Rhetoric from another age
Hey, I'm looking for Bishop Grech. Oh, you mean this old thing? It's just something I made earlier from a flock-member I killed.
And while we’re about it, would The Times please set a sub-editor on “wolves in the skin of lambs”, “farse”, and the past tense used instead of the present when reporting speech throughout this story (e.g. “People who were not in full communion….were not in communion….”)? Thank you. That sort of thing is possibly more offensive than Bishop Grech’s belief that we’re all medieval peasants.
timesofmalta.com, last night
People not in line with Church teachings cannot receive Communion – Bishop Grech
People who were not in full communion with the teaching of the Church, were not in communion with Christ and could not receive Communion, Gozo bishop Mario Grech said this morning.
He said in his homily during a Confirmation ceremony at St George’s Parish in Victoria that one could not say he was a Christian or a Catholic and not be loyal to Christian beliefs. This, he said, was a farse.
The bishop said that there were traitors who used every means to kill the flock. Currently they were attacking marriage but other issues would then follow.
They were wolves in the skin of lambs and they were saying they were Catholic. “This is a falsehood,” he said.
He called on the adolescents receiving Confirmation to keep the word they were giving not like the adults who wanted to introduce divorce against a promise they made earlier.
Everyone had a right to marry, he said, but not everyone has the right to marry in church.
There was only one way, it was the way of the Lord.
“Do not accept anything less,” Bishop Grech said.
98 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Bishop Grech expressed the teachings of Christ in a way that all those listening could easily understand his words; Bishop Grech was not speaking as Mario Grech, but as a bishop of the Church of Christ. All people of good will will easily understand – others play about with what they consider their”informed conscience”
Yes you are right, he was addressing “those listening” – presumably a church full of peasants.
I was listening and I am not a peasant. (Before God the peasant has the same dignity as anyone. Moreover, if you take a glance at the greatest saints of the Church the majority have come from peasants, illiterate families, poor families and thos who had the most humble of backgrounds. Were it for you these would have been left in their rotten life. But God sees the heart before he sees if one is part of the intelligentia i.e. not a peasant.) I do not consider myself better than the peasants because I have tertiary education. And who are you to say that peasants are not intelligent? Have you ever conducted an IQ test on some of them?
In response to Mr Cachia’s comment on the brilliance and sainthood of peasants – get a life.
“There was only one way, it was the way of the Lord.”
And now it’s gone.
Church of Christ mhux tal-heavy metal?
I used to have the urge to rationally discuss the introduction of divorce when the subject came up.
Since the campaign war started, I have found it to be far more sane (and definitely way more entertaining) to sit back, watch the hogwash come out of both sides, and laugh my head off.
Divorce in this Asterix and Obelix village of ours is still 200 years away.
Thank goodness we joined the EU when we did. At least on other matters, we HAVE to keep in line.
And we have 200 new buses on the road in seven weeks but no bus depot for them to be kept in.
My mates in England piss themselves.
Bishop Grech is still stuck in Shakespeare’s times. What does he take us for, a bunch of idiots who have never set foot out of Nadur?
Teo, the Bishop was addressing the faithful, if you’re not one of them, then he wasn’t talking to you. The church has every right to talk about fire and brimstone, and you have every right to think that it is all a load of bull. This is a democracy, let’s all participate.
No Teo, Bishop Grech is not stuck in ‘Shakespeare’s time’. He is stuck in Christ’s teachings which happened one and a half millennia before Shakespeare.
It so happens that Christ’s teachings of two thousand years ago are as relevant today as they were back then.
Bishop Mario Grech has every right to preach the Good News as it is your privilege to ignore his homilies.
It is a matter of conscience really, between you and God (if you believe, that is) and not between you and Bishop Grech.
Angus Black, life was a tad different 2000 years ago. Those teachings in the mist /fog of the past have been idolised by various men of faith.
The words that you hold so dear and with such reverence are but the interpretations by man carried through the ages by a scribe’s pen. Look at the history, and it is a very ugly bumpy ride indeed.
When you skip through the popes, the Crusades, the Inquisition and other not so holy happenings in church history then you lose sight of the hand of man.
Fine. Then the Church shouldn’t complain about dwindling congregations at Sunday mass and why people, increasingly, consider the Church to be irrelevant.
THIS is priceless.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110515/blogs/yet-another-reason-against-divorce.365479
Am I the only one who thinks the whole reasoning there is nothing short of crazy?
Oh, yes! And I’m a fairy godmother …
light relief
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/13/italian_bus_driver/
Waziristan-in-the-Mediterranean
Where to begin?
1. “People who were not in full communion with the teaching of the Church, were not in communion with Christ…”
In other words, Bishop Grech believes the Church is infallible. Hardly surprising. Such people learn nothing from history.
