Comments on: The heavy-hitters have entered the debate

By: freethinker

freethinker — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:46:30 +0000

@Alfred Mifsud: if I understand your last sentence correctly, you state that if there was no love right from the start, then the marriage should be declared null. Annulment (more precisely a declaration of annulment) is a legal concept and , since love is not a requisite for the validity of marriage, either a civil or a canonical one, no judgment of annulment may be made on these grounds. Love is only a desideratum but not a legal requisite. Of course, you must know that annulment means the marriage was invalid ab initio while divorce is the dissolution of a valid marriage.

In my view, the Church does not need to get out of any conundrum. It just needs to stop pressuring the State from enacting divorce. Even more forcefully, the State needs to stop acting as if Malta is a theocracy subservient to the Church. I have always believed that any politician who is afraid that, should he contribute to enacting divorce, he will have to account for it to his Maker, then that politician should leave politics. There can never be any argument against divorce, other than a religious one, that is not also applicable to separation and no one has suggested we abolish separation and force people to live together when they do not want to. The Maltese State is just postponing the inevitable and leaving its citizens in misery in the process. We are the last European Union nation still fighting for civil rights. But we shall overcome. Probably not in my lifetime but we will. I already hear the call: “Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we’re free at last!”

By: cikki

cikki — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:23:29 +0000

@ Ronnie
In countries other than Malta, unfortunately some people do
get married thinking if it doesn’t work we can always get
a divorce. So it is important to help young couples before
they get married and explain to them that at times, keeping
a marriage going can be hard work. However, if a marriage does break down, then divorce should be available. There
are two main reasons, first of all children in an
unhappy marriage can be damaged for life, and secondly,
why shouldn’t the innocent party in the break up have
another chance of happiness.

By: Guzeppi Grech

Guzeppi Grech — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:37:37 +0000

What a nonsensical debate.

If someone is in dire need of divorce they will hardly understand the empty rhetoric of those who say that marriage should be insoluble. And their kids aren’t much happy.

If someone wants to stay married (or even more ironic if they aren’t even married)and would never contemplate divorce for whatever the reasons, will never understand the others.

No-one can win this debate.

We just have to make use of axioms. An example of which is that if someone wants to leave his/her spouse, no-one can stop him/her especially if they leave this gilded island cage. And another is that if a couple wish to stay married together, no divorce legislation will make them split.

Last axiom: SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN BOLD
If a marriage is threatened simply by the availability of divorce then that marriage is worth SH*T.

And since I believe what I just wrote, that’s my final word :)

By: jim

jim — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:56:23 +0000

@John Schembri : just talk to people following these courses. The courses might be intersting but still superficial. As related to what can be done, I have no idea. If i had, i would pass the information. Maybe some sessions can be held a year after marriage, when things starts to get tough.

I’m not advocating that marriage should last forever for some couples. Some people are hell to live with (thats why the church has annulment – altough some get it and some not).

then there is the issue of children, which no one takes into account. Do they have the right for a happy childhood?

@Ronnie – your argument is quite superficial. A life jacket, you take before going, not after. Actually, are couples getting prepared for marriage? I think not. They spend years on their new home but nothing is done on a personal level.

@freethinker – i dont live in fantasy. i invest in my relationship. If couples see marriage as an investment, they will threat each other different.

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:10:01 +0000

To me marriage without divorce is akin to setting out at sea without life jackets. No sailor plans to drown, but if the s?*!t hits the fan there are the life jackets. I guess it’s the same with marriag … no couple plans to divorce when they are making plans to get married, however if things don’t work out why not offer an alternative?

By: freethinker

freethinker — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:45:02 +0000

@jim: even if, merely for the sake of the argument, the State were to find some magical way of “promoting healthy marriages” (no one seems to know how), until such time as this is achieved, what is to happen to those whose “unhealthy” marriages have failed? I think the advocates of the prepare-suitably-for-marriage-and-live-happily-ever-after fantasy should come down to earth and accept that there is no way for this to happen and that divorce is a right which has been denied to the Maltese for far too long because of vested interests of the Church and its supporters. There is no way to guarantee that a marriage will last for ever. Romeo and Juliet died too soon for us to know what would have happened had they lived. When the couple know that it’s over, then they should have the right to call it a day and look for new pastures. This is what happens in all the world except in “Malta fior del mondo”… We can no longer live in a bubble floating in a sea of obliviousness ignoring the world around us. Enough is enough. There is no need to discuss anything, there are no more arguments to come up with, there is nothing to study, nothing left to consider. It’s all been done before, long ago, all over the planet we refuse to live on.

By: John Schembri

John Schembri — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:07:29 +0000

@ Jim : ” Most courses from Cana movement are outdated and superficial”. Can you please substantiate your statement please? Do you have a recent experience? In your opinion what can be done to improve them?

By: Alfred Mifsud

Alfred Mifsud — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:07:24 +0000

The need for promotion of healthy marraige does not exclude the need for divorce where marraige has broken down irretrievably.

In my case I have been legally separated for 14 years and have two kids from a second relationship out of marraige. Which Bishop can still hope that my marraige can be re-fixed or that I would be serving God by abonding my young kids to go back with my ex-wife?

I can imagine how the Church will get out of this conundrm a few decades down the road when a sizeable portion of Catholics would be divorced. Marraige needs 4 crucial elelemts to be valid. The male, the female , the minister representing God and love. When one of these elements is missing marraige is null. Love never dies. If it dies it was never there in the first place so the marraige can be annulled with much less burden of proof then is the case today. Anything, but do not call it divorce.

By: jim

jim — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:25:14 +0000

The point by Fr cremona is valid. Maybe before introducing divorce, the state should promote healthy marriages based on todays realities. When most of the media points against marriage, teenagers have nowhere to look (since they dont see their parent’s marriage, even when still together, as healthy). The church should also do something similr. Most courses from Cana movement are outdated and superficial.

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:57:37 +0000

The term “natural law” is a cowardly excuse for “my god says so”. I doubt our society would be a very prosperous one if all just succumbed to real natural law.