I'm glad Frank has spoken up at last
Timesofmalta.com, today
LOCAL CHURCH ‘DIVORCED’ FROM CATHOLIC CHURCH ELSEWHERE
The zealous anti-divorce stance of the local Church means it is “divorced from the Catholic Church elsewhere in the world” – which insists on civil divorce before granting annulments – according to former Nationalist Party executive president Frank Portelli.
Dr Portelli waded into the divorce debate yesterday because he said he could no longer stand by and allow the truth to be distorted, particularly after hearing Gozo Bishop Mario Grech’s call for the faithful to “do their duty” in the divorce referendum on Saturday.
His reasoning comes from his application to have his first marriage annulled by the Catholic Church in England – where his first wife was living – 25 years ago.
He showed The Sunday Times a copy of the letter he received from the Northampton Diocesan Tribunal, which stated that since an annulment granted by the Church had no effect as far as UK civil law was concerned, “we always insist that a civil divorce must be obtained first”.
“I cannot imagine that the Catholic Church in England would ask me to commit a sin or do anything that is evil. But, unfortunately, representatives of the local Church are using their power in the wrong way and implying that seeking divorce is evil,” Dr Portelli said.
“Certainly there have been attempts to try to put the fear of God into people already having problems in their marriage. A Good Shepherd will follow his lost sheep; he will not try to scare them away,” he added.
Dr Portelli is also angry about Malta’s exceptional annulment and divorce status because, he said, it prevented citizens domiciled in Malta but married to foreigners from exercising their right to apply for an annulment abroad.
“Abroad you can get an annulment within 18 months, yet in Malta it can take eight years and in Gozo it can take 10 years. The local Church does not want people to apply for annulments abroad because it would mean giving up its power. It does not want to lose its influence over people’s lives,” Dr Portelli said.
Dr Portelli, a Nationalist candidate in the 2009 EU Parliament elections, also took aim at the PN, branding it “out of sync” with reality.
Citing the trend of ‘unknown fathers’ and the significant number of children born outside wedlock, he said the PN had failed to get to grips with the changing realities in modern society.
“Currently we don’t have divorce, so it is not divorce which has caused these problems. We have to make sure people are well-prepared for marriage and given help along the way. But putting the fear of God into them won’t work. In fact it has not worked. That is why we are in this situation,” he said.
However, he refused to criticise senior PN politicians who have invoked religion in the divorce debate.
“Everyone has a right to their own religious feelings. Personally I don’t flaunt mine in public and I would keep them separate,” he said.
Nor does Dr Portelli think that a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum would hurt the PN at the next election, despite the party’s strong anti-divorce stance.
“It would actually help the PN because then the problem is solved and it will not crop up again as an electoral issue. But if there is a ‘no’ vote it will hurt the party without any doubt, because it will not go away,” he said.
Dr Portelli urged the public to “strike a blow for freedom and separate the powers of the Church and the powers of the state. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, to God what is God’s”
68 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Frank Portelli has spoken and he makes a lot of sense.
Dr. Portelli is right when he says that it would be better if this matter is dealt with now rather than leave it there to be picked up later.
Daphne wrote in this sense as well recently.
Even though the PN could say that a “no” result was a consequence of the people’s choice, and even if, in that event, it could still do something about it in the electoral manifesto of 2013, it would be better for the PN itself to legislate for divorce now.
Pullicino Orlando might then be credited for saving the PN government in two consecutive elections, and he would have redeemed himself.
I cannot see the “lot of sense”.
The Church teachings come from the legal successor of Christ: what you bind in the world, will be bound in heaven; what you release, will be released ” or words to this effect.
I think that Dr.Portelli is “divorced” (completely) from the Church teachings. Looking up English history, perhaps Dr. Portelli will meet with a chap called Henry VIII and the story of the break-away Church of England, but then this is not mediacally connected and Dr. Portelli is a doctor.