2. “…one could not say he was a Christian or a Catholic and not be loyal to Christian beliefs. This, he said, was a farse”.
The ‘farse’ is that Bishop Grech fails to notice that in all Christianity, only the Roman Catholic Church believes that Jesus does not permit divorce.
3. “The bishop said that there were traitors who used every means to kill the flock”.
It would be interesting to find out who he means by “traitors” (perhaps he believes that Catholicism should be obligatory?), and what he means by “to kill the flock”. Perhaps this terminology was used to remind us that the Church promised it will not carry out any Crusades.
4. “Currently they were attacking marriage but other issues would then follow”.
Who’s attacking marriage?
5. “They were wolves in the skin of lambs and they were saying they were Catholic”.
Ah! Perhaps he is referring to the new group called “Kattoliċi: Iva Għax Dritt”. I didn’t know they were THAT threatening in Bishop Grech’s eyes.
6. “He called on the adolescents receiving Confirmation to keep the word they were giving not like the adults who wanted to introduce divorce against a promise they made earlier”.
Ah, yes, the absurd teaching that one should keep a promise at any cost. What an infantile mentality!
7. “Everyone had a right to marry, he said, but not everyone has the right to marry in church”.
Of course. I, for one, chose not to. Now will you kindly butt out of this secular issue, pretty please.
1. “People who were not in full communion with the teaching of the Church, were not in communion with Christ…”
In other words, Bishop Grech believes the Church is infallible. Hardly surprising. Such people learn nothing from history.
Since when does the Church have to ask anyone about which “rules” to adopt, given that she has received her authority from Christ himself?
2. “…one could not say he was a Christian or a Catholic and not be loyal to Christian beliefs. This, he said, was a farse”.
The ‘farse’ is that Bishop Grech fails to notice that in all Christianity, only the Roman Catholic Church believes that Jesus does not permit divorce.
Baptists don’t either. Greek Orthodoxy lays down some extreme and severe limitations. Anglicans strongly discourage divorce. And those are just three off the top of my head. You are sure to find more if you bother to look.
Ah! Perhaps he is referring to the new group called “Kattoliċi: Iva Għax Dritt”. I didn’t know they were THAT threatening in Bishop Grech’s eyes.
… um … perhaps was it because they’re claiming to be Catholics then support something that is diametrically opposed to the Church’s teaching? Just a thought. And they’re not “threatening”. You are probably not aware that the wolf in sheep’s clothing was a metaphor for danger used by Jesus on several occasions. Danger as in “hindering salvation” before you try to change that into something which it isn’t.
6. “He called on the adolescents receiving Confirmation to keep the word they were giving not like the adults who wanted to introduce divorce against a promise they made earlier”.
Ah, yes, the absurd teaching that one should keep a promise at any cost. What an infantile mentality!
Forgetting this divorce issue for a second, the comment doesn’t put you in a very good light, does it? What’s the point in making a promise if you only keep it if it suits you?
“Now will you kindly butt out of this secular issue, pretty please”
Now isn’t this a bit of an attitude, telling people what they may or may not discuss?
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, with your level of knowledge you’re a threat to humanity. It is quite evident that you don’t know much about the Church, its teachings or its mission. You are just enjoying yourself taking potshots at what, in the absence – not lack – of knowledge, you deem inconsistent.
[Reuben Scicluna – Since when does the Church have to ask anyone about which “rules” to adopt, given that she has received her authority from Christ himself?]
I never said the Church needs to ask anyone about which rules to adopt. I only said that Bishop Grech believes the Church is infallible, because he said that “people who were not in full communion with the teaching of the Church, were not in communion with Christ…”. Tell that to Galileo. Or was Christ wrong, too, then, which is what follows if the teaching of the Church is always synonymous with Christ’s views.
And which Church is it that received its authority from Christ himself? The one that burns heretics, or the one that opposes capital punishment?
The Church is fallible, no matter what you or the Bishop believe it to be.
[Reuben Scicluna – Baptists don’t either. Greek Orthodoxy lays down some extreme and severe limitations. Anglicans strongly discourage divorce. And those are just three off the top of my head. You are sure to find more if you bother to look].
Funny that you mention Baptists, seeing that they have the highest divorce rate in all Christianity (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm). But the point, which you amazingly fail to get, is that not all Christians believe divorce should be legally prohibited. And the belief that divorce is an absolute evil is not a universal Christian belief, so it is compatible with Christianity, much to the surprise of our dear Bishop.
[Reuben Scicluna – … um … perhaps was it because they’re claiming to be Catholics then support something that is diametrically opposed to the Church’s teaching?].
