Tabloid Warning. It’s the Daily Mail speaking but it does quote YouGov research so I guess the material is “discussable” on an ephemeral level. The Daily Mail carries an article that claims that lack of love and (lack of) sex is driving the over-50s to divorce. Within the context of the whole divorce debate in Malta which does not shy away from throwing in the issue of whether divorce legislation causes marriage break-ups it is interesting to look at the list of troubles that married couples face – one can presume that these troubles exist with or without divorce.
28% – emotionally cold
27% – lack of commitment to marriage
25% – lack of interest in physical relationship
23% – inability to resolve or manage conflict
23% – other
14% – nagging
13% – met someone else
12% – abandonment
11% – alcohol/drug addiction
10% – nothing to talk about
9% – difficult relationship with step-children
9% – not contributing enough financially
8% – job that made things difficult
Recently someone dropped a comment on a newspaper discussion board comparing the relationship between divorce and marriage to that between funerals and death. The import was obvious – funerals do not cause deaths but inevitably take place following a death. As a prelude to the discussion on whether a referendum is eventually a “just” solution for our society or simply the mother of all scapegoats for the “sanscouillistas” in our parliament we can spend time discussing whether divorce is actually a cause of break ups or whether there is not enough on the list already. And I have not even included Tiger Woods.
The Church (in Malta) has spoken. Then again it has not. Seven men described by the Times as “high-profile” priests got together and fleshed out a declaration “about Conscience and Divorce”. The paper is described as follows by the Times:
The paper is a personal initiative of the priests even though some of them occupy prominent roles within the Church hierarchy. According to sources, the position paper has the tacit approval of the Archbishop who had mentioned the initiative during a meeting of the Diocesan Assembly.
So it is not exactly an official position of the Catholic Church – as, I must haste to add, neither was Said Pullicino’s Sunday Rant (although, one controversial element was its appearance on the website of the Archdiocese – giving it more than a look of tacit approval). In any case while the inner workings of the Church as to what constitutes approval or otherwise are not up to us to dicuss it would be sensible to have a clear cut statement at least confirming that whatever consitutes an authority in this corner of the world for the purposes of church business is in accord with the statement by the seven brothers in Christ.
The statement is a welcome contribution in the sense that it is a much less “fire and brimstone” approach to the social role of catholics in society. It must be handled in that manner. It is not blackmailing a catholic into submissive obedience but is reminding him his duty to use his conscience according to God’s word. The word “sin” is used once and qualified with “possibly” – a word denoting uncertainty. It’s not that simple though. For Catholics Divorce is not good – point 4 of the letter is as clear as crystal on that and I have absolutely no intention to argue with that because it is neither my business nor any other lay person’s. What this letter does contrary to Said Pullicino’s Sunday Rant is that it puts the catholic person’s decision in perspective of the society around him as well as making it clear how his conscience should deal with the issue.Incidentally the Times’ accompanying picture of the infamous billboard is not only misguiding but unfair towards the very efforts of the seven brothers to clear the air.
In a very Lutheran approach, the seven brothers ask the Catholic to look into his heart and use his own conscience at what he thinks is the best answer – as inspired by God and as they believe God’s will is for the common good. Man’s free will and choice based on informed reflection can lead him to any decision – he will have to face his own conscience when deciding if he chose based on good will, good intention and upon proper reflection. And that – may I remind you – is what applies to the practising Catholic.
Personally I have long reached the conclusion that were I a practising Catholic I would vote in favour of divorce legislation. As a practising catholic that would not mean that I am in favour of divorce or that I would use the option but that I am aware of my role in a wider society in which people with different faiths from my own are being discriminated against by this imposition of one faith’s precepts over another. On a social level the arguments for and against the evils of divorce might as well be the arguments for and against the evils of marriage. As a catholic living in a wider society that is not necessarily catholic I would feel safe in my conscience voting for the introduction of divorce legislation by way of my belief that I have a duty to contribute to the general well being of society as a whole. The possibility of divorce does not detract from that well being. In certain cases (though not all) it could even improve it. (An argument that applies for both marriage as contracted nowadays and divorce).
The seven brothers have introduced a new, important angle to the argument. They have, in a way, repaired the damage to the church’s image caused by Said Pullicino’s medieval stance. Their contribution should not only be noted by the greater society but should be used as an example. After all it is not just votes on the introduction of divorce that require greater reflection and an informed conscience.
***
Declaration about Conscience and Divorce
We, the undersigned, have all written about the introduction of divorce in Malta. Sometimes, we may have seemed to contradict each other. So we decided to meet and clarify together our ideas on conscience and divorce and on what stand Christians could take regarding the proposed legislation favouring the introduction of divorce.
