Whoever said the Curia is fair?
This is my column in The Malta Independent today.
Deborah Schembri of the Divorce Movement is very cross because the Archbishop’s Curia has banned her from representing clients (she is a lawyer) who wish to have their Catholic marriage declared null. Lawyers require special qualifications and the permission of the Curia to represent their clients before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, which investigates the nullity (or validity) of marriages.
Dr Schembri spoke to the press about it yesterday, saying that this would affect her income. She said of the Archbishop’s Curia: “They know where to hit hard.” I thought this very ill-advised. The Catholic Church is not democratic and is not meant to be democratic. It is entitled to decide which lawyers may or may not appear before its tribunal, which is not democratic either and which is not governed by the principles which underpin the operations of the state’s courts of law.
The Catholic Church and its representative office in Malta can, quite simply, do exactly what they like as long as they do not – like the rest of us – break the law. People like Dr Schembri need to understand this and have to accept it. If the Catholic Church bothers them so much, then they should simply avoid having any dealings with it. They should not choose to earn a living by dealing with the Catholic Church on a daily basis – and liaising with the Ecclesiastical Tribunal must be one of the most soul-destroying ways to earn a living – and then complain because an institution they know for a fact to be high-handed and undemocratic has been high-handed and undemocratic with them.
Unfortunately for the Divorce Movement, Dr Schembri’s reaction does it more damage than it does the Archbishop’s Curia. Nobody expects the Archbishop’s Curia to behave any differently. Many would even go beyond saying that the Curia is within its rights in banning Dr Schembri, and say that it is more than justified in doing so. Whether we agree or not, we can see why the Ecclesiastical Tribunal would not wish to have dealings on the nullity of marriage with a lawyer who campaigns for divorce. If Dr Schembri wishes to work only with institutions that play fair, she shouldn’t have chosen this particular field of practice.
It reflects badly on the Divorce Movement, too, that Deborah Schembri works in this particular area of marital law. I wrote last week that individuals like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando harm the campaign because he is, rightly or wrongly, perceived to have a personal vested interest in divorce and people do not support those they think have a personal vested interest even if they share it. It is one of those perverse quirks of human nature. It is pointless trying to change it, or protesting against it. You just have to work with it. Now something has been revealed which was not known before – or perhaps it was known, but deliberately not made much of: the leader of the Divorce Movement is a lawyer who specialises in marital breakdown cases.
Though in theory this should give her greater credibility in the sense that it makes her an authority in the field, in reality it does the opposite. It reduces her credibility in the public eye because people will claim that she has a vested interest in having divorce legislation because it will greatly expand her professional opportunities. With divorce, lawyers like Deborah Schembri who specialise in marital cases will have more work. This is probably not Dr Schembri’s motivation and there is no indication that it is, but it is what people will think, and that looks bad. She didn’t help her suit at all by reacting to the news that she had been banned from representing clients before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, with words of concern about her income.
Dr Schembri was wrong, too, to make much of the fact that the Catholic Church is funding – or so she claims – the anti-divorce movement. The worst thing the pro-divorce movement can do at this stage is go head-to-head with the Catholics. The representatives of Catholicism are obviously going to campaign against divorce legislation and help those who share this interest. Let them do so. It’s a free country. But the pro-divorce movement should know that if it begins to attack the Catholic Church for its stance, a stance that is far from novel, then it opens itself wide to retaliation of the same kind. There is no way that kind of arms race of insults and disparagement is going to help clear people’s minds in time for the vote next month.
Let’s keep it civilised. It’s bad enough that we’re so uncivilised we’re voting for divorce legislation in a referendum in 2011. As far as possible, let’s behave decently in a most indecent situation.
84 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Here’s the newspaper’s leading article, written in response:
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=124183
In the context of the forthcoming referendum, The Malta Independent leader just fell short of conferring the Hon. Minister with the title of Reverend Minister Fenech.
Aptly put and nicely written .
Is it true that if you get a church annulment then you automatically get a civil annulment but not the other way round?
Yes, this is true. See Chapter 255 of the Marriage Act, section 23.1 and 23.2:
23. (1) A decision which has become executive, given by a tribunal, and declaring the nullity of a Catholic marriage shall, where one of the parties is domiciled in, or a citizen of, Malta, and subject to the provisions of article 24 be recognised and upon its registration in accordance with the said article 24 shall have effect as if it were a decision by a court and which has become res judicata.
(2) An executive decision given by a tribunal and upholding the validity of a Catholic marriage shall, where one of the parties is domiciled in, or a citizen of, Malta, and subject to the provisions of article 24 be recognised and upon its registration in accordance with the said article 24 shall have effect as if it were a decision by a court and which has become res judicata and as such shall not be subject to re-examination on the same grounds.
This arrangement is only true for MALTA. Other societies have retained the separation of church and state on matters of marriage and divorce.
Edward, the Church and the State in Malta urgently need to be divorced, not just separated.
Or else, if they continue to sleep in the same bed, we urgently need the co-habitation law.
That’s why the church doesn’t want divorce. People could then bypass this presumably expensive procedure.
