The Mintoff mentality
We all know that Dom Mintoff is a real money-grubber and that few things pique his interest more than the scent of money grabbed or money saved. Now it seems that some of his most ardent admirers measure others by that same yardstick.
The former judge Philip Sciberras, in what I can only suppose was a fit of momentary madness brought on by the tedium of having nothing much to do now that he has been put out of service, has pronounced himself on why he thinks the Roman Catholic Church is campaigning for the No vote in the divorce referendum.
To reasonable persons like you and me, it probably has something to do with the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is notoriously opposed to divorce, does not recognise it, and was prepared to see the formation of schisms and the birth of rival churches rather than change its attitude.
Defining characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church in the eyes of those who are not Roman Catholic: belief in the Virgin Birth, belief that the rice-paper at holy communion is actual flesh and the wine is blood, no sex before marriage, no use of condoms while having sex (in marriage, obviously) and no divorce.
So, no surprises there.
But the former judge Sciberras has other thoughts. The ‘Maltese church’ – dear heavens, we have our own schism – is fighting against divorce not because Roman Catholicism is fervently and passionately opposed to it, but because the ‘Maltese church’, which is in a ‘financial crisis’, will lose the money it gets from ‘its hegemony’ over those who apply to have their marriage declared null and void.
The Roman Catholic Church, according to the former judge, is trying to prevent divorce legislation so that it can keep earning money from its virtual monopoly on ending marriages.
Unbelievable.
And more incredible still, the foolish Deborah Schembri of the increasingly off-putting Divorce Movement said: “He hit the nail on the head. What other reasons could there be?”
What other reasons could there be. I wonder.
Let’s leave aside the fact that we saw a similar battle 20 years ago when the government tried to promote the use of condoms in the wake of the AIDS crisis (I remember because I wrote about it back then) – and the Curia wasn’t about to lose any money from falling sales of the rhythm method – the pounds, shillings and pence just don’t work out.
The ‘Maltese church’ requires millions of euros a year to keep its various institutions afloat, and that includes the institutions which do work that should properly be done by the state and funded by the taxpayer, like the care of abandoned children, the schooling of people who don’t want (or can’t) pay for it, and the shelter of the old, infirm and incapacitated.
It does not get this money through selling declarations of nullity or conning people into paying for something that won’t be delivered. That is a shocking libel, and most peculiar coming from a former judge who has only recently retired from a job that consisted, in large part, of deciding appeals cases in libel suits.
It shows, too, that the former judge Sciberras does not understand the motivation of most people who place themselves before the church tribunal. I know through my own knowledge of people who apply to have their perfectly valid marriages declared null that even if they were to have access to divorce legislation they would still try to have their marriage declared null before God.
Why? Because they are not content with ending their marriage. They want to pretend to themselves at some deep level that the marriage never happened. By the time they reach the tribunal, those I know have convinced themselves already that the marriage never was. They can’t handle the fact that it did.
Here’s some insight into human nature which Philip Sciberras probably doesn’t understand: those who seek to have their marriage declared null are motived not by the desire to end a marriage, as with those who divorce, but by the deep-seated wish to pretend to themselves that they were never married in the first place.
Sometimes it is because they really, really hate their spouse and want to eradicate everything retrospectively. But most often it’s because their psychology does not allow for ‘I made mistakes and now it’s over and I have to deal with it’.
Most of them, as Curia professionals will probably be able to say but won’t, are seriously in denial. They wish to blot out the past and pretend it never happened.
I shake my head in disbelief at times when I hear about X or Y seeking to have their marriage declared null 20 years and two or three children and a shared life later. I wonder at just how much they hate their spouse and feel contempt for their own decisions that they would want to do this.
But they do.
They don’t do it simply to remarry, as a substitute for divorce. Many of them don’t have intentions of remarriage or even somebody to marry. They do it so that they can reconstruct the past and live the present in denial.
Seeking official confirmation that your marriage never existed is major, major, major, especially where there are children involved. It is also damaging to the grown-ups, to whom more harm is caused by denial and pretence than by facing up to reality. There are obviously lots of psychological Big Issues there, which have to be addressed.
I find it extraordinary that a former judge can equate ‘I was married to him but we divorced’ with ‘I was never married to him and several children and years later I have got a certificate to prove it’. The sort of people who seek to have their marriages declared null as a substitute for divorce and so that they can remarry must be few and far between and possibly also deranged. The others all just want to pretend they were never married because they cannot handle the fact that they were.
Now will Philip Sciberras please take up some dignified gardening (it’s very rewarding) and stop squawking inanely on the sidelines.
71 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Daphne, in order to write an article you should respect the belief of other persons. You should feel ashamed for he words you used to describe the holy eucharist.
[Daphne – Oh, isn’t it rice-paper? What sort of paper is it, then? I distinctly remember it being rice-paper. We used to get sheets of it for crafts at school. Maybe I’m confusing it with the paper that goes beneath almond macaroons.]
You, Joe, should feel ashamed at yourself for trying to impose your beliefs on others who do not share them with you.
The “holy eucharist” is rice paper or something like that. You can believe it is whatever you want it to be or whatever you were indoctrinated (brainwashed?) with but I’ll describe it as I see it. Rice paper. Tastes good actually.
Your god is not mine, either – I don’t believe in one, but let me have some solid proof other than empty, regurgitated waffle, and I assure you I’ll believe – contrary to believers’ conviction, atheists have not “decided” to disbelieve, they just don’t see any logical argument for, or proof of, any supernatural being or beings, and if brought up in religion (as I have) have simply overcome the taboos of free logical thought that all religions so actively seek to discourage.
