Gentlemen, explain yourselves
The Nationalist Party, as distinct from the government, the day before yesterday began to debate divorce – and doesn’t that sound ridiculous in 2010? – in the light of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s private member’s bill.
We learned from a newspaper report yesterday that three prominent players in the party, who also happen to be cabinet ministers, refuse to countenance the very idea of divorce legislation and opposed it most forcefully during Friday’s meeting. They are Tonio Fenech, Tonio Borg and Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, so no surprises there.
Borg agreed that a referendum should be held, but I imagine the reason is that he has a very good idea that the Yes vote will lose the day once the divisive campaigning kicks in and the parish priests of Malta bring out their billboards and their holy water.
And if a referendum is lost, then bye-bye divorce for another generation at least, so Borg will not live to see it. The party leader, who also happens to be prime minister, made clear his views against divorce, but was reported to have been less dogmatic than his cabinet colleagues.
What we are never told in reports of politicians X, Y and Z objecting to divorce is the precise nature of those objections. Listing them, and giving them a name and a shape, is not just useful but crucial if those objections are to be taken seriously.
I expect the unthinking hysterics who comment beneath news reports on the internet to say that they are against divorce without giving the reasons why, but I expect more from the prime minister, the deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, the minister of the interior, and the finance minister.
Their thinking skills and powers of argumentation are not in doubt, to a man – most especially the prime minister – and yet, when asked the simple question ‘Why? Why are you against divorce?’ they answer with the equivalent of the childish ‘Because I am’, or the prime minister’s marginally more sophisticated reply that we should protect Maltese ‘tezori’.
I cannot understand why they believe they can get away with this. In their position, they are expected to enumerate their objections, give reasons for their thinking, and explain how and why they have reached their conclusion that Malta should remain the only country in the world – bar one – without divorce legislation.
They are in duty bound to explain how and why they think they are able to reinvent the wheel on marriage and its dissolution. They haven’t done so, I suspect, because they are unable to do so. To make their situation still more uncomfortable, they are rational enough to know that their position is both irrational and untenable, a discomfort that the internet hysterics, secure in their mental confusion, do not have to countenance.
Their reaction against divorce is straight from the gut, and not from the mind. It is not the product of thought, but of feelings and of the lessons learned in childhood doctrine classes which failed to distinguish between reason and emotion.
It is very odd indeed to see four such men, three of them skilled lawyers and the other an accountant – all of them very senior politicians and cabinet ministers – reverting in this sole character-destabilising instance to the teenage years before they had developed the wonders of independent thought.
They would not dream of behaving like this, vetoing something without giving the electorate solid and well-reasoned arguments against it, backed by facts and numbers, with any other political issue.
When Lawrence Gonzi wants to sell us something, he takes to the hustings armed for combat and conviction with all the facts and figures, a miracle of preparation and with a memory like a filing-cabinet . Yet here he is now, trying to sell us the idea that Malta doesn’t need divorce legislation, and he’s hopeless, floundering and changing the subject.
The fearsome logic and clear thinking for which he is known in discussion and debate, and when fielding questions, desert him completely when he is asked – as he should be asked, because he is the prime minister – why he doesn’t want Malta to have divorce legislation.
This is because you cannot apply clear thinking and logic to the issue and conclude that Malta should not have divorce. The prime minister’s rational mind is at odds on this one with his irrational heart, and it is his irrational heart – unusually – which wins out. That’s how strong the pull of childhood indoctrination is.
Similarly, it is inconceivable that Tonio Borg, Tonio Fenech and Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, when asked about a political matter, should get away without explaining their reasons.
But like the prime minister, when asked to justify their position on divorce, they find they are unable to do so and fully expect the public to demand no explanation of them. Their inability to explain their position is the strongest indication yet, and they probably know it, that this position is based not on reason but on theology which has no place in the affairs of state.
It is not those who are for divorce legislation who have to present a strong suit in 2010, when Malta and the Philippines are the only two jurisdictions in the world without it. It is those who oppose divorce legislation who have to make their case convincingly. They are the ones who are at odds with the world.
So far, they have failed to do so, and it is unlikely that they ever will. To present a strong suit against divorce legislation is well nigh impossible, and that is why the prime minister, the deputy prime minister, the minister of the interior and the finance minister are, on this matter, speaking like children.
The electorate deserves better.
BUNGLING ANGLU
Let’s hope that the Attorney-General’s decision to appeal against the magistrate’s ruling in the ‘Pierre Bartolo forced me to vote PN’ case was his way of blowing the matter out of the water for good, rather than caving in to pressure from Anglu Farrugia, who will be deputy prime minister (and minister for justice, if he wins the battle with Consuelo Herrera’s brother) in three years’ time.
Even if the Attorney-General is motivated by the former sentiment and not the craven latter, he shows scant regard for the spirit of justice in his decision to force Pierre Bartolo – a victim of Anglu Farrugia’s apparent belief that it is quite all right to use police action for political vengeance – through the mill of political persecution once more.
If there is any political persecution and corrupt thinking in this story at all, it is Anglu Farrugia who is doing it, aided and abetted by his friends in the police force and now, it seems, also the Attorney-General’s office.
If Anglu Farrugia, the police and the Attorney-General have started as they mean to go on (and let’s be frank, Anglu Farrugia started a long time ago in the 1980s, and so did his friends in the police) then we are now standing on the thin end of the wedge. It can only get much worse when the unprincipled and peasant-minded Farrugia is running the country.
