In medieval Europe civil marriages were not recognised, as Canon Law reigned supreme and Catholics were prohibited from entering into any other form of marriage, Labour MP Deborah Schembri said during the debate on the Marriage (Amendment) Bill last night.
Dr Schembri said it was only after 1792, when civil marriage became supreme in France, that this spread to the rest of Europe.
It took Malta another 170 years to introduce an act to recognise and regulate civil marriage and make a distinction between the Church and the State.
A 1993 agreement between the State and the Holy See stipulated that marriages celebrated in Malta, in the Catholic manner, also had a civil effect. This agreement also granted that nullity of marriage decided by an ecclesiastical tribunal would be recognised by the civil courts.
Dr Schembri cited examples of the lengthy procedures before the ecclesiastical tribunal and abuses that were perpetrated by the parties involved to stop the other party from getting the annulment.
In 1975, the Church and the State were initially separated, as they could not remain linked, but the 1993 agreement brought the two back together. This, she said, was the problem.
One questioned what led the PN government of the time to sign this agreement, which only exacerbated the problems.
She opined that the agreement was signed because the Church was at the time signing over its lands, and the government wanted to give it something in return.
There was also the issue of not having a right to the lawyer of your choice, as the Constitution decreed, since the Ecclesiastical Tribunal had its own register of lawyers. This was fair enough if one wanted a Church annulment only, but the problem arose because the 1993 agreement made the Ecclesiastical Tribunal also a civil one.
She recalled how she had to suddenly stop serving on this register, when she was struck off while campaigning for divorce.
Dr Schembri said this Bill would remove all obstacles.
She acknowledged this government’s work and political commitment, during the run-up to the election, to return things to a pre-1993 state and bringing back a distinction between the Church and the State.
The tribunal no longer had precedence over civil courts, she said, and being turned down by one did not preclude the other.
The fact that these restrictions were removed was already a major step forward, and wouldn’t have been possible had Malta not introduced divorce.
Dr Schembri said that while a lot had been done in this regard, she now wished to see a discussion on whether the basis for annulment should remain as at present, or if the interpretation should be made clearer through law.
The definitions had always been based on Canonical law and all interpretations of annulment in civil law reflected the Church law.