Martin Scicluna
The weight of the argument
For doctrinal reasons, some cannot accept the civil dissolution of marriage after legal separation. But, having already acknowledged the marriage is finished – as is already the position with legal separation – reasons of doctrine are not of themselves a sufficient argument that it is in society’s wider interest to prevent the parties to an irretrievably broken marriage from subsequent remarriage.
The crux of the issue is that a secular democracy should consider and respect the passions religious faith animates on moral dilemmas. Believers of whichever faith have the right to abstain from practices they consider wrong. But they have no right of veto over others who may hold a different view. The determining factor has to be the requirements of justice, which apply to all, and not the Church’s marriage doctrine, which may be preached to all but forced on none whose conscience it offends.
Persons married but legally separated are denied the right to re-marry. Legally, if they form a new relationship, there is no husband, no wife, merely a cohabiting couple. It is manifestly in the interests of the common good of society to seek to rectify this inequity.
At the core of the argument is the overriding conviction that civil dissolution leading to remarriage may be sanctioned to prevent greater harm to the common good caused by the dislocation and insecurity in society of cohabitation and the injustice of preventing those already legally separated from remarrying . It has to be the state’s function not to prevent remarriage but, on the contrary, to provide a mechanism that, on behalf of society, it regards as fair and workable. The only missing element in the present legal remedy of separation is that separated people are not allowed to remarry.
Maltese society today pays a heavy price for sustaining the concept of the indissolubility of marriage and the hope that separated couples may one day be reconciled. Divorce enables the parties to an irretrievably broken marriage to acknowledge legally that it is finished and to be free to marry again. The well-regulated civil dissolution of marriage is a way of minimising the consequences of failed marriages. It allows people to rebuild their lives. To give legal recognition to caring second relationships, can only advance the cause of the institution of marriage, not weaken it.
The absence of divorce has plainly spared Malta none of the pain and tensions of marriage breakdown but it has complicated unnecessarily the social consequences. Indeed, all that it has done is to make life more difficult for many people caught up in this situation. The way to remedy this is to regularise second unions by bringing them within the scope of marriage law. The availability of civil dissolution after legal separation would make this possible.
The individuals’ right to choose their own domestic and family relationships and to expect due respect and acknowledgement of those choices from the state, together with the wider benefits to society from the stability provided by re-marriage, are fundamental. Respect for such rights does not run counter to the general interests of the state in supporting marriage. It reinforces them. The state has to find solutions when marriages break down, just as, for example, it provides remedies for broken commercial contracts.
To fail to recognise second relationships through remarriage is actually to undermine the institution of marriage and the family. The introduction of divorce will give a chance to people who are in stable and loving second relationships to obtain all the benefits and stability that come from a happy marriage. There are thousands of marriages in Malta that have entirely collapsed and are marriages in name only. On the other hand, there are many second relationships which are marriages in everything but name.
The freedom to marry again after legal separation and civil dissolution is an intrinsic responsibility of the civil rights and liberties of a well-ordered democratic and pluralistic state. Thousands of ordinary people trapped in irrevocably broken marriages seek justice and fairness through the legal remedy of remarriage after separation. This is the civilised, and civilising, experience of every other advanced western democracy in Europe and elsewhere.
The weight of argument in favour of divorce legislation is overwhelming.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
19 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Feb 1st 2011, 12:22
The weight of the argument is in favour of the indissolubility of marriage. The great majority of Maltese and Gozitans understand this very well.
Divorce is to the detriment of all people. Divorce is negative, to no avail.
Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
E.Muscat
Jan 31st 2011, 16:26
@WVZ:'Separations' are being paid for by the 'allowances' abandoned wives with children get from Govt.
If they are still 'attractive' these 'abandoned wives' will breed other kids with 'desperate' boyfriends who usually exploit them and the kids,and we 'pay' again:watch what is happening in Qawra and St.Paul's Bay?
