Canute couldn’t hold back the tide
It is to be expected that the representatives of the Catholic Church should speak out against having divorce legislation in this country.
After all, Malta is supposed to be predominantly Catholic and the people who will be making use of any divorce legislation are those who have been baptised as Catholics even if they have long since lapsed.
It is also understandable that the representatives of the Catholic Church should comment on matters which they think will affect the well-being of society. If the Catholic Church is in duty bound to speak out about issues like corruption, poverty and oppression, then yes, it is in duty bound to make its views known about divorce.
Also, like any other lobby group with a vested interest, it has every right to push and petition to get its way and what it wants – just as others have every right to push and petition and lobby against it.
So I don’t think the representatives of the Catholic Church were wrong to speak out against divorce – yet again – a few days ago.
I don’t think they were out of order. But I do wish they would be consistent.
The Catholic Church is one. It is a whole. There is no such thing as ‘the Maltese church’ or even ‘the church’. It is a single, indivisible and undivided religion.
And so there is no reason why the Catholic Church should be so militantly against the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta when it is the Catholic Church itself which, everywhere else in the world where there is divorce legislation, insists on people obtaining a divorce before they seek to have their religious marriage declared null.
In that situation, the Catholic Church is behaving responsibly by acknowledging that its dissolution of a marriage has no legal value and that it is dissolution by the state which counts.
While in theory the Catholic Church acknowledges no other marriage or dissolution but its own, in reality it is forced to concede that it cannot create a state within a state and that the law of the land takes precedence over its own laws.
Hence, it does the right thing in asking members of its flock to present proof that they have divorced before allowing them to present their case for a declaration of nullity.
This appears to be more than a little inconsistent with the attitude being taken in Malta. Though I understand that the Catholic Church wishes to hold out in this last but one bastion where there is no divorce, surely it understands that, like Canute, it cannot hold back the tide.
The situation has been more or less tenable until now, but it cannot be considered tenable for very much longer. It is verging on the ridiculous already.
A much better course of action for the representatives of the Catholic Church in Malta would be to play a consultative role in the introduction of divorce legislation, to ensure that it is the best there can be.
They can square it with their conscience by remembering that it is quite all right to help Caesar along occasionally to ensure that God’s objectives are met by mitigating suffering as far as possible.
The Archbishop’s Curia said some days ago that divorce does nothing to reduce levels of cohabitation, illegitimate births and marital breakdown. In this, it is correct. But that is hardly the point.
The point is that, outside religion, marriage is a contract and like all contracts it can be rescinded, even if there are penalties to be paid. It is not everyone who believes in the religious significance of marriage and even some of those who do end up thinking otherwise when they are forced up against the wall of marital breakdown themselves, or when those close to them are.
But above and beyond all that there is the overriding factor that it is not up to 400,000 people in Malta to reinvent the wheel. If divorce is good enough for the rest of the world, then it is good enough for us. We are not a special case.
The existing situation is completely hypocritical, like many other aspects of this society.
If Malta allows its citizens to obtain a divorce elsewhere, which is then registered in Malta, – that is why there are hundreds of divorced Maltese citizens – then it should allow them to obtain a divorce in Malta instead of having them jump through hoops in other jurisdictions.
The thinking may be that limiting divorce to the ‘privileged’ few will draw benefits by keeping the numbers down. The numbers are kept down yes, in that there are fewer divorces than there would otherwise be. But the same can’t be said of marital breakdown and confusion and resentment prevail.
The situation is so anomalous that citizens of other countries simply cannot understand it. They believe that divorce is ‘illegal’ in Malta. When I point out that no, it is not illegal, that it is perfectly legal and that lots of Maltese people are divorced elsewhere and have their divorces registered here, the inevitable rhetorical question is: “So then what’s the point? You might as well have divorce legislation here.”
The point, I assume, is all to do with pretending to ourselves that we are not letting standards slip.
The current situation allows many men to get away with a non-committal attitude to women, who may even be the mothers of their children.
Men are famously reluctant to marry and become even more reluctant to do so the older they get and especially if they have been married already.
Lots of them behave as though there is any number of women out there lying in wait to trap them into marriage. Right now, they have the perfect excuse:: “I can’t marry you, darling, much as I want to, because I can’t get an annulment and there’s no divorce.”
Yes, the introduction of divorce legislation is going to cause the breakdown of many more relationships – not necessarily marriages, though, but these sorts of relationships in which the man convinces the woman that he would marry her if only he could.
