Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando
Divorce and Nationalist values
Some conservative members of the Nationalist Party regard the introduction of divorce on our watch, so to speak, as anathema. The arguments brought forth by traditionalists against the Divorce Bill which has been presented deserve closer scrutiny. We must reflect carefully before taking a position on this sensitive subject.
“Divorce is against the core values of the party.” A number of pro-divorce candidates have been accepted by the Executive Committee of the party to contest local, general and even MEP elections on the Nationalist Party ticket. This would not have been possible were it really the case that divorce was against our core values.
“Divorce is against the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Nationalist Party has always professed itself as being a Christian Democratic Party.” The Nationalist Party is a Christian Democratic Party. This does not make it an offshoot of the local Catholic Curia. It is also worth noting that the government is in the process of formulating legislative measures with regard to cohabitation. Cohabitation is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. I fail to understand why the people who are making such a fuss about divorce didn’t do so when we were speaking about cohabitation. Fr Rene Camilleri, one of the Archbishop’s closest advisers, recently said that he prefers divorce legislation to legislation promoting cohabitation as some form of second-class marriage. He stated, and I quote: “At least through divorce the state is saying that it still believes in the institution of marriage.” This is exactly why the slogan IVA għad-divorzju, IVA għaż-żwieġ (Yes to divorce, yes to marriage) was chosen by the pro-divorce legislation movement I form part of. It is unwise to introduce legislation which promotes cohabitation in the absence of divorce.
“Marital breakdowns will increase with the introduction of divorce.” The rate of marital breakdown in Ireland, which for over 10 years has had a divorce law practically identical to the one which has been presented locally, is significantly lower than it is in Malta. No one in his right mind would leave his or her spouse simply because divorce is available. Anyone who says this is insensitive to the suffering which accompanies broken relationships.
“Divorce has profound and negative consequences on children.” This statement is absolutely true. So does separation and annulment. Ask any child who has gone through the trauma of seeing his mother and father go their separate ways if he cares whether they did so by means of an annulment, divorce or separation. Are we suggesting that we should legislate against separation and annulment?
“Divorce only benefits the individual; it is against the common good.” This is untrue as legislation which only allows divorce in cases where a relationship has broken down irrevocably will allow for the contractual formalisation of new relationships by means of marriage. It is hard to understand how this can run counter to the “common good”. Saying this is tantamount to a declaration against the institution of marriage. Apart from that, this kind of reasoning smacks of a paternalistic, detached attitude which is surely not what a popular party should be all about. Using the excuse of the common good is reminiscent of dictatorial regimes which trample upon the rights of individuals.
I agree with the Prime Minister that this will be a groundbreaking social development and that it should be decided upon by the people in a referendum which is to be held later this year. The last referendum held, that for EU membership, imposed the decision of the IVA vote on those who were against membership. This time around a vote in favour of divorce will not impose anything on anyone. Those who do not need or are against divorce are obviously not obliged to avail themselves of it. On the other hand, however, I strongly believe that those who are against divorce should not impose their beliefs on those who need it.
The Nationalist Party is at a crossroads. I sincerely hope we take the right path. Thousands of our compatriots are depending on us to do so. If we continue to ignore their suffering, the injustice they have been exposed to due to years of procrastination, they will turn their backs on us when the time of reckoning comes.
I know that we will make the right choice.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raphael Dingli
Jan 27th 2011, 06:09
Part 2 - This has nothing to do with morality. This has nothing to do with it being such an important decision. This is all about Gonzi knowing that are more guilty and fearful Catholics in Malta than there are compassionate, mature and unselfish ones. Gonzi knows very well that the only way he could win this is by going to a referendum. Soon after he will face an election which he will most likely lose irrespective of the divorce referendum outcome. That will be his legacy – a further delay to the introduction of divorce and a continued guilty and fearful electorate at the southern end of Europe. How very Christian of him. And how very Maltese!
Raphael Dingli
Jan 27th 2011, 06:08
A quasi theocracy for sure. Proof that Malta has not yet matured politically is the fact that Government is washing its hands from what should be an easy decision - but alas - led by that most catholic of politicians they have now handed this decision to the faithful electorate. To add insult to injury they are also avoiding the risk of mixing the outcome of this decision with the outcome of the next general election. This must surely be designed to create even more confusion with the electorate. In most democratic countries any reasonable government with that usually unrecognised power of incumbency would consider aligning any referendum with an election. They should be on the same date. Not only to save some well needed Euros for the public purse but more importantly to also align the power of their own convictions with any election outcomes. But that would mean having some balls. The idea of calling a referendum on the divorce issue shows how political this decision this. (part 2 to follow)
D.Magro
Jan 25th 2011, 21:35
Jeffrey,
Jiddispjacini nghidlek izda qieghed fuq in-naha hazina. IL-PN hu partit konservattiv u qatt ma jista jkun favur ligijiet li jifirdu l-istat mill-Knisja. Kellu jkun gvern Laburista li fired l-istat mill knisja. Ha nghidlek x`ser jaghmel Dr.Gonzi, ser jahsel idejh mill-vot u ser jixhet l-ghazla f`idejn il-poplu. Issa t`ghaddi minn jiflah ihawwel l-izjed minn ta l-Iva u Le. Jekk jaghddi bir-referendum Dr.Gonzi jghid li il-poplu ried id-divorzju u jkun ghamel bhal Pilatu....tghid ta min ser tghaddi ? Ser ikun hemm pressure minn taht ? Ser tinhadem agenda ?
