There can be no theocracy in Europe
Monsignor Said Pullicino can't understand that his thinking is no different to this.
Several of those who were at the mass celebrated by Monsignor Said Pullicino, to mark the opening of the ‘forensic year’, told me that they emerged aghast when it was over and now regret not walking out when he was speaking.
So why didn’t they walk out? I imagine it’s because, when it comes to the crunch, not many people in this country have what can best be described politely as a crucial component of the family jewels.
As I said to a couple of these individuals, it’s pointless sitting through a highly objectionable and offensive speech, so that the person delivering it thinks you are being attentive and doesn’t register your objection, and then griping about it on the doorstep when it’s all over.
When a person is being extremely objectionable, and saying things that offend you, you don’t just sit there and take it. You walk out. Yes, even if the objectionable words are spoken by a monsignor delivering a homily.
Quite why the start of the ‘forensic year’ has to begin with high mass said by a monsignor is beyond me, anyway. It completely undermines any public statements which are made afterwards to the effect that for an emissary of the Catholic Church to speak that way is “unacceptable interference” in the function of the law courts.
When you have blurred the boundaries by asking the Catholic Church to mark the start of the ‘new year’ at the law courts, you have only yourselves to blame when the emissaries of that church think that they are in a position to tell you what to do and how to judge others.
How can representatives of the legal system complain that the Catholic Church is interfering where it does not belong, when it is the representatives of that legal system who invite the Catholic Church in and give it special status where it has no place to be at all?
You cannot celebrate the opening of the forensic year – a purely secular matter of state – with a denominational religious service and then complain because the Catholic Church doesn’t understand the separation of powers.
Apparently, neither do those who organise these things in the legal system. They can start by setting an example and not opening the forensic year with a religious service. The ceremony at the law courts suffices.
The religious service is a hangover from the days when there was no separation of church and state and obviously, if the courts of law continue to give special status to the Catholic Church in this way, then the Catholic Church can be forgiven for assuming that it does have special status.
So what did Monsignor Said Pullicino say to a congregation of judges, magistrates and lawyers, which was so offensive?
In synthesis, it was this: all those who cooperate in the introduction of divorce, including judges who apply the law and divorce people, will be in a state of “grave sin”.
Monsignor Said Pullicino heads the Catholic Church’s marriage tribunal in Malta – the one that looks at the marriages of those who petition it and decides whether they are null and void or not. So apart from the purely religious aspect of it all, here we have the resentful reaction, at a human level, of somebody who sees loss of control on his territory, of the state moving into his patch and taking over.
Sometimes we forget that men in robes are human too.
Monsignor Said Pullicino took the extraordinary step of contradicting his archbishop in the most public manner possible. Archbishop Cremona has taken a non-militant stance on the subject of divorce, and I was left – perhaps wrongly – with the impression that he is inclined to be a ‘what’s God’s is God’s and what’s Caesar’s is Caesar’s’ type.
It is in fact his underlings who have been spouting all the fire and brimstone: Bishop Grech in Gozo, Monsignor Gouder and now, Monsignor Said Pullicino.
While Archbishop Cremona has said that the Catholic Church should enter the debate and promote its views on divorce, as is its right (and I concur with him on this because it is appallingly poor thinking to conclude that somebody’s freedom of expression should be restricted just because their views are religious), Monsignor Said Pullicino told judges, magistrates and lawyers who were at the mass that there is nothing to discuss, because Christ’s teachings on marriage are clear.
“All the (Catholic) Church has to do is teach that whoever cooperates in any way in the introduction of divorce, or applies the law, or uses it, is breaking God’s law and committing a grave sin,” he said, making an exception for what he called “the innocent party”, who I gather is the spouse who is divorced by the other spouse.
He called on judges, magistrates and lawyers not to take part in anything to do with divorce, not to apply divorce law and to stand up as conscientious objectors.
That is the point at which they should indeed have stood up – to walk out and demonstrate a conscientious objection to demands that are totally at odds with democracy. It is incredible that such a senior member of the Catholic Church should still think in terms of theocracy: the application of religious laws as the laws of the land.
When reporters got on his case, the monsignor’s response was to describe himself as the mouthpiece of the son of God. “Those were Christ’s words and not mine,” he told them. When asked whether he was demanding of judges and magistrates that they derail the course of justice or interfere with it negatively (he was), he said that “justice cannot go against God’s law”.
That’s interesting: so why have law courts at all, and not just a series of Catholic tribunals? Why have laws when we have the 10 commandments, and why not make adultery illegal again, and sex outside marriage, and ban contraception? I thought we left all this behind in the 1960s and 1970s.
The forces of repression seem to be panicking at all the changes they see around them, and are coming out in one last drive to repress us all as much as possible before we are sucked in by the real world outside our door.
Monsignor Said Pullicino was prepared for the argument that nobody is going to force Catholics to divorce if they don’t want to, and that if, as he says, the innocent party is not in a state of grave sin then the innocent party has nothing to worry about in religious terms.
Apparently, even those who are not Catholics must be forcibly prevented from divorcing, because God’s law applies to everyone and not just “Christians”. Then there was the obligatory piece of racial bigotry, last heard on our television screens as spoken by Norman Lowell: “Even two pagans from the African bush shouldn’t be allowed to divorce.”
Two pagans from the African bush, eh? Nice one, Monsignor. Those who didn’t walk out earlier should certainly have felt the urge to walk out then, at this offensive bigotry, but what do you know – they didn’t.
After that, he found the time for a disquisition on how the moral order is collapsing across Europe because “some civil laws violate the fundamental principles of divine natural law.” Quite frankly, I see more problems in places where people are forced to live religious lives whether they want to or not – because you can do that kind of thing only by gross abuse of basic human rights.