Would we ever have thought we’d see the day?
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
52 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“I expect the unthinking hysterics who comment beneath news reports on the internet to say that they are against divorce without giving the reasons why..”
The hilarious ‘objections’ I have read based on religion, god, Jesus, because it’s ‘evel’ (sic), et al, I expect, but others such as ” it’s a financial burden on public funds and I won’t pay for it from my taxes ” …..
…. excuse me, … ?
The ONLY objection against divorce that ‘holds water’, and that in BIG inverted commas, are religious reasons.
Divorce is a civil matter, not religious, and we live in a secular society.
Do we live in a secular society, Alan? I sometimes wonder.
Alan, some might argue that a civil marriage is a purely civil matter, but a Catholic marriage is a Holy Sacrament.
The state should decide what happens with civil marriages but it cannot interfere with the latter. And obviously vice-versa.
We cannot choose to marry by Catholic rite, and later expect to apply our own rules.
Take me for instance. Technically, I live in sin. My partner was previously married. Lately I’ve started to refrain from receiving communion when I attend mass. Why? Because those are the rules of the Church I freely choose to (try and) follow.
Divorce is no civil matter. It is a disaster. it is no human right. just a human wrong. A man gone from the top. Divorce effects you and me, the believer and the unbeliever. It effects us in our pockets. That’s why divorce is wrong. Mur poggi. It’s so simple and yet we don’t want to be labelled pogguti. That’s why.
Cohabitation is not desirable for two people in committed relationships in the same way that marriage is.
Marriage provides some benefits and some security of mind. Marriage, in most countries, means that spouses have hospital visitation rights, they can make medical decisions for their partner if the latter is mentally unable to do so and a lot more.
Just because the implementation of divorce will affect our pockets doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen, it makes up for it in other ways.
Cannot believe what the prime minister, his deputy etc replied and argue about divorce in 2010. Excuse me, Hon. prime minister etc.. with respect, but can you talk like that when you are with the other prime ministers of the other EU?
I am still waiting for decent and reasoned arguments from the PM and the three ministers why divorce should not be legalised. I have only a limited period of patience. This does not mean that PL will get off lightly from this debate and that means I will have lost all the last trickle of respect for most of the people in parliament.
1. They have no mandate to introduce divorce against the will of the people.
2. It will effect the state coffers. When the women and children will be left to fend for themselves they will turn on the state to help them. From our own taxes.
3. They are principled people with formed consciences, unlike those who are ranting for divorce. Who dont give a damn about the loved ones they are abondoning like stray dogs.
@ A. Charles … absolutely correct. There is no reason against divorce just fundamentalist hysteria.
@ Gordon! don’t insist on being so ridiculous in your comments.
1. Mandate! It is just a sensible consequence of allowing re-marriage to those who’s relationship has failed. Have you any idea how many couples live together in misery and how many others live (so called “poggiuti”) with their new partners anyway. These people are all over the place!
2. State coffers! What absolute rubbish! Perhaps you might even suggest that it is the cause of the widespread recession haha
3. There is more ranting AGAINST divorce … fear of what may I ask! Stray dogs have nothing to do with it, absolutely idiotic.
Women and children are already being abandoned, divorce helps these women rebuild their lives.
An Irish colleague once told me, isn’t it great to be Catholic, we can have as many mistresses as we like and they don’t dare ask us to leave our wife because we cannot divorce!
Daphne il-fatt jibqa li kif jghid Is-Sur Ranier Fsadni fil-Mument tal-Hadd 18 ta Lulju “Iz-zwieg hu ta l-Istat. Jiehu hsiebu billi joqghod attent li l-inpenn li jirraprezenta ma jkunx zvalutat,bhal xi munita. Issa d-divorzju,peress li jillaxka l-inpenn taz-zwieg m’hemm dubjili,f’dan is-sens jaghmel hsara ghal wahda mill-istituzzjonijiet tal-Istat,ghaliex irrattab l-inpenn li z-zwieg sa issa jirraprezenta.
Ghaziz J Busuttil, kif jista’ d-divorzju jrattab l-ghaqda taz-zwieg? Jekk koppja ma tridx divorzju jew m’ghandhiex bzonn divorzju, mhix se tiehu dan il-pass. Hafna qed johorgu b’dan l-argument li d-divorzju jgib iz-zwieg kwistjoni ta’ rabta coff. Mhux veru. Koppja li tghaddi minn divorzju tghaddi minn hafna problemi. Iridu jigu rizolti hafna kwistjonijiet bhal dawk finanzjarji u tat-tfal. Jien nahseb, anzi, li jekk jidhol id-divorzju f’pajjizna, ftit minn dawk li ‘z-zwieg’ taghhom spicca, ikunu dawk li jkunu lesti jidhlu ghalih. Wisq probabli li hafna jippreferu jibqghu jhixu ghal rashom mal-habib jew mal-habiba milli jghaddu minn burraxka bhal tad-divorzju.