“The Church teachings come from the legal successor of Christ” said red nose. Silly me. I must be punished. As penance I will go to Borg in Nadur to hear what Mary (in the form of a fat little man) has to say. Or to Zebbug to see what that Manche chap has to say. Or I may go to talk to the 12 year olds who heard the Gozitan bishop’s codswallop.
All you need, dear Mario, is a little bit of humility and a little bit of knowledge of your religion, if, of course, you are still a Catholic.
The Roman Catholic Church in England is not the same as the Church of England. They’re two different religions.
Henry VIII’s ”second chance at love” did not seem to work out anyway , except for the sixth and last wife who outlived him. The silly bint then went ahead with a second marriage and died in childbirth within a year or so.
Legal successor of Christ? What on earth does that even mean?
Frank Portelli, just like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, is making a political agenda out of his personal issues.
[Daphne – That is untrue. He did the honest thing and spoke up. What would be better in your eyes, that he speaks against divorce when he is divorced himself? That he keeps quiet? I think what you should be saying is this: that it is wrong for a political party to take a virulent stand against divorce but then select a divorced man to represent it in the European Parliament elections.]
No. Only Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is doing that. In fact this confirms it.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110523/local/Divorce-Bill-backbencher-defends-1998-opinion.366765
Back in 1998 he was against divorce, but now that he needs it himself, he is in favour of it.
People can’t be fooled. They do not forget.
Please lock Pullicino Orlando up for the last few days of the campaign, like Daphne suggested. He is doing more harm than good for the Yes campaign.
It also shows that Pullicino Orlando wants to rock the PN’s boat (which has only a majority of one seat in parliament).
Dr Gonzi should have the guts to throw him out of the party.
[Daphne – He can’t. The government would collapse immediately. An MP can be expelled from his party, but not from parliament. Too few people understand the distinction.]
Too bad :(
Divorce was not my choice.
It was a condition imposed on me by the Catholic Church.
So — I would expect a modicum of decency in your comments — attributing to me motives I do not have.
I am happily married and I do not need anything in my personal life.
I have no agenda and I need not have spoken at all.
However, I could not let representatives of the Catholic Church in Malta imply that those who applied for divorce on the advice of the Catholic Church abroad had committed some sin.
I consider that there have been some serious sins happening round us, and those in religious authority had the duty to prevent them.
The Pope is now trying to address these situations.
red nose, would the Pope have granted Henry VIII a divorce/annulmlent when his wife was the daughter of the Spanish monarchs? Politics or religion?
I think you should read history books and see what Thomas Moore (Saint) had told Henry at that time. All Henry wanted was different women for different sex experiences!
[Daphne – Kings in the 16th century did not need to marry different women to have different sex experiences. It was completely acceptable for them to have as many mistresses as they wished, and to use their ‘droit de seigneur’ over any woman or girl they fancied, including the wives of their subjects and courtiers. He wanted a son and heir, not sex. Henry VIII’s motivation has been central to Roman Catholic propaganda against the Church of England and divorce, and that propaganda is false.]
A question to all Roman Catholics:
Which is the lesser evil, to divorce a woman or to behead her?
It is you who needs to read some history. All Henry VIII needed was a legitimate male heir.
red nose, seriously, you deserve your ‘red nose’. What a load of rubbish you’ve spouted, which serves to complement all the rubbish that’s been voiced in this tiresome debate so far. Portelli is spot on.
I took Frank Portelli’s comment with a pinch of salt; he was the one who kept insisting that Mater Dei hospital was costlier than a similar hospital in Scotland which was built for less money but after 25 years will fall in the hands of the building contractors (or something to that effect).
After listening to Fr Peter Serracino Inglott’s interview with Lou Bondi, I can now understand that maybe Frank forgot to give us some more detail which for him seemed unimportant.
If he heard Fr Peter’s explanation to Lou, he wouldn’t have ‘presented his case’ to The Times.
