Malta-Vatican Concordat ‘outdated’

Deputy Leader of the Opposition Anġlu Farrugia told Parliament yesterday that the Concordat between Malta and the Vatican, as ratified in 1995, was outdated and called on the proposed permanent committee for family affairs to delve into the issue.

Dr Farrugia referred to Article 10 of the Concordat which established a mixed commission to discuss matters of interpretation in cases of disagreement between Church and state. This commission never met.

He said that in 1993, the government had changed the law and made civil marriage conditional to procedures of the Church Tribunal if one of the spouses opted for annulment of marriage in that court giving supremacy to the Church over the civil courts. It did not make sense today to have a judge suspend the hearing of annulment cases in the civil court until the Church Tribunal delivered its decision on the canonical annulment.

Dr Farrugia argued that, while every person had the right to go before an ecclesiastical tribunal, those who were civilly married had the right to undergo civil proceedings without any hindrance. He called on the commission to consider whether it made sense any more for the civil court to wait for the Church tribunal’s decision. Civil cases had to be regulated by the state, said Dr Farrugia, adding that national policy had to make a clear distinction between civil and Church matters.

In the divorce referendum, the electorate had decided that canonical matters had to remain distinct from the state.

Dr Farrugia said that the PL’s position in the referendum was clear and consistent – that of giving voters the right to vote according to their conscience. It had faced the situation with a strong sense of maturity and responsibility.

During the referendum campaign everyone had the right to give his or her views, but now that the majority had spoken, everyone had to respect its will. The PN had opposed responsible divorce but after the referendum result said it would be giving a free vote. Nationalsit MPs were now arguing again on the issue.

MPs represented the electorate and so had to discuss on what had been decided. The government also had to respect the will of the electorate. MPs had to carry the conscience of a national decision as expressed in the referendum.

Dr Farrugia said that the committee for family affairs could not be a sub-committee of the House Social Affairs Committee. The SAC’s chairman had expressed his decision that he would oppose the Divorce Bill contrary to the electorate’s will.

Parliament should appoint an ad hoc committee to analyse also certain laws which were archaic. It would make recommendations on many issues, including measures to assist families while encouraging more women to enter the world of work while achieving a work-life balance. The committee could commission research into matters relating to the family and children. It would also act as a monitor on national policy.

Dr Farrugia suggested that where, spouses agreed to responsible divorce, an amicable agreement could be entered into as happens in separation cases.