Claudia Calleja
Divorce debate must focus more on effects on children, PM insists
The divorce debate should focus more on the repercussions any decision may have on children born in a failed marriage, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said.
The point of departure of such an important debate, he added, should be consensus that the family was the most important structure in Malta.
"We must recognise some families are under pressure caused by today's modern society. It is our duty in this debate to identify what is causing these pressures and any issues endangering the family structure," he said.
Dr Gonzi was speaking after he was presented with a report entitled For Worse, Not For Better, published by Proġett Impenn. It was issued in reply to another report by a think tank arguing for the introduction of divorce in the interest of those who want to remarry.
When Dr Gonzi was presented with the think tank's report last July his message was the same: to keep family values at the centre of the debate.
The report For Worse, For Better: Re-marriage After Legal Separation, compiled by The Today Public Policy Think Tank, concludes that divorce legislation has become an urgent necessity and laws to regularise cohabiting couples are no substitute.
The report by Proġett Impenn, which groups together the Diocesan Family Commission, Caritas Malta and the Cana Movement, argues the Church can never accept divorce because God's spiritual authority to unite people in marriage cannot be transferred to man to dissolve.
The Church said it was concerned that introducing divorce would lead to the breakdown of more marriages.
Mgr Charles Vella, founder of the Cana Movement, which prepares couples for marriage, does not share such fear. In an interview with The Sunday Times, he said that if marriages were strong then divorce did not pose a threat. He insisted the Church should focus on better preparing couples for marriage and dedicating more resources to the Cana Movement.
In 1995, there were 5,098 individuals in Malta whose marriage had been annulled, were divorced or became legally-separated. The total number of married individuals at that time stood at 181,875, meaning that those who were divorced or separated or had their marriage annulled amounted to about three per cent. By 2005, this figure had risen to 13,354 out of 195,523 married individuals, a proportion of seven per cent.
Discern, the Institute for Research on the Signs of the Times, is forecasting that the number of individuals who would be separated, divorced or have their marriage annulled in 2015 would amount to about 17 per cent of all married people.
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Jan 22nd 2011, 10:28
There is absolutely no compassion in divorce. Promoting divorce is promoting evil for the detriment of all people. What is harmful to all people is not compassion. Christ knows more than all of us what is good for us: he commanded us never to resort to divorce.
1. Divorce is a great injustice against God.
2. Divorce is a great injustice against the family
3. Divorce is a great injustice against the children
4. Divorce is a great injustice against society
5. Divorce is a great injustice against the spouses themselves.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it’s already guaranteed!
Lino Apap
Sep 2nd 2009, 14:19
@ James Micallef - once a church annulment is obtained, the persons involved will file a plea in the courts for a civil annulment. This is AUTOMATICALLY accepted by the Courts! However, civil annulments are NOT automatically accepted by the Church - so in Malta, Maltese Law is subservient to the Church!
It is also interesting to note that if a church annulment is obtained and one or both parties are handed down with an additional note that he or she may not marry again without the express permission of the Archbishop, this also holds good over civil marriage. Therefore any citizen being given this scarlet letter will not be able to contract a civil marriage without the Archbishop's permission. Anyone mention theocracy? Perish the thought!
Steve Pace
Sep 2nd 2009, 13:27
A lot of talk and no concrete substance unfortunately. The fact that families have pressures is something we all have known for years.
What are the Church and State actively doing about it ? One wonders.
Prime Minister Gonzi is trying to make sure that he balances well on the scales and makes sure that he does not tip to any side. We must consider children of failed marriages.. Granted ... but it is not just them ... What about Children of newly formed couple (Illegitimate children), victims of all forms of abuse, victims of lengthy church annulment procedures. In other words the Prime Minister should focus on society as a whole and not use a section of the society as a guilt tool as the church is doing.
We are not expecting the Catholic Church to accept Divorce. Those who wish to abide by the church will stay away from divorce. But the rest have a right to choose and all the anomalies that exist in the current legislation should be ironed out once and for all.
Andrew Galea
Sep 2nd 2009, 09:37
This is the reason why I chose not to vote this year. The minute the PM stops being a religious spokesperson, then I would start listening to what he has to say. The public is getting irritated by the fact that religious beliefs have a higher priority than the interest of the people who elected him.
On another note, "We must recognise some families are under pressure caused by today's modern society".... just because old couples never exposed their problems in fear of what others might say, doesn't mean they had a healthy marriage.
E Compagno
Sep 2nd 2009, 08:15
@ James Micallef
From the little I do know, one is able to annul a marriage, state only or state and church, given they have sufficient reason/s for a civil court/curia to declare the marriage null and void. This is very different from divorce. Divorce recognises the marriage existed and is freeing each side from legal obligations, literally bringing the marriage contract to an end. Annullment is saying there was no marriage at all, because for example, one side was tricked into it or coerced.. This then means that the children were actually born out of wedlock.
