Christian Peregin
Politicians ‘should take clear stand' on divorce
Divorce: ‘This is not the time for crusades’
Politicians and political parties should not hide behind a referendum on divorce and should present the public with their clear stand, according to Jesuit provincial and moral theology expert Fr Paul Pace.
Together with a number of theologians, he was asked to react to The Sunday Times’ survey which showed 58 per cent of people support the holding of a referendum to decide whether to introduce divorce in the country.
Prime Minister Lawerence Gonzi, whose Nationalist Party has kicked off an internal debate on divorce, has said he would like the people to decide but has not specified whether he sees that decision being made in a referendum or via a general election. The Labour Party has not come out with a clear stand on divorce, with its leader Joseph Muscat, who is in favour, saying he would present a Private Members’ Bill and let MPs have a free vote. Meanwhile, Alternattiva Demokratika, the Green Party, has long pronounced itself clearly in favour.
The survey also found that 45 per cent of the Maltese would vote against divorce, 40 per cent would vote in favour and 14 per cent had not yet made up their minds.
Meanwhile, 75 per cent of respondents said this was a matter of conscience and only 20 per cent said the Church’s instructions had determined their position.
Fr Pace said the survey struck him because it showed there was a clear “relative majority” against divorce. Before the survey he was not so confident that this majority, which was evident in surveys a number of years ago, had continued to prevail, albeit to a lesser extent.
He added that the survey painted a realistic picture overall and showed that opposition towards divorce was not something exclusive to the elderly.
However, he did not agree with the majority of the respondents – that divorce should be decided by a referendum.
“It is difficult to isolate an issue like divorce in a referendum. I think the political parties should take a clear position, they cannot just relieve themselves of this decision by passing it on for a referendum,” he said, pointing out that referenda were not always the best ways of taking such a decision.
“For instance, I wouldn’t be very happy with a referendum to decide on how to treat immigrants.”
Meanwhile, Fr Emmanuel Agius, dean of the University’s Theology Faculty, said it was not easy to determine what people meant when they said they were influenced by their own consciences.
He said it was important for Catholics to take into consideration the Church’s instructions but they also had a responsibility to form their consciences by listening to the “experienced” Church, as well as any scientific statistics that could back their arguments.
Fr Agius said Christians should always seek the common good and the stability of the family while not ignoring the situation of unstable families.
He said it was up to politicians to choose whether this was decided through a referendum but it was in their interest to seek some form of mandate.
“I don’t think a political party without a mandate can decide on this issue without the people’s input from a referendum or a general election. This is so important it should not be decided just by the parliamentary group.”
Asked if the Church should campaign against divorce more strongly he said: “This is not the time for crusades. The Church has a right to participate in the debate and it is an important stakeholder. It should not impose but has a right to make its voice heard.”
The editor of the Church’s e-newspaper il-Ġens, Fr John Avellino, said the survey reflected the current trend where individuals, even practising Catholics, were convinced they should be guided by “their own ethical norms and principles – what we call ethical relativism”.
He said the Church was not giving instructions but reiterating “the command of the Lord”.
“The Church has no intention of putting pressure on people’s consciences to keep control over life in Malta, as some keep accusing it of doing. This is absurd,” he said.
“On the contrary the Church’s mission is to form consciences enlightened by the Gospel truth. We have a moral duty to preach and teach the doctrine of the Church regarding marriage, which takes its inspiration from the Gospel truth.”
Meanwhile, another theology expert from the University, Fr George Grima, said those who indicated conscience as their guiding principle were not necessarily saying they did not seriously consider the Church’s teaching.
“Like any other person, the Catholic has a right to follow one’s own conscience. In fact, the Church teaches that one is morally bound to act in accordance with one’s own conscience,” he said, adding that the teaching was meant to “enlighten and guide” people’s judgments.
He said that this, however, did not mean people underestimated the influence of the Church on their conscience.
Fr Grima added that referenda did not exonerate politicians from taking personal responsibility but simply gave an indication of the will of the electorate.
“But morality goes beyond the views of the majority, in particular on matters such as divorce.”
The Curia has not yet responded to questions sent by The Times about the survey.
