Church worldwide insists on civil divorce before annulment

In the United States, the Church's structural leadership does require a civil divorce before processing annulment petitions. But, all the lay faithful who are loyal to the teaching of the Magisterium do not believe that this practices is correct. According to canon law, no one with a Catholic marriage is to approach the civil forum for a divorce (or separation) until after the couple first has obtained the permission of one's local bishop for the couples particular circumstances (canon 1692, 1151-1155). No person is allowed to seek a civil divorce decree contrary to divine law, but our U.S. Church leadership never teaches this, that we can find. In the United States a number of us asked the Bishops to provide consistent teaching in this regard because in most publications, it appears that the Church has no objection to divorce in any circumstances whatsoever. We know that is incorrect. We have no-fault divorce practice here. So, a faithful reliable spouse can do nothing to stop a marital abandoner from destroying the family, taking the children and even forcing the children to live with the abandoner and the new sex partner if adultery is happening. Such abandoners walk around as if they have done nothing to offend God, natural law, or Church teaching. We find they think this way because the local Catholic structural leadership is very, very, very weak in its teaching about separation of spouses and divorce. We faithful lay people have written to Pope Benedict XVI asking for him to clarify this mess. See our story recently published on Spero News. http://www.speroforum.com/a/53488/Open-Letter-to-Our-Sunday-Visitor-A-Scandal-for-Divorced-Catholics Our Sunday Visitor: Divorce Scandal, Best Regards, Bai Macfarlane, Director Mary's Advocates

Thanks Raphael for chiming in ... I love your "Not true. the criteria are very similar but not identical." It must be my Canadian-English that is at fault. If you were in Canada I would warn you to not use that phrase in Court.    It's obvious that I have misunderstood Mr. Cassar. So, to take your example in which Spouse A files for Civil Annulment and Spouse B files with the Church Tribunal. That scenario did not occur to me. Glad you brought it up; it makes an interesting case. Here's how I look at it: Assuming that the marriage ceremony took place in Church, this is what we have: 1) Two adults -- in Malta, always one man and one woman -- both of whom are citizens or legal residents, protected equally by the Constitution, with the same rights and privileges. 2) When they first decided to marry, they had a choice of either a Civil Marriage, or a (traditional) Church wedding. 3) They decided to marry in Church. 4) Their Church wedding was recognized by the State ... and in their and everybody else's mind, blessed by God. 5) Something was not quite right, or went sour, in their marriage, and therefore 6) Spouse A seeks Annulment in the Civil Court. (If granted, both spouses will be able to re-marry in a Civil ceremony.) 7) Spouse B, (obviously agreeing that something is wrong) seeks Annulment in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal. (If granted, both spouses will be able to re-marry Civilly, or in Church.) 8) The Civil Court stops its proceedings until the Church Tribunal concludes its hearings.    Is should be crystal clear, from the above, that, there is absolutely no conflict between the State and the Church. What we have is, one person prefering the Church to decide on the validity of the marriage which was performed by the Church. Both spouses want an Annulment, but Spouse A wants to keep her peace with the Church. It should also be obvious that the spouse, who turns to the Church, does so in the hope that there can be a re-marriage in Church, according to that spouse's religious belief ... guaranteed by the Constitution.    Sorry, Raphael, your Spouse B does not have a case. Next time around, marry civilly ... or wait until Divorce is legislated.    ============================= You wrote: "Abroad, the Church itself tells you to get a divorce before it can grant an annulment (and NOT, as you suggest, before consenting to remarrying you in Church)"    Notwithstanding the criminal behaviour of some of its clergy, the Church abroad is very much a law-abiding corporate citizen. It cannot, and will not, marry two people unless both spouses are single. Being single means that each spouse is either never-married, widowed, or divorced.    The Church will ask for a Divorce if and only if either one or both of the spouses were married in Church. Remember, a non-Church wedding is not a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church, and therefore, it is automatically annulled. BUT a non-Church wedding is very much valid in the eyes of the State, and therefore a Divorce is required if a re-marriage is sought ... whether in the Church or civilly. So, the Church is asking for a Divorce before it considers Annulment. Why? Because Catholics who ask for Annulment do so with the intention of being able to re-marry in Church. , and as pointed out above, the Church cannot marry already-married persons. Also, being divorced (from a Church-performed marriage), does not mean that you're guaranteed an annulment, meaning that, you will not be able to re-marry in Church if the Annulment is not granted. AND if not already divorced, getting a Church annulment does not mean that you will be able to get a Divorce -- that's a different ball-game refereed by the State.    The Church, like all other institutions, has limited resources at its disposal. The Annulment process is long and costly to both the Church and the applicant. It would be futile to engage in such an exercise if its outcome does not qualify the applicant for re-marriage in Church. ►An Annulment does not qualify you for re-marriage, not even in Church, unless there is also Divorce because, no matter who performs the marriage cermony, including priests, they are acting on behalf of the State.◄    In Malta, as Meddi has pointed out, getting a Church Annulment automatically annuls the civil marriage and therefore, establish eligibility for a re-mariage (civilly or in Church). In Canada and elsewhere, one needs a Divorce before re-marriage, whether in Church or civilly.   I don't blame you for all the confusion. Hope you have stopped counting ☺

