Ah, no fire and brimstone
Angelik Caruana - an example of somebody who hasn't reached an educated and informed decision about divorce.
A group of priests has got together and formulated a common position on divorce, which has now been ‘signed off’ by the archbishop. There is nothing in it which remotely resembles fire and brimstone, and there is no talk of sin. I am glad that the priests have done this. It is just a damned shame that neither of the political parties in parliament has bothered to do the same.
It is all very well to say that, because we have separation of church and state (or at least, that is the idea), then the Roman Catholic Church should just stay out of it and stop interfering in what is purely a secular matter.
But the fact remains that many in Malta are fervent Roman Catholics and many others still are nominal Roman Catholics who take seriously the opinion of priests in these matters – even if, like the notorious example of Labour MP Marlene Pullicino, they live lives that are not in keeping with Roman Catholic principles and yet still worry, or claim to worry, about what the Roman Catholic Church says.
Why leave the views of priests out of the equation? How can we say we believe in freedom of expression and then seek to silence or eliminate certain views purely because they are religious?
Silencing religious views is one of the worst possible acts against freedom of expression. The astonishing thing is that those who are most contemptuous of religious views, demanding that priests stay out of the debate because divorce is secular, think of themselves as liberal.
They don’t seem aware of the inherent contradiction in their stance: you cannot be liberal and seek to silence priests. Imagine that – telling people to keep quiet because you don’t like their religion.
Priests, bishops and monsignors are free to proclaim their opinion to the four winds, just as the rest of us are. And we are free to disagree, to agree, to praise, to criticise, to rip that opinion to shreds or to regard it as hallowed.
It’s a free country, despite the myriad attempts by the combined forces of pseudo-morality and the Labour Party to render it otherwise.
I, for one, cannot be more grateful that these priests, who include Joe Borg, Peter Serracino Inglott and – surprisingly – Anton Gouder, have taken the trouble to do what they have done.
This approach is so much calmer, more measured and more sensible than the monsignor’s fire and brimstone from the cathedral pulpit a couple of weeks ago. The conclusion which these priests have drawn from their deliberations is that divorce is a matter of individual conscience, that people should take responsibility for their own decisions in this sphere.
They do not endorse divorce. They do not say it is a good thing or that parliament should legislate at once. Instead, they pretty much remind us – if they will allow me to paraphrase their conclusions in my manner – that we are all grown-ups who are responsible for our own decisions and actions and that we shouldn’t need the state to take moral decisions on our behalf lest we take the wrong moral decision ourselves.
Some weeks ago, in an interview with The Sunday Times, the outgoing Chief Justice had reason to remind us that not all that is legal is acceptable. Should he have stated the obvious?
Yes, because the reasoning of much of the adult population is so undeveloped and infantile that we are no longer capable of making moral choices for ourselves.
We have been reduced to the level of criminal reasoning: that the only important thing is to stay on the right side of the law or, if we cannot, to try our best to get away with it. If it’s legal, then it’s acceptable, and we tell ourselves that if what we’ve done or plan to do is permitted at law, then we are doing nothing wrong.
All this is academic in any case, because the real moral choices that have to be made when a marriage is in trouble come long, long before the decision to divorce or not.
There are moral choices about whether to commit adultery – and yes, here I must use the biblical terminology because adultery, described as such, is grounds for divorce everywhere you might choose to look.
There are moral choices about whether or not to forgive and forget your spouse’s adultery and move on.
There are moral choices about whether to conceal the existence of large amounts of money or the precise nature of your earnings from your spouse, to keep that money for yourself rather than using it for common purposes in the marriage.
There are moral decisions about whether to walk out on your children.
And there are moral decisions about all manner of selfish behaviour, because people don’t just wake up one fine morning and think that they want a divorce.
Chaos and catastrophe and all manner of moral and immoral choices precede that decision.
I might have no time for Maltese Roman Catholics and for the way Roman Catholicism is practised in Malta, but I am glad that these priests have issued a timely reminder, though perhaps not in words so specific, that laws are not a substitute for conscience, just as conscience is not a substitute for laws.
Indeed, it is precisely because I have no time for Maltese Roman Catholics and for the way that Roman Catholicism is practised in Malta that I am delighted to see some priests speak out at last and remind us that life is full of shades of grey and that we can’t always expect to have black-and-white rules, like children, to tell us what to think and how to think it.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
49 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Your article reminded me of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. I am reproducing (in summary form) his theory below. Alas, as a nation we seem to be stuck somewhere between stages 1 and 2. We have a long way to go!
At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment.
At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one’s own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.
At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.