Once there is no more excuse, there goes the dream world these women inhabit.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
37 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Why is Gouder so glum and grim-faced? Perhaps a good shag would sort out some of his issues.
The Catholic Church has no right to expect that the state should refrain from introducing divorce because divorce (or to be more precise, remarriage) is a sin. There are thousands of sinful acts which are perfectly legal -and God forbid were it not so. It has every right to, however, to insist that the state should look at the matter from the point of view of the common good, and not simply from the perspective of individual “rights”.
There is evidence to show that the introduction of divorce will itself lead to further divorce, which would be avoided were the institution not the procedure available in the first place.
Manuel, as far as I know, putting “the common good” ahead of “individual rights” is the basic tenet of communism (apart from the economic theory).
Are you a communist?
Interesting article. One point struck me though. That marriage is like any other contract. It can be rescinded. Well, if it was just between two individuals, and leaving religion aside, then probably that would be the case. But when there are kids involved, things tend to get very complicated. And what applies to divorce, applies to separation, annulment or any other form of marriage dissolution by whatever term it is coined.
[Daphne – Children are not a party to the marriage contract, to which the signatories are one man and one woman. They are, if you like, the casualties of a failed contract.]
I believe that rather than focussing on what happens after marriage, greater effort should be directed at what happens before. There are maturity and other indispensable life skills that need much more attention.
As far as divorce is concerned, yes we should have a tool but like a surgeon’s knife it should be used as a last resort and only in the hands of the very skilled.
As far as gender is concerned, can’t help noticing the usual bias in favour of the gentle sex. While for obvious reasons, a woman has many reasons for ensuring a lasting relationship with a dependable partner, as with many things in life, there is no such thing as a one size fits all formula. The irony of it all is that a male dominated church is advocating to maintain the institution of marriage.
Obviously, religious implications are being left outside my arguments.
The church bases its opposition to divorces on the biblical injunction “what god has joined together, let no man put asunder”. So that would make the divorce itself, not remarriage, as the actual “sin”.
[Daphne – Not really, because remarriage after divorce would put you in the permanent state of mortal sin that is fornication/adultery.]
I have to admit that even though the arguments they use are not very solid, the Catholic Church in Malta has, at least of late, been quite efficient at not bringing up the biblical argument. On the other hand that is a tad dishonest, as they have an a priori mindset against divorce because of the biblical argument. I think people just expect any argument from the clergy to be based solely on religion.
Pat, there is only one Roman Catholic Church, and it cannot change its teachings.
From what I experienced abroad I can safely say that many divorced people get married and re-divorce and re-marry two or three times. Some leave a trail of children and depressed partners behind. The problems start when not-so-young children start living with a new father or mother, for example the new father starts liking his wife’s daughter or the teenage son crashes his new father’s car.
Young children are the biggest casualties of this failed contract. Sometimes there are totally innocent parties who suffer a lot because of divorce.
Divorce will not reduce fornication or violence in families. In divorce and marriage there are people’s quality of life at stake.
We all know that when a solution for a problem is found at least another problem is created. We have to quantify whether it’s the best solution.
To be realistic I think that we are late in the day discussing this big mess: people are just doing what they do in nearby Italy – they just start living with each other and having children.
From my personal experience in Italy if the girl gets pregnant the tendency is that the couple marries. Two ex-colleagues did just that. Here in Malta the tendency is that they continue living under the same roof without marrying. I have one colleague living with a woman and they have three children, and another one is doing the same and is a father of a nine-month-old baby.
Joseph terrimoti proposed the introduction of divorce a year ago.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/10/08/editorial.html
Did he change his mind about the private member’s bill? Someone described him as the weather-vane par excellence.
Bejnietna: fil-konferenza ta’ l-gholi tal-hajja jisimghu id-diskorsi twal ghal-hames sieghat shah, fost ma nafx kemm kien hemm mistiedna kull ma’ rajt mara wahda: Claudette Abela Baldacchino.
John:
That was my whole point. I don’t expect them to change its teachings. I wish they would, but I wouldn’t count on it happening. Saying that, it wouldn’t be the first – nor the last – time they actually changed their teachings. Picture the modern view of hell, compare to the medieval – not to mention the whole limbo spectacle.
Also, we can’t base the argument on anecdotal reasoning. My parents separated and filed for divorce when I was around nine or ten, only to get back together about a year later. So, does that prove that divorce is positive? No, of course it doesn’t.
