Advert
Print
Friday, March 18, 2011, 08:18 by

David Schembri

EFA: Let conscience be MPs’ guide on divorce

If he were still an MP, former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami – seen here with his wife Mary – would vote according to his conscience, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

If he were still an MP, former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami – seen here with his wife Mary – would vote according to his conscience, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

Legislators should decide according to their conscience on a moral matter such as divorce, whatever the result of the referendum, President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami says.

“The individual conscience of the legislator should decide, whatever the result. If it were me, I would decide according to my conscience...” Dr Fenech Adami, long known for his strong stance against divorce, insists.

The former Prime Minister believes the divorce referendum question is “loaded” and that the outcome would have been clearer with a simple “yes or no” question: “The result would have better reflected the real position of the people. If the result is negative – as I think it will be – the margin would have been relatively wider had it been a simple yes or no ­question.”

The referendum question approved by Parliament on Wednesday asks people whether they “agree with the introduction of the divorce option in the case of a married couple which has been separated or has not lived together for at least four years, and where there is no reasonable hope of reconciliation between the spouses, while adequate maintenance is guaranteed and children are ­protected”. The question has been criticised by Moviment Żwieġ Bla Divorzju and the Nationalist Party for misleading people.

Asked whether people should still vote, despite the loaded nature of the question, the former Nationalist Party leader said everyone had the duty to vote.

“Personally, I was always against a referendum because I believe moral and ethical questions should never be decided in terms of minorities and majorities but on a point of principle. However, since there is now a referendum everyone should participate,” Dr Fenech Adami said.

On the fact that Nationalist MPs Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett had voted with Labour on Wednesday, Dr Fenech Adami said: “I am not satisfied. It was a mistake that the law of divorce was proposed, when it wasn’t in any electoral programme. This is political disloyalty.”

Archbishop Paul Cremona said that, whatever the question, “the choice remains whether divorce is introduced or not”.

He said the Church was called to love but “believers should be free to argue and discuss, otherwise we wouldn’t be living in a pluralistic society. It’s important that people hear a lot of voices, including ours,” Mgr Cremona said.

Print
Advert

71 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 20th 2011, 22:13

Mela haga biss jonqsok - Beigh gidek KOLLU, ghatieh lil foqra u imxi wara Gesu. Bil-kliem kulhadd jghid li jemmen u li jaghti kaz il kelma ta Gesu, imma meta nigu ghal fatti nsiru nafu min jemmen fil verita. Mela hallina sur Falzon ghax Gesu ma kellux kliem sabieh ghal min hu ipokrita.

Paul Barrett

Mar 19th 2011, 23:50

Your very sensible questions have all been answered in various articles together with the comments from many of the bloggers on this subject but you must have missed them.

First, there is no hidden agenda to give people the freedom of choice to apply for a divorce certificate following four years of Legal Separation.

There will be no additional costs to the public (other than legal fees to those applying no doubt) as all the damage to society and the additional welfare costs arise with separation. Indeed for the very few that will make use of the divorce legislation and actually apply for a civil marriage could actually reduce the burden on the welfare funds.

Marriages will continue to breakdown and the trend, in line with other Countries, is that they will continue to do so in the future, irrespective of divorce legislation or not.

Denying the option for the more responsible individuals in a committed relationships the right to a civil marriage does nothing to strengthen first time marriages and is absolutely no aid to social cohesion.

Individuals from shattered marriages deserve the freedom of choice for another chance and it is selfish to deny them this.

Philip Hili

Mar 23rd 2011, 14:17

@ Paul Barrettt
Wow!!!!
At least Mr. Barrett answered (sic)!!!! part of my question:- (other than legal fees to those applying no doubt) This is the first act. Second act:-
1). What about if the person entitled to pay the legal fees mentioned by you cannot afford to pay them?
2). What about if the children who are supposed to get financial assistance from one of the couples probably the father are not receiving it?
3). What about if the mother (the wife of the divorcee) is unable to make both ends meet and at the same time she has to look after her childred - feed them, send them to school etc.,
4). Heq! the wife/mother of these children should have some free time to go to the TOMBOLA and spare some time after a long hectic day with the kids, Mhux Hekk!!!
5). What about if some wise person lobby in order to create another social service benefit for these children who at no fault of their own are being deprived of certain things which they should not be deprived of?

Paul Barrett

Mar 19th 2011, 00:35

What is morally wrong is denying two people the freedom and right to choose to obtain a civil marriage based upon your own personal beliefs or your own moral convictions. It is gross self opinionated interference in the private lives of others. As I have said before, Legal Separation is already divorce, it just lacks the certificate to admit that what is dead is dead.

