‘Divorce introduced in Malta in 1975’
Labour deputy leader Anġlu Farrugia told Parliament yesterday that divorce legislation had been introduced in Malta in 1975, when the state recognised divorce granted in another country.
This civil right had been granted because there were a number of Maltese women who had married members of the British Services who had divorced but could not remarry in Malta.
To date this civil right was being denied to Maltese who could not obtain a divorce from abroad. The Church had always accepted this recognition of divorce as a civil right. The Church itself had established procedures in giving dispensation to a Catholic to remarry if the first marriage to a person from another church ended in divorce.
As a civil right, one had to explain the divorce issue of people married under civil law and not under canon law. Otherwise one would be misinterpreting the law.
Dr Farrugia said divorce was for people who had married under the civil rite. One had to separate civil marriage from one conducted under Catholic rites which contained canonical obligations. Divorce was not an issue for him personally, because he had married within the Church where marriage was considered a sacrament.
He agreed with the Archbishop that there should not be any crusade on the issue. Neither should there be people in influential positions in the Church who did not distinguish between Church and state on the issue.
He said that the referendum proposed by the opposition called for a qualified divorce conditioned by the fact that the couple would have been separated for at least four years, where reconciliation attempts had definitely failed and where alimony had to continue to be given to the dependant members of the couple.
Dr Farrugia said that the conditions under which separation had been given by the courts would remain valid when the couple divorced. Under Maltese law, a spouse who did not pay alimony could be sentenced to prison.
Dr Farrugia criticised Dr Zammit Dimech for being unfair when quoting from the Private Members’ Bill, because his interpretation did not reflect the Bill.
The Labour Party parliamentary group had discussed the divorce issue because there was no electoral mandate and had unanimously agreed to the text in the motion a secret ballot. On the contrary, the Nationalist Party was not serene in discussing the issue, with influential persons trying to interfere and putting pressure on its MPs.
The government, in the House Business Committee, had made every possible attempt to delay the discussion on the issue.
Dr Farrugia said that the reality in the country was that there were a considerable number of people whose marriage had broken down beyond any hope of reconciliation. The state had to give these people the chance to a qualified divorce under civil law. He claimed that those people who tried to meddle in civil rights with canonical thinking were misinforming the public and usurping a civil right. The opposition wanted the electorate to be correctly informed and then decide in a referendum proposing a qualified divorce.
The motion extracted the salient points from the private members’ Bill limiting divorce to couples who had been separated at least four years where there was no hope of reconciliation and where alimony had to continue to be given to the dependant members of the family.
The referendum question, as proposed by the opposition, did not give a blank cheque to separated couples.
Dr Farrugia criticised the Nationalist government which said it was against divorce but had drafted a Bill on cohabiting couples, showing its irresponsibility and totally neglecting morality on the issue. Relationships between cohabiting couples were less stable than in a normal family.
If the electorate voted in favour in the referendum the Private Member’s Bill would be fine-tuned, with maximum priority given to children’s welfare and protection, he said.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joseph Vassallo
Mar 2nd 2011, 19:17
Despite all the pontificating in favour of family unity, there seems to be no remorse, guilt or regret when the church facilitates the marriage of a formerly-married non-catholic to a catholic, on the pretext that the former's marriage never existed because it was not conducted by the Roman Catholic church itself.
In such cases, the non-catholic family, even when children are involved, takes second priority to the primary one of jurisdiction.
Maybe some Zammit fellow can tell us the difference between a Roman Catholic family and for example, a protestant family, or even one united by a civil ceremony in another country. Are such foreign families entitled to the same protection from dissolution in the eyes of our church?
Come on Joe, don't be shy now.
Joe Gatt
Mar 2nd 2011, 18:08
@Joe Zammit
Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation,
Much sooner than you think Joe, Cohabitation - Divorce = Cohabitation soon to be Legal and recognized.
Then Couples will live happily ever after(guaranteed) , in the land called AtlaM.
