Unhappily ever after
One of my favourite mantras is this: “I don’t need to jump off a cliff to know what will happen if I do!”
I tend to use this during heated arguments with people who claim to know more than me just because they’ve experienced something that I haven’t. But the truth of the matter is that they do know more than me but I’m just too presumptuous to admit it.
Of course, I’m not about to play the holier than thou card here, so I’m not going to say that unless you’ve experienced something firsthand, then you have no right to comment or to have an opinion about it, but let’s face it, if you needed advice on something important, wouldn’t you get it from someone who has had some experience in the matter?
Would you go to a criminal lawyer for advice on your tax returns?
Would you go to a mechanic for advice on your second stage melanoma?
Would you go to an economist to baby sit your child?
So why, oh why, do we go to the Church for advice on marriage and divorce?
Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Popes, and all the other members of the clergy have no experience whatsoever in marriage, let alone a failed one. Theoretically they shouldn’t even have had firsthand experience in any form of long term romantic relationship, or at least, not recent enough for it to be relevant.
I know, some of you are going to fall all over yourselves to quote the bible at me, and some of you will tell me that members of the clergy are well-read, educated philosophers, who have a lot of contact with different types of people, but seriously, would you go to a well-read professor of theology to cut your hair, then why would you go to a clergyman for advice on marriage and divorce?
Because of JPO’s bold move, this week everybody and their mothers are writing and talking about divorce. And because I’m not married, and unlikely to ever be, I was about to let this slide. But then I thought, if the inexperienced clergy can have a say, why shouldn’t I?
JPO on the other hand, has firsthand experience, not only in marriage, but more precisely in one which failed. He has taken the time and effort to draft this bill even at the risk of being accused of pushing something for individual gain, and of being ostracized by his hypocritical mates in blue. Ahead he went, and for his courage, I went from thinking very little of him (because of the infamous Mistra tears), to wiping his slate clean and being totally behind him.
A few months ago Joseph Muscat had promised that when he became prime minister he would put forward a Private Member’s Bill on divorce. Clearly he chose to wait not to risk losing yet another election by alienating his core traditional supporters and those traditional nationalists whose vote he is after, but at least, he came out and publically stated his personal opinion on such a controversial matter. That much we have to give him!
Some coaxed him to put the bill forward whilst still in opposition, but in reality this wouldn’t have done anyone any good because only a small proportion of Private Member’s Bills ever make it through, and hardly ever without the support of the Government. Very rarely, a government chooses to back a Private Member’s Bill to ensure its implementation, but in this case, our Prime Minister is happily married and thinks it wrong to allow other consenting adults to free themselves from a failed disastrous marriage where the only warm hug comes in the form of a burning toaster flying across a room.
Gonzi’s opposition to this bill is of course more politically correct. His pseudo dilemma lies in the fact that the PN was not given a mandate to introduce divorce. Of course it wasn’t given a mandate to change the entrance to Valletta, nor to build a new parliament, nor to increase the water and electricity tariffs, or to send immigrants back to Libya, but they went ahead with those non-mandates anyway!
To make matters worse, some silly gits are now suggesting a referendum. I was hoping that Joseph Muscat would come out and say something here because he believes that referenda should not be imposed on minority groups and their rights. Whilst I’m in full agreement with this, where is the PL? Where have they all gone? Are they still in shock? Or are they still celebrating the fact that JPO has taken the flak in their stead?
It is usually those who oppose minority rights that call for a referendum, because whilst voting seems democratic, in the case of minority rights it is deeply unjust. When the issues are human rights, like freedom of religion and freedom of speech, they should never be decided by means of a majority vote.
Of course, none of us should hold our breath for a solution. If history is anything to go by we will be going round in circles for a while longer. Then, finally, when we’ve all had enough, the same thing that had happened with the illegality of contraceptives will finally happen with divorce. All’s left to do in the meantime is to guess whether we’ll beat The Philippines to it or not.