Rice paper to you, sir.
So when you say something about gay people you are very sensitive to their feelings, as actually it should be.
[Daphne – Wrong. I am not sensitive to gay people’s feelings. To consciously ‘act and talk sensitive’ I would have to come from a perspective where I think there is something wrong with homosexuality, and I don’t. In other words, I don’t think ‘there’s a gay person in the room, so I’ll be careful not to mention how I think homosexuality is a freak of nature and that anal sex is an unnatural act.’ To me, people are people and I don’t give a damn what they do in bed. This might be linked directly to the fact that what you see as the Holy Eucharist I see as a bit of rice-paper or – I’m now told – wheat-paper which has significance for Roman Catholics.]
But to vilify my religion, and infact the religion of the majority, you don´t care less. After the consecration in the mass, the bread and wine are changed in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. If you do not believe, you should at least respect the feelings of others.
[Daphne – I’m sorry, sir, but I hope you realise that your sentiments are EXACTLY those of fanatical Muslims. That is why I am ever grateful that we have the semblance of laws which hold people like you in check, whereas that is not the case with all states where Islam is the dominant religion. I am not obliged to talk in terms of the ‘Holy Eucharist’ BUT you are obliged to respect that fact.]
in the US they refer to it as “the biscuit”
I find it scary how believers prefer to think of it as flesh and blood, rather than a piece of tasteless unleavened bread.
It has to be made of wheat, so I don’t think it is technically rice paper, although it does look like it.
Daphne I think that you have the right to disagree with the perceptions of others, but also think that you can be more sensitive to what others consider as Holy and gives them a spiritual connection. At times, kif nghidu bil-Malti ‘tizloq f’besqa’.
[Daphne – People consider all sorts of things to be holy, Joe Mario. Where will it end? Are you one of those people who think that a cartoon of Mohammed should not have been published in a Danish newspaper? If your answer is ‘yes’, you have problems with democracy. If your answer is ‘no’, then you can’t have a different set of measures for the fact that I said ‘rice-paper’ – which it is – rather than Holy Eucharist. It’s the Holy Eucharist to you. It might not be the Holy Eucharist to me. And it certainly is not the Holy Eucharist to a Muslim or a Hindu or even a Protestant.]
I do not know whether it is rice-paper but it certainly is similar to the “paper” placed beneath those little almond biscuits. Still, that “rice-paper” represents the bread eaten during the Last Supper and, for believers, it is the Flesh and Blood of Christ.
From a non-believer’s point of view, it’s merely rice paper. For me, it’s eternity. Still, because we’re born in it, we see nothing strange in this belief. Of course, when we go to other cultures, we see their customs/beliefs strange.
[Daphne – I was born into it, went to a convent school for 13 years, and still think of it as ricepaper. I always did. I recall using the words ‘host’ and ‘ricepaper’ interchangeably, and peeling off ‘the host’ stuck to the bottom of almond macaroons from Croce Bonaci because it felt like eating paper. The way I understood it as a child was that we were meant to pretend that it’s ‘the body of Christ’ and not that it actually was ‘the body of Christ’. It didn’t look like a duck, walk like a duck or quack like a duck, so as far as I was concerned aged 6 to 46, it wasn’t a duck. It wasn’t that I didn’t believe in miracles or fairytales as a child – I even believed in fairies and Father Christmas, for heaven’s sake – but it seemed like a pretty half-assed miracle to me, that changed the host into the body of Christ but left it looking exactly the same. If you’re going to perform magic rites, then go all the way. Von Fred at our parties was much better. If he told you he was going to pull a rabbit out of a hat, he did so. He didn’t show us the empty hat and say ‘You must have faith that there’s a rabbit in there’. Still, I’m not complaining at my lifelong inability to find the trappings of any organised religion compelling or even convincing. It’s left me singularly free of the guilt and bitterness which encumbers those who first embrace the religion and then reject it.]
Still, we shouldn’t feel offended if somebody says it’s rice paper because that’s the materiality of it.
It’s like giving a rose to a loved one really – what’s a rose but the reproductive organ of the rose shrub? Still, that rose represents much more than the mere reproductive organ of the plant. It represents the love, the passion and the million other feelings associated with a red rose. Hence, symbols and images, if taken for what they really are, bereft of their deeper meaning, then they lose all their significance.
The only difference here is that Catholics believe that the “rice-paper” IS the flesh and blood of Christ and not just a symbol of same.
Not a very convincing argument, since how can a democracy tolerate mudslinging and hateful comments towards a minority in the name of the majority. As John Simon once expressed: ‘Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant.’
[Daphne – You clearly have a problem understanding that what constitutes ‘hateful mudslinging’ to you – not referring to the rice/wheat-paper host as The Holy Eucharist – is mudslinging in general, rather than a simple statement of fact. This is not about the minority and the majority. And please, don’t be the equivalent of the devil quoting Scripture by citing democracy in defence of your belief that non-Roman Catholics are obliged to use the terminology of Roman Catholicism and make like they share the same beliefs ‘out of respect’. This is especially odious because you are inconsistent. You will not become hysterical if I say that people are free to publish cartoons of Mohammed.]
Anyways, I also wanted to ask you why you never formally rejected Christianity and declared yourself an agostic of sorts?
