FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: "Divorce will not mean ruin of marriages"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Mgr Charles Vella says legislation to introduce divorce in Malta would not mean it would ruin marriages.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, the 81-year-old monsignor says divorce does not scare him:

"My theory is that while divorce from the Catholic viewpoint is considered a menace to the stability of marriage it does not mean that it's going to wreck marriages."

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vie...nt-founder

Shrug
Legalizing the divorce will not ruin no marriage in itself. God created as free man and women, an he want us to live in free world, having choices.

The other end is, that we pray constantly: " And lead us not into temptation" and the legalized divorce is a temptation in itself, without that it is easier to survive the crisis in the marriage

(08-16-2009, 04:48 AM)Melita Wrote: [ -> ]Mgr Charles Vella says legislation to introduce divorce in Malta would not mean it would ruin marriages.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, the 81-year-old monsignor says divorce does not scare him:

"My theory is that while divorce from the Catholic viewpoint is considered a menace to the stability of marriage it does not mean that it's going to wreck marriages."

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vie...nt-founder

Shrug
(08-16-2009, 07:20 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]Legalizing the divorce will not ruin no marriage in itself. God created as free man and women, an he want us to live in free world, having choices.

The other end is, that we pray constantly: " And lead us not into temptation" and the legalized divorce is a temptation in itself, without that it is easier to survive the crisis in the marriage

That's very true. Look at how the number of divorces skyrocketed when no-fault divorces came into being. Used to be, you had to sue for divorce, and show just cause. I can think of no other contract that can be broken so easily. 
(08-16-2009, 04:48 AM)Melita Wrote: [ -> ]Mgr Charles Vella says legislation to introduce divorce in Malta would not mean it would ruin marriages.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, the 81-year-old monsignor says divorce does not scare him:

"My theory is that while divorce from the Catholic viewpoint is considered a menace to the stability of marriage it does not mean that it's going to wreck marriages."

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vie...nt-founder

Shrug

Just when I was packing my bags to move there...  sad

Wink

Anyway, having divorce laws, especially if they make it relatively easy to get divorced, could be a big temptation to currently-troubled married couples in Malta. I think the legislation could make divorce the easy way out, and so couples might turn to that as a first option, rather than making a great effort to make their marriage work (although I'm sure most couples make some attempt before getting divorced, but I wonder how hard they try when there's an easy way out in the distance).

SoCalLocal,
Good points.
It's steady decay, ruination, and deterioration in marriage: it's happened elsewhere in Europe and in the United States; the poor monsignor [God help him] is extremely naive, if he thinks that divorce wouldn't be severely bad for Malta.  Holy Saviour Christ Jesus save Malta from such an inglorious and horrible fate! Pray
I find this passage from Thomas Fleming's article on Christian marriage very illuminating.

Real-life situations are rarely as simple as the examples in a religious marriage manual or as insoluble as the cases described in counseling texts, but if the primary objects of marriage are kept in mind, it should not be impossible for moral individuals to reach decisions that make the best of an admittedly bad situation.  The universal primary object of marriage is children, and other important objects include companionship, the avoidance of promiscuity, and the social stability that is promoted by the unification of two families.  (The last two objects are of comparatively little account in contemporary society.) None of these purposes of marriage can be fulfilled except by a couple that intends to enter into a permanent union.  The very expectation of permanence is self-fulfilling.  While a skeptical critic of the institution compared marriage without divorce to a galley slave in which partners chained to the same oar are forced to get along with each other,

“Send me to the galleys and chain me to the felon whose number happens to be next before mine; and I must accept the inevitable and make the best of the companionship. Many such companionships, they tell me, are touchingly affectionate; and most are at least tolerably friendly. But that does not make a chain a desirable ornament nor the galleys an abode of bliss. Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose, the whole social fabric would fly asunder. You cannot have the argument both ways. If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?”

As a naïve believer in progress, George Bernard Shaw naturally thought that men and women would find some less restrictive means of producing and rearing children, but, like most advocates of liberal marriage,  he failed to grasp the essential point that no cooperative relationship is possible if either party is free to dissolve the partnership at a moment’s notice.

That is the conclusion reached by George Axelrod in The Evolution of Cooperation.  Axelrod’s theory is derived from his study of the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” game.  The question he posed was which strategy, overall and in the long run, would work best in a series of choices confronting two imaginary prisoners being interrogated: Should one “cooperate” with one’s fellow prisoner by saying nothing or should one “defect.”  (The rules are actually a good deal more complicated).  Axelrod concluded that while more aggressive and dishonest strategies could succeed in the short run, ultimately the best strategy was TIT FOR TAT: Begin by cooperating and then repeat the other player’s last move.  If he cooperates, then cooperate.  If he defects, you defect.

In addition to various restrictions and stipulations, Axelrod insists upon one caveat:  The principle of cooperation only works if both parties expect to continue playing the game.  Otherwise, the incentive to defect becomes too great.  Axelrod applies his theory very narrowly to divorce proceedings by suggesting that cooperation between divorced parents can be enhanced if the custodial parent is given the power to withhold visitation rights from former spouses default on child support.  There is obviously a much broader application.  If husband and wife believe there is virtually no escape from marriage, they will not be so easily tempted into quarrels and infidelities.


http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index....-harem-ii/
Quote:Mgr Charles Vella says...
"My theory is that while divorce from the Catholic viewpoint is considered a menace to the stability of marriage it does not mean that it's going to wreck marriages."


This guy's an puckered rectum.
Thos. Flemming puts Shaw in his place.  He probably knows about Shaw's mommy issues.
(08-16-2009, 04:48 AM)Melita Wrote: [ -> ]Mgr Charles Vella says legislation to introduce divorce in Malta would not mean it would ruin marriages.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, the 81-year-old monsignor says divorce does not scare him:

"My theory is that while divorce from the Catholic viewpoint is considered a menace to the stability of marriage it does not mean that it's going to wreck marriages."

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vie...nt-founder

Shrug
Ha!  Just wait and see. It's the proverbial foot in the door.  >sad
(08-16-2009, 07:20 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]Legalizing the divorce will not ruin no marriage in itself. God created as free man and women, an he want us to live in free world, having choices.

The other end is, that we pray constantly: " And lead us not into temptation" and the legalized divorce is a temptation in itself, without that it is easier to survive the crisis in the marriage

(08-16-2009, 04:48 AM)Melita Wrote: [ -> ]Mgr Charles Vella says legislation to introduce divorce in Malta would not mean it would ruin marriages.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, the 81-year-old monsignor says divorce does not scare him:

"My theory is that while divorce from the Catholic viewpoint is considered a menace to the stability of marriage it does not mean that it's going to wreck marriages."

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vie...nt-founder

Shrug
Legalising divorce is like legalising child abuse.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5