Bets open midnight! Send your wager to Alison.bezzina@gmail.com
Popular Stories
In Discussion
30 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Etienne Depasquale
Aug 14th 2010, 22:53
I'd go to a clergyman for advice because the currency of marriage is love and that is built out of sacrifice. I guess that the clergyman knows lots about the meaning of both.
josianne den ridder
Jul 26th 2010, 02:23
Odd really, Kennedys'get annulments, princess caroline of monacco......annulment. Seems like money does buy power in the catholic church, one size does not fit all......get real
Charles J. Buttigieg
Jul 19th 2010, 17:32
Good luck with your efforts Lyn. My marriage is OK however I will support your stand and applaud you. May your God bless and help you in your quest.
Dr.Lynn Zahra LL.D
Jul 19th 2010, 13:46
Alison,
I intend to go ahead and file a Constitutional case demanding the State grants me the right to remarry. I would like separated people who wish for the same to contact me with the aim of joining me in this law suit.
Unfortunately, a great number of most Maltese people want divorce but won't take a stand, they can't even be bothered to submit an opinion on a thread .
I can be contacted by e-mail which is lynnlegal@gmail.com
Alex Vella Falzon
Jul 19th 2010, 10:21
I guess the truth is the Nationalist party is chickening out of this one.....come on Gonzi we believe in you.....how about a blind vote in parliament ?? Referendum.....NOT A GOOD IDEA!! I would rather the money is spent on putting the partical filter on the marsa power station back on.....The three cities are blackened daily by this toxic waste.....SHAME
Charles J. Buttigieg
Jul 18th 2010, 07:13
It’s natural for Christians to take the lead in protecting the sanctity of marriage for it is based upon their belief that the Genesis story of God placing Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden alone constituted a marriage. This was, according to biblical time, some six thousand years ago. It is this notion of God expressly placing a first man and woman on earth to legitimize sexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation that energizes the religious defence of the Adam-Eve concept of marriage .Because of that belief, religious organizations feel they are in a superior position as keepers of the gate to Heaven. Intellectuals know that position is speculative at best, ordinary people do not challenge it and as a result civil laws are made to confine and restrict those who appear to offend the church. Yet an inalienable constitutional civil right to terminate a bad marriage exists everywhere in the world as that does not encroach on the rights of the majority. Sadly, Malta and the Philippine Islands are excluded from that civil right.
Helen Borg
Jul 15th 2010, 17:42
@John Buhagiar
I know many cases such as yours unfortunately. One is a dear cousin whose marriage broke down 11 months in. People say she should never have married in the first place, but things are always clearer in retrospect. What I do not agree with is that if a person is married civilly 20 years ago and they are estranged or separated, the new [hypothetical] divorce law will not apply to them. It is not fair to condemn them further if there is a way out. In the Catholic Church it is a different story and I admit that certain rigid maxims should be revised as every case is a story onto itself. There can only be guidlines on such delicate matters not rules. I sincerely hope that the introduction of divorce to Malta will not open the door to other laws like abortion. They tend to go hand in hand. And certain actions, like murder, can never be accepted in any society, least of all a Catholic one!
Alex Tonna
Jul 15th 2010, 10:48
VERY WELL SAID !! even because Divorce has nothing to do with Catholic Marriages !
as I said elsewhere,Divorce is:
a) an OPTIONAL CIVIL TOOL
b) for CIVIL Marriages
c) that have ALREADY BROKEN DOWN ( Laws elsewhere stipulate a minimnum of 4 or 5 years at least)
John Buhagiar
Jul 15th 2010, 08:25
@ Helen Borg
Most people would agree with your argument. It makes sense because we all know the Church's dogma, God knows they've made them loud and clear, BUT let me throw this in there as it's been stewing at the back of my mind for quite a while. I've been seperated for 12 long years. My estranged wife has since then left Malta and is living with someone else in a God forsaken country in Africa. Fine with me!! But, when we got married we were both FULLY aware that Malta did not allow for civil divorce. We went in for it with our eyes open, we signed the dotted line, fully aware of this. So now, if or rather WHEN divorce is introduced to civil Malta, should it apply to our case or not? Remeber we went into an agreement when the law was different, and just like the rent laws, we could have a situation where it applies only to marriages that happen after the law changes....... only fair I think, though totally against me personally.