May I butt in? There is a difference ONLY if society (teachers; relatives; important others) make a big deal about offspring of divorced children or get petty about the distinction between children of parents whose marriage has been annulled and children whose parents are divorced. Incredibly petty if I may say so!! And nothing to do with the offspring either. Ultimately, it's all to do with the island's culture ... the people's mindset. I notice that even those people who are aware that the Maltese nation has been taken for a massive lala ride by the Vatican over the centuries, its muddled teachings still have an incredibly deep hold on the Maltese psyche. It might take time before Malta becomes a nation of individuals free to make their own moral decisions based on integrity rather than muddled ecclesiastical guidance (not) !!. That's a huge step ... and it is the real challenge which lies ahead for all of us. Here's to letting go of mama church and growing up with integrity :-)

CJohn Zammit I have lost count of the errors in your comments below. 1. 'Both the Civil Court and the Church Tribunal use the same set of criteria to assess whether or not a marriage is valid.' Not true. the criteria are very similar but not identical. 2. You totally misrepresented the situation vis-a-vis Church versus state annulments. The real situation is: Spouse A files for Civil annulment; spouse B applies for Church annulmemt; by virtue of the 1995 concordat, the Civil procedures MUST STOP until the church annulment procedures are finalised. So yes, the Church tribunal does trump the civil one. Every time. 3. Bearing in mind that the Church tribunal - which takes precedence over civil - operates on canon law and that representation is limited to lawyers approved by the Church, you have a situation where a person can indeed be deprived of a lawyer of their choice is a case which has a direct bearing on civil law. 4 - most important of all - the article above points towards the difference in attitude between the Church in Malta and everywhere else. In Malta the Church applies enormous pressure to convince everyone that divorce is a sin, and beyond even the contemplation of a Catholic. Abroad, the Church itself tells you to get a divorce before it can grant an annulment (and NOT, as you suggest, before consenting to remarrying you in Church) It's really not that difficult to understand.

There is no difference. the difference is , will be, that seperation stays legally married. which the law (or better who made that law , is ridicolous) cause oen part may already have a new family. annulment is the same for kids. the mariage will be null. still that woman will be the mother still that man will be the father. They are like just other kids who were born out of mariage, nothing wrong with that. The most important thing is, that the marriage will be ended!

Can I ask a simple question: Where is the evidence that states that the emotional and psychological consequences of children coming form annulment are significantly different and better than those coming from divorce? If the difference is nill, then any conceptual difference is trivial.

CJZammit ... Oh yes, I agree, my discussion detracts somewhat from the main concerns of the article. The comparison of Malta with other countries may not be the right way to go about it because unlike the US and most European countries, 90 something per cent of the Maltese population call themselves Catholics. The intimacy of church and state has been very strong down the centuries. This is clearly not the case in other European countries where divorce must precede annulment. At the same time, this does create a very serious anomaly because it means the church is not as universal (catholic) as some people would like to believe. The fact that this bond between church and state is being re-examined provides an incredible opportunity for open and honest discussion leading to an increased awareness that this small nation-state does not have to be bound by its oppressive religious past. It is time to rediscover self empowerment and a mature self responsibility (at both the State and the individual level). This also means honest accountability for the needs of others. In brief, the church does not have a monopoly over moral laws for the whole of humanity. The way we conduct our affairs and the way we relate to others, our perceptions and our behaviours are linked to our state of spiritual evolution. Unfortunately, the Church and its fuddled canon law sometimes (if not often) serves to seriously stifle rather than assist spiritual growth. Here’s to the nation's self empowerment and self responsibility!