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...
26 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Sabrina Borda
Aug 11th 2010, 07:14
Politicians should not take any instructions from the church.
Politicians are not here to serve the interests of the church.
The church should not be influencing politicians on where their conscience needs to rest.
The church should be busy asking itself if it has made any mistakes.
The church needs to see why.
Joe Zammit
Aug 10th 2010, 21:02
The Catholic Church is duty bound to teach the people of Malta and Gozo what Christ has taught her. Christ spoke clearly about divorce. Divorce is evil and we must never resort to divorce. The Catholic Church prohibits divorce because divorce is a grave sin against God.
Besides, the Catholic Church has the right to use all moral means to spread her teaching among us. Billboards are no exception. Teaching the Word of God can take diverse forms from the internet to newspapers, from television to the public square.
Christ commanded his Catholic Church to go and preach to all nations by word and example, for the salvation of souls. The Church will continue to echo far and wide Christ teaching and will continue to preach in favour of the indissolubility of marriage and against the evil and injustice of divorce.
Sabrina Borda
Aug 11th 2010, 10:57
Is that why Jesus never got married?
Jesmond Micallef
Aug 10th 2010, 20:46
Very interesting.
The Church teachings extend quite alot and far beyond this current divorce issue. The Church teachings is about life itself. Literally about all its aspects, starting from creation and conception of life to indeed death. Creating a conscience within a human being is quite complex. People have unique inner truths but the surroundings imposes its own "percieved realities or truths". Are statistics truthful ? It's just number crunching in order to define a reality which is considered to be a norm of some sort. But still, there are the small deviances or variances, which is quite normal and expected too.
The divorce issue is a very complex one but definitely the teachings of the Church have their own success stories too. I think that deserves due merit in this debate, fact.
Joseph Calleja
Aug 10th 2010, 17:15
" For instance, I wouldn’t be very happy with a referendum to decide on how to treat immigrants.”
And why is that Father? Are you afraid of the will of the people? After all the people are the ones who are paying for their comfort and upkeep. What will the Jesuits do if all those thousands of euros stop coming in from the people?.
" However, he did not agree with the majority of the respondents – that divorce should be decided by a referendum." Again why so afraid? After all the government is the people and the people have a right to vote on important issues like these that are going to effect the whole country. Surveys are very biased and and a lot of times the outcome is not so honest. You know that and I know that. A survey does not drop 10% in one week, Hellooooo
By the way in reference to the illegal immigrants most Maltese are very much against illegal immigration, only the Jesuits, the NGOs and some bleeding hearts are for it and sometimes I wonder why? So far they have created nothing but havoc for the rest of us.
Rudy Sollars
Aug 10th 2010, 15:05
Although religion plays an important role in the identity of many Maltese, policymaking must be done with principles that are accessible to all citizens, religious or not. It follows that, politicians have a public obligation to guarantee equality and fundamental rights for each of its citizens, prior to defending dogma and enforce their beliefs.
Considering that Europe has emerged from twenty centuries of religious strife characterised by slaughter over metaphysical disputes, I consider it important that our politicians sympathetic to the Catholic agenda, must safeguard against the return of ecclesiastical domination in our affairs of the world.
Although the Church continues to assert its right to the monopoly of moral values, Freedoms are individual rights, not rights that can be claimed by any group to be used to restrict the rights of others, or to impose its own values on others. Politicians have a duty to consider that metaphysical concepts are entirely personal, and should leave citizens completely free to pursue their own conscience and personal research.
As Barak Obama concludes: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason”.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm
martin saliba
Aug 10th 2010, 14:43
" The Church has no intention of putting pressure on people’s consciences to keep control over life in Malta, as some keep accusing it of doing. This is absurd,” he said " . Has the church heard what was said by the holy mary at borg nadur ? Is it investigating who is behind this moral blackmail by a few of its fanatical members ?
Dr. John Zammit
Aug 10th 2010, 14:40
If the Nationalist government passes a divorce law before the coming election, they will remain in government forever because those thousands who need it will vote PN. More information on divorce in Malta www.freewebs.com/maltadivorce We are fed up now with the interfierence of priests and the Catholic Church. Divorce is not for Catholics. Catholics cannot divorce. Divorce is for people like me who are non-believers and for those who married civilly not in the church. So please priests shut up! We are fed up of you! Leave us alone!
