot of people, particularly when that institution's influence directly effects even people who are not willing participants in it.
So no, real atheists (as opposed to what? fake ones?) should not ignore religion, and would be irresponsible if they did.
Baptism is not some light hearted party celebration. It is a most serious and onerous sacramental duty. The acid test for a Church blessing for this sacramental responsibility is not the parents’ marital adventures and misadventures or the tendency of parents to live on the immoral earnings of prostitution or to adopt a criminal life style. It would be the reasonable anticipation and probability that the baptized baby will somehow be brought up in a genuine Christian environment so as to be able to mature as faithful Christians – what the enemies of the Church describe as the message of Christ being “rammed down the throat” of children.
“With all due respect, if they want their child baptised they should live according to church rules”? With all due respect Patrik, that’s a load of crap. The church doesn’t recognise a marriage outside the church (registrar) yet it affords baptism to children born out of such marriages even though, as far as the church is concerned, those children are born out of wedlock. And then you get the Catholic Missioners going to third world countries chasing the witch doctors, and the pagans to baptise their children to Christianity. Hard fact is that our church will have no problem to baptise an infant born to a professional prostitute married to a serial killer but denies the same sacrament to innocent children if their parents aren’t married.
Living according to church rules?
I was born an atheist. I was doused in water. Quickly. It was believed that dying undoused relegated one to Limbo (no, not dancing on a Caribbean Beach. More like a dark, dark place, with millions of others. Waiting. And waiting. And waiting some more. Waiting for........and then some luminary declared the place not feasible. And he cancelled the show. Did the guys in the waiting-room get a refund? I doubt it. Capitalist money-grabbers are not known for giving refunds, no-questions-asked.
I was saying. I was baptized. I have done some great stuff in my time (many would not approve, bully for them). But recently I did my greatest, my piece de resistance, my colpo di stato, my chef d'oeuvre, my masterstroke, my everything. I had myself de-baptised. It is there, certified and witnessed. Awaiting frame-work. Cannot decide on the style. Maybe a clip-frame will have to do. I have nothing. Like that saint who gave all away.
With all due respect, if they want their child baptised they should live according to church rules. You can't claim inclusion to a club (the church in this case), but on your own terms. Baptism has nothing to do with politics.
But this is also why I can't understand why politicians can't see the important divide there has to be between secular and sectarian arguments and decisions based on them. You want to marry in church and then divorce, then the church have all the right in the world to deny you a second wedding in church. But on the other hand, politicians in a supposedly secular state should not disallow divorce for sectarian reasons.
Joe: guzexuereb@hotmail.com
Please note that this e.mail address is not to be abused by sundry abusers.
Asking the PM to give his MPs a free vote is like asking your football adversaries to auto-score for you. Dr Muscat is politically savvy enough to know that the PM will never hand him such political mileage; he would rather pilot the bill himself to gain credit for his party. That's why I called it 'backtracking'. And yet, I think that for Dr Muscat it is a win-win situation, whatever the vote in Parliament. The bill passes - he is seen as the champion of the progressive middle-of-the-road voters; the bill fails - he is hailed as the harbinger of a future secular society. However, several Nationalist MPs are convinced that legalising divorce is not only morally correct but also politically advantageous. So which party will be the party of change? It's only a question of time and political courage. Who will pip whom at the post? The right to divorce, as Dr Muscat rightly said, is a civil right and in a democratic society no majority vote can deny minority rights. The party that introduces divorce legislation will eventually establish itself as the promoter of an affluent, progressive, tolerant and secular European society.
All it has to do is open the Bible and read it.
Divorce (put away) is mentioned in the Old and New Testaments and the Koran.
Christ mentioned that marriage should not be dissolved, but there are exceptions to this rule.
I have given before some Biblical quotes on this topic before.
I think you might have missed some parts of Mrg Charles Vella's interview, like for instance:
"I keep reading that marriages in Malta will disintegrate if there is divorce, but it didn't happen in Italy. In the first couple of years, the divorce rate (in Italy) rose because there were people waiting for years to get it. But now the figures have levelled out. It's not increasing."
Regarding statistics: "These are not figures, they're people. There are families behind this. I feel for the couple whose first marriage was a big mistake but is now living a very good life".
"I feel these members need healing and my theory is that while divorce from the Catholic viewpoint is considered a menace for the stability of marriage it does not mean it's going to wreck marriages. If we build our marriage on rock and not on sand, the Christian family will become stronger."
"Let's not be prophets of doom. Let's stop scaring people. People tell me to fight on. Some of the Church exponents - not the bishops - are going overboard. They should either stay silent or be updated."