Naqbel ma Mr. Buckle perfettament. Hadd ma jiddevorzja ghalxejn jew b’kapricc. Zgur li hadd ma jrid jaghddi minn dan it-tip ta’ nkwiet. Ghax ma nsemmux ukoll dawk il-koppji li ilhom mizzewgin zmien twil f’pajjizi fejn hemm id-divorzju? Donnu lil dawn il-koppji kulhadd jinsihom.
tkomplix tigded Buckle. Ghid il-verita! Iva bid-divorzju tidhol il-mentalita’ (li diga dahlet meta ghandna biss is-separazzjoni) li iz-zwieg li huwa wkoll sagrament, mhux rabta coff. Iz-zwieg ifisser hafna iktar minn hekk u l-argumenti tieghek huma vojta daqs bir vojt. Inti stess qed issemmi kemm id-divorzju ser ikun biss ghal min jiflah ihallas (bhalma hu bhalissa) u ghal dawk li ma jkollhomx flus, ikollhom jibqghu kif inhuma. Allura Malta x’tambih id-divorzju? Biex tissodisfa 4 nkallati li farrku l-familja taghhom ghal xi russa, u issa jridu jergghu ifarrku familji ohra? Ghjal dawn trid id-divorzju? Imorru jpoggu jekk iridu. Pogguti kienu u hekk iridu jibqghu. Malta m’ghandniex bzonn divorzju. Alla ma jridx id-divorzju.
Dawn t’hawn taht huma partijiet minn artiklu li kont ktibt f’Lehen is-Sewwa bit-titlu Non sparate sul pianista u li gie pubblikat f’Settembru 2009. Qed nikkwota dawn il-partijiet bil-kunsiderazzjonijiet tieghi biex naghti kontribut zghir fid-dibattitu li ghaddej bhalissa dwar dan id-divorzju f’pajjizna.
“Jiena nikkunsidra lili innifsi bhala Kattoliku prattikanti, u ghaldaqstant naf fejn ninsab jiena personalment f’dak li ghandhom ikunu l-valuri li jispiraw u jalimentaw ir-rapport ta’ mhabba bejn il-koppja tradizjonali. Izda jiena bhala kattoliku lajk inhoss ukoll li ghandi nassumi ftit responsabbilta’ billi nesprimi ruhi fuq suggett tant delikat bhalma hu dak tad-divorzju, minkejja l-principji li inhaddan.
Peress li ghandi background ta’ diversi snin fil-politika, jiena imdorri inhares lejn is-socjeta’ maltija b’mod shih u komprensiv. U ghalhekk ma nistax indawwar wicci u ninfatam mir-realta’ li qed toffri din is-socjeta.
Qed nghixu f’socjeta’ li tinsab ghaddejja minn tibdil kontinwu billi issir dejjem aktar kulturalment pluralistika u sekularizzata. Ir-rih li qed jonfoh minn barra huwa rih ta’ socjetajiet post-kristjani u s’issa nistghu nghidu li ghadna ma tlifniex kollox. Anzi!
Izda huwa fatt maghruf li qed jikber in-numru taz-zwigijiet civili minghajr rit religjuz; huwa fatt iehor li qed jikber in-numru ta’ koabitazzjonijiet; huwa fatt ukoll li hafna zwigijiet tkissru u qed jitkissru; huwa ukoll fatt li hafna koppji mizzewgin qed jghixu l-infern ta’ hajjithom wara li r-rapport bejniethom sfaxxa fejn it-tfal certament ibatu trawmi fit-trobbija taghhom; bhalma huwa fatt ukoll li ommijiet mhux mizzewgin qed jizdiedu kull sena. Hafna isibu is-soluzzjonijiet tal-problemi tieghhom kif jidhrilhom huma, ghal rashom. Ma jhossuhomx parti mis-socjeta’ organizzata. Din hija sitwazzjoni perikoluza u ma tistax tahdem bhala socjeta rapprezentata. Huwa dmir ta li Stat li jhoss il-polz tac-cittadini.
Ghalhekk, independentement mill-kawzi ta’ din ir-realta li qed nghixu, min ihares lejn is-socjeta’ fl-assjem taghha, ma jistax ma jhossx li li Stat ghandu jaghmel xi haga biex jizgura li c-cittadini kollha ghandhom jigu organizzati b’ligijiet adegwati, u hadd m’ghandu jibqa’ eskluz fil-mod kif jifforma familja bazata fuq koppji naturali. Qed jinhass il-bzonn li l-ligi tal-familja tigi aggornata.
Il-fatt li Mons Vella hareg b’dawk il-hsibijiet dwar id-divorzju (ara l-kitba tieghu fil-harga tas-29 ta’Awissu 2009) ma jfissirx li telaq jew biddel il-principji tieghu, izda li zviluppa l-hsieb u aggorna ruhu. Kienu diversi l-protagonisti tal-“cattolici del no” li wrew dispjacir pubblikament wara dak li gara fir-referendum fl-Italja. Pietro Scoppola, wiehed mill-protagonisti ewlenin kien ammetta li l-prezz tal-ghazla tieghu kien gholi wisq u iddispjacih tal-qasma trawmatika fi hdan il-kleru u l-Knisja Kattolika fl-Italja. Il-kliem tal-Vangelu Imqaddes biss jibqa attwali minghajr bidliet wara elfejn sena. Izda dik hija l-kelma Divina. Il-bniedem huwa moghni biss bir-rikkezza tal-mohh u l-intellett li bih jirraguna, u ghalhekk ghandu jkun miftuh biex ifittex u biex jaghti risposti adegwati f’li sfond taz-zminijiet, tac-cirkustanzi u tal-kundizzjonijiet fis-socjeta’ li dejjem jitbiddlu. Ma tistax tibqa dejjem b’mentalita’ fossillizzata, anki waqt li izzomm mal-principji li temmen fihom.
