‘Church cannot interfere in civil aspect of marriage’
Opposition spokesman on justice José Herrera told Parliament on Wednesday that while the Church had every right to pronounce itself on the sacramental aspect of marriage, it could not interfere in its civil aspect. One needed to affirm the principle that there was a separation between Church and State and therefore, the issue must be tackled from the juridical aspect.
Speaking during the debate on the motion for holding a referendum on the introduction of divorce, Dr Herrera said that this was undoubtedly a historic moment. The Maltese were far more emancipated and mature now more than ever and believed in freedom of conscience.
He recounted the trepidation caused when the Nationalist administration of the 1960s was considering decriminalising homosexuality and the awe at the introduction of civil marriage by the Labour administration of the 1970s. What was obvious today was not so obvious in the past.
Dr Herrera deplored the fact that the country still had an agreement with the church with regard to annulments. Why was this possible when we believed that there ought to be a separation between the two entities? Did we really believe this?
He praised opposition MPs and government backbenchers who allowed for more legislative initiative to be taken, thus affirming Parliament’s sovereignty. Within limits, they were proactively contributing to society. Expressing his disagreement with Family Minister Dolores Cristina’s contention that there was no civil right to divorce but only a social right, Dr Herrera reminded the House that, the rescinding of any contract did not signify that upon signing of the contract the intention of the parties was not genuine.
Other forms of agreement were also broken. Why was this not possible when the intention was bona fide?
He said that being in favour of divorce did not mean that one was against marriage. Divorce remained an option and was not forced upon people. One had the duty to form a family. How could one do so if there was no compatibility? Why could the person not also have the right to perform this same duty in a different unity?
Malta was the only member of the Council of Europe not to have done so. The International Court of Human Rights in The Hague was a liberal one, albeit too liberal. Persons, as evidenced recently, could obtain the right to get married following an irreversible process of gender change through this court. One could not have a framework denying divorce.
Dr Herrera said morality and purely civil issues were being confounded. Malta didn’t differentiate between the church and the state. Spain and Italy were Catholic countries, but still they had divorce legislation. One needed to tackle the issue from a juridical aspect.
Nowadays it paid to have children out of wedlock, he said, and called on Minister Cristina to correct the situation. Today’s lifestyle was more tolerant, more consumerist. Traditional taboos have come to nothing and were practically non-existent. The reality was that the more freedom there was, the better it was. Living a lie for the sake of being seen by persons to be still united could not benefit anybody. In 2006 there were 184 marriages annulled through the civil court, 27 annulled through the church tribunal and five in Gozo. A year later, the cases increased.
Cases of separations were 700 in 2006 and 854 in 2010. There were 113 other cases where both parties remained in disagreement. The Family Court was being bombarded and this is evidence enough that this was exactly the right moment to discuss this issue.He expressed his disappointment with the seeming idea that divorce would lead to children suffering while cohabitation wouldn’t. Children were being used as pawns and used as threats for maintenance payments. He agreed that children were suffering. What was the difference between a divorced person and a separated one?
Annulment should not exist in a civil case. Stress caused by an annulment was worse. The year-long process was a cold one and the reasons given were very humiliating and personal, such as sexual and mental inadequacy. These should cease to exist as they caused a great deal of humiliation especially for children. In past times, annulment used to be private. Only those who really believed in the sacramental aspect of marriage should apply for an annulment.
The minister had said that in expressing her views she was not imposing them on others.
Dr Herrera said no one had the right to impose one’s views on the personal matters of an individual. Nobody had a right to impose religion or belief on others.
Parliament needed to be more tolerant and acknowledge it had no right to impose.
Concluding, Dr Herrera said his experience had confirmed there were areas where the state had no right to impose on the minority.
The debate continues
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
MBorg
Feb 25th 2011, 20:27
@ Adrain Borg Cardona As you rightly wrote " people can do this ( allowed to abandon the spouse any time s/he wants ) and have been doing it for many years without the necessity of divorce. " That is why the four years separation before a " responsible divorce " can be obtained is a joke. It is so easy , and it is being done , to move out live with your new partner and then file for divorce. What is responsible about this ? What you did not add is that many will not regulate the new relationship but just cohabit. Those who do very often go from one divorce to another. Divorce is like a virus ,once it's in it kills marriage.