Ah yes. They must be real traitors then. Someone should stop them from trying to kill the flock. And since when did the Church’s teaching say that divorce should be legally prohibited? Remind me who it was that said “Give unto Ceasar…..(you know the rest). Literally only in Malta (ok…and the Philippines…I’ll give you that).
[Reuben Scicluna – Just a thought. And they’re not “threatening”]
My point, which you also fail to get, is that strategically, a single issue organisation composed of a few dozen (if even that) people would usually be best ignored, unless what the organisation is saying touches a raw nerve.
[Reuben Scicluna – You are probably not aware that the wolf in sheep’s clothing was a metaphor for danger used by Jesus on several occasions. Danger as in “hindering salvation” before you try to change that into something which it isn’t].
I didn’t even comment on that, other than to say who I think Bishop Grech was referring to. But now that you mention it, the metaphor implies that the people he is referring to are dishonest. That’s what being a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” means. Is he in a position to question their honesty? If it were at all worth the bother, they could probably sue for libel.
[Reuben Scicluna – Forgetting this divorce issue for a second, the comment doesn’t put you in a very good light, does it? What’s the point in making a promise if you only keep it if it suits you?]
Ah…I was expecting someone to tell me that. Now here are some logical outcomes from your belief in keeping promises at any cost:
1. Muslims (or adherents of other faiths) should not convert to Christianity. They made a promise.
2. People who promise to engage in a criminal activity should not have second thoughts. They made a promise.
3. Unmarried couples who promise to marry each other may not change their mind before the wedding. They made a promise.
4. People who promise allegiance to a political party or political ideology should stick to it for life. They made a promise.
I think that should suffice.
[Reuben Scicluna – Now isn’t this a bit of an attitude, telling people what they may or may not discuss?]
This isn’t about what people may or may not discuss. It is about what people may or may not do with their own lives. A No vote is an imposition. A Yes vote is not (you are free not to divorce). If you don’t get this, I’m wasting my time.
[Reuben Scicluna – If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, with your level of knowledge you’re a threat to humanity].
Hilarious.
[Reuben Scicluna – It is quite evident that you don’t know much about the Church, its teachings or its mission].
How would you even know?
[Reuben Scicluna – You are just enjoying yourself taking potshots at what, in the absence – not lack – of knowledge, you deem inconsistent].
If you say so.
“The ‘farse’ is that Bishop Grech fails to notice that in all Christianity, only the Roman Catholic Church believes that Jesus does not permit divorce.”
I agree with most of your points – just a small correction – The Anglican Church and some Baptists still do not permit divorce.
The information I got is that they do have exceptions to the general rule (adultery is one).
Well, no they don’t and in fact the ritual and speech are practically identical to the Catholic one – what God has joined together let no man put asunder etc.
[Daphne – You’d think that with half of Malta watching the royal wedding, they’d have picked that up, but no.]
No way does it justify not having divorce legislation, of course!
Come to think of it perhaps a loophole would be for all public officials in divorce proceedings to be women.
@ David Buttigieg:
“Anglicans share the view of Protestants. Since 1987, Vicars have been allowed to decide if they are prepared to marry people who have previously been divorced. Most Anglican Priests offer people a ‘blessing’ after a service in a registry office. This means they do not actually get married in church, but they do ask God to bless their marriage”.
http://www.request.org.uk/issues/topics/divorce/divorce04.htm
The fact that they declare “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder” is no evidence against the above. After all, it could be argued that it is not man who is granting the divorce, but God himself. Some people claim all kinds of weird things as having been said/done by God himself (read the old testament). This, by comparison, would be trivial.
@Kenneth Cassar
Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch – current Bishop of Manchester – in person.
The Church of England will NOT allow a divorced person to marry in Church (who was previously married in church).
So much so that even Princess Anne, daughter of the head of the Church of England, had to get married in the Church of Scotland second time round (which does allow it in some circumstances).
[Daphne – And the Prince of Wales married civilly second time round.]
Episcopalians, who theoretically are Anglicans, do allow it however.
Anyway, a non issue and has no bearing on the fact that we should have divorce legislation.
[David Buttigieg – The Church of England will NOT allow a divorced person to marry in Church (who was previously married in church)].
That’s what I quoted in the post you replied to. And yet, “most Anglican Priests offer people a ‘blessing’ after a service in a registry office. This means they do not actually get married in church, but they do ask God to bless their marriage”.
I would think that, to the religious, it is God’s blessing that matters, and not the bricks in which the ceremony takes place.
But anyway, as you say, this is a non-issue and no relevance to the civil divorce question.
Your Grace, you might be the Bishop of Gozo and I don’t know of where else, but that does not give you the right to call me TRAITOR because Yes I will be voting YES.
