C. John Zammit, Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada
Divorce and the Church (1)
In Malta, a country unlike any other on planet earth, “divorce” and “annulment” are the two sides of the same face, their legal distinction notwithstanding.
Malta’s Marriage Act specifies the requirements for marriage, and in its unique way, includes the grounds for annulment, as per Article 19. As if that weren’t enough, Article 19A — Annulment of marriage on the grounds of non-consummation — was added by the PN government in 1995. It reads, “19A. (1) A valid marriage may be annulled...”
That’s quite an oddity. In the rest of the world, except in the Philippines and the Vatican, the legal termination of a valid marriage is called “divorce”.
As Humpty Dumpty would say, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” I would think that a couple who find themselves in an untenable relationship would care less about how jurists or prelates refer to their desire to legally terminate their marital bond. Why should they care? Divorce, annulment, dissolution, termination ... they all mean the same: “I’m out of here!”
It isn’t likely that divorce legislation will be enacted any time soon. With the Prime Minister adamant that it won’t happen on his watch, it is very possible that divorce will not come to Malta for another decade or two, much to the great joy of the “divorce never!” fanatics who can’t keep their noses out of people’s intimate life.
In the absence of divorce legislation, if Romeo and Juliet find that their rose has wilted and feels like a thorn, they would do well to turn to Article 19A and claim non-consummation – regardless of how long their marriage had lasted or how amorous it was.
Before anyone waves the “perjury flag”, I suggest that they refer to the third paragraph of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, in plain language: “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”. And we find, “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offence.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2383.
Thus, anything in the battle for personal freedom from the iron grip of a law, unwritten in the name of some mythical entity, is morally just.
Annulment lawyers, where are you?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
34 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 4th 2010, 00:18
@ V.Pulis. You're right of course. I was just stretching the meaning of annulled. I was thinking people who are annulled, as in annihilated, exterminated, as if they didn't matter, demolished. In which case their children could be seen as orphans. People can be killed without actually being killed. As in, being forced to remain in an abusive relationship/marriage because of some fancy words in an old book that were probably never uttered anyway. This endless divorce debate is so boringly circular. I mean, it's not as if it could ever apply to me. I stood cowering in a corner for long enough. These days, if I have anything to say, I stand up and say it. If empowerment is not forthcoming, I award it to myself.
I did, and I'm still standing straight - so to speak.
victor pulis
Sep 3rd 2010, 13:18
@Joe Xuereb
Orphans are children whose parents are dead. Children whose parents have obtained an annullment, meaning that according to the church their marriage never existed are, according to the church born out of wedlock ergo they are considered illegitimate by the church. if the church declares something she must bear the consequences.No beating about the bush.
On the other two points I am in total agreement.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 2nd 2010, 15:00
@Pulis, the children of annulled parents are called orphans.
@JoeZammit. 'Parish priests know exactly also those who do not go to Mass every week'. Oh dear! Big-Brother-Church!! You talk of dignity. Be a fly on the wall and watch anyone, including popes and prelates, in their private moments. Then come back and speak of human dignity.
@JoeZammit. Divorce never you keep saying. If a wife is being beaten black and blue, what do you suggest she could do Joe Z.?
Frank Muscat
Sep 2nd 2010, 14:27
JOE ZAMMIT
IN 1864 , POPE PIUS IX, IN HIS SYLLABUS OF ERRORS, CONDEMNED "THAT ERRONEOUS OPINION MOST PERNICIOUS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH...CALLED BY OUR PREDECESSOR GREGORY XVI 'MADNESS', NAMELY THAT LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND OF WORSHIP IS THE RIGHT OF EVERY HUMAN BEING".
A CENTURY LATER, VATICAN II'S DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY STATED; " RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN SOCIETY IS IN COMPLETE HARMONY WITH THE ACT OF CHRISTIAN FAITH" (no 9).
Both of the above are Magisterial statements and yet they contradict each other. My conscience tends to follow the latter, yours? The former?
THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW FORBADE "CATHOLICS FROM PARTICIPATING IN DISPUTATIONS OR DISCUSSIONS WITH NON-CATHOLICS WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE HOLY SEE"(CANON 1325.3). AND IN 1919, 1927, 1948, 1949 AND 1954, THE VATICAN EXPLICITLY REPEATED ITS REJECTION OF CATHOLIC INVOLVEMENT IN ECUMENISM.