The way I see it, if the Catholic Church refuses to divorce itself from the state, then the state must divorce itself from the Catholic Church. Monsignor Said Pullicino should have no worries on that score: the Catholic Church would be the innocent party and so, not in a state of grave sin.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
93 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Daphne,
Your article is excellent.
Who is the Dear Leader of the Maltese Catholic Taliban? Is it Monsinjur Said Pullicino or is it Monsinjur Gouder?
What about the people who work at the public registry that annotate the divorces obtained overseas? Why no fuss about them? Someone said its because these divorces aren’t a threat to the church’s annulment racket.
1) The Church does in fact have special status. Just look at our Constitution.
2) I also do not see why judges, magistrates and lawyers, people who should place a very high value on evidence, listen to someone whose ideas fly in the very face of evidence and instead puts great importance on faith.
I would be extremely grateful to anyone who manages to suppress a knee-jerk reaction, read through my question at least once and offer a rational answer.
Why can’t a priest offer a code of conduct – albeit gratuitous – to anyone who cares to listen? Did he force anyone to do as he said? Did he threaten anyone with losing their job if they didn’t do as he said?
What he said was that a Catholic judge should refuse to officiate at a divorce hearing and a lawyer should not take up the case for the person instigating proceedings.
I agree that divorce can’t be denied to non-believers, but then why should believers be forced to accept being party to a divorce?
The monsignor did what he had to do.
Can anyone reasonably expect him to say it’s OK to participate in divorce proceedings?
If the government thinks that the Church’s position is valid, what’s to stop him from adopting it?
If you think about it, many laws reflect the Church’s position on justice. What shall we do about them?
Divorce will only dissolve the legal contract and not the sacrament. Persons applying and obtaining divorce cannot re-marry in the Church.
So why should a Catholic judge refuse to apply divorce law? The monsignor is confusing the sacrament and civil marriage.
Legislators pass laws.
Judges and magistrates are paid by the State and protected by the Constitution to apply those same laws without fear or favour.
This is their sacrosanct duty.
No one should be allowed to threaten them in any way with impunity.
In this case they were threatened in the most barefaced and crude manner reminiscent of the Inquisition.
Totally unacceptable behaviour if you ask me.
Not exactly.
They were told that if in the opinion of one clergyman, if they apply divorce laws they commit a sin.
If the judges and magistrates who heard those words believe that that clergyman has the authority to tell them what constitutes a sin, then they may choose to listen to his words, and even consider resigning their post.
(One of them – a magistrate – should have already taken this step months ago… but that’s another story.)
If on the other hand, they do not consider this particular clergyman to hold any authority, they may very well ignore his words.
So the problem lies not with the clergyman, who has every right at law to convey his ideas.
The problem might lie with members of the judiciary who recognize his authority.
They are NOT forced to recognize his authority. But those who do, may then resign if they want to follow his advice.
I do not see any need to make so much fuss about this incident.
Am I right to say that divorce cases would be decided in the Family Court?
If so, would the matter not affect only the judges and advocates engaged in that Court?
@Min Weber
Rather than resigning, I believe judges may opt to refrain from hearing specific cases. In this case, they could argue they have a conflict on a matter of conscience.
Daphne, my instinctive thinking about this is that the priest is right in repeating the message of God, since that is the priest’s mission. The priest is just a messenger!
At the same time, I agree perfectly with you that since the Court invited the Church to open the forensic year with a holy mass, then it seems that the Court was sending a signal that it was asking for, or accepting, the guidance of the Church.
Now I agree with the separation of State and Church. So I agree that the ‘tradition’ of the holy mass in this event is now out of place.
Moreover I agree that the function of the judiciary is to apply the law of the state, independent of religious beliefs. At the same time, however, one must not forget that the Constitution of Malta states that the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion, and that the Church has the duty and right to teach which principles are right and which wrong.
And the judiciary operates under the constitution, and they administer oath in front of God. This is another area where the Courts are not independent of religion.
The matter is becoming quite complex and passionate, and I expect we will see some other episodes like this on the way to introducing a law on divorce.
I have to add that I liked the end of your article!
Since when does a messenger’s job description include threatening others ?
Anthony do you consider honest policemen as a threat, after all they are only expected to implement the law!
In the Christian philosophy all are, to a greater or lesser extent, sinners including Said Pullicino himself. Some for presiding on divorce cases, others for instigating pique and yet others from keeping the abuse of children under wraps. One is then expected to resign himself to the judgement of the all mighty, not Said Pullicino.
The irony is that if the Maltese church does not want divorce law in Malta, it should stop at once participating in the debate. The more it speaks about it the more it is antagonising people against its teachings, risking not only that divorce is introduced but that the waning of its relevance be shifted to a higher gear.
Anthony, a lot of the church doctrines are related to threats of punishment or promises of reward. Many of the parables about Jesus Christ as described by the gospels contain that message also. This is a fact, not my opinion.
The Church is not a democratic institution – it is based on faith in very rigid rules. You like it, you are in. You don’t like it, get out.
An even greater insult is the fact that the text of this homily was published on the official website of the Maltese Catholic Church.
Is the Archbishop accepting these views? If not, he should issue a statement re-affirming the official position of the Church on this issue.
As a practising Catholic I was very much offended by this homily.
Why? Because he reminded you of a part of the Catholic teaching with which you do not agree?
A la carte Catholic – is that what you are?
I have been hearing this argument all day long! By people who make the sign of the cross before having lunch… What does that sign of the cross mean?
There were times when Christians gave their lives because the Emperor wanted them to recognize him as God. Since Christians believe there is only one God, they refused. And they were eaten alive by lions and other beasts.
And today, people who claim they are practising Catholics cannot stand to hear a clergyman repeat the message of the founder of their religion!
Christ is clear: no to divorce.