My personal opinion is that divorce threatens the non-separation of church and state in Malta, which is one of many reasons for opposition to divorce in Malta, and most obviously from the politics of the church. But this is supported by politicians who do not support a secular state. It seems that many persons in Malta cannot reason outside of what they perceive to be the ecclesial authority on the secular issues.
With the Eddie Fenech Adami’s (without a referendum) locking of annulments in step with the church (for those who would most likely avail themselves of a church annulment in Malta) by the 1995 amendments to the Marriage Act, the only practical resolution for a non-theocratic and normative secular democracy in Malta (as in the rest of Europe, if not in much of the Western and Eastern world), would seem to require the introduction of divorce.
In Malta, too many persons want to impose their views regarding marriage and non-divorce–by force–on all, even against minorities (small or large) who may find divorce essential to their circumstances. I would argue that such violence against the freedom of conscience of individuals is in opposition to the nature of God. This does not mean that God favours divorce. It means that God respects that individuals are not coerced to make their appropriate choices in good conscience–especailly forced by others who may think differently.
My fear is that the church in Malta (from some of its quarters, but not all) may be doing great medium and long-term harm towards more positive attitudes about religion, because the church may alienate the openness of individuals in their search for God within organized religion. The wedge of open church oppisition to divorce may accelerate, rather than curb, secularism in Malta, to the detriment of those individuals who later may reject religion in principle–after the current bad taste in their mouth.
But Edward, how can you say that Church and State are separate, when the Queen of England is also head of the Church of England?
When the Church is a government department in Scandinavia?
It is only in the US that there is real separation of Church and State! And this only because the US Constitution was drawn up by Freemasons. So much so, that the US officially believes (and trusts) in God (the Great Architect of the Universe).
I believe in the separation of church and state, as it exists in the US, whether or not that theoretical separation exists in Malta. That separation does exist in most of Europe. The exceptions are where there is an established State religion.
I have US citizenship (where the values of pluralism exist) and Maltese citizenship (where the separation of church and state theoretically exist, but the church has its special status under the constitution).
You would be right if the church tribunals were just that, but Eddie Fenech Adami (the village lawyer) actually signed an agreement which gives church courts precedence over civil courts in 1995, so since church tribunals have a ‘civil effect’ then they should not be able to pick and choose who represents clients.
[Daphne – Catholic tribunals do not have a ‘civil effect’. Nor do they have precedence over civil courts.]
As regards to other arguments, yes…stay away from the church if you don’t like the way it goes about its business.
yes they have precedence… check…
[Daphne – Sigh. Only with the consent of at least one of those involved. Otherwise, not. Read the law properly. Nobody except your spouse can force you to choose a Catholic tribunal over a civil court when seeking to have your marriage annulled. That is the problem with that amendment to the law: not so much that it gives the religious tribunal ‘precedence’ (in effect, it does not) but that it gives one spouse right of veto over the other.]
Heck, that is so similar to divorce. Now I understand why the CHURCH is so much against it. Just like the days in Moses’s time.
Oh no, Daphne, they do! Thanks to the Marriage Act of 1995 and the Agreement between the Holy See and Malta on the Recognition of Civil Effects to Canonical Marriages and to the Decisions of the Ecclesiastical Authorities and Tribunals about the Same Marriages signed in 1993.
[Daphne – Only with the consent of at least one of the spouses, otherwise not.]
Daphne, check it out. Anyone getting married in Church post-1995 has (had) to first sign a declaration at the Public Registry to the effect that it is the Church’s final decision as to whether a marriage may be annulled, even civilly.
[Daphne – Only if one of the spouses insists.]
Needless to say, few – if any – are those who would get married with the intention of even having their marriage annulled.
I meant “ever”, not “even”.
oh ok… so the law of the land (thanks to Eddie, who gave us a choice between Mars and Desserta, and Colgate and Pepsodent) gives a citizen the right to blackmail other citizens by forcing them to appear before a church court whose judgement will have civil effect…. sigh indeed!
Daphne, I agree perfectly with your opinion above.
You say “The worst thing the pro-divorce movement can do at this stage is go head-to-head with the Catholics. ” Exactly so. They might end up fighting another war against the Church, rather than promoting their mission of getting the public to vote for the referendum question which they supported.
If they get engaged in that war, I am waiting to see if the Labour Party will join. In fact, where is Joseph’s Labour in all this?
Was he not the one to bring a motion in Parliament for a referendum on divorce, and the one who formulated the referendum question, and the one who led the vote in favour of the motion?
I do not agree with Dr. Schembri. She has no right to complain that she been treated unfairly or however other way she put it. The Ecclesiastical Tribunal reminds me of the Inquisition but if you want to play in their court, you have to go by their rules. It is as simple as that. She didn’t. So she cannot declare she’s surprised.
And as far as vested interests go, I have to say Dr. Schembri is gaining herself a lot of airtime to come across as The Divorce Lawyer. The less said, the better.
I don’t understand.
If I am right, divorce is only to be granted after legal separation has been done for four years.
The ‘divorce lawyer’ stuff is dealt with at the legal separation stage.
The divorce is a bit of paper saying marriage is dissolved.
There is no need for a divorce lawyer by then.
Interested Bystander:
“The divorce is a bit of paper saying marriage is dissolved.”
