Category: Divorce

Categories
Divorce Politics

Divorce a distraction?

I get the nagging feeling that the whole divorce debate is a welcome distraction for the party in government. Whichever way you look at it, even with the possibility of a watered down divorce law on the horizon in the near future, the PN government is set to gain from what is after all a delayed distraction. By some twenty years. If we could adduce some form of strategy from the single-seat government way of thinking it would be that the divorce debate that was clumsily shifted onto its plate has the main bonus of providing the occasional distraction from the pressing issue of COL (cost of living) in its various guises.

The spice that are priests like Daniel Cordina in Zebbug or politicians like the various JPOs, Bartolos and Musumeci only serves to give the affair the varied colouring of an indian spice stand. At the end of the day there is a sense of inevitability that is wired into the divorce issue itself. It is not a question of “If”, more a question of “when” and a bit of “how”. You can read that sense of urgency into Mike Briguglio’s press conference statement today. It almost sounds like an exercise in tautology: “Decision on divorce needs to be taken“.

You can almost hear the Simpsons‘ Homer yelling :”Duh”. But this is the country where Musumeci can claim to be an “opinionist” and not a “journalist” on his little platform on Smash. Where the same Musumeci can proselytise while trying to be the new “good boy” of the PN clan. Where Muscat can shoot at the government for “playing with the people” without actually offering an alternative solution to the problems at hand. Where politicians like Zammit Lewis can quote their leader on facebook and echo the worry about the poor without budging one inch about the new ideas from the new generation.

Thank God for divorce then (or maybe don’t thank Him, since He does not like it). We’d rather the distraction that exposes the pogguti, the sinful and the pagan. It’s more familiar territory for the Kinnie & Twistees generation brought up in the shadow of Mintoffianism and Eddie’s salvationism. Discuss a program for the economic relaunching of the nation? What the hell? I’d rather discuss the sinful qualities of divorce.

And the PLPN are heading towards the 10th legislature since Independence. In this country thinking different is the norm, and the norm is being divorced from reality.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Divorce Mediawatch Politics

Marriage (Behind Closed Doors)

Our “President Emeritus” (sic – the Times)  hath spoken: “It is good we are still bound to the principle that marriage is for life and we should be proud of this” – quoth he. Dr Fenech Adami reminded the world that marriage was a contract that bound the individuals for life and this was the principle at stake in the divorce debate. More importantly he rubbished the very strong pro-divorce argument that Malta only has the Philippines as it’s divorce-less partner (should I say wife?).

If you believed men like our “President Emeritus” you’d probably believe that the pro-divorce movement is only in favour of introducing divorce in order to be like others and not for the simple reason that they consider the right to marriage to essentially mean the right to a happy marriage in the long run.

Of course every marriage has its ups and downs but the Vatican-Malta-Philippine triangle would have it that no matter how “down” is “down” in that ups and downs bit, the “till death do us part” has to trump every other consideration. Fenech Adami is right – the basic principle at stake is the whole concept of indissolubility – marriage is marriage for life. Like giving animals as presents: it’s not just for Christmas/weddings but for life.

We all know that being pro-divorce does not mean wanting to better the Philippines or the Vatican State. It means opening a door to those people whose marriage has irretrievably broken down. It means a fresh start. It may not be a civil right in the strict sense of the term but living a happy marriage is an essential building block that inspires many of the civil rights recognised universally. Hiding behind closed doors while the broken couples continue to experience hideous realities without ever seeing a breakthrough is what Fenech Adami is proud of.

In terms of civil rights you can call it sweet F.A.

I wonder what the “President Emeritus” would make of this front page story on l-Orizzont:

TEJPS JĦINU SEPARAZZJONI
Il-Qorti tal-Familja laqgħet it-talba ta’ mara għas-separazzjoni minn ma’ żewġha, wara li fost oħrajn semgħet tejps li fihom ir-raġel jinstema’ jidgħi u joffendi lil martu. It-tejps kienu rrekordjati minn oħt il-mara li toqgħod fl-istess triq t’oħtha.

Il-mara talbet għas-separazzjoni għax skont hi żewġha ma kienx jistmaha. Skont hi, wara xahrejn miżżewġin huwa faqa’ l-bieb tal-kamra tal-banju, tliet snin wara kisser il-bieb tal-kamra tas-sodda u jumejn wara t-tkissir tal-bieb beda jkisser affarijiet fil-‘wall unit’.

B’kollox qalet li bidlet il-bieb tal-kamra tal-banju tliet darbiet, is-siġġijiet tal-kċina darbtejn u l-ħġieġ tal-‘wall unit’ kemm-il darba.Hija sostniet li binhom kien iqum bil-lejl jibki tant li kellha tieħdu għand il-professur li qalilha li binha kellu biża’ kbira.