BUT 1965, VATICAN I I" EXHORTED THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL TO...TAKE AN ACTIVE AND INTELLIGENT PART IN THE WORK OF ECUMENISM..."(DECREE ON ECUMENISM).
JOE, CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY IS A LIVING FAITH, NOT A DEAD IMITATION OF A PAST THAT NO LONGER EXISTS. SIMPLY TO PARROT THE PAST, AS YOU HAVE BEEN DOING, IS TO PERVERT IT.
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 2nd 2010, 09:39
@ Carmel Pule` :
Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.
*****
My soon-to-be ex-husband brought his girlfriend to divorce court this week. I guess they figured she might as well know what to expect.
Pule' Carmel
Sep 1st 2010, 22:15
A young courting couple died in a traffic incident and while in heaven asked St Peter if they could get married in Heaven? After seven months St Peter came back saying that they could. Then the couple asked if they could get divorced if the marriage in heaven did not work out!. St Peter looked a little annoyed about all this and said, " Now look here lady and gentleman, it took me seven months to find a priest to answer your first question, I am not sure that I can find a lawyer up here to answer your second question!
So the couple did their best to make their marriage work out.
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 2nd 2010, 09:10
good one ! Humour never hurts.
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 1st 2010, 22:13
This cannot be serious, but it is definitely entertaining.
I like the battle-cry !! "join the battle etc."
I do not want any credit but I was going to suggest an appropriate battle song, whatever for the battle is being fought.
How about : " Oh When the Saints come marching in....."
victor pulis
Sep 3rd 2010, 10:20
He forgot to add "God wills it!"
Frank Muscat
Sep 1st 2010, 20:52
Joe Zammit
Hopefully, you're tuned in to dialogue.
Please comment on the following:
In 1864, Pope Pius IX in his Syallabus of Errors, condemned "that erroneous opinion pernicious to Catholic church called by our predecessor Gregory XVI 'madness', namely, that liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every human being".
A century later, Vatican II's declaration on Religious LIberty stated: "Religious freedom in society is in complete harmony with the act of Christian faith" (No 9).
The Magisterium of the Church seems to be contradicting its own teaching. Please help.
Joe Zammit
Sep 1st 2010, 19:32
Christian Marriage (Casti Connubii) of Pope Pius XI: Par.91 runs: “Opposed to all these aberrations, Venerable Brethren, there stands one irrefragable law of God, amply endorsed by Christ, a law against whose force no human decree, no ordinance of peoples, no lawgiver’s will can prevail: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder.’ If anyone in spite of that law makes such a separation his act is null and void, with the consequence which Christ Himself has clearly proclaimed: ‘He that puts away his wife and marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery.’ And these words of Christ apply to any marriage whatsoever, EVEN TO A LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE OF THE NATURAL ORDER. Indissolubility is the attribute of every true marriage, and therefore so far as the dissolution of the bond is concerned it is independent of the will of the parties themselves and of every secular power.”
Joseph calleja
Sep 1st 2010, 17:31
To all commentators, please join us and stop entertaining a certain person et al with their my way or the highway approach. Stop listening to their threats that all those in favour of divorce are going to hell. There are a lot more intelligent people to comment to than these fanatics.. Threatening people with sin and hell is a poor weapon in this day and age, but it is a bit annoying especially coming from such opinionated people. They are stuck in the 1950 bubble and they refuse to see beyond that. So please even though it is very tempting, stop commenting to these people and let them rant and rave on their own. Don't fall into their trap. They can condemn and threated and spread all the hatred they want but they have to do it on their own. Amen.
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Sep 1st 2010, 16:14
@JZ— What gives one freedom, morality and dignity is that one does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it and LOVES it! As long as we have a master in heaven, we will always be slaves on earth. One cannot offend God—nothing can be more outrageous.
To condemn contraceptives in Africa, as the Church preaches, while tens of thousands die of AIDS is as stupid, inhumane, cruel and genocidal as can be. It is useless waving your catechism to the dying poor victims. That is devilish!
