Last week, in Parliament, we started discussing amendments to the Marriage Act, which debate will be continuing this week. These amendments can happen after the government and the Holy See revised the infamous agreement that had been signed by then foreign minister Guido de Marco, an accord which gave the Ecclesiastical Tribunal the final say in cases pertaining to marriage annulment.

Because of the said agreement, the Church has hitherto been assuming a role of the civil authorities since it affected the civil aspect of the marriage contract.

Some years ago, this state of affairs was contested before our courts. A man, seeking to annul his marriage, filed proceedings before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal. His wife, not knowing that he had presented the case before this tribunal, filed a suit seeking an annulment before the ordinary courts. Once the Civil Court was informed of the proceedings before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, it did not continue with the case.

The wife claimed an infringement of her rights as protected by the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights, which affords every citizen the right of access to the courts.

The wife’s request was denied. Thus, it was a situation whereby our country’s judiciary – in this particular area of law – was submissive to the tribunal of another State.

Of course, as with everything else, there were also those who abused the system and used it to their advantage against their spouses. They would file a separate case with the Ecclesiastical Tribunal to deliberately prolong the process for as long as they could to the detriment of the other party. Nothing could be done as long as the Ecclesiastical Tribunal was superior to the civil courts in cases of annulment.

This was a legal regime redolent of a time when matters of religion were associated with those of public administration.

The position now is that the Civil Court is supreme and that there is to be a clear separation of Church and State.

The major effects of the amendments to the Marriage Act are that the civil courts will now continue to hear a marriage annulment case even if one of the spouses files a case before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.

The Civil Court can now hear and decide a case for annulment even if a decision on the same case has yet to be taken by the Ecclesiastical Court. If the latter court rules against annulment being granted, the Civil Court can still declare the nullity of the marriage, if it so decides.

The government continues to show that it wants a clear separation between Church and State. True, divorce legislation has altered the legal landscape with regard to the dissolution of marriage but, still, the precedence of the Church tribunal could still create legal problems for the parties involved.

Not all couples may opt to end their marriage through divorce. Furthermore, the State is now providing access to the courts to all citizens, thus respecting their rights under the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights. While defending every person’s right to practise any faith, we must see that this does not infringe on anybody’s rights.

This country must reverse situations which impinge upon the separation of Church and State

By amending the Marriage Act we are taking another step in the direction of demanding that civic life and law bind us together as equal citizens.

For too many years, couples whose marriage had ended de facto have had to endure injustices with regard to marriage annulment proceedings.

It was good to hear the Opposition last week - during the debate - say that these people deserve an apology. It seems that the government and the Opposition are finally in agreement that this country must reverse situations which impinge upon the separation of Church and State.

There is more to do. For instance, when it comes to the reporting of clerical transgression with regard to criminal acts- such as that of child abuse - to the civil authorities and that withholding of such information be treated as a crime. In these instances, the requirements of Maltese criminal law must prevail over Canon law.

I had written a piece on this topic three years ago (www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110808/opinion/Convicting-defrocking-and-beyond.379260) pointing out that “The situation is such whereby a priest abusing children and teenagers may be treated differently to a lay person committing the same crime in that the former may simply be prosecuted internally within the Church structures“.

In a 21st century modern social order, a privileged position by the Catholic Church and the Vatican State is no longer fitting.

Helena Dalli is Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.