Parliament moves to formally enact agreement reached on Church-State concordat

Parliament this evening discussed a bill that will amend the laws of Malta to reflect an agreement recently reached between Malta and the Holy See.

Upon taking office last year, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat sent a 'note verbale' to the Holy See to initiate discussions on the abrogation of the concordat signed in 1993.

Informal talks regarding the future of the 1993 Church-State agreement concerning marriage commenced when Prime Minister Joseph Muscat visited Pope Francis I at the Vatican in June.

Signed by former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami and Foreign Minister Guido de Marco in 1993, the agreement envisages a partial concession to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal over the local civil courts when it comes to the annulment of Catholic marriages.

The bill presented in parliament this evening by parliamentary secretary for justice Owen Bonnici will allow cases in the civil court to go ahead, even though a case for annulment before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal is opened.

Because of the concordat, cases in the civil court are halted until the Ecclesiastical Tribunal annuls the marriage. The abrogation of this concordat will allow the law courts to go ahead with the civil case even while at the same time seeking an annulment before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.

According to Bonnici, the amendments to the laws will ensure that citizens obtain justice: “We are making the separation between the State and the Church clear.”

Agreeing with the amendments and calling for better marriage preparation,  Opposition MP Beppe Fenech Adami pointed out that sending a message that the marriage between a man and woman has lost its social value, “would be a mistake”.

Bonnici explained that until the amendments to the law come into force, a saving clause will be included to regulate those pending cases.

According to the parliamentary secretary, a lawyer by profession, it used to take between five to six years for the Ecclesiastical Tribunal to annul a marriage. “At times, this step was used by couples to get at each other, especially when one of the two would embark on a new relationship with plans to get married again,” he said.

He insisted it was a “grave injustice” that the annulment of the Church marriage was regarded as “payback”.