Marisa, your heart is in the right place, but what you have written is irrelevant to the main point of the author of the article. So is Haha's.   @Kenneth Cassar Meddi is correct. You are misinformed. I will not comment on what should be, but on what is ... the reality of today. To the average person, Annulment and Divorce mean the same thing: "Bye babe. (It's been hell.)"   But there is a huge difference between those two terms. Annulment deals with the validity of marriage. For any one of a number of reasons, a marriage can be found to be invalid from its very beginning, or as they love to say in Latin, ab initio.   Both the Civil Court and the Church Tribunal use the same set of criteria to assess whether or not a marriage is valid.   Here, it's best to reapeat an important point: The State -- anywhere in the civilized world -- can and does assign to an individual or an organization the power to perform a civil act on behalf of the State.   The Church, in Malta has the power to perform marriages. This is true everywhere else. So are other churches and sects and individuals such as a JP ("Justice of the Peace") in Canada and elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact, it affords citizens a choice.   Malta -- for hundreds of years, until very recently, all marriages were between Cahtolics and performed in a Catholic Church. So, it is no wonder that the Church presided over questions about the validity of marriage. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with the State accepting the Tribunal's decision.   You wrote: ============================================= "What I agree with is the fact that getting a Church annulment automatically qualifies one for the civil annulment". It doesn't. It completely trumps civil annulment. Get your facts right. ============================================= "It completely trumps civil annulment."   I find that statement awfully ambiguous. I take it to mean either (i) a spouse surreptitiously obtained a Civil Annulment and on finding this out, the other spouse turned to the Church Tribunal and got a Church Annulment; or (ii) the second spouse waited for the Civil Court for its judgment and then turned to the Church Tribunal for its (similar) pronouncemt. Either way, it does not make sense ... the end result is the same as far as the first spouse is concerned. (Of course, getting a Church Annulment opens the door to a Church re-marriage.)   If, on the other hand, you mean: Spouse A filed for and was granted a Civil Annulment. After that, spouse B appeals to the Church Tribunal, and the Tribunal declares the opposite, that is, the marriage is Valid. The State accepts the new verdict and voids its own judgment. Spouse A is, then, still married to spouse B.   If this is what you mean by "It completely trumps civil annulment.", and your statement is true, then we have a problem. More correctly, ► I ◄ have a problem, because it shows that I have completely misunderstood Maltese Law.   Your comment will be greatly appreciated. If Meddi is still around, I would love to hear his opinion.

That's what I mean, Eddy. The RC Church is sad, very sad ... and this seems a very good time for IT (or her - I prefer it) to have a good look at itself so that it may release those whose souls it imprisons. Even so - FOREGIVENESS not JUDGEMENT is the way forward. Let's make sure we avoid the creation of yet another viscious circle by NOT modelling our approach on that of a judgemental church .

The Curia has not replied to the question sent, because if it does, all it is doing to stop responsible divorce legislation from reaching this remaining outpost of Catholicism of medieval times, will be seen to what it truly is - holding on to the local Church's privileges and money, as retire Judge Philip Sciberras has stated publiclly ! Eddy Privitera

Sorry ... me again ... had to do BLOG NO 30 as well! I like what haha wrote...and got me going again...! It's a huge, huge shame that so many 'holier than thou' Catholics - and some of them are good people and really mean well ... are so so blind to the VIOLENCE of the RC church in the way it robs people's right to JOY, FREEDOM and LOVE - the freedom to express one's humanity ~ and to be human often means to err. This violence is expressed symbolically in the horrendous display of a crucified christ ... and sadly this is exactly what the Roman Church did to Christ's teachings - they crucified them and concocted them into something - which is barely Christian - called canon law. I FOREgive all pirests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes present and past for their cruely (deliberate or not) and their blindness ... and sincerely pray they find it within themselves to look deep inside and to FOREgive themselves too. That would be a TRUE victory for them.

