.png)
.jpg)
.png)
Christ? He accepted divorce from adulterers – Mario Azzopardi
‘Divorce referendum debate degenerating into crusade of usual cliches, sin, God’s voice inside the voting booth and celestial voices of warning.’
15 May 2011, 12:00am
Julia Farrugia
Julia Farrugia
2 min read
Poet, playwright and novelist Mario Azzopardi is calling for a faithful interpretation of evangelical scripture on the matter of divorce, which he says is turning the debate in the run-up to the 28 May referendum into a “crusade of clichés, sin, and celestial voices warning against divorce.”
“The anti-divorcists are only quoting half of what has been said,” Azzopardi, whose had his own marriage annulled by the Church, said.
“It’s not true Christ was against every type of divorce. The Pharisees tried involving him in a legal dispute between the religious school of the House of Hillel – which accepted divorce for various reasons – and the school of Shammai, which held that a man may only divorce his wife for a serious transgression, such as adultery or fornication.”
The House of Hillel also allowed divorce for even trivial offenses, such as burning a meal.
“It is clear that Christ took the Shammai’s position of divorce in the case of adultery, as read in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Those who don’t quote the gospel faithfully are misleading the public or buying into their religious ignorance as faithful,” Azzopardi said.
Jesus’ stand on divorce is often quoted in Mark 10:11, where he answers that “anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”
But in opposition, it seems, Matthew 19:9 quotes Jesus saying “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
“It’s clear this famous exception is not being quoted,” Azzopardi told sister newspaper Illum. “It’s an authentic exception, a classic exception that everyone in Malta is keeping under wraps. I know Fr Mark Montebello had first mentioned it, and then he must have been silenced. But even when the anti-divorcists built their campaign on a religious element, with Christ’s face looming from the billboards, the pro divorce lobby was silent on this.”
Agreeing with Azzopardi, Giuseppe Schembri Bonaci, lecturer in art at the University of Malta, jokes about the pro divorce lobby being in the hands of the anti-divorce lobby.
“I agree that a religious tactic is essential, but it must not defeat the civil aspect of the argument, namely less interference in people’s personal lives, not being subject to religious values in a secular state, that the state must care for every citizen, that nobody takes legal action against priests that breach criminal law when using religion for electoral purposes, or the Church’s unconstitutional ban on lawyers practising in their tribunals, the Pauline privilege to accept divorce where the Church sees fit.”
Julia Farrugia is a former editor of Illum newspaper.
•
THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT DIVORCE TO BE INTRODUCED IN MALTA SHOULD GO AND VOTE "NO" ON THE 28th MAY 2011.
Those who abstain may be giving a blank cheque to the Pro Divorcists.
•
Hi Mario,
Jien ukoll xtaqt nghidlek li nahseb li l-informazzjoni li tajt ma hiex korretta sa barra. Infatti hallejt hafna affarijiet importanti.
Filwaqt illi inti persuna kolta hafna f'dik li hi kultura, nahseb illi dwar l-interpretazzjoni tal-Iskrittura jehtieg li thalli lill-Knisja Kattolika tfhemek dan.
Fil-fatt, @Kmagooo3 tkellem sewwa.
Mario, nerggha ntenni li din tehodiex bhala offiza izda mument ta' riflessjoni specjalment jekk inti thaddan il-fidi Kattolika.
•
Mr Mario Azzopardi,
nahseb inti qed taqra Bibbja Protestanta (most probably xi NIV) il ghaliex din il frazi giet imbidla mil protestanti meta grat il firda bejn il katolicizmu u il protestanti. Bil grieg din il kelma hija Pornea li tigi tfisser al zwieg hazin meta jkun xi incest etc.
•
Tiskanta kif f'daqqa waħda kulħadd jaf jinterpreta l-Bibbja. Jekk l-istess kwotazzjoni taqrawha fil-Bibbja Saydon il-kliem li jintuża hija 'rabta ħażina' u mhux infedelta'.
Minkejja li hemm ħafna dubji dwar x'inhi t-tifsira eżatt tal-kelma oriġinali 'pornea', l-isutdjużi tal-Bibbja dejjem interpretawha li pornea tfisser każ fejn ikun hemm xi ħaġa li tagħmel iż-żwieġ invalidu (għalhekk Saydon juża 'rabta ħażina'.
•
@trollface--
IF he ever existed in the first place. There is no evidence to that effect, whatsoever. Just a gathering of made up stories. Gilgamesh, Norse, Roman, Greek, Christian, Jewish and Muslim mythologies just the same. They are all nothing more than collections of fables.
•
one good and one good is double good; one bad and one bad is double bad.
The referendum is a civil law that if we need and if it is for the common godd let us have it like so many other laws otherwise we trash it from inception by voting no.
Why vote no:
referendum is not the right path of this law;
in my opinion the few that will benefit will be outweighed by those that are affected badly;
for those that want divorce there are options without the need to add this one.
John Mifsud •
@ Mike Litoris
Tell us, Mike, I'm eager to hear.