We all agreed on the following points:
1. All citizens, Catholic or not, if asked to give their judgement whether they wish or not the introduction of such a law in favour of divorce have the right and duty to follow their own conscience which needs, however, to be well informed and well formed, keeping in mind the common good.
2. Catholics should strive to have a Christian outlook on the family and on marriage and, according to the teaching of Christ and the Church, witness to this in all circumstances and to strive to see it practised in all structures of society.
3. Both as citizens as well as Catholics they should work hard so that in their country there should be stable and lasting marriages, strong families bound by love and fidelity because this is of great benefit to society at large.
4. For us, Catholics, divorce is wrong whether it is permitted by civil law or not.
5. The decision of every Catholic concerning legislation in favour of divorce in order for it to be a good and responsible decision must be reached with a formed conscience and enlightened by the teaching of Christ who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life.”
6. The Catholic, who not caring about having an informed and formed conscience, decides to follow one’s whim, without seriously paying attention to the teaching of God’s Word and of the Church, but only follows one’s feelings, one’s own thoughts or personal advantage, if not also one’s prejudices, should realise that one is not doing one’s duty as a Catholic. One is responsible for such action before God and may possibly be sinning.
7. In order that as Catholics we reach a good moral judgement whether we want or do not want the introduction of divorce law we must in a responsible manner form our conscience and then decide according to this conscience.
Therefore, after trying seriously to form one’s conscience according to God’s Word and the teaching of the Church and trying sincerely to discover the whole truth and what really leads to the common good, a Catholic:
a) may either reach a right decision or may also in all sincerity reach a decision which, in itself, is mistaken. But whatever the case, one is always obliged to follow and decide according to one’s conscience,
b) may still, in spite of having all the necessary knowledge and having done everything to find the whole truth, in conscience not see why to vote against legislation favouring divorce. This one too has the right and the duty to follow what one’s conscience tells one.
c) may also see that in this matter one is faced by the choice between two situations which both in themselves are harmful to the common good. It is legitimate, in this case of conflict, for one to choose the lesser evil after prayer, reflection and sincere search for the whole truth.
8. This declaration should calm all those who are worried that among us there might be differences regarding the teaching of the Church. This declaration is meant to throw light on the moral responsibility of every Maltese regarding their conscience and regarding the common good of society when they have to take a position about a possible proposal to legalise divorce in our country.
Rev Prog Emmanuel Agius, Dean of the Faculty of Theology.
Fr Joe Borg
Fr Charlo’ Camilleri, O.Carm. Lecturer at the Faculty of Theology.
You know you’re growing old when you remember Governor Cuomo Snr. His son, Andrew M. Cuomo is running for Governor of New York on the democrat ticket. In an all-Italian (origin) showdown, Cuomo’s republican opponent is Carl P. Paladino – conservative to the bone and very proud of his Italian and catholic origins. The gubernatorial battle is turning out to be a curious export of the tensions in the old continent as Padalino’s conservatism is pitted against Cuomo’s more liberal (a European description) approach. Padalino is proud of the winks and smiles linked half-jokingly to the implications of having Italian ancestry in this part of the world while Cuomo is wary of the image of political Sopranos.
Back on the campaign trail Padalino’s no holds barred attitude could land him in trouble and yesterday’s speech to a gathering in Brooklyn was of the incendiary kind. Curiously Padalino’s message contained the dilemma that currently has no borders in the western world – from Belgrade, to Valletta to New York, the cohabitation of religious values and liberal rights are suffering the sort of tension that can best be described as dangerous. Here’s the New York Times reporting Paladino’s speech to Orthodox Jewish leaders:
The Republican candidate for governor, Carl P. Paladino, told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year. Addressing Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mr. Paladino described his opposition to same-sex marriage.
“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,” he said, reading from a prepared address, according to a video of the event.
And then, to applause at Congregation Shaarei Chaim, he said: “I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did, and that’s not the example we should be showing our children.” Newsday.com reported that Mr. Paladino’s prepared text had included the sentence: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.” But Mr. Paladino omitted the sentence in his speech.
An hour after the speech, Cuomo’s team denounced the statement as being “stunningly homophobic” and that it was a glaring disregard for basic equality. Paladino’s campaign manager duly responded by denying assertions that Mr. Paladino was antigay, and noted that Paladino employed a gay man on his campaign staff. (Isn’t that charitable of him?)
“Carl Paladino is simply expressing the views that he holds in his heart as a Catholic,” Mr. Caputo said in a telephone interview. “Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church.”
