Tal-Muzew lessons for children? What we need is civics classes for grown-ups.
Published:
June 3, 2011 at 11:54am
Eh hija, you cannot have your cake and eat it - denounce the Catholic faith!
Look at this gem of reasoning, and it’s typical of what’s going on on the internet, on street-corners, and radio phone-ins. This one is from timesofmalta.com’s comments-board.
Mr Richard Galea
Today, 09:42
I think only the Maltese Citizens who denounce the Catholic Faith should be allowed to have divorce…….Since our Maltese constitution specify that our country is a Catholic country.
You cannot have the cake and eat it.
28 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Oh God, wherefore art though?…
Eating his cake?
Sorry, I meant “thou”
The point is that I can decide to EAT my cake, and no one should have the right to impede me from doing it, just because he has decided NOT to eat HIS.
How about asking divorce applicants to publicly blaspheme, as evidence of their denunciation of their faith?
Pure comedy stuff.
Or, taking a leaf from the 60s Flower Power revolution, publicly “wear condoms in their hair”?
Can I be a Christian without being Catholic?
Sure, but then you would be a “wolf in the skin of lambs”.
No, you would be a “lamb in the skin of wolves”.
Don’t ask Toni Abela because he doesn’t know the difference.
I never imagined I would laugh so much.
It’s brilliant.
More, please, thank you.
uff…..xi dwejjaq ta’ pajjiz….. will this comedy never end?
It may end in 2013. But then the tragedy starts.
Kenneth Cassar
I really admire your satirical wit.
That’s the result of years of watching British comedy.
“You cannot have the cake and eat it.”
Here I was, thinking that the ones trying to have the cake and eating it were those who asked us to decide for them and, when we did, told us that we could shove the result as it clashed with their blessed conscience.
Someone should tell Mr. Galea that Catholics are not ‘allowed’ to divorce. The law should be there and non-Catholics can avail themselves of it. End of story.
[Daphne – So can Catholics, if they want to. Because quite frankly, if it is possible for a Mafia man to be given a Roman Catholic funeral in Italy or NYC, then I don’t see what the problem is exactly with being divorced and Catholic. Not that I care anyway. If grown-ups want to imprison themselves within a tangle of religious restrictions, as though life isn’t difficult and restrictive enough without them, it’s their pigeon and their choice. Look where pointless religion has got the prime minister: up sh*t creek without a paddle and a hundred circling crocodiles. Boiled down to its essence, what we have is this: the whole country has been held hostage by the religious objections of MPs on both sides of the house. ]
A Mafia boss is one thing, but to have Robert Mugabe personally invited to the Vatican is a whole other.
What is all this about Catholics not being allowed to divorce?
In the rest of the world, before you are allowed to apply for a Church Annulment, the Catholic Church asks you to first obtain a civil divorce.
At least he can spell ‘farce’. For small mercies….
Why can’t it be the other way round? Those who are Catholic, just don’t get a divorce.
There are many things which are legal, and I choose not to do. I choose not to smoke. I choose not to get hammered (any more) on a Saturday night. Hell even marriage itself. I’m sure there are a lot of people against marriage, but you don’t hear anyone protesting that marriage should be banned.
Denounce the “Catholic Faith”? It’s like that guy who applied to the Curia and formally requested to be excommunicated, then proudly had his photo taken with the excommunication certificate and sent it to the papers.
Richard Galea must have meant ‘renounce’ but, even so, it’s a classic case of mixing up civil and religious matters.
With all the stupid comments that we’ve been reading lately (even on this blog), phone-ins, conversations, etc showing the (non) intellect of these people, aren’t you all surprised the YES vote won?
Actually I was. Then again, empty vessels make most sound, so one cannot gauge public opinion from online comments.
Seems to me that it’s not only the neutrality clause that needs changing in our Constitution.
Or is it time to ditch our Constitution altogether and seek integration with the Vatican? We may need a referendum about this one…
That constitutional article about Malta being Catholic is just a meaningless statement that even constitutional lawyers and lecturers find hard to interpret — because it is just that, meaningless.
It says that the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic religion. What does Malta mean in this case? Malta as a state cannot profess and practise a religion because only people can.
If only people can, no constitution can oblige anyone to profess, much less believe in, a religion.
Furthermore, religion is very different from faith. The real meaning is in the article guaranteeing freedom of religion in the entrenched chapter on human rights and, of course, the religious bigots never mention that one.
If this referendum has served any purpose, it was to expose glaringly the hypocrisy of some politicians and the fact that some politicians with whom we were so much besotted in the 80s (and their successors) were minded to install a confessional government but they never told us then what was in their mind. Now we know.
Actually, cogito, we “knew” a long time ago. The Church has long been in a privileged position when in comes to marriage in Malta. Nothing new there.
It’s however a gross exaggeration to say that we have a confessional government.
The Maltese Constitution provides a privleged status for the Roman Catholic faith. But that constitution does not require that the State enact Roman Catholic Laws.
It is possible (although for some persons inconceivable) for individuals to be faithful Roman Catholics and, at the same time, support freedom of conscience and freedom of choice regarding the opportunity for civil divorce.
It also is not unusual for faithful and devout Roman Catholics (and anyone else of other religious persuasions or non-persuasions) to experience a divorce on their way to the mercies of God. What God has not joined together, let no human persons force into permanent pseudo-marital unions.
It is not for individuals to judge the valadity of civil or religious marriages. The State has its criteria, the church marriage tribunals have Canon Law. The domains are separate.
Let’s address the social reasons why marriages may be dysfunctional, and perhaps we can caution against marriage for individuals who are not yet ready or are too immature for what successful marriage relationships require. At the same time, for those of religious or Christian persuasion, hopefully successful couples can also appreciate the theology of the marriage covenant throughout their lives.
Meanwhile, man proposes, and God disposes according to his love and mercies, if you believe in God’s genuine mercies. So, no Catholic has to renounce his faith when he or she may have to resort to divorce; in fact, even greater faith may be required.