Frans Vella
Jan 25th 2011, 20:01
This issue should be decided by parliament and not passed on towards a referendum. In these circumstances, the following is worth considering.
Those who will vote YES to have divorce legislation in Malta WILL NOT be affecting those who DO NOT want to avail themselves of such an option. However, those who vote NO will definitely be prohibiting others from using that option.
Those who vote YES may not necessarily need it themselves but they are kind people that value what others may need. On the other hand, those who vote NO will not have any guarantee that their marriage relationships or that of family and friends will not find irrevocable problems.
One’s private life is private and no society or government should dictate on how, with whom and for how long. This has nothing to do with any religious beliefs since nobody will be imposing anything on anyone at anytime. Everyone agrees that a good relationship is very precious, be it consolidated by marriage or not, as long as it is long lasting. People make choices of partners and at times things go irrevocably wrong. Divorce is defiantly not the cause since we already have so much relationship failures.
Lino Apap
Jan 25th 2011, 19:43
This is a well-thought out piece by Dr. Pullicino Orlando who as usual has put his money where his mouth is. Notwithstanding what anyone says it is common knowledge that there is a conservative hard core inside the PN, just as there is (my impression is that it's on a smaller scale) in the PL. However, there is also a good size liberal faction in the same party as the PM admits, which is why the party is taking this issue so seriously. Moreover, one cannot understand how the PN or anyone who does not want to keep on burying their heads in the sand doesn't wake up and smell the bacon. The institution of marriage is in trouble and as we do not have divorce, the anti-divorce movement cannot blame divorce for this. The figures shown on Bondiplus yesterday are truly eye-opening; cohabitation has risen by 600% between 1995 and 2005 - separations by 160% and I forget the percentage increase of annulments but it was also above the 100% mark. It is clear that it is today's lifestyle that is causing this. Divorce has nothing to do with it!
Joseph Calleja
Jan 25th 2011, 17:16
First and foremost as long as the Government and the PN are ruled and dictated to by the church not much is going to happen yet. The government is so run and dictated to by the church they even enacted N.B. Article 2(2) in the Constitution to make sure nothing interferes with the church, not even the government. Malta is still a third world country run by the church and that is understandable since most of us were a captive audience since birth. As a matter of fact one of the commentators keeps bragging that Malta is 95% catholic, but that is only by birth. It is still voodoo not to baptise a child in Malta. What will the neighbours say? Divorce is so much needed in Malta a good example is to have a good look around you. You will notice that 45% to 50% of men and women prefer to cohabit in lieu of the traditional marriage, even though it is considered a sin, these are facts. The anti divorce group will not admit that an annulment is the same as divorce. An annulment is the same as divorce except in a very controlled and very expensive way.
Joe Zammit
Jan 25th 2011, 16:11
Divorce cannot be accepted nor voted for even if it can be beneficial (sic!) to the whole society.
Divorce is evil, condemned by Christ and Christ condemned it because it is to the detriment of all people, also for those whose marriage has broken down. Christ knows more than all of us what is good for us.
Besides, the end never justifies the means. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. This applies even if divorce were beneficial to the whole society.
What God has joined together let no man put asunder. This must be the primary reason for refusing the legislation of divorce.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Joseph Calleja
Jan 25th 2011, 17:43
Divorce is:
A solution for all those who fall under domestic violence.
A solution for those who are mentally and physically abused.
A solution for those spouses who are cheated on day after day.(Adultery)
A solution for those who cannot bare to see their children physically and mentally abused by the other spouse
A solution for those who see their spouse come home drunk and reek the smell of another woman/man.
A solution for those whose marriage has already failed.
ANNULMENT=DIVORCE. (glass half full=glass half empty.)
Divorce is not a disease like you would like everybody to think it is, but a cure for a failed. marriage which has no other recourse. Divorce is only there for those who need it. Divorce is a human right which should be afforded to all.
Raymond Bezzina
Jan 25th 2011, 16:05
@ Dr. Pullicino Orlando
You said that, quote ; " It is unwise to introduce legislation which promotes cohabitation in the
absence of divorce." Unquote.
One could consider divorce as legalised cohabitation because in both cases one could walk
away from his/her partner numerous times.
I believe that it would be wise for the government to legislate in a way to discourage
cohabitation and also by not legalising divorce.
Konrad N. Zammit
Jan 25th 2011, 15:43
@Dr. Pullicino Orlando,
just because Fr. Rene' Camilleri is misguided doesn't mean that you should follow his opinion.