Minbarra hekk sostniet li żewġha kien jheddi­dha li joqtolha, jqattagħha, jitfagħha f’għalqa u ħadd ma jsibha, li kien joffendiha b’ommha mej­ta u li kienet tarah f’għalqa ta’ ħuh ma’ tfajla u li darba sabitlu qalziet ta’ mara li ma kienx tagħha. Hija ppreżentat ukoll ittra li r-raġel tagħha allega­tament kiteb lil turista Ġermaniża fejn jgħi­dilha li jħobbha.

Fil-kawża xehdu wkoll xi ġirien, fosthom familjari tal-mara, li lkoll qalu li kienu jisimgħu lir-raġel jidħol lura d-dar fis-sakra u kienu jisimgħuh jidgħi, jgħajjas, isabbat u jitkellem ħażin. Fost dawn kien hemm oħtha li ippreżentat it-‘tapes’ fejn ir-raġel jinstema joffendi lil oħtha.

Xhud importanti kien it-tifel tal-koppja fejn dan qal li sa minn meta kellu sitt snin jiftakar lil missieru jirritorna d-dar fis-sakra, jidgħi, isabbat u jkisser. It-tifel qal li huwa kien jiekol fil-kamra tiegħu għax kien jibża’ jinżel isfel minħabba missieru u li missieru kien jgħajjru, joffendih u anke jgaralu l-affarijiet. (continue reading here)

Tinkwetax hanini. Ahseb kemm hemm nisa bhalek fil-Filippini. Dawk ukoll ghandhom kont il-bank biex ihallsu ghall-bibien. U meta tisma’ r-ragel jidghi ghid talba ghar-ruhu u ghal min ghandu mejjet.. fejn taf forsi ghad xi darba jilluminawhom lil tal-Vatikan?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Divorce Politics

The "IVA" Deception

JPO is happily heading a coalition of sorts that will campaign for the introduction of divorce. While it is definitely encouraging that persons from both sides of the parliamentary divide can join with social powers that have been stonewalled out of the institution thanks to the PLPN rules it would seem that the very participants are blissfully unaware of how this IVA business can turn into a great deception.

It is one thing to form a movement that lobbies for the introduction of divorce and another to choose a slogan that is an evident throwback to the referendum moments pre-EU accession. I am sure that I will be called the eternal cynic in this respect and that the excuse that “some effort is better than no effort at all ” will be thrown back at me in full force but the advocates of this new IVA movement should be made aware of the constitutional (and marketing) pitfalls of their arrangement.

By orienting their movement to a referendum style formation the IVA for divorce group has already conceded valuable ground in the battle for the introduction of the divorce. They are virtually admitting that this will have to be a majority decision in the form of a referendum and/or consultation of the people. They are allowing the parties in parliament to do what they do best – i.e. abdicate from any responsibility of legislating for divorce as they should have done decades ago.

Instead JPO & friends give the impression of being much more interest in the limelight afforded by this discussion than by the actual force of their argument. Divorce is not a majority question. The Bonnett Balzans of this world may come back at divorce arguments with the fire and brimstone philosophy but the endline in a normal democracy operating in normal conditions would be for the parliament to legislate and allow for a legal possibility that has long been missing in our juridical system.

Instead we have IVA. And IVA to what? As we have pointed out previously under Maltese law we do not have a propositive referendum. Should we have a referendum on the matter that would probably come AFTER parliament introduces a law on divorce – because our law allows for abrogative referenda: a referendum asking the people whether they want to abrogate (cancel, annull, remove) a law that has been enacted. In which case the answer for the IVA movement should be LE (no, I do not want the divorce law removed) and not IVA. Quite a quandary no?

But of course the PLPN will play along with the whole idea of a consultative referendum. It pays them because they can blame “the people” for whatever decision is taken in the case of divorce. We might have JPO & friends to thank for any eventual cock up…

Categories
Divorce Politics

CMB and the Marriage Certificate

There’s a logical leap in Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici’s article in today’s Times (The burden of public interest on indissolubility of marriage) that has escaped the attention of the many anti-divorce campaigners who have been linking the article all over facebook. CMB is eager to explain the stake the state has within the boundaries of private marriage – he has to be clear why the state believes in the tool of indissolubility as being the best bet for civil society’s sanity. To get to the point of arguing on the importance of indissolubility of marriage for the public interest, CMB has to justify the interference of the state in the first place: why does the state care whether or not marriage can be dissolved or not?

Aha. And that is where the quick gloss by CMB is glaringly obvious. CMB tells us:

The state should not in any way be involved in the decision to enter into that union and in the choice of marriage partners. The state registers a marriage and recognises certain rights of the parties.