DEDICATED TO C.JOHN ZAMMIT & MEDDI AND THOSE OF THE SAME ILK To ask a nation (be it small or large) to arbitrate on the granting or removal of the legal right to end a marriage contract between persons who find themselves in difficult and complex circumstances; and who may or may not be Roman Catholics by birth or by choice is not truly giving a nation the choice to choose. Here’s why... 1. The vast majority of people enter a marriage contract for life. And it is indeed the vast majority who are not likely to be aware or have any understanding of the need in a minority of cases to put a legal end to a marriage contract. 2. From this point of view the referendum can be described as a perverse move which imposes the will of the majority on a minority whose life and whose needs could be trapped unnecessarily into a marriage contract which is already null and void in a physical, emotional, mental and spiritual sense. 3. Denying this kind of truth is not only seriously unethical but is not an issue which the nation as a whole has the knowledge, experience and capacity to vote upon. Much of what goes on within a marriage is private and confidential and people who may be broken as a result of a poor marriage ought not to have to be placed in a position to justify to the public at large why a divorce is required. It is a matter of the courts to decide. 4. Legislating in favour of divorce laws is clearly a matter in the hands of the legislators who need to listen to perspectives and insights from individuals who are currently trapped between their personal realities and the false ideals which stem from a belief system which allows a third party (the RC Church) to act as an intervening party in a contract which is essentially between two people. The RC Church and the 'CONCEPT OF GOD' are two very separate issues ... look at all the religions in the world. 5. In a country which allows civil marriages, it is time to let go of this third party (which ironically consists of a hierarchy of single men who themselves have never experienced marriage) in order to free couples to enter into a marriage contract and to dissolve it freely. 6. Marriage, as an arrangement between two people, predates its codification within the canons of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, marriage as an institution was NOT invented by the church. Bearing this fact in mind, it is equally important to respect and honour the needs and values of the minority as it is important to respect those who uphold the values of the RC Church. (for those innocent amongst us ... know that the sad Romans hijacked the true Christ teachings ...indeed priests, during mass, still wear Roman soldiers' gear - same Romans that the RC church tell us killed the saviour and now the sad Church wants to make a sacrifice of us all.) 7. To ask a nation to be the judges and arbitrators of situations they know nothing about or which have not yet arisen is not only ludicrous but can potentially endanger social stability. 8. Finally the referendum is an admission that Divorce Laws are outside the church’s jurisdiction, therefore, is it fair to use the strongly held tenets of a catholic majority to overthrow the rights of a minority who find themselves in a regrettable predicament? *** Marisa *** THE CHURCH (clerics and followers) WOULD BE A BETTER INSTITUTION WHEN IT UNDERSTANDS THAT THE CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE IS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN WHOM BEING HUMAN ARE LIABLE TO MAKE MISTAKES. A SOCIETY WHICH ACCEPTS AND REDEEMS SUCH MISTAKES IS MORE CHRISTIAN THAN ONE WHICH PREPATRATES FEAR AND VARIOUS FORMS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CRUELTY BASED ON (to use Zammit's expression) 'ON A BASELESS POINT' - ( ha ha ... plenty of those within canon law...)

*x'jghamillek*

ghax ezempju int xinhi bicca tieghek , jekk hadiehor jergax jizzewweg jew le?xjghanillek hazin lilek id-divorzju , ghidilna ha nismaw ,"?"