John Schembri –
Yes, I believe that we paid through the nose for Mater Dei. I gave several statements to the police explaining how I arrived at this conclusion. Had anything that I stated to the police been found not to be true — I am sure the police would have taken action against me.
I am not quite sure what your motive is in bringing up Mater Dei on the divorce issue.
If you wish to contact me, please do so. Daphne has my email address and telephone number. I will show you how property was transferred to highly placed civil servants from a contractor at a fraction of the real value.
In most countries the Catholic Church makes it a condition for anyone applying for a Church annulment to first obtain a civil divorce.
It is a precondition – “no civil divorce — no Church annulment”.
So now decide.
Is the Catholic Church abroad forcing individuals, who want to adhere to the Church’s rules by applying for a Church annulment, to commit a sin by making it a condition for them to obtain a divorce first?
Or is the Catholic Church in Malta divorced from the One, True and Catholic Church?
On a medical note – best to avoid salt altogether. It is not good for you.
Dear Dr Portelli, Dr Francis Saliba here explained exactly what these ’two weights two measures’ are. You experienced it but could not fathom what was really happening and why. The Church is one and Christ’s teachings are one.
I don’t understand why the Church is being dragged into all this. I will be voting NO for one simple reason: divorce is a tool which has been misused and abused all over the world (which I have visited quite a chunk of) and at the end of the day the fallout from divorce will stop in our lap in the form of more taxes and social security.
If we want divorce why not revert to co-habitation? Why the bother?
I will take your advice about salt , you’re one of the best in the medical profession, so it must be a good advice .
Mr.Schembri, I understand Dr. Saliba’s message as stating “one weight with various (different) measures” as contrasted to your “two weights two measures”.
Your good self is quite correct in questioning why the Church “has been dragged into all this”. However, could it not also be true that the Catholic Church in the diocese of Malta has “dragged itself into all this”?
Furthermore, am I to understand, from your last message, that co-habitation would not be a burden on/for social security, which security is ultimately related to the taxes, which one pays?
With due respect towards Dr.Portelli, a pinch of salt now and then will do you no harm. Salt is essential not only to life, but also to good health. Moreover, salt, incidentally as also fat, is considered by gourmets to be a transport medium for a good taste of the food, which one cares to consume.
I always admired Dr Portelli. The Nationalist government needs a few like him.
Dr Frank Portelli does not make the elementary distinction between what the universal Catholic Church teaches and promotes actively and uniformly throughout the world and what different dioceses are forced to tolerate because it is imposed on them by the principle of separation of State from Church.
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
The principle of separation of Church and State imposes nothing. Yet another product of your imagination.
Dr Saliba
I sought an annulment from the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church made it a condition that I must first get a divorce before the annulment proceedings could commence.
Was the Catholic Church in the UK asking me to sin or to do something evil by making it a condition that I should first obtain a divorce before they would even consider hearing my case for an annulment?
Either the Roman Catholic Church outside Malta is wrong —or the church in Malta is.
I won’t be drawn into a discussion of your personal life.
You make awkward statements when you start by stating categorically that it is the local Church that is “divorced” from the Catholic Church elsewhere but end up by asking cryptically if it is the Roman Catholic Church outside Malta that is wrong.
You declare that you are a happily married man who does not need anything (lucky you) but who needed a decree of nullity. You omit the vital information whether the demand for a civil divorce was the free decision of the Catholic Church in the UK or whether this was a prior condition imposed by the State on the Church and which the Church had to accept because of the separation of State from Church.
I suspect strongly that it is the latter alternative, in which case you are only confirming my contention that it was the “separation of state from church” that forced both you and the Church in the UK to obtain a civil divorce before the Church could proceed with its own annulment procedure.
@ Dr.Francis Saliba
Please kindly allow me to remark that I personally perceive your very own statements as “awkward”.