CJohn Zammit
Jul 15th 2010, 02:14
"Bets open midnight." :)
New York (CNN) -- The wife of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faces a court date next week on a drunk driving charge, the latest in a string of events that began when Kennedy filed for divorce, according to records from Westchester County.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/14/kennedy.divorce/index.html?hpt=T2
Here's a very prominent, ultra-rich, Roman Catholic, American couple ... married in and according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church. They have four children.
Who would like to bet that the Roman Catholic Church will, in this case, grant an Annulment?
Of course, this case has no bearing on the (lack of) Divorce legislation in Malta, right?
Yep! 'Nuttin at all.
Right!
Helen Borg
Jul 14th 2010, 20:50
I find that the issue here is whether or not a church marriage should be dissolved by divorce. My brother chose to marry in a civil ceremony. He should have the right to divorce if the state agrees to it... but the Universal Church is a different entity. If you decide to marry within the church you marry by those laws. And if you do divorce and live with someone else you cannot expect the Church to baptise your children when according to their laws you are living in sin. Whether this is archaic or not is another argument but while the Church laws are still defined as they are, one cannot expect to be divorced and accepted at the same time. Most couples opt for church marriages because they look better on celluloid instead of being what they believe is right. This is more the case we should look into. If Ceasar has married you then he has the right to dissolve you, but let no human dissolve what God has joined.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 14th 2010, 20:21
@ John Grech. Some years ago I sought out counselling from a Catholic priest. This would have been a highly-qualified man of god. The conversation quickly turned fairly deep and analytical and psychological. He cut me short, saying, 'the Church does not do psychology'. A dear friend of mine was in deep depression and was being treated but guilt feelings compelled her to continue attending a bible-reading session every week. Her psychiatrist told her outright that she had to choose between bible-reading and his treatment. I do not know what the outcome was. What I do know is that church teaching/tenets and cognitive psychology to do with human behaviour and thought are in conflict with each other and could never meet. Grech, when you talk of priests studying psychology, you cannot mean the psychology of WHY people believe the implausible. Subject for a long thesis there, one that I live with with every breath I take. Thank god or some nihilistic git!
Unhappy ever after?! I'm reasonably happy now (given life's ups and downs). The after is really none of my business. Not my concern. And my 'Christian' values are intact. Funny that!
Lino Apap
Jul 14th 2010, 18:09
I believe that the main issue here is not divorce per se. After all, many predominantly Catholic countries have divorce such Spain, Italy and Ireland. Nor can one rationally support the argument that divorce brings about marriage breakdowns; I mean just look around you-chances are that you either know of someone who separated, or is about to separate or else you are actually related to someone in that unhappy position. And there's no divorce in sight. So let's face it-marriages are breaking down irrespective of whether there is divorce or not. The problem is not divorce - the problem is that the State has for far too long abdicated its jurisdication over Marriage (and when it happens, its subsequent failure) to the Church which is quite unwilling (understandably because of its dogma) to let go its stranglehold over it. The main issues here are politicians afraid of losing votes (and for this reason Dr. Pullicino Orlando deserves all our respect) and a Church that repeatedly quotes its Founder but forgets that most memorable of His quotes - "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". And CIVIL marriage is Caesar's responsibility and nobody else's.
noel portelli
Jul 14th 2010, 15:37
Well Done!!! and Well Said!!!! Apart from all that you said. Everyone seems to forget that even God gave us FREE WILL!!!! Plus Divorce should be a CIVIL RIGHT for all citizens.
Mark Vassallo
Jul 14th 2010, 11:25
@ John Grech
When I first read this blog I was about to say the same thing but think about it.... if you had a choice...would you go to a mechanic who never drove a car, a doctor who never had an ailment in his life, a lawyer who never had a court case? The argument might be stretched to make a point, but the reasoning holds water. You cannot study marriages and failed ones, you either experience them or hear about them. Besides why don't you think that priests don't go to married couples for 'celibacy' counselling.....cause married couples do not (or at least should not) have any experience in the matter.