You must be underestimating modern technology.
Four years from now, you will receive an automated SMS on your smartphone saying:
“4 years have passed since you were legally separated. You are now legally divorced. This is an automated message. Do not reply to this message.”
It is also interestng to note that the “waiting period” for application for an annullment, according to the Marriage Act, is three months.
But, the bill for divorce requires a “waiting period” of four years. This seems to be quite an imbalance in discrimination against the application for divorce, while applying for a declaration of nullity is virtually unopposed.
What also is not taken into account is the fact that the processes for obtaining an annullment, like the legal processes for obtaining a divorce, will take time–usually years.
So, regarding divorce as proposed in the bill, wait four years before applying; wait more years during the process; and, if everyone is unlucky, the “married” couple may be dead before their divorce comes through. Sounds to me like a perfect political strategy to insure that potentially divorced couples remain “married” as long as possible, even in some cases until “death do thee part.”
I am reminded of something which someone once said: “A lawyer is never entirely comfortable with a friendly divorce, anymore than a good mortician wants to finish his job and then have the patient sit up on the table.”
Oh, how hysterically funny this is…..
Then if “the less said the better”, why did you say anything?
I’ll get a lot of flak for this, but couldn’t the pro-divorce movement have chosen a more fetching representative, or at least someone without that “alpha-female-tough-as-nails” look? They probably brought her on board as the Token Woman, but from here it looks like total FAIL, without the LOLz.
The answer to your interesting question/observation is a blunt NO … The pro-divorce “movement” (or whatever it is) is hopeless on all accounts. Moreover, in the past Emy Bezzina and Eddie Privitera didn’t help either to promote the divorce agenda.
The funny thing is that everything is playing against the YES camp.
1. The coincindence of the earthquake with Nostradamus Angelik (another weirdo) fueling religious hysteria.
2. The Royal Wedding … between the princess & the frog symbolising eternal love.
3. The beatification of John Paul II on May Day … the Communist’s feast day.
Madoff, lix-xellugin w il-liberali mhu qed jigihom xejn sew!
[Daphne – If Prince William is a frog, then I suggest you pay a visit to the next ‘Maltese family day out’, like the trade fair, and tell me what you think about the men. Earwigs?]
It’s the same also at the supermarkets: a family outing (bin-nanniet b’kollox jibqghu sejrin).
Why? Most Maltese political leaders weren’t exactly the Adonis type. I prefer somebody who can lead a discussion, talk clearly and know the subject well.
The Sarah Palins have a tendency of exploding in your hands.
OK, safety’s off:
1) She’s very obviously overweight, so she’s not someone to look up to.
2) She speaks, like the vast majority of Maltese women, especially women in power, from the brain rather than the heart. Politics is all about convincing people that you feel what they feel. Here’s a bunch of yuppies – JPO, Dr Whatever Her Name Is, Evarist Bartolo – who feel nothing. They only think. And they talk down to the people.
3) If we were trapped on a desert island and had to choose one of the trio to accompany me, I’d take a gun and blow my brains out. Now tell me I still have to vote Yes.
Daphne has been saying it all along: the marketing in this campaign has been dire.
Daph, I think you’re missing a fundamental point here. Dr. Schembri’s main argument wasn’t her income, but that, contrary to what the Curia accuses her of, she has never spread incorrect information on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage.
As a result the Tribunal does not have valid grounds to ban her. And she’s right. My understanding of the facts is that she has always clearly maintained that this is clearly a civil issue alone.
[Daphne – The Catholic Tribunal is free to ban who it likes, with or without explanation. The sooner people understand and accept this, the better for us all. Organised religion is not democratic. Stop expecting it to be. Democracy leaves it free to be undemocratic, in the assumption that people espouse a religion or work with a religious institution of their own free will.]
The fact that the Chatolic Church is undemocratic and is free to do whatever it deems fit is another matter altogether. But she has all the reasons in the world to be pissed off. Ethics, not the law, have been clearly broken here. And we’re talking of the Chatolic Church, for Pete’s sake, not some corner tennis club. Ethical behaviour is expected from every institution, never mind the Church.
[Daphne – Wrong. It is not. Ethical behaviour is expected only from those with a public affairs interest in being seen to be ethical. The Catholic Church has no such public affairs interest. Also, we have no reason to take on trust what Dr Schembri tells us – that she behaved well – just as we have no reason to take on trust what the Curia tells us – that she did not. This is between Dr Schembri and the Curia.]
bajd u laham, remember that the Catholic Church treats women as unequal co-believers to men. This it inherited from the past when the church formed. That is the way things were 2000 years ago and yet the church has not changed its ways.
Do not expect an entity that is used to having its own way to open up to democratic principles. If we don’t like this way of doing things, we can leave. If done in good faith a true God would not damn our souls.
The faster that we can learn to shoulder our own decisions then the quicker we can unshackle our souls from the servitude to a dogma bound empire of old men .
Daphne, who mentioned democracy? I am not saying that the Curia did not have the right to kick her out but the motivation behind their decision is clearly untrue – she is accused of spreading incorrect information on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage (or something along those lines). This is clearly a big fat lie, and the point of Dr. Schembri’s press conference was to draw attention to said lie.
