Kurt Sansone
'Calm, civil' debate as PN tackles divorce
Bill modelled on Irish legislation
The divorce debate in the Nationalist Party kicked off yesterday with a very "calm and civil" discussion within the executive committee, which will meet again in September to continue exploring the issue, The Times has learnt.
Executive Committee President Marthese Portelli said when contacted that the internal debate will continue at the party's executive level and yesterday's was only the start of a longer process.
She did not say when the next meeting would be held but sources said it would most likely be in September. Members of the executive, who spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity, described the two-and-a-half hour debate that started at 6 p.m. as "very civil", "calm" and "positive".
The committee brings together some 100 members of the party from the parliamentary group to the youth section. However, only 85 people can vote, because the votes are divided among the representatives of the various sections of the party.
Backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando did not give a formal presentation on his Divorce Bill, which was what prompted yesterday's meeting to be held, but put forward his arguments on the matter.
Sources said a minority of executive members, including some MPs, supported Dr Pullicino Orlando's initiative and spoke in favour of divorce.
Three Cabinet members - Tonio Fenech, Tonio Borg and Carm Mifsud Bonnici - forcefully reiterated their stand against divorce, according to sources, even though Dr Borg did say he agreed with holding a referendum on the matter. The referendum option was raised by a number of other people.
The Prime Minister opened the discussion by reiterating his opposition to divorce but sources said he set the right tone for the debate to flow in a positive way.
This was the first time that divorce has been discussed in the PN's executive committee after Dr Pullicino Orlando forced it onto the agenda by presenting his Private Member's Bill last month.
The Bill is modelled on Irish legislation that requires couples to be separated for at least four years before obtaining a divorce.
Dr Gonzi had said he wanted the discussion to continue and the decision to be taken by the people without, however, specifying whether this was through a referendum or a general election. Dr Pullicino Orlando has publicly said that he wants the Bill to be debated in Parliament by January next year.
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...
'No need for early election if PM's...
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...
19 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Aug 3rd 2010, 11:02
Par. 2384 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“Divorce is a grave offence against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death.
Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery"
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. Christ was clear about divorce. He know more than us about the nature of divorce. He told us that divorce is evil. God does not want divorce. Any MP promoting divorce will be betrayer Christ.
G.Cassar
Aug 1st 2010, 11:05
As a PL supporter I urge the Party's Leadership to take this opportunity to educate its followers on the nature of divorce and how this can affect them personally so when the referendum comes every one of us will have a clear and educated picture. I hate hearing people firing away statements and half truths just to pretend to know more than others and who consequently give the conservative media power to ridicule us at every opportunity possible. We have the opportunity to prove that we care about human rights and that everyone is free to live as he or she prefers without interference from either State or Church so lets use these progressive beliefs to our advantage..
JPO’s sudden strike of conscience is purely a political move to leapfrog PL’s wishes to introduce divorce after the next election and which agenda will put the PN in a disadvantageous position which will lead to a crushing defeat . The PN will take its time and use it to alienate the people from other matters which affect the whole nation so the PL has to react, be strong and take lead of this issue.
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 09:09
Mr Cassar, divorce is not a human right. PL knows very well and is convinced that divorce is not a human right. To marry is a human right. Marriage is for ever. The State has no say in the celebration of marriage, so the State has no say in dissolving it. This is the teaching PL has to spread among all of us. Most PL MPs are against divorce. They are practising Catholics and Christ was against divorce for our own good.
Paul Vella
Jul 31st 2010, 23:33
Oh my goodness...this is simply pathetic. What are we trying to convey here...that the Pn will not split over the divorce issue?
Joe Zammit
Jul 31st 2010, 20:55
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.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. If an MP votes for divorce he or she is betraying Christ. And I seriously warn each MP: Be careful, because God is not asleep! I hope all MPs will understand what I am saying!
Lina Caruana
Jul 31st 2010, 19:36
Non believers or those with small faith would have us believe that religion and state do not mix. So long as the issue is on temporal needs. How come you cannot recognize the holistic side of it? As if a human being can be cut into compartments according to different kinds of lobbies!Don't try to fool us please as if you are the only people who can discuss. You do not need to be intelligent to know that a person acts from different aspects of their personality including their beliefs. I do not lose my faith because some priests lose theirs ,and there were quite a few even on this land , in history. Did that in any way change Catholicism? Why did people sustain their faith when their pastors did not? No one can compete with Christ even if that means suffering. This is not naive or nonsensical but an issue which can be a great cost to this country. It is superficiality and irresponsibility which is the trouble not religion . Why do you mix the issues.?