DIVORCE WILL BECOME A LAW FOR THE SAKE OF THE BROKEN VICTIMS. LOVE ALWAYS WINS!
Joe Zammit
Sep 1st 2010, 16:08
In Malta church attendance to weekly Mass is 72% because there are those who do not go regularly. Parish priests know exactly also those who do not go to Mass every week.
Besides, the others who do not attend are still Catholic. They still baptize their children in the Catholic Faith. They still send their children to learn their Catholic Faith at school and Church societies. They still prepare them to receive the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Eucharist. They get married in the Catholic Church. When they die they are taken to a Catholic church and after Masses are offered for them in Catholic churches.
On Trinity Sunday 96% of Maltese and Gozitan children of their peer group have made their First Holy Communion. This augurs very well for the future of the Catholic Church on our Catholic islands until the end of time.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Marion Silvester
Sep 1st 2010, 15:08
There I was thinking that Malta was a Republic, governed by lay people who were "democratically" elected , and not by the Church. I thought the times of the dreaded 1960's were over, and lessons where learnt from that. Apparently not. Mind you they do say that "HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF". Co-incidentally? Who knows!!
Isn't it about time that Politics and Religion are kept separate, and not use the threat of "sin" and not welcome in the "church" tactics in order to pass and approve laws? Life would be so much more harmonious. Ever wondered why the Church is losing so much of its followers? Enough said!
David Borg
Sep 1st 2010, 14:48
Everyone is entitled to his opinion but this has to be based on correct facts.
Annulment, or to be more exact, a declaration of nullity of marriage, which means that a marriage did not exist, is not only found in Malta, the Vatican and The Philippines. It also exists in the civil law of other countries, eg Italy.
A marriage can also be declared null for non-consummation in other countries as in the UK (http://www.divorce-online.co.uk/community/topic.asp?ID=7o).
Besides children of a null marriage are considered legitimate.
Check your law and check your facts please!
Anthony Mifsud
Sep 1st 2010, 11:59
The children of an Unnulment are called Bastards while the children of a Divorce are still children of the mother and the father. not the same man!
Joseph Micallef
Sep 1st 2010, 14:54
The children from an annulled marriage are not called "bastards" - if you wish you can use that term describe your esteemed sameself kind Sir. The children of an annulled marriage are no different than those from a divorce and they still have a mother and father!
victor pulis
Sep 1st 2010, 21:31
I think what Anthony wants to say is that children born to annulled parents are born out of wedlock as the church considers the marriage never to have taken place and that makes sense. I wouldn't use that word though although under the circumstances they would be considered illegitimate by the church at least. If the church declares something it must bear the consequences.
Pastore Rafael Sanchez
Sep 1st 2010, 11:54
Dear Mr. Zammit,
I am assuming that Mr. Humpty Dumpty is a Catholic theologian. Can you please indicate where I can find this quote? I am not aware of this theologian but I think that his wisdom should be shared further with your readers. Thank you.
Pas. Sanchez
Teresa Pace
Sep 1st 2010, 20:34
One question pastore, when was the True Catholic Church of Peter II of which you form part established? The Catholic Church (Roman) dates back to Jesus Christ, the first Pope dates back to Peter the apostle check any encyclopedia even a non christian one) and yours?
Teresa Pace
Sep 1st 2010, 20:57
anendement: both non-catholic and catholic encyclopedias go back to Peter as the first Pope of the Catholic Church.
C Cini
Sep 1st 2010, 11:17
"Divorce never" does not mean fanatics but wanting the best for our children. The Catechism quoted here is half of what is intended to say. "The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law" is the explaition as regards other important factors, but not divorce. Therefore the Church is not saying that divorce is a right but the the right is the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance. Infact the sentence before says "The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law." You know what it means divorce since you see and live in that mentality in Canada. Is there any sense of family bond in your country? How people, especially the young, look towards marriage? Answer these questions and we will see if divorce is a right or not !
Joseph Calleja
Sep 1st 2010, 15:28
Mr Cini I have tried to get an explanation from a certain other person, but as usual no answer. Jesus Christ told St Peter ( who was a married man with children) "leave everything behind and follow me and I will make you a fisher of men." Why did Christ himself tell St Peter to abandon his wife and kids so he can follow him? This is a quote from the bible which we abide by. A bit contradictory, don't you think?