You mention that innocent parties suffer, but isn’t this also the case where a spouse negates the bond of marriage, perhaps by cheating or worse, then isn’t the other spouse an innocent party, who by your reasoning will be forced to keep suffering?
And what about cases where there are no children?
You can’t pin it down to numbers either. Even if introducing divorce means a higher breakup of marriages, a more unstable society and the re-introduction of the plague, we still can’t deny a basic human right.
You could easily make the argument that society in general would be better off if we enslaved immigrants landing on our shores, getting free labour to do any work no one else feels like doing. This is why individual rights have to always be respected for as long as they don’t trample on other people’s individual rights.
All I’m saying Pat is that it’s a whole big mess. I cannot understand why we would need to marry in the first place if we want the right for divorce. That’s what some couples are doing: no ceremonies, no officialdom, they just live together and procreate……back to basics, sort of.
[Daphne – Rights, John, it’s all about rights. And that is why the state, and not the Catholic Church, is the legal enforcer.]
I think that this debate is useless, the system has been by-passed. How can one hold two mature people from living together, or from leaving one another if someone gets fed-up? I think there is anarchy in this field.
Deuteronomy
24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
The Bible allows divorce. That’s why all Christian countries bar Malta and the Philippines allow divorce.
Not so fast – that quotation only says that men may divorce women.
Which is a reality in my case. I can easily file for a divorce in Sweden if I wanted to, while my wife is pretty much stuck with me (something she just loves being reminded of).
The Catholic Church, like any other NGO, can broadcast its views as it sees fit, even if it proposes bizarre measures like the introduction of the “defender of the bond” in the civil courts. It is the state which should just ignore the Catholic Church and give citizens their rights including divorce.
It is, in large measure, the state which is to blame for the predicament of the Maltese who, docile lambs as they are, accept the imposition of the Catholic Church’s doctrine on a supposedly secular state. And, because of this, the Catholic Church waxes bolder and bolder by the day. It is for the common good, say those who claim a monopoly to decide what the common good is.
A suggestion like Father Gouder’s to introduce into civil procedure a feature which is typical of the ecclesiastical courts is unheard of in other countries and the Catholic Church would not have the effrontery of proposing it except in medieval Malta. But here it’s different. You see, the Marriage Act was amended some years ago to the effect that only the Catholic Church can pronounce nullity in those marriages contracted after the passing of the amendment if one of the parties takes the case to the ecclesiastical court. This is not enough, it seems, and they want to introduce canon law procedure to cover all cases. This is the idea, I guess.
The Catholic Church knows that politicians fear it politically and, what’s more, some of them fear for their souls. They want power on earth and glory in heaven. Why doesn’t Gouder go one step further and propose that civil courts should adopt canon law procedure where witnesses are heard in secret and may not be cross-examined by the other party?
For this is the procedure in the ecclesiastical courts and it is directly descended from the tribunal of the Holy Office viz. the Inquisition. Then, if the state accepts, we will definitely be the last bastion of Catholicism in Europe. Truly, we have yet to experience the age of enlightenment which crossed Europe two centuries ago.
We have been kept in a state of subservience to the Catholic Church into the 21st century and the majority seem to accept it without question. I have a hunch that maybe Maltese authorities have secretly promised the Holy See that, as long as they are in power, Catholic dogma will continue to rule the Maltese willy-nilly and no divorce bill will be brought before the House.
No-one is forced to divorce. The choice rests with the individual. But preventing the individual from making such a choice by not making it available is totally immoral.
Oops. The last sentence should read “There is evidence to show that the introduction of divorce will itself lead to further divorce, which would be avoided were the procedure not available in the first place”.
Apologies.
Introduction of divorce will definitely lead to further divorce as without there could be none.
Dear Daphne,
I cannot open the link of the new freddie portelli ecc. could you please send it to me??
thanks
Marita
[Daphne – I’ve deleted it. I didn’t think it was fair on the girl.]
Daphne,
I have been following your articles for the past few weeks whilst on holiday in Malta, and have been quite confronted by your patronising and arrogant tone.
Your opinions are rarely backed by any substantial source; if they are backed at all, and they are splashed liberally across the newspaper as though someone has crowned you the queen of all knowledge.
You insult the intelligence of the Maltese, in particular; the working class. But remember, it is these people that have made Malta what it is today, the people the foreigners like myself have come to see; the people that have given Malta its unique and consuming character.
