Civil court should get defender of marriage

Raymond Cachia

Jul 19th 2009, 18:10

Mgr. Gouder, how come in most countries, even those with a large majority of Roman Catholic like the USA, people can still get married in the Catholic Church and when their marriage break down, they petition the secular courts and obtain their divorce?

The Roman Catholic church has no problem with this situation and only a very small portion go further and obtain a Church annulment, which the Church in the US will not even consider unless a DIVORCE has been obtained beforehand. What is more, these people continue to go to Mass and to confession.

Please explain this dichotomy.

Steve Pace

Jul 19th 2009, 13:02

It is very clear to me that most people who comment are completely unaware of all the hardship that people go through when a marriage breaks down. The church has the duty to guide the practicing Catholics and guide them to show them the rules of the 'club' . A very dangerous fundamentalist imposition of the church on the state is a real threat . Maybe Fr Gouder should realize that the State and Government represent everyone , church goers and not . The church's role is a different one. The church has every right not to accept divorce, but it has no right to try to impose its rules on the rest of the nation . Saying that the church understands and is close to these people is being contradicted every time an article like this is published

Sarah Attard

Jul 19th 2009, 12:09

I have a mixed opinion on divorce, as do many others - on the one hand, I believe that many couples will see it as an easy way out instead of working on the marriage (thus having families break down). On the other hand, one cannot deny that some genuine cases for divorce do exist.

That being said, I fail to see how a third person could defend the marriage in proceedings. Surely the only two people who really and truly know the marriage are those who were actually in it??

v mercieca

Jul 19th 2009, 08:52

Divorce is the easy way out of a promise “till death do us part”

Instead of trying to undo a marriage, why don’t we go back to basics?

Good preparation before marriage to make sure the partner is the right one. Need for better communication between couples. Need to give and take in an argument – no one is 100% wrong and no one is 100% correct.

Also one other thing that is much lacking today is – prayer.

The family that prays together stays together

Josianne Spiteri

Jul 19th 2009, 01:18

If divorce is introduced noone is forced to make recur to it.If someone does not want to divorce,he can stay married,happy not happy,his choice.Noone will force them to divorce.But without introducing divorce they are forcing us not to use it.What right does anyone have to force someone to stay legally married while physically their marriage does not exist anymore.

The same old dictatorship from the last dictator country in west Europe - The Vatican!

martin buttigieg

Jul 18th 2009, 22:24

So the best thing is to coabitate and not get married, may God bless those christians who have marriage problems because they cannot find support.

D. Doublesin

Jul 18th 2009, 21:42

@Ramon Casha

Telling the Church to shut up is not freedom of expression but sheer intolerance. You can argue as much as you like but you have NO RIGHT to tell it/anyone to shut up because you disagree.

Ramon Casha

Jul 18th 2009, 18:08

@James De Giorgio: "But don't tell it to shut up. You have no right."

I agree that the church has the right to speak its mind, but the rest of us equally have the right to tell it to shut up (not force it to, but to tell it to). That's part of freedom of expression too.

Divorce IS the best solution when the only thing remaining of a marriage is a certificate in a dusty ledger somewhere.

Michael Grech

Jul 18th 2009, 18:04

'The civil courts should adopt the Church tribunal's concept of having a third person defending the marriage itself when treating annulment cases, according to Pro Vicar General Mgr Anton Gouder' What's next, re-institute the Holy Inquisition?

claire farrugia

Jul 18th 2009, 17:20

@james deGiorgio
I am not implying the church should not give its opinion. Of course everyone has a right to give his opinion. I meant interfere with what the civil court does, which is something else than giving its opinion. The fact is that the civil court does not interfere with the tribunal court. Does the government tell the church what it should decide or not decide in the tribunal court?? The same should imply for the Church. We are a secular state and we have to prove it. I think a referendum is needed to decide on this issue. After all it is the right of every European to be able to remarry (in a civil court) if his first marriage did not work. Sometimes it is not even his fault, maybe the partner left him or was violent, why should he have to suffer the consequences all his life?

Emma Xerri

Jul 18th 2009, 16:56

@Charles Grixti

Of course they would not dare suggest this in any other country but Malta!

If they tried that in Italy for example, only sixty miles away, the people would be up in arms against the Church and the Secular Italian State would tell the Church to mind it's own business. Only the elected repesentative of the people have the mandate to legislate for the citizens and not some third party like the Vatican State.

But here, the Church can get away with anything. Either the Maltese are gullible or brainwashed at a very early age to equate anything that the Church proposed as being ipso facto good for them and society. The Church uses the same tactics in predominantly Catholic, third world countries such as is found in South America were most of the population is very religious and uneducated.