John Grech
Jul 14th 2010, 10:24
Alison, I think that this reasoning - quote: Would you go to a criminal lawyer for advice on your tax returns?
Would you go to a mechanic for advice on your second stage melanoma?
Would you go to an economist to baby sit your child?
So why, oh why, do we go to the Church for advice on marriage and divorce? - unquote, is totally wrong. By your standards, criminal lawyers would be out of business because they have never committed crimes, doctors would only be able to cure diseases which they incurred, mechanics wouldn't be able to repair cars because they never experienced a mechanical fault themselves. The whole issue is, people are trained and study to work in specific fields, be it medicine, law, councilling, etc. So, priests who study psychology and family related matters are as qualified to council married couples as much as a psychiatrist is qualified to council a patient with a mental disorder.
Daniel Vella
Jul 13th 2010, 15:13
Any body has the right for a second chance in life. Just because you said YES once it doesn't mean that you have to bare the mistake for the rest of your life. People against divorce seem to ignore the fact that it takes two to tango - you might be the kindest and most althruistic person on earth but very few manage to live in hell. A marriage is made by humans and recognised by humans and since anything under the sun (even a setting in Windows) can be undone, marriage should not be an exception. Of course, if i had to divorce, i wouldn't go for my second YES infront of a priest again but of course i would want to be legally recognised as a married person again with all rights to both partners that it entails. Of course the church would be obliged to recognise any children out of the new marriage just like any other person.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 13th 2010, 14:45
@ Bezzina (the one with the appendage below the waist), you asked a question and expected an answer. I'm talking about truth. I'll give you my take on this prickly matter.
First off, truth is an elusive matter that one can only journey towards. Unfortunately people die before they get anywhere near the truth. But what they discover is not lost. It's inherited and built upon. It's like evolution if you like. By its very nature the search does not stop. Anything that stops is doomed.
Imagine truth as being at the heart of a humble onion. To get to the heart you need to peel away the outer layers, one by one. This is done by the process of elimination - discarding that which is obviously not true or dubious at best. It's a journey, as in 'bon voyage', but difficile. I inherited the discarded outer layers from the likes of Darwin, etc. So I/we don't have to start afresh every time we're born. They baptise us to set us back but some of us are resistant and we opt out. Hence, in contrast to your tself-congratulatory Roman Catholicism, I'm an atheiest (or an agnostic at least), no sweat!
Alison Bezzina
Jul 13th 2010, 13:57
@Kevin Cassar
that was a typo ....345AD
Point is it existed long before the Catholic Church decided to 'take it on' in fact it wasn't until the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God.
Raymond Bezzina
Jul 13th 2010, 13:26
@ Alison Bezzina
For the time being, not to complicate things, I will tackle argument number ' 1' only.
You said that ' Truth is subjective'. By this, are you trying to say that the truth didn' t
exist before you were born ?
You also said that ' Experience my friend is the closest thing to the truth '. By this,
are you trying to say that one who is experienced in deceiving others, is the closest
thing to the truth ? Would you go to this type of person for advice ?
Kevin Cassar
Jul 13th 2010, 12:05
@ Alison Bezzina
"Around 5AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony."
I think you have made a mistake about the date. Around 5 AD there were no Christians around. Jesuswas supposedly 5 years old and did not start his "mission" for at least another 25 years.
josianne den ridder
Jul 13th 2010, 11:48
i love reading your articles Ali, it's great to see a Maltese female defining herself for a change. Not too sure about political system there, here it's compulsary to vote and everyone always does.....be it a donkey vote, not sure about how many people actually listen to politicans, mainly cause they just Lie.....politicians, not females.
I reckon where women are beaten, exposed, emotionally blackmailed, threatened or money taken off them, well in those circumstances, yes divorce should be an option, it has nothing to do with churches or men. Women are not toys and it's time men everywhere realised that. We feel, we think and we are more than just mere baubles. We have hearts, we have souls and the fact that priests etc., do not marry is enough to know that although they have heard much, they have not gone through a damned thing, they are supported by the people and should have no say in marriage, you are right, why would i go to a priest if i needed a lawyer.......cheers and give us feedback on this article........
