Last April I dedicated my commentary in The Sunday Times to the 1992 agreement on marriage between the Holy See and the Government of Malta. I did not plan to write again on the subject as I do not consider it to be of great importance. I will not loose any sleep if the agreement is amended or even if it is scrapped.

I decided to write again only because there is so much misinformation being bandied around. There are too many untruths or inexactitudes being proclaimed as if they are the Gospel truth.

Besides, the visit of Prime Minister Muscat to the Pope was generally reported in a one-sided way. The press communique released by the Vatican was largely ignored by a media which has been propagating the untruth and inexactitudes I referred to above.

This issue is being touted as if it were some great step forward towards the enhancement of the enjoyment of fundamental human rights in Malta. If it was so important why was it not included in the Electoral Manifesto of the Partit Labirista? It was mentioned by Dr Muscat but it was not considered to be so important as to include it in the electoral programme.

Let me comment on two incorrect statements.

Incorrect statement number 1.

"The Maltese Curia in immediately agreed about the need to revise the agreement." I did not find any Curia statement corroborating the above statement.

Way back in 2011, The Times had asked the Curia for its comments about the prosed revision of this agreement. This, according to The Times was the answer of the Curia: “If specific elements in the agreement could be enhanced, resulting in an authentic benefit for those resorting to the present agreement, the Church would look positively upon such real improvements.” Read the statement carefully and notice the big difference there is between this statement of the Curia and the statement being propagated by several media sectors, mainly that he Curia agreed about the need to revise the agreement. The Curia's position is just a very general statement which can be made about anything on earth. It just says that it would agree if it can be made better.

2. Incorrect statement number 2

A recent editorial in a local newspaper made the blanket statement that Civil Tribunals have to wait for the decision of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal before they can give a civil annulment. This was a blanket statement giving people the impression that Maltese citizens can only get an annulment if the Church says it's ok. This is not correct.

Before this Agreement was forged, people had to marry civilly and if they wanted they could also have also have a Church officiated marriage . Catholics who wanted a declaration of nullity would have felt bound in conscience to bring a case before the Church tribunal but they would also be bound to institute another case before the civil court. The Agreement changed all this. Only one marriage ceremony was needed: Either just a civil marriage or a religious marriage which would then be registered for civil effects. Moreover, only one case for a declaration of nullity was required before either the civil or ecclesiastical tribunal.

If the parties in the case choose the ecclesiastical tribunal then the ensuing decisions would be presented to the civil tribunal. Acceptance was not automatic. The civil courts looked into a number of issues, for example that both parties have been given the right of defence before registering it. There were a few exceptional cases when the civil court did not accept the decision of the ecclesiastical tribunal. This shows that the civil court is not a rubber stamp operating under the thumb of the ecclesiastical tribunal.

On the other hand, the couple could decide to take their case to the civil court without resorting to the ecclesiastical tribunal; even if theirs was a Church marriage. This is another instance where there definitely is no issue of ecclesiastical prevalence over civil courts.

What happens if the couple disagree on which Tribunal they resort to?

The Agreement stipulates that precedence should be given to the party who would want to resort to the forum of the institution officiating the marriage. This is not a case of subjugating one tribunal to another but an instance of subjugating the will of one party to another.

I accept that the above can be controversial and that, for ideological reasons, one can prefer to opt in favour of the party preferring to go to a civil tribunal.

There is then another scenario with which I do not agree.

If the two agree to start civil proceedings but at some point one of the spouses decides to revert to the ecclesiastical tribunal then the civil court will stop hearing the case which will then become the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical tribunal. I concede that one can argue that this is also another case where prevalence is given to the will of one of the parties and not to a particular tribunal. However, I think that once the parties agree to go to a civil tribunal this decision should be considered to be final. There should not be any going back. This provision could have lent itself to abuse by a vindictive partner.

I trust that the above shows that the blanket statement stating that Civil Tribunals have to wait for the decision of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal before they can give a civil annulment is not a correct statement. Maltese citizens can and do get annulments by the Civil Courts without having the need to resort to a Church tribunal.

Is there need for changes to the Agreement between the Holy See and the Government of Malta? I think that there is, particularly because the Maltese people decided to change the concept of marriage through the acceptance of divorce. I also do not think that it should be too difficult for the Holy See and the Government to reach a new agreement or to agree that there is no need for any agreement. However there is also no need for a misinformation campaign to achieve this aim.