Nahseb li anki l-politici ghandhom johorgu mit-tempju tal-palazz u kwartieri taghhom u jaraw u jisimghu x’qed jghidu dawk hemm barra…specjalment dawk li m’ghandhomx vuci u kenn; ghandhom jisimghu sewwa lil kulhadd, ukoll lil dawk li ghandhom fehma differenti minn taghhom fejn jidhlu l-valuri li bihom jibnu r-rapport ta’ mhabba bhala koppja naturali. Wara li jisimghu huwa mistenni minnhom li jagixxu biex jaghtu risposti xierqa lill kull cittadin skond kuxjenza kristjana.”
L-ebda politiku m’ghandhu mandat biex jippresenta ligi dwar id-divorzju. Johrog il-programm elettorali tal-paritti u naraw min irid id-divorzju u min ma jridux. U naraw. Hekk isiru l-affarijiet bil-galbu, u minghajr tbazwir minn hemm jew minn hawn.
“ Huwa fatt li hafna zwiegijiet qed jitkissru… Din hija sitwazzjoni perikoluza…[ L-] iStat ghandu jaghmel xi haga biex jizgura li c-cittadini kollha jigu organizzati b`ligijiet adegwati…“
Ahseb u ara jekk iddahhal il- ligi tad-divorzju kemm sa jizdiedu aktar dawn il- kazijiet. Il- Eurostat irrapurtat li d-divorzji fl- Irlanda zdiedu b` 144 % mill- 1998 sal-2007.
The introduction of divorce may solve the problems of one couple and destabilize the marriage of ten others.
Since when have individual priests who espouse divorce [ with the best of intentions I hasten to add] become infallible ? I would have thought that infallibility is a charism attributed to Popes when they speak ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals . Though even non- Catholics would have to acknowledge that the Popes were prescient and well ahead of their times when they spoke and wrote about the causes of various social ills. And would you believe it, they even got it right about secular issues such as the global financial crisis and the Iraqi war ! Mhux talli kienu aggornati sew talli kienu futuristi ukoll rigward il- konsegwenzi .
Since when has the PN become fatalistic – defeatist almost- in the face of admittedly very difficult situations such as the burgeoning problem of marriage breakdowns presents ? I would have thought that a nationalist politician of long-standing would have looked at things in a different, more innovative way. The PN has brought to fruition so many projects with this attitude and mindset :
For example, our University system is possibly unique in its own way and perhaps like no other in the world [ not even in the Philippines ! ]; Mater Dei and the entire set-up is second to none in the world – and even the Americans [ well anyway , the US Ambassador to Malta ] would like to emulate it ; Tiny Malta at the United Nations came up with the concept of the seabed being the common heritage of mankind when no other State, large or small, ever did.
In a society such as ours, which is a microcosm of other much larger societies – given that human nature is the same wherever you go and given that the indissolubility of marriage is not a monopoly of Christian believers but a universally held good in the collective memory – why not get down to conducting extensive scientific studies on the causes of marriage breakdown ? Why not research the correlation between the irretrievable breakdown of marriages and the possibility that such marriages were never on a sound footing in the first place and the role which the State Courts and State annulments may play in such cases ? Why not explore ways how to salvage marriages which are going through a rough patch but which are not necessarily doomed to fail? Finally, why not carry out an extensive study on why many marriages do succeed even though they are not necessarily made in heaven?
Brilliant article. What I cannot understand is how these gentlemen are bold enough to take serious vote-losing decisions in the national interest on the economic front and yet drag their feet on a no-brainer.
Thousands of separations have happened in the past and no doubt thousands more will come to pass. I have no idea how we compare with the rest of Europe but I suspect our percentages are lower. Good and may it remain that way. However we then expect separated couples to just cohabit for the rest of their lives without forming new legally established unions. It is as if we have some new underclass to patronise and look down on.
As for the referendum issue I see it as a throwback to the sixties and a new unwanted polarisation in a small country. The gentlemen in question must do the right thing – be bold, get on with it and move on. The longer they drag their feet the more painful it gets.
I fully agree with Daphne regarding the psychological analysis of the 3 or 4 ministers, including the PM, who declare themselves against divorce. I am sure there are others. Obviously, they do not explain themselves because they know it is politically incorrect to give religion as the reason in a country which is, supposedly, secular. Their arguments from religion would be promptIy shot down. For this reason, in my view, these persons are not being quite honest and transparent. Weren’t we all promised “trasparenza” in former times? I suspect that religious motives may be at the basis of other decisions taken by people in the present government – they may be less obvious than in the matter of divorce but they are there nonetheless and practically impossible to expose.
“Borg agreed that a referendum should be held, but I imagine the reason is that he has a very good idea that the Yes vote will lose the day once the divisive campaigning kicks in and the parish priests of Malta bring out their billboards and their holy water.” – DCG
How vulgar and low can one go! How arrogant and stupid can the writer be. As if the catholic church doesn’t have any rights in Malta. As if it is a crime to erect a billboard saying that God does not approve of divorce. As if we are third class citizens. ma va la.
