Beyond the divorce debate

The popular wave of sympathy in reaction to the news that Deborah Schembri, the pro-divorce movement chairman, was barred from appearing for her clients before the Church tribunal that determines on annulment cases is understandable.

But beyond this deserved sympathy that garnered so many signatures in a petition in her favour, there are other even more serious issues.

One is whether the Church tribunal is a court of law that respects basic human rights that include the right of those appearing before it to be defended by a lawyer of their own choice. One can argue that the Church is not a state bound by these rules but our law makes the civil annulment proceedings of the state subservient to the proceedings and decisions of the Church tribunal.

I was a minister when this infamous piece of legislation was enacted, and privately disagreed with it. I discussed the matter with another minister who was of like mind and we realised that we could do nothing short of resigning from Cabinet and voting against the law in the House of Representatives.

I still regret I did not have the guts to do so and let circumstances bar me from doing what I felt was right. My involvement in the pro-divorce movement is partly inspired by my conscience that tells me that I must somehow atone for my past cowardice.

I wonder what the Constitutional Court in Malta and the European Court of Human Rights would decide were they faced with a case that challenges the constitutionality of all this in view of the peculiar way the Church tribunal is set up and acts.

In other European countries there are no such grey areas in the relationship between Church and state.

When the marriage of my sister to a foreigner collapsed while the couple were living in Glasgow, she went to the Catholic curia there to start annulment proceedings. She was told these proceedings could not start before she obtained a divorce decree. I do not believe she was told by the bishop of her community to do something intrinsically wrong and commit a sin so that the annulment submission could be considered.

Everywhere where there is separation between Church and state, the Catholic Church accepts that the civil effects of marriage take precedence over the religious aspect. This does not mean that the Church abroad does not affirm the indissolubility of a religious marriage but that it recognises the dual nature – civil and religious – of the marriage bond and is careful not to get involved in the civil aspect of any marriage.

In Malta, the Judicial Vicar, Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino, was reported by The Times last Thursday as saying that he saw no distinction between civil marriage and a religious one. He insisted that “divorce is not a civil issue… it applies to everyone, it’s an issue of God. If an atheist is married civilly, it is still God’s issue.”

Do you blame anyone who thinks that the Maltese Church is different from the Catholic Church abroad and that there are a set of Catholic rules (and sins) that apply only for Malta?

Assuming the Judicial Vicar made his comments to The Times last Wednesday, this coincided with the publication of an article by the Minister of Finance in another newspaper. The heading of the article is enough: ‘The divorce debate cannot be divorced from faith’. The article was a clear fundamentalist statement from one of the most important Cabinet ministers of this country.

It had such gems as “when we break God’s order of things, we bring disorder upon ourselves” and “what God has dictated is for the good of all of us, believers or not”. This is a minister of the state using the same jargon as the Church’s Judicial Vicar when writing on a public policy issue.

Where, pray, is the distinction between state and Church?

What has happened to the PN’s professed beliefs as expounded in Fehmiet Bażiċi approved by the PN executive some 30 years ago that affirmed in no uncertain terms that the PN is not a confessional party and that it believes in the separation between state and Church?

Has the current crop of PN leaders betrayed that official stance? Does the current administration believe that we should have a secular state and not a theocracy?

I have always been proud to be a PN activist and a party card carrying member. I am proud that under the guidance of my party, Malta achieved sovereignty, Malta was freed from the threats to justice, freedom and democracy, and Malta became an EU member.

I was always one with the PN because I knew we were on the right side of history. Today it seems that the PN is on the wrong side of prehistory.

It is true that the PN gave its MPs a free vote on this issue but this has led some PN supporters asking whether they also have a free vote in the referendum.

Do they?

micfal@maltanet.net