At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.
[Daphne – Thank you for this, Ian. It has helped me reach a clearer understanding of why, when among groups of adults my age and older, I am struck by the unnerving sensation of being 16 and at Sliema Pitch, and that so many people seem to be suffering from a bad case of retarded development. I had no explanation for it; I just noticed that I don’t get the same feeling among adults in other countries. It seems that yes, going by what you describe here, it actually is retarded development and that something happens during the developmental stages of Maltese children to keep them permanently stuck for the rest of their lives between stage 1 and 2.]
Kohlberg’s theory of stages of moral reasoning is very important, and quite relevant to how voters may vote in a referendum for divorce, and why a referendum for divorce is in itself immoral.
The six stages may be grouped in sets of two, into three stages of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional reasoning processes.
In pre-conventional stages, neither law nor ethical principles guide the rationale of the decision maker. Pre-conventional reasoning is without recourse to rules, laws, or conventions.
Anything is OK as long as one doesn’t get punished. If divorce doesn’t affect me, I’m unconcerned. But if divorce puts me in trouble, I’m against it (substage 1).
What’s in it for me (substage 2), looks for favours or what can I gain from this. An amoral divorcee may see it as an exploitable means to obtain greater assets from another relationship, with or without marriage. The person doesn;t care about others, whether or not divorce would be good for them, the only issue is whether or not I benefit from it. A person may vote for or against divorce–no conscience formation necessary at all.
In conventional reasoning, substage 3 is concerned most about how others would think of me, say if I divorced. Since most people are against and would look down on me, I would avoid divorce. I am controlled by the expectations of others. If people would disapprove of me if I voted for divorce, I would not vote for divorce. It all depends upon how my peer group feels, what are their expectations for me.
Conventional substage 4, goes by the rules. If it’s the rule, and the church says NO to divorce, then that’s it. Obey the rules. I would vote against divorce.
Post-conventional reasoners have recourse to prinicples, such as substage 5, the logic of democracy, individual rights, which may go beyond what the law or convention allow. Pro-divorce proponents frequently use such logic. Greater good may be served by divorce than the absence of divorce.
Very few persons, according to Kohlberg, use substage 6, universal ethical principles of justice, where individual responsibility is greater than adherence to authority or rules; principles of conscience with recourse to universal principles, e.g., sanctity of life, guide the reasoning to moral decisions. Such a person may find that, in good conscience, divorce is an obligatory behavior choice. The principle that coersion is wrong would suggest that freedom to choose divorce is a necessary personal choice, and cannot be subject to the control of others. Hence, a referendum is immoral. Constituted political bodies are required to legislate for the freedom of choice.
If 20% of the population (very high figure) are post-conventional reasoners, any referencum is at the mercy of amoralists and conventionalists. Those with a well formed conscience will be outvoted in a referendum.
@ E Clemmer
A very interesting argument. But one which has to be scrutinised further.
What is the logic legitimising the claim that a referendum would in this case be immoral?
The only logic I can think of, is the logic of majoritarianism, namely the criticism which states that it is immoral for a society to have its rules “dictated” by the majority identified by an identifying factor (e.g. religion, language, etc.) because those rules would then impinge upon minority aspirations. (I would want to avoid the argument, already entered into, whether divorce constitute a right.)
Majoritarianism would then imply multiculturalism. On the other hand, majoritarianism would also imply a resistance to the atomisation of society.
There lies the balance which has to be struck: between multiculturalism on the one hand, and the atomisation of society on the other hand.
Possibly, the former (multiculturalism) finds its natural habitat – as it were – in big cities, where anonymity is the order of the day; the resistance to the atomisation of society finds its natural habitat in the countryside, where the social fabric is more tightly-knit.
So, it might actually boil down to a contest between urban values vs. rural values.
In large countries, these two worldview can co-exist, because the vastness of the territory allows the two not to come in quotidian contact.
But what about Malta, which is so tiny?
The social tensions which exist in Malta are peculiar because of the small size of the country. Wouldn’t therefore the critique of majoritarianism be inapplicable to the Maltese situation?
Minority rights, where the issue involves appropriate freedom to choose “the good,” when “divorce” is appropriately and ethically considered the lesser of two evils, according to universal principles of justice, cannot be subject to the tyranny of the majority, especially when that majority cannot reason to those universal ethical principles.
Atomization of society is not the issue. Freedom of choice is the issue, on legitimate questions of morality.
No one is free to violate the welfare of others; and in this case, divorce would be regularized under the social rules of society. The issue of divorce remains a matter of personal choice and decision.