For this, you should be very ashamed.
Just remember Daphne, you may be lucky enough to have a large and deluded fan base here, but in Australia and countries alike, you would just be another sub-standard columnist.
Jo
Australia
[Daphne – My god, who rattled your cage?]
Clearly you and your arrogance!
[Daphne – You have a solution: stay away. Quite frankly, it is you who are arrogant, expecting me to conform to your idea of my place in the scheme of things, just so you don’t upset yourself when you voluntarily log onto this site or http://www.independent.com.mt all the way there in Australia. Life in Australia hasn’t done much to widen your horizons and open your mind, has it. Or perhaps you never read newspapers in Australia. X’antipatija.]
Well you will be pleased to know that I will be leaving your beautiful country in a few hours. Your last comment has done nothing more than confirm my beliefs about you. I think you should quit while you’re ahead!
[Daphne – Exactly why do you imagine I would or should give a damn about what you think? I am not trolling for votes here, still less for the approval of residents of Australia.]
Divorce is not a sin but a right. The divorce legislation will only serve to nullify the civil marriage contract and will not have any bearing on the moral aspect of the Christian marriage. Divorced individuals will remain married and thus living in sin in the eyes of the Church (unless they are granted annulment), but that’s up to each individual’s conscience.
The Catholic Church in Malta (or rather the few priests who cannot bear the thought of losing their psychological stronghold on the Maltese population) has absolutely no right to impose its dogma on each and every individual in the country. Malta is a secular state (supposedly) and thus religious rules and regulations should not in any way play a role in dictating people’s rights.
The only reason the Catholic Church still has such a significant position in Malta is that we are too homogenous and small and overall lacking exposure to the outside world (by which I don’t mean spending a week in Rome/anywhere in Europe with a tour group and a bogan crowd). Oh and not to mention supposedly pious Maltese politicians who keep acting as the Catholic Church’s lackeys.
Grow up and smell the coffee – you were not elected by the Vatican but by the Maltese public; a public whose younger generations in particular do not live in fear of the parish priest. Should the state really care what religion its subjects practise? May we all become Buddhists, as long as we abide by Maltese laws no one should give a damn!
The Catholic Church’s aim with this issue, is to maintain its centuries-long powerful stance in the eyes of the Maltese population. What was good tutoring for peasants a hundred years ago does not hold today. So please diversify your tactics, come off your high-horses, and accept the fact that although you have every right to preach to the faithful, not every Maltese is duty-bound to practise what you preach.
Being born Maltese does not equate with obeying the Catholic Church to a T, or being Catholic for that matter!
This a George Carlin oldie, but it matures over time – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E
Another Carlin gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
To those who are against divorce because of its effects on children: good; it’s a start. So you people have no objection in cases of childless marriages or when the children become adults and have set up their own household.
The truth of the matter is that not a single negative social effect of divorce is not equally applicable to separation. Yes, the Church may not quote religious reasons because it knows that this argument is limp and would not apply to non-believers and the Church wants divorce for no one, not even lapsed Catholics or agnostics or atheists.
It wants its stranglehold on Maltese society in toto. Totalitarianism at its best. Read history: the Catholic Church is a dictatorship and, when it had temporal power, did not hesitate to torture and incinerate those who opposed it. Ever since Constantine saw the political advantage of having the Catholic Church by his side, the Church did not hesitate to use the strappado, the rack, the thumbscrew, the garotte and the bonfire to make everyone toe the line or else.
It claimed the right to anoint kings. Read the history of Henry IV and Canossa. The Pope did not want the Pontifical States to be united within Italy for he wanted to preserve his temporal power. The matter was only resolved by Mussolini in his 1929 concordat. The Popes still retain temporal power in the Vatican.
The Catholic Church enjoyed the complicity of the British for 200 years in Malta and then that of some Maltese politicians. It grew used to temporal power and finds it hard to relinquish it. It craves it still. Only when there are in power politicians who do not fear the Catholic Church will we be free. Till then, we all live in bondage.
Smiling hounds of God: the Ordo Predicatorum (OP) was set up to fight the Cathar “heresy” and the many inqusitors were from this order. They tortured men, women and children and sent hundreds to the stake. Do members of this order remember their history? Are they nostalgic of the days when they were arbiters of life and death?
Go back to school and re-learn your medieval history.
Is this Catholic Church opinion on divorce available on the net? Can you give us the link, please?