Paul Barrett
Jul 31st 2010, 16:35
Of course one argument against divorce is in the case where a couple have legal separation. They then go and live with different partners and set up a family. Having once been burned by marriage both emotionally and financially, irrespective of the pressure by the new partner to get married, the last thing they want is to repeat the nightmare. Currently they have the excuse that it is not possible :-)
Live in sin and enjoy the benefits without responsibility and definitely without the legal financial risk of leaving your partner.
martin saliba
Jul 31st 2010, 14:54
This is a complete waste of valuable time. Divorce will , by hook or by crook , be introduced to malta. The only question is how.
Lina Caruana
Jul 31st 2010, 13:15
There is a space for flexibility and give and take tactics. Messing about divorce pushes us too far. nobody has a right to impose on people like me to say yes for divorce. I have a right to be a Catholic ,sorry I disagree firstly on religious principles, secondly I have come across studies which cannot throw a clear light on the consequences of divorce in society. This is a reality far greater than personal problems ,let's face it . The world is in a quandary about marriage breakdowns its impact on society. I do not blame the PN for my unsolved problems through the system of justice why should anyone expect to solve his personal problems through the PN. Rights are as relative as there are people on earth. Do not try to impress us with rights because there are so many rights which are being tread upon. Whether members of PN or Pl don't give us a ride please! Stop catching votes by using people who are gullible. Nationalists are the last to vote haphazardly even if opportunistic greed is a driving force for some.
Anthony Mizzi
Jul 31st 2010, 12:28
The divorce debate in the Nationalist Party kicked off yesterday with a very "calm and civil" discussion within the executive committee,
- What proof do we have of that?
The party's executive level and yesterday's was only the start of a longer process
– So what's new?
Members of the executive, who spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity,
- Why are they scared to express their opinion publicly?
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando did not give a formal presentation on his Divorce Bill, , but put forward his arguments on the matter.
- What’s stopping him giving his presentation to the general public? I am most sure that some TV station will give JPO the requested airtime to air his views.
The Prime Minister opened the discussion by reiterating his opposition to divorce but sources said he set the right tone for the debate to flow in a positive way.
– Min qieghed jithaq b’min?
Dr Gonzi had said he wanted the discussion to continue and the decision to be taken by the people –
Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish
we didn't.
- Erica Jong, American author and teacher.
Joe Zammit
Jul 31st 2010, 12:13
1. Divorce is a great injustice against God.
2. Divorce is a great injustice against marriage
3. Divorce is a great injustice against the family
4. Divorce is a great injustice against the children
5. Divorce is a great injustice against society
6. Divorce is a great injustice the spouses themselves.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. If an MP votes for divorce he or she is betraying Christ. And I seriously warn each MP: Be careful, because God is not asleep! I hope all MPs will understand what I am saying!
Paul Barrett
Jul 31st 2010, 16:21
You are perfectly right to believe what you like but I think you are confused in mixing religion with justice.
Please leave religion out of a sensible debate on a civil matter regarding a civil law giving legally separated couples the right to dissolve a civil marriage.
Religion is an option and religious law should not be enforced even by a majority of the population on those that do not wish to follow or comply with it.
Your implied threats and scaremongering to those that have the difficult task of how and when to bring in a divorce law are infantile.
May your God be with you.
Joseph Calleja
Jul 31st 2010, 16:23
"If an MP votes for divorce he or she is betraying Christ." How can you say that when Christ himself told St Peter to leave everything behind (his wife and kids) and follow him and he shall make him a fisher of men.
" And I seriously warn each MP: " Those are pretty strong words Mr Zammit. WARN? And who are you to warn our MPs or anybody else, at that? Aren't you getting a bit carried away with your threats? Why are you so threatened with all this? Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to get a divorce. Let us be free to discuss divorce, pro and con and stop the my way or the highway speeches. You are instilling a lot of hate and that is not so ethical of you.
david debattista
Jul 31st 2010, 19:18
Joe Zammit, under genuine circumstances of a dysfunctional marriage especially were abuse is a strong issue, all your statements are a contradiction, what you are trying to do is to brain wash every body in thinking that the word divorce is some initiation into a satanic cult . You have made no reference to the traumas children and adults suffer under genuine circumstances. Call it divorce or an annulment I do not care. What I do care about is that pain and suffering are removed from the lives of such people. THAT IS WHY CHRIST HEALED THE SICK Joe, of all sickness including possession which is a sickness of the mind, body, soul, and ultimately the spirit. He also left others to continue such healing. What I am after is the removal of the lambs from the wolves Joe especially the wolves of HUMAN EVIL . Did nor Christ make it very clear when he tell us of the shepherd who leaves the rest of his sheep and goes out looking for the lost one! Is not the oppression of the human spirit one of the greatest evil, or human evil known to man!
