Today’s Times will carry the news that “all those who “cooperate” in the introduction of divorce, including judges who apply the law, would be “committing a grave sin”, according to the head of the Church tribunals.” And they’re at it again. Before you get involved into some giant backlash of church vs state, ceasar vs god, layman vs believer etc etc may I urge you to consider conversion. It’s not that difficult. The Lutheran church will admit you with a rebaptism. You will still be christian but without the cobwebs and barmy eejits behaving like latter day ayatollahs such as the head of the Church tribunals. It is after all matters such as these that instigated the great reformation by Luther. Consider it. Seriously. With a big enough rate of conversion I’m prepared to bet heavily that members of the church will suddenly revise its position on what constitutes grave sin.
Categories
Collaborate and Be Damned
Facebook Comments Box
13 replies on “Collaborate and Be Damned”
What about the caterer for the second wedding reception?
James Caterers. Who else?
I wonder what the Vatican’s feedback on such a statement/message would be. Will they so openly condemn all judges in all those countries where mortal sin is allowed ?
Besides, should a law be passed, i wonder how a judge faced with a decision for divorce should handle this dilemma?? ie Religion vs State ?
correction:
mortal sin should read “this mortal sin” referring to divorce
…and the church will spend loads more of their “limited financial resources” to make their point. Divine intervention will not help in recovering deficit (material matters vs spiritual needs) so the way forward is to convince the people to finance a campaign they may not necessarily be in favour of in the first place. However if you don’t contribute you might face eternal damnation where your teeth might actually come loose
Was present for this modern age Savanarola sermon. Felt like standing up and walking out. He even went so far as to quote Old Testament and in his translation of the quoted text “Alla jobghod id-divorzju”.
The words of Monsignor Said Pullicino are consistent with Church treaching. Pope John Paul 11 has stated that legal professionals “should avoid being personally involved in anything that might imply a cooperation with divorce” (http://www.laikos.org/Dugan_JPIIand%20Lawers.pdf.)
It is logical that collaboration with something immoral or sinful is itself immoral or sinful, as complicity in a crime is itself a cime.
Even if thousands of Maltese Catholics become Protestants, there are still many thousand Protestants who are converting to the Catholic Church. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7669306/Thousands-of-Anglican-churchgoers-could-cross-over-to-Rome-with-bishops.html
Besides I think rebaptism is a contradiction in terms and also unnecessary.
I think you’ve unconsciously coined a new term. Treaching. I like it.
Definition: The act of imposing one’s beliefs in the guise of merely communicating them.
Monsignor Said Pullicino is as consistent as ever with Church teaching. Pity he is urging judges to fetter their discretion and obligation to apply the law. I divorce legislation is introduced it is the civic duty of judge and lawyer to perform their respective roles accordingly. True if a judge feels he cannot live with his conscience he is free to resign and let real judges whose duty it is to apply the law do their work instead of him. No problem. He would be consistent with Said Pullicinos preachings and the divorce law would still be applied. Simples innit? I am sure the church would fret about not having any more catholic judges by the end of this process.
As or your opinion on rebaptism I have as much care for it as I have for Said Pullicino’s declarations on what constitutes a grave sin. For a non-catholic it is absolutely irrelevant.
You say don’t care about what is a sin and what is rebaptism. So you just write an entry on your blog about it!
And why can’t a judge abstain from hearing cases which violate his conscience?
Once again Dave I reluctantly embark into a senseless voyage of attempting to get you to make an ounce of sense. Let’s make it easier for you. There’s a venn diagram composed of two circles. In one there is the law and the judges’ obligation to apply it and in the other there is the church and its interpretation of what is sinful. The only point where they meet is the fact that judges can be catholic. If they are unable to perform their duties impartially without the bias of religious obligation then they should, MUST , resign. Abstaining is a farce – you either apply all the law or you apply none of it, you cannot be selective.
I dont care what is a sin because from a juridical point of view the existence or otherwise of sin is irrelevant. Now, feel free to twist words misquote or whatever but that fact remains. Like I must choose to be catholic or not (and as a consequence whether I am bound by the dogmas of what constitutes a sin as expounded by Said Pullicino) your judges must choose whether they want to do their job or not. You cannot have the cake and eat it… sad isn-t it… you’d love judges applying/disapplying the law in accordance to their religious beliefs… there’s one word for that kind of law: SHARIA.
Quote from the Times of Malta Online: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101009/local/divorce-sin-threat-a-medieval-imposition
Former judges and lawyers condemned the words of the Church’s Judicial Vicar, Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino, who threatened with grave sin members of the judiciary who presided over divorce cases.
Judge Philip Sciberras, who retired only this week, said the threat of sin was “a medieval imposition” and simply put a burden on members of the judiciary.
“I am a practising Catholic but I believe the state is obliged to regulate such situations by introducing laws. Members of the judiciary should not object to hear divorce cases because of some medieval imposition,” he said when contacted.
“If I were still a sitting judge I would be obliged to apply the law if divorce is legal,” Judge Sciberras insisted.
I think Catholic judges who have problems with a divorce law can opt not to hear family cases, and can be assigned to hear other cases and sit in courts not dealing with family cases. Is freedom of conscience and religion a fundamental human right not applicable for judges?
The connection with Sharia law (of which I confess to know little since I am not a Muslim, and Sharia law was never part of education or interest), is in this context irrelevant.
My further comments, particulary on the Times of Malta link, will be on the same jolly old Times of Malta website (the Times is jolly and old, not the website).