[Daphne – http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090717/local/church-makes-case-against-divorce
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090717/local/church-makes-case-against-divorce ]
Your remark on inconsistency by Catholic Church tribunals is misleading. The Church, as far as I know, does not require a divorce judgement as a condition for granting a declaration of nullity but in some cases waits for the end of separation or divorce proceedings before proceeding with the nullity case.
Regarding the question of divorce, while I believe that divorce will probably exist in Malta some day in the future I am not convinced this is necessarily a positive development.
I remember a lawyer (now a judge) saying that divorce is not the solution but a solution. To my mind, divorce benefits some individuals who pass through difficult marriages but does not always benefit society in general as probably there
would be less stable families.
Thank you. This is how the report is concluded, on page 28, i.e. prior to the appendix: ‘Who is not part of the solution for healthy families and marriage, is part of the problem.’
How can a bunch of celibate and sometimes perverted, mainly old, men claim they are part of the solution for healthy marriages? So, people who are not interested in marriage or having a family are part of the problem? What kind of negative crap is this? This is insane.
[Daphne – I think what they believe they have is the solution to failed marriages: celibacy. The trouble with celibate people is that they seem to believe if they are able and willing to do it, then everyone else is able and should be willing, too.]
It’d be hysterical if it wasn’t so ridiculous. Here in Austria there’s a number of married or cohabiting (Catholic) priests, who are accepted by their communities and who have established families. This is one Catholic Universal church, remember. So if these priests are establishing God-fearing families, shouldn’t they have the right to marry? What would the ‘defenders of the family’ have to say about this?
I wonder if the reactionaries in Malta are aware of what is happening in the Catholic Church outside Malta’s tiny borders. Not their problem, I suppose Dun Anton will say.
Is it one church, inspired by God, or isn’t it?
I’m Catholic and am in favour of married priests. All the apostles were married except for John.
We do have a very major root problem here, something I have highlighted several times before. The Maltese constitutions actually states that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church has the right AND DUTY to teach what is right and wrong. As long as that clause is there it suggests that not only should the church speak out on these issues, but the politicians should actually listen. Bringing about a constitution change is no mean feat – something we can be grateful about in regards to Gift of Life’s (and others) proposed changes – but it still leaves the dilemma that this kind of influence is constitutionalised.
Anyone thinking it should change would have to find a way to amend the constitution.
“ Go back to school and re-learn your medieval history “ Exactly. I suggest you read Thomas E. Woods scholarly work “ How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization` ` – It may be an eye-opener you know. Professor Woods is a convert to Catholicism from Lutherism precisely because he researched history so thoroughly .
Will the muscular lady SMS him? http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090711/letters/a-call-from-the-heart
May I point out that Maltese couples can’t just divorce abroad and register their divorce in Malta. One half of the couple has to be the holder of a valid foreign passport, or be domiciled abroad during the time of marriage and divorce, or be of a foreign citizenship. It is not legal for the Malta/Gozo Public Registry to register the divorce if the couple does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions.
[Daphne – Its not the Maltese public registry which lays down those conditions, but the jurisdiction which issues the divorce decree. It stands to reason that you can’t just apply for a British divorce if you have no connection with the country. But that’s not the point. The point is that Maltese couples can and do obtain divorces elsewhere. It’s become even easier since the law was changed to allow us dual citizenship.]
F.A.A. have finally come out with their considered response to Piano’s plans. It’s a full page in Sunday’s MaltaToday, penned by Astrid Vella with contributions by Miriam Cremona.
[Daphne – Funny way for them to go about it. A general public/press statement would have been more appropriate than an article in Malta Today.]
Daphne, I do have to point out that even if a Maltese couple does obtain a divorce from Britain without fulfilling one of the criteria I mentioned in my earlier post, the divorce will simply not be registered by the Public Registry and therefore, the couple would still be married under Maltese Law. I know of at least two divorces which were refused registration for this precise reason.
[Daphne – If you do not meet those criteria, you can’t get a divorce from a reputable jurisdiction in the first place. If divorces are not registered in Malta, it is not because the criteria weren’t met per se, but because the divorce was obtained somewhere like Las Vegas or Mexico.]
Well, if you insist on having the last word, go right ahead. Just because you think you know the facts doesn’t mean you always are. And don’t spout of that your husband is a lawyer, mine is too and moreover, works in that line of work.
[Daphne – Bully for you. I don’t know things because my husband is a lawyer. I know them because I’ve found out.]