I’m beginning to think that the problem is not the catholic church (or God) in whose name these obscenities are regularly perpetrated. It’s ignorance. How, for one minute Paladino could believe that the phrase “dysfunctional homosexual” could be seen as anything but a homophobic statement is beyond my ken. His taking refuge behind the hazy notion of “the Catholic Church” to justify his attempt at fuelling the conservative vote is pitiful and – here’s the word again – medieval. Caputo (Paladino’s campaign manager) worryingly appended the following sentence to his justifications: “the majority of New Yorkers agree with him” while adding that the campaign had done its own polling. That’s ok then is it? I mean this is not San Francisco but hey, waddayaknow?
While Andrew Cuomo polled voters to get an insight on how far the Iti-Mafia-Pizza stereotype is stuck in the New Yorker mentality (and this with the aim of getting rid of it), Paladino was busy checking whether New York really likes its poofs. It’s his Catholic duty (God bless his soul) and he told the Orthodox Jews that he is on their same wavelength (for heaven’s sake) – he’d never march in a gay pride event and he criticised Andrew Cuomo for doing so.
If that’s what a Catholic Heart can contribute to a community then bring on the infidels…..
“Homosexuality is contrary to religion and family values” according to the Serbian Right-Wing groups who attacked the Gay Pride march in central Belgrade earlier today. The Serbian Orthodox Church which stands for what the majority of what counts for religion in the area had condemned the organisation of the Gay Pride march although, to be fair, it had warned against violence against participants. The Gay Pride march had already been called off last year due to the threat of violence. Several hundred anti-gay protesters were quoted as saying “The hunt has begun. Death to homosexuals”.
“It is a shame for me to march, to stand for what I am, and to have thousands of cops protect me from hysteric [sic] nationalists,” lesbian activist Milena, 36, told Reuters. The BBC’s Mark Lowen says homosexuality is still largely a taboo in Serbia, a conservative and religious nation.
You’ve got to hand it to them. When religion and family values get down to work it turns out to be one hell of a party.
I read through Mgr Said Pullicino’s fire and brimstone sermon before the assembled judiciary and other representatives of the legal profession with the patience of a Job tried and tested. Earlier in the day I had published my initial reaction on the blog and for the benefit of those who are lucky enough not to yet have the words reverberating in their ears, I shall translate what LorSignor Said Pullicino (Their Sir – definitely not mine) said:
“Before such a clear doctrine of its Teacher (aka Jesus of Nazareth) the Church has nothing to discuss about divorce and the introduction thereof. She (the Church) must limit herself to teaching that whosoever cooperates in any way with the introduction of divorce into the laws of Malta, whosoever applies the law of divorce and whosoever makes recourse to such a law (not being the innocent party), is breaking the Law of God and therefore will be committing a grave sin (ghalhekk ikun qed jidneb b’mod gravi).”
My initial reaction was simple: The Church, being a private institution (even though we are press-ganged into its membership at a moment in life when we cannot raise much objections), is within its rights to determine the parameters of what constitute bonus points towards an eternity of roasting in hell in the egregious company of infidels. True. There are no two ways to go about that. This is no democracy – it is a Universal Catholic Top Heavy Illumination claiming that its dogmas and precepts are inspired by the Old Man in the Sky. Since the witch doctors, druids and augurers of the past, this has been an absolute unqualified condition of religious authority and it is not up to mere mortals to contradict that.
I bow my head low (as low as is politely possible) to such authority over their flock of fervent followers as I would bow my head to the authority of whatever religious leader has over his particular flock. When Said Pullicino does his pick’n’mix selection of biblical tracts and papal encyclicals in order to substantiate the conclusion that the Catholic Church reaches in this particular corner of the world, I cannot be bothered to cross-refer him to other similar collective quotations used by other denominations to reach dramatically different conclusions since I already know the retort that lies in such a battleground, and it involves diabolical citation of scriptural writings.
The Books of Our Judges
Sure. We cannot interfere in Said Pullicino’s expounding of Catholic dogma – nor can we question his absolute statement, which rules out any form of discussion with the Catholic Church on divorce. It’s their problem. “Their” being Catholics. The problem is that gathered before Said Pullicino was no ordinary flock but the representatives of our legal community (oops I almost said brotherhood) gearing up for the opening of another Forensic Year. I am told that such gathering is by invitation and does not form part of the official events of the legal fraternity so presence at such a gathering was optional.