AtlaM being the last one and only, unconquered Fort in Europe
jane camilleri haber
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:41
Dr Farrugia said 'divorce was for people who had married under the civil rite. One had to separate civil marriage from one conducted under Catholic rites which contained canonical obligations. Divorce was not an issue for him personally, because he had married within the Church where marriage was considered a sacrament'. this is misleading because although Dr. Farrugia would not resort to divorce should it be inroduced, it does not mean that marriages conducted under catholic rites and therefore having canonical obligations are spared the purge of divorce legislation just as much as those marriages conducted under the civil rite alone. if divorce is introduced both catholic as well as civil marriages will be liable to go under the hammer. please dont tell me that divorce will have jurisdiction only on the civil part of marriage cause that would be talk play. the fact remains that a catholic union would be dissolved with much the same predicament as a civil one. not only but the catholic partner who remains steadfast to her faith and does not resort to a second marriage will be looked upon as still married by the church while single by the state. what a mess!
l.theuma
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:35
Jesus Christ, when speaking about marriage, did'nt make a distinction between civil marriage and canonical marriage, but about marriage as set in nature by the creator "in the begining".
Christian Sciberras
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:11
Jesus Christ also doesn't exist as much as Muslims, Hindi, etc, are concerned...!
Joe Zammit
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:26
The two characteristics of marriage are Unity and Indissolubility. By Unity we mean one man and one woman. In case of more than one woman (bigamy) or more than one man (polyandry) there is no Unity.
The Catholic Church has not invented marriage. Marriage has been created by God in creating human beings males and females. This was from the beginning. Christ's words on marriage apply to all people, Catholics and non-Catholics. So, in every valid marriage, independently if it is celebrated in a religious way or not, it is God who is joining two together. And no human person has the power, let alone the right, to put asunder what God has joined together.
The formula: Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation applies to all marriages. With divorce there are no marriages but cohabitations because when they want, all couples can divorce and enter another fake dissoluble marriage. Of course, those intending to keep married until death consider their marital union as marriage and understandably they do so correctly.
I'm following the Pro-divorce movement arguments and to date they have not proffered one single valid argument in favour of divorce. They are just deceiving themselves, starting from their ludicrous logo.
J Gatt
Mar 2nd 2011, 15:32
Joe, just to remind you that, you forgot to include your famous battlecry
So pls excuse me, just could`nt help but, but in,
`Final victory guaranteed`
There you go, sounds so much better.
J Gatt
Mar 2nd 2011, 15:38
The two characteristics of marriage are Unity and Indissolubility. In case of more than one woman (bigamy) or more than one man (polyandry) there is no Unity.
Well said Joe, pls. and look around you. You`ll find that there is a lot of lack of yor so called Unity.
Gerry Cowie
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:58
Can Mr Zammit please explain clearly what he has said below? How does lack of unity equate to bigamy? Whilst I understand his feelings on the subject of divorce I nonetheless find it difficult to decipher what he is trying to say.
Can he also explain clearly his thoughts on non religious marriages and how the law of the Church apparently affects them? Is marriage sacramental for those of no religious persuasion?
Does he also have an algebraic formula for civil marriages?
May I also point out that "non-sense" should read as nonsense.
What concrete evidence can Mr Zammit offer that the pro divorce movement has no valid arguments? If one is to strenthen one's argument then it is important to explain why rather than just say something is so or not so.
I am simply seeking clarification from Mr Zammit so that I can understand his position. Other than that I am not taking a stand either for or against.
Joe Zammit
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:07
The pro-divorce movement has no one single valid argument in favour of divorce. So what do you expect them to say? Just non-sense.
Marriage is the union of two persons, a man and a woman, for life. The two characteristics of marriage are: Unity and Indissolubility. If one of these is missing, it is no marriage at all. If unity is missing, it is bigamy; if indissolubility is missing, it is cohabitation.
Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation
J Gatt
Mar 2nd 2011, 15:44
Marriage is the union of two persons, a man and a woman, for life. The two characteristics of marriage are: Unity and Indissolubility. If one of these is missing, it is no marriage at all. If unity is missing, it is bigamy; if indissolubility is missing, it is cohabitation.
Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation,
Sooner than you think, Cohabitation - Divorce = Shall be Legal and recognized.