Biting the divorce bullet

Being glued to television to watch what was, for once, a happy ending to what could have been one of the greatest tragedies of the year, made a pleasant change. Those 33 miners were all saved after their terrible ordeal in the bowels of the earth; brought up, one by one, in this capsule into the daylight to embrace their loved ones amid cheers and tears of joy. As innocent people are blown to smithereens in those countries wherein the Taliban and Al Qaeda are corrupting the minds of the young and in the Middle East where, as I write, Israel is on red alert due to the Iranian President’s visit to neighbouring Lebanon, our own troubles, in tiny Malta, seem petty and insignificant thanks to “Him-Great-Mixmaster come from Sky” who watches over us.

Yet, even on this tiny charmed rock, the troubles of Lawrence Gonzi never cease. With the divorce issue hanging over the Prime Minister’s head like the sword of Damocles and with a population that seems to be waking up to the fact that divorce is not the bogeyman it was made out to be, the proposal to have a referendum to quash it by general consent is now a remote possibility. Therefore, after an entire summer, the issue has been resuscitated in Parliament again after the recess wherein the MPs had plenty of time to read up and assess the mood and opinion of us, the people, about the subject. The news last week was mixed. The MP who, like Iris , goddess of discord, threw the golden apple in our Olympus-like Parliament declared that there would be a referendum while, not 24 hours later, his Prime Minister stated we are not even to speak about a divorce referendum yet.

This begs the question of whether Dr Gonzi and his Cabinet will bite the bullet and discuss and, more importantly, take an informed and equitable decision about the divorce issue in the light of prevalent public opinion or if the Prime Minister intends to put divorce on a back-burner or, even worse, in an oubliette. I agree with former President and Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami that a referendum about an issue like divorce is completely out of line. This is an issue that should be concluded by a Parliament that owes its allegiance to us the people and whose members should open their eyes to the stark realities of life in Malta in 2010.

By forcing an ideology that is the ruling of one particular faith on the entire population is an imposition that, in today’s world, cannot be tolerated. Parliamentarians cannot hide under ecclesiastical petticoats any longer. By invoking the Roman Catholic stance of not introducing divorce with the lame reasoning that remaining as we are will strengthen the institution of marriage is warped and unreal. Everyone knows that marriage is not what it was. Everyone knows that divorce or no divorce people are separating. Everyone knows that many today are opting to avoid being embroiled in this trap called marriage, civil, religious or otherwise.

The anti-divorce lobby likes to quote the “what God has put together let no man put asunder” and, yes, as it is, marriage is as unbreakable as something joined with super glue. The only thing is that, for centuries, ecclesiastics have had the sole prerogative of dissolving marriages by the process called annulment. In other words, are these men allowed to break Christ’s command and declare marriages null and void? Yes, they are. They have been doing so for centuries. Obtaining an annulment to a Catholic marriage is long, arduous, embarrassing and expensive. I know several people who have been through it and they all agree that it is nothing short of traumatic. Yet, obtainable it is.

So what is the big deal about civil divorce? Could it be that the Maltese Curia sees civil divorce as a usurpation of its ancient rights and privileges? Is it the institution of marriage that will be weakened by the introduction of divorce or the power, influence and, more significantly, the income of the Catholic Church? I had disagreed with the Archbishop’s policy of allowing the clergy the freedom to express their opinions on the subject as the result of this was utter mayhem with young theologians expressing unsurprisingly liberal attitudes and older Curia worthies hurling anathemas. After the Judicial Vicar’s ill-advised fatwa to the Maltese judiciary, the Archbishop changed his mind and has published a document encapsulating the Maltese Church’s official position once and for all. If ever there was a case of shutting the stable door after the horses have bolted this is it.

So, to recap, we are in a situation where, despite what we have been led to believe all summer long, the divorce issue will have to be decided upon by Parliament. I am afraid that our MPs are going to have to shoulder the responsibility themselves after all, especially after the Prime Minister has exhorted us not to even speak about a divorce referendum when it was himself who proposed it after MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando pulled a fast one on his own party last June. Such a fast one was it that Machiavellian minds like mine actually thought it was a “cunning plan” of the Prime Minister’s to gazumph the leader of the Opposition’s “cunning plan” to do exactly what Dr Pullicino Orlando did but when he, Joseph Muscat, became Prime Minister! The mind boggles.

The saga continues.