Deborah Schembri, spokesperson for the Yes to Divorce movement has had her license to practice in the Ecclesiastical Tribunals suspended “because she is spreading incorrect information on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage.” A whole fuss has now been kicked up accusing the Church of “bullying” and of weighing in on the debate in a “crusade-like” fashion. Lovely.
It has long been my position that it is useless and anti-democratic of anyone to criticise the Church for doing its job among the faithful. The flock is the flock and it must be nurtured, and sorry if I add “by hook or by crook”. The Church is not only a spiritual guide but also a social participant and has every right to keep its foothold on the social scene. Preventing or countering it should not equate to silencing it.
As for the license to practice in Ecclesiastical Tribunals that is another matter altogether. I heard the Super One report on the issue and it hinted to the fact that a substantial part of Deborah Schembri’s livelihood was being affected by this decision. Now I am prepared to grant that this is a bit of dramatic hyperbole in order to exaggerate the financial effect on my colleague’s career but I’d love to concentrate on this whole lawyers in Church tribunals business.
Were the ecclesiastical tribunal system a completely independent system from state law then I would have absolutely no trouble in the Church picking who is and who is not deserving of being a legal doctor in its own courts of law. Trouble is that independent it surely ain’t. You see in cases of separation that are initiated in a (state) court of law by one spouse, should the other spouse decide to open a parallel case in the Church tribunal for annulment then THAT case takes precedence. The whole shebang is decided with Church Law trumping state law and the spouse who would have preferred a state court to decide cannot but follow into the ecclesiastical tribunal – until the Church decides.
I have always had my doubts about the legality of this agreement on the basis of the fact that the latter spouse has his right to choose his own lawyer limited since this has to be a “church approved” lawyer. To put it simply – if he or she is dragged before the church courts by his spouse then he or she is not allowed to choose certain lawyers deemed unproper by the church. That is the reason I never sat for the exam to be a doctor of law in the eyes of the church. If ever a potential client of mine requested my presence to assist him in a church court I would be prepared to take the case all the way to Strasbourg because – given the link between church law and state law there is in effect a national law that denies people their right to a lawyer in certain cases.
Deborah Schembri has not explained how her “livelihood” came from conniving with this state of affairs in which Church law sits uncomfortably with State law. Her quasi-apologetic press conference shows me rather that she would be glad to return to the status quo ante – defending clients as a Church approved lawyer. It makes me wonder whether Deborah and her colleagues at the press conference (Varist and Michael Falzon) have not got the wrong end of the stick…
It’s not just about yes to divorce. It is also about being consistent about what we all want.
On Referendum Day, J’accuse would vote Yes to Divorce even though the result would be as useful in this lay world of ours as a license to practice as a lawyer in the Ecclesiastical Tribunals.
8 replies on “Lawyers in Church”
It makes me wonder whether Deborah and her colleagues at the press conference (Varist and Michael Falzon) have not got the wrong end of the stick…
the stick business got me thinking… about the deborah stick, the police moonshining stick, the li tkisser sewwi stick with the ag’s last minute appeal via some god or other stick, finance minister’s god and madonna (?) stick, a prelate at cabinet talking ivf stick, a prelate discussing rousing songs stick, etc etc…what will happen if rather than taking all these sticks one at a time, someone would tie a ribbon around all these and so many other sticks? so was the return of the gonzi/bo tandem (in that order to reflect possible historical realities on the ground) such a casual happening or was it the intended symbol to underpin the model moving forward via flip charts and the rest? i mean gonzi,bo,tonio 1/2, vassallo, the FA clan, the mifsud bonnici clan are all very nice people and would surely make a very nice crowd too…so surely no room for conspiracy theories…must be the weather…
It’s amazing how everyone seems to have turned this against Deborah Schembri. Has it occcurred to you that it might have been precisely her experience as a family lawyer in the ecclesiastic tribunal that persuaded her to campaign in favour of divorce? And yet you seem to be arguing that she shouldn’t even be there because of her pro-divorce views. That is not just a non-sequitur: it is acomplete chronological distortion of what actually happened. Plus, it is not true that she gave a ‘quasi-apologetic’ press conference about the dismissal. The press conference was about something else, and she was asked the question by a journalist.
1. I don’t think that everyone has turned this against Deborah Schembri. There seems to be quite a good job of turning her cause into a rallying call.
2. I did not argue that she should not be there because of her pro-divorce views. It’s a bit more subtle an argument than that. I argue that she has every right to want to be there actually, so long as she conforms with the rules of that tribunal. On the other hand I also argue (and this is where it may get confusing) that if I were in her shoes I would have wanted no part in the tribunals “approval system” and would instead be working for the state to sever the relationship created with the church tribunal by the Marriage Act of 1995. And yes, I did put my money where my mouth is because I refused to sit for the exam on a point of principle – that a client in a matter with civil effects should have access to any lawyer – and I am prepared to challenge the state of affairs all the way to the Strasbourg court should ever a client require my services in the rota.
3. The answer – whether prepared beforehand or in reply to a journalist was very much an apologia – Deborah is not contesting the actual right of the church to determine who can or cannot be a lawyer in a court of law that has civil consequences – she claims (simply put) that she did nothing wrong and has every right to be representing clients under the current system. I find that contradictory. Sorry if it’s too legalistic (not that there’s anything wrong in that but it’s an apology I find I have to make more and more in this day and age – though I resent every single one of these apologies).
Note: “the exam” refers to the examination and course leading to the granting of a license as Advocate in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
Wow. And there I was wondering why there are so many lawyer jokes around.
1. “Deborah is not contesting the actual right of the church to determine who can or cannot be a lawyer in a court of law” Agreed. You are – and like so many others on this island you seem to automatically assume that your own priorities ought to be the first item on everybody else’s agenda.
2. There is nothing to be legalistic about. This might surprise you, but we non-legal people can get the gist of a rather uncomplicated situation no matter how much legal bullshit it gets buried under. The issue concerns the fact that the ecclesiastic tribunal is given legal precendence over the civil one, which reflects on Church-state relations… a far more fundamental concern than a person’s right to a lawyer of his choice. Having said that, I don’t doubt that the secondary issue (person’s right to lawyer) will be where the whole shebang may eventually be contested… on a purely legal-bullshit basis.
Q.E.D. (I see you are up to the standard re attitude towards “legalisms”)
No it is not my priority. It is a question of focus. What is Deborah contesting? Her right to practice in the church courts? Let me put it simply – imagine there were no church state agreement, no marriage act, no civil effect of church tribunal cases – would you be backing Deborah’s right to practice in the rota? I guess we both know the answer… it’s their business isn’t it?
So it’s not a matter of priorities but a matter of focus. The problem is the church-state link. As for the “much more fundamental concern than a person’s right to a lawyer” – not eaxact is it. One does not exclude or have priority over the other. The issue of a right to a lawyer ONLY EXISTS because of the church-state agreement. If church cases had no civil consequences then the church would be within its rights to have its own “bar exam” conditions. So as I said – it is NOT about Deborah’s right to practice in the rota but about a problem that has existed since 1995 thanks to the church-state agreement. Nobody has complained about bullying from the church before this, right?
You see… subtle, clear and prioritised. For your laymans delectation.
Serving you erudite bullshit on a plate has been a pleasure.
‘So as I said – it is NOT about Deborah’s right to practice in the rota but about a problem that has existed since 1995 thanks to the church-state agreement.’
errrr. that’s
not
what
you
said
but never mind cos this clearly going nowhere
some insight?
http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2011/04/29/news/berlusconi_leggi-15543046/?ref=HREC1-1