You should use your position to castigate your fellow priests, who abuse children. You should also reprimand your fellow priests who do not stick to their vows of celibacy. Those are the real traitors of OUR religon, not us unfortunates whose marriage did not work out, as we had once dreamed, and who are now trying to start a new life.
Doesn’t everyone deserve another chance? I expected better from you, but I guess the Gozitan mentallity got the best of you.
This guy is all over timesofmalta.com….
“Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it’s already guaranteed!”
For Christ’s sake, just stop!
He might be doing more to garner Yes votes than anybody else.
I doubt it. I very much think that the die is, by now, cast.
On the contrary, please don’t stop. He even got a mention from “Hitler” on youtube.
I think the Bishop of Gozo would do better to follow the instructions of his Pope as regards paedophilia and priests who commit criminal acts.
Why the bishops need the Pope to guide them in these issues is curious. If one of my staff committed a crime, I’d not hesitate to refer them to the authorities, especially if the crime involved defilement of innocent children. Only low-lifes would protect such criminals.
The purpose of a referendum is to see what the people think. It does not just concern believers or non-believers, Catholics or non-Catholics, church-goers or non-church-goers, Nationalists or Labour voters.
We seem to be unable to decide what the issue is all about. Is divorce right or wrong? I, for one, do not think it is a right.
But some people still need to go over what receiving communion means. It is a very intimate thing for the faithful and certainly not something to be taken lightly or something that you do/not do just because so many take/do not take part.
The same goes with marrying in church. Do all those who marry in church believe in a life-long covenant in front of God? Should these people be marrying in church? I doubt it. But we seem to lack the proper personality it takes to act on what we believe in, rather than what my parents did, or what I think that people expect me to do.
This referendum is not about patronising other people, in trying to impose what we believe in, so please do try and vote according to what you believe/not believe in, according to your informed conscience.
An informed conscience comes from listening to both sides of the argument. I shudder to think that I am part of a people who bases its vote on divorce on a premise of what the bishop thinks, what my party leader says, or whether this vote will help my party win the next general election!
With something like that on my conscience I would not even dream of receiving communion! Christ was the one who broke all such shallow decisions and gave himself to what is right.
A properly informed conscience does not give a damn of what a bishop or a party leader says. Christ himself was not afraid to challenge the Jews’ elders, pharisees and scribes and his own followers for what is right. However, it is some of the Church leaders who do have the proper information on such issues such as divorce whether we like it or not.
If the issue is separated into civil marriage and church marriage, then the former is just a contract. Divorce can apply to that (according to me). But in trying to be a Christian, I cannot in my conscience cast a Yes vote… as for me marriage means a life-long covenant primarily in front of God and with the one I love.
The fulfillment of human life lies in God and not in trying to find some wholeness in a woman or lover… I would call that the satisfaction of my human lust. If you do not agree with that I hope to respect you as a person and your opinion. Again that’s the purpose of a democratic referendum in a hopefully democtratic society.
David, as I’m sure you’ve realised, opposition to divorce is not based on arguments or principles. It is emotive and solipsistic.
You sound like a rather reasonable man Mr. Pace. So remember now, that your No vote also counts for those who did not marry in Church, but rather did so in Evans building.
David Pace, I chose not to marry in Church. I have no interest whatsoever in changing the Church’s chosen rules (those who don’t like the Church’s rules may just as well leave it, for all I care). I only wish for the Church to kindly return the “favour”.
Now, please explain this to me. How is denying the divorce option to nonbelievers or adherents to other faiths, not imposing what you believe in?
Between me and you we have two votes. That is why there is the referendum… both the different opinions need to be accounted for.
I have also very serious doubts as to whether divorce is a right at all and whether it will solve the marital problems that we as a society are facing.
I believe that the key to that is better preparation for marriage and striving to make the annulment system less dependent on who knows who. I know that this is another point I just mentioned but I find it fitting with my reasons for chosing to vote no. Again, it is an opinion and I have only one vote.
[David Pace – Between me and you we have two votes. That is why there is the referendum… both the different opinions need to be accounted for].
My point is that there shouldn’t even be a referendum. The purpose of your vote is to impose your opinion on me (no divorce). My vote imposes nothing. You are free not to make use of any divorce legislation.
[David Pace – I have also very serious doubts as to whether divorce is a right at all and whether it will solve the marital problems that we as a society are facing].
That’s a straw man argument. As far as I know, nobody is saying divorce solves marital problems. That’s not its function or purpose.
[David Pace – I believe that the key to that is better preparation for marriage]
I agree. But some marriages will still fail, no matter what.
[David Pace – and striving to make the annulment system less dependent on who knows who].
It isn’t. Annulment is a declaration that the marriage never happened. Who would we be fooling if we made annulments easier to obtain? That would only be divorce by another name.
