Justice Minister Owen Bonnici told Parliament yesterday that it was those who had signed the 1993 Church-State agreement on marriage, which gave the Church overriding powers, who should apologise to the many couples made to suffer for so many years.
Winding up the debate in second reading of the Bill amending the Marriage Act, Dr Bonnici rejected what Opposition spokesman Beppe Fenech Adami had said during the debate: that the onus was on the government to issue the apology. It was the Opposition who should apologise.
The couples’ suffering came from the fact that once one of the parties sensed the case before the civil tribunal was going badly, he or she would quickly enter a plea in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal. As a result, the civil case would have to stop.
However, Dr Bonnici added, one should now celebrate this step forward to strengthen the State while still respecting the Church, which should remain a separate entity.
The right to alimony does not apply to an annulment
Earlier the minister referred to the fundamental differences between an annulment and divorce, saying that the right to alimony did not apply to an annulment, while with divorce, alimony had to be paid as decreed in the separation agreement.
He pointed out that practising Catholics did not believe in divorce and they would only consider re-marrying if they obtained a Church annulment, which was more rigorous than a civil annulment.
It was for this reason that immediately after the election, the government started talks with the Vatican to amend the 1993 Church-State agreement, so that there would be a distinction between the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and the civil tribunal, and one would not supersede the other.
In this way, the application for a Catholic annulment could no longer be used as a way to punish the former spouse who would have initiated proceedings for a civil annulment.
Dr Bonnici noted that there were differences among the Opposition speakers over this issue. Dr Fenech Adami had criticised the long wait imposed by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and had practically blamed these long delays on the fact that divorce was introduced. On the other hand, Carm Mifsud Bonnici had almost defended this tribunal.
The minister said the best way forward would be for the State to offer human resources to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal to cut down on the waiting period, but this was up to the tribunal. Despite divorce legislation, there were many couples who still preferred to apply for a Church annulment because they truly believed in getting remarried with the sacraments. Dr Bonnici said he was pleased to note that even Dr Mifsud Bonnici, who had criticised the introduction of divorce, had realised that divorce had not led to an increase in the number of marital separations.
The law had been enacted sensibly with a balance struck between simplifying the process to make it efficient without it being a rushed Las Vegas-style divorce.
The minister added that Malta was a lay state and everyone had the right to decide how to live one’s life and decide which tribunal to refer to.
There were only a handful of instances, such as the non-consummation of the marriage, in which a Church annulment was handed down very quickly. In this case, the government felt that there should not be a need to go through the civil annulment as well; the couple could simply file petition in the court of appeal.
Concluding, he said the government wanted to be practical so that in such sensitive cases, the couple would not have to reveal very intimate details all over again.