[Daphne – You cannot possibly know that it is a lie. Instinct tells me that there is more to this story. I did mention in my newspaper column last Sunday – I think – that I find Deborah Schembri oddly unconvincing and that I can’t put my finger on why exactly. That was before this story broke. At the time I didn’t know she is a lawyer, or that she specialises in marriage law, or that she worked for the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, or argued cases before the tribunal, or that she is separated from her husband. I actually thought she was the token married housewife.]
This is not a question of democracy or expecting the Church to be democratic, but if someone accuses you of something you didn’t do and throws a spanner in your career wheel as a result, I’m sure you would be a tad angry too and voice your opinion about it publicly. And that’s what Dr. Schembri is doing. What’s wrong with that?
[Daphne – Oh, you’ve got me wrong there. I would never do for money something I disagree with: like argue to have marriages declared null by the Catholic Church when what is required is a divorce.]
In Italy children receive their first holy communion at nine or older. Doctrine lessons are held once a week, not like the Muzew. Parents stay at the back of the church not at the front with their children showing off their hats during the ceremony.
In most parishes children wear the sort of cloaks that altar-boys wear, and not these miniature wedding gowns. The cloaks are not even bought but borrowed from the parish. This is the same Roman Catholic Church as in Malta.
Daphne – “Democracy leaves it free to be undemocratic, in the assumption that people espouse a religion or work with a religious institution of their own free will”.
The problem arises when one of a couple who had married in Church, decides that he/she wants a Church annulment. Not only is the other denied the choice of separate civil annulment, he/she is also denied by the Church a lawyer of his/her choice.
A true democracy would fix this anomaly and injustice.
Brilliant article. I think that her attitude is doing little to favour her clients’ interests in the proceedings held in front of the Ecclesiastical courts. But maybe I am mistaken.
No, I do not agree but you consistently shoot the messenger not the message. How can we let this pass as if there’s nothing wrong happening?
Here we’re witnessing a blatant discrimination because Mrs Schembri has an opinion different from the church.
[Daphne – Your reasoning fails because it is built on the premise that religions should be democratic institutions. By definition, they are not and cannot be. Besides, people voluntarily submit themselves to Catholic marriage and voluntarily submit themselves to investigation by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal in pursuit of a declaration of nullity. They are free not to do so. The same applies to lawyers who represent their clients in that forum. Those who seek to remake the Catholic Church in their own image would be better off not bothering with it at all. I cannot for the life of me understand this obsession of wanting to belong to a club they don’t like and with which they disagree.]
This is the same thing as if my boss fired me because politically I support the opposite party or you Daphne stopped from writing in the Independent because you are against divorce.
[Daphne – Wrong. Your boss cannot fire you because of your political sympathies. That is against the law. Dr Schembri was not employed with the Curia at the time she received this information. She merely defended her clients’ interests before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal. The tribunal has right of veto on which lawyers may do so. Once again, I repeat: those who expect to deal with the rules and governing principles of democratic institutions should take their marriages to the civil courts of the land, and not to a religous court. If they prefer to have their marriage investigated and declared null by a religous tribunal than a civil court, they shouldn’t complain – and nor should their lawyers.]
Is this European Malta we voted for? It certainly is not mine and don’t wanna be part of it.
[Daphne – Address your question to the people who queue up to have their marriage declared null by a religious tribunal, even when they have been together for years and have children.]
This is creating a dangerous precedent far more serious then we think, that of someone who wants to control our thoughts and our opinions. One last thing, to hell for the people in the Yes movement, this is not only a divorce issue but what is at stake here is wether or not our country is growing up in a secular, european country or is still living in a fundumentalist state where the church controls our minds.
[Daphne – Oh come on, get a grip. Nobody can control your mind without your consent. ]
“Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
none but ourselves can free our mind”
Bob Marley
Religious indoctrination takes place on young malleable minds with their parents’ and society’s consent. The consequence is adults who are unable to think logically.
[Daphne – That was my primary, essential objection to doctrine classes, and I’m glad I stuck with it.]
Daphne,
Is it rude to ask if you sent your kids to doctrine? I’m not too keen on the idea but I don’t want them to feel left out when it’s time for their first holy communion. I would love to bring up my children with a secular mentality and let them choose religion if they so wish, but my wife thinks it’s important, at least socially, to send them.
I’m confused.
[Daphne – It’s not rude to ask, and I’ve written about it often. We took the decision not to send our sons to doctrine classes on the grounds that it would seriously affect their ability to think, given that the covert purpose of doctrine classes is to groom children into not asking questions or analysing information. This is done to stop them questioning religion and keeping them on board, but it has the inevitable overspill into every other area of life. A child’s mind moulded into not thinking will not stop at not thinking about religion but will not think about other situations and subjects. It was not the religious information that bothered me (and still doesn’t) but the process of discouraging thought. As for the social aspect, that was not a factor in our case: doctrine classes were completely distinct from their school life and not a part of it.]
I.R.A.B, are your kids baptised?
If you baptized them, you chose their religion and it is your responsibility to teach them and bring them up as Roman Catholics.
[Daphne – Ah, this is where you are wrong. Muzew classes for children are not a compulsory part of Roman Catholicism.]