It is society’s option to be constructive for marriages and families. But that doesn’t mean removing divorce as a social option by the force of others.
A referendum is immoral because it is the impostion against the integrity of individuals regarding their conscience and social justice.
Yes Edward, you are rehashing the tenets of majoritarianism.
Differently put, my question was: should Malta be an exception due to her small size?
@Min Weber
Malta’s size has nothing to do with its responsibility to allow the free exercise of one’s conscience regarding divorce. It is an obligation based upon moral justice. Perhaps because of its size and history, Malta as been allowed to defer its moral responsibilities in this regard.
The Inquisition only ended in Malta in 1798. Its southern defense against the Protestant Reformation, and with it the rise of secular authority and the concept of freedom for minority rights from the oppression of immoral majorities or the tyranny of the religious opinions or political power of others, leaves it as one of two island nations, the last two countries in the world to be without divorce.
Malta is entitled to its self-determination as a nation, and so it must decide on this issue; but, in this day and age, it has no (moral) authority to legally repress and oppress the legal reconstitution of potential new marriages after dissolution of a failed previous marriage.
I entirely support the purpose and ideals of marriage; but most people (or far too many, but likely most people) fail to understand what marriage is and what it requires when they get married. This is a social and a moral problem. The church even grants annulments consistent with that criteria, “entering into marriage without being mature enough for proper consent.”
The absence of divorce (and the social and legal problems because of its absence) in Malta is a relic of its history that needs to be remedied by its introduction.
The problem is that, in Malta, there has been a failure in leadership to take up the matter responsibly. Not that Joseph or Lawrence offer different levels of responsibility regarding divorce. Both political parties have lacked leadership, in their respective ways, and have shirked moral responsibility to unite on this issue.
Wether Malta be 400,000 or 400, even if only 1% (let alone 20+%) be oppressed by the imposition of conventionalists (in the majority), the majority does not render their immoral position moral. It is still immoral to oppress others on the basis of religious arguments, even if I may agree with those arguments. Religion is never to be forced upon anyone.
Cult groups may be small groups: 10, 50, 400, or even 30,000 (relative to a population of 3 million). There may even be a billion people living under a specific tyranny, ruled by cult or ideology. Usually small groups, like small countries, don’t attract significant attention (from outsiders) because of their size.
But when those groups contain vulnerable persons, children or adults, who are not free to choose how they may live within those groups–and they have no recourse to liberate themselves from those social and societal constraints, then we have a moral responsibility to enable individuals the right to exercise their lives, with responsibility and respect for others always a moral obligation.
It is about time that Malta respect the choices of others to make moral choices about their own lives–especially when their truly “well-formed conscience” may be at odds with even a majority of others, especially when those others may have neither capacity nor judgment regarding the personal lives of those individuals oppressed by the “majority.” Wether those oppressed be 4, 40, 400, four thousand, or forty thousand, or 400 million.
There is no such thing as a moral majority. Morality is not subject to a majority vote. It is subject to conscience, and the courage to abide by that conscience, despite the costs, however unjust societies may be regarding their demands.
There are children who are living in a single-authority environment for the simple reason that their fathers are working aboard rigs or in foreign countries and visit their familieis every three months for two weeks or similar.
Maybe for the children it’s a big consolation that their parents are still married to each other but still the situation is no different and it seems that they deal well with it and they get used to it.
On the other hand, kids coming from a broken marriage could visit the father any time, but having a father so far it’s even harder.
And there there are things which are illegal but acceptable.
This is a highly interesting discussion on the relationship between Law and Morality. … And Authority.
Who are the Authority to declare what is Legal and what is Moral?
Is there only Formal Authority, or is there also Moral Authority?
For instance, do journalists have the Moral Authority to tell us what is (or should be) Legal and what is (or should be) Moral?
Do priests have the same Moral Authority?
MPs do have the Moral Authority (conferred explicitly in elections – therefore it is also Formal Authority) to decide what is Legal. But do they have the Moral Authority to decide what is Moral?
We might wish to think about these questions.
And there are things which are ‘moral’ but not acceptable.
Such as allowing the Gozo conjoined twins to die.
Extremely interesting comment, John.
Which would lead me to ask whether there is “religious” morality and “secular” morality?
(Of course, the distinction is self-evident.)
Where is the line of demarcation between the two?
One of the twins is alive TODAY.
We know that, Mr. Clemmer. The point is – no thanks to the moral stance taken by the then Bishop of Gozo.
Yes, John. But your statement of “allowing the Gozo conjoined twins to die” seems to have implied that both twins had died. I only sought to clarify any potential misunderstanding by a more precise reference.