[Daphne – Anyway, not anyways. Anyways is one of those supremely irritating Maltese words. What makes you think that I would want to reject Christianity, either formally or otherwise, or make a public declaration of agnosticism? My personal beliefs aside – and I don’t discuss them because it’s not your business – it would be incredibly vulgar to do any such thing. The way you think underscores the reality that Maltese Roman Catholics are raised like the worst sort of closed-minded Muslim: unable to think outside the box you’ve allowed others to lock you in.]
I always wonder why people take it upon themselves to defend these “holy” ideas. I’m quite sure that if there is a God, he’d be more than capable of showing us when he takes offence.
@joemario – remember that your ideas are also offensive to non-believers. I cannot stand it when people tell me that a deceased loved one is in heaven, hence treating the whole issue like a fairy tale.
And then MUSEUM mired us even further in ignorance by failing to explain the distinction between something BEING something, and something SYMBOLISING something. So some of us grew up convinced that the wafer was blood and muscle, and yet carry the PM shoulder-high like some frat boy.
Roman Catholics (and I make the distinction between them and the Eastern churches) thought they’d attract more worshippers by emphasising faith (what is it anyway?) and discarding ritual. The result? People fled in droves. And anyone with an ounce of sense rejects the kumbaya types.
I’ll finish off with a couple of anecdotes. I knew this Moroccan chap. Observant Muslim in all respects: halal, beard, head shaved, the works. Apparently they’re required to wash their hands before handling even single page from the Quran, or any bit of paper bearing a quote, and he was strict about it. When a copy of a page from the Quran fell to the ground, he raced off to find some water, warning us not to touch it. Which we didn’t. It’s all about putting up with each other’s little rituals for the sake of the team.
At Eid al Fatr (“Ghid”, oh yes), he’d go around giving us the season’s greetings. We did the same at Christmas and Easter.
A chappie from Bahrain was working with us one day. Only I could get “Bahrejn = Two Seas” meaning (Bahrain is a peninsula, geddit?), so we hit it off immediately. I was telling him how Malta was once Muslim territory and all. He solemnly replied: “If only you were still part of the Muslim Ummah.”
I was left denuded of a reply.
I suspect joemario doesn’t eat beefg because it is very offensive to Hindus, and he doesn’t eat pork or mussels because Muslims and Jews will be offended.
Or maybe he doesn’t care, because those are not real faiths and his is the true one.
Great article, Daph. I was very uneasy with the judge’s explanations. Regarding the current predilection for separations I would just say that it’s a matter of habit and accepted norms. The fad will pass.
Theology is a little bit more complicated than just turning up to a convent school and going to church. First you have to put your philisophical hat on and understand what “is” means (it “is” rice-paper). Is being about the atoms, or dictated by the oussia or parabeing (call it spirit to get the general ballpark idea)? So have the wood atoms in a solid chair changed when it is carved out of a tree? No, but yet we say it “is” a chair now and not a tree. Surely if you believe in an omnipotent God, you take it as fact that he can change the parabeing of bread atoms from “breadness” to “the body of Christ”. The Catholic church does not pretend that if you put the host under an electron microspcope and a mass spectrometer that it would show anything other than bread, but it tells us it “is’ the body of Christ because its parabeing has changed.
Personally I can’t see myself studying philosopy and theology for years and praying and researching this and arguing with thousands of years of thought and prayer, but neither to I pretend I’m wise enough to chip at this thinking lazily from the sidelines with no work other than popular amateur TV groupthing of what the correct theology is.
One implication of what Judge Sciberras has said would then be that it is in the interest of the “Maltese Church” to grant as many annulments as possible – and hence to simplify the process – so that it can increase its income fast to eliminate its financial crisis.
I seriously believe this is a bad judgement of the “Maltese Church.”
At least this guy is retired.
He could still be the next ombudsman.
And it gets mould on it after a couple of days even when consecrated.
and one needs to swallow one at least once every week cause it’s “”””power”””” expires after some time
Jista’ jkun li ghandek ragun mija fil-mija, Sur Camilleri, imma kieku jien nipprova ma nurix gherfi hafna ghax tiskanta l-bniedem kemm tmurlu malajr il-pulikarja.
How do you know, Michael, that “after a couple of days a consecrated host gets mouldy?”
You are simply disgusting!
No they don’t, and the consecrated ones are usually consumed immediately anyway.
It’s these types of comments which I find offensive.
since when is a statement of fact offensive?
The reasoning by the former judge does not hold water; marriage anullment proceedings before church tribunals, generally, take quite some time, even years, to conclude. If the church wanted to turn then into a money-spinner, it would fast track proceedings; the more, the merrier. QED
Actually, Daphne, there are those, like myself, who adhere to both reason and faith (the two are far from mutually exclusive, however hard you may find this to understand) and, of course, those, like yourself, who choose to adhere to reason alone. In this case, however, reason alone should suffice for you to understand that it is not your wisest option to attempt to ridicule Faith.
[Daphne – I never ridicule faith (it is not a proper noun). I respect it. What I object to – as opposed to ridicule – is the attempts of the religious to control the lives and behaviour of those who are not. Unfortunately, the religiously fixated cannot understand that what they consider to have special status others look at differently. The irony inherent in your statement here is that you almost certainly were raised in the Roman Catholic tradition of belittling and disparaging all other religions as being false or ‘less’ than Roman Catholicism, with particular pauses for astonishment and indignation at the incredible things Muslims and Protestants – the special enemies of Catholicism – believe. And then you come over all self-righteous because, as a Roman Catholic, you reserve the right to demand that all others adhere to your principles, beliefs and terminology. So even non-Roman Catholics, you demand, must talk about ‘the Holy Eucharist’. You do NOT adhere to reason, and it is quite obvious from….your reasoning. As for what I adhere to, you have no idea, because where I come from, faith is personal and not a public badge of identity. You typically ‘Maltese Catholic’ in your assumption that if you are Maltese, then you must be either a chest-thumping (even if not practising) Roman Catholic or an atheist, with nothing in between.]
