A second chance for Malta

Few of the voters taking part in the divorce referendum will be aware that this is the second attempt to introduce divorce in Malta.

The first attempt was when Napoleon captured Malta from the Knights more than 200 years ago and in seven hectic days introduced the right to divorce as one of a waft of other laws aimed to lift Malta from a medieval island managed for several hundred years by a monastic order to form part of the empire of the most socially progressive country in Europe that France was at the time.

In Malta Napoleon abolished slavery, introduced state education and set up the civil registry and local councils.

The state took over the responsibilities that the Church had to assume because of the civil administrative vacuum in the feudal system. This was the first time in the history of Malta that there was an attempt to define a clear line between Church and State.

Though the Maltese Church was not exactly on good terms with the Knights, the wind of change introduced by Napoleon irked the Church even more.

It is a historic irony that the only time the Maltese took up arms on their own initiative and not on behalf of foreign masters led to their giving up their newly found civil rights. No wonder many leading Church figures of the time were behind the revolt.

Back to today’s world: the current controversy on the possibility of divorce legislation has brought out the best and worst of the various social sectors in Malta. The Church started on the wrong foot but common sense soon prevailed and we had the advice of some of its wisest men who set out a position that unfortunately was later abandoned by many.

I have some admiration for our Archbishop who has been trying hard to rein in the most extremist of his flock, even though he has stopped short of condemning the antics of so many quacks.

The real culprit behind all this mess is not the Church but our politicians – practically all of them. If there was ever an issue that painfully exposed the shallowness of the current crop of Maltese politicians, it is the divorce issue.

More than a third of PN voters are for divorce and about a third of Labour voters are against. This has put both parties in some difficulty.

Faced with a rare opportunity that cuts across party lines, they opted for the devious solution of dumping responsibility for this decision on the electorate, the same electorate that elected them to take decisions on their behalf.

The possibility of divorce legislation should have never become a referendum issue in the first place. One can decide to divorce and one can decide not to. This is not like the EU issue when those who voted against membership had to lump it and become EU citizens, like it or not.

The main responsibility for this mess belongs to the current administration that is refusing to protect the natural right of what is really a small minority from ill treatment by those who want to impose their beliefs on everybody else.

This does not mean that the deep influence of the Church in Malta is not of great benefit to our country. Our religion is so deeply imbedded in all us that it is also part of the culture of the few unbelievers who live in Malta.

This is why we are practically unanimous on the issue of abortion. Our deep religious heritage is our last of defence against crime, drugs, unmarried mothers and whatnot.

For this good reason, all Maltese governments do well to co-operate with the Church, for both institutions have many common objectives. But they should never be one and the same thing.

Divorce is an issue that concerns the separation of Church and state. The Church is not a democratic institution but our government is and it is therefore its inescapable duty to regulate the civil effects of marriage and ensure order in our society.

The decision to practically pass on this responsibility to the Church when the marriage law was amended was ill thought and counterproductive. The protection of the rights of minorities is also the responsibility of a democratically elected government, even if the majority judges them to be living in sin and destined to burn in hell for eternity.

When all is said and done, it will be a sad day for Malta if divorce legislation is not approved. Ironically, the main loser will be the local Church that will eventually regret it.

Our faith should guide us in our pursuit of happiness and fulfilment and rather than serve as a tool for the oppression of a very small minority whose definition of happiness and fulfilment is in conflict with that of the rest.

Opposition to the possibility of divorce legislation is a short-sighted and ill-thought attempt to oppose a change that, in the long run, will prove to be inevitable.

micfal@malatnet.net