[David Pace – I know that this is another point I just mentioned but I find it fitting with my reasons for chosing to vote no. Again, it is an opinion and I have only one vote].
True, you have every legal right to impose your beliefs and deny me (and/or others) any choice.
My question still holds: How is denying the divorce option to nonbelievers or adherents to other faiths, not imposing what you believe in?
@ David Pace:
Let me put it another way.
Suppose that the majority in Malta turns Stalinist (I am using “Stalinist” not “atheist” because most atheists believe in freedom of religion).
Now, would you find a referendum on whether Malta should ban all religious practice, to be fair?
Would you still insist that “between me and you we have two votes. That is why there is the referendum… both the different opinions need to be accounted for”?
@ Kenneth Cassar
I agree with you about the annulment part and that divorce does not aim at solving marital problems and that marriages will still fail no matter what systems we might employ.
The divorce question asks me whether I agree with divorce or not and I happen to not agree with it. This at the very least is an opinion for which the government is asking me and for which you still get the chance to cast your own vote.
As for the Stalinist argument… if there was a democratic referendum as to whether all Maltese citizens would be obliged by law to attend Sunday mass (this is an example) against a fine, my vote would be a definite NO, because such a law is immoral and wrong. The freedom of expressing Spirituality and Religion (as two different things) are a fundamental human right, which is why Stalinism was overthrown. A referendum here would not be justified.
Divorce is seen as right or wrong depending on the perception of the individual. Different numbers of people see it in different ways…If yes wins, I hope that divorce does come in because that is what a democratic process means. But I, David Pace cannot in my conscience vote yes, as the choice of a life-long commitment is a life-long commitment as contrasting with the case where a marriage is null. But I would not see that as an imposition from the yes side, we voted and they win.
By the way, null does not mean that the marriage never happened but it means that the it was not valid to start with. The reference to it “as if it has never happened” is a myth, used wrongly left right and centre.
Here I find it very sad, that divorce is being used by our political parties and politicians as a matter for clinging to power or trying to gain back power or favour from the voters. I hope that at least they do act on the result gathered from the referendum.
Sorry for taking long to reply… but I am studying for my final exams in the mean time and I wasn’t aware of your replies, a friend of mine told me to look at the comments again.
[David Pace – Divorce is seen as right or wrong depending on the perception of the individual].
So is religion.
[David Pace – By the way, null does not mean that the marriage never happened but it means that the it was not valid to start with].
If the marriage was not valid to start with, it never happened. The term “wedding” is not synonymous with “marriage”.
Larry Flynt, a well known sinner, once said “Majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights. Because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.”
I agree with you fully, David. Decisions taken in all aspects of life should ultimately be based on each individual’s conscience.
I, too, believe in life-long marriage, thus am totally against divorce.
I strongly believe that the decision taken by each one of us regarding divorce should not solely be based on religious beliefs but on our in-built conscience, which should be based on our values.
However, I think that Maltese society should realise that the issue of divorce is not only an issue which is causing serious division among us, but it is utterly a crisis in our faith and Christian beliefs.
[Deborah Vella – However, I think that Maltese society should realise that the issue of divorce is not only an issue which is causing serious division among us, but it is utterly a crisis in our faith and Christian beliefs].
Only in Malta. The divorce question isn’t even an issue in the rest of the world, not even among Catholics. The “crisis” is self-made; when people stop interfering in other people’s lives, they will have all the time in the world to look after their own.
“He called on the adolescents receiving Confirmation to keep the word they were giving not like the adults who wanted to introduce divorce against a promise they made earlier.”
Pressuring and brainwashing the youngsters eh.. Do they really have a choice or the maturity to take those kinds of decisions and commit themselves at that age?
These people are just like the fundamentalist nutters in the Middle East but without the Kalashnikovs, fire and brimstone diatribes and the jihads..
Please note that the world stands still as the sturdy Lilliputians decide over an issue that lies squarely within the scope of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Part II of the EU Constitution, a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty), falling under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which has primacy over the Maltese Constitutional Court and the Maltese body of laws, and whose role is to decide for uniformity of laws across the EU in the spirit of the Union.
Unlike our last referendum, in this case, if the No side wins, a two-cent lawyer can institute proceedings against the Maltese government at the EU supreme court on behalf of any wannabe Malta divorcee. The rest would be history.
Kev for president!
Kev for bishop!
Every time Kev speaks, a little kitten dies.
If the people would have voted “no” what can any court do? No “law” or “human right” would have been broken. The people were asked a question and they answered.
If you’re arguing against the referendum per se, divorce was introduced in Italy by means of a referendum too.
