Secular state that allows religious control (1)
The Ecclesiastical Marriage Tribunal at the Archbishop’s Palace in Valletta. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli
When two spouses marry they sign a form for statutory purposes and make certain undertakings to one another, some of which create legal obligations. Superfluous religious declarations and sweet, fuzzy, tear-jerking promises and incantations are lovely but carry no legal significance.
With copious religious comments about God’s involvement in marriage, I thought I’d have a look at my own marriage certificate, my parents’, my grandparents’ and my great grandparents’, all married in Malta in a Catholic church by Catholic priests over a 150-year period.
I couldn’t find the word God anywhere. Jesus, Moses, the evangelists, Papal encyclicals, “sacrament”, “holy”, “Catholic” – all were conspicuously absent.
In fact, as the world has always known and shown, what happens in the fullness of time to the undertakings made by spouses remains solely their own personal, private business and responsibility. They have no legal obligation to any Church, state or anyone else to remain married; only to themselves and their children.
The state enacts laws to ensure separating spouses fulfil their financial obligations to one another and to any children but state intervention to enforce spouses to remain in a marriage is unheard of. So how can the state, which does not possess the capacity or the legal right to enforce spouses remaining together, incongruously and ridiculously enforce the concept, based purely on the belief of one Christian denomination that a state marriage contract must be binding for life?
The state further compounds this paradox by allowing priests to annul a secular state marriage contract solely by ecclesiastical decree. Then, the ecclesiastical authorities allow the released spouses to remarry and the state obeys.
There’s more. The state also forbids divorce and entraps everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, and lumbers them with what is entirely a Catholic requirement of marriage indissolubility. No exceptions; no divorce for anyone, including those who weren’t married by Catholic rite or who don’t wish to be Catholic any more. It beggars belief how a secular state allows religious interference, intervention and control of the business of secular family law and government.
How can the state deny its citizens the right to end a marriage and start another, yet allow priests to authorise just that?
How can a government surrender the fate of a state marriage contract to a third party ecclesiastical court, comprised of celibate men, who unilaterally decide if, why, how and when a state marriage contract can be not just cancelled but annulled and a fresh one authorised?
This is a monstrously undemocratic and irresponsible state of affairs.
Consequently, family law is a legal and social train wreck, which is not only a shambles but a dysfunctional sham.
Malta declares itself a secular state, yet delegates the management of such a sensitive issue, relating to remarriage, to a theocratic third party. The ecclesiastical authorities can dictate to those who welcome their guidance but it is patently preposterous that bishops, theologians and priests should dictate to the government and affect every citizen’s life and destiny.
Ending a marriage and starting another is a matter for the spouses to decide upon, so long as this is done in line with state regulation of divorces according to equitable secular family laws protecting the spouses and the children.
The Church controlling the fate of my marriage is as ridiculous as my controlling the fate of an ordained priest or nun becoming laicised.
Little wonder the Catholic authorities have lost every divorce battle they fought in every country. They shall lose this one, too.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Bud Moureaux - Flanders (BE) & Xemxija, SPB (MT)
Nov 11th 2010, 19:02
@ William! I fully agree with the way you clearly expressed your point of view.
Divorce in most cases is not at all an easy way out but a realistic way to end the suffering of a marriage broken down beyond repair. Therefore, to Malta's MPs of all parties:
(1) Separate State and Church, i.e. abolish Art.2 of the Constitution immediately.
(2) Introduce a well balanced civil divorce legislation, respecting the rights and interests of all parties concerned, the spouses, their children and society.
This is already 50 years overdue. Maltese will be grateful for this courageous act. An untenable situation will then finally cease to persist. In this way, Malta will become a real secular society where Maltese effectively can decide for themselves without fearing to be bullied by Mgr. XYZ or Mr JZ and consorts. The Church should restrict its role to its teaching and advice to its own flock but refrain by all means from dictating what people should or shouldn't do.
Bud Moureaux, partially residing in Flanders (northern Dutch speaking part of Belgium) and in Xemxija, SPB. I love Malta and its people.
Joseph Ellul - Sydney
Nov 11th 2010, 10:16
With all respect to all concerned, I would like to point out that a marriage between two persons is a legal contract with all that comes with it. Religion is a secondary matter. So, no matter what religion the persons profess ( they can be a jew and a hindu ) the marriage is valid.
I have been a critic of Mr.W.P.Flynn for some time. In this case I agree with his view, even though he might come a bit strong.
So if this is a sin for me to express my opinion on marriage and divorce, then I will meet Bill on the other side one day. We will have a great time.
Alex Ciantar
Nov 10th 2010, 19:01
For all those people telling the author of this letter to mind his own business in Maltese matters please speak for yourself and not for the entire Maltese nation. You should realize by now that a very high percentage do not agree with your antics, beliefs and opinions because they are pro divorce therefore you have no right whatsoever to include them in your arguments since they do not share or back you up or support you as part of the Maltese nation.
And by the way Mr William P. Flynn you hit the nail on the head with your letter and well done.
Henry S Pace
Nov 10th 2010, 17:48
I would make a humble appeal toreaders of this blog to read what Ian Duncan Smith have said: Pro divorce people should thin and ponder
'Uffiċjal għoli fil-Gvern Ingliż stqarr li tfal minn familji mkissrin kellhom disa’ darbiet iktar ċans li jwettqu atti kriminali minn tfal oħrajn imrobbijin f’familji stabbli, waqt li kkwantifika l-ispiża tal-Gvern Ingliż minħabba t-tkissir tal-familji bħala £100 biljun.