The Catholic Church has no right to influence a referendum. It has no voting rights; the same way that the Chamber of Commerce – or any organsation has no voting rights.
[Daphne – The Catholic Church, just like any other lobby group or stakeholder, has every right to campaign for the No vote in a referendum on divorce, just as the Chamber of Commerce campaigned for a Yes vote in the EU referendum.]
This is a state matter and one for individuals not organisations. The only influence the church should have on such an outcome is the vote of the individual priest or nun – and that is already too much in Malta given their numbers.
Once again it seems that Gadget is using his “better do as I say or else when I’m in power you’ll regret it” tactic again. How low can this man go – or shall I say how low can people go who give in to his pressure! Why are high-ranking police officers scared of this man, are they threatened? Has the force lost its balls? Does this man think he’s untouchable?
He’s just a wannabe who will never be anything but a bully.
And there’s no one more dangerous than a bully whose assumed power is rubber-stamped with an official seal.
I think the divorce issue will dissolve into emptiness; it’s too politically over shadowed. What now are the options left open, for sincere, unfortunate subjects in dealing with their problematic lives? What ‘coping skills’ will they be left with, other than making the best out of it. Necessity is the mother of invention.
People will never settle down to others who capriciously dictate their private lives. Their life is theirs. They won’t settle to a life of misery whilst others have it off good because of their scheming abilities to push themselves to the realms of social acceptability. Do I have to remind of recent scoops?!
Divorce debate demands its own interlocutors, its own testimonials.
I honestly find the whole issue complex. It’s not easy I admit, but personally I won’t have external actors meddling in my very personal history.
It’s like having individuals who after a buffet meal settle down to talk about the problems of hunger in the world. It goes for every social problem.
If individuals never experienced the pangs of family disorder, disablements, upheavals, the very unsustainable of a marriage union which most times or nearly is no fault of theirs (I find Fr Serracino Inglott theses of a post-archaic farming society trusted violently and abruptly into an alien industrial world worthy of real consideration) these individuals can never empathize.
Vaux, look before you leap into marraige. But when you leap you must make good your priomises. Otherwise it’s your funeral. Putting your loved ones in a desert is not an option. You will have to pay for it one day.
What do these gentlemen know about divorce?
Another great article. Pretty sure the Prime Minster read this one. I have a gut feeling he is searching old theologian books in this subject. You made a valid point and he needs to come up with compelling reasons other than- I believe in family values rhetoric.
This is what we have in Malta – sensible people believe in traditional family values for those marriages that are doing well but somehow they do not believe that those same good values should be applied to people who want to form another family.
Everyone is free to live his/her own life the way they want. But don’t expect that when things go wrong, and acting against the trends of civil society, the minority will force the majority to dump the years old traditional family values (which unfortunately today’s youth don’t even know they exist) with the NEW PROGRESSIVE TRENDS: same sex marriages, lesbians, gays, pogguti, unhealthy bonds between perverts, and shout to the world : “look we are a progressive country”. We are not mad to take this long damning road to our own damnation. We will continue to fight for a healthy environment for our families, old and new.
“the minority will force the majority to dump the years old traditional family values”
Nobody will force you to dump anything. Stop, think and allow the rest the same courtesy to choose which values to live up to.
I would not dare psychoanalysing the ministers of the Republic. What a daunting exercise that would be. It is difficult enough with ordinary people. With hardened politicians it would be well nigh impossible.
My view on divorce has remained unchanged for half a century. It is everybody’s unalienable right to divorce as many times as anybody wants. As long as the divorcees foot all the bills consequent upon their action I wish them luck.
I feel perfectly entitled to refuse to support the meteoric increase in other people’s multiple families which is a natural consequence of divorce.
Therefore I would only support divorce legislation if all financial safeguards are in place. Admittedly this is a tall order.
In my opinion a classical case where freedoms collide.
Some pearls of wisdom posted on the anti-divorce Facebook page “Ngħidu LE għad-divorzju f’Malta! / We say NO to divorce in Malta!” :
I do not agree with divorce. It breaks up families, children suffer and goes against the laws of the Church
” For this reason, a man may leave his Father and Mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate” Mark 10:7-9
What…You…said divorce in Malta…….and that it’is one of their human rights.”” If this is a human right for those that want divorce” Then we as Catholic and follower of Christian Catholic laws, on the other hand we too have a human right to express our opinion and to say what is right and what is wrong.
Therefore, it is very good to note that famous British Criminologist namely Dr.Patricia Morgan, effected an important study and she stated that after effecting her studies in U.K. – USA,. discovered a clear link between the braking-up of families and criminality. Criminality in the Britain had increased enormously recently. The reason was that the year 1975 she quoted this because it was near the year when divorce was being introduced
Divorce is a threat to society and to the way we think. The sacrament of matrimony is a lifetime commitment that needs to be nurtured and protected by prayer and a total surrender of self. Christian marriages are marked by a blue print which enables each individual to celebrate the GREAT love shown by Christ
sigh!
Biblical Quotes on Divorce
“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. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” Deuteronomy 24:1-2
“But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.” 1 Corinthians 7:10-15
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9-9
I consider the quotes rather sexist…. However that’s beside the point.
Just wanted to point out that unfortunately (serious) marital problems have always exsisted and divorce was permitted (back then).