From your writings, I win the impression that, for your good self, there might exist different versions of the “Catholic Church”, possibly depending on the respective (political) constitution of respective countries.
And yet, you wish to refer to a “universal Catholic Church”!
Indeed, “Flimkien Kollox Possibli”. Res ipsa loquitur.
@LeoSaid.
You have managed to form a wrong impression from what I did not write. Very awkward indeed. I always wrote that there is only one universal Catholic teaching and this prohibits divorce everywhere – there are no different versions. There would be different procedures how the church is allowed to operate under the constraint of a separation of church from different states.
The Catholic Church operates differently under conditions imposed on it and differ say between the UK, Malta and China. These are not “different versions of the Catholic Church” – the doctrine is the same.
Dear Dr.Saliba,
Your concept of “only one universal Catholic teaching” with “different procedures how the church is allowed to operate” is simply hilarious.
I personally wish to understand that different procedures may be equated with different versions.
With reference to “universal”, may I repeat that “res ipsa loquitur” (the thing/matter/fact/issue speaks for itself).
If one wishes a doctrine to be veritably “universal”, one should then strive to have a “universal” procedure for same doctrine.
But then, “res tantum valet quantum vendi potest”, in English (internet translation) “a thing/matter/fact/issue is worth only what one will pay for it”. Cynically, in alignment with government and Air Malta, expatriates as myself may be tempted to sarcastically remark that the cost is only €35 return!
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
A sin is a sin is a sin. If the Catholic church sees divorce as a sin, it would oppose it, even if it is required by the state.
Regarding your rhetorical question if the Catholic Church was asking you to sin, the answer would be a definite “NO” if you did not have the specific intention to flout Christ’s commandment not to divorce but you were only seeking a legitimate declaration that your previous marriage had been null and void from the outset.
Commandment No 11 Dr Saliba?
How can one divorce if the marriage has been declared null?
It doesn’t make sense!
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
Since a declaration of nullity is not guaranteed, the “sin” of divorce is not just a means to an end. It is an end in itself.
If divorce were excusable only as a necessary (compulsory) means to annulment, the Church would have to demand that you remarry the same person if it is found that there are insufficient grounds for an annlument.
If divorce is a sin, the Catholic Church would be asking you to sin…period.
When Jesus asked the people whether any of them would not rescue their sheep if it fell in the well on a Sabbath (as it was against the law to do that being the Sabbath), I believe he was telling them to use their common sense.
And I believe that is what we should do in this case. Also if a partner decides to live a separate life, or opts out of a normal physical relationship with his/her spouse, thus choosing to be celibate, what is the innocent partner supposed to do?
Has that person not got a right to find love and companionship somewhere else?
Sometimes annulments are not easy to obtain even in such cases. I know of a young couple in this situation. So to all who are enjoying a happy marriage, good luck to you, to those who are in need of compassion, let us be the first to show it to them — as so-called Christians.
Thanks to divorce I have now been happily remarried for 30 years.
I was lucky to be able to obtain my divorce in a civilised country to get it without any hassle.
The hypocrites here registered both my divorce and my marriage without batting an eyelid.
To the Public Registry in Malta “Divorce” = “Marriage Dissolved”!
I later experienced a “failed” annulment procedure at the Ecclesiastical Tribunal. I was shocked at the incompetence of their procedure. Their “secrecy” was a farce too. I never paid the bill.
@ impatient.
If you understand plain English you would know that I did not write anything in the imperative mood.
You write everything in the imperative mood, here and elsewhere.
One description stands out, bigots.
Only blinkered bigots make the silly unfounded allegation that I write “everything” in the imperative mood. I have never ordered anyone to do anything on the internet “here or elsewhere”.
“Blinkered bigots”. Rich, coming from Dr Saliba.
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.”
A bigot does not order………well, he can’t, can he.
So, why.on earth did you accuse me of being a bigot who writes everything in the imperative mood in your comment of the 24 May at 10.21 hours?. End of dialogue.