Paul Barrett
Feb 25th 2011, 23:44
Quote: What you did not add is that many will not regulate the new relationship but just cohabit. Unquote. That is very true and many will not take responsibility in a new relationship and re-marry. However some may well do so and that has to be a step forward. As for "responsible divorce". I have mentioned before that I believe that the word "regulated" should have been used instead of "responsible". A certificate of divorce following four years of legal separation is a control - yes, in time it may well be changed but it would have to be done by new legislation passed by the people we vote for and put in power to do so.
MBorg
Feb 25th 2011, 19:04
@ Paul Barrett " Have illegitimate children whilst you live with someone else,obtain legal separation but are refused the freedom of choice to obtain a civil marriage to the person you are cohabiting with. To say the least this is tardy and leads to social chaos on an increasing scale. " I agree with you 100% .The 4 million couples who are cohabiting in England and Wales are doing just that. Although the number of divorced couples amongst them is unknown their action speaks volumes. Why in a country where they are free to marry , a country where it is very easy to obtain a divorce and remarry they still refuse to marry and choose to cohabit ? Why are they choosing to " have illegitimate children whilst living with someone else when they have the freedon of obtaining a civil marriage ? Why are they bringing this " social choas on an increasing scale " in the UK. The answer is clear , Wherever there is divorce the number of marriages goes down . Marriage is not seen as something that lasts,so why bother. If you know what goes on how can you be in favour of divorce?
Paul Barrett
Feb 25th 2011, 23:32
The key point you missed out is: FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Divorce legislation does not force anyone to personally accept that they are not still married and they can remain in this state for all their lives if they so wish. They are not forced to re-marry but does give them the option to do so if they wish to. Some children, seeing the absolute disaster of their own parents marriage (divorced or not) are very much against marriage in case they end up the same. There are many possible reasons why some people cohabit rather than marry or re-marry - the important thing is that they have a choice.
edwin formosa
Feb 25th 2011, 15:05
Spain and Italy may be Catholic countries in a way. But Malta, unlike Italy and Spain, does not profess complete “separation of Church and state” because the Constitution of Malta states: a) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion. b) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong. Some people are much preoccupied with the notion of separation of Church and State .They have have lost the vision and moved the landmarks set by our constitution with respect to the relation of government and the public square to matters of transcendent faith. And advocates of the secular religion of immanentism seem determined to a new status quo at all costs.
Henry S Pace
Feb 25th 2011, 14:27
‘Church cannot interfere in civil aspect of marriage’ Up to now all MPs who spoke in Parlament were all out of Subject. I do think that the Motion presented by the PL Leader was on the question ro be put in the Referendum of May 28th. Maybe that is why the say that in Parliament they can speak of 'Cabbages & Kings' Mr Speker please that all MPs speak just on the Motion and that's that. The discussion stage on the Bill will come some time later but they still have to decide who came first 'Either the chicken or the egg'
Raymond Bezzina
Feb 25th 2011, 11:25
Quote, " Dr Herrera said morality and purely civil issues were being confounded." Unquote.
I deeply believe that the words 'purely civil issues' which are mentioned above do not exist
in practice because whatever we do civilly effects us morally. Therefore, ' purely civil issues'
excluding morality, do not exist.
l.theuma
Feb 25th 2011, 11:24
Dr. Jose' Herrera should know that in insisting the need "to affirm the principle that there was a separation between church and state", he is instigating the American Masonic Doctrine. I quote from the Confessions of a Former Mason by John Salza: "America lives the religion of Freemasonry, that's why Masonry is not deemed to be a threat. It was, infact, the United States Supreme Court justices who created the doctrine of separation of the Church and State in the United States under Presidents Roosvelt, Truman, and Eisenhower (all of whom were Freemasons). They appointed, cvollectivly, twelve Supreme Court justilces, all of whom were Masons. From 1941 to 1971 Masons diminated the Supreme Court , and throough those judicial decisions they created the Masonic Doctrine of separation of Church and State."
However our Constitution that states that The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the Republic of Malta is still inforce (in vigore).
joseph saliba
Feb 25th 2011, 11:14
I've heard and admired the respectful way in which our parliamentarians are conducting the house dialogue. All speakers sounded prepared, mature and informative. What bugs me is: Why did they not agree to bring the divorce bill first? In fact they are discussing divorce and not the referendum motion. Another dilemma surfaces up after the referendum when the members come to vote. Where you a representative would you vote against the people's will?
Raymond Bezzina
Feb 25th 2011, 11:00
Quote from the above newspaper article, " He said that being in favour of divorce did not mean that one was against marriage." unquote
May I draw the attention that, being in favour of divorce means being against the
indissoluble marriage.