Daphne, you are outdoing yourself today!
James, “faith” and reason are COMPLETELY exclusive.
“Faith”, from the outset, demands that reason be suspended.
Understandably of course.
Maybe the encyclical letter “Fides et Ratio” of the late John Paul II will enlighten you further on the topic since you seem to be very interested to delve into the matter.
I hope you can understand it. It’s really worth reading.
At least you will appreciate the rational and philosophical competence of Pope John Paul II even if you still disagree with him. The document demonstrated already that a ‘faithful’ man need not be irrational. In fact, the contrary is proven.
This would be a great discussion to have. I don’t think I ever really had the pleasure to discuss faith with rational people.
I personally find faith and rationality to be mutually exclusive so I would be interested to understand how others see it another way.
Also, why is faith something to be respected? I do not respect the supernatural ideas propagated by religions any more than I respect astrology.
My, my – we seem to have struck a nerve here ! What a magnificent attempt to back-pedal and dig deeper at the same time time. Are you actually trying to say that, when you refer to what I consider sacred as ‘a mere piece of rice-paper’ or words to that effect, there is nothing even a teensy-weensy bit derogatory or, heaven forbid (I’ll leave the choice of capital H to you), offensive in your intent ? I had the impression you were made of sterner stuff.
[Daphne – You haven’t struck a nerve. I have none of the touchiness of ‘reverse converts’ because I was never religious. This was mainly because it didn’t capture my imagination as a child, and then once I’d grown up it was obviously impossible. I did not write ‘mere piece of rice-paper’, but ‘rice-paper’ (and it turns out that it’s wheat-paper, anyway). I use that word because it’s how I am with language: rice-paper (wheat-paper actually) is rice-paper, not the Holy Eucharist. If I wish to describe the rice/wheat paper in the context of its use, I will say ‘the host’. Some Roman Catholics (definitely not all) believe that the paper becomes the flesh of Christ on consecration, but if you send it to a laboratory you will find that it is exactly the same as it was before consecration. You are free to believe that it is human flesh (but then there are all those cannibalism issues) but in that case, you should not laugh at those who believe that the sunflower oil on Angelique Caruana kitchen Madonna is eye-tears.]
The Maltese Church’s Ecclesiastical Tribunal has always been run at a loss. Its officials receive a mere pittance as their honorarium, and last year alone the Tribunal was out of pocket to the tune of some € 500,000.
Petitioners with limited means do not pay any Tribunal costs or fees whatsoever.
Financial motivation indeed!
Isma gbin ahjar taghlaq halqek ghax kieku ma kienx ghal Mintoff Malta bhalissa kienet tkun fqira, bla pensjoni u l-isptar tal-gvern trid thallas ghalih.
[Daphne – Fil-fatt, huwa l-oppost. Jekk ma kienx ghal Mintoff, dak li ksibna wara l-1987 seta gie ferm qabel. Fl-1986 konna qisna qabda primittivi ta’ wara l-muntanji, tant li anke l-iSqallin kienu jikkumpattuna jew jidhqu bina.]
What is deranged about seeking an annulment because one cannot get a divorce?
[Daphne – Are you married? If not, then you can’t understand the significance of claiming that it never happened. And if you are, then you must take your marriage very lightly indeed if you believe that having it declared null and void is a substitute for divorce. Marriages are not ‘annulled’ – a word which means that they existed up to point X but have now been declared null as from such and such a date. Marriages are declared to have been null and void to begin with – which means that the marriage never actually took place. What you are doing here is seeking confirmation that no, you were never married. And when you have a family (and even if you don’t) and seek in bad faith confirmation that you were never married, as a substitute for divorce, then you must be very flippant or yes, deranged. Divorce at least acknowledges that the marriage happened and that it lasted for X number of years.]
Yes, I am married. Have been so for 11 years now (if you do not count the 6 months of my previous marriage). And I agree with you that for one to actually believe that a marriage never happened (when it actually did) is indeed crazy. But that was not my question.
Neither did I say that annulment should be a substitute for divorce. I was only speaking in pragmatic terms. When one cannot obtain a divorce, annulment is the only possible option.
[Daphne – Yes, that is where we part company. You adopt the ‘means justifies the end’ approach, and I find it completely unacceptable. I actually think it is more than unacceptable but also deeply damaging psychologically in ways that might not be understood immediately. I’ll admit that there is a difference between seeking to declare null a six-month marriage and one of 10 years that has seen the birth of children, but still.]
So let me blow my cover.
I speak from experience – After 5 years in what I thought was a serious relationship with someone (whom I loved), she got pregnant. Since I believed the idea was that we would eventually have married anyway, we got married. Little did I know (actually not at all) that I was not the father.
I discovered I was not the father some months after my ex-wife left me (yes, she actually left ME, not the other way round). I discovered that thanks to a stroke of “luck” – since we both had 0-Negative blood, and the baby resulted Positive. (I checked because I couldn’t think of any other explanation why she left other than that she had an affair or relationship with someone else). As doctors confirmed in court, there was no way the baby could be mine – no DNA testing was even necessary. But I digress…
So I was at least “lucky” enough to have a case for annulment – which I got.