As for "divorce" being the cause of more marriage breakdowns and cohabiting. There is no proof that allowing divorce in itself increases these. Indeed, Malta which currently has no divorce is still suffering the plight of an increase in marriage breakdowns and this will unfortunately continue - with or without divorce legislation.

David Caruana

Mar 18th 2011, 19:03

Joe, I'm happy that we finally agree as it seems that you, as a human being, would allow (and not judge) anyone who would wish to end his marriage and start a new one.... "I have repeated in my comments that only GOD judges the human person and no one else." If divorce, for you and your fellow Catholics is a sin, then let others "sin" as much as they like cause anyway, ONLY GOD judges the human person, and no one else.

David Caruana

Mar 18th 2011, 15:36

Joe, I hope that you realise that you are ignoring the fact that there are Maltese citizens who are not Catholics and do not believe in your god or your Jesus. What about these people? Ah yes, according to you, "one (marriage) that ignores the presence of God, doesn't have a very good prospect of success" so in your own words, atheists, agnostics or Bhuddists do not stand a chance to have a successful marriage. U ddahhakx habib! Mur ivvota le ghad-divorzju, ghax xorta hadd m'hu jistenniek tara boghod iktar mill-ponta ta' mniehrek. Donnhu l-motto ta' dawk kontra d-divorzju huwa "Jien! Jien! Jien!" Dak li nghid jien biss tajjeb Kif nghix hajjti jien biss tajjeb Kif nahsibha jien biss tajjeb (U INT ha tmur l-infern ghax m'intix JIEN)

Stephen Abela

Mar 18th 2011, 16:03

@Joe Falzon

Marriage has been here in mankind long before your particular type of faith, whether you're a muslim or hindu or whatever. So dont confuse what your particular religion says about marriage cause your religion will certainly cease to exist or change completely in a few hundred or thousand years, while marriage wont. Or maybe you think that the multitude of people who lived before 2000 years ago (even in malta) were not properly married and loved each other?!!

J Gatt

Mar 18th 2011, 16:33

A marriage that is not built on true unconditional love (as preached by Christianity).

So you are implying that only christians are possessed with the great gift of true unconditional love.

I always wondered, why the human race is in decline on this planet Earth.

It must be this christian only, capability for `true unconditional love.`

May I ask a simple question, what if, in a few decades, people of others faiths (it is a numbers game after all) become the majority on these Islands, let us assume that this majority decides to impose and ban all other forms of religion, on the minority, and hold a referendum.

What then?

victor pulis

Mar 18th 2011, 17:12

You make it sound as if love is the monopoly of the catholic church. What about the billions of couples who are not catholics or indeed christians who are living a happy marriage? i bet you're going to answer that they only think they are happy!!

Ramon Casha

Mar 18th 2011, 16:17

Legally, you are right. In a consultative referendum, it is the decision of parliament that is binding.

Ethically however it's another thing. Once parliament decided to go for a referendum it is highly unethical to ignore it. What's the use of having a referendum that will be ignored?

J Gatt

Mar 18th 2011, 16:44

We are paying dearly for the illegalimigration, you included, in all aspects, medical, financial, lodging ect ect. Now I am not saying that we should not help.

We have been and always will be a nation of generous people. So do not worry, it is all out of the goodness of our generous soul and hearts

You tend to worry and fret when it affects your brothers and sisters.

Not to worry, yet you call yourself a typical christain?

M. Mizzi

Mar 19th 2011, 08:06

And what is "Annulment"?

And what is living a lie ?

And what is hypocrisy?

David Caruana

Mar 18th 2011, 12:41

Joe,

Your argument is a religious one, therefore not fit for this argument.

Bye bye Joe!

victor pulis

Mar 18th 2011, 17:14

My conscience tells me that divorce is right so I'm voting YES

Paul Barrett

Mar 18th 2011, 17:55

Joe - You should be campaigning for a YES vote by all - we can then all depart for other areas and leave you more space in heaven.

David Caruana

Mar 18th 2011, 12:11

U x'jigri minn dawk il-Maltin li jizzewgu bic-Civil biss u ma jemmnux f'Gesu' tieghek?!

Il-parlamentari qeghdin hemm biex jirraprezentaw ANKE lil dawn in-nies u huma mhalssin (tajjeb hafna wkoll) sabiex jiddefendu lil dawn l-individwi ukoll.

Ir-ragunament tieghek huwa wiehed religjuz, allura ma jiswax centezmu f'dan l-argument

Ian Chetcuti

Mar 18th 2011, 18:37

Shouldn't you be saying the same thing about the Hon Karl Gouder?

l fenech

Mar 18th 2011, 10:56

EFA imissu jghati l-opinjoni tieghu meta imur jivvota. Lil-poplu fi zmienu ma tahx chance ghal dina l-ghazla.