If you are a true Christian, follow that rule.
If you are not a true Christian, stop whining because a priest reminded you of your religion’s founder’s comandment.
If you are a member of the judiciary, and a true Catholic, do like the martyrs – you need not give up your life eaten by a beast, but you may give up your post.
Simple and easy.
All this a-la-carte Catholicism gets on my nerves. It sounds so much like bigotry and superstition.
You are wrong on so many counts, Min Weber.
European civilisation as we know it would not exist without freedom of belief. Now I do not have the time nor the space to explain all the intricacies behind the Edict of Nantes and everything that followed, but the basic premise is this: you are at liberty to practise whatever faith you like, but faith is a private matter. Notice that I said faith, not religion.
The concept of sin is particular to one’s faith. That is, you sin according to your faith, if you do not follow the teachings of your faith.
What the Monsignor did was not to “remind Catholics of their church’s teaching”, but to presume that the rules of his faith must apply to the Law of the Land, regardless of personal belief, and indeed, religious denomination. There goes the basis of European civilisation.
For if this were so, why have law courts and judges and lawyers at all? Why have a parliament? We could just take canon law as the law of the land, and court cases would be heard by priests, or we wouldn’t need courts at all, because god is omniscient anyway, and in order to be a sinner, one must have committed the sin.
As I always say, substitute “Catholic” with “Muslim”, and those who were nodding in stern approval during that mass would shit themselves.
No Min Weber, as I said I am a practising Catholic. I am married and against divorce but that doesn’t mean that I have to force my beliefs on everybody else.
I was offended by the way and where the homily was presented. The tone set in the homily is not that of dialogue but of imposition.
Again, divorce only dissolves the civil bond not the sacrament. Therefore why all this fuss on sin on part of judges applying the law?
Marriages are already breaking down, and as a church we need to address the issue not by medievally fighting divorce but by preparing couples properly for the sacrament. The only preparation for the sacrament at present is the Cana course which is about eight sessions of two hours.
Is this all the preparation we are giving young couples for the sacrament of marriage? In contrast, priests have to go through physiological evaluations and a training period of at least six years before they are allowed to receive the sacrament.
If you are a firm believer, then the issue of divorce should not worry you too much as the sacrament of marriage cannot be dissolved (although it can be annulled). Judges will not dissolve the sacrament but only the civil contract and in doing so they aren’t committing any sin.
And yes I was offended that the head of the Catholic Church’s tribunal, a priest and a monsignor mixed that up.
Baxxter
Apart from the fact that vulgarities are, at times, distasteful, you are wrong on many counts.
European civilization is based on the right of freedom of expression.
Monsignor Said Pullicino has the right to express his views. Like the kids in The Lord of the Flies, when he holds the conch in his hands, he has the right to express his views, and it is expected of others to listen. They may agree, disagree, or whatever, with those views but they may not deny him the basic right to express them.
Like everybody else, for that matter.
Which side you’re on in a debate does not in the least diminish your entitlement to speak your mind.
So, please, whereas you are highly erudite, do not think that erudition is always the answer. Sometimes, it is something else.
R Camilleri
I really do not understand your position.
1. Why were you offended and insulted?
Monsignor Said Pullicino is in good faith, isn’t he? Were you offended because he does not share your position?
Wouldn’t that mean that you would want to impose your position on Monsignor Said Pullicino?
2. Do you as a Catholic accept that ultimately Christ is saying that divorce is conducive to sin?
If not, why?
I mean, if you do not believe Christ is not saying that divorce is conducive to sin, why do you believe so? On what basis?
Baxxter, re-read what you wrote:
“What the Monsignor did was not to “remind Catholics of their church’s teaching”, but to presume that the rules of his faith must apply to the Law of the Land, regardless of personal belief, and indeed, religious denomination.”
Mons. Said Pullicino has a right to “presume that the rules of this faith must apply to the Law of the Land.”
Democracy allows him to air such views. He might not be in the right, but he has the right.
It is then up to his listeners to agree or disagree.
But wanting to leave because they disagree is Fascistic.
The Fascists used to silence those with whom they do not agree.
I think that the President of the Camera degli Avvocati has this streak. He silences those who oppose him using wit, not reasoning. Wit is the sweeter alternative to the manganello.
Think about that animal urge inside all of us which makes us want to shut up those who do not share our worldview.
It is the same urge which drove the Inquisition and the Fascists and the Communists and many others to physically destroy people who did not share their ideas.
Then think about that other urge, more subtle and more sublime, which makes us listen patiently (even if we almost want to ask our father to forgive them because they do not know what they are doing), which makes us be polite and allow the Other to speak their mind, and then – if we do not agree – to ignore or counterargue, expecting to be heard just like we paid attention before.
Compare the two urges. One is destructive, the other constructive. One is totalitarian, the other is democratic.
Many liberals tend to be totalitarian. They do not want to listen to those who are not liberals themselves.
But a basic tenet of liberalism is freedom of expression.
@Min Weber
“it is expected of others to listen”
Not at all. The right to express oneself may not be limited without just cause, but it does not follow that anyone should listen.
So what is the conclusion of all your arguments?
My conclusion, which is not far from Daphne’s, is that the holy mass to open a court forensic year is misplaced in a European country built on the principle of separation of state and religion.
The priest has the right for his freedom of expression, no doubt. And the law of the land is separate from the law of God.
@ Corinne Vella
Yes, strictly speaking you are right. Bare democracy is a bit like Hyde Park – where you can say whatever you like, and nobody is bound to listen to you.
In an enlightened democracy you might expect others to listen to you, particularly if you are someone who counts.
Which Catholicism are you for, Weber? Is it the one Peter and James had or that pushed by the radical misogynist Paul? Should we accept Catholics who agree with the First Council of Nicaea where Constantine impressed the needs of state over this fledgeling mystery religion?
