To be, or not to be…

The sage Bard’s words are timeless. I have to quote Shakespeare, the epitome of literacy and succinct and intelligent expression, to unravel the fictitious mess of factual inaccuracies on this whole divorce or not to divorce business.

May I quote from our Constitution – the highest law of the land – from chapter 1, article 2:

“(1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion.

“(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.”

Not only does the Constitution say that the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic religion but the Constitution charges the authorities of that same religion, the bishops of Malta and Gozo, with the constitutional duty to teach right and wrong.

Therefore, all those in the leftist, liberal, anti-clerical, secular and pro-divorce movements are certainly not acting in accordance with the spirit of our Constitution when they accuse the Church of acting wrongly and of trying to impose itself on the people by expounding its teachings on marriage and divorce.

The Church, our 1974 Constitution says, has not only the right but the duty to do so.

Is Malta a secular state?

The answer would probably be that it cannot be because of article 2, which makes Catholicism Malta’s religion and, thus, enshrined in the Constitution.

The introduction of a Divorce Bill and the incorporation of such law into the Maltese legislative code will arguably therefore be unconstitutional. Before I am torn to shreds for suggesting that the vox populi should be ignored, I would say that the Constitution may need to be amended as a result of the passing of a law that contradicts the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion.

On the other hand, the documents of Vatican Council II expound the desire of the Roman Catholic Church to be separate from the state. So, therefore while the Church in Malta has a right and a duty to oppose the introduction of a divorce law, it should not (and there is no reason to believe that it is) interfere in the workings of the state.

Can you not therefore oppose the Catholic Church’s position on teachings related to marriage and divorce, and other ethical and social issues, according to our Constitution? Yes you can, because our Constitution also says that “...All persons in Malta shall have full freedom of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective mode of religious worship”.

Now that we have unravelled the constitutional and secular state issues, I feel we may look at the statements being thrown about most often, often being incorrectly and wrongly portrayed.

Given that the Maltese Church has the duty to teach which principles are right and which are wrong according to our Constitution, what does Church teaching on divorce say?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, I quote: “(1650) Today, there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery’, the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ and who are committed to living in complete continence.”

Where did the Maltese bishops “get it wrong” on divorce?

They don’t seem to have gotten anything wrong at all on the Church’s teaching, if you read the Catholic Church’s “faith encyclopaedia”. Christ’s words need no explanation, they can be found in the gospel. The Church’s teaching also says that you cannot receive Communion or receive absolution if you are divorced and civilly remarried.

What is a “sin”? A “sin” is a breach of God’s law according to the Ten Commandments. One of those commandments urges the faithful not to commit adultery and also not to desire another man’s wife. In Christ’s words, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery”.

It would, therefore, in line with Christ’s and the Catholic Church’s teachings, be sinful to vote for a law that contravenes God’s law. Voting yes in the referendum would be a sinful challenge to God’s authority – but you would only need to concern yourself about this if you are a practising Catholic and adhere to the Church’s teaching. Why should apostates, atheists and lapsed Catholics be so upset if the Church exhorts its faithful to follow God’s law?

That leads to the dictatorship of relativism, an issue so carefully and meticulously studied and expounded by Pope Benedict XVI.

Is this teaching still relevant? Should it apply to Malta? Should divorce be shunned as a sinful state if a civil marriage then takes place where one or both parties is divorced?

That is entirely up to you to decide. But do not hold it against the Church for fulfilling not only its right to freedom of expression but also its constitutional duty. And you should not be offended either if the Church might have said, directly or indirectly, that it is against God’s law to vote for divorce in the consultative referendum.

You have a right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and right to vote. The Church has not curbed any of those rights and they have been exercised and the consultative referendum has delivered a verdict in favour of the introduction of a qualified Divorce Bill.

Please stop pillorying the Church for being faithful to its mission. Turn away and listen not if you want to think and believe differently. But never seek to cover the mouth of an institution that is the biggest voluntary charitable institution caring for thousands on our islands and millions worldwide – that mouth might be seeking to protect you in future.

The author is an active member of a number of voluntary and charitable institutions and is a special envoy of the Royal House of Georgia.