I am a child of seperated parents. I was 10 when my parents decided it was best to go their seperate ways. And for 20 years, I have had to see my parents stuck in a situation were neither can really move on and form a new legal structure called 'a family'. For some, living with and having kids from girlfriends and boyfriends (that come and go) is fine. For others it is not. And it hurts to see my mother alone, a single mum forever, working herself to the bone till she is 61.
What are you talking about Mr. Gonzi?
Alex Tonna
Sep 1st 2009, 23:37
Dear Mr Prime Minister,
when are you going to stop debating about the question of Divorce?? It is about time that you offer some concrete civil alternatives to all those hundreds of unfortunate couples who are de-facto not able to live together anymore.
All the rest of the civilised world have a civil solution available. We are all fed up of your insistence on clinging onto the Catholic Church's line of thought. The bottom line is that you should be running our Nation in a completely secular manner. Instead your allegiance is more akin to that of a Medieval Parish Priest in some remote 18th century Catholic village.
Shame on you and your feeble attempts to sound "Holier than Thou" on these crucial matters. It is about time you realise that offering your prayers or piteous debates, is simplynunacceptable..
Has it dawned on you that clinging to the Catholic Church may no longer be a substantial guarantee for re-election?? .. .. .. . Oppps sorry !! .. .. .. have I touched a sore note ???
Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi
Sep 1st 2009, 17:31
The elected government should stop beating around the bush with debate after debate on divorce as a stalling tactic and treat its citizens in a secular manner and implement a divorce law. Hard line roman catholics need not make use of such laws if they do not desire a divorce, but for the rest of the citizens that do, the law is there on the books. What is the problem? Every predominantly roman catholic nation in europe has a divorce law for its citizens but Malta. We vote for an elected government to serve the people and not the interest of a non elected entity that has its own selfish motives at heart.
c. camilleri
Sep 1st 2009, 16:47
I think we should leave the church out in this matter. We all know that the church cannot deviate from God's teaching about marriage. So preaching against divorce is part of her duty. But the state has the duty to cater for separated couples who no longer form part of the church. These should be given the right to start a new life. Children of separated couples are in the same boat as those of separated ones. So this excuse holds no water.
Nigel Lawrence
Sep 1st 2009, 16:05
Mt brother and I were yet to be teenagers when our parents divorced. We were NOT adversely effected- as all the prophets of doom speculate- but grew up to be perfectly adjusted adults. The divorce "knock-on" effect did not materialise as we have both stayed with our original spouses for many years.
Our parents, after splitting up, enjoyed their lives with new partners, which in our opinion, was a lot better than living with parents who are at each others throats all the time.
So by having a FIRST HAND
James Micallef
Sep 1st 2009, 15:59
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what is the legal (civil) status of marriages that have been officially annulled by the church? Couples who marry in church also perform their civil marriage at the same time, but these are 2 distinct things. If couples who have had their church marriage annulled are allowed to remarry in church, does that mean that they are married to one person in the eyes of the church, and to another in the eyes of the state? (which would be a ridiculous state of affairs) Or does a church annulment automatically give rise to a civil marriage annulment?
To me the latter would be even more shocking, since on a civil level there should be no distinction between annulment and divorce (this is just a religious technicality), and this would effectively mean that the church can grant civil divorces that the state refuses to introduce because of church pressure.
Divorce does not harm marriage, a marriage is either strong, in which case divorce is not an issue, or it is failing, in which case divorce allows people to forge a strong marriage with someone else
Anthony Roberts
Sep 1st 2009, 15:18
The PM should focus on the broken marriages that effects children.
Enzo Caruana
Sep 1st 2009, 14:45
Lawrence Gonzi is quoted as saying: "We must recognise some families are under pressure caused by today's modern society. It is our duty in this debate to identify what is causing these pressures and any issues endangering the family structure,"
Mr Prime Minister your obligations are not limited to simply "identify" the causes. You are obliged to provide remedies for problems. Stop dilly dallying about divorce and bring Malta in line with Europe and the rest of the world where divorce is considered as a fundamental civil right.
C.A.Magdi
Sep 1st 2009, 13:55
The way the law regarding marriage is at the moment, tells people who are in an already broken marriage, just keep living with it because you can't get another life if you separate. If one can divorce, if the marriage is broken, any person in that broken marriage can move on. What is the use of just separating people when these people know that their marraige is completely broken and can't rearrange what went wrong? It is not fair for those who want a better relationship and another try to having someone they love and get married.
Michael A. Saliba
Sep 1st 2009, 12:56
I think what we should reach consensus about, actually, is that the *happy, functional* family is the most important structure in Malta. Once we get in line with the rest of the world and introduce divorce legislation, we will facilitate the formation of happy, functional reconstituted families and strengthen this important structure. As far as children are concerned, a child would fare better in a happy functional reconstituted family than he/she would in a dysfunctional family. Of course, if marriage counselling can repair a dysfunctional family so much the better, but where this is not possible.......