Because you do, and you are. You didn’t have to rush to prove my point.
@Dr. Saliba
Although I too, like some others posted above, perceive that you have a problem with the separation of State and Church as the integral issue, let’s set straight a few theological facts about marriage that you have left out of the discussion.
As Fr. Peter Serracino Inglott has recently referenced, the Petrine (or Pauline) Privilege does not give superiority to marriage, in its specific instance, when ecclesial priority is provided, so as to allow the dissolution of a marriage (we can call this divorce) so as to benefit the religion of the Roman Catholic spouse.
Secondly, the Church itself declares on the validity or non-validity of Catholic marriages, and oftentimes does declare a Roman Catholic marriage to be invalid (for any of the appropriate reasons provided by Canon Law (Book IV, Part 1, Title VII of Canon Law, Canon 1055-1165). Of course, that judgement of non-validity only pertains to conditions existing prior to the marriage, even if those conditions are not understood or discovered to have existed until after the marriage. The conditions of non-validity are PRIOR to the marriage–and that marriage would be invalid even if the judgement of that invalidity has not yet been made.
The church has every right and obligation to determine, when requrested to do so, the validity or non-validity of any given marriage between two baptized Christians, or if only one marriage partner is Roman Catholic. Blessed are those whose unhappy or loveless marriages are found to be invalid according to their Church Marriage Tribunals. Despite the public promises and potentially good intentions of one or both spouses, their marriages were invalid when they got married–not only when the Church declared their marriages null.
Unfortunately, many couples who strive to remain faithful to Christ and to his Church, who apply for an annulment, do not find the judgement of the Church Tribunal to be consistent with their hopes, their spiritual experience, and their conscience. There may have been a correct judgement of the Marriage Tribunal; but also, there may have been errors of the process (and not of the reality) leading to the negative judgement. If the latter, the process can be appealed for the specific case; or individuals may choose to live according to their conscience as they may struggle to make their way through a terrible cross.
I am not in a position to judge anyone, even though I suffered through 20 years of a failed marriage, separated when the four children (all sons) ranged in ages from 12-18, accepted the crucifixion of a necessary divorce and all of its legal obligations, joyfully completed the annulment process with an affirmative judgement of the Church (from the United States), found a new life and a new wife in Malta, managed the opportunity of a civil marriage in Malta in 1996 because of my divorce and my wife’s civil annulment of her first marriage, and my wife and I were afforded the opportunity for remarriage in the Church on 8 December 2008.
And no one as a voter is in a position to judge the circumstances and personal and spiritual lives of those whose misfortune is to suffered through a dysfunctional marriage.
God knows whether or not that particular “marriage” is valid or invalid, and oftentimes so do the individuals involved. The Marriage Tribunal is reserved for the often correct and sometimes flawed judgement of the Church. We can only hope that tribunals improve and clients of tribunals have adequate assistance in preparing their cases.
As voters for the divorce referendum, we have no right to behave like 200,000 Church marriage tribunals of one judge regarding the civil status of marriages, regarding the need for legal arrangements for long-time relationships between “spouses.” We have to trust in God, for whom anything is possible.
Let God and the individuals work out for themselves what is right and just regarding the application or non-application of civil “divorce,” if divorce is their option. This is a proper obligation of the State in its civil jurisdiction.
If we have faith, we all have to trust in God and trust in Jesus himself, who is just and merciful and loving, and who expects us to be the same, if we enjoy his Spirit.
@ Edward Clemmer
CHAPEAU!
Mr anonymous me.
I did not rush to prove your point – there is no point, only frustrated insults. . Having reduced your comment to incomprehensible gibberish I “rushed” only to inform you that I will be ignoring your invective as your admission of defeat.
Bigots.
@ Edward Clemmer
I have no problem with the separation of state from church. Some other people may have a problem because they interpret that “separation” as a “subjugation” of the church to a secular state (that Malta is not).