Yet Malta, the land of ‘holier than thou’, buries it’s head in the sand and disgracefully accepts the fact that a large number of persons (through their unfortunate marital breakdown) to live their lives in total misery and ‘sin’.
Your arguments criticising the three senior ministers (and the PM) are based on the wrong premise that there are no non-religious arguments against divorce.
First of all, I would expect Catholic politicians to adhere to Catholic principles. Then I would expect them to express their views according to their convictions.
I was not present for the PN meeting and neither were you. However, on the basis of your wrong misleading premise, you rushed to conclude that the eminent gentlemen based their arguments on religion only.
In the run up to the 1995 divorce referendum in Ireland, the arguments in favour and against divorce were summarised and published by the Referendum Information Commission. The arguments against divorce were not based on religious principles. http://www.ucc.ie/law/irishlaw/constitution/divorce/divorce2.shtml
[Daphne – If they have arguments which are not based on Catholic theology, they should tell the electorate what they are. If they fail to do so, we shall have to conclude – as I have done already in the absence of secular argumentation – that they are embarrassed to reveal that their arguments are purely religious.]
There is a rationale in Catholic theology regarding the validation of sacramental marriage; and that logic provides a strong case for the equivalent rationale for divorce. The church, in its rationale, provides for the possibility of re-marriage, provided by its judgment of an invalid previous marriage.
Marriage is regulated according to Book IV, Part 1, Title VII of Canon Law (Canon 1055-1165). There are various conditions for the validation of sacramental marriage, inclusive of baptism, conformity to the essential peroperties of marriage (its unity and indissolubility), and matrimonial consent; and likewise there are numerpous impediments that may invalidate a marriage.
Certain diriment impediments are qualities that intrinsically render a person unqualified to contract a valid marriage (Canon 1073), and these conditions may be either general, or very specific: for example, regarding the specific minimum age for marriage (Canon 1083).
Typically, the likely grounds for nullity of a marriage involve issues of matrimonial consent (Canon 1095-1105). These may include: incapacities of reason or defects of judgment or psychological reasons (Canon 1095); ignorance regarding the basic nature of marriage (Canon 1096); error about the intended quality of a person, of such importance, that without it the person would not have married the other (Canon 1097); if a person should enter marriage deceived by some fraud, which by its very nature disturbs the essential spousal relationship (Canon 1098); an error concerning the unity of marriage that also determines the will for marriage (Canon 1099): such as, for example, the belief that there must be an “open” marriage or multiple spouses or sexual partners; if one or both parties totally simulate marriage, essentially excluding marriage itself, or if marriage is just partially simlated (Canon 1101.2): by excluding some essential element of marriage, for example, by intending to exclude the conjugal act, or by excluding the effect of this act, namely, its resultant children, for example by always using artificial contraception or abortion.
Or there may be other conditions of simulation: excluding sexual fidelity or a partner’s right (with responsibility) to sexual relations, or by excluding the good of spouses: by violating a person’s fundamental physical, moral, spiritual, sexual, or psychological integrity; by entering marriage with some conditional consent (Canon 1102.1), which is to require a future contingent condition which does not yet exist, whether or not it later materializes; or also, if an individual enters into marriage because of force or fear (Canon 1103), which is a serious and objective influence, resulting from an outside source, and which causes the person to marry in order to be free of that force or fear.
While the church reserves its right to make its judgment about the sacramental validity of marriage, the same conditions (or others) provide a basis for the civil dissolution of marriages, too. A civil divorce may expedite at a civil level what the church attempts to decide by its marriage tribunals. In the anti-divorce argument, I feel that many people miss altogether the valid rationale the church provides which allows re-marriage.
According to national (NSO) statistics for the year 2008, there were 35 church annulments versus 153 positive civil cases involving Maltese citizens, a ratio of about 1:5; and 31 divorces were obtained by Maltese from abroad.
There also were 519 separations filed, of which couples 464 with both Maltese, while another 50 couples involved one Maltese spouse.
In the same year, in Malta there were 2,482 registered marriages: 840 (or 34%) were civil marriages, and of these 300 involved at least one Maltese spouse, while of these over a third, 107 couples, were both Maltese. The remainder of 1,642 were religious marriages, the substantial portion of which 1,564 were Catholic marriages, including 67 couples previously married by the State sho chose to validate their marriage in the Church; and 44 individuals had re-married after their previous vows had been annulled by the church.
Also, in Malta between 2006 and 2008, there were 1,028 new or intrduced church and civil annulment cases; 844 pending cases; and about 3,500 ssworn separation applications submitted or mediations introduced, with more than 1,000 separation cases pending–or a total of 6,360 couples, or up to 12,720 individuals (excluding the affected children of those relationships) in dysfunctional or broken marriages (or for the three-year period, 3% of the total 2008 Maltese population).
There is a massive problem in Malta regarding dysfunctional marriages, which may have been largely so according to the same theological criteria the church applies towards its determination of the non-validity of sacramental marriages. In fact, there must be thousands of truly invalid marriages.
The problem is so large, either because of the ignorance of couples or because of the limitations of the bureaucracy for the church’s ability to determine the valid nullity of sacramental marriages, that civil divorce could provide the missing tool for what the church is not yet able to provide.
Given the theological rationale for the non-validity of marriage, those characteristics MUST be distributed widely in the general population of Maltese marriages.