No…I don’t believe I never married her. My family and myself are all witnesses to that wedding.
But I guess I must be flippant or deranged to have sought annulment because I did not have a divorce option. I should have simply cursed my fate, and not proceeded to a now 11-year happy marriage with my wife.
[Daphne – I think it is extraordinary that you think your marriage contract was valid. Religion or no religion, any contract which is entered into fraudulently is automatically invalid at law. I am sorry that you were treated so shabbily, for you were treated shabbily.]
By the way, if I have not made it clear enough by now – I am all for divorce legislation, and against the issue being decided by referendum – although I most certainly will be voting YES.
Don’t be too quick to judge.
[Daphne – I haven’t judged, and that is quite apart from the fact that your marriage contract was null and void: one of those very rare instances which I mentioned. You certainly were not in bad faith, and even with divorce legislation I would have had my marriage declared null in your position.]
[Daphne – Yes, that is where we part company. You adopt the ‘means justifies the end’ approach, and I find it completely unacceptable. I actually think it is more than unacceptable but also deeply damaging psychologically in ways that might not be understood immediately. I’ll admit that there is a difference between seeking to declare null a six-month marriage and one of 10 years that has seen the birth of children, but still.]
I don’t adopt the ‘means justifies the end’ approach. Its just that I wouldn’t have bothered with annulment if divorce was an option. 5 years for an annulment is stress-inducing and humiliating. I would have been spared all that with a simple divorce.
[Daphne – I think it is extraordinary that you think your marriage contract was valid. Religion or no religion, any contract which is entered into fraudulently is automatically invalid at law. I am sorry that you were treated so shabbily, for you were treated shabbily.]
I didn’t and don’t think my marriage contract was valid. But like I said, a divorce would most probably have been cheaper, quicker and less humiliating. And if divorce was an option, she wouldn’t have felt the need to lie about the paternity of the child (in court) and leave it to the last minute (after 5 whole years) to admit. With no-fault divorce (which I am all for), there would have been no need for her to lie in court and prolong the case more than necessary.
[Daphne – I haven’t judged, and that is quite apart from the fact that your marriage contract was null and void: one of those very rare instances which I mentioned. You certainly were not in bad faith, and even with divorce legislation I would have had my marriage declared null in your position.]
Again, I wouldn’t have bothered with annulment, when divorce serves me just as well.
And I’m glad that you don’t consider me flippant or deranged now that I have explained myself. ;)
[Daphne – I never did. You always seem to me to be extremely rational when commenting on the internet.]
[Daphne – I never did. You always seem to me to be extremely rational when commenting on the internet.]
I know you never did…I was only joking (hence the winking smiley).
And thanks for the compliment, which I reciprocate. We certainly do not always agree (and we don’t have to), but at least we do that rationally.
You’re spot on re Judge Sciberras, but wide off the mark re annullments. The ‘marriage never took place’ bit shouldn’t be talent literally of course…it simply means that in spite of x years married and y children, the whole marriage was a sham…someone got married under false pretences. It’s like someone buying a car believing it to have a particular engine only to discover x weeks later that the engine is not what he believed it to be…sure he’d been driving a cat for x weeks, but it doesn’t mean he hasn’t been conned!
[Daphne – Utter bollocks. And a shoddy comparison: when you marry you don’t ‘buy’ a spouse the way you buy a car. The Catholic Church does not ‘annul’ marriages. It declares them to have been null and void to begin with. Try and envisage situations in which this might be possible – a girl of 16 getting married because she has been bullied and harassed into doing so, for instance – and you will see just how unlikely this is. Basically, if you are over 18 and give your word at the altar or the public registry, you’re married. If all marriages are null in which people didn’t know what they were doing or what to expect, then I guarantee that only those who married at 40 after 15 years of cohabitation with their betrothed are actually married. People know this at heart, and that’s why those who apply to have their marriage declared null do so mainly in bad faith. Most people who discover their spouse is infertile and was infertile at the point of marriage look to assisted conception or adoption. They don’t go running to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal to have their marriage declared null because the spouse they bought had a faulty engine.]
Marriage, by definition, is an institution in which you never really know what to expect.
The inability to have children does not, in itself, bring about the nullity of a marriage. Impotence (the inability to have sex as opposed to the inability to generate offspring) yes.
The grounds on which a declaration of nullity is obtained are very “strictly” applied – which, of course, can of itself be subject to criticism. The grounds include “psychological anomalyies which make the assumption of the rights and obligations of marriage impossible”, fear, violence, fraud, impotenza coeundi and others.
An annulment simply means that “marriage never existed”. It’s a rather complex institute, the jurisprudence is vast and so is the doctrine, even in civil law, let alone in canon law.
Having said all this, I think Judge Sciberras, after such a brilliant career, should tend to his own garden and leave us well in peace. It’s a pity that such an intelligent man should stoop so low.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110505/local/pl-marks-third-anniversary-of-ministers-honoraria-increase-decision.363817
Why the sudden decision that Joseph Muscat is no longer entitled to the wage increase given to the rest of the members of parliament?
Wouldn’t this be discrimination?
Especially moreso since Muscat was going to donate his 500 Euro per week increase to charity and not enjoy it for himself like the rest of the members of parliament?
[Daphne – I am bored rigid by the whole issue, have lost track of what is happening, and couldn’t care less. I wrote about it when it was topical – time to move on. The matter was badly mishandled from the beginning, by both the government and the opposition.]
Unfortunately Philip Sciberras was a Labour candidate. And let’s admit it, he’s speaking perfect sense. Oh if only the PL was anti-divorce instead of the PN, That’s what irks you most isn’t it Daphne?