[Reuben Scicluna – If the people would have voted “no” what can any court do? No “law” or “human right” would have been broken].
Non sequitur. But don’t worry. I won’t say you’re a threat to humanity.
I am not arguing against anything, Reuben, I’m simply stating a hidden fact. And incidentally, the people’s No is of no consequence to the ECJ and the EU laws it protects.
‘divorce was introduced in Italy by means of a referendum too’
No it wasn’t. Divorce was introduced by an Act of Parliament. An abrogative referendum was subsequently called after a petition by those who wished to have this law repealed.
@ jb
I must have had the wrong impression then.
Apologies for the “misinformation”
@ kev
I don’t think I can understand.
If the “NO” vote wins, who can institute proceedings against whom?
A referendum such as the one to be held on the 28th isn’t binding, is it? We can have a situation – I imagine – where the NO vote wins and divorce legislation still goes through.
I can’t see how a “wannabe” divorce can institute proceedings because someone has answered a question in a way he doesn’t like. I would be very grateful if you expanded this a bit.
Here’s my two cents, kev: now you be the lawyer.
What I’m saying is extraneous to the referendum, Reuben. Any married person can institute proceedings with the ECJ against the Malta government over a breach of fundamental rights (i.e. for not providing the legal basis for divorce). I cannot imagine the ECJ deciding against the plaintiff in such a case. And such a decision would force our government to provide for divorce legislation.
@ Etienne – a two-cent lawyer is worth double a one-cent lawyer.
@ kev
Are you saying that someone can go and present his case before the ECJ for a divorce and the ECJ rules against the government and forces the government to provide divorce for [at least] this person?
If that is the case, why are we going through this referendum charade? Or how come nobody has take the government to court for this? (just asking, not challenging)
If I remember correctly, some time ago in ireland somebody wanted to say that divorce is a human right and a court decided against. How does this fit with what you’re saying?
Your knowledge of the law is poor at best. The rights recognisedby the ECJ as enshrined in the Charter are a reflection of those contained in the convention. Thus under Article 9, the right to marry and form a family is regulated according to national legislation. there is no fundamental right to divorce in either the Charter, Convention or case-law of the ECHR.
Secondly, a citizen may sue before the ECJ for a breach of any of these rights or for the failure of the state to enforce an EU directive or to transpose a regulation. The ECHR is also not the proper forum, for divorce – perhaps a political or civil right i certain countries – is not a fundamental right.
You are correct of course. A two cent lawyer is worth double that of a one-cent one (wow!how’s that for wit?!). And you, kev, are neither one, nor the other.
Wolves in the skin of lambs! HA!
No wonder Bishop Mario Grech thinks we’re so daft when not even The Times journalists can write proper English.
‘Everyone had a right to marry, he said, but not everyone has the right to marry in church.’
The only problem is that it is the Roman Catholic Church which is administering the sacrament of marriage to anyone who shows interest. The only requirement is the Cana course which basically involves 8 x 2.5hrs sessions (and you can miss three of them).
There is also a weekend alternative for those who wish to do a ‘fast-track’ course. The result is that many people are choosing the sacrament of marriage just as a social custom and not because they truly believe in the sacrament.
The Church must create a better preparation course and also decrease the time required to obtain an annulment (to about 1 – 2 years).
Bishop Grech and Archbishop Cremona, minutes away from each other yet worlds apart, or shall I say centuries? I have only words of praise for Archbishop Cremona.
I don’t. He who does not condemn the words and actions of his subordinates, condones it.
This is not some “good cop, bad cop” game.
What’s next? A statue of the Virgin Mary shedding tears of blood?
Angelik has seen to that already.
Speaking of rhetoric, I managed to watch Joseph Muscat on Joe Grima’s “talk show” on the Labour Party station, for 10 minutes – just couldn’t take it for longer.
I just hope that the problem with this person is that he loses himself in his search for bombastic words rather than him actually meaning what he says.
Daphne for president.
Seconded.
Who will apply the sedatives?
I consider Bishop Mario Grech’s declaration as nothing less than religious blackmail and a very sure way of ensuring that the flock he is trying to save will instead keep on deserting his church.
I still consider myself a practising Catholic, but I do not accept that the Church in Malta wants to control my freedom to have a calculated opinion on anything, such as what legislation the civil government should introduce.
We are not talking here of actually getting a divorce, but just of allowing other people of different faiths, or no faith at all, to live their lives as they wish. Bishop Grech seems to live in another era when the Church used to impose on its followers a lot of absurd rules such as having to fast for 12 hours before receiving communion, or abstaining from meat on Fridays.
On the other hand, I have great respect for Archbishop Cremona, and I look forward to hearing his views on the matter. Hopefully some bright media person will ask him the right questions.