Hence, there should be no theological rationale for regarding the principle of the nullity of marriages, which civil divorce can provide at the civil level. Unfortunate couples may have quite a remaining task ahead in their potential quest for nullity of their alleged “sacramental marriages.”
ajma hej…the guys who say that you get a cheque from the PM every month for your blog will now say that you either got less money this month or none at all…you’re criticizing the PM…your boss…minn jaf x’ser jivvintaw!
The three ministers opposing the people’s right to divorce are the usual suspects.
Tonio Borg wants to look good in the eyes of the prime minister, Tonio Fenech should consider this a good cause, and Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici has already divorced from the police force because he has lost control and now it’s a police farce.
Excuse me, but what do you expect from the Nationalist Party? Black flag, religio et patria, spouting Catholic rhetoric…. some might mention the modernization of the country.. yes of course economically speaking, but culturally and socially they still are a conservative holier-than-thou party with its frontliners who behave like cardinals… Gonzi included.
Reminds me of the late John F Kennedy bending over backwards to convince the electorate that as US president he would serve only US citizens, not the pope.
Why is everybody making such an issue about whether Malta should allow divorce or not?
First of all those who can afford to get divorced abroad can get remarried here because their divorce is recognised which means that these cases already exist.
Secondly what the authorities should get into their heads once and for all is that the Maltese are not all practising Catholics (the sooner they accept that the better) and if divorce is made legal these non-practising Catholics should be able to get a divorce BY RIGHT.
In my opinion it is the Archbishop who has the most difficult task of all and that is to drum it into the heads of churchgoers that legalising divorce should not make one iota of difference to them because it isn’t and never will be acceptable in the Catholic religion.
What I don’t understand is what the Archbishop says that he is open to discussion. What discussion? In a discussion 2 sides have different opinions about an issue and they hope that by the end of the discussion their opinions might get closer together (as we know this hardly ever happens anyway) However the Archbishop knows very well that he’;s not in a position to discuss anything because the Church is autocratic and what the Pope says goes.
So please try and educate people in knowing the difference about something being legally correct and morally correct. Then if people want to get divorced anyway then we’ll know exactly how Catholic Malta really is.
As a point of order, Malta has had divorce legislation for 35 years and it’s there in the Marriage Act. For decades, no one, from any quarter, has fought to have it abrogated. We have preferred to pretend that it just is not there.
I think JPO should now present another private member’s bill, this time, to amend the Marriage Act to remove the recognition of foreign divorce decrees.
That will define the issue.
The amendments to the Marriage Act in 1995 are patently unjust regarding due process for declaration of the nullity of a marriage (in the absence of d-i-v-o-r-c-e).
Under current Maltese law, civil annulment processes are suspended if a church annulment is under review; and there are no civil annulments for Catholic church-marriages in Malta if a church annulment is fully processed and is not granted, which is very seldom granted in Malta relative to Maltese civil annulments. The ratio of granted church annulment to civil annulment is less than 1:5 in Malta (2008).
The 1995 amendments (article 30.1 and 30.2) recognizes the civil effects of Catholic [and Anglican] marriages celebrated in Malta (article 21.1) and the civil effects of the nullity of a Catholic marriage by its competent church tribunal (subject to the procedural and substantive provisions of article 24), when one of the parties is domiciled in, or a citizen of, Malta (article 23.1).
In Malta, if due process is respected, civil annulments for various recognized church-marriages may be granted, but only when church annulments are not applied for by either party, or are discontinued before a decision is reached by a church tribunal. But then, universally, one’s church status also may become irregular by a positive civil annulment because the Catholic Church does not recognize the annulment of a valid church-marriage by any power or civil process.
Therefore, in Malta one applies for a church annulment, and not a civil annulment, if one hopes to abide faithfully to the church’s teaching and discipline. Access to a proper civil process for the dissolution of the civil bond of marriage is thus often denied. Divorce is the only alternative for a dissolution of the civil bond, only available to those in Malta who can live abroad.
I’m taking advantage on this blog to ask a question.
Those who were married before the 90’s have the right to remarry in case of a separation from there spouse. As a matter of fact I know someone who remarried, of course with a civil marriage.
I remember that in the past separated people could remarry, it used to be said “izzewgu bir-registru”.
In these cases is that a kind of divorce, annulment of the civil marriage? What happens?
Could someone please clarify this confusion for me? THANKS.
[Daphne – You’re very confused. Separated spouses can’t remarry unless their marriage has been dissolved. It makes no difference when they married. What might have led to this confusion is the fact that post-1993, the Catholic rite was taken in substitution of the civil rite. Between 1975 and 1993, we married by both rites: secular and religious.]
@serracina
Let me illustrate, briefly, what happens, using my own case as an example.
Originally, I was married in Indiana (USA) to my first wife according to the Rite of the Roman Cathlic Church on 29th December 1971 at twenty-three years of age. After nearly twenty-one years of “marriage” and four children later, a petition for divorce was filed in Essex County, Massachusetts [place of residence] (USA) in September 1992. I arrived in Malta on 12th October 1992.
The judgment of Divorce became Absolute in Essex County according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (each of the 50 US States have different laws pertaining to marriage and divorce) nearly 18 months later, on 15th March 1994 [because I did not contest or appeal any of the court’s decisions, which would have delayed matters till heaven knows when]. But the court judgment was only registered eight months later at Salem County on 14th November 1994.
