The greatest travesty of all

The billboard placed on the stupendous baroque parvis of St Philip’s church in Żebbuġ, bearing the legend that God does not want divorce, reminded me of all the times throughout the history of the human race, in which it is obvious that mankind has learned nothing by its mistakes, that what God wants or does not want coincides most conveniently with what man wants or not want at the time.

The one greatest travesty that has coloured the outlook of so many countries that, we, in Malta, are the vortex of, is the famous rallying cry of Dieu le veut or God wants it, which legitimised the most heinous atrocities committed in all the Six Crusades.

When Urban II preached the First Crusade in 1095 he exhorted the people to die for the glory of Christ by wresting the holy places from the pagans “and subjecting it to yourselves”. The establishment of the principalities of Outremer was what God wanted. If you believe that you must also believe in Father Christmas.

Just over 1,000 years later we are still paying the bitter price for what Urban II declared with such certainty and authority that that was what God wanted. I shudder to think, whenever some soi-disant living prophet, patriarch, apostle or doctor of the Church declares that something is the will of God, how they know it. Do they hear heavenly voices like Jeanne d’Arc? Do they see apocalyptic visions like John of Patmos? Perhaps telephony has reached such a high degree of sophistication that the privileged few have been given God’s ex-directory number. I am flummoxed. Not because of the improbability of the declaration but by its barefaced presumption.

In principle, I did not and still do not agree with divorce being rammed down anyone’s throat in this cavalier fashion. However, after three weeks of reactions, I am starting, albeit, reluctantly, to agree with the way Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando shot his bolt. Before the Private Member’s Bill was made, despite cogent and well-researched reports about divorce by The Today Public Policy Institute were submitted to the government, the issue was always filed away, again and again. It took Dr Pullicino Orlando’s insider knowledge of what makes the Nationalist Party tick to do what he did. A snowball effect followed as more and more people, who for many years have been denied the basic human right to happiness by not being able to start a new life, have had the courage to speak out and, as in the case of Lynn Zahra, take concrete action.

By taking up the Catholic Church’s stand and insisting that the PN, as a party, is all for the strengthening of marriage, the government, especially after abrogating its parliamentary responsibilities and shoving the issue on the entire nation, is taking a very short-term view of the issue. As time goes by and more and more people from all walks of life avoid marriage as an institution because it simply has not kept up with the needs and wants of society, the PN will go down in history as a reactionary party that could not make out the simple equation that people who want divorce are people who believe in marriage. Logically, what other reason could there be to want divorce other than to remarry?

I do not expect the Church to agree with this. As things stand, the Church has control, meaning that it is solely responsible for the recognition of annulments and that the state in this case becomes a second-class citizen. Things will always remain that way unless the three clauses in the Constitution that keep the state in thrall to the Archbishop are removed. Therefore, it is all quite useless and all this sturm und drang becomes mere midsummer madness unless the real fundamental issue is tackled.

Unless the Constitution is amended, the battle to win a fundamental human right remains a mere peripheral skirmish. The three lacunae are, in fact, divorce, gay rights and censorship, all of which are very complicated and delicate issues that, in some way or another, affect the lives of a great many people. None are clear-cut and all three have innumerable permutations but it is high time that either the government or the opposition bites the bullet and gets down to business.

The Private Members’ Bill idea that Joseph Muscat had spoken about to introduce divorce when he became Prime Minister was gazumphed by Dr Pullicino Orlando and the only option open now is to include the introduction of divorce in the Labour Party’s electoral manifesto, which will be tantamount to putting it to the electorate.

The Times online poll agrees with the government that the divorce issue should be decided by the electorate, which I find a little strange for, usually, on issues like these the people who usually vote online are a tad savvier than most. However, although it could be that an ever-increasing number of people have access to PCs and use them, it could also be that the opposite of what has been predicted could be happening. In other words, it will not be the “tyranny” of the majority over a minority that will defeat divorce but that same predicted majority that will vote in favour of it, which will certainly vindicate all those who have, over the years, come what may, been advocating its introduction for so long.