If it were to invite the Hon and Mr. Brown it would be going against its own teaching and in a way condoning it as you said in your piece above on adulterers, no?

[Daphne – The Catholic Church by its own admission recognises the laws of the land. If those laws include divorce and remarriage, then so be it. To put it simply, if we had divorce and those four MPs had remarried (except for Marlene Pullicino who, because she models herself on the Madonna, is against divorce and will have to have it foisted on her by Jeffrey), then they would have been on the Bishops’ guest list.]

Yes but it will get in a bit of a tangle. What if the state recognises cohabitation for example or same sex marriages would the Catholic Church invite the hon mr and mr brown?

[Daphne – It would have to. States recognise unions through marriage not cohabitation. This cohabitation law proposal is a total canard.]

I beg to differ. Divorce unlike separation would not be recognised by the Catholic Church and hence the situation would remain the same (kif suppost).

[Daphne – God and Caesar, Claude. The Catholic Church respects the laws of the state and so recognises both divorce and remarriage. Agreeing with them is another matter. When you seek to have your marriage annulled by the Catholic Church, you are first asked to get a divorce.]

At your wedding in front of God and all your family and friends you make a vow to love your wife/husband come what may. The Catholic Church holds that as an unbreakable promise. If you don’t like it don’t get married by the Catholic rite – nobody’s forcing you. The Catholic Church cannot be against divorce but then invite a divorced/remarried couple.

[Daphne – In fact, it can and it has done.]

The only cases that it might allow would be those in which there never was a Catholic marriage.

Daphne, Karm’s wasn’t a typo, it was intentional. If you type Buttigieg with an N the the auto correct will underscore and correct it for you. Try it yourself and you’ll know I’m right. Why are you defending him\ her anyway?

[Daphne – I’m not defending anyone, Charles. I’m pointing out the obvious: B and N are next to each other and it was a typo. Occam’s Razor: the most obvious explanation is the most likely one. Auto-correct doesn’t function on Maltese surnames. All of them get underlined in red. I can spell you name Nuttigieg or Buttigieg and both get scored in red. And there is no auto-correct function on the comment-posting system anyway. What do you do with yours – type them into a Word document and copy and paste into the comments box?]

Name-calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear will encourage the readers construct a negative opinion about the other person.

[Daphne – Oh for heaven’s sake, honestly. This isn’t one of those Facebook ‘hate Daphne’ discussions you enjoy so much, all quoting cod psychiatry and cod psychology, like a bunch of 18-year-old socialist students. Aren’t you a bit old for that? Men of 67, like women of 45, know enough to speak from experience of human nature without rustling around in the psychology notes like a member of Forum Zghazagh Laburisti.]

I don’t do that and I don’t need to do that either, I follow a bit of blogging to satisfy my political conviction and as a past time not to create enemies or to attract insults. Unprovoked you had called me, Mr. Nobody, Baboon, Parrot, Elve (Sic), Weirdo and Kev…..Did I ever retaliate?

[Daphne – Ah, but you certainly have no compunction about insulting others, like me for instance. Or are you one of those ‘grown-ups’ who still persist in thinking that a discussion on the internet is like a discussion with your friends in a bar, and no one can see or overhear?]

Now that mass murderers are mentioned. If my memory serves me right when Pope John Paul II visited Chile he refused to give the communion to President (dictator) Pinochet just because the Chilean President was facing accusations of mass murder.

Then, cherry on the cake, hearing Fr Charles phoning in to say how much the Archbishop appreciated the opportunity Super One gave Fr Charles and to sincerely thank him.

@ Karm

Addressing me Nuttigieg doesn’t make me mad because you are the only person who thinks I’m nuts, there again you think I’m nuts for the simple reason that you seem convinced that if I am to the Labour born I have to be nuts. And I feel sorry for people who think like you.

I am not accustomed to using hate phrases, derogatory remarks or in any way stoop to low levels when I write, I know the way to drive my message home in a civil manner. I may not always agree with the way DCG conducts her journalistic talents and this comes as no surprise to her, I only hope that Daphne respects my opinion like I respect hers.

In closing, Karm, if you consider yourself a well-mannered contributor why do you hide your identity behind a pseudo name?

[Daphne – For crying out loud, Charles, B and N are immediately adjacent to each other on the QWERTY keyboard. Next time, bother to look, before assuming somebody is calling you a nut. And let’s face it, that’s a fraction of what you call me elsewhere on the internet.]

“Bring in divorce and this nonsense will stop.”

I would wager that even with divorce, MPs like the ones in question would still not divorce ‘because they are Catholic’, continue “living in sin” and still expect to be treated as a married couple in cases like this!

#5 is an important clue to this state of affairs since even if we had divorce, one cannot re-marry by the Catholic rite without the previous marriage being declared null.Therefore because divorce is not a remedy recognised by the Catholic Church, I presume that whether two people live together through cohabitation or on the grounds of a civil marriage following a divorce, they will still be considered in a state of adultery in the eyes of the Church.

[Daphne – Yes, but the Catholic Church (and not just in Malta) has bound itself over to recognise the laws of the state. This has led to an anomaly in which if you divorce and remarry, in the eyes of the Catholic Church you are both an adulterer and a respectably married person.]

The only conclusion that I can draw here is that the state of mortal sin and the Church’s doctrine has nothing to do with all this. As long as the other half is officially recognised as the spouse through some form of marriage, then all is fair play.

Well, I don’t know whether he can or can’t be arrested for whatever reason. But I feel he should be arrested and held accountable for his actions.