Meanwhile, I met my future Maltese wife in June 1993. Her first marriage was in 1967, and she was separated from her husband shortly after the birth of their son in 1968. Eventually, she took up with another partner and lived in Spain with him and her son for many years. In the 1980’s, while living in Spain, she also obtained a Maltese civil annulment for her first marriage, while being represented in court by her sister. In October 1993, I began living with my future Maltese wife. I was not yet divorced.
In 1995, finally with the divorce of my first marriage in hand, my case for marriage annulment was initiated before the Marriage Tribunal for the Discese in Indiana where my marriage had taken place. And in September 1996, after living together for three years, my Maltese wife and I were married at the Civil Marriage Registry in Malta.
Only in August 1997 was I informed by the Marriage Tribunal (USA) regarding the grounds for the case; so then, I made my written submissions for the case–twice.
First, in late 1997, there was a twenty-one page single-spaced document that I had completed by myself. Later there was a shorter comprehensive document prepared with me and written by the Maltese Marriage Tribunal in 1998. The first document had been a challenge and grateful opportunity for me to write. The second document, more than the first, was a great joy to complete.
Then concluding on 12th March 1999, the Marriage Tribunal in America issued a declarition of nullied of marriage on the basis of its affirmative decision. But it would be twelve years after our civil marriage in 1996, before my wife and I would be free to marry in the church, after her first husband died in August 2008.
We discovered that her husband had died in early September 2008, in fact, on our civil marriage anniversary. Immediately, we set in motion the details for our marriage in the church, which as quickly as possible materialized in Malta on 8th December 2008, Feast of the Immaculate Conception. There are mercies and blessings from God.
There is no quick and painless resolution for the dissolution of former marriages and the opportunity for re-marriage. There always has to be a dissolution of the previous marriage before re-marriage. Also, even in my re-marriage, as well as in the dissolution of the first, the example of marriage is there for my four sons.
The eldest son had an unfortunate first marriage, and was divorced after 6 years (without children–an easier process for divorce). He has been happily partnered over these last few years; they are trying for children; but, so far, although they are committed to each other, they are still giving marriage a pass.
The second son is happily married for better than half-a-dozen years, and he and his wife have provided us with a grandchild, now 13-months old.
My third son always has been gay and is not now in a relationship; and all my sons support gay-marriage.
Happily, my fourth son, 30-years-old, is marrying his fiancee in October–on their terms, and not according to any social dictates from in-laws on either side of the family. There is another lesson learned. And I look forward to meeting his wife when they come to Malta.
I should have added: First son married in the Greek Orthodox Church (his wife had been second-generation Greeks in America). Second son and his wife were married in the Catholic Church. And the fourth son, I don’t know for sure: his wife-to-be is Jewish, but I believe there may be only a civil ceremony. They are both religiously independent.
In the 8th paragraph above, I’ll have to plead mildly aphasic fingers for my typos [followed by my incomplete proof-reading within the limiations of the window of the box].
The first line should have read: the Marriage Tribunal in America issued a “declaration” of “nullity” of marriage on the basis of its affirmative decision.
All other errors also are fully mine. I am reminded: first, one forgets where the car is parked [of course, it is somewhere in the neighborhood, but was that the last time, or the second or third time before that where it was parked?]. Then the slips between the head and the fingers yield proximate spellings on the written page; and sometimes the keys on the old keyboard don’t register a stroke [missing letters], which my piano fingers don’t detect.
Eventually there is Alzheimer’s, and all recent memories disappear [as was the case for my maternal grandmother]. Sigh!
Next time I’ll try not to be so speedy in writing the text.
And nobody has said a word about Anglu Farrugia.
Ghaziz Adrian Buckle hekk hu d-divorzju jzid il-koabitazzjonijiet.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand the above statement or its logic . . . can someone please explain it to me?
“What we are never told in reports of politicians X, Y and Z objecting to divorce is the precise nature of those objections. Listing them, and giving them a name and a shape, is not just useful but crucial if those objections are to be taken seriously.”
Same should apply to JPO and Dr Joseph.
[Daphne – Pullicino Orlando gave his reasons in writing in his private member’s bill.]
JPO has a personal interest in this issue and Dr Joseph’s main concern is his popularity, when his surveys pointed in the opposite direction he withdrew his PMB without much pomp.
No need to be a prophet to state that this is going to be JPO’s last legislature in parliament and he’s doing his damn best to get what he wants.
Political parties should discuss this issue and then present their proposals to the electorate.
Presently the PN is probably discussing how it will get out of this embarrassment created by JPO and the PL have to put up with their Joseph who is imposing his personal agenda on his party delegates.
Ok so these ‘holier than thou’ politicians view divorce as going against their beliefs but then think nothing of jetting on a plane with businessmen, ignoring a damning auditor’s report on the much maligned power station etc, etc. Hypocrites, the bunch of them. What a convenient way to build your own moral and ethical codes as you deem fit.
“Pullicino Orlando gave his reasons in writing in his private member’s bill.”
“Tisma (taqra) bil-fors imma temmen jekk trid.”
Politicians write and say many things which later prove to be half truths or outright lies.
Daphne
One question to all in favour of divorce: how many of them suffered a breakdown in their family?
I suppose this is not a matter of religion, this is a matter of respect and responsibility to one another! Well done to all the good people of the world.
Thank you