A very interesting post in answer to Dr Austin Sammut which has not been answered. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110503/opinion/A-political-and-religious-soul.363351 Mr Tony Camilleri May 3rd, 13:30 Dr Sammut, you are a lawyer. Now answer this post from last Sunday. file:///E:/Gazzetti/Gazzetti%202011/STOM%202011/May/010511/-Church-fears-financial-loss-with-divorce-retired-judge.363116.htm "The only way separated couples can re-marry today is by obtaining an annulment. However, according to a 1995 agreement between Malta and the Vatican, Church tribunals take precedence over the civil courts in annulment proceedings if one of the spouses decides to take the case to the tribunal." This provision should be repealed. First of all we are not a Vatican colony. Secondly, well-connected people can get not only one annulment for themselves or their children, but more than one in the short span of three years while the rest of the lesser mortals will have to wait for ages and pass through hell to get an annulment if it is at all granted. Marriage does not have only religious connotations, but also civil ones. The Church should limit itself or be limited by the State to only the religious connotations and the civil connotations must be decided by the Civil Courts not the Church Tribunal. The present situation is that the Church Tribunal also decides the civil connotations because its decisions are recognized as binding on the ex-spouses and on the State, whether the church Tribunal grants an annulment or not. One extremely important issue that arises is that of res judicata which means that a judgment has become binding and can no longer be appealed. If the Church Tribunal grants an annulment, the Defender of the Bond whose job is to uphold the validity of the marriage normally appeals and if the decision is the same as that of the Court of First Instance, then the judgment is considered as a res judicata. If the decision is different, then there is another appeal so that there will be two similar decisions from three. The same can be done by any of the parties. However, this is all hogwash. Why? Because according to Canon Law, specifically Canon 1643, a decision concerning the status of persons never becomes a res judicata. Canon 1643 - Cases concerning the status of persons, especially those concerning the separations of spouses, never becomes a res judicata. It is true that this provision is to provide for instances where fraud or other evidence is later discovered that would have resulted in a different judgment as specified in Canon 1645 and to provide a remedy if it can be provided at all to the other spouse, but how can the State recognize and register a Church annulment as a res judicata at the request of one of the ex-spouses when Canon Law itself provided that such a judgment never becomes a res judicata? First of all the State recognizes the civil effects of Catholic marriages in Article 21(1) of the Marriage Act subject to certain conditions being met. 21. (1) A marriage celebrated in Malta after the coming into force of this article, in accordance with the norms and formalities established by Canon Law shall as from the moment of its celebration, be recognised and have the same civil effects as a marriage celebrated in accordance with the norms and formalities of this Act. The State, or rather the Court of Appeal, is bound to register the decision by the church Tribunal as a res judicata at the request of one of the ex-spouses. This is provided for in Article 23 of the Marriage Act. Article 23. (1) A decision which has become executive, given by a tribunal, and declaring the nullity of a catholic marriage shall, where one of the parties is domiciled in, or a citizen of, Malta, and subject to the provisions of article 24 be recognised and upon its registration in accordance with the said article 24 shall have effect as if it were a decision by a court and which has become res judicata. (2) An executive decision given by a tribunal and upholding the validity of a catholic marriage shall, where one of the parties is domiciled in, or a citizen of, Malta, and subject to the provisions of article 24 be recognised and upon its registration in accordance with the said article 24 shall have effect as if it were a decision by a court and which has become res judicata and as such shall not be subject to re-examination on the same grounds. This is the kawlata perpetrated by the PN Government when it concluded the agreement with the Church and amended the Marriage Act, Chapter 255 of the Laws of Malta to make it compatible with the agreement.

Dawwarna kollox ghal kliem tal-ligi..il-ligijiet isiru fil-parliament....Fir-referendum li gej lanqas biss ghandu gharfien legali... Jekk irridu nkunu maturi u ma ninhlewx fil-paroli vojt..nghidu ghaliex ghandna nivvuttaw le ghalix ghandna nivvuttaw iva jew ma mmorru xejn.. Jien jekk hadd ma jikkonvincini x'ihnu l-ahjar ma hux behsiebni nivvota..l-ewwelnet dan legalment ma jghodd xejn...it-tieni nett ghadni ma nifhem xejn x'inhu l-ahjar ghal malta ..jien minn malta jimpuratani...u fuq kollox nemmen li ligi ghandha tghaddi mil-parliament wara li jkun sar studju kif suppost minn nies li jifhmu... Fuq il-knisja...din ma ghandha l-ebda problema ghax cara xi trid...min irid jircievi s-sagrament darba sal-mewt ta xi hadd mit-tnejn.punto e basta... Fuq deborah schembri jmissa tisthi li thallat u titkellem fuq kif inhuma l-ligijiet ta' kull pajjiz..qed nghid imissa tisthi ghax din avukat u taf x'inhi s-sistema legali u suppost tahdem skond dawn is-sistemi.. u taf ukoll li legalment dan ir-referendum am ghandu l-ebda sahha imma jekk trid tidhol il-ligi din trid tghaddi mill parliament bhal kull ligi ohra u jekk ikun il-kaz referendum jkun legali jekk ikun abroggativ u skond ir-regoli mghoddija mil-parliament.

I believe that every maltese citizen knows and has the right to live his/her life. All must vote according to his/her own conscious( If it's free from religious or political) . I Believe that the maltese citizens do not need neither the goverment neither the Roman catholic church to tell him/her what is good and what is not good in their lives. Also who have a good marriage and will vote NO to divorce , I am sorry but I will keep on saying it" Either you have a bad marriage yourself, or you have no love in your heart". Also I hard the minister Carm Mifsud bonnici, speaking about the "Pogguti Law" What on earth are we hearing? that law is non sense, just leave ppl live their lives with remarriage, I am sorry but you are all disgusting, you are all pretending to be saints, that your *raggiera is visible upon your heads, one way ticket to heaven you are all going straight up rest assured" Disgusting , bil-malti aktar ma titkellmu hekk fil-parlament akat nghidilkom JAQQ! IPOKRITI. Malta must be a real secular state, if not, than there can never be equal rights.

