Editorial

The so-called debate on divorce is going from the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous. Former President Eddie Fenech Adami summed up the situation succinctly in comments to this newspaper last week: “Right now there is a lot of confusion and much loose talk which is leading nowhere. This is a subject that merits more objective, clear thinking which, I’m sorry to say, is lacking from many quarters.”

Dr Fenech Adami made this comment in the wake of remarks by Judicial Vicar Arthur Said Pullicino – who said to almost universal condemnation that those who cooperated with the introduction of divorce, which included judges who applied such a law, would be committing a “grave” sin – but it could have been made before or after. Because what we have been subjected to is not a debate on divorce, but rather a display of groups of clergymen, groups of politicians and other individuals jostling for position.

First the clergymen: over the past year or so various high profile priests have appeared in the press or on television putting forward different views about how the Church should advise – in some cases ‘coerce’ might be a more appropriate term – MPs or the electorate when they come to vote on whether Malta should introduce divorce legislation.

Though there has been some substantive stuff along the way, the main result has been to cause the Curia embarrassment because they have espoused different positions. We have gone from “sin” on one hand, to “divorce should be permitted if it is scientifically proven that society is better off with it than without it” on the other.

At least, most of these priests had the sense to get together – no doubt with the Archbishop’s approval and perhaps as a result of his instruction, for some reason we do not know – to produce what has been described as a position paper. This states that Catholics are free to reach a position on divorce provided they have a “formed and informed” conscience. How that conscience is to be formed is a debate in itself, but the same day the priests’ document was issued the Curia endorsed this position.

Now to the politicians. After Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando managed to elevate the issue from the shop window to the counter – a feat Joseph Muscat, who is promoting himself as progressive, must be cursing – there has been much toing and froing not so much between the political parties as is normally the case, but within them.

Dr Pullicino Orlando took that a step further last week when he said the Prime Minister had indicated there would be a referendum on divorce next year after a debate in Parliament, and the MP said he had agreed with Lawrence Gonzi on what he could say. The following day Dr Gonzi said he did not wish to “jump the gun” and he added: “I don’t want anyone to start speaking about referendums”. Trouble is, the horse had already bolted.

So what we are left with is the strangest of situations. We have a group of priests putting forward what many take to be the Church position, which the Archbishop then follows with an endorsement – when it should have been the other way round. And we have an MP purporting to put forward the position of the government when this is something the Prime Minister should really be doing, preferably in Parliament.

Something, somewhere is wrong. And it is up to the Archbishop and the Prime Minister to lead from the front to put it right. Until they do, all we will get is more confusion. Not to mention the loose talk.