Joe Xuereb
Jul 12th 2010, 22:35
I often get the feeling that Catholicism hallmarked Malta lives with the delusion that no marriage is worth anything unless it is a Catholic marriage, as instituted by christ.
The link below (thanks to Herald Gatt) looks promising but it can wait. I prefer using my common-sense and concluded years ago that marriage is a state institution, instituted only god know way back when.
We are now hearing a lot about strengthening the family. I cannot wait. One bright spark in yesterday's Times has already mentioned, and I quote: 'We may recover the idea of the family as a productive unit or household and this should be kept in mind when reviewing taxes and social services," he says in defence of what he believes should be a holistic package that not only includes divorce if necessary but also encourages the success of marriage'. A holistic package approach sounds admirable. Apart from reviewing taxes, social services provisions and divorce-cum-carrot, I wonder what else this package contains? It's not a case of barking up the wrong tree again is it Fr.?
Father, it takes more than tax rebates to patch up marriages. Marriages comprise people, not mechanical matchstick-men. La Bezzina is right.
Alexia Bencini
Jul 12th 2010, 18:14
@Raymond Bezzina
How is it relevant what faith or creed they adhere to in the matter? It can give at most an understanding of the background, but that's where is starts and ends.
If you get married with the state, and you get divorced with the state. Why should the Church's take on the matter so much in a matter of state law and contract? We're not discussing the Holy Sacrament of Marriage but the civil marriage contract.
Plus no matter what the priests say, nobody can stop families breaking up if that is what happens. Marriage break-down occurs before divorce.
Kevin Cassar
Jul 12th 2010, 15:44
@ Raymond Bezzina
Your questions to Alison cannot be answered. You ask:
Where do you find the truth?
What truth? The truth about what?? Could be a million things and so the answer could also be a million sources.
Who do you believe created marriage??
No one really knows, but it MOST DEFINITELY was not the Roman Catholic Church. I think even you can work that one out.
Alison Bezzina
Jul 12th 2010, 14:07
@Raymond Bezzina
1. there's no such thing as an absolute truism. Truth is subjective. There's no one place to go for the truth, but if you want the truth about your car's condition there's a bigger chance that you'd get it from somebody who has driven a car or better still from a mechanic. Experience my friend is the closest thing to the truth, but we can't experience everything first hand...hence why we go to other experienced beings.
2. The union of a man and a woman, recognised by authority or ceremony, is as old as civilization itself and marriage of some kind is found in virtually every society. In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around 5AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.
Raymond Bezzina
Jul 12th 2010, 12:16
@ Herald Gatt
Mr. Gatt,
I have asked those two questions to Ms. Alison Bezzina, for which I am awaiting her reply,
but since you took the liberty to intervene, I first need to know to which religion
you belong to, if any.
With regards to my belief, I am a Roman Catholic.
Herald Gatt
Jul 12th 2010, 09:14
@ Raymond Bezzina
1. Within one's soul the truth lies....
2. Certainly not The Church (they just gave it their own twist) - see this : http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
Raymond Bezzina
Jul 11th 2010, 17:37
@ Alison Bezzina
Please permit me to ask you two questions:
1. Where do you go to find the truth ?
2. Who, do you believe has created marriage ?
victor rodenas
Jul 11th 2010, 16:42
Some time ago I had the occasion to give a talk to the `Cloister Nuns`.After permission was granted i went to their Convent .I asked them if it was worthwhile to live in solitude and waking up at night to say prayers. Would`nt it be better that instead of wasting ones life living between four walls they would start teaching Cathecism to small children and help other Sisters in orphanages ,or perhaps going to the missions.My talk continued for about one hour and when I finished talking I asked them if they had any questions..........an old nun stood up and told me,....`my friend, come and live here with us in the Convent for six months and then afterwards give us another talk on how we should live in the Convent `.