If they are required to attend to doctrine to receive holy communion, then you have to lump it and send them because you cannot be Roman Catholic without Holy Communion. You made that decision when you baptized your children (I am assuming that you did).
[Daphne – Wrong again. Attendance at Tal-Muzew is not mandatory to receive holy communion for the first time. It is mandatory only if you wish your child to receive Holy Communion for the first time in the formal parish ceremony. Otherwise, all you’ve got to do is dispatch him down the aisle at any mass on any day, and what do you know, he’s received the eucharist for the first time and can carry on doing so as long as he’s bothered. Confirmation is another matter, but confirmation can and should wait until the child is grown up enough to decide for himself, at which point he will probably decide against, which is why children are confirmed when they are too young to object and before they know why they might want to object. It’s presented instead as a big important occasion when they get to feel like a star. Terrible.]
You should have taught of raising them with a secular mentality so that they can choose their religion before baptism.
Baptism and Holy communion are not just another social occasion.
What is the point in baptizing children in the first place?
If you want, do not baptize them, teach them in whatever way you like and then let them decide when they grow up.
But if you decide to baptize them, then you should follow the church’s rules and teachings.
What education message would you give to a child if you shove him up the isle for his first holy communion whilst knowing that to be done officially he should have attended doctrine?
I hate this pick and choose what you please attitude and I blame the church for this situation because it does not control effectively who gets baptized or not.
Everyone has the freedom of choosing his beliefs. By baptizing you children’s you have made the decision for them because you understand that it is their best interest to grow up with these beliefs. It is then your responsibility to teach them in the best possible way and according the church’s teachings.
[Daphne – Baptism makes you a Christian, not a Catholic. Lots of people who don’t want to raise their children as Roman Catholics, but as Christians, get their children baptised and stop there. They could do it over the bathroom basin, but a church font adds more decorum and drama to the occasion.]
Even if I baptized, I assume nothing is stopping me from changing my mind at any point I like. Maybe I now feel it was a mistake to baptize them.
Daphne – “…and voluntarily submit themselves to investigation by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal in pursuit of a declaration of nullity. They are free not to do so”.
Actually, if the other decides to go for a church declaration of nullity, the other is not free at all.
The church is inconsistent in its position on divorce. A person who was married by civil marriage and obtains a divorce can subsequently get married in church. This is baffling because in such a circumstance the church is clearly making the distinction between state and church.
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.
No, not inconsistent. According to Canon Law someone married only by civil law is not married but living in sin. Therefore he is free to marry because he is not married. Quite consistent actually
A.Attard The church shows that its ethics are flawed and that it has no respect to humanity. All religions in their extreme suffer from this lack of compassion .
Quite right. Lots of Maltese men living in Britain, Australia, Canada or the United States of America married civilly and divorced there, then returned to Malta leaving their original families high and dry, to contract another marriage here, this time in church. They were allowed to marry by the Catholic rite despite being divorced and having abandoned their families, because the first marriage did not ‘exist’.
Only in a very narrow sense. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that divorce will ruin a family, the children and society. By not recognising a civil marriage, the church is showing blatant disregard towards the health of families, children and society.
Sacraments are nothing more than magical mumbo jumbo. Same with the veneration of reliquaries. This is when I understand the moral objection towards the veneration of images in Judaism and Sunni Islam. Catholicism is in a way fomenting witchcraft instead of fighting it.
[1] http://www.skynewsbusiness.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=605817&vId=
maltasatr headlines: Pro-divorce leader ousted out of Curia marriage tribunal after failing to adhere to the rules of the clupp.
Agree with article. However, being within one’s rights and actually exercising them are a different ball game.
There is no denying that the Curia can set its own house rules and enjoy discretion as to who appears before its Ecclesiastical Tribunal. If Dr. Schembri, who has been well poised and competent in her public appearances so far, failed to predict this eventuality as a possible backlash to her chairing the pro-divorce movement, then she would strike me as very naive.
However, I would not go so far as say that this stance has penalised the pro divorce movement. Quite the contrary.
The Curia has, by exercising its right, struck a nerve with those who, like myself, are finding these primitive, bible arguments tinged with thinly-veiled theocratic overtones (your previous article refers) worrying indeed.
The Curia has exercised its rights, but in so doing, especially in this crucial timing, has comes across as intimidatory, petty and veangeful. Anyone associated by affiliation or ideology to the Curia, such as the anti-divorce movement, shall stand to lose.
You are right , they had the aura of righteousness whilst now they have exposed themselves as thugs in cassocks .
You shouldn’t go for a burger at Burger King if you can’t stop thinking about Macdonald’s.
I would agree with everything you said above if there were a clearer separation of church and state in Malta.
The fact that a civil annulment can be suspended if one of the parties appeals to an ecclesiastical tribunal (as established by a 1995 amendment to the Marriage Act), by design puts the coercive power of the state behind these fake courts. It also puts non-Catholics (or, in Dr. Schembri’s case, Catholics not in good standing) at a disadvantage.
I fully agree that the Catholic Church should be allowed to exclude anyone they’d like from their proceedings, provided anyone can exclude the Catholic Church from their lives. Under the status quo, this is not the case.