Philip Hili

Mar 18th 2011, 13:07

"On the fact that Nationalist MPs Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett had voted with Labour on Wednesday, Dr Fenech Adami said: “I am not satisfied. It was a mistake that the law of divorce was proposed, when it wasn’t in any electoral programme. This is political disloyalty.”
This paragraph especially the last FOUR words:- " This is political disloyalty" is the gist of the issue. He whoever is disloyal to his party should step down immediately and should not form part of the party. I insist that the Party should not accept their canditature for the next general elections because there is no room for disloyal peolpe in the National Party and because the persons who voted for these two gentlemen did not vote for them to be DISLOYAL to the Nationalist Party and LOYAL to the LP,
There is room for diferrent opinioins but not for disloyalty. The Onor. Karl Gouder;'s position is a case in point. He aired his views about the issue althought I do not agree with him, but when the time of loyalty tested him, he towed the Party's line and voted with the Party and not with the opposition.

Philip Hili

Mar 18th 2011, 13:23

But Mr Aquilina, are you joking when saying that " it is a bad idea for distinguished people like EFA, Joseph Muscat, Gonzi, etc. to campaign in favour or against divorce "?
Therefore in your opinion who should campaign for this issue, people in the YES movement only because as far as I am concerned, neither we who are against this isse have a right to speak and campaign?
The dark old days are over. if you want to live in those dark days nobody is holding you but please do us a favour stop talking NONSENCE

Joseph Aquilina

Mar 18th 2011, 09:42

Personally I think it is disgusting for the church to give three consecutive annulments to the same person and I EXPECT (as a Roman Catholic) the Church to explain itself on the subject otherwise its credibility will fall short with many of its followers.

Having said that; I do not see EFA anyway responsible. Just because this person is family, doesn't mean that EFA agree or disagree with what this person has done. Everyone of us has family members which do things we do not really agree with or support.

As I said this is something the Church has to address and it needs to do so in order to maintain it's credibility over the subject.

David Caruana

Mar 18th 2011, 10:09

Spot on!

Philip Hili

Mar 18th 2011, 23:10

Patrick,
Mhux ahjar titghallem xi hin id-differenza bejn Annullament u Divorzju qabel tharbex l-opinjoni tieghek? Jew qieghed taghmel hekk biex tkomplu tgerfxu l-imhuh?

patrick zammit

Mar 19th 2011, 11:22

PH
Annuments gives the right to a person whose marriage failed to marry again just like divorce does. However, annulments do not cater for the children's needs or maintence.

Philip Hili

Mar 23rd 2011, 13:16

Sur Zammit,
Ghadek ma tafx x'hin id-differenza bejn annullament u divorzju.
Meta titghallem irrispondini.
Thank you

a. muscat

Mar 18th 2011, 10:11

Annulment TEXAS STYLE !! like buying a packet of crisps!!

Annulment distroys marriages!
NO to annulments
NO to annuled families!!

What about the children? They need to be PROTECTED.

Fight the good fight!! THe victory is already ours!! NO TO ANNULMENT !!

David Caruana

Mar 18th 2011, 11:35

@ a.muscat:

good one! :-)

john vella

Mar 18th 2011, 13:30

@ Charles Sammut
I guess I follow in the category of those gran parents who experienced Divorce first hand. No gran parent who had this sorrowful experience in his family will believe that any good will come out of this LP motion supported by JPO, other than more broken hearts and broken children. What guarantee do we have that those wanting Divorce will not divorce again and again? what will happen to the children they leave behind? Rumor has it that in the House of Parliament there are those living this life style.
Is it really for the good of us commoners this is all about or because it suit the politicians?

J Gatt

Mar 18th 2011, 16:59

@A Muscat I want to join your legion, and fight the good fight. Pls note, I did not make it past the interview with Joe Zammit`s brigade, he is also offring crusades left, right and centre, he`s offering permanent conflict as a solution, including permanent marriage, even if couples now cohabit/live permanently with someone else. That`s whats on offer on his side, Marriage Maltese style. Did not like his terms and conditions, so I declined.

Joe Micallef

Mar 18th 2011, 09:24

Do you give the same importance to deciding which workers union to join and which school to send your kids to!

To normal rational individuals EU membership and divorce are different kettle of fish, apart from the latter being sanctioned by a general election and the other not.

john vella

Mar 18th 2011, 09:34

@Jeremy J Camilleri
They sure do my friend. They sure do bring back old memories!
Remember THREE members of the (NEW) (PROGRESSIVE) LAbour spoke against the motion but because Dr. Joseph gave them a free vote, voted against their WORDS in parliament and had to vote with the openly declared campaign champion for divorce, the new found Christian Leader, U halluna!