•
My comment should read
The proposed law is a civil law and is NOT about changing religious Catholic dogma.
This changes the meaning completely. Sorry for the error.
•
@ falke
Yeah, right. Get your 'objective opinions' from someone who claims to have followed 'god's voice' by shunning marriage, proclaim to embrace celibacy and take up residence with a bunch of guys.
You too are a good example. Guess of what.
•
Pity that the question of divorce has been transformed into a theological discussion. The proposed law is a civil law and is about changing religious of Catholic dogma.
It is ridiculous to have to conduct a discussion based on what someone heard someone else say in a language that no longer exists, who wrote it down years after the event in another language and which text has reached us after several translations of other translations. Remember the English that is quoted here as gospel truth did not exist two thousand years ago. Even the Bible's in English we have now do not have the same language.
Why didn't Christ speak in plain syntax to avoid any confusion two thousand years later in the tiny island of Malta.
•
@ all Maltese Saints. Fejn trid il-Knisja ssib privilegg biex tissolvi zwieg - mhux tannulla imma tissolvi fi kliem iehor Divorzju bil-barka tal-knisja.
The Pauline Privilege
Some have called the Pauline Privilege a “Catholic divorce.” A Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural (not sacramental) marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian.
The Pauline Privilege is based upon St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians,
“To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him…But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case, the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.”
A marriage between two unbaptized persons is not a sacramental marriage. St. Paul’s inspired words in I Corinthians tell us that when one of the married persons has been baptized into the Catholic faith and the other remains an unbeliever, unwilling to live in peace with the believer, then the believer is not bound by the marriage. While Paul does not say specifically that the marriage is dissolved, the Church takes it to mean so, or the believer would not be free to remarry and the words would not contain the full truth. We know that St. Paul was divinely inspired to write those words, and therefore they do contain the full truth. The Church has then determined exactly how and under what conditions the “Pauline Privilege” may be exercised. According to the Church’s interpretation, the dissolution of a marriage that was contracted before the conversion and baptism of one of the parties does not take place upon mere separation of the parties, but only when a new marriage was entered into by the believer invoking this privilege.
The Petrine Privilege
The Pauline Privilege does not apply when a Christian has married a non-Christian. In those cases, a natural marriage exists and can be dissolved for a just cause, but by what is called the Petrine Privilege rather than by the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is so-named because it is reserved to the Holy See, so only Rome can grant the Petrine Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is rarely approved. It is the dissolution of a valid, but non-sacramental, natural bond of marriage by the Holy See in certain, specified cases. The determination is based on case-specific facts and circumstances, and is not often used.
A biblical precedent for the Petrine Privilege, where some of the faithful marry unbelievers and then are permitted to divorce them, is found in the book of Ezra where the Jews put away their foreign (pagan) wives.
Il-knisja tas-silenzju u inkwizizzjoni ghalqed halq hafna qassisin, Kristu m'ghalaq halq hadd
Tal LE in neggattivi kif ma jghidulna xejn dwar dawn jaqaw din il-parti tal-bibbja kielitielhom il-kamla?
U l-iehor ta' Kristu iva divorzju le kollu xeni u bibbji b'idu qatt ma qrahom dawn jew dak li mas joghgbux iqattghu. Nahseb ahjar tmur tkompli tirreklami l-inbid fuq it-tv.
•
Who cares about Jesus. He got killed yeeeeaaaars ago.
John Mifsud •
I believe that Mario Azzopardi is at least twice-divorced himself.....hardly in a position to give objective opinions on the subject.
In fact, he is a good example of what is wrong with divorce.
•
As I have already said here on 28 January :
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/anti-divorce-movement-drowns-debate-in-sea-of-statistics-and-religion
there is a whole chapter on DIVORCE in the Bible and there is a specific reference in which Jesus accepted divorce in unfaithful relationships.
.
I know this refers to church marriages and the upcoming referendum relates to civic marriages.
BUT the strongest point is that while in the time of Moses, 3400 years ago DIVORCE was already accepted, and Jesus allowed DIVORCE 2000 years ago, a large part of the Maltese electorate are still refusing to accept these facts, notwithstanding the huge changes in life and the endless pressures a family today faces in relation to that faced 2000 or 3400 years ago!
.
P.S. The bible specifically mentions DIVORCE, not separation, annulment or whatever.
•
The translation adoptd by the the author is the more liberal form.
The word for "adultery" is moikia. Pornia is always translated fornication
Christ used the word Pornia which means illicit marriage or a marriage that was incestful.
For years the liberal translation has been thrown about and it seems the author is continuing the myth to confuse Catholics.
Peopel should choose to divorce if they donot follow the Catholic religion.
To them, divorce is perfectly acceptable but we must not confuse people to get our divorce. This will come back to haunt us.
•
Jien miniex religjuz, imma naf x'hemm miktub.
Dik ilni nghidha zmien jiena, u llni nafha min mindu kont zghir.
Niddubita kemm hawn min ghandhu jew qrahha l-bibbja.
Forsi jafhu min dak li jisimaw , mhux jaqraw huma stess :)