The few prospective 'divorcees' who genuinely 'made a mistake' and will wish to re-marry are probably less than 10 per cent.
wally vella-zarb
Jan 31st 2011, 18:10
"these 'abandoned wives' will breed other kids with 'desperate' boyfriends" But that is precisely the point that you are refusing to see! The absence of divorce legislation is not succeeding in preventing them from recourse to what you choose to describe as 'desperate boyfriends'. It never has and never will. On the other hand, were divorce legislation to be passed - as it eventually will - they will have the option of starting up a new family unit with legal and social rights (as well as obligations). As for your figure of "probably less than 10 per cent" (plucked out of a hat?) it is immaterial whether the true figure is 10, 80 or even 1%. The option will be there for those who wish to take it up. In the same manner marriage, both civil and religious, is there for the asking; yet, many couples are still opting to cohabit and we are, paradoxically, in the process of legislating for their needs. Personally, I do not have their needs or their problems; yet, silly me(?), I do not feel presumptuous enough to veto the possibility for them. You?
Sabrina Borda
Jan 31st 2011, 18:33
Also, some people who need to divorce have grown up adult children, and some do not have children at all. The older generation of people many like to get married again too.
E.Muscat
Jan 31st 2011, 19:09
@WVZ:For all the increasing 'maladies' of society there is always a price to pay:who pays? The 'good' ,of course!The 'good' are getting scarcer,soon to be in the minority.We pay for the 'handicapped',the 'diseased',the old people living a 'vegetable existence',the criminals,etc:who pays for the 'victims'?WE,also!Where is all this money coming from? It is coming from the young and not so young men and women who keep their families together and work and pay their taxes:they are getting fewer,they might not even get a pension,so have a thought for THEM!
wally vella-zarb
Jan 31st 2011, 19:51
"We pay for the 'handicapped',the 'diseased',the old people living a 'vegetable existence',the criminals,etc:who pays for the 'victims'?WE,also!Where is all this money coming from?" A statement like that is a real eye-opener and presents an entire Pandora's box of questions regarding your sense of 'ethics' and solidarity with those who are less fortunate.
Sabrina Borda
Jan 31st 2011, 16:06
The simple act of going to a polling booth for a referendum on divorce and ticking a box is imagined to display democratic virtue, but to some it is a low-cost source of emotional gratification who will vote with a stunning degree of ignorance whilst they have little incentive to think hard about a divorce they do not need. They will not struggle to make the right choice when the final decision will have no effect on them. This is what the government is doing to its good people, the individual right to choose for oneself how one must live is not a private matter.
Politicians ought to follow reason as a guide otherwise credulity without enquiring is a sure way to deceive themselves as being erudite yet do actually harm others. Let people re-marry. Happy people make a healthy society.
E.Muscat
Jan 31st 2011, 14:03
Marriage is a 'right' ( because people need to procreate and take care of their offsping )but divorce is NOT.If you are 'desparate' you can separate and even cohabit,with the full protection of the law.Otherwise we will get bed-hopping,multiple partners,unwanted children, and the state (that is US!) will pay for everything!
Why should I pay for 'failed unions'?
We have a 'democracy':so after a 'civilised' debate we should hold a referendum,after which parlaiment should debate and vote and if both results are the same we should either go ahead with divorce legislation or not.
If we go for divorce legislation,we should make it 'easy' for couples with no children but 'very difficult' for couples with children,and entrench the legislation with a two thirds majority to change, to keep it away from 'politics'.
wally vella-zarb
Jan 31st 2011, 15:52
"Why should I pay for 'failed unions'? "
Are you now paying for 'failed unions' that are 'de facto' legally acknowledged through separations? How does allowing these separated couples the option of remarrying affect whatever it is that you are paying for?
Henry S Pace
Jan 31st 2011, 13:37
' reasons of doctrine are not of themselves a sufficient argument that it is in society’s wider interest to prevent the parties to an irretrievably broken marriage from subsequent remarriage'
Any individual who embraces the true catholic faith cannot go against the teaching of Jeasu Christ. Mr Scicluna is doing a great effort to conmvince people with catholic convictions that they should do away with the catholic doctrine. Nobody can compromise with the teachings of Jesus Christ. .
'.Maltese society today pays a heavy price for sustaining the concept of the indissolubility of marriage and the hope that separated couples may one day be reconciled. Divorce enables the parties to an irretrievably broken marriage to acknowledge legally that it is finished and to be free to marry again.'
Can Mr scicluna tell us for how many times 'couples' have different marriages with children coming from each and every marriage. This is an Ego argument.