Leon Zawadzki
Aug 10th 2010, 14:16
It's about time that some people should be aware of the roll of a politician towards the electorate.
Its the electorate that controls the politician not visa versa.
Its the electorate that has the say in running the country, not the politician.
Its the electorate's views that count not the politicians.
In other word, the politician who is elected by the electorate is duty bound to put forward the views of his constituency even if they are in direct conflict with his or her own personal view or even his parties view. Unfortunately politicians vote on party lines even when they are personally against the the proposed proposal, this means in reality that politicians have no interest in their electorate but only in themselves and their party.
Taking the above into consideration, I believe that all major changes, be they the Laws of Malta or government projects, they should be voted on through a referendum by the people of Malta, be it on the issue of divorce or the Piano project in Valletta or any such other topic.
Politician's speak for themselves, NOT for the people of Malta in most cases.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 10th 2010, 13:37
The church really believes that its Maltese flock is a pack of idiots. The more I read the Bishops and priests’ rhetoric about the evils of divorce the more I distance myself from their patronising statements. They are doing it wrong and they know it, but they persist.
Joseph Dimech
Aug 10th 2010, 17:28
priests ... persist
joe gatt
Aug 10th 2010, 13:18
Referendum, Majority, Minority, Catholic Church, ect ect
bla, bla, bla and more bla.
There is a status quo between the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party, an equilibrium, with the Catholic Church being the pivotal point or fulcrum.
Presently as things stand, if one posseses financial strenght, ie is well to do, rich, one may easily obtain divorce abroad, it will be recognized here in Malta.
In order to break this situation, all those in faviour of divorce must recognize the need to end this situation.
Only by voting a third party into our parliament, a party totally in favour of divorce, will this impasse be broken.
All those who cannot afford divorce proceeding abroad, vote it in when the time comes.
Election time.
Tony Gatt
Aug 10th 2010, 12:56
Fr Paul Pace, go tell it to the marines. With your stance in favor of illegal immigrants if I was against divorce I shall now be in favor of divorce.
d.attard
Aug 10th 2010, 12:51
The catholic church in Malta must thread carefully. It is risking making itself redundant.
It must be aware that its position in our society is partially supported by a significant core of humanists. These may not believe stories but are aware of the need to have a 'spiritual' magnet that gels society against the natural traumas of life.
Yet should it come to pass that the church be seen as a prime mover in sustaining a hostile climate towards sections of Maltese, the humanist core can easily become leaders in proposing to our society other organised sources of spiritual-gel that respond better to the basic needs of population.
Catholic churches elsewhere have been very wise in managing their social obligations. As an example, 28% of US Catholics have obtained divorce, remain in the church, and a chunk of this 28% has married (church wedding) for a second time.
It is good that the church is not after crusades. Unfortunately I see no sign to support this claim. Anti-divorce 'argument' to date is limited to emotion and political positioning. We still await the church's argument against divorce in a world (underpinned by main religions save catholics) that takes divorce as read.
Paul Barrett
Aug 10th 2010, 11:24
I understand that the Catholic Church will never accept divorce, it is their law and they have a perfect right to hammer (though not physically as they did to me when I was at school) that law into their members for strict obedience. What I feel is wrong though is how members of the Catholic Church lecture none members of their Church and are so adamant that other members of society should be deprived of something that does not apply to their members.
A secular state should not be ruled by the laws of a particular religion, even if that religion is deemed as the main religion of that state. It is the duty of Politicians to bring in laws that cover the needs of all of society and not just to apply the laws of one particular Church, even if it is contrary to the one they belong to.
david debattista
Aug 10th 2010, 11:22
All this Drama makes we feel so sick. I just feel sorry for the people who are being abused and in pain trying to get their life together . The church and the political stand make me feel disgusted as if you are all virgins, saints, and without sin. The more I get to know you, the more I love my dog and cats.