Thank you for your case example. Yes, I agree with you that the position of the Gozo bishop was not helpful. The parents and the doctors were left with the anguish of the moral choice.
And thankfully, the sacrifice of one twin has meant the opportunity of life for the other. And sadly, we also mourn the loss of the twin that died.
You have touched upon one of the most serious and profound topics of Philosophy of Law. Law and Morality are, ultimately, two circles which are overlapping at one side (I forgot the technical name). For example, it is immoral to commit adultery but it is not illegal (it was, of course, but it no longer is). Same applies for blasphemy (not in public), homosexual sex, lust and a host of other acts/thoughts which are immoral but not illegal and/or unlawful.
We have to distinguish also between criminal and civil law. You may have many acts which are civilly unlawful but not criminally but not immoral. Violations of criminal law are, to a large extent, largely immoral.
This is a very complex subject but I tried to simplify it here. Still, it is extremely interesting. Indeed, the whole article is really good.
AMEN!
Let me guess, every time you had a “précis” exercise at school you got an A+.
It is the first time that I am reading your blog, for the simple reason that I find that the way you deliver certain opinions is far from objective. but in this case there is only one thing to say. You are absolutley right. When will this country learn that the choice is not with me or against me but there is always a middle ground.
Dear Karl, how did you find out that Daphne’s way of delivering certain opinions is far from objective if this is the first time you have read her blog?
I thought Daphne only produces recipe magazines!
While agreeing with you on most of what you said, you have to admit that people like dear Angelik are a hell of a lot funnier.
Well said.
Daphne, do you think this divorce bill will make it through or will it reach a dead end?
[Daphne – It will reach a dead end.]
Daphne, I have to disagree with you here. MP Pullicino Orlando’s bill might reach a dead end but not the divorce issue.
[Daphne – Oh sorry, I must have misunderstood the original question. I meant that the BILL would reach a dead end.]
Eddie Fenech Adami’s involvement is a sign to all the core Nationalist supporters to rethink their values and join Gonzi’s movement. Can’t wait for next Monday’s Bondi+. Gonzi always delivers his audience a good show.
If it reaches a dead end, doesn’t that mean that a referendum or an election with the issue of divorce is excluded?
[Daphne – Of course not, but rather the opposite. A debate in parliament on a bill has to end in a vote – BY OUR LEGISLATORS. Each one of them must say No or Yes (and if it’s Justyne Caruana, NoYesNoYesNo). And they clearly don’t want to vote, so they will stall the process – and by that, I mean both government and Opposition.]
I’m not trying to be difficult. I don’t really know all the arcane details of Erskine May.
So government and Opposition can stall the process, but is there some cut-off point when they must bring it to the vote? Can either party force the vote, or is that a prerogative of government?
[Daphne – In parliament, you have to break away from thinking in terms of the government and the Opposition, because strictly speaking, all MPs are equal, and the boss of the House is not the prime minister but the Speaker.]
I mean, can they just filibuster until the time up for the divorce readings passes, as in the American system?
If they do that, I’m sorry, but both PN and LP are guilty of dereliction of duty.
[Daphne – Yes, of course they are.]
“Each one of them must say No or Yes” May I also add ABSTAIN from voting on proposed Referendum questions on legalising divorce .
“We are all grown-ups who are responsible for our own decisions and actions and that we shouldn’t need the state to take moral decisions on our behalf lest we take the wrong moral decision ourselves.”
Shouldn’t we frame this quote and hang a copy in all public spaces between the crucifix and the president’s photo.
That is why I strongly believe that parliament is the only body that should decide on the implementation of divorce law, and not the electorate.
The electorate has chosen MPs to choose for its common good. MPs are the most eligible persons to do this.
The electorate doesn’t fully understand the process to bring about a law which complements a right. What is right for you might not be right for me, but the rules of due process may strike a balance.
Before deciding with one’s conscience, one should resort to a string of arguments and not just decide on whether divorce is good or bad for ‘me’.
I cannot understand why people in 2010 invest the church with temporal authority. Anyone can say “Bollocks to that” to any of the Church’s teachings.
What the Church says about divorce cannot be anything other than what Christ said about it, viz. it’s bad and was only introduced into Mosaic law because of the hardness of people’s hearts (Mt 19: 7 -8). It’s the Church’s duty to say that not abiding by Christ’s word is a sin. A “healthy and educated” conscience will never agree to something that is intrinsically wrong. This statement by these priests has not changed any of the Church’s teaching or Christ’s message. It has just dressed them up in 2010-speak.
