|
Malta remains one of the very few countries in the world where divorce is not legalised.
The issue of divorce was first mentioned in the 1960’s when the then Labour Party led by Mr Mintoff battled for the separation of state and church. Civil marriage was one of the issues on the party’s agenda. As a child, then, I remember the parish priest preaching about how divorce would naturally follow civil marriage with all its inherent evil. Civil marriage was at last introduced in 1975. This marked the beginning of secularisation in Malta, rather late when one considers that many European countries had gone through this centuries earlier. The harsh and bitter experience suffered by the Labour party supporters left the party wary. Divorce became the unmentionable issue.
In the beginning of the 1980’s I was involved in a women’s pressure group urging for changes in the civil laws regarding the status of women in the family. The participants who attended the workshops we used to organise about the proposed changes were mainly women and men who had gone through the pains of separation and were cohabiting with their partners. They wanted divorce because as common law wives, the laws then, afforded them, especially women, no protection. Many used to express fear of destitution when their partners died. Thus a small lobby for the legalisation of divorce was formed. It failed to grow as divorce was still considered a taboo issue by the media and the two main political parties.
Since then we have become full members in the EU where divorce has existed for ages. More civil and mixed marriages are taking place and more marriages end on the rocks sometimes only after a few months of married life. I have the impression that not all the separated couples, young and not so young, have become celibate and a good number have steady partners. So given this scenario the obvious question is why is there no lobby for divorce? Are the Maltese happily cohabiting and having their marriages annulled? Is this divorce Maltese style?
The main political parties avoid the issue for fear of losing votes. They presume that the church is still very strong and there is no popular demand for divorce. Putting divorce in the party’s electoral manifesto would be exploited to the full by their opponents. The Labour Party knows too well the consequences of such a manifestation and the Nationalist Party would like to keep the image of defender of the church. Indeed, members of the ruling Nationalist Party have recently expressed ultra conservative views regarding certain moral matters.
Are we all hypocrites? Do we still fear the church’s interdiction? Have our political parties taken a more fundamentalist turn and prefer the accommodating status quo?
Who is afraid of divorce?
Pauline Miceli
To be or not to be. To be the only country in Europe where divorce is not allowed, or not to be and join the rest wherein it is allowed.
Those contrary to the introduction of divorce can quote sacred scripture to argue against it. But I believe that such a discussion should steer away from purely confessional and conservative argumentation. The arguments against the introduction of divorce legislation go much further than that.
For sure, the institution of marriage is under attack, the classic example being gay marriages.
Instead of further emphasising the centrality of the person and the interpersonal aspect in marriage, society is moving towards what suits the individual. It is here than the logic of divorce makes sense, and underpins the arguments of the pro movement: individualism. If the individual’s happiness is the be-all and the end-all, what right does the State and/or the Church have to intervene or interfere?
What some fail to see is that this logic goes counter to the very foundation of marriage and the best interests of society.
It is also a logic which forgets the most vulnerable, those which society has a duty to protect: children.
Of course, those in favour of the introduction of divorce mention the advantage of remarriage. But is it indeed a gain? Statistics prove that there is an extremely high failure rate for the second and subsequent marriages.
What about bringing ‘aggregate families’ in the equation? Again, statistics show that children (who, in such cases, sociologists call ‘rascals’) do their utmost to ‘spoil’ the second marriage of their parents. Children resent having their ‘new’ parent exercising rights over them. They abhor the idea of a foreigner intruding in their lives.
It is pertinent to point out that in all countries where divorce is allowed, initially it was tied down to certain conditions. Over time, these conditions were whittled down to practically zilch, leading to a ‘no fault’ divorce being granted and thus effectively reducing and debasing marriage to a mere contract which can be rescinded for whatsoever reason.
Of course, not all that is morally unacceptable should be termed illegal by the state. St Thomas Aquinas said it many centuries ago and it was restated by Cardinal (today Pope) Ratzinger in the book co-authored with Marcello Pera, ‘Senza Radici’. But it is the duty of the state to prohibit all that which creates disorder in its social fabric and undermines the common good of society. It makes a huge difference if more children are born out of wedlock than in wedlock. In the former, one might consider a legislative intervention by the state to regulate remarriages. But if, as is the case in Malta, the absolute majority of births are in wedlock, there is simply no need to contemplate divorce.
Rather than being embarrassed at being the only European country which does not permit divorce, we should be proud. We should take pride in being a country and society where our interpersonal relationships are more successful than elsewhere.
Jason Azzopardi
|