The Catholic Church and its representative office in Malta can, quite simply, do exactly what they like as long as they do not – like the rest of us – break the law.
So how comes in Malta when a priest is accused of molestation it does not go to court but to the curia to decide? Isn’t molestation breaking the law? Then depending on innocence or guilt do they go to court then prison or just ex-communicated?
According to my husband’s cousin who is a priest in the Roman Catholic Church we have NOT been married for 15 years but have been living in sin as we did not get married in church (different religions). He was so adamant about this that he phoned up my mother-in-law on the day of her husband’s funeral to inform her that my husband was NOT to receive communion.
I understand this, it’s in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t agree with it but I respect it.
So why would the Catholic Church object to people in our situation obtaining a divorce when according to them we are not married to begin with?
Your story about the funeral saddens me but am not surprised.
How many priests do you think would qualify as good Christians?
Anyway hope you don’t need a divorce.
No, I don’t need a divorce but what bugs me is that it would be easier for me to go back to England to start proceedings if I wanted to divorce (I don’t)as I still have my family there.
My husband would not have that luxury of being able to move somewhere just to divorce.
Why is it that both my husband & I both come from EU countries yet I have more rights than him?
I saw the local priests last year during the feasts, going from person to person or should I say the most drunken persons asking for donations.
When this drunken chap gave a 5 euros donation, the priest said “thank you that’s what so and so said you would give me” knowing these two hated each other – then the drunken chap gets mad because of so & so said something about him starts swearing and then gives the priest 20 euro donation instead.
With the instructions of course to go & tell so & so how much he gave followed by at least 10 profanities about someone’s mother.
.
The priest then turned left smiling & went to so & so in the next club and managed to get a 50 euro donation
Would this priest qualify as a good Christian?
[Daphne – No, but he would qualify as a character dreamed up by Geoffrey Chaucer or Graham Greene.]
Hu x’inhu l-kaz, Deborah ghamlet paprata kbira. Minghaliha li gibdet is-simpatija lejha. Jekk jibqghu jghaffgu hekk se jirbah il-LE.
As they say “follow the money”
The Curia’s underhand and hypocritical actions on the divorce matter have nothing to do with the divine and everything to do with the temporal.
As publicly stated some time ago the Maltese Curia finances are in the red and it has started eating into its savings. Annulments must be a great source of income especially when one considers the rumoured greasing of palms that takes place to hurry up an otherwise cumbersome, erratic and bureaucratic process.
Everybody likes to have wealth and power and priests are certainly not immune to this and I for one feel that in the supposedly free and democratic country that we live in, they should have every right to promote their views.
What in my opinion is wrong is the abuse of power that is being perpetrated by the clergy and the holier then thou fundamentalist fanatics who believe that the end justifies the means even if it involves lying to and manipulating intellectually and/or spiritually vulnerable members of the community.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If priests and nuns can renounce their vows at will especially when one considers the fact that nuns actually get married to Jesus as part of their vows why can’t lay people divorce outside of the church?
The only difference is that whereas a marriage annulment is a source of income for the Curia, keeping priests and nuns against their will is a cost.
As you can see from the following article on Wikipedia, marriage wasn’t even a sacrament until well over a 1500 after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage
As they say “Follow the money”.
It looks like many around here have just woken up to the realisation of what “being part of the church” really means.
On another subject, Kate Middleton will spend her last night as a commoner at the Goring Hotel. The five-star hotel suite boasts many luxuries.
“Another has a television built into the bath – and an original 19th Century lavatory by Thomas Crapper.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381354/Royal-Wedding-Inside-room-Kate-Middleton-stay-night-before.html?ITO=1490
Many hotels and wealthy households today have built-in TV in bathrooms. It’s hardly a luxury today when events are moving so fast and it’s important to keep up with the news the minute you awake.
Perhaps what she lost she will gain from divorce law.
It related to another referendum, and yet…. http://replay.web.archive.org/20031004172112/http://www.maltafly.com/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=3
And then, of course, those were the days… (to Pulp Fiction music – long lost):
http://replay.web.archive.org/20030207210254/http://maltafly.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=247
[Daphne – Oh, Kevin! Just the person I thought of: I’ve come across a book that might interest you. ‘Voodoo Histories: The role of the conspiracy theory in shaping modern history’, by David Aaronovitch, published by Cape.]
Yes, another great book by yet another communist globalist. We all know conspiracies don’t exist. Fabian Society stuff, to be sure.
I would like to take this opportunity to show my support for David Capo dei Capi Gatt.
It’s shameful that he was “removed from the bar” and kicked out of the police force just because he is accused of masterminding a couple of holdups and for turning the Rabat Police Station into a “den of thieves”
… I think
Doesn’t sound right, does it?
That the Ecclesiastical Tribunal takes precedence over the civil courts is a fact. If spouses obtain a decree of annulment from the Roman Rota, they can then register it with the Public Registry and their annullment is given civil effect, and not only an ecclesiastical one.
This means that they do not require recourse to the Civil Courts to dissolve, or rather annul, the civil marriage.The converse does is not true, however.
This is precedence set by operation of the law.