Having said that, I do find it jarring that a symbol of the wisdom of the secular state and a group of people representing one of the main institutions that guarantee the balance of power in the land gather so forcefully before a particular confession to the point that the speaker from the pulpit could claim that “The tradition in the Church that at the beginning of the judicial year, the Judges and the Administrators come to the Altar to request the help of God, the Holy Spirit, in order that he can help them in their ministry (his words not mine) of administration of justice began in the Middle Ages”. So that’s it then? They gather for the sake of perpetuating tradition, right?
The eminent LorSignor goes on to expound the principle of illuminated decision implying that secular law is really an expression of Natural Law (the Law of God expressed by man in recognition of His Justice) and that such service as is given by administrators of justice is in order to put into effect this natural law for the COMMON GOOD. What follows is a rambling about no man being an island and then a warning of the dangers of a secular society. The cheek. The absolute gall. He WAS speaking to representatives of the state with a duty to apply the laws of that secular state when sitting at the bench.
LorSignor went on to attack the consequences of certain “secularisation” and lists the offending laws with the usual confusion of evils (divorce, abortion, homosexuals) that benefits those who have already ruled out any discussion on any one of them. Which is why he concludes the first part of the Sermon and the Rant with the unequivocal condemnation of collaborators with an eventual law on divorce to the status of “committers of grave sins”. Speaking to an assembled congregation of servants of the Constitution, he actively urges them to break the law by not performing their duty before the law.
And my reaction to that was simply: resign. Not Said Pullicino, but the judges called upon to refuse to administer the law of the land. Should they decide to do so then their position is untenable. We cannot have “conscientious objectors” sitting on our benches in court. We cannot have servants of the law subjecting their discretion to their moral values. Should a judge decide that Said Pullicino’s brand of Catholicism is also his then he is free to do. What he is not free to do is to usurp the workings of a secular state with the morals of a Church that dwells in Middle Age traditions.
The Satanic Versions
What Said Pullicino fails to notice is that having judges sitting on secular courts but applying religious principles above secular law is equivalent to the final admission that this state of ours has succumbed to the Catholic Version of Sharia Law. Which is worrying. Because what will stop Said Pullicino from reviving Mosaic Law in his next Medieval Traditional Sermon next year? And what will he stop at exactly? Given the propensity to confuse adultery with divorce, and given the willingness to throw divorce, homosexual marriage and abortion in the same basket, what will stop LorSignor reminding next years’ legal beavers listening in to his rant that Leviticus 18:22 was confirmed by Paul the Tourist in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28?
What was that about? I’ll tell you what that was about. Here’s Leviticus: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” And here’s Corinthians: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” What guarantee does Said Pullicino give the secular members of this state that homosexuality will not become his next pet inspiration and anathema? And if it will not? Why not?
strong>To’ebah (abomination)
All is not lost though and it is important to keep matters in perspective. Others have begun to react to this Medieval Speech – Here’s what just-retired Judge Philip Sciberras had to say: “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.” Michael Falzon (of the Constructor’s Association) pointed out the apparent contradictions in Roman Catholic practices in his blog on MaltaToday (“The Tribe that lost its head”, Friday 8 October) and I.M. Beck also had something to say as to the insensitivity of some arguments.
The truth of the matter is that much as we might find it interesting to try to “convince” the Church and its flock of the politically and democratically heretic nature of this latest intervention, we might as well be arguing with a gagged, blindfolded and deaf monkey. Said Pullicino told us that clearly: “the Church has nothing to discuss”. And so be it. In doing so the Church (in the guise of Said Pullicino) is also abdicating its tradition of social contribution that started in the early 1800s.
I count myself among those who argue in favour of a social role of the Church in discussions about family, social cohesion and solidarity. What I refuse to consider is the Church of indulgences, fire and brimstone, mortal sin and whatever other superstition it chooses to revive. By shifting the argument from social participation as a peer with valid experience in society to the field of supernatural abomination and fear, the Church does not only not wish to discuss but it also finds itself in a position when it stops being anybody with whom it is worth discussing. The Church has abused the supernatural before to meddle with the secular – remember the abuse of the Fear of Mortal Sin in the 60s when reading a newspaper could win you a timeshare in hell?
Kill your idols
This is a secular society at the start of the 21st century. We are proud members of a wider community that recognises basic fundamental rights as being the foundation of harmonious living in which society strives towards a common good. These include respect for the dignity of man, the right to life, the right to integrity of the person, the right to private life and to a family and the right to marriage and the founding of a family. This society believes in freedom of thought, conscience and religion and believes that we are all equal before the law, which is why it is founded on the principles of non-discrimination and recognises cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
This society has enshrined such principles as solidarity, equality and justice in its basic tenets and now, thanks to the Charter on Fundamental Rights within the European Union, we have added an extra cushion and guarantee to these rights and principles. The preamble to the Charter states that: “Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.” The ultimate aim is a future of peace based on common values.