g.c.Forte
Jul 31st 2010, 09:40
Dejjem nismahhom jghidu li meta ikun hemm il kalma, tkun gejja xi maltempata kbira. Ghogobni hafna l-ahhar paragrofu............Allura Dr. Gonzi ser jghamel bhal ma ghamel Pilatu, jahsel idejh ? Jekk hu hekk bilfors irid issejjah elezzjoni generali, ghax A. Jekk jitlob vot fil parlament ser jissogra li ma tghaddiex, ghallura ikollu jirrezenja . B. Jekk imur ghar Referendum wara li irid igib it 2/3 tal kamra, ser isib konfront qawwi mill Knisja, u C.Jekk jitlef ir Referendum, ikun iffisser vot ta sfiducja fil gvern, ghallura ikun irid isejjah Elezzjoni generali. Qeghed inhossni inkanta " There is a hole in the bucket ". iddur fejn iddur ser naqaw ghal l- elezzjoni. HUX.
M.Gauci
Jul 31st 2010, 10:27
Ghalhiex skond l-logika tieghek li jekk jintilef referendum jkun jfisser vot ta sfiducja fil-Gvern?
Dan fuq divorzju qed nitkelmu mhux fuq il-budget. Jekk jsir referendum jkun fuq jekk il-poplu jridx li jidhol jew le u mhux jekk il-partiti ghandhomx ragun jew le.
Jien ma nistax nifhima din li kull kwarta jkun hemm laburist li ilu 25 sena fl-opposizjoni dejjem jitlob ghal elezjoni bikrijja fuq affarijit trivjali. Fin-1981 gvernajtu kontra r-rida tal-poplu u flok ghamiltu elezjoni wara xaghr, bqajtu hemm, issawtuna u tkisruna sa l-ahhar gurnata imqadsa li l-kostutizzjoni hallitkom, u issa l-hin kollu titolbu ghal elezjoni?
Ma tahsibx li qed tghid il-hmerijiet?
Joseph Camilleri
Jul 31st 2010, 11:01
il-logika ma hiex il-Forte tieghek mid-dehra...
Jekk isir referendum, ikun xi jkun ir-rizultat ma huwiex interpretat bhala vot ta' fiducja jew sfiducja fil-gvern tal-gurnata. referendum isir propju biex kwistjoni tigi deciza independentement mill-argumenti politici anke jekk partiti politici jistghu jiehdu posizzjoni favur jew kontra.
ma fhimtx ghaliex jekk isir vot fil-parlament u ma jghaddiex ikollu jirrizenja. Jimporta tispjega ghaliex?
James De Giorgio
Jul 31st 2010, 14:12
wishful thinking siehbi...
g.c.Forte
Jul 31st 2010, 16:44
@ P.N. lovers............Jien qatt ma ghedt li nixtieq elezzjoni, la issa u l-anqas qabel, anzi min jaqra il kummenti tieghi, dejjem, ghedt li bhal issa ma ikunx jaqbel ghal pajjiz li issir elezzjoni issa. Anzi dejjem xtaqt lil Dr. Gonzi sabiex jitlob vot ta FIDUCJA fil partit, sabiex ixejjen kull attakk li gej,mhux min naha ta l-oppozizjoni imma min naha tal gvern li hu imexxi. Jien nemmen li, jekk il gvern jitlob li isir referendum, il logika tghejdlek li irid imur fuq naha, ovjament l- oppozizjoni tmur kontra, jekk it tnejn jaqblu li qablu hemm il KNISJA u il KOSTITUZJONI. Ghax dak li ghandha dritt li tghallem il Knisja ta Malta ( u li l-pajjizi l-ohra ma ghandhomx ) huwa marbut bil Kostituzjoni., ghallura bil fors li fil parlament trid tghaddi bit 2/3 tal membri,sabiex A. Li titnehha il klawsola Chapter 1 Religion 2 mil Kostituzjoni, B. Trid taccetta il Knisja li titnehha u C. Wara dan kollu jekk jaqblu li immorru ghar Referendum,xi hadd ser ikun IVA, u l-iehor LE. Sa fejn niftakar jien l-Iva tkun gejja min naha tal gvern u dejjem rebhet. Jekk tghaddi il LE, iva tkun sfiducja fil Gvern.