Jeremy J Camilleri

Mar 18th 2011, 10:44

Joe ...normality is in fact subjective, however I dont want to complicate your life and go into certain issues. From your comments you give the impression that you are already rather tightly wound up.

Of course divorce and EU membership are different kettle of fish..The method of choice known as a referendum on the other hand, is not.

The fact remains that whatever the subject, a referendum is the voice of the people, and the manner in which the referendum would be held was decided, wait for it, by the MAJORITY of mp's.

WHat EFA is asking politicians to do is to ignore the will of the majority. I guess if it was the other way round, and someone from the Labour party was suggesting such a thing, you d be barking and foaming at the mouth...

John Vella, and your comments regarding EFA's stance?

Anthony Baldacchino

Mar 18th 2011, 10:47

@ John Vella
Jekk ma tridx tqarraq bhal ma dejjem jghamlu il-partit tieghek, dawk li huma laburisti kontra id-divorzju, fl-ebda mod ma ivvutaw favur id-divorzju. Jekk ghandek hiela urina fejn. Huma biss ivvutaw favur referendum u kif ghandha issir il-mistoqsija. Mela ghax huma ma jaqblux mad-divorzju, ma jhallux lil poplu jesprimi ruhu. Dawk id-dittaturi jghamlu hekk bhal gvern prezenti, ghax li ma kienx ghal vot fil-parlament din il-gimgha,ma kien isir xejn min dan.... Imma xorta qed nisfidak u turini fejn ivvutaw favur id-divorzju...

Joe Micallef

Mar 18th 2011, 12:40

Jeremy! Whilst I am tempted to agree that I better not bother, given that you are trying to compare the incomparable, whilst jumping into shallow assumptions head first, I may want to engage in a blog exchange with your good-selves.

- EU membership referendum was part of the PN's electoral programme
- Parliamentarians campaign to be elected on a party's programme. Therefore they represent a section of the population who elect them because they support a particular programme - which in this case did not include divorce.
- Following a referendum no Parliamentarian can know which % of the population he represents in Parliament wants divorce or not. In the absence of such knowledge I consider him free to vote according to his conscience.

Contrary to what you may think I do claim dogmas! So chill out and "wind down"


Philip Hili

Mar 18th 2011, 13:36

X'ghandu x'jaqsam!!!!

Miskin mohh il-bniedem! Ir-referendmu dwar l-EU kien hemm zewg testijiet ghall-eletturi biex jghazlu, ir-referendum u l-elezzjoni. F'dan il-kaz l-anqas id-domanda ma hi cara halli zgur thawwad l-imhuh.

Jeremy J Camilleri

Mar 18th 2011, 13:36

The party programme in no way restricts the Governing party from introducing items not listed in the programme...We can mention lots of instances, but this page only limits one to 200 words...

Regarding the concept of a referendum, and respecting its outcome, the concept is so simple that I don't really believe that you do not get it...Of course, you might be the one who needs to wind down, judging by your inability to comprehend a very simple statement.

Regarding not bothering, I am sure that you will bother, again and again...alas, no matter how much you do bother, the fact remains that, contrary to his past sermons, a politician out of politics is urging mps to ignore the referendum result..

Philip Hili

Mar 18th 2011, 13:47

Dik lealta'!!!.

Ghal wicc il-membri tal-PL dawn l-onorevoliu membri laboristi vvutaw mal-Partit halli la jiksruha mal-partit u lanqas ma l-eletturi laboristi, pero' issa meta jkunu wehidhom fil-kamra tal-vot NAHSEB li jivvutaw skond il-kuxjenza.

Jien nahseb li kien jissejjah "FREE VOTE" LI KIEKU L-MEMBRI KOLLHA KELLHOM VOT SIGRIET U MHUX IQUMU BIL-WIEQFA U JIDDIKJARAW IL-VOT TAGHHOM FIL-PUIBLIKU.

Joe Micallef

Mar 18th 2011, 15:37

Jeremy I understand your limits and will not bother beyond this bother.

Advert

Similar Stories

Popular Stories

  1. Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...

  2. Updated: Woman dies in car crash

  3. Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...

  4. Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses

  5. The end of the bar that ‘never closed’

  6. Bundy does not know whether to...

  7. Updated - Jason Micallef demands...

  8. This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...

  9. Petrol price up 6c

In Discussion

  1. Updated - Jason Micallef demands...

  2. Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...

  3. CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...

  4. Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...

  5. Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...

  6. Updated: Labour would give...

  7. CABS drone shot down

  8. Second group of migrants arrives

  9. Adrian Vassallo in scathing...

Advert

Copyright © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on - 01-06-2012 - This article is for personal use only, and should not be distributed