Kristina Chetcuti
No-fault separation and marital breakdown
Cana director Joseph Mizzi (left) listens intently to David Quinn's presentation. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli
Malta should go back to the drawing board and re-draft its laws of legal separation to curb marital breakdown, according to David Quinn, one of Ireland's best known religious and social affairs commentators.
"You should say a strong 'no' to divorce and uphold the traditional family values," was his main advice for an audience gathered at the Catholic Institute on Friday.
"I would urge you not to get bogged down in a debate about divorce - that was the mistake of the anti-divorce lobbyists in Ireland. The issue of marital breakdown is bigger than the issue of divorce. Come up with a programme that supports the nature of marriage," he said as debate about the issue in Malta reaches parliamentary committee level.
During a talk organised by the Cana Movement, titled Divorce in Ireland - The Experience of Another Catholic Country, Mr Quinn spoke against the system of "no fault" legal separation, claiming this was one of the reasons for marital breakdown.
No-fault legal separation has been in practice in Malta since the early 1970s. It means a couple can be granted separation on the basis of incompatibility of character. Before the marriage law was amended in the 1970s, a couple could only separate if one of the parties was guilty of one of adultery, domestic violence or abandonment.
Mr Quinn, former editor of The Irish Catholic, is well known in his home country for his conservative opinions. Two years ago he founded the Iona Institute based in Dublin, which is a pro-family think-tank, based on marriage and the practice of religion.
Throughout his talk he made it clear legal separation and divorce fell under one umbrella, the only difference being that with divorce a person was able to remarry.
"In Ireland, two-thirds of couples in a broken marriage are separated, the rest are not bothered to divorce unless they want to marry again. If divorce is introduced in Malta, there won't be a rush either," he said.
A referendum on divorce was first held in Ireland in 1986 but was rejected by a substantial margin. In 1995 a second attempt was made and, after much controversy and public debate, the pro-divorce lobby won by a slim margin of 0.7 per cent.
"The fact that the divorce referendum was won that day was mainly due to the weather," said Mr Quinn. "It was sunny in most pro-divorce counties and pouring rain in the anti-divorce ones. Considering that the Church scandals were beginning to emerge and that all political parties and the media were pro-divorce, it was a miracle the vote was so close."
In Ireland, the rate of divorce was not accelerating but statistics showed the numbers remained down as a result of the older generation's attitude to family life. "In the UK where the culture of individualism has long set in, people in their 60s divorce as much as people in their 40s."
Over the past 12 years in Ireland, the rate of broken marriages had doubled - 13 per cent of the first marriages ended, compared to Malta's seven per cent. This was still low when compared to marital breakdown in the US or the UK but the traditional family was under pressure in Ireland, he said.
Irish politicians had become all talk about celebrating "family diversity" and undermined the social importance of marriage by doing away with the relative tax advantages of marriage.
"An American priest once said: adults may like family diversity but kids hate it. We are constantly told all a child needs is loving parents or even just one loving parent. But marriage is the most pro-child of social intentions, because it gives a child a mother and a father."
As a result the Irish family was changing fast: "The best way to track this change is that the number of children being raised in non-marital families is one in four; 190,000 Irish families are now headed by a lone parent."
He insisted, however, that divorce addressed the symptoms and not the cause of marital breakdown.
"You have to tackle the cause of marriage breakdown. Build an ethic of commitment. Teach kids how to critically evaluate soap operas. Teach them how to stick to commitments well chosen and well lived," he said.
If it were up to him, marriage vows would be changed to read: "I will put your happiness before mine and if we have children then their happiness will come before ours."
Through the Church's eye
Should divorce be introduced in Malta, Catholic believers would have the right to abstain from practices they considered wrong, Cana director Joseph Mizzi said.
Asked whether the Church's strong anti-divorce stand signalled a lack of confidence in its followers, he said he was not worried about this at all.
"If you're a Catholic you wouldn't even consider divorce. But we are concerned about the common good of society. That is why the Church is against divorce," he told The Times.