I ask, what kind of marriage would it be if a person would be allowed to abandon
the spouse any time s/he wants ?
Paul Barrett
Feb 25th 2011, 11:51
Quote: I ask, what kind of marriage would it be if a person would be allowed to abandon
the spouse any time s/he wants ? Unquote.
You mean like at the moment where you just walk out, have illegitimate children whilst you live with someone else, obtain a legal separation but are refused the freedom of choice to obtain a civil marriage to the person you are cohabiting with.
To say the least, this is tardy and leads to social chaos on an increasing scale.
Adrian Borg Cardona
Feb 25th 2011, 15:58
"I ask, what kind of marriage would it be if a person would be allowed to abandon the spouse any time s/he wants ? " People can do this and having been doing it for many years - without the necessity of divorce. Divoroce just regulates the new relationship that comes after seperation. You donlt need divorce to walk out on your spouse.
Jane Goodwin
Feb 25th 2011, 10:03
Very Well said Dr.Herrera.
J Gatt
Feb 25th 2011, 10:02
A picture is worth athousand words, the saying goes. The picture above is misleading, and speaks for itself.
A more accurate and balanced graphical representationm would show the happily married couple signing a contract in a ledger re their conset to declare, till death or whatever do us part.
Another picture should show the same couple histerically at odds with each other, surrounded by terrified offsprings,
The third picture. The strong arms of the law should then remedy (not the happiest solution but the best under the circumtance, to prevent it worsening) the situation by dissolving what is already shattered and non existent.
Joseph Calleja
Feb 25th 2011, 11:02
" The picture above is misleading, and speaks for itself. " Mr Gatt nobody gets married so they can get a divorce or get an annulment. So your statement is null and void. I can see a replica of a couple fighting on top of the wedding cake on their wedding day. Would you put that on your daughter's or son's wedding cake. Be reasonable and use some common sense. Marriage, divorce and or annulments are not something to joke about..
Dr Francis Saliba
Feb 25th 2011, 11:37
@Joseph Calleja
True, nobody gets married so as to get a divorce. But with the availability of easy "no blame" uncontested divorce couples will be encouraged to undertake marriages flippantly, more so than some couples do already, heedless of the dire consequences to children and society in general.
" The picture above is misleading, and speaks for itself. " Mr Gatt nobody gets married so they can get a divorce or get an annulment. So your statement is null and void. I can see a replica of a couple fighting on top of the wedding cake on their wedding day. Would you put that on your daughter's or son's wedding cake. Be reasonable and use some common sense. Marriage, divorce and or annulments are not something to joke about..
J Gatt
Feb 25th 2011, 14:41
@Dr Saliba and Joseph Calleja, In a perfect world no one get sick ether. No one get married with the intent to get thrashed, betrayed, abandonned ect, but some do. Wake up to reality. Where do you live? maybe have you discovered Atlantis ? or some far away enchanted realm, perhaps?? Please tell us how to get there, if you do not mind us joining you there?
Alex Ciantar
Feb 25th 2011, 16:14
@ Dr Francis Saliba - Divorce available or not will not make a difference if the one breaking up the marriage has no conscience and could not careless about his spouse or children as is already happening in certain cases of separation, as it stand no one or anything can force anyone to stay married so there is no difference. Farther more if one breaking up a marriage to be free s/he will not seek a divorce so s/he makes the same mistake twice thus being tied down again. S/he seeking a divorce would be the responsible with the intention of getting married again so as to start a new family in dignity and respect.
J Gatt
Feb 25th 2011, 17:45
let`s replace you Dr Saliba and Mr Calleja for the newly wedded couple picturre above, take your pick who`s the husband and wife, you can take turns should you be so inclined, say you are marrying today Friday, lets say after the ceremony both get cloberred on the head with a huge wooden mallet, I should not think that apart from a severe headache, you`d be very much pleased Saturday morning, Marriage is a serious business rest assured, but lots of business is involved there as well, separation, annulment is serious expensive business too. No one has the intention to become sick and die, unfortunatly it happens, and that too involves a lot of business, When a marriage breaks up permanently, that marriage does not morally remain, all that remains is resentment, pain, dissappoinments, paperwork,contracts and beaurocracy. No matter how much it may be sugarred, there is little one can do. One may permanently attempt to bring the dead back, but...would be better of moving on.
J Gatt
Feb 25th 2011, 18:54
@Dr Saliba and Mr Calleja
So true, can`t be more right, and no one intentionally gets seriously sick to die either, but it happens.