Advert

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?

Advert

34 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 2nd 2010, 09:10

good one ! Humour never hurts.

victor pulis

Sep 3rd 2010, 10:20

He forgot to add "God wills it!"

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

Advert
Advert