On yet another subject – brilliant comment on timesofmalta.com re arraignment of five hunters for breaching the law:
Mr brian farrugia
Today, 17:00
Its better control this drug dealers and all this drugs one can find in our country!!!!!in every minute one can mistake,so if one drives his car badly,all of us have to quit driving!!!!!
I thought Tonio Fenech’s rheotoric was bad enough… until I read Austin’s Bencini’s piece today…
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110429/opinion/Are-we-in-communist-Poland-.362714
Just because it is reasonable to expect the Curia to be undemocratic doesn’t mean that it is right to refrain from being critical of such a decision. Indeed, it is doing the NO vote more harm.
Daphne, funny how (rightly, I hasten to add) you highlight the inconsistency in Deborah’s argument and Jeffrey’s possible self-interest yet you refrain from mentioning the hilarious inconsistent position of ministers such as Austin Gatt (high riding on the moral horse whilst he has had his fair share of lack of ethical decisions), Tonio Fenech (worried about Our Lady feeling sad yet sees nothing wrong in jetting around with entrepreneurs), Eddie Fenech Adami (again acting more as archbishop-elect but conveniently omitting to mention that his household has access to annulments the same way we commoners have access to pastizzi).
[Daphne – I have done so. Austin Gatt’s position does not interest me because he is not contesting the 2013 general election.]
1. L-insara jifirdu bejn il-Verita’ u l-opinjonijiet tal-bnedmin. L-insara jemmnu li l-Kelma t’Alla hija l-Verita’. U din tinkludi LE ghad-divorzju. L-insara huma certi mit-tajjeb u l-hazin ghax joqoghdu fuq il-Kelma t’Alla. Punto e basta.
2. Hemm bahar jaqsam bejn il-Verita’ li ma tinbidel qatt u l-opinjoni tal-bniedem li tista’ tinbidel il-hin kollu.
3. Dawn l-opinjonijiet umli tieghi: Biex inzid mal-artikolett ta’ Daphne: l-Orizzont immanipula lill-qarrejja tieghu u zbalja bl-ikrah meta qal li dak li sar lil Dr Schembri kien vendikazzjoni fuqha minn Monsinjur Said Pullicino.
4. Opinjoni ohra: Kemm Dr Schembri, kif qalet tajjeb Daphne; kemm il-Moviment IVA bi froga wara l-ohra; kemm kummidjanti tedjanti bhal JPO u Varist Bartolo; kemm l-orizzont, gazzetta mill-aktar dizonesta’, bi propaganda rhisa, jum wara jum, u qerq li xxommu minn seba’ kantunieri ‘l boghod; u kemm Dr Joseph Muscat, b’kumment inkredibbilment u sublimament stupidu – ”il-Madonna qed tibki minhabba l-kontijiet tad-dawl u l-ilma u mhux minhabba d-divorzju” – qeghdin jixhtu l-gebla fuq saqajhom. F’dan id-dawl li jistordik, f’din il-konfuzjoni manja, f’dal-pajjiz tal-imgienen li jibbanalizza kollox: Min qed jimmilita favur id-divorzju, bir-rispett kollu, jista’ jzarma minn issa: il-kawza hija falluta ghal kollox. U mhemmx ghalfejn tkun Nostradamu biex tbassar x’inhu gej ix-xahar id-diehel.
L-insara ortodossi, li jemmnu f’Alla wkoll, jistghu jiddivorzjaw sa – ismaghha- tlett darbiet, imbasta fuq affarijiet serji. Alla taghna huwa xi Alla iehor? Allura il-Maltin u l-Fillippini biss se jmorru l-genna?
Daphne, the idea behind doctrine is not to inhibit or suppress thought. It is to build up the primary foundations of our religion.
[Daphne – Yes, by suppressing questions, dissenting views and analytical thought. This is also present in standard RE classes in schools, but to a lesser degree. The idea is to extinguish all doubt, and you can do that only by using the same methods used by those who promote Communist ideology.]
Children are taught to THINK about why they were created, to THINK about how God loves them and of the ways He manifests that love.
[Daphne – All rubbish. Children come into being because two people had sex (or, nowadays, by various other means of conception). That is exactly what they should be taught. Now if we believe that there is some higher purpose to our existence, that is another story. But children are not created by God, no more than they are brought by the stork or found under a cabbage. The doctrine teacher who says that God created children exposes herself to questions that she cannot answer, about God’s creation of, for example, cancer and the common cold virus. The response is to brush the question off with an unsatisfactory reply, to criticise the child for asking it, or to work in such a way as to make the child doubt his judgement, ensuring that there are no such further questions. Children are much happier in science classes than they are in religious classes, unless they are allowed to treat religion like they do fairytales and accept them in that spirit.]
Yes, they are taught to learn certain prayers by rote, such as the ‘I believe’ or the ‘Our Father’ as these prayers neatly encapsulate beliefs and principles which are central to our faith. But to be (or claim to be…) afraid to send your children to doctrine (admittedly a name which has negative subliminal connotations from ‘indoctrination’) because they will be re-programmed not to think is, frankly, ridiculous, especially when you hear such a lame excuse being issued from the pen of one such as yourself.