@Reuben
Actually, the statement by the priests is perfectly consistent with Kohlberg’s substage 6 (decision making on the basis of the individual’s use of universal ethical principles). That is the highest of the post-conventional levels of moral reasoning. It defends the well-formed individual conscience; and the priests are arguing on behalf of individual conscience.
As you state, anyone can say “bollocks” to the church’s teachings, and that position is consistent with post-conventional reasoning. For example, that post-conventional logic would not be part of Kohlberg’s substage 4, a law-and-order stage of conventional reasoning, where the law is the law, so there: one must conform to “the law.”
However, which law is to be applied? One law in isolation from universal moral principles? Which principles? That is why, according to post-conventional reasoning (beyond the conventional etched in stone commandment), there is the measured judgment of personal conscience. And depending upon the logic of which universal moral principle, the most ethical of persons theoretically could wind up on opposite sides of the divorce issue.
This is why the position paper of the priests is intentionally ambiguous as to “what should my decision be, for or against divorce.” The conventionalists want the law put down clearly; they just don’t operate on the basis of post-conventional reasoning processes. They prefer black-and-white concrete rules and structures. And they are likely to be upset by the position paper of the priests.
But the real law is personal conscience. Martin Luther had a real struggle in his battle between conventional loyality to the church and the supremacy of his personal conscience. Luther may not have been correct in his theology, but he was a person of moral integrity–and he followed his conscience, even in opposition to the temporal and spiritual authority of the church he loved.
It is the absence of divorce that does violence to the integrity of many persons and their right to exercise freedom of conscience. I am sure that the personal “conclusions” of the priests involved with their position paper would likely contradict each other: some in favour of introducing divorce and some against. That is not 2010-speak.
They are all in favour of the supremacy of “well-formed” personal conscience, even if that leads to a position that is not conventional, or it may lead to a conventional position. This is fundamental to universal moral reasoning. The choice of universals may lead to different conclusions.
Some people may prefer to have their minds and souls satisfied by the simple method of “just tell me what to do.” But the priests are challenging everyone to take personal responsibility for coming to their own moral conclusions.
@ Edward
I think that all the distinctions you make – be they personally held or just a sort of comparative survey – are tendentious.
There is a crystal clear message in the Scriptures and Tradition that divorce is wrong. Of course this will only hold water with people who are disposed to accept it as authoritarian.
My point is that despite a clear and foolproof law, people will still try to worm in through a loophole. Fine. What I can’t accept is people who want to twist the law to suit them.
As I said, a well-formed conscience will never say that divorce is a good thing. What I find vexing in this whole matter is that people who think divorce is wrong – like me – seem to be imposing their belief on others who don’t share it. God Himself doesn’t do that, so why should I?
This is also why I think that flashing statistics as to why the introduction of divorce is a bad thing won’t work. It is very difficult to establish a causal link between the ills of this world and divorce, among other things. Then there’s something else. We believers argue that religion, ethics and morals are in the greater part outside the scope of science. So why will we invoke science here and now on something that is pre-eminently non-scientific?
To summarise: Divorce is bad because Jesus Christ Himself said so. It is ultimately a matter of subjugating our will to His. No amount of sophistry and specious argumentation will make divorce good. People will either accept it or they won’t. I don’t know how the two can live together, though.
“As I said, a well-formed conscience will never say that divorce is a good thing.”
I take great offence to that. Divorce can very well be a good thing in many cases. Divorce is a good thing as it allows people to redeem a bad choice they might have done previously. It can also be a bad thing when people make their initial choice easily, as they can get divorced when they want to.
“To summarise: Divorce is bad because Jesus Christ Himself said so… No amount of sophistry and specious argumentation will make divorce good.”
I can’t think of many arguments more specious than: “it’s bad because someone said so”. This is what happens when you divorce sense and reason from your thinking and rely on blindly following a creed.
Kim Jong-il wants you all to follow him and pay blind obedience to his command. Therefore his command is good and right.
@Reuben
There is a great deal of depth to all of your statements. Perhaps, the most coherent way for me to respond is to address them in the order of their appearance.
I am not sure in which way you believe that the distinctions I have represented may be biased. Certainly we all have an individual point of view. But the highest forms of moral reasoning and the adequate formation of a personal conscience is supra individual: its standard are universal moral principles, recognized by our analysis as universal in their justice, but they are derived from a moral requirement that is beyond the individual himself or herself.
There may be a personal bias in the choice of universal moral principles to which one may subscribe. Perhaps if “love” was taken as the highest universal moral principle, there would be no such thing as “broken marriages,” or “divorce,” or any kind of “sin.”