As you can see, the Church is not so "Universal"after all but adjust itself and what it can get away with according to the country it is in.

jane ca milleri haber

Jul 18th 2009, 15:47

when people cannot sustain a married relationship anymore, it is not Marriage that has failed but the individuals who have failed it. divorce is the assumption that Marriage fails and it can therefore be contracted a second, third and fourth time expecting it to continue failing..........Marriage does not fail, it is people who fail it. therefore I suggest that we leave Marriage as it is( to reflect its reality ; basically that it is 'till death do us part') and those who have reached a point of no return in their relationship to start off a new relationship if they so wish, ( obviously breaching their religious beliefs ) and contract a legal contract to protect their assets and regulate according to law their choices should one of them die. in this way everybody lives according to his own choice without necessitating the breakdown of the concept of eternity for Marriage as an institution. this will protect society from sinking into a situation where Marriage is not perceived as a bond anymore where ' two become one' but simply an aggregation which can easily be separated into its individual constituents at the sign of a pen.

John Azzopardi

Jul 18th 2009, 15:44

People who fall out of love in a marriage deserve to be granted a divorce. What the monsignors are not realizing is that couple who remain in a marraige of conveniece end up fighing all the time in front of their children which then triggers a domino effect - that is the children repeat their parents mistakes. As individuals in a western socieity, people shoujld have a right to choose whether they want a divorce or not. This is not a church issue. The church should be teaching the value of families being together as well as what love is all about. the maltese are already way ahead and no one today stays in a marraige they do not want to be in. What ends up happening in the end is people cohabitating and having other children. Then we have those children who represent a large number of children today in both Malta and Gozo being in households where their parents are not married. This then have another impact on those children. What a big mess Malta is in. And it's only an island nation of 400000. Let's get real once on this issue and individuals the right to choose

James De Giorgio

Jul 18th 2009, 15:39

I disagree with Claire Farrugia. The Church has every right to voice its opinion and call on the government and society at large.

Claire Farrugia, myself and everyone else in this country also have this right. So why would Ms Farrugia deny the Church its democratic right to freedom of expression?

If you don't agree with the Church, say so. But don't tell it to shut up. You have no right.

Divorce is not the best solution. A good Marriage is the union of two forgiving persons.

Joe Tabone-Adami

Jul 18th 2009, 15:28

As should always be done when dealing with social issues such as marriage, one has to study what experts in their respective field have to contribute on the subject. A 31-page report jointly compiled by the Diocesan Family Commission, Caritas, and Cana Movement cannot, by its very nature, be compressed into a single write-up by a newspaper reporter - however hard he might try to be comprehensive. Incidentally, it does not appear that the three Bodies who studied the matter have ventured to pronounce themselves on such far-apart subjects as Climate Change, Energy and Illegal Immigration, besides marriage - as other 'experts' have done recently!!

Charles Grixti

Jul 18th 2009, 15:13

A defender of Marriage!

What an insult to humanity and more especially the people of Malta.

A marriage is not some entity - it is two people who chose to live as a married couple. Once that breaks down, their is no marriage.

What absurditiy coming from the Church! Here is an prime example of the Church again trying to impose its cannonical laws on a Secular State. Then they and their minions have the gall to deny what they are up to.

One thing is for sure, they would not have the audacity to come with this gem in any other democracy in the West. They would not even dream of it.

Mgr Gouder why doesn't the Church who claims to be universal, try the same stunt in the US, Canada, Italy, Spain, the UK or any other European countries. Let us see how well they fare, asking the State to adopt the Church's laws in these countries.

Ramon Casha

Jul 18th 2009, 14:32

Divorce is a legal procedure entered into to get the state to formally recognise that a marriage has already ended.

Without divorce, what you have is thousands of documents stating that a couple are married, when in fact they are not. The absence of divorce makes a mockery of marriage, since marriage then becomes nothing more than a piece of paper and becomes unrelated to a couple's actual relationship.

Divorce will not solve all problems but it certainly will improve the situation, as it has in every other country where it exists. It allows the legal status of people to reflect reality. Even if the second marriage could also fail, there are still many which succeed on the second try, which is better than the 100% failure rate of those whose first marriage failed in every way except the legalistic one.

Face facts. The church tried and failed. The new report is aptly named: For worse not for better. Its suggestions are indeed much worse.

g. scerri

Jul 18th 2009, 14:21

If, as is always stated, no society can exist without stable families, then the argument ought simply to be: would Maltese society fare better or worse if divorce were to be introduced. This is a case where the good of the whole has to come before the good of the few. When a ship is holed below the water-line, all water-tight doors are shut to prevent it sinking. One can only pray for those caught in the flooded compartments. Who said life is easy?