Given the choice between the comfort of secular law inspired by the common fundamental values of mankind and the volatile superstitions of the Catholic imposition I know where my heart lies. What I do find disappointing is the abdication of responsibilities by the majority of our political leaders. It is evident that they are biding their time – unable to really fathom which way the wind is going to blow in the end. They have been dealt quite a blow by Said Pullicino since any MP voting for the law will surely be branded a “co-operator” and public sinner – so a huge big up (well done) to Pullicino Orlando for continuing his crusade. It is not a sinful crusade. It is a crusade to grant a civil right and possibility to numerous individuals who would love a second, civil chance at marriage. No amount of Taliban-like rhetoric should prevent that right from being enacted at law and applied in the courts of our land.
Pauline Privilege
I had not heard of the Pauline Privilege until the whole ruckus began. Look it up – it is an interesting, exceptional circumstance that relates to ‘pagans’ (who incidentally don’t only live in the African bush). It is an interpretation of another of Paul the Tourist’s letters (1 Corinthians 7:10-15) and is interpreted “as allowing the dissolution of a marriage contracted between two non-baptized persons in the case that one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and converts to Christianity and the other partner leaves the marriage”. In that case the Church is perfectly happy to recognise the divorce for the sake of greater proselytising.
Pauline Privilege or no Pauline Privilege, we are not meant to be discussing the contradictions of the Church. The issue at stake is the secular laws and their application. There is no doubt that Said Pullicino’s faux pas has not contributed in any good way to the issue of the introduction of divorce. When I say faux pas I repeat that this is not in any way a judgement on the beliefs and interpretations of the religious institution but on its evident intent of holding the servants of the state in a moral blackmail and preventing them from performing their duty.
It is in that sense that we risk being damned as a nation. Condemned to the damnation of the imposition of the beliefs and values of the few over the laws for and by the many. It is, in its own way, another watershed in the defining of this young nation of ours.
www.akkuza.com is recovering from a savage bout of the common cold and flu.
In his latest installation on J’accuse, late night commentator David Borg tells us that “There are many serious ethical issues regarding in vitro fertilization which you conveniently failed to mention such as the freezing and destruction of human embryos. Besides there are studies showing that IVF births have a higher rate of birth defects.” Never missing a beat when it comes to marching in step with the latest Vatican diktat Borg is keen to tell us what J’accuse “conveniently failed to mention” while referring shadily to mysterious, unquoted “studies” showing higher rates of birth defects.
What this champion of vatican contradictions fails to point out is that this is another of the blind alleys up which the Vatican has walked in the same vein as the infamous “condoms are bad for thee” saga in Africa – I’m sure that there are studies that point that the Vatican is indirectly responsible for millions of deaths with this indoctrination. In any case the scientific miracle (oh the provocative oxymoron) of IVF might be guilty of being too close to nature. It is in fact not just man with his IVF dabbling that risks losing a fertilized egg or two in order to increase the chances of an unhappy, barren couple to become pregnant with child. Mother nature also has the “unnatural” habit of creating and fertilizing more eggs than become babies. Funny how the Vatican hath not declared mother nature an anathema – or God himself for having allowed such an abomination to happen.
Abraham, Sarai and Hagar the IVF Handmaiden
The insipid ease with which such men as David rush to judgement over a system such as conception by IVF is what I found most unnatural and revolting. Since the god in which they seem to believe is not as interventionist as in days past – when he toyed with the couple Abraham and Sarah endlessly (not to mention all the wombs in Abimelech’s household – Genesis 20:18), today’s couples do not resort to Hagar the handmaiden for the joy of procreation but have Professor Edwards (Nobel Prize Winner for Medicine, 2010) to thank for the greater possibility of having their own offspring.
Here’s the Times (UK) editorial on the same point:
Professor Edwards’s work has its critics. The Roman Catholic Church opposes some IVF, on the ground that it can involve the destruction of embryos. And it is beyond argument that this is what happens: fertility clinics generally fertilise many eggs, and often implant two, to maximise the chance that one will survive. The remaining tiny embryos are then frozen or discarded.
But there is nothing anti-life in IVF: the embryos are created to produce babies and allow the chance of parenthood to couples who want a child of their own. Nature itself creates and fertilises many more eggs than become babies.
The embryonic cell can also be taken apart, at an early stage, to yield stem cells. Research using stem cells offers the promise of finding a cure for debilitating conditions such as Parkinson’s disease.