[Daphne – It is not a lame excuse. I am an example of a person who escaped doctrine classes. So are my sons. Of course, you can argue that it is genetic, but I say that this is only a part of it. We have, all about us and in the news right now, prominent examples of genetically intelligent people who were put through the childhood mill of religious indoctrination. The result is a tragic tussle between the rational and the irrational, as in Tonio Fenech’s piece in The Malta Independent. Not all religious people are like that – of course not. That is not the result of religion per se, but the result of a brainwashing process designed to programme people to stay within the fold. It is the exact same system used in totalitarian states, and some of the messages are the same, too.]
I think you owe yourself and your readers a little more respect….
[Daphne – That is a sentiment best expressed at the finance minister.]
Doctrine is fricking waste of time, period. That’s five hours a week for the best six years of your life. Time that could be spent 1) running about 2) doing art/drama/music/sport/more sport 3) playing with other kids and, AND 4) watching the chicks go by, so by the time you reach puberty you’re not a goddamn volcano of hormones ready to explode.
No wonder Malta is so full of dysfunctional obese kids.
How about we change doctrine to a sixty-minute fitness session? After all, I don’t think Jesus is too happy with the fatties, and we’re top of the list in childhood obesity. Imma l-aqwa li ghandna diabetics’ support group u triple bypasses b’xejn.
European Union? League of Morons more like.
Your insight on the E.U. is required man .
Is the blighted brain the result of tal-Muzew, the Jesuits or both? I suspect that most of the current crop of prominent examples of fuzzy logic are products of the Birkirkara school. The condition seems to be aggravated if one also happens to be a lawyer.
I don’t know. Most of my classmates were already patented morons on Orientation Day. You have to wonder at the effectiveness of our education system: Transformation from normal kiddo to pre-adolescent yob in just five years of schooling.
The lawyer’s degree merely confirms childhood tendencies.
And while we’re at it, a message to “il-Globu”:
Your Latin religious quotes on Facebook won’t fool any of your ex-pupils. You’re a sadistic brute with not an ounce of pedagogical training. May you be afflicted by the seven plagues and die a slow agonising death. Then I’ll spit on your grave, you bastard.
[Daphne – Harsh. Who is he and what did he do to you?]
Alfred Farrugia. His name was Terror to every whining schoolboy, with his satchel and shining morning face, creeping like snail unwillingly to St Aloysius’.
Last time I saw him was in Valletta, in 2003, the day after that fateful refendum.
He was wearing a shell suit.
In the past children frequenting church schools didn’t need to frequent the Muzew because all was done in-house. That doesn’t exist anymore.
[Daphne – It wasn’t, actually. I went to a convent school and we had no doctrine classes – just run-of-the-mill RE. We did have a little red catechism book that bore – I found out much later in life – a remarkably strong resemblance to Mao’s, but it was strictly that: learning the beatitudes and the deadly sins by rote, etc. Because you know, six-year-olds can really get to grips with the meaning and significance of adultery. ]
Il-Muzew has won, so all those who wish to take the first holy communion should frequent the Muzew whather they like it or not.
[Daphne – Sorry, wrong: all those who wish their children to take part in the parish ceremony must do so. Otherwise, they can just walk them down the aisle at any routine mass and have done with it. First Holy Communion is not like Confirmation – it does not require the presence of a bishop and the performance of an exceptional rite: it is just literally receiving the host for the first time.]
I remember children who were not allowed to receive the sacrament, for the simple reason that they had not a record of a regular attendance at the muzew (jew forsi ghax ma kienux ihallsu l-1c fil-gimgha fee).
[Daphne – Their parents should have just taken them to another church. They must have lived in a really small parish if the busy-bodies could keep tabs on everyone. I can’t see that happening somewhere like Mosta.]
Thanks. very good points.
Whatever the outcome of the referendum, there will be only one loser: the Catholic Church. Its reaction has been based on manipulation, cold-heartedness and an altogether rather unChristian approach. When this is all over, the Church will find that it has alienated many people. A dying institution in freefall.
There are members of clergy who are not able to speak out against certain aspects of church doctrine. These people of faith are to be found on the lower rungs of the church power base, and they cannot rise in their church because rising stars are all chosen from vetted members of clergy with specific theological mindsets .
Does a will safeguard the rights of a couple who is not married and one ot the partner passes away?
[Daphne – Of course it does! This is something which the remarriage (and gay marriage) activists conveniently choose to overlook. A person’s will is inviolable. There are narrow circumstances in which it might be challenged (not leaving the legal minimum to a child, for instance) but otherwise, what the dead person says goes. There’s no need to wait until after death, either. There’s nothing to prevent a person transferring property in his or her lifetime. In fact, this is – and I draw the attention of all ‘remarriage/gay marriage is necessary’ activists here: this is one area in which the unmarried definitely have a huge advantage over the married. It is illegal (and hence, not possible) for one spouse to transfer ownership of capital assets to the other, even if they have no community of acquisition (separate estates). This is apparently an anti-crime, anti-fraud, anti-money laundering measure – because you know, only married people are in breach of the law.]
If there are no children involved, does the family of the dead partner has any legal rights over the inheritance left to the living partner?
[Daphne – Of course not! The only people with any such rights are sons and daughters, and spouses from whom there is no contractual separation have rights of use.]