S. Calleja

Jul 18th 2009, 13:07

A lawyer acquaintance of mine told me many Maltese men would oppose the introduction of a divorce law in Malta. Surprisingly, NOT because they value Christian principles, as one would have imagined. Rather, they would oppose it because it would legally bind them to pay alimony to their wives should they decide to call it a day. As it is, they get away with it scot-free.

Divorce is there to protect the parties involved, Mgr Gouder, including the children. No the sky will not fall with the introduction of divorce. It will be a breathe of fresh air and a step from mediocrity and into the third millennium. Religious authorities should stay away from matters of the state for reasons I had hoped humanity has learnt from the past (and from the present in other countries).

Oscar Cassar

Jul 18th 2009, 11:41

Fil-Qorti Civili dejjem kien hemm sistema fejn zewg partjiet jiddefendu l-kas taghhom imbghad tiddeciedi l-Qorti. Hekk Ghandu jibqa f'demokrazija hielsa u mhux niddefendu xi Diktat ta xi hadt.

Forsi certu nies hargu b'din l-idea wara li kienu semghu li fl-Iran, Kandidat Presidenzjali jrid l-ewwel jkun aprovat mid-'Difensuri tal-morali Religjuza'.

C.Caruana (323)

Jul 18th 2009, 11:41

I tell my friends to think not only twice but 3 or 4 times or how much is necessary before tying the knot. Marriage is a COMMITMENT and not an adventure or something that you can get easily undone! In today's world, I would be very afraid to get married! But again if everyone had to think it like me, society would collapse!

Church keep up the very good work! May God be with you as promised He would till the end of our times. God save us from ourselves!

Joseph Micallef

Jul 18th 2009, 11:40

Quoting "...Malta did not need to introduce divorce because the situation of broken families would only be made worse." SO according to the Church, not introducing devorce would stop separations or even better reconcile those who are already separated? How can Divoces make the situatio worse may I ask? If its a broken relationship then its broken divoces or not!

B Zahra

Jul 18th 2009, 11:35

Divorce is a must. Everybody knows his/her rights. In the present situation, an annullment of a marriage is replacing what a divorce should do. Annullments are meant to mean that marriage has never taken place while if divorce is instituted it would acknowledge that a marriage did actually happen and if a divorce is taken capriciously it would mean that a person is either unfortunate in love matters or else his character is incompatible with respect to marriage vows thus allowing the new partner to think wisely before taking the step of entering into a relationship.

And one more thing......let religious matters be Church matters and civil rights be Civil Rights! How do we assume that all the Maltese are forced to become Roman Catholics and Christian? Are we not a democratic country to chose our own beliefs?!

d. borg

Jul 18th 2009, 11:35

The Church has every right to teach and to express its opinion on any subject, but has no right whatsoever to tell the state what it should or should'nt do. Church and State are two different entities. We vote for politicians not for religious persons.

dennis agius

Jul 18th 2009, 11:13

Tajjeb hafna Mgs Gouder, mela lill minn qed jissawwat hallih jibqa jigi mahqur u msawwat just fo rthe sake of For Better and For Worse till Death Do us Part. Vera graw dawn fejn il vittma spiccat mejta.
Ejja inkomplu nitfaw il Problema taht it tapit qisu mhux qed jigri xejn.

Brian Woolner

Jul 18th 2009, 10:56

"irrespective of what the individual parties say," Mgr Gouder said.
Can you believe this mans attitude?

claire farrugia

Jul 18th 2009, 10:43

They should conduct a referendum , in fact it should have been done ages ago, (am actually not sure if one was done already for i was living abroad for some time), just like when they asked the people whether they want the EU accession, to see what the people want, not just hearing what the Church wants

Kristabel Ellul

Jul 18th 2009, 10:24

Divorce would only regulate and legalise what is already happening in Malta.

If their first marriage breaks down, new couples just don't have the option to live together in a law-regulated manner. So instead, they live together lawlessly. And if something goes wrong in their partnership, it goes wrong lawlessly too.

I will not get married unless the law changes, because if my marriage fails in Malta both my partner and myself would be in a big legal mess.

I prefer to live without the protection of the law since both my partner and myself are lucky enough to have good enough wages to be able to live without maintenance should we break up.

claire farrugia

Jul 18th 2009, 10:08

I don't think the Church should say what the civil courts have to do. we are a secular state as far as i know and the church should not intrude in civil matters. The church courts do not accept interference from civil courts, so why should civil courts accept what the Church says??????
I am also Catholic and respect the church and the priests (have many friends who are priests in fact) but think that malta should be a secular state, and if there is divorce almost everywhere in the world with just a few exceptions, why should we be the only country not needing it? are we so special???????

louise vella

Jul 18th 2009, 10:00

Prosit Monsinjur Gouder. Mela flok 'il quddiem immorru lura.