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090816/interview/lets-not-be-prophets-of-doom
Two parents that I know well had the misfortune of seeing their two married children going through the trauma of a marriage breakup; the girl married outside the church and lived in England and got her divorce out there and returned to Malta to marry another man in church, yes in church. The boy married, lived 5 years of marriage and got a legal separation in Malta. He is now living with another girl, and has two children which the church refuses to baptise because they were born out of wedlock. They wish to get married and are toying with the idea of going to England and get their divorce there. Ironically, due to the fact that the boy’s first marriage wasn’t a church wedding, when he gets his divorce in England he would return to Malta, get married in Church and have their two kids baptised. So much for religion, so much for our legislators to allow this nonsense and its attendant hardship to happen.
And yet some people would insist that Divorce isn’t a political issue.
What’s your reaction to this Reverend Father?
Fr Borg on Patri Montebello: 'The firebrand Dominican on the attack ... thundered ... huuuuuuge sarcasm throughout ... and furhter sarcasm levelled at the Torca editor ...'
And then, lauding Fr Gouder 100%.
Well, Father, if you want to continue thinking that some people are stupid and dumb, you can go ahead, but there are people who know how to read and know how to read between the lines. And then you say that it's me - or should that be I, says Mrs Bucket? - who take myself too seriously.
Dr Muscat did not backtrack on his initiative, he stated his intention to introduce a personal bill to legalise divorce provided that the PM would give his MPs a free vote in Parliament like he (Dr. Muscat) intends to do. And Joseph is still waiting.
Clerical dueling on divorce... "...priest included, putting forward diverse points of view on the subject." and yet MGR Vella's statements disturbed many catholics .. Why, do they feel betrayed by their own leaders ? I feel betrayed every time a priest vows to a life of celibacy and then is allowed to marry ! How unfair !
Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a country like Canada, know, without the benefit of studies (scientific or otherwise) that, all the arguments against divorce are nothing more than crap.
Divorce is not a matter of State or of Church. It is not a public issue. It is a personal choice ... a personal choice ... a personal choice ...
As we say in Canada, BUTT OUT ... it's none of your business!
And now, for a short, short lesson from the MVM ("Maltese Village Math"):
Sa = 1/La
(The Strength of the Argument is inversely proportional to the Length of the Argument).
'Nuff said.
I did not know that. Now I have learnt something new today, which I'm grateful for. I was very aware of the original slogan, but was oblivious to the evolved version.
No faith, no statistics no Archbishop and no Pope can defend the church’s thesis against the introduction of divorce legislation. Everybody has a right to express their thesis against divorce but no one has a right to stop the introduction of divorce legislation.
All the Fathers Montebello, Serracino Inglott, Vella and Gouders may argue and duel over the churches stand on diverse until the end of time, it is their priesthood duty to do so, however, our legislators will be giving a disservice to the people that elected them in parliament if they were to legislate to satisfy the teachings of any church.
If only one married couple finds it difficult, for any reason at all, to continue to live together and they want to start a new life with different partners, our parliament has to provide the respective vehicle to allow them the freedom of their choice. Only despotic governments thrust religion down the people’s gullet.
If a married couple simply cannot get along, staying together would make their individual lives miserable, as it would their children’s. Is divorce not a better alternative within a legal system that provides fair and equitable protection to the spouses and their children? Common sense would suggest that it certainly is.
The problem, of course, is that the Catholic Church can never support divorce, any more than it will ever endorse the use of condoms (but that is another story). However, while the Church has every right to preach its own doctrines, one must surely realize that its influence on the Maltese population, and thus the State, is enormous. Any party in power which would contemplate, let alone introduce divorce would be committing political suicide (remember the Mintoff years?)
It is scandalous that the right to divorce, which is extended to all citizens in all civilized societies, is denied in Malta to all citizens, including non-Catholics. It is evident that the Catholic Church is simply abusing its dominant position in Malta.
To answer your question... Where else are we given the opportunity to voice our contributions ? No committee's , No discussion boards, no workshops. My honest opinion is that even if we had to have such opportunities, the maltese culture has quite a lot to strive to be acceptant towards people with a different opinion to ourselves. We seldom accept with dignity and respect other people's opinion. I am including myself here as well. Our culture is sometimes based on " Min mhux Maghna... Kontra taghna " . See the televised prgrams of discussion .. See some blogs ... The degeneration of a topic can be so proufound that little of the original idea is left intact . The insults will fly high, accusations, sarcasm, ridicule, mokery .. Just wait to see how this blog evolves in a weeks time .
Now would it not be also good if we had to use this approach on the divorce issue and create a campaign aimed at building different alliances to try and make divorce a rarity.
Would we not all gain from such a practical vision ?
I am quite sure that this blog will bring about many heated disputtes, many bible quotes will be thrown at all those like me show a hint of diverse opinion. We will have many feeling far superior and compelle to Judge all of us as Sinners , etc ect ..