This is not to say that the state has no stake in the stability of marriage, because it is within stable marriages that its future citizens are nurtured and brought to maturity in the best possible way and because the spouses in a stable marriage are not distracted unduly from their normal civilian working life.

Q.E.D. right? Not really. If you really were to follow CMB’s logic to its conclusion then the first part of his statements is built on a deceitful assertion. The state cannot suddenly develop an interest in the success or otherwise of a marriage ONLY once it has been sealed. CMB feigns a passive role of the state until the marriage union is sealed – it recognises the union and certain rights of the parties. Then – only then – according to CMB does the state develop a stake in the stability of marriage. This stake is supposedly because the spouses should not be distracted unduly from their civilian working life.

Why not before the union then? What stops the state from ensuring that its stake in the civil union is safeguarded? How? Well by making sure that its citizens about to engage in the union are fully prepared to do so – that they can guarantee a stable marriage that “nurtures and produces the maturity that does not distract from their civilian working life”.

If CMB were serious about the role of the state as he describes it, then his kind of logic would lead to marriage permits and marriages being sanctioned by the state. The state would be able to tell you whether or not you are allowed to marry in the first place – based on suitability. If the state’s role is in trying to ensure the stable, mature etc marriage then it should do so in full. Imagine that. Imagine criteria for stable marriages – the certificate of a suitable wife and husband who will contribute to society.

It would not work would it? And maybe that’s the very same reason why the state has no business imposing indissolubility on the marriage contract. It cannot decide for the parties if they are willing to move on and try again. CMB’s logic is false because it is built on a false assertion about the motives of the state. The problem of CMB is that his logic is in a twist because no amount of legal philosophy will justify the denial of divorce rights. He cannot declare his ultimate motivation at the end of the day because it has nothing to do with laws and civic duty. It is a fettered discretion based on his private beliefs.

Categories
Divorce Politics

Break Up

Tabloid Warning. It’s the Daily Mail speaking but it does quote YouGov research so I guess the material is “discussable” on an ephemeral level. The Daily Mail carries an article that claims that lack of love and (lack of) sex is driving the over-50s to divorce. Within the context of the whole divorce debate in Malta which does not shy away from throwing in the issue of whether divorce legislation causes marriage break-ups it is interesting to look at the list of troubles that married couples face – one can presume that these troubles exist with or without divorce.

  • 28% – emotionally cold
  • 27% – lack of commitment to marriage
  • 25% – lack of interest in physical relationship
  • 23% – inability to resolve or manage conflict
  • 23% – other
  • 14% – nagging
  • 13% – met someone else
  • 12% – abandonment
  • 11% – alcohol/drug addiction
  • 10% – nothing to talk about
  • 9% – difficult relationship with step-children
  • 9% – not contributing enough financially
  • 8% – job that made things difficult

Recently someone dropped a comment on a newspaper discussion board comparing the relationship between divorce and marriage to that between funerals and death. The import was obvious – funerals do not cause deaths but inevitably take place following a death. As a prelude to the discussion on whether a referendum is eventually a “just” solution for our society or simply the mother of all scapegoats for the “sanscouillistas” in our parliament we can spend time discussing whether divorce is actually a cause of break ups or whether there is not enough on the list already. And I have not even included Tiger Woods.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Divorce Politics

Those Influential Priests

The Church (in Malta) has spoken. Then again it has not. Seven men described by the Times as “high-profile” priests got together and fleshed out a declaration “about Conscience and Divorce”. The paper is described as follows by the Times:

The paper is a personal initiative of the priests even though some of them occupy prominent roles within the Church hierarchy. According to sources, the position paper has the tacit approval of the Archbishop who had mentioned the initiative during a meeting of the Diocesan Assembly.

So it is not exactly an official position of the Catholic Church – as, I must haste to add, neither was Said Pullicino’s Sunday Rant (although, one controversial element was its appearance on the website of the Archdiocese – giving it more than a look of tacit approval). In any case while the inner workings of the Church as to what constitutes approval or otherwise are not up to us to dicuss it would be sensible to have a clear cut statement at least confirming that whatever consitutes an authority in this corner of the world for the purposes of church business is in accord with the statement by the seven brothers in Christ.

The statement is a welcome contribution in the sense that it is a much less “fire and brimstone” approach to the social role of catholics in society. It must be handled in that manner. It is not blackmailing a catholic into submissive obedience but is reminding him his duty to use his conscience according to God’s word. The word “sin” is used once and qualified with “possibly” – a word denoting uncertainty. It’s not that simple though. For Catholics Divorce is not good – point 4 of the letter is as clear as crystal on that and I have absolutely no intention to argue with that because it is neither my business nor any other lay person’s. What this letter does contrary to Said Pullicino’s Sunday Rant is that it puts the catholic person’s decision in perspective of the society around him as well as making it clear how his conscience should deal with the issue.Incidentally the Times’ accompanying picture of the infamous billboard is not only misguiding but unfair towards the very efforts of the seven brothers to clear the air.