It would be a good test if those of us who are so convinced to vote Yes, and who consider themselves as practising Catholics, should agree to wear a lapel sticker saying “I am voting for divorce” when they go up for communion, and see which priest will have the audacity to pointedly refuse to administer the sacrament.
“I still consider myself a practising Catholic, but I do not accept that the Church in Malta wants to control my freedom to have a calculated opinion on anything, such as what legislation the civil government should introduce.”
I read and despair. Honestly.
I’m going to quote the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para 2245 – 2246). I’m doing this because it’s imperative that people inform themselves before speaking out about anything.
2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent chracter of the humn person. ‘The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.’
2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgements even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.’
It is obvious that sentiments similar to the one I have quoted at the beginning of this comment stem from ignorance about the Church’s “identity” and function in society. The phrase “Church in Malta” alone is a dead give away.
Isn’t Mario Grech’s speech a criminal offence, in view of the present referendum campaign?
What I suspect is that the church is using this referendum as a test of strenght, to gauge the support it still enjoys.
If it results that it is still in a position to influence the voters, God help Malta if it decides to use its power to sway the results in its favour, in the next general elections. It will be back to the sixties.
They are trying to give the impression that Cremona is playing the part of being HANDS OFF while Grech is taking the hard line. They have literally taken over.
History is repeating itself.
[Silvio – What I suspect is that the church is using this referendum as a test of strenght, to gauge the support it still enjoys].
If that is the case, its self-defeating. By gauging the support it has by the time of the referendum, it faces a very real and serious risk of dwindling that support if the No vote wins.
[Silvio – They are trying to give the impression that Cremona is playing the part of being HANDS OFF while Grech is taking the hard line].
Good cop, bad cop. Only works on people under stressful conditions, such as being locked up. It doesn’t fool me.
Let us get a one-way ticket for Bishop Grech to go conduct some workshops for the Taliban. Why does he not ask the Vatican to transfer him to Afghanistan?
If his Lord is my Lord, then he must have a communication problem for sure.
This is not a ‘church’ issue. This is a right, and the state is in duty bound to make sure people can get it. For those like me who believe in Christ and His teachings, whether there is divorce or not for those married by the state makes no difference to me.
My own conscience guides me to use it or otherwise, and that rests simply between me, God and His teachings.
BUT WHO AM I TO IMPOSE ON ALL THE MALTESE PEOPLE THAT WHICH I BELIEVE IN?
In the same argument, why did Christ not create us in a way that when we do wrong, when we go against his teachings, we are burnt in some area of our body, or anything else?
No, but out of love, He left us free to choose what we so decide and then there are consequences we have to face.
In the same way, the Roman Catholic Church and all those who speak in its name and in the name of Christ… leave the people free. Not all Malta embraces the same faith and values, and those other people have rights too.
Do not be fearful, nor ignite fear in others through your condemnations!
Voting Yes means allowing the state to give the right that it is duty bound to give to its citizens, and not imposing on others the lifestyle that you choose whilst embracing your relationship with Christ.
Only in this way will we be a true example of the Christ we believe in and act as a model to those around us, and through our love and tolerance entice them also follow Him who is The Only Way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuhjBc2KTW8&feature=player_embedded#at=713
[Daphne – One day I might be able to understand how grown men and women can willingly subject themselves to that kind of rubbish and abuse, sitting there being told what to do, bossed around and having the fear of hell thrown at them. Exactly what are they afraid will happen if they say to themselves ‘Bugger this, I can’t be bothered with it anymore’? The sense of liberation is amazing, would they only know about it.]
The Maltese clergyman’s “end-of-the-world-is-nigh” desperation.
It looks like they’ve put that sub-editor to work for today’s print edition: no more ‘wolves in the skins of lambs’.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110517/local/Beware-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing-Gozo-Bishop.365778
Omelija bellezza.
Prosit lill-Isqof Mario Grech. Kellu bzonn ikollna izjed omeliji bhal dawn li jniggzu fil-laham il-haj. L-isbah bicca kienet din: ”Jien, dudu tal-art, nghid lill-Iben t’Alla: int ghandek zball fuq id-divorzju.” Hekk se jaghmel min se jivvota IVA.
X’injoranza bazwija. Dan mhux referendum fuq l-Evangelu, u lanqas fuq il-ligi kanonika, imma fuq il-ligi civili.