If I were you I’d read some Catholics who have a brain, do actual research and write cogent arguments that oppose the party line. Simply taking the position of authority hook line and sinker doesn’t seem like your best self.
I left all this hokum by the wayside a long time ago even though till recently I held your view that catholics should abide by the church’s current diktat … I was quite the hypocrite wasn’t I!
Incidentally, this obsequiousness to power is why I taunt Catholics with being fascists.
If ever the divorce question is put to a referendum, I hope that the good Monsignor will be a little more careful in the “grave sin” rhetoric department. Because there is an obscure provision in Maltese law which makes it a criminal offense “to threaten to inflict any temporal or SPIRITUAL injury” to any voter. That provision was added to the law in 1974 – not a surprising date.
Brain-washed people don’t think. Here is a perfect, dangerous example.
From a certain point of view, Monsignor Said Pullicino’s words are also important in Consuelo Scerri Herrera’s case.
She put a married man in the position of contemplating divorce very seriously – the same married man who then attends processions.
You seem to have missed that the magistrate was seen at the Our Lady of Sorrows procession earlier this year.
And did that man “attend” or “organise” processions? Remember the electricity miracle on the Gholja tas-Salib this past Holy Friday?
You are right! Sorry!
The Magistrate was seen at the procession. And the man she stole from his lawful wife does organize processions.
So the words of Mons. Said Pullicino are very important to this woman who is a member of the judiciary, steals a man from his lawful wife, and then goes to processions.
Despite her attendance at processions, she has now no excuse. Mons. Said Pullicino told her in no unclear terms that she is committing a grave sin.
Can we please stop saying words like “stole”. Nobody stole anybody’s husband/wife. It takes two to tango. They are both adults equally responsible for their own actions.
[Daphne – I agree with you that we’re all responsible for our decisions. But something every woman and apparently no man knows is that women actually choose whether to target a vulnerable man or not. If he is targeted and responds, his family is shattered; if he is not targeted, he carries on as normal and eventually the creases in his relationship iron themselves out. Men are extraordinarily vulnerable to the idea that a woman might be interested (and the less experienced the man, the more vulnerable), while women rarely are vulnerable to the idea that a man might be interested because once we have families our priorities are completely different to those of men. Basically, any woman can target any man – she doesn’t even have to be attractive; all she has to do is notice his vulnerabilities and work on them. This is something most women know how to do. The difference is that only a few choose to do it. ]
” once we have families our priorities are completely different to those of men.”
I take exception to that. I can only speak from personal experience, of course, but I know that the second my son was born my priorities changed completely. I know that I could do nothing intentionally that would hurt or harm them in any way, physically or mentally, and yes, my children are my absolute priority in life.
[Daphne- Yes, but you cannot deny the obvious: that men leave home and children in droves, but when women do, it’s so exceptional that people remember the few individual cases (‘she abandoned her children’). Women don’t pack a suitcase and announce that they’re going off to live alone/with someone else and will see the children on weekends, monthly, never. But men do it all the time.]
“I Love them” doesn’t quite cut it, it’s far stronger than that, you can’t really say “in love with your children” obviously but it’s even more than that.
I know I could never jeopardise that, just like I know that SOME women (admittedly fewer than men) do put their own happiness before their children’s, even abandoning them along with their husband!
If the man is weak it is his problem and does not make him any less guilty. It is wrong for a woman to target a man in a committed relationship, but it is just as wrong for that man to abandon his responsibilities. The man in question is no innocent victim.
[Daphne – Yes, I know, and I am not suggesting he is. In fact, I become very irritated at those who suggest (and strangely, they are generally women) that the man is helpless in such a situation and that the woman should carry all the blame. The point I wish to make is that the one who starts it by a campaign of deliberate targeting has by far the greater moral responsibility for the damage done to others – whether the one who starts it is a man or a woman. Yet it is usually a woman with problems in her own life.]
Monsignor Cremona is a charming person. He wears a disarming smile. He is a great asset to the archdiocese.
I suspect he was not very smiley when he confronted Said Pullicino after the latter’s monumental debacle.
Patri Pawl, you are embarking on a journey fraught with danger. Proceed slowly and carefully. We will pray for you. Take care.
Now, straightaway, a public and unequivocal apology from you to the Bench is in order. The sooner the better. Open wounds tend to fester.
I cannot agree more with your description of Monsignor Cremona. He is a very wise man, with the rare quality to stay humble and down to earth.
The Archdiocese of Malta has already made its stance clear, so at this stage an apology will be premature. Firstly the clergymen need to reunite and sort out this matter internally before another King Richard the Lionheart emerges to lead a crusade on the matter of divorce.
Here’s what I find nonsensical: divorce can never be considered a sin because it is no different to separation. It is if one of the partners remarries that the sin of adultery is committed.
To quote the monsignor himself: Għal Ġesù minn jiddivorżja lil mara u jiżżewweġ oħra ikun qed jgħix fi stat ta’ adulterju. No marriage, no adultery, no sin.
Now since the judges and lawyers have nothing to do with the issue of remarrying they don’t really fit into the picture do they? One cannot assume that the partners (either or both) are going to remarry.
It’s the poor chap at the public registry who has been civilly marrying divorced couples for some time now who won’t be able to sleep at night.
Nothing wrong in saying that divorce is against the law of God and if one truly believes in one God then, nothing wrong in saying that His law binds everyone.
That does not mean that one has the right to impose one’s beliefs on all and sundry, especially if one is not married, as in the Monsigneur’s case.
He was NOT imposing anything on anyone.
He was just expressing his views.
Is this a democracy or is it not?
Since when are we readers of this blog – which boasts an uncompromising belief in freedom of expression – ready to burn someone at the stake for expressing his ideas?
