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.
