Family lawyer and pro-divorce activist Deborah Schembri “automatically excluded herself” from practising in the ecclesiastical tribunal by speaking publicly in favour of divorce, Judicial Vicar Arthur Said Pullicino said yesterday.

Dr Schembri, who is the secretary of Yes to Divorce, had revealed earlier in the day that about a month ago she was stopped from practising in the Church’s courts because of her well-known stand which went against the Church’s teaching on marital indissolubility.

She said the chancellor of the tribunal had written to her client saying the Judicial Vicar wanted to inform her “that because of the well-known position” she had taken in favour of divorce, she could no longer be represented by Dr Schembri “­­... her views on the indissolubility of marriage are not in conformity with the laws of God and the Church”.

When contacted by The Times, Mgr Said Pullicino said that by publicly campaigning in favour of divorce, Dr Schembri had “automatically excluded herself” from practising in the ecclesiastical courts as Canon Law specified that advocates in the law had to be “practising Catholics” themselves.

This was not the first time someone had been banned from practising in the courts for similar reasons, he added.

Mgr Said Pullicino had been thrust into the spotlight early on in the divorce debate when he said it would be a “grave sin” for judges to preside over divorce cases if divorce was introduced, when the Church had been careful to steer clear from threatening sin.

When she came to know about her situation, Dr Schembri had a private meeting with the Archbishop who said the matter would be referred to Rome. However, she has heard nothing on the matter since.

“I advised the Archbishop I would not stop campaigning because I feel I can’t give in to this kind of pressure,” Dr Schembri said.

The lobby’s head made the revelation during a press conference where the role of the Church was being discussed. She said that, through this move, which directly affected her income, the Church “had pinched where it hurts”.

She also told the Archbishop that the Church could not expect family lawyers – who practised in both courts – not to give their informed opinion on the introduction of divorce.

Dr Schembri, a practising Catholic, said the decision went against the right of her client to the lawyer of her choice, especially given that the decisions taken by the Church tribunal in annulment cases were valid civilly. With this in mind, she added, civil rights should also be embraced by the Church but, right now, the Church was breaking such rules.

She specified she had never said anything that might indicate Catholic marriages could be dissolved.

Mgr Said Pullicino said he saw no distinction between civil marriage and a religious one: “Divorce is not a civil issue. There’s no fooling around with this... it applies to everyone, it’s an issue of God. If an atheist is married civilly, it is still God’s issue... let’s not mix things up, you’re mixing a lot of things up, in principle, in everything... Valid marriage is indissoluble.”

Asked whether Dr Schembri could be reinstated once the campaign was over, he said the decision might be revoked so long as she changed her position.

A spokesman for the Curia quoted the apostolic letter Justi Judicis, which stated that “those who agree with or are active in associations or movements which promote ways of thinking or acting that are contrary to the faith and the Catholic teachings about morals, or defend proposals and advice about civil order which go against the precepts of natural and Christian law” should be removed from the Album of the ecclesiastical tribunal.

“The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, on July 12, 1993 in a reply to an express query, laid down this norm: ‘According to canon 1483 the advocate must be of good repute... The proper treatment of marriage nullity cases presupposes the right doctrine about marriage and its indissolubility, which right doctrine also requires that it be manifested in life.’”

He also quoted Pope John Paul II saying “legal workers in the civil field should avoid being personally involved in anything that could imply cooperation towards divorce”.

The ecclesiastical authorities needed to take such decisions because the advocate’s role was not only to defend the interests of his/her client but also to defend the validity of marriage as a lifelong commitment, the spokesman said. Embracing divorce hindered this aspect of the advocate’s mission in the tribunal.

“During their years of formation the advocates are informed about these norms so that they can be aware of the consequences of their options. The advocate remains free to make his/her choices in life even to be in favour of divorce but they already know that this (affects) their participation in the ecclesiastical tribunal.”

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.