The clear writing on the wall

The divorce debate is hotting up to the extent it is in danger of becoming a conflagration. Tempers flare and insults are hurled like Jove’s thunderbolts from the pro to the anti camp and vice versa. The Times online comments are a case in point. The political parties themselves are ideologically split within themselves. Both parties have conservatives who are loath to transgress the faith of their fathers and allow the freedom of divorce to pollute our ever so pure and unadulterated society and there are the liberals, not so influential but growing by the day, who advocate the right to end a civil, please note, not religious, marriage, under certain conditions. These people are realists aware of the faults and shortcomings of our society and look upon an instrument such as divorce as damage controlling.

What I fail to understand is what the hoo-ha is all about. We are talking here about civil marriage which exists even without having to have a Church wedding tied to it. A minister appointed by the state officiates at these ceremonies which have absolutely nothing remotely religious about them as they are mere contracts with a few lilies and orange blossom thrown in to tart them up. Therefore, if these sort of marriages fail why bring the much vaunted what God has put together let no man put asunder when God had nothing to do with it in the first place?

Naturally, there exists, in the vast majority, people who have had both types of wedding: Church and state. Divorce has absolutely no bearing at all on the Church one. One will always have to go to the Curia for that if one wishes to remain a practising Catholic. That is a matter of conscience and belief for the individuals involved and is of no concern to the state at all.

Is it within the state’s remit to act on behalf of the Catholic Church? It shouldn’t be. However, by top politicos objecting to civil divorce on grounds of Christian morality, I am afraid it is doing just that. The Catholic Church is perfectly capable of looking after itself like it has for the past 2,000 years. Was not the declaration by the 70 parish priests that while they would support the pro marriage official lobby they would not join it an eye-opener?

Divorce is not the real issue at stake here. Divorce is regarded as the thin end of the wedge. Allow divorce and it will open the door to all sorts of civil rights and freedoms that are, to many people, unpalatable and inconvenient truths. Abortion, same sex marriage, IVF, you name it. They are probably right, however, by coming down like a ton of bricks the conservatives are merely exacerbating the situation and realigning the people into two distinct camps, which have nothing to do with either party allegiances or religious beliefs.

Divorce is today the rallying cry of those who want a more liberal Malta where censorship becomes a non issue and the laws of the state and the laws of the Church are not one and the same in people’s minds.

I am absolutely and unequivocally against the state holding a referendum to decide the outcome of the divorce issue alone. It sets a very dangerous and expensive precedent and I maintain that elected members of Parliament will be shirking their constitutional responsibilities by resorting to it. Once in harness their allegiance is towards the people of Malta alone and not their political party or their personal faith in the same way as a judge is bound to uphold the law irrespective of his own personal beliefs.

Be that as it may, I am totally in favour of a referendum to remove the three clauses in our Constitution that in my opinion give unlimited power and influence to the Catholic Church alone. The Church, both as a national and international institution, is vastly more powerful than the government of Malta will ever be, so powerful, in fact, that, practically without lifting a finger, it has provided all the ammunition to the laity to fight its battles on its behalf while reining in prelates like the Żebbuġ parish priest from being too outspoken.

All institutions today, be they religious or political, must realise the power of instantaneous communication has given an opinion and a voice to people who hitherto had none. The people today are also enabled to read what others have to say at the touch of a button. In this way, firm and sound opinions can be formed. This is a wonderful but potentially terrifying development that all those in a position of authority must understand and work along with. It is not cosmetic, as some politicians who join Facebook seem to think, nor is it merely hip. It is a very real way of communicating as never before. It has caused upheavals and revolutions as it has united people who would never ever have had a chance of exchanging ideas let alone sharing them in a manner unprecedented in history.

Ignore the writing on the wall at your peril before the country, along with its religious groups and political parties, collapses under the strain of whether or not to resist inevitable and inexorable change.

kzt@onvol.net