[Daphne – No. Stupidity and irrationality irritate me. And when even retired judges are so stupidly irrational, then the situation is truly desperate. There might, of course, be a link between Philip Sciberras’s inability to think straight and his Labour sympathies. You really have to be daft to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church opposes divorce because it is worried about money.]
“You really have to be daft to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church opposes divorce because it is worried about money.”
Indeed!
It would be interesting to see how many annulments are granted every year in Malta and compare this percentage to other countries. Probably we would rank first…. and as always for the wrong reason.
If and when divorce is legislated in Malta the applications for annulments will decrease, which will prove your point that currently many are taking this pathetic approach because the divorce option is not available.
One thing is for sure and that this whole divorce debate, referendum, related PR, letters, blogs and comments has in my opinion become a nauseating & annoying issue which is also depicting the low IQ level of a big % of the population.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTZONIl546c
Dawkins takes on the yanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2epvSAGuLc
explains more
While religious organisations have monopolies on the rituals around birth, marriage and death then it will keep some kind of hold on the common psyche.
Babies are baptised, given a name in front of god.
Then the marriage ceremony, the ‘big’ day scenario.
Then funerals and burials.
Until there can be some non-religious alternatives to all of these, particularly burial, then I don’t see much change in the future.
They already exist.
1. You don’t have to baptise babies. If you want an alternative (if that’s at all necessary), you could always have a family party.
2. You don’t have to marry in church. There’s the civil registry (and you can also choose to get married elsewhere, and not the registry office). I got married in a 5-star hotel, my marriage was presided by a registry official (who happened to be a woman), and the ceremony was followed by a vegetarian dinner at the same hotel.
3. Funerals – I’m not sure if its possible to have a non-religious burial in Malta (although I don’t see why not). That said, I wouldn’t care what happens to my body after I die.
[Daphne – Funerals are not for the corpse but for society and those left behind. It’s a rite of passage and marking it makes us human and civilised. You may not care what happens to your body when you die – few of us do – but you should care if we begin disposing of corpses as we do trash, with no attendant ceremony, whether secular or not.]
[Daphne – Funerals are not for the corpse but for society and those left behind. It’s a rite of passage and marking it makes us human and civilised…]
I know, and I agree. In seeking to be brief, I did not explain myself well.
What I meant is that I find it puzzling how many people worry about their own funeral – even some atheists I know, do. Some even worry that someone might spread a rumour of a last-moment conversion…why should (or even could) I worry about that, once I’m dead?
I agree that funerals are for those left behind. That is why it doesn’t bother me at all that my own funeral (now that we mention it) would most probably be Christian. After all, most of my family (all of them except my three brothers) and friends are Catholics.
Whatever makes them happy (I couldn’t think of a more appropriate word – I know we’re speaking of a funeral here, so “happy” is kind of inappropriate).
Kontu titkazaw tant, INTOM, ghax kiewn hemm min indifen fil-mizbla! Kemm hi kbira l-ipokresija ta’ xi whud.
@ Giov DeMartino:
“Kontu titkazaw tant, INTOM, ghax kiewn hemm min indifen fil-mizbla! Kemm hi kbira l-ipokresija ta’ xi whud”.
Int ghalija qed tghid?
1. Jien m’hinix laburist.
2. Iva, nitkaza jekk xi hadd jintrema fil-mizbla kontra r-rieda tal-familjari u hbieb tieghu jew taghha.
Ma fhimt xejn, sur DeMartino. Ahjar qabel tghajjar lil xi hadd ipokrita, tipprova tifhem xi jkun qed jghid, u tnehhi l-pregudizzji tieghek.
Min hu l-ipokrita issa?
@ Giov DeMartino:
Ha ntik ezempju forsi tifhimni ahjar.
Jien m’hinix Kristjan, u ma mmurx knisja. Izda jekk tghaddi ligi li tipprojbixxi li l-Insara milli jmorru l-knisja, inweghdek li niltaqghu fil-protesta.
Jien ma ghajjart lil hadd Sur Cassar u jekk INT hadt ghalik nitolbok skuza. Jien ghedt u nerga’ nghid
min ma jimxix mal-ligijiet tal-Knisja ma jistax jippretendi li jkollu funeral u difna religjuza bhalma kien isir mil-laburisti fil-passat.
Jekk m’hemmx hajja ohra u l-gisem ma jiswa xejn (aqra haw fuq) ma jaghmilx sens jekk tidfnux fil-mizbla, fil-bahar jew x’imkien iehor.
Jekk int m’intix Kristjan tifhem li -Knisja ma tidholx fil-kaz tieghek u jkunu l-awtoritajiet tas-sahha, nahseb, li jiddeciedu xi jsir minn gismek.
I have not been raised to believe in god.
Yet when I die, my loved ones will have a funeral and some ‘holy man’ will mutter some bollocks about me that has no meaning to me whatsoever.
If there was an acceptable meaningful alternative to this farce then I would sign up for it and I suspect then we may see some changes then, however slowly.
Easy, express your wish in a notarised will to have a different type of funeral.
Suggested reading:
A History of Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch
The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion by James George Frazer
I am saddened by the unnecessary and irrelevant derogatory reference to the Eucharist in an otherwise very sharp article. First of all, the Host is not made of rice paper, it is made from wheat flour.
Catholics accept that the characteristics of the consecrated host are no different from those of the unconsecrated host when measured by the five senses at our disposal. Catholics have a faith that does not restrict their beliefs to those things that can be scrutinized by our five senses.