Louise Vella
Aug 10th 2010, 10:45
Fr Paul Pace, the former director of the Jesuit Refugee Service and now Jesuit provincial, “did not agree with the majority of the respondents – that divorce should be decided by a referendum ... pointing out that referenda were not always the best ways of taking such a decision. For instance, I wouldn’t be very happy with a referendum to decide on how to treat immigrants.”
Fr Pace obviously does not have great faith in democracy – government by the people, of the people, for the people. The Sunday Times survey showed 58% of the people favour a decision on divorce by referendum, but Fr Pace disagrees. He probably also disagrees with 81% of respondents who (in an online poll by timesofmalta.com) supported sending illegal immigrants found at sea back to Libya. And no doubt he disagrees with 90% of respondents (in an earlier online poll by maltarightnow.com) who supported Berlusconi’s push-back policy, i.e. pushing back the boats to Libya. As for me, I would be happy with government by Jesuits and of Jesuits – provided it’s only for Jesuits.
Ramon Casha
Aug 10th 2010, 10:44
“For instance, I wouldn’t be very happy with a referendum to decide on how to treat immigrants.”
Well said.
“their own ethical norms and principles – what we call ethical relativism”.
Is this the same as the "moral relativism" that the church is constantly preaching against? If so, it seems that this evil moral relativism is nothing more than people having their own ethical norms and principles.
"The Church has no intention of putting pressure on people’s consciences to keep control over life in Malta"
You mean like when the archbishop instructed MPs that they "have to" vote against divorce?
Joe Grima
Aug 10th 2010, 10:39
"The Church has no intention of putting pressure on people’s consciences to keep control over life in Malta." Fr Avellino. You could have knocked me down with a feather. Now pull my other leg . It has bells on it.
mario gellel
Aug 10th 2010, 10:37
@Fr.Pace
We elect MP's not to controll our future but to direct us in their best knowlege. So a referendom on this issue is a must. Regarding a referendom on illegal immigrant (and not immigrant), for sure you know the result.
jane camilleri haber
Aug 10th 2010, 10:29
1 our people are noble enough not to compromise what they truly believe in neither for personal gain not for passion
2 we should exploit at best this natural inclination we have professed in this survey by doing our utmost as a nation to feed the conscience of the maltese with the data, statistics and expert analysis necessary for us to make a balanced and wise decision on the matter, one which we shall not cry over in disillusionment in a few years time
D Vella
Aug 10th 2010, 13:19
I think I know where you are coming from Ms Haber,Your hidden but unsophisticated threat should be seen for what it's worth.Why are you so afraid to say what you really think. or better still allow people the choice as to divorce or not?.
jane camilleri haber
Aug 10th 2010, 10:24
a referendum is the only way the electorate can be respected enough when faced with something of this magnitude. leaving it up to politicians would mean treating us as being unable to weigh the prons and cons of the matter and decide in a disinterested manner. politicians are not necessarily expert in this field and neighter can we say that they have shown themselves to be wholly disinterested in the way they decide on things. this thing should not be associated with a general election since no political party should be given the mandate to govern our country on just one issue, nor any party should be disadvantaged on just one issue.I believe that experts in the field should pool in data, statistics and their expert analysis for the man in the street to be able to digest and assimilate the real situation vis-a vis divorce and its paraphernalia then the electorate invited to say its' say. if 75% of the electorate say that this is a matter of conscience then that means two things at least.
Jon Shaw
Aug 10th 2010, 10:15
Sign the online petition on www.divorceinmalta.com
D Vella
Aug 10th 2010, 09:55
Only a free secret vote by MP's would be acceptable. Since MP's are elected to represent all Citizen's regardless of race,sex and religion the vote should be a foregone conclusion. Yes to divorce to those who want it.
ASpiteri
Aug 10th 2010, 09:36
They should have a clear stand not only on divorce but on the whole political ideology they claim to profess!
The present political class is the perfect demonstration of the no-politics politicians; the end product of junk politics!
They act according to public opinion and most of the time they try their best not to expose their stand on the particular issue. The current fiasco that divorce presented to our esteemed politicians as shock, as now they have nowhere to hide!
And we will spend 80million euros in a new parliament for these idiots!