In a very Lutheran approach, the seven brothers ask the Catholic to look into his heart and use his own conscience at what he thinks is the best answer – as inspired by God and as they believe God’s will is for the common good. Man’s free will and choice based on informed reflection can lead him to any decision – he will have to face his own conscience when deciding if he chose based on good will, good intention and upon proper reflection. And that – may I remind you – is what applies to the practising Catholic.

Personally I have long reached the conclusion that were I a practising Catholic I would vote in favour of divorce legislation. As a practising catholic that would not mean that I am in favour of divorce or that I would use the option but that I am aware of my role in a wider society in which people with different faiths from my own are being discriminated against by this imposition of one faith’s precepts over another. On a social level the arguments for and against the evils of divorce might as well be the arguments for and against the evils of marriage. As a catholic living in a wider society that is not necessarily catholic I would feel safe in my conscience voting for the introduction of divorce legislation by way of my belief that I have a duty to contribute to the general well being of society as a whole. The possibility of divorce does not detract from that well being. In certain cases (though not all) it could even improve it. (An argument that applies for both marriage as contracted nowadays and divorce).

The seven brothers have introduced a new, important angle to the argument. They have, in a way, repaired the damage to the church’s image caused by Said Pullicino’s medieval stance. Their contribution should not only be noted by the greater society but should be used as an example. After all it is not just votes on the introduction of divorce that require greater reflection and an informed conscience.

***

Declaration about Conscience and Divorce

We, the undersigned, have all written about the introduction of divorce in Malta. Sometimes, we may have seemed to contradict each other. So we decided to meet and clarify together our ideas on conscience and divorce and on what stand Christians could take regarding the proposed legislation favouring the introduction of divorce.

We all agreed on the following points:

1. All citizens, Catholic or not, if asked to give their judgement whether they wish or not the introduction of such a law in favour of divorce have the right and duty to follow their own conscience which needs, however, to be well informed and well formed, keeping in mind the common good.

2. Catholics should strive to have a Christian outlook on the family and on marriage and, according to the teaching of Christ and the Church, witness to this in all circumstances and to strive to see it practised in all structures of society.

3. Both as citizens as well as Catholics they should work hard so that in their country there should be stable and lasting marriages, strong families bound by love and fidelity because this is of great benefit to society at large.

4. For us, Catholics, divorce is wrong whether it is permitted by civil law or not.

5. The decision of every Catholic concerning legislation in favour of divorce in order for it to be a good and responsible decision must be reached with a formed conscience and enlightened by the teaching of Christ who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life.”

6. The Catholic, who not caring about having an informed and formed conscience, decides to follow one’s whim, without seriously paying attention to the teaching of God’s Word and of the Church, but only follows one’s feelings, one’s own thoughts or personal advantage, if not also one’s prejudices, should realise that one is not doing one’s duty as a Catholic. One is responsible for such action before God and may possibly be sinning.

7. In order that as Catholics we reach a good moral judgement whether we want or do not want the introduction of divorce law we must in a responsible manner form our conscience and then decide according to this conscience.

Therefore, after trying seriously to form one’s conscience according to God’s Word and the teaching of the Church and trying sincerely to discover the whole truth and what really leads to the common good, a Catholic:

a) may either reach a right decision or may also in all sincerity reach a decision which, in itself, is mistaken. But whatever the case, one is always obliged to follow and decide according to one’s conscience,

b) may still, in spite of having all the necessary knowledge and having done everything to find the whole truth, in conscience not see why to vote against legislation favouring divorce. This one too has the right and the duty to follow what one’s conscience tells one.

c) may also see that in this matter one is faced by the choice between two situations which both in themselves are harmful to the common good. It is legitimate, in this case of conflict, for one to choose the lesser evil after prayer, reflection and sincere search for the whole truth.

8. This declaration should calm all those who are worried that among us there might be differences regarding the teaching of the Church. This declaration is meant to throw light on the moral responsibility of every Maltese regarding their conscience and regarding the common good of society when they have to take a position about a possible proposal to legalise divorce in our country.

Rev Prog Emmanuel Agius, Dean of the Faculty of Theology.

Fr Joe Borg

Fr Charlo’ Camilleri, O.Carm. Lecturer at the Faculty of Theology.

Mons Anton Gouder, Pro Vicar General.

Fr Alfred Micallef s.j.

Fr Joe Mizzi, Direttur tal-Moviment ta’ Kana

Rev Prof Peter Serracino Inglott

Enhanced by Zemanta