They have every right to believe that the absence of proofs recognizable by our five senses is not any proof of the absence of existence of everything that our senses cannot prove. Those who disagree should not be derogatory, offensive and intolerant in expressing their different opinion.
How should we express the fact that we believe the eucharist is just wheat paper and not the body and blood of anyone?
Not at all easy if you reject “faith” – but an analogy would be helpful.
A fish, with its primitive central nervous system and swimming in the confined environment of a small pond would have no possibility of proving the real marvels of the true universe beyond its ken. Similarly it is not possible for man to prove anything that could exists beyond the boundaries of his own central nervous system.
Admittedly this CNS is much more advanced than that of a fish, but I dot think that anyone has ever claimed to be omniscient and that nothing can exist beyond man’s knowledge. Obviously, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Science is making new discoveries all the time but the newly discovered objects do not come into existence only after they are discovered – they were there all the time previously but not known to man with his limited intellectual faculties.
OK Let us, for argument’s sake, agree with Daphne and others that the Eucharist is nothing more than wheat paper etc.
[Daphne – Mr Demartino, it’s not a matter of whether you agree with me or not. You can send a consecrated host for testing at a forensic laboratory, and read the result.]
But if the subject was divorce how does the Eucharist come in? I think that Daphne could have written the same article without trying to ridicule and offend the sentiments of many.
[Daphne – I do not ridicule and offend the religous sentiments of others. Please grow up, or risk the accusation that you are no better than those very ignorant people who consideredthemselves greatly offended because somebody in Denmark published a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed. And what of those who felt offended by Salman Rushdie’s unreadable The Satanic Verses?]
@ Francis Saliba:
So many words, and yet, you have still not answered my question.
What was that about brevity and wit you so much like to mention in The Times?
@ GiovDeMartino:
Re-read the paragraph where the “rice paper” was originally mentioned (and not the replies, and counter-replies), and you’ll perhaps understand the context in which the phrase was actually used.
Perhaps you’ll also understand that, in its proper context, the phrase shouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination be deemed offensive.
@ Francis Saliba:
So basically, what you are saying is that our limited intellectual faculties do not show us any evidence either way (regarding the Eucharist). So you believe because you want to believe, and for no other reason. I am free to do otherwise.
And yet, you actually think you have the right to express your beliefs while I have no right to express mine, simply because you claim to take offence at the expression of beliefs one can neither prove nor disprove.
The fact remains that you could have posted the same blog without bringing in the Eucharist. We are all free to believe whatever we want to believe, but in a civilized society you should also respect the beliefs of others.
[Daphne – I respect your beliefs. Now please have the decency to respect mine and stop badgering me because I don’t agree with yours.]
I believe that the PL had a very evil past…but does that mean that I can go to their HQs and start shouting about their past? Certainly not.
[Daphne – That’s because you would be trespassing and disturbing the peace, not because you respect Labour’s beliefs. You are free to say whatever you wish about the Labour Party, and the more disrespectful the better. That’s democracy. You should worry if it doesn’t happen. You have libel laws to sort out the rest.]
Sending a Host to a laboratory doesn’t make any sense for the simple reason that this is a question of faith.
[Daphne – Exactly.]
Dr. Saliba:
It seems like the demi-gods over at Times of Malta prevented us from ever concluding in our discussion.
Just a quick intermission:
“Catholics have a faith that does not restrict their beliefs to those things that can be scrutinized by our five senses.”
How is that different from saying “If I make something up, you have no right to tell me it’s false”? What you are saying is that when you make a claim which has no grounds in reality, we have to not only believe you, but also keep any thoughts of the contrary to ourselves.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t really go out of my way to insult the Eucharist and couldn’t really care less about it – to the point that after moving to Malta from Sweden I used to actually take part in the whole ceremony of digesting it, not realising I wasn’t really supposed to (not being Catholic and all). But I think Christians, especially in Malta, cry foul a bit too often when someone just mentions their belief in any bad way.
Contrast that with bigots in your school system who insist children of other faiths will go to hell – and this to their face. Imagine the feelings of a 6-7 year old being told he will be forever cast from where his or her classmates will spend eternity, simply for being born into a different faith than them. This happens in Maltese private schools, so I can only imagine the discussions in faith-based schools.
Now that’s offensive.
Patrik,
You always have the right to tell me that anything I say is false in your opinion, whether I had actually made the thing up or not. Your right to say that, does not necessarily imply that you are either correct or incorrect. As Voltaire would say, I do not contest your right to say anything even though I may actually disagree with everything you say. Your expressed opinion, and my own opinion about what you say, are both totally irrelevant to the actual truth or falsity of your opinion.
Of course it is offensive, cruel and heartless if school children (and everybody else for that matter) call another child a “bastard”. It is just as “offensive” to try to establish a connection between that insensate behaviour and official Christian doctrine. Insulting anybody by that or any other epithets is no part of Christian doctrine.
I don’t agree with your suggestion that people who want their marriages declared null do it for reasons much different than people would seek divorce outside of Malta. Some might, but I feel you are over-generalising just so you can fuel an argument against someone you seem to dislike. (I don’t know who this Philip Sciberras is, but I’m presuming he is someone who you have taken a dislike to, probably is a MLP sympathiser or something similar).
[Daphne – I have never met Philip Sciberras, though my little antennae tell me you know exactly who and what he is. Also, you are confused. My arguments against Philip Sciberras’s ridiculous statement are a separate issue to my arguments about motivation in seeking to have one’s marriage declared null.]