He might have said things with which we do not agree, but he has the right at law to say those things.
He was not imposing anything. If someone follows his advice, they do it out of their own free will.
Let us not confuse matters here.
Don’t do a Xarabank on us, Weber. What the Monsignor said was incredibly idiotic. So stupid, in fact, that it belies his status as Theological Expert and Special Rep. to the Judiciary.
Let us follow the argument to its logical conclusion, as Daphne teaches us. Killing is a sin. Are we agreed on that? A murder is committed. A lawyer defends the murderer in court. Is the lawyer committing a sin?
Ah, you say, but the lawyer is not the one who is doing the killing. Ah, I reply, but then neither is the lawyer the one who’s divorcing. That would be the couple.
Game, set and match, or what?
[Daphne – I hate to be the one to point it out, but there’s a problem with your logic. An accurate comparison would in fact be the lawyer who helps a client murder someone, with the lawyer who helps somebody get a divorce. The divorce lawyer is helping his client commit a sin, and that’s where his sin lies. But then Monsignor Said Pullicino’s logic is faulty, too. If marriage cannot be dissolved by man – that’s a tenet of the Catholic Church – then divorce cannot dissolve marriage. And in the eyes of the Catholic Church, it doesn’t. Monsignor Said Pullicino is, effectively, arguing against something which the Catholic Church does not recognise because, in its eyes, it doesn’t exist. Logical thinkers within the Catholic Church don’t argue against divorce, but against remarriage – and again, not because it is remarriage to them (it isn’t – you remain married to the original spouse) but because it constitutes fornication and adultery.]
@Min Weber Since you took it upon yourself to defend the monsignor, perhaps you can explain his reasoning. Please explain to me how applying a divorce law is a sin.
To all intents and purposes it is a clearer legal structure to separation, a structure which already exists and is recognised. True divorce allows both partners to remarry civilly, but why is that the judges’ responsibility?
Currently the state recognises and allows for separation. Some ex-partners go on to cohabit. Is it therefore a case that the state is committing a sin for allowing the separation to take place?
The analogy here is to condemn the person who manufactures knives, a tool which everyone would agree is necessary, and blaming him for any murders committed with one or some of the knives he manufactures.
The Mgr is at liberty to express an opinion, he is not at liberty to say inexact and untrue statements. It is demonstrably NOT a sin for a judge to apply divorce laws.
A sin can only be perpetrated by an ex-partner who cohabits or marries again. That is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the lawyer (s) or judge. It is the free decision of the couple involved, and as far as I know free will is the basis of the Christian faith.
Hold it. Divorce is just dissolving the civil marriage, which has absolutely zero weight in the eyes of the Catholic church. The “sinning” bit starts when the couple no longer love each other, right? Or is my vision of marriage too romantic?
Charles Crawford must be laughing his head off watching us Catholic Lilliputians debate the finer points of divorce. In 2010.
Logic, and only logic, tells me that your statement should have ended as follows:
“…nothing wrong in saying one is bound by His law.”
@ Daphne
Brilliant argumentation.
@ All the others who think I am defending what Monsignor Said Pullicino said, I am NOT!
That is the whole point. I am NOT defending what he said.
My argument is that, irrespective of what he said, he has the right to say it.
I am arguing against those who feel offended, who have called him idiotic and what not.
I am telling them: even if you were offended by his reasoning, even if he was idiotic, he still has the right to express his views.
Because this is a democracy. In a democracy, everybody has the right to express their views. What many of you are saying is undemocratic.
You want to silence this man because he does not agree with you. You want to silence me because I am saying he has the right to express his views.
Voltaire, my friends. Voltaire!
Actually I just want to stop this silly Maltese tradition of starting any year with a ceremonial mass, Weber. If our black-robed geniuses had followed their secular European counterparts, this whole ruckus wouldn’t have erupted.
@Min Weber
Hallik minn Voltaire. No one is trying to silence you, or Mgr. Said Pullicino for that matter.
The gist of the opposition to what Mgr Said Pullicino said is that his was an attempt to have God’s laws, as he sees them, override the law of the land.
Now, if his entire congretation had set upon him as one man (or woman) and muzzled him with his own cassock, that would have been another matter altogether.
Min Weber:
I really don’t understand what you are getting it. I agree completely that he has the right to voice his opinion (whether he should have a voice in front of the judiciary is a whole other question), but we have as much a right to tell how bloody stupid that opinion is.
That’s the thing about opionions. Everyone should, and does, have them, but once we choose to proclaim them to others, especially using such emotive language, we have to be prepared to take the criticism.
So to be very clear. The dear monsignor have all the right in the world to say that divorce is equal to eating babies if he wants and I have the right to state that it is a moronic view.
So please, what have people suggested that is undemocratic? Who have wanted to silence him?
Thought so…
What next? Catholic stoning?
“The Islamic Republic of Iran bases its system of justice on Islamic law which demands that having a sexual relationship outside of marriage carries this death sentence”
I once had to testify in an annulment case before Monsignor Said Pullicino – not a pleasant experience at all. He spent two hours twisting every word that I said into what was clearly a pre-formed opinion.
I had to stop him and get him to change what he was writing many, many times (funny how he didn’t want me to write my statement). And he has a way – like all lawyers do – of putting words into your mouth.
I’m not going to say he’s the Anglu Farrugia of the Curia, Daphne, but the methodology is pretty similar: I write the statement and you sign it – sound familiar?
Also worth mentioning is that he had the most luxurious office I ever saw – huge oak desk with gold pens running about on it, oak panelling, paintings and a carpet whose pile was so deep I nearly got lost in it. So much for our vow of poverty, eh!
If he was doing “like all lawyers do”, I don’t really get the point of your argument.