Kif tista’ tghid li hija ligi civili meta d-divorzju se jolqot il-fundamenti ta’ dak li jemmnu hafna maltin? Allura kieku r-referendum kien fuq l-abort kien ikun fuq ligi civili? Allura l-ligi morali ma tidhol imkien? Allura dan il-pajjiz se jibda jaddotta ligijiet civli ohra bhal zwieg omosesswali, ewtanasija, abort ecc. Jew kulhadd ghandu dritt b’ligi civili li jiehu dak li jrid? Jekk iva, nifthu l-bibien ghall-pederasti ghax dawk ukoll ghandhom driit (skond huma) li jghixu l-hajja taghhom. Jekk l-Isqof gie mghajjar ghax fetah halqu daqstant iehor ghandhom ikunu mghajjrin dawk li jehduha kontra xi ligi civili li ma toghobhomx.
Iva. Referendum fuq l-abort huwa referendum fuq ligi civili. Dak li ma tistghux tifhmu int u hafna ohra bhalek huwa li l-ligijiet civili huma bazati fuq kodici morali. Mhijhiex ir-religjon Kattolika biss li tipprovdi moral compass. Il-ligi civili taghmilha wkoll.
Fil-kaz tad-divorzju, il-principju morali tal-legislazzjonijiet kollha li jippermettu r-rikors ghalih (i.e. kullhadd barra ahna u dawk il-weirdos tal-Filippini) huwa li dan huwa dritt individwali li ma jimponix ruhu fuq haddiehor. Ergo huwa gust.
Inti u dawk bhalek jirragunaw mod iehor: Id-dritt individwali taghkom li ma tirrikorrux ghad-divorzju minhabba l-appartenenza religjuza taghkom, tridu timponuh fuq kullhadd.
@ Carmel Scicluna:
Nahseb l-ahjar bicca kieku tkun din: “Jien, dudu tal-art, nippretendi li naf xi jrid Alla, sempliciment ghax naqra kotba miktuba minn dud tal-art ohra li qalu li tkellmu ma’ Alla. Jien, dudu tal-art, nimponi fuq kull dudu tal-art iehor dak li bl-arroganza tieghi nimmagina li qalli Alla stess”.
Oh how I love being called ‘dudu’ (and since I do not fly, I would be ‘ta’ l-art’ obviously).
Yeah, like whatever happened to ‘tempju tal-Ispirtu s-Santu’ and ‘fix-xbieha t’Alla’ and all that?
“(Fr Charlo Camilleri in The Times) said people in favour of divorce seemed to be very concerned about attacking the teachings of the Church instead of sticking to their arguments. This gave the impression they were acting out of panic and causing confusion by mixing up the sacramental and legal definitions of marriage. On the other hand, the Bishop made a distinction by saying everybody had the civil right to marry but not to receive the sacrament of marriage”.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110518/local/Gozo-Bishop-s-comments-on-Eucharist-draw-mixed-reaction.365922
What barefaced cheek!
Who’s mixing up the sacramental and legal definitions of marriage?
Who is working hard to deny divorce and remarriage even to those who freely choose not to marry in Church?
Who’s acting out of panic, and forgeting the pledge not to conduct Crusades on the divorce issue, and stooping so low as to call people in his congregation “traitors” and “wolves in sheep’s clothing”?
And enough with playing the victim, and boring us to death with claims that the Church is under attack, when all I am seeing is the gradual (and too slow) erosion of privileges that make a mockery of the idea of equality under the law.
Read and despair: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110518/local/teachers-silent-in-divorce-debate-mp-complains.365982
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_PHILIPPINES_CONTRACEPTIVES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-18-01-51-42
Compare and contrast.
Hats off to the great bishop of Gozo. Here is a man who doesn’t mince words, Here is a man a true leader of the faithful. He is not telling all and sundry to be Catholics, but if you want to be a catholic either you go by the what is right for the Church or else leave. One cannot be pro-divorce, denying Christ and at the same time saying that he follows Christ. A pro-divorce Catholic is an oxymoron. When many of Jesus’s followers left Him He turned to His Apostles and asked them if the wanted to leave as well. For Jesus it;s not the numbers that count but the true spirit embedded in those who really want to follow Him – whatever the cost.
He’s also calling people “traitors”. Do you applaud that too? Does he even realize what being a traitor means? Does anyone owe it to the bishop to remain faithful to his doctrines?
Back to the 60s crusades. All this will backfire on the Catholic Church like the 60s did.
Will they say sorry in 40 years’ time? All the arguments against divorce and what it brings are ALREADY here with separation. The children suffer, help from the state to separated women is there etc etc.
What about those politicians who talk about ‘valuri’? Malta is small and we all know what is going on: corruption and bribes go against valuri too. We are such hypocrites that it is unbelievable!
“Those who are afraid of making enemies shall never have good friends.”
True…so let’s start making enemies of good friends, shall we?
I wonder whether people will be told that they cannot receive holy communion if in future they decide to vote for the PL after it includes divorce in its electoral manifesto. Now THAT would be interesting.