Konrad
Raymond Bezzina
Jan 25th 2011, 14:00
@ Dr. Pullicino Orlando
You said that, quote, " Ask any child who has gone through the trauma of seeing his mother and
father go their separate ways if he cares whether they did so by means of an annulment, divorce
or separation. Are we suggesting that we should legislate against separation and annulment? "
unquote.
Divorce, separation and annulment are three totally different issues, but since you want to
mix these three issues together , please know that it is a known fact where one person
sometimes gets divorced six times or more.
Dr. Pullicino Orlando, can you mention any cases where one person got separated or had
his/her marriage annuled six times or more ?
The undeniable fact remains that divorce causes more harm than separation or annulment,
therefore we have to say no to divorce.
S. Vella
Jan 26th 2011, 06:47
Very few people can afford 6 divorces - alimony is expensive stuff. Your argument is applicable to Hollywood and sporting celebrities.
On another note, I do know men who annuled a marriage twice, here in Malta. Your argument once again, falls flat on its face.
anthony girard
Jan 25th 2011, 13:34
Well done Jeffrey.
I am married for 40 years and believe in marriage. I am also pro divorce because I must consider those less fortunate than me who have not had such success in their marriage. Therefore your slogan:
" Iva ghad-divorzju - Iva ghaz-zwieg " makes a lot of sense.
Kee p up the good work
Philip Hili
May 14th 2011, 16:15
@ Anthony Griard
Wasalna fi stat li ma jista' jitwemmen hadd.
Min hu hekk u min u hekk. Kulhadd jinheba kif jaqbillu. Min ighid li ilu 40 sena mizzewg u forsi l-anqas ikun mizzewweg imma ghal konvenjenza jghid li hu mizzewweg. Min jghid li TAPARSI ma jemmen f'xejn imma mhux sew li jorbot lil haddiehor, min jghid li hu separat u ma jistax jibqa' hekk pero' effettivament ma jkun very xejn, - Malta zghira u n-nies magharufa", min jghid li hu kontra d-divorzju imma peress li ghandu xi hadd fil-familja bi problema ser ikollu jivvorta iva, u forsi anke dan ma jkux minn u nistghu nibqghu sejrin hekk u ngibu salt skuzi sa ghada.
Pero' haga wahda hemm tajba u li jafHa kull min qieghed ighix f'Malta, u allura HADD u nerga' nghid HADD MA JISTA' JMERIHA. Din hi li minn kien Nazzjonalista sar Laborista IZDA minn kien, Laborista baqgha Laborista.
K. Pullicino
Jan 25th 2011, 12:38
"This time around a vote in favour of divorce will not impose anything on anyone. Those who do not need or are against divorce are obviously not obliged to avail themselves of it. On the other hand, however, I strongly believe that those who are against divorce should not impose their beliefs on those who need it."
As mature persons, we all know that every action and decision we take (even if it at first appears tiny and insignificant) is like a snowball rolling down a mountain. Its effects on the future will become more pronounced than if that action never happened.
It would be naive to say that, if divorce is accepted, then everything will be better but, if it is rejected, nothing happens so we might as well go with the former option.
Admittedly, rejecting divorce appears as being an imposition but the reality is that having the option of divorce also has its effects on society. As responsible members of the electorate we need to careful weigh the consequences of both decisions and vote accordingly.
Lina Caruana
Jan 25th 2011, 12:25
You are being most unjust to us Catholics of the Nationalist Party. You know very well that one of our deepest factor holding us to the Nationalist Party is because we were always under the impression that the NP will do nothing against Catholic principles ,one of which the indissolubility of marriage and you know well enough that this is a serious transgression for practicing Catholics. Now you come up with divorce unexpectedly and want to force our opinion to change our minds in favour of divorce. Losing pro divorce people is just as a scare as losing anti divorce people if you want to scare us. You are implicating that the NP is now bound together through the divorce issue. Is that fair? Have you forgotten why you are a Nationalist NP and who elected you?
Smuscat
Jan 25th 2011, 09:33
'The last referendum held, that for EU membership, imposed the decision of the IVA vote on those who were against membership. This time around a vote in favour of divorce will not impose anything on anyone. Those who do not need or are against divorce are obviously not obliged to avail themselves of it. On the other hand, however, I strongly believe that those who are against divorce should not impose their beliefs on those who need it.'
this begs the question, why then should there be a referendum?
D. Scerri
Jan 25th 2011, 11:33
If only everyone was so observant.
Joe Busuttil
Jan 25th 2011, 13:33
In fact I think that this argument is out of place in an otherwise well thought out argument and it sticks out like a sore thumb; that is why I expect that the decision to introduce divorce (or not) should be taken by parliament.
john vella
Jan 25th 2011, 09:29
@Dr. Pullicino Orlando
I only got to read the first line: 'SOME CONSERVATIVE members of the Nationalist Party ' etc., etc. This first line is challenging, so sorry I did not care to read more of the same.
On the other side one has to be so cookie to pretend that MOST of the NON CONSERVATIVE of the Nationalist Party have you to speak for them.
For the record, if there is N.P. NON CONSERVATIVE they are in the wrong party, please stop speaking for the NON CONSERVATIVE. Speak in your name and do not hide behind a party.