Kohlberg, as a psychologist, has provided a useful model for assessing the character of “moral reasoning” that one might apply to the given rationale by any actor for its moral action. However, the conclusions for which moral action to take, theoretically, may be different when there may be competing universal moral values.
I agree with you that the religious argument from Christian scripture and tradition is clear regarding divorce. There are those who may disregard it simply because they live outside of societal or moral conventions. And those who are conventional, who may accept the Scriptures and Tradition as it is interpreted for them, may or may not be authoritarian. They are conformists, either because of how others may think of them, or because it is “the law.”
But there are others who may see ethical moral principles that should be the rationale for “the law,” and they may understand that that law may not be in conformity with moral principles. These post-conventionalist may agree that laws can be changed, say by democratic processes (and not revolution); that is, law is derived from processes intended to serve the common good (substage 5). But, also, there may be universal values that require opposition to laws provided and derived from the “collective” who create the laws; and those individuals who challenge the collective will may be reasoning purely from those very highest of moral principles (substage 6). Post-conventionalists are not anarchists; they are rational moralists.
We might well argue that “God’s laws” reflected in the Ten Commandments, in the prohibition to divorce, and elswwhere reflected in revelation by scriptures or in church traditions, are not subject to human alteration. Even so, we are not talking about “divorce” for people who just want to weasel out of their unpleasant or undesireable marriage circumstances. There are those who would try to do so; and there are those who also may or do abandon a marriage regardless of social consequences or laws, human or divine.
No one can ever say that divorce, in itself, is a good thing. No one is arguing [I am certainly not arguing] that divorce is a good thing. But, divorce may be the lesser of two evils: let us say, for arguments sake, divorce is a lesser evil than murdering a spouse. There are all kinds of evils subject to divorce: the list is well argued.
But there are various evils; and divorce may be the lesser evil than its absence. We have all kinds of reconstituted families in the absence of divorce–one type of evil. Normalized “marriages” may be constrainted, prevented to exist, because of the absence of divorce–another type of evil.
I agree with you entirely that God does not impose himself on anyone; and I applaud you for recognizing that value in your (and my) attempting not to impose your (or our) beliefs on others, as a moral requirement.
Since I am a social scientist, a social psychologist by academic profession, I have a clear bias in support of the social sciences to support our understanding of our natural and social worlds, including matters relating to families, marriage, and divorce. I have also been involved in social work.
Dr. Charlie Azzopardi, a family psychotherapist, was a former student of mine, and I think he and others represent a clear synthesis of science and practice regarding family matters, and issues relating to divorce. We need more such people in Maltese society.
I do not subscribe that science and religion are necessarily incompatible; both in their own ways are subject to faith and reason: faith that the nature of things or of God may be known, and the reason is a supportive tool of faith. But in religious faith, there are matters that require acceptance, even if they may not be confirmed by science, or by reason alone.
Your final paragraph is the most poignant. On a religious level, in faith, I agree that we must subjugate our wills to God. But, at the civil level, we should not subjugate others to that religious choice. In faith, I would not claim that there can be no redemption after divorce, or after any sin. But, this does not mean, therefore, that one is free to sin.
But, yes, one should be at liberty to make moral choices based upon conscience, well-formed and informed. How the crooked path through lives may pass through even divorce and arrive at salvation is a divine mystery and mercy. This is more than human minds can grasp.
My argument at the civil level is that we cannot impose our religious values when they may conflict with legitimate moral values of others. This is so, even when some persons who may subscribe to divorce may do so without valid moral reasoning. At least in those case, the divorce laws should impose for such persons what are the obligations society regards as what may be proper.
Dear Karl Delia – if it is the first time that you are reading lhis illuminating blog, how come you say that the delivery of certain opinions are far from objective?
The answer is to allow (only) non-Catholics to apply for divorce. Anyone wanting a divorce would simply have to leave the Catholic Church. That would soon sort out the men from the boys. Said Pullicino’s threats could then be ignored, as they wouldn’t apply to anyone of his brainwashed flock (of sheep).
It is abysmal that non-Catholics are constrained to obey a law imposed by catholic religious beliefs.
The Catch 22, of course, is that the wishy-washy Catholics who want a divorce but also want to remain ‘Catholics’ (nominally, at least) would then be able to claim that by not being allowed to apply for divorce (which would damn them for eternity) they are being discriminated against.
Don’t you love the irony?
I’d love to see just one MP have the guts to point this out if and when the JPO bill is debated and suggest an amendment to this effect.
In any case, a referendum cannot be avoided. Even if the House of Representatives were to pass a bill, unanimously, to introduce divorce, there will definitely be some group of persons who will begin gathering signatures for an abrogative referendum. Such is what happened in Italy in 1974 after the introduction of divorce in 1970. You only need 10 per cent of the electorate to force such a referendum. So might as well have the referendum in the first place.
[Daphne – As if. An abrogative referendum! What people want here in Malta is for others to take the decision for them. Once the decision is taken, you’ll see that it will be as though divorce has been there forever and all and sundry will be talking about how Zija Nena hadet id-divorzju. It’s not divorce that people are against, but having to decide on divorce. That’s where the prime minister is wrong. The electorate does NOT want to decide on divorce. The electorate wants to be presented with a fait accompli.]
I agree with you. This is like separated people reproducing with another partner, then insisting that child goes to duttrina, etc, just to fit in.
At one First Holy Communion ceremony I attended, one of the children was her father’s fifth child. The other four had at least three different mothers between them – and most of the siblings were present at the ceremony.
Does the general public really think that it is divorce which will ruin the “fabric” of our society? Family values in general have gone downhill for years – a glance at the people waiting at the school gates would easily reveal some very unconventional family setups.
@Daphne: you say this bill will reach a dead end. I’m not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean it will not be brought before the House?
[Daphne – Where there’s a will, there’s generally a way. Nobody in parliament wants to vote on that bill except for its promoter. This does not mean they are for or against divorce. They just don’t want to vote on that bill. Most MPs wouldn’t yet have made up their mind whether they stand to gain more by voting No or less by voting Yes, or vice versa.]
In my opinion, divorce will not be enacted during the term of the present Parliament.
The meek Maltese population has been skilfully led to believe by the anti-divorce lobby, and seemingly effortlessly, that a referendum is the right way forward. I’m amazed how almost everyone seems to have accepted this without question, including the Opposition which seems lost in a wasteland of indecision and lack of decisive leadership.
The media has been used masterfully to achieve this end. Now it will be used again to shift public opinion against divorce. Even if sin is no longer mentioned, it has already been mentioned long enough for fear to sink in.
The usual Catholic terrorist trump card which still works with enough souls to tip the scales. The majority are like puppets on a string with no mind of their own. This danger was foreseeable long ago and this is why I was always in favour of a bill presented to the House for its decision and without a referendum.
Government has abdicated its responsibility to govern and the House has shunned away from its purpose to enact laws. Any MP may bring a private bill before the House but it is the responsibility of the government to present bills for the good governance of the country and the guarantee of civil rights, such as divorce, is a matter of good governance in a democracy.
It will be years before divorce will be law in Malta. Yet again, it has been shown what a backward country Malta is and how immature, ignorant, weak and docile the majority of the Maltese population is. We are European only in name. What a mistake it is to let the stork drop you on this barren rock.
The docile ones are the parliamentarians who do not want to put themselves under the scrutiny of the voters in what has to be a lose-lose situation: no matter how they vote, a significant number of people will be upset.
And Daphne is probably right that many people want others to make the decision for them: they don’t want the responsibility to decide, for whatever twisted reasons.
But if the authorities say it’s OK, then many will go along, except the most conservative of voters, which is where? More so PL, I think, because of educational levels. But even PL doctors can be rather conservative; and the PL is the antiquely conservative party in Malta. But the PN are Christian Democrats.
Does anyone in parliament have the moral conviction to bite the bullet on this one and do the right thing, to introduce divorce? Divorce is not a panacea; but the absence of divorce erodes the legal status of marriage.
I am very interested in history and read a lot about the history of Europe. If there were no religon we would have had less suffering through the ages.
[Daphne – It doesn’t follow. The two greatest examples of the eradication of religion also happen to be those where there was most suffering: China and the Soviet Union. It is not religion that causes suffering, but people who use religion as an excuse to cause suffering. If they can’t use religion, they’ll use something else, as those two totalitarian states showed.]
We had popes who went to wars or endorsed wars. The infamous ‘St. Bartholomeo’s massacres’ of the Huguenots in France and the Te Deum the pope sang at the Vatican to celebrate the event. The violence Christians STARTED against Islam…..it goes on and on.
Then other practices by the Roman Catholic Church like the selling of indulgences (one of the reasons Luther ‘protested ‘), political figures given bishoprics sometimes several times over. The condemning of Galileo and his rehabilitation after 500 years, and recently the Maltese Curia’s appology for the political interference of the 1960s.
We must not let these people run our lives and law courts. What difference will it make to those of us who are alive today if they appologise many years or centuries down the line?
On the subject of divorce, we cannot say that the whole world is wrong and we are right.
If you’re into channelled Madonnas, they’re selling Angelik Caruana keychains at Il-Monti tal-Pieta at two for a euro. The latest version is styled as above. Each keychain has been individually blessed, touched, kissed, eaten and digested by Angelik.
I suppose it can cure any ailment except obesity, right?
Why pick on Angelik Caruana? This is a holy person who has had the privilege of having been visited by the Virgin Mary. If the Catholic Church in it’s wisdom, felt that this was a hoax, surely it would have spoken out by now. This man is a living relic, and one day, as a pilgrim, I hope to meet him. Well done Angelik.
In the middle ages, when people were more regious than they are today, tourism was unheard of. Every tourist was a pilgrim and what mattered was religion and religious relics. One of the most famous pilgrim destinations was the cathedral of Chartres, and one of it’s most famous relics was held in a specially designed casket known as the Chartres Reliquary. It held a relic of Jesus himself, the relic of the circumcision. It was known as “Le Sainte Prepuce” or in english “The Holy Foreskin”. This relic was extremely popular as it was believed to save women from pain in childbirth. Interestingly, at the height of the middle ages, there were at least 15 foreskins of Jesus being worshipped in different churches around Europe.
Now just think and reason for a moment. If this had been some sort of a hoax, don’t you think the Catholic church would have spoken out? Don’t you think that those same narrow minded people who dismiss the apparitions to Angelic as a hoax, would also dismiss those sacred relics as some kind of a joke. Do these narrow minded people also believe that the Trinitarian God that they worship is a hoax?
To all you narrow minded people out there I say that you accept the trinitarian concept of God being three persons in one as a miracle. I say you accept the concept of a Jesus with 15 foreskins as a miracle. And I say that you accept the apparitions happening to this holy man as a miracle.
Angelik may God be with you.
During my youth, I could allways tell a good Catholic by the badge of St Christopher which they would have in their car.
Unfortunately St Christopher has been recognized by an infallible pope for who he really was, has since been decanonized by the Catholic church, and is now no longer considered a saint.
These days there are two ways I can tell a good Catholic. One is by their stand on the issue of divorce, and the other is by the glue on their dashboard.
I wonder if in the future, some other infallible pope will come along, recognize the folly of the church today, and declare divorce acceptable to the Catholic Church.
I, for one, take exception to be called immature, ignorant, weak and docile. And I do not hide behind a pseudonym. This barren rock, like all countries, produces the good, the bad and the ugly.
Denigrating the majority of your fellow countrymen in this manner hardly makes you a superior being. I really pity the two storks who dropped you here. And you are always free, with your superior knowledge provided to you on this barren rock, to seek pastures new. On my part, it would simply be good riddance.
I think that Gonzi should go ahead, now, without any further delays an put divorce legislation up for discussion in parliament. I think there is no other way.
Divorce laws should be there for those (the minority) who feel they “need” this tool to start a new life.
The majoirty can of course ignore the law because they don’t need it. But the government is in duty bound to take care of the needs of ALL, including the minority.
This would show that the PN is a serious government and that it is not after votes at all costs. So get on with it, Gonzi – it will show that you are a really first-class politician.
So the state will not legislate before it holds a referendum. The referendum vote will be heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. Cetta, Doris u Gaetu will vote against divorce. No legislation to introduce divorce will be enacted. The Roman Catholic Church wins. How’s that for a secular state?
I agree, the fault does not lie with the Roman Catholic Church – especially when some priests go overboard with their “if you vote for divorce you go straight to hell” – but with the meatballless (as Mintoff would have put it) politicians, who have calculated that more votes are lost than won with the introduction of divorce.
It’s highly hypocritcal that there is no divorce in Malta but probably more broken homes and griefex families than anywhere else.
I would love to know the opinions of the various MPs on divorce. On second thoughts, it wouldn’t mean much as they would probably vote according to the number of votes they feel they would lose/gain. Their informed conscience wouldn’t come into it.
Yep. Substage 1 (pre-conventional moral reasoning): I’ll do whatever I want as long as I can avoid getting punished. Substage 2 (pre-conventional moral reasoning): what’s in it for me? I’ll scratch your back, only if you scratch mine. And Substage 3 (first conventional level of moral reasoning, lowest level): but what will others think of me if I vote that way? Substage 4 (also conventional moral reasoning): we have the law, it can’t be changed.
The issue for change will depend upon which principles of common good and universal justice will the law makers invoke (Kohlberg’s post-conventional substages 5 and 6). And then with an informed conscience, can they make the the principled and just choice?