I am not sure that priests – as opposed to members of Holy Orders – are bound by a vow of poverty. But I stand to be corrected.
Diocesan priests (as Mons. Said Pullicino) are not bound by any vow. Only members of religious orders (not “holy orders”) or congregations of apostolic life (friars, nuns, monks, sisters etc) are bound by the three vows (and distinctions should be made between them also), one of which is that of poverty.
The point, Min, is that he was trying to get me to say what he wanted to write, as opposed to the truth (as told under oath). Obviously, the truth under oath should be sacred but Mons SP was clearly not interested in it.
I don’t really get your point, actually. Are you cool with God’s judge on earth tossing the truth, as told on oath, away?
Viz poverty – amesso non concesso – even so, the opulence of that office jars terribly with the whole ethos of Christ’s church.
What it all boils down to is that people like SP are interpreting Christ’s message to suit their own ends and to perpetuate their power – signified by the opulence – for as long as possible. That was my point.
Logic also dictates that God’s law applies to everybody….
No, Joseph. It applies to those who want to obey it.
This is the big difference between a democracy and a theocracy.
Whereas the law of the state applies to everybody, the law of god applies to the faithful.
This is the real meaning of Jesus’ words about Caeser (the state) and God.
As a citizen you do not have a choice with regard to the civil laws. But as a citizen you do have a choice with regard to religion.
This is a basic tenet of modernity. It was only in Antiquity (when religion meant being a good citizen) and in the Middle Ages (when being a good citizen meant being a devout person) that there was no distinction between the two.
Modernity views citizenship as a higher value than devoutness.
Even though certain modern States still claim that “In God We Trust”, “Dieu et mon droit”, and want public officers to take their oath before God.
Come to think of it, perhaps Alfred Sant had a point when he chose not to take his oath before God, by refusing to kiss the cross.
That’s not what Said Pullicino said, and why there have been so many objections. Welcome to the right side of the argument.
@ Joseph Brincat
Your ‘logic’ is based on the assumption that there is a god. Personally, I would hesitate to use the words ‘logic’ and ‘god’ in the same sentence.
The Catholic Church has an abysmal record of doing what it wants whilst claiming that it is acting on behalf of some diety that seems to have given it licence to kill, torture and commit genocide throughout the ages.
Should the good monsignor wish to believe in that church, it is certainly his perogrative, but he may not force his beliefs on others.
Logic requires proof of God’s existence. Blind faith is neither logical nor rational.
In the UK you have to get a divorce before you can apply for an annulment. Otherwise you could end up having your marriage annulled by the Church but still being married in the eyes of the State.
The Catholic Church in the UK has no objection to people getting divorced. Even though they can get divorced and then decide not to proceed with the annulment.
I wonder if the Catholic Church considers that someone who gets divorced or gets a civil annulment and re-marries (obviously a civil marriage) is committing a graver sin than someone who co-habits.
I would have thought the sin was the same: adultery
The Catholic Church does not accept or even countenance divorce. It claims that it is a practice that violates God’s Law. Fine. Agreed.
It is the duty of the Church to ascertain that all this is crystal clear in the minds of its members including those who happen to be judges, magistrates and lawyers.
Now when the representatives of the people in parliament enact a law that renders the process of divorce legal, all citizens are entitled to go to the courts to obtain a divorce. It is understood that those who do so do not form part of the Catholic Church any longer if they ever did in the first place.
Threatening judges with fire and brimstone if they apply the law of the land is, in my opinion, a grave intrusion in their independence and impartiality.
It is highly illegal and offensive behaviour .
I do not expect the monsignor to be hauled before the courts for his pathetic and archaic outburst.
The least I expect, as I said earlier, is a retraction and a public apology from his CEO.
I think the Church should stop arguing against divorce. All well-meaning persons know the Church’s stand on this and I feel all arguments are superfluous. Remember Henry VIII? Nothing changed since then and nothing will, because the Church is consistent in her teachings.
Well said red nose. This ties in perfectly with my belief that no amount of statistics will shift the argument either way. At the end of the day it all boils down to whether or not we accept God’s word as the last word. cf Mt 19: 7-8.
I haven’t heard of any paedophile priest tying a millstone round his/her neck and jumping off a cliff as the Gospel says.
[Daphne – The New Testament does not quote Christ as saying that at all. In synthesis, what He is quoted as saying is that it would be better for somebody to tie a millstone round his neck and drown himself than to cause scandal to children. This is not the same as saying that those who cause scandal to children should drown themselves.]
Why many act so shocked at what Mons. Pullicino remarked is beyond me. Isn’t his opinion shared by a truckload of politicians and common mortals spread across this rock? At least the bugger had the guts to be frank about it instead of using the usual politically correct rhetorical waffle.
Take the PN for e.g., aren’t they clearly against divorce as well? Why so? Is it not also because they think divorce is a grave sin? Why wouldn’t one be clearly against divorce, whilst at the same time acknowledging other forms of separation, if it wasn’t for this reason only? What should everyone be shocked about is the fact that who should determine whether divorce legislation is to be introduced has clearly chickened out of the situation, making me presume that if the introduction of divorce is to be ever considered, it will only be so through a referendum. Now that’d be a grave sin!
I agree with red nose. Even though we all know the Catholic Church’s stand but most of us do what suits us best and not what the church preaches.
I know several people who were brought up with strong Catholic values and they followed the church’s teachings and the values they were taught by their Catholic families. But when marriage problems came up and they had to face separations they did what suited them best, such cohabiting with their new partner and having children outside a wedlock.
So, “il-knisja qed taghzaq fl-ilma”.