@Dr. Saliba,
How do you reconcile your two statements?
(1) “Dr Frank Portelli does not make the elementary distinction between what the universal Catholic Church teaches and promotes actively and uniformly throughout the world and what different dioceses ARE FORCED TO TOLERATE BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSED ON THEM BY THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH.”
(2) “I have no problem with the separation of state from church.”
If the later is true, you should have no problem with the introduction of divorce, which you seem not to support; and you have ignored the entire argument of my contribution past the first half of the first sentence.
@ Edward Clemmer:
Dr Francis Saliba has a habit of ignoring comments when it does not suit him, and of making unfounded allegations about secularists.
The only problem (for him) is that this is not The Times, and replies which expose him as an intolerant fundamentalist are actually published.
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
Sure. As long as the Catholic Church retains its privileges, you have no problem with the separation of state from church. You do, however, have a big problem with equality, irrespective of religion.
Divorce is not a Sin – the VATICAN
The Vatican had issued this statement through Cardinal Mario Francesco Pompedda, when Pompedda was Head of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura – which is the highest Judicial Authority in the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Pompedda stated:
“In itself, divorce is not a sin, and in certain cases it could indeed even be recommended, to resolve patrimonial or certain civil problems.”
I think I will take the Apostolic Signatura decision as being the most authorative.
[Daphne – Catholicism does not have a problem with divorce. It has a problem with what divorce makes possible: remarriage. The Catholic Church considers that to be a state of adultery. If a person divorces and spends the rest of his or her life celibate, the Catholic Church thinks that’s fine.]
@Edward Clemmer
I have no problem with the separation of state from church as long as one is not subjugated to the other but an attempt is made to establish a modus vivendi how to deal with problems pertaining to both.
@ Edward Clemmer.
I have no problem with the introduction of divorce. My problem is with the arrogance of those who insist that I should collaborate in the passing of laws that are unacceptable to me because in my estimate they are immoral and against the public interest.
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
If you had no problem with the introduction of divorce, you would vote yes, and opt not to divorce yourself.
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
“I have no problem with the introduction of divorce”.
“(Divorce is) unacceptable to me because in my estimate (it is) immoral and against the public interest”.
So, which one is it?
Since you are back at your game of pretending to be obtuse let me paraphrase for you.
It is immaterial for me whether divorce laws are introduced or not – no problem for me at all.
I do not agree with divorce because it is my considered opinion that it is immoral and against the public interest.
I will vote “no” because voting “yes” would mean either that I had been seduced by the deceptive arguments of the “yes” campaigners or that I accept their imposition that I should abstain or vote against my conscience so as to accomodate them. As if!
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
I would think it is highly contradictory to believe that divorce is immoral and against the public interest, and at the same time to believe that the introduction of divorce is no problem at all.
Is something immoral and against the public interest a problem or not? Please make up your mind.
I would say that anything that goes against the public interest is by definition a problem. But then, I don’t suffer from dissociative identity disorder.
@Dr. Saliba
I am not a Spiritual Director, but the Lord certainly is. May I suggest a reading from John 4:4-42, pertaining to Jesus and the Samaritan Woman.
If only our personal attitudes were of the mind and attitude of Christ regarding the sometimes anomalous and irregular situations of marital relationship as exemplified by this case.
The Lord’s approach to her was not the typical approach of judgmental Jews, and she asked the Lord, “Why are you asking me for a drink?” The Lord replied, “If you only knew the gift God has for you and who I am, you would ask me, and I would give you living water.”
This offer from the Lord is even more astonishing, beyond the fact of her being a Samaritan woman, for she had a rather messy personal life in her relationships with men.
But the woman, in her misunderstanding of the Lord’s meaning, tells Jesus, “Please, Sir, give me some of that water! Then I’ll never be thirsty again, and I won’t have to come here to haul water.” And, Jesus immediately broadens his offer, when he tells her, “Go and get your husband.”