John Pace
Jan 31st 2011, 13:23
Well done Mr.Scicluna. Once again a refreshingly intelligent letter. The issue of divorce legislation has highlighted the ignorance, selfishness, spitefulness and cowardice of the Maltese people. Our spineless politicians know this and that is why they've thrown it to the people to 'decide'. For people such as Joe Zammit (below) to remind us what clever people we are!
Raymond Bezzina
Jan 31st 2011, 12:55
On reading the above letter, one might get the impression that divorce means giving
just a second chance in marriage, when in reality divorce is far worse than this.
By divorce a person obtains the right to re-marry numerous times, thus abandoning or
abusing numerous spouses and their offspring. such a right only weakens the institution
of marriage, the result of which would be the weakening of the backbone of society.
Divorce also gives one the right to take another person's spouse, if s/he wishes, hence
divorce can never be beneficial to the family or to society.
Marriage is not like a commercial contract. In marriage the spouses give themselves to
each other in sickness and in health, in richer or poorer, until death.
Divorce is evil condemned by God, and evil can never be regarded as the right thing to do.
Gerard Cassar
Jan 31st 2011, 12:25
Moses was very near to God yet he allowed divorce and Jesus Christ referred to it when questioned saying that was because the heart of the people had hardened. He did not condemn Moses he condemned the hardness of the people’s hearts. Does it not appear, not appear but exists in reality, that to-day the people's heart has hardened. The Church has taken the role of Moses. Moses religion was the right one so is the Catholic religion. What one did the other could do. The people's heart has hardened divorce could be a remedy as in the time of Moses.
Jesus Christ admitted an instance when a separation is possible, such as in the case of a woman who betrays her husband. The Church has also included in Its Catechism, cases when divorce is permitted. So it is not” divorce never!" There are instances when divorce is accepted. Who is to judge other people me or you? everyone has a conscious if it has not been deviated one can decide in favour just because there are instances when divorce is allowed.. Now if there are who abuse why punish everybody. That’s college discipline not a country’s law.
d.attard
Jan 31st 2011, 11:44
The weight of argument in favour of divorce legislation is overwhelming
Indeed. That all cultures and nations of the world have divorce legislation in their legal infrastructure must surely render Divorce a de facto human right.
I also find it amusing how anti-divorce promoters keep confusing Christian with Catholic, when the great majority of mainstream Christian faiths tolerate divorce within their Church rules even if they read the very same scriptures we read.
Joe Zammit
Jan 31st 2011, 11:03
Rights are positive. Divorce is negative, so it is no right. Rights entail duties. Divorce entails no duty (not even to remarry), so it is no right.
The European Convention on Human Rights is reticent on divorce, so divorce is no right.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is mum on divorce, so divorce is no right.
Therefore, any argument depicting divorce as a right in view of introducing it in our legislation is flawed right at the start.
No MP, no person can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. Christ tells all our MPs, all voters that what God has joined together let no MP, no voter put asunder. Any MP, any voter who votes for divorce is betraying Christ.
Jan-Wouter Stigter
Jan 31st 2011, 14:30
@ Joe Zammit - Countless Christian MPs in the world have voted in favour of divorce legislation and have done so with a clear conscience. They did so because they rated their duties as legislators higher than their personal beliefs, since they came to the point of view that they have a responsibility to their entire nation, and not just for the part of it that supported their own beliefs. Putting religious beliefs first, for a politician, is tantamount to forcing that religion on all - a position that Christ definitely did not support. But I'm sure you know that. You can be totally against divorce (well who isn't anyway?) and still accept that divorce legislation is necessary.
Gerard Cassar
Jan 31st 2011, 20:48
Mons Gouder has expresly stated that voting yes for divorce provided one has good intention does not commit sin. Mr. Joe Zammit are you more erudite than Mons. Gouder.
You are causing much harm that if you were to die now you will not see the face of God.
Or you are even more erudite than the Pope. Poor fellow your head has grown out of all proportions.
The worst sin is pride. Do an examination of conscience and go and ask for pardon when confessing.
edwin formosa
Jan 31st 2011, 23:07
@ Gerard Cassar No, you are saying that not Fr Gouder. Fr Gouder's version is quite different
Joe Zammit
Jan 31st 2011, 11:01
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 themselves from God and placing themselves 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.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!