When it was pointed out that in reality legal separation in Malta was being loosely interpreted as divorce, with many separated individuals opting to cohabit with their new partner, Fr Mizzi insisted legal separation merely gave a couple the right to live apart.
"You are still married when separated. There might be a few who take up a partner but I am convinced the majority of separated couples are living in a correct manner."
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Jan 16th 2011, 09:53
Divorce tears marriage apart. It desolates both husband and wife. It leaves the children not only in tears but also in misery. We do not deny that there can be serious disagreement between husband and wife, but divorce is not the solution. When husband and wife have a disagreement, they should reflect, pray, sit together and discuss. Accept fault where you are wrong, ask for pardon, or consult a priest or other spiritual adviser, but do not divorce.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Steve Pace
Nov 26th 2009, 16:29
To Rain or not to Rain ! That is the problem ....
So accoding to Mr. Mizzi "There might be a few who take up a partner but I am convinced the majority of separated couples are living in a correct manner.",
I wonder if Mr.Mizzi's conviction is based on actual facts or on the way he would like the situation to be .
Again , yet another proof that the church is Miles away from the hearts of people ! How sad !
So much in contrast to what Jesus Preached !
Evarist Saliba
Nov 25th 2009, 12:55
@ Ramon Casha
Do you consider yourself justified in calling those who disagree with you evil and hypocrits? That is the question which I have asked you and you do not answer.
jane camilleri haber
Nov 25th 2009, 11:00
a solution could be that if divorce enters our islands, an agreement will be struck between the state and the church ( and any other religous entity) that when a couple presents itself before the church ( or religous body of some other religion) to bind itself in a religous marriage, they need not present themselves elsewhere to be married also in a civil way, but for all intents and purposes they are considered by the state to be a married couple. then divorce will be applied only to those who present themselves to be married only in a civil way, in which case man binds and man unties! it is absurd that a couple binds itself by the laws of a religous body and simultaneously with that of the civil law which might change according to the political mentality of the day. the couple has one married life which should be regulaled by one body of their choice after having reflected on all the consequences.
jane camilleri haber
Nov 25th 2009, 10:44
@ramon casha.. divorce will worsen the situation not because it changes the nature of the life the faithful partner lives; he is and will still be without a partner, without her love, without her consolation, without her support , without her faithfulness etc, but it will be a signature on the marriage he had contracted to last forever ; saying 'it is dissdolved', when they both bound themselves that marriage day, that that marriage 'will be until death do them part' up to now marriage entered to with the knowledge that it is indissoluble is still considered so, whether one or the partners has kept her word or not, but should divorce become lawful, that consideration ends. and one should not be content to say 'but it makes no difference to catholic marrriages, they will remain as they are indissoluble' since once the state takes the right to dissolve a couple and to tie up one of the partners to another person, fo all intents and purposes the first couple is forever dissolved while the second couple for all intents and purposes are now bound( even though before God the situation is different ).
Ramon Casha
Nov 25th 2009, 05:24
@Evarist Saliba: No-fault divorce is the less damaging, yet that is exactly what the church is most strongly against. Why is that? Don't they consider the well-being of the people affected to be more important than their ego?
It's not even in line with the gospels - in Matthew 5:32, even Jesus allowed for divorce in certain cases.
@JANE CAMILLERI HABER: How is that different from the current situation, that is "living in sin"? Will a divorce be worse than knowing that the person one is married to is living, sleeping, having children with the person they truly love?
Tim Ripard
Nov 24th 2009, 13:48
'"The fact that the divorce referendum was won that day was mainly due to the weather," said Mr Quinn. "It was sunny in most pro-divorce counties and pouring rain in the anti-divorce ones." Looks like his God let him down!
Ms f vincenti
Apr 28th 2011, 12:03
Let's hope the referendum date was chosen subject to predictions on maltaweather.com
Evarist Saliba
Nov 24th 2009, 13:19
@ Ramon Casha Have you considered the implication of your public accusation that Messers Quinn and Mizzi are evil and hypocrits? Or that their point of view is evil?