1. You state that “They want to pretend to themselves at some deep level that the marriage never happened”. If you mean on an emotional/unconscious level, then one could argue divorcees also seek this. My best female friend back in Malta was married for one year in her early twenties, and has been separated for around four years now. She has been seeing another fella for some time, and wouldn’t mind having the ‘option’ to be able to marry again, maybe this lad. Yes, on hindsight she would love to be able to wipe the slate clean and pretend her relationship never happened, but I would also love to imagine that some relationships I’ve been in never happened, and so would most divorcees. The only backing you provided for this ‘insight’ is what the Curia would say these people are in denial… hardly objective backing is that?
[Daphne – I speak from personal knowledge of cases I know of. I find it strange and disturbing when people erase the past rather than doing the healthier thing of acknowledging it and moving on. They ‘do a Stalin’, and I often wonder what they tell the children from their subsequent marriage who might come across the information by chance in adulthood. You can burn the wedding photographs, shred the video and delete the digital records, but you can’t do anything about the public records or the announcement in The Sunday Times.]
2. Your argument that the Curia was against contraception – they didn’t stand to gain financially from that – therefore, they don’t stand to be financially worse off if divorce legislation is introduced, is a non-sequitur.
[Daphne – Not at all. It’s Philip Sciberras’s argument which is a complete non sequitur. ‘The Curia is fighting against divorce legislation. This means that the Curia stands to lose money if there is such legislation.’ I merely drew Judge Sciberras’s attention to the fact that the Curia fought against, too, HIV-control advertising which promoted condom use. And it wasn’t selling a competing contraceptive.]
If your arguments are correct, and I am wrong… in a couple of years’ time, the Curia’s income from annullments won’t be severely affected if divorce legislation comes in. I’ll make a mental note to come back here and say ‘you were right’, if that is so.
[Daphne – You know, I find rubbish reasoning really tiresome. How can you know whether the Curia’s ‘income from annulments’ is severely affected or not, if you don’t know whether 1. it actually has any such income, 2. what that income is now, 3. what it has been for the last five years at least (for comparative purposes), 4. what it is between now and the introduction of divorce legislation, and 5. what it is for the five years at least after the introduction of divorce legislation. You and Philip Sciberras are starting off from the ASSUMPTION that 1. the Curia has income from applications for declarations of nullity, and 2. that it makes a profit. The main flaw in Judge Sciberras’s argument is that he fails to factor in costs of production. Now work out why that is a flaw, because I don’t feel like giving lessons in basic accountancy here.]
What I feel is more accurate though, is you have simply taken a dislike to someone whose face or company you look down on, and are trying to build an argument against what he said just for the sake of it.
[Daphne – I didn’t know that Philip Sciberras has a company, but there you go. I wrote about what he said for one reason only: what he said was idiotic. Worse than that, it was libellous. He’s lucky the Curia doesn’t go around suing people.]
Thank you for your reply.
I have to say your little antennae are (on this occasion at least) picking up bad signal – I honestly can’t place Mr Sciberras. I left Malta 10 years ago, and with it, my mum’s daily l-Orizzont purchases.
I can’t say I remember him from those days (consciously at least). Nowadays, I get my Malta news from Maltastar (something which would possibly make you reach for the bucket) followed by your page as a counterbalance. I don’t think I came accross him before from either pages – I just assumed you were attacking his arguments because he is some sort of MLP lackey (whom you might think only deserves scorn as they all do).
Although I still disagree with your opinion about the Maltese Catholic Church profiting/not-profiting from the current legal situation, I can’t help but feel respectful for the time you take every day to reply to people of differing opinions to yourself so I’ll happily agree to disagree.
I certainly understand that the main argument for the introduction of divorce legislation should be a basic legal right to dissolve a contract if one so wishes. You sound frustrated – to say the least -with the Yes campaign relegating this issue to the sidelines in favour of (amongst other things) attacking the Curia for conflict of interest.
I feel me attacking you on the grounds of ‘you are just attacking this person because he probably is an MLP suporter’ was jumping the gun a few miles. Says more about me getting defensive about things like that, than you as a commenter. The effort you put into these comments proves you don’t automatically dismiss ‘MLP hamalli’ as second class citizens as I so often believe. Thank you for proving me wrong.
[Daphne – Finally, I remember why your surname is familiar. In the summer of 1984, I was in St Luke’s Hospital after a nasty car crash, and the woman in the bed next to me was a Mrs Ferriggi.]
The Curia actually loses money on annulments.
I’ve heard from people being asked to pay upwards of 400 euro for their marriage to be declared null, as well as being asked to plead insanity to get a favourable decision.
Certainly I’m just going by what other people have said. Yet I’m more inclined to believe personal friends than random replies like this one who are equally unsubstantiated.
Its actually much more than Eur 400 (more than double that, actually – although I can’t remember the exact figure, in my case). I speak from personal experience.
But to be fair, the court annulment cost me ten times that amount (including lawyer fees).
But I still consider the Church annulment fees insignificant (all things considered), and see the whole issue as an issue of imposition of values, and not at all about loss of revenue.
It might, but the amount would be insignificant.
And as I’m saying that, I’m thinking, the only way to find out how much one profits is by finding out exactly how much a procedure costs, and how much income it generates.
If these figures aren’t available, neither argument can be substantiated. Conspiracy theories are never a good reason to base an argument on, yet lack of accountability is a definite argument in favour of transferring the power (of allowing a re-marriage) from the Curia to laymen.