C Cini
Sep 1st 2010, 18:13
No it is not a contradictory, the case of Peter didn't mean he abandoned his wife. The call of Peter was a special one and the call of Peter, directely from Jesus himself was to follow his master first and foremost. We do not know what happened in the life of Peter, who knows perhaps his wife died. Also you should know from the first centuries of the Church that priests except bishops where even married. Take the bible as a whole and see what the first letter of St Paul to Corintians Cap 7, we see those like Paul choose not to marry for their special call. Even Jesus also explain this in Mattew chapter 19. There is a lot of reference which imply the centrality of Chirst in the life of those who called to be His.
mary borg
Sep 1st 2010, 09:40
Annulment and divorce are not two sides of the same coin they are completely different terms. With regards to the extract from the cathecism of the catholic church, the way I see it...if divorce is the ONLY way to safeguard some rights....it does not say go ahead and do it; it is for all and it is free. Personally, I would like to find exactly the meaning for this extract, as Jesus says No to divorce except in fornication and obviously there is free will involved as well (psychological, chemical and circumstantial).
Joseph Micallef
Sep 1st 2010, 15:03
Mary if you want to be objective you will realise that, with all its disguises, Church annullment is simply a Church sanctioned Divorce! It is a way by which the chuch puts asunder what god united. Saying that the marriage "never existed" is simply a peurile excuse!
Joe Zammit
Sep 1st 2010, 09:16
Rights are positive. Divorce is negative, so it is no right. Rights entail duties. Divorce entails no duty (not even to remarry), so it is no right.
The European Convention on Human Rights is reticent on divorce, so divorce is no right.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is mum on divorce, so divorce is no right.
Therefore, any argument depicting divorce as a right in view of introducing it in our legislation is flawed right at the start.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. Christ tells all our MPs that what God has joined together let no MP put asunder. Any MP who votes for divorce is betraying Christ.
Joseph Micallef
Sep 1st 2010, 15:00
"Rights are positive. Divorce is negative, so it is no right." - such slogans which you keep repeating are called "sweeping statements" and do not compliment at all their author! Sweeping statements are the opposite of discussion. They are used in fact by people who have lost every argument possible and so resort to them!
Joe Zammit
Sep 1st 2010, 09:14
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offence.”
This is a case where the validly married spouse is constrained by law to accept divorce as the only possible way for certain legal rights. This provision of the Catechism is in no way favouring divorce.
The Church is saying ‘tolerated’, i.e., the action for divorce is made externally only, not internally, materially and not formally. After all, this case does not apply to Malta.
So the married spouse continues to consider his or her marriage still valid before God and the Catholic Church and does not enter another relationship.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Joseph Micallef
Sep 1st 2010, 14:57
Sure Joe but marriage obtained from abroad is still valid in Malta - it is legal! So what's the difference between getting the same divorce here and needing to go get it abroad Joe - just MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY and nothing more! OK so you are telling me that MP's that allowed the recognition of a divorce obtained abroad are going to hell hux Joey!
patrick zammit
Sep 1st 2010, 16:03
Indeed, J Micallef!
Since MPs are already going to hell through the recognition of foreign divorces, they might as well go for the whole hog and vote yes for divorce.
The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Joe Zammit
Sep 1st 2010, 16:03
Joseph, two wrongs do not make a right. We do not want divorce because divorce is evil, condemned by God for our own good. Recognising a divorce given abroad does not amount to legalising it in Malta. Recognising a divorce given abroad is not evil. It is just a civil recognition and the recogniser has no say in that divorce.
l.theuma
Sep 1st 2010, 17:56
JZ, it is a known fact that in Malta many marriages are broken, cohabitation exists, many children are suffering, many have no legal rights, many children are loosing their inheritance. Many children are abandoned by one of their cohabiting parents parents. Are these not national sins? Are Members of Parlament not reponsable for these? What is the teaching of the church reguard these? What legal rights the church suggests for such children?
Just label them as illegitimate on their birth certificate? Suggest, please, an alternatlive.