JANE CAMILLERI HABER
Nov 24th 2009, 12:41
that should divorce be introduced by civil law it will be applicable only to parties who had contracted their marriage civilly only and not dare claim jurisdiction also over those marriages which were contracted before church witnesses. when a couple decides to get married in a religous way it will have to abide by the law of religion since only religion will have jurisdiction over that marriage! in this way the partner who continues to be faithful to his beliefs will not find himself in the awkward position mentioned before. one might say but remarriage or not they would be separated. it's true, but a second marriage will make the possible reunion impossible, while a separated couple, even if living apart for 50 years are thought to be in a state of flux until a certain 'solidity' is somehow given to one of the parties or both ( in the form of a second marriage) so much so that this is the reason brought by pro divorce lobyists that cohabitation is insecure, incorrect, inorderly unacceptable by society etc.what is bound by God should not be liable to be separated by man, while what is bound by man is trivial anyway!
JANE CAMILLERI HABER
Nov 24th 2009, 12:28
my only queery is this. should divorce be introduced in malta and it is made applicable also to the marriages contracted before church witnesses, what would be the position of the party not seeking divorce should the other party seek it and is granted one. the partner A who gets the divorce would contract a second marriage while the partner B who did not seek divorce to follow his belief: ( that marriage is contracted but once 'since the two become one flesh') will find himself in a very awkward position. he cannot say he is married anymore since his partner A has dissolved that marriage in a way regulated by society's law and to her irrevocable conviction that that marriage is dead has conceived a new family regarded as regular by society. B cannot say he is not married anymore since his partner still lives. but marriage is the living as one flesh, the communal sharing of life, the one mind and one heart relationship. it wonr' be fair B to be forced to live single if both himself and A had opted for a married life according to the catholic faith. therefore I suggest that
M. Cardona
Nov 24th 2009, 12:08
"There might be a few who take up a partner but I am convinced the majority of separated couples are living in a correct manner." May I ask Fr Mizzi what is the "correct manner" to live? By pointing fingers at others and denying them the possibility to start afresh? Is that the "correct manner"? Furthermore, Dear Fr Mizzi please do get back in touch with reality. The reality is that so many individuals are SUFFERING because of people like you and your dear omni-present Maltese church persisting in cuckoo land!
carmelo aquilina
Nov 24th 2009, 11:56
Mr Quinn believes that "the fact that the divorce referendum was won that day was mainly due to the weather... It was sunny in most pro-divorce counties and pouring rain in the anti-divorce ones" Surely a sign from God that he wanted the pro-divorce vote to win ?
Ramon Casha
Nov 24th 2009, 11:24
The hypocrisy and evil comes shining through like a beacon. It's a widely known fact that fault divorce is by far the most damaging to the couple and their children. Because of this, where the only recourse is fault divorce, the divorce rate is lower - most parents would not want their children to go through that trauma. In no-fault divorce on the other hand, the children usually fare better than they did under their parents' broken marriage, yet here we have the church arguing FOR fault-divorce, sacrificing the couple and their children just to prove itself right and to keep divorce away from more people.
The church needs to make a choice between the abstract concept of divorce, and the very real people they are hurting with their stance.
Kat Gauci
Nov 24th 2009, 11:23
I have yet to meet a separated person who is not in another relationship... especially if they have to wait about 5 years for the church annullment if it happens...
MSciberras
Nov 24th 2009, 10:30
Oh come on!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUOTE Fr Mizzi insisted legal separation merely gave a couple the right to live apart. "You are still married when separated. There might be a few who take up a partner but I am convinced the majority of separated couples are living in a correct manner."UNQUOTE
What island does this man live on? Is it Malta? What 'correct manner'? I know not one seperated couple – and I know several – who do not have other partners, with cohabition either a goal or a reality.
Introduce divorce and get these people out of the lives of those of us who are compelled to suffer them. No one is or will ever compel them to do anything