Her truthful response, however, was “I don’t have a husband.” Then Jesus tells her, not in any critical or condescending way, not with judgment of immorality, nor considering her as arrogant (as others may be), but in response to her truth he will offer her the truth about himself and he will provide the Spirit of God in her.
Jesus tells her: “You’re right! You don’t have a husband–for you have had five husbands, and you aren’t even married to the man you’re living with now.”
Eventually, with her encounter with Christ, she even left her water jar at the well, and ran to tell others of the village of Sychar, “Come and meet a man who told me everything I ever did! Can this be the Messiah?”
We don’t know what this woman did with her marital life, and its not our business. But the Lord first revealed himself as the Messiah, directly, to her.
It is not our business to tell people what to do with their lives. People have to figure that out for themselves, and with their God, in their good faith. God does not inflict himself upon anyone, but he does offer the gift.
What we do know, is that because of her, the townspeople begged Jesus to stay with them for two more days. In the end, they told her, “Now we believe because we have heard him ourselves, not just because of what you told us. He is indeed the Savior of the world.” That also is pretty much a challenge to each of us to really listen to the Lord speaking to us, as he does, if we are really listening.
Many people will not hear the Lord in the approach of many of those who scream “NO to divorce,” if we place our individual judgments regarding the personal and spiritual lives others as superior to the ways of God with us and with those we may judge.” The Lord specifically told us not to judge anyone.
And if we inflict turmoil on the lives of others because we deny them the freedom of THEIR personal conscience, those who so inflict themselves on others are tyrants. Whatever your concept of God might be, God is certainly not a tyrant. And using violence against those who may worship him in Spirit and Truth (even when we don’t know it), is violence if we inflict it on others by denying them their personal freedom, the most superior moral value and responsibility God leaves with us.
I would suggest that you reflect hard before you decide to become “God” in your judgment of what others sometimes must do with their lives–but then are prevented from doing so because society may deny the basic freedom God may provide for them in his mercy and love.
Sorry for the sermon, but I can’t tell you what to do. But I know what I am doing on the matter of divorce.
In repeating Christ’s authentic message message about divorce I do not judge anyone.
You are wrong in attributing to me that sin.
Reading all these postings since the “divorce” debate started, I noticed one regretful trend: There is a lot of “hate” towards the Catholic Church, Why? what has the Church done to merit such hate?
I don’t hate the Catholic Church. I only want it to stop interfering in how I live my life.
On the otherhand, I’ve read far too many hateful and false proclamations about secularists like me, coming from the pulpit. That, yes, I do hate.
But I wouldn’t go as far as to hate the bishops making those false allegations. I pity them, more than anything else.
Having to lie for Jesus…that’s a sure sign of desperation coming from a real feeling of gradually losing undeserved privileges.
Dr Frank Portelli’s quotation actually confirms my comment that a state enforced divorce could co-exist with a church annulment procedure when that modus operandi would be needed to resolve patrimonial or civil problems.
Dr. Portelli knows that that was the situation in his case. There is no need to choose between what I said and what the Apostolic Signatura said. There is no conflict between them.
The statement by the Apostolic signatura does not endorse the “no contest” “no reason” Nevada style easy divorce on demand by one spouse after a four year separation as a substiute for the Church’s own method of dealing with marriage problems and the right to re-marry.
Divorce is not a substitute for Church annulments. It has nothing to do with it.
Divorce is not for practicing Catholics.
Under certain conditions divorce is admissible for genuine practicing Catholics, without sinning, as per the declaration of the Apostolic Signatura quoted by Dr F Portelli.
Do not ask me to explain it to you – you do not have the apt predisposition to learn and to understand: you are only hell-bent on harming the Catholic Church in every possible way.
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
I won’t ask you to explain it to me. There is no explanation for the clearly absurd.
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
Please remind me what Jesus said about divorce.