F’indirizz li għamel lir-rappreżentanti ta’ ‘Relate’, għaqda karitattevoli nazzjonali li hi impenjata fit-tisħiħ tar-relazzjonijiet umani, is-Segretarju tal-Istat għax-Xogħol u l-Pensjonijiet, Iain Duncan Smith, qal li t-tkissir taż-żwieġ wassal għal splużjoni fir-rata ta’ kriminalità, u ddupplikat iċ-ċans li persuna tgħix fil-faqar. Fi kliemu, il-fatt li ż-żwieġ u l-ħajja tal-familja ddgħajjfu wassal biex il-pajjiż iħallas prezz qares fil-forma ta’ iktar faqar u ċansijiet ifqar għall-ulied ta’ familji li tkissru.
L-indirizz li għamel Duncan Smith, il-ġurnal Daily Mail sejjaħlu bħala “fost l-iżjed difiżi b’saħħithom taż-żwieġ minn uffiċjal ewlieni tal-Gvern fl-aħħar snin”. L-istess ġurnal Brittaniku qal li d-diskors ipoġġi lil Duncan Smith f’kuntrast dirett mal-pożizzjoni meħuda mill-predeċessuri tiegħu fil-gvernijiet immexxija minn Tony Blair u Gordon Brown, li kienu saħqu li ż-żwieġ ma kienx importanti u li l-Gvern ma kellux jindaħal fl-għażliet tan-nies u kif dawn jorganizzaw ħajjithom.'
wally vella-zarb
Nov 10th 2010, 18:46
Those characteristics also apply to children of broken families whose parents have not divorced. Divorce has nothing to do with it. The significant factor is 'broken families' and not 'divorced couples'.
Joseph Ellul - Sydney
Nov 11th 2010, 10:23
You have not stuck to the arguement. What you state is true but the arguement is about who has the right to register and administer marriage and divorce.
David Saliba
Nov 11th 2010, 11:27
Ghal li jista jkun Duncan Smith ma kompliex xi haga hekk hux?: "u dan kollu frott tad-divorzju! ara kieku l-familja titkisser minflok nghidulu divorzju nsejhulu annullament, kieku xejn minn dan ma jigri u kollox jibqa miexi harir u l-partners live happily ever after"
Henry S Pace
Nov 10th 2010, 17:38
'The state further compounds this paradox by allowing priests to annul a secular state marriage contract solely by ecclesiastical decree. ' This confirms how Willie Flynn is sonaive inchurch laws vis-a-vis the secular marriags (Civil Marriage).
Under no circumstance the church Tribunal annuls a civi marriage . Such couples have to seek redress in the Civil Courts.
wally vella-zarb
Nov 10th 2010, 18:41
I think you'll find that it is you who is wrong. When the church tribunal annuls a church marriage, that decision is recognised by the State and is also carried over to the civil aspect of it.
Karl Consiglio
Nov 10th 2010, 17:32
Kemm huma tal-biza
Joseph Ellul - Sydney
Nov 11th 2010, 10:37
Tal biza ? jaqaw rajt SBS news ta Malta il hadd li ghadda ? Irgiel li gew ikkastigati ghal hajjithom minn mindu kienu tfal. Kienu vitmi ta nies korrotti li stahbew taht il mant tal knisja.
c. camilleri
Nov 10th 2010, 17:24
Please continue to enjoy your life down under and stop interfering in our affairs. This is a matter for the Maltese alone to settle amongst themselves and no one else .
Joseph Ellul - Sydney
Nov 11th 2010, 10:39
You are right. This is a matter for the Maltese to settle. There are over 400,000 Maltese and direct descendants in Australia. So let us put our bit in.
Joseph Calleja
Nov 10th 2010, 15:42
Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman and there is no other party involved. Each person promises the other person that they are entering into a valid contract ( marriage) and I think these two persons should have the right to void this contract if agreed to by both parties. The law is there to protect the interest of the children if need be but the decision to get a divorce or separation is still up to the two people involved.
Joe Zammit
Nov 10th 2010, 19:55
Marriage has been created by God and God first and foremost has the right to say what is to be done in marriage.
Kenneth Farrugia
Nov 10th 2010, 12:39
"The state further compounds this paradox by allowing priests to annul a secular state marriage contract solely by ecclesiastical decree."
That's not entirely correct. The family court does have jurisdiction in annulment of marriages, and judgments in this regard are not infrequent. The real paradox lies in that the church does not recognize such decisions by the court, while the state does acknowledge decisions handed down by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
Joe Zammit
Nov 10th 2010, 10:49
Divorce is first and foremost a moral and religious issue. The basic evil of divorce lies exactly in purporting to do what it cannot do. In marriage, it is God and only God who is binding two persons together and Christ ordered (not advised) us not to put asunder what God has joined together!
The State has NO SAY in the celebration of marriage! So, it has no say in dissolving marriage. Pretending to rescind marriage is only an ABUSE of power by the State.
Divorce is grave sin. It is thus the moral issue of divorce. Whoever in any way promotes divorce is sinning seriously. Divorce is not a joke. Through divorce the sinner is separating himself or herself from God and placing himself or herself on the path to hell.
Divorce is primarily a moral and religious issue. Those who love God cannot be in favour of divorce. Voting for divorce, whether in Parliament or in a referendum, is a grave sin.
Joseph Ellul - Sydney
Nov 11th 2010, 10:32
Go and have a napp.
I am sure that you still believe that you can redeeme your mortal sins by leaving a lot of land to the church so that when you die, the rent that the church gets from that lot of land will be given to a priest for a special mass dedicated to your poor soul.
I sometimes wish that I was like you.
Read history about the popes, Clement comes to mind.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 10th 2010, 09:43
This guy is the pits.
Please choose the reason of your report below: