Divorce, the Church and the Constitution (1)

The correspondent William P. Flynn, from Victoria, South Australia (Catholic Authorities' Power In The Constitution, June 14) would seem to be unduly concerned by the presence of Article 2 in our Constitution.

As a frequent letter writer from down under on Maltese affairs, he must be familiar with the history of Church-State relations in Malta over the last 90 years.

They were often difficult, sometimes downright acrimonious and politically divisive and it took all the wisdom and sagacity of such national leaders as Dom Mintoff, Archbishop Mikiel Gonzi and Ġorġ Borg Olivier to find a modus vivendi between the State of Malta and the Archdiocese of Malta.

The settlement finds expression in the Agreement on the Six Points and in Article 2 embedded in our Constitution, and the population of these islands have had the appropriate occasions to vote in favour of these instruments.

So why this fervour on the part of someone of foreign extraction resident in a distant land to stir up again a politico-religious conflict among us? Why not let sleeping dogs lie?

Mr Flynn can be reassured that if the Maltese want to introduce divorce they are perfectly capable of doing so, democratically as behoves a civilised nation without denying the Church the right to have its say.

Nor will we be unduly influenced by such baiting of the Church as the ridiculous example offered of the "pregnant, seriously ill mother who must be allowed to die and her four children (or was it six) orphaned when an abortion would have saved her..."

The present local proponents and campaigners for the introduction of divorce in Malta have had every opportunity to include amending the Constitution in the way our Australian friend suggests. They have not done so. They know it is not in the nation's interest and they also appreciate that despite all its shortcomings, the Church in Malta has been a power for good and beneficence over the centuries.