Il knisja mhix tghazaq fl-ilma. Il knisja taf (besperjenza ta sekli) li id0-divorzju huwwa hazin ghas-socjeta – imbarra konsiderazzjoniiet morali. Ghandujkun f’din is-sahna tad-dibattitu fuq id-divorzju hadd (repeat ) hadd mhu qed jghati kas ghal-ugieh li ihossu l-ulied meta koppja tisseparai ahseb u ara kif ihossu meta il genituri jiddivorzjaw bl-“option” li jergu jizzawgu ma hadd iehor. Veru ugieh ihossu.
Ghandek ragun sa certu punt. It-tfal ibaghtu meta l-genituri jisseparaw. Jiehdux id-divorzju jew le huwa irrelevanti meta jkunu diga isseparati. L-ugigh huwa ikkawzat biss mis-separazzjoni u mhux mid-divorzju. Meta koppja mizzewga tissepara, dan jigri ghax iz-zwieg ikun falla.
Zwieg fallut huwa fejn it-tfal l-aktar li jbaghtu. Lit-tfal m’hix ha taghmillhom l-ebda differenza jekk wara 4 snin li l-genituri taghhom ikunu isseparaw, jiehdu d-divorzju. L-anqas m’hi ha taghmillhom differenza jekk jergghu jizzewgu. Kikeu d-divorzju ma jezistix xorta jikkoabitaw u l-ugigh kawzat xorta hemm ha jkun, divorzju u mhux.
Il-knisja (nassumi qed tghid ghall-knisja Kattolika) taf b’hafna affarijiet ohra li huma hziena ghas-socjetà, imma qatt ma tiftah halqha. Fuq l-issue tad-divorzju qed taghmel l-arja ghax sabet lill-klassi politika favur taghha. Issa kieku konna pajjiz normali, kien ikollna dibattitu fuq id-divorzju minghajr ma nsemmu l-kelma “knisja”, ghax id-divorzju japplika ghaz-zwieg civili, mhux religjuz. Imma ta’ Maltin injoranti li ahna, bhas-soltu nhalltu kollox.
Children suffer when a marriage breaks down, and fullstop. Probably it is better if the parents separate rather than fight, shout and be at each other’s throats everyday at home.
We make the mistake of assuming that if a married couple never separate, then we count that as a successful and happy marriage. That is a fallacy.
[Daphne – You’re wrong. Children hate it when their parents fight and shout, yes, but what they hate even more is the thought of their parents splitting up, or their parents living with somebody else. The fact that children accept those situations doesn’t mean they like them, or wouldn’t rather be living with their parents shouting and fighting than having to deal with the fact that daddy and his girlfriend are in the next bedroom, or coming down for breakfast to find a man who is not their father in the kitchen every blinking day. Grown-ups are doomed when they lose the ability to remember what it was like to be a child. No, children are not glad or relieved when their quarreling parents split up: that is a lie fostered by the quarreling parents, to make themselves feel better about their choices.]
Admittedly, my opinion is only supported by anecdotal evidence. However, in the cases I have in mind, things did improve following separation.
Sometimes couples get vicious at each other. I obviously am not speaking about the odd fight. I am speaking about constant tension, constantly doing evil things to each others. Occasionally even getting violent. I really cannot see how separation makes the unlucky children any worse off.
The church in Malta is skating on thin ice and is risking a rerun of the Sixties in a 2010 society from which it will come out a loser if it continues down this path. The Archbishop should make his voice heard above the cacophony of differing messages coming from various members of the clergy.
“When you have blurred the boundaries by asking the Catholic Church to mark the start of the ‘new year’ at the law courts, you have only yourselves to blame when the emissaries of that church think that they are in a position to tell you what to do and how to judge others.”
Very, very true.
Divorce is a human right – look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights number 16. I have no idea why nobody has picked this up yet. This makes a referendum out of the question. One does not vote in favour or against human rights.
It is the duty of the state to make sure human rights are in operation and that they are respected.
This is Article 16 :
“Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
Divorce or remarriage is not mentioned. On the other hand the State’s obligation to protect the family is a human right.
Then what does “dissolution” in above clause mean?
Divorce is not a human right, it’s a civil right in every country bar Malta, the Philippines and, I assume, The Holy See.
Honestly I can’t understand the Catholic Church’s position with regards to divorce. It has been preaching that God created us with a free will to either do his will or not. If that is the case why is the church arguing against the possibility of opting for divorce?
The church has a right to preach that God’s will is that no one should divorce. But according to its teachings any person is free to choose to go against God’s will. So arguing against the introduction of divorce is like saying that you are not free to go against God’s will. Can some Catholic explain this to me as I am honestly confused.
@Malcolm
Of all the opinions posted under this particular DCG commentary, yours is most central and critical to the entire ‘monsignor’ fiasco regarding the introduction of divorce. Bravo!
Central to God’s creation of man is man’s freedom to choose. Without arguing the “morality” of divorce, or of choosing to use it, or thereafter to remarry, it is entire wrong for the Church to deny “freedom of choice” regarding the civil dissolution of marriage. That would be imposing its religious beliefs on others. It might as well be violence at the hand of a sword. There is no place for such imposition in a secular state–if we are a democratic secular state.
The Church also preaches redemption from our “sins.” Even in circumstances of “divorce” and potential “remarriage,” let alone in the multitudinous circumstances of “adultery” and any other actual sin [and what may be actual sin is best left to God’s judgment], God’s mercy and grace may be abundant.
My grave concern about the monisignor’s opinion so expressed, is that it reflects a bias that even jeapordizes any sense of objectivity in the Catholic annulment process–which I feel is a very grave offense to the already humble submission of an individual’s “annulment case” to the authority of the church. I think the bishop should be deeply concerned.
Meanwhile, the Msgr’s freedom of expression is not the issue, nor the freedom of the Church to express its views, or to preach. But the Church does not have the right to deny a “freedom” or “right” recognized universally in secular societies, and by every State except two, Malta and the Philippines.
In Australia when someone applies to the Catholic Church for an annulment the first thing they are told is that they first have to get a divorce, otherwise annulment proceedings cannot begin.
I’ve been living abroad for quite a number of years, and believe me I’ve never hear of anyone who applied for a church annulment, but always for a divorce.
In Malta most of the couples file for a church annulment or a court annulment as there are no other options and it seems that annulments from the church are always granted.
A few years back I think there was a case where the Church annulled a marriage, but for reasons I do not know, the state did not annul the marriage.
I do not know how the matter ended.
However, all those who want to ignore the Catholic Church’s teachings are free to do so but I think it is wrong then for them to reap the “benefits” the church provides, such as confession, communion, Catholic burial and so on.
Good thing you put that word in inverted commas.
Maltese Catholics need to realise that Malta is not really 96% Catholic. A sizable minority are atheist or agnostic or are only Catholic in name. I assure you we are in no need of confession, communion or anything else the Church is offering.
Well, if we want to ignore the Church’s teachings we are not really free to do so since divorce is still illegal, and the Church is doing all it can in order for us not to be able to make a free choice and ignore the Church’s teachings.
Monsignor Said Pullucino is only putting foward Catholic teaching. He has a right to do that.
I love how nobody gave a crap about the African Bush comment.
We might not tolerate divorce, but we sure tolerate racial insensitivity.
Er, isn’t there a judge who imports condoms and therefore helps couples to commit sins, at a bargain price per sin?
(This is meant as a comeback after Daphne found the flaw in my argument.)
[Daphne – He’s now at Mount Carmel, serving a prison sentence.]
He’s still at Mount Carmel?
I do not see any problem with this at all. This was a priest preaching the gospels in a Church. This was not the Catholic Church speaking to society out there. This was the Catholic Church speaking to its faitfhul (whatever the occasion was).
On the contrary I see a problem with people who fail to distinguish between State and Church and constantly fail to understand that the Church has a right to speak its own views in its own language to its own faithful.
The priest was preaching to a religous congregation who went to church to hear the gospel being proclaimed and to hear the gospel being explained. And one of the things which the church does best is to call a sin a sin.
Invariably this always has the starling effect on people like that of a pistol shot. It makes them jump on their seats. The next thing that happens is also predictable. They start having vivid images of the Taliban running around in Toyota pick-up trucks. On the contrary liberal secularists should be carefull and resist to the temptation of ending up in the same pick-up trucks themselves smashing pulpits at the very mention of the word ‘sin’.
In this day and age one cannot expect the Church to shut up and change the tone to its own faithful and remove any mention of the word ‘sin’. This is the age of freedom of expression and tolerance.
I have yet to hear one decent argument why splitting up a family with a church annulment is any different to a divorce. In fact, with annulment, the children are left with unmarried parents! WTF
You have a point there, AP. That is why I think the judiciary should not have been there in the first place.
However, to see whether you really have a point, let us apply the same logic to something else. Bear in mind, that by asking judges to refuse working on divorce cases he is asking that they do something unconstitutional (I stand to be corrected on this one) as their duty is to apply the law.
Assume now that the Church preaches that we should hold regular human sacrifices. Would he still be fine asking his congregation to do this? He would still simply be relaying the Church’s teaching.
Different scenario: let us also assume that most of the judiciary was racist. They would want to refuse to handle cases where a black man was suing a white man for discrimination. Is that fine with you?
Let us also remember that somewhere in our history, it was agreed that the Church would not interfere in affairs of the State.
Catholics have a lot to learn from the Anglican Church in the UK in this regard.
Extreme scenarios like that of human sacrifices are very useful to elicit basic principles. I like your reasoning. But at the same time the scenario you presented is very realistic and not extreme at all.
As in the act of frivolous human sacrifices being asked by the Church that would not be fine. Why? Because it goes against moral norms fully anchored in Judeo-Christian divine revelation upon which many nations around the world base their principles and treat them as objective. Moral principles in politics should never be based on social consensus or else they turn relative.
In states where these moral norms are treated as relative frivolous human sacrifices are the norm of the day through abortion and state assisted suicides. The same applies with racist discrimination. “Every person is in the image and likeness of God…” etc etc. Solid objective norms.
Back to the divorce vs annullment argument. They both hurt children and the effect on them is terrible either way. From a Catholic point of view there is also an element of sin in both. There is sin on one side because a vow is being broken and the other because one side cheated and the vow was never made. The single crucial difference between the two is that in annullment there is a lie running around which one has to come to terms with it. In the case of divorce there is no lie running around but a valid vow which one also has to come to terms with it.
As for the Church not to interfere in the running of a State that is fine. At the same time if the State starts smashing basic principles for the fun of it, somebody has to pull brakes and in this case the responsibility is not that of the Church but the individual faithful within that Church.
Back to the Middle Ages and the other ‘middle ages ‘ in Malta, the Sixties when Mintoff talked about the ‘6 points’.
“Back to the divorce vs annullment argument. They both hurt children ”
Is hurting children a sin? Therefore a church annulment on couples who have children is a sin. Someone should tell the church. And fast.
Is it a sin to hurt children? Then why do the church issue annulments to couples with kids when it will harm the children for their family to be destroyed by the annulment? How can a marriage be presumed to have never taken place when children were born in that marriage? Does it bother you that the catholic church are the biggest sinners of the lot in this respect?
Interested bystander.
Annullment is not brought about by an institution unlike divorce. It was brought about by those who cheated and the institution is just declaring it as such.
[Daphne – You can’t have your marriage declared null for cheating.]
You are right. I meant “cheating” as in keeping back some truth from your partner before entering into a marriage. Ex If you are gay and keeping this to yourself. Poor word selection from my part.