@ Meddi: "I have no idea why I'm getting flak for my comments". Perhaps its because, even after having been corrected, you keep repeating a lies or half-truths such as: "If one wishes to get a civil annulment, one can do so without ever involving the Church". WRONG. If one of the spouses wants a church annulment, the other (only in Malta) does not even have the right to apply for a civil annulment. "What I agree with is the fact that getting a Church annulment automatically qualifies one for the civil annulment". It doesn't. It completely trumps civil annulment. Get your facts right. "However like yourself, I find it complicates matters for those who do not wish to involve the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, but their 'spouse' decides to do so". No, it does not complicate matters. It makes it impossible to apply for a civil annulment as should be everyone's right. "In this case, the Ecclesiastical Tribunal 'overrides' the civil court, you're right. And for this reason you think I'd agree with 'the lack of freedom in Islamic theocracies'? X'ghandu x'jaqsam?". No, it would mean that you agree with the lack of freedom in Maltese semi-theocracy.

@ Meddi: "Those who want a civil annullment are still free to do so!...This does not mean that one HAS to annull the Church marriage in order to get an annullment from the State. Seriously people, use some sense". Wrong. If one of the spouses opts for a church annulment, the other has no say in the matter. Seriously, Meddi, use some facts.

I don't think the new generation are the same as the the fifties and sixties,to believe what the church is saying. PS you don't have to re- marry in church.

It is amazing! incredible !and unbelievable ! the lies and cover ups the church will go to to keep the citizens of this country under their claws for their own gain .it is clear and simple this anti movement by the church is all about money and power and nothing to do with Christs teaching .. Vote for freedom for civil rights and we can move on to the 21st century for Gods sake!

With the exceptin of Meddi, the rest are arguing from a baseless point. Like the article itself, the arguments are based on misconceptions.     Frist, in the rest of the civilized countries where polygamy is illegal, such as in Canada where I live, it is the State that demands a divorce before a subsequent marriage. The (Roman Catholic) Church is doing nothing more than abiding by the Law of the land.    Second, in a situation where a couple seeking annulment from the Catholic Tribunal, it is important to note that: Their marriage must have taken place in Church, otherwise, there is no need for an annulment because the Church does not recognize any other form of marriage. In fact, if this couple were married outside the Church, there will be no need to apply for an annulment ... it is automatic because, in the eyes of the Church, their marriage never took place ... but ... for them to (re-)marry in Church, they would have to produce proof of their Divorce as required by Law -- remember, even though the Church does not recognize a civil marriage, the Law does, and the Law prohibits married citizens to marry again while still married to a spouse. The Church has no choice but to insist on the evidence of the couple as being eligible, under the Law, to marry.    Back to Malta ... the Civil Law trumps Canon Law. Yes, it does ... always! So, why is that, to quote from the article, "Church annulments taking precedence (in some cases) over civil annulments – in the sense that all civil procedures immediately have to stop the moment one of the spouses unilaterally files for a Church annulment."?    To put that in perspective, one must remember that both spouses have the same rights under the Consttution and therefore, if one prefers the Civil Court, the other has an equal reight to prefer the Church Tribunal. And ... as everywhere else, including in Canada, the State can and does empower certain individuals and institutions to carry out certain civil acts, such as, performing the marriage ceremony. In Malta, the State recognizes marriages performed by a Catholic priest, just as Canada does. Malta also recognizes an Annulment granted by the Church Tribunal just as if it were granted by the Civil Court ... for good reason: To get married, a couple needs to first obtain a Licence to marry. This license is then exercised through either a civil the marriage ceremony, or a Church wedding. Either way, it is recognized by the State.    If, then, some time later on, an annulment is sought, if it was a civil ceremony, the Church will not play a part. If it were a Church wedding, then it is only logical that the Church is the arbiter IF one of the partners requests it.    Let's take a look at a possible situation: Peter and Mary get married in a civil ceremony. Peter and Mary then decide to end their marriage. Without Divorce-law, their only option is a Civil Annulment. Their situation barrs them from a Civil Annulment. They settle for a Legal Separation and go their separate ways. Each becomes involved with a devout Catholic (no-marriage-no-hanky-panky). Each decides to become practicing Catholics. Each applies to their Parish Priest to be married in Church. ►In the eyes of the Church, their previous marriage never existed just as if it were annulled.◄ The Parish Priest will say: Sorry, I can't marry you, because you are still legally married. Get a civil annulment first! And if Divorce were legislated, that same Parish Priest would add, "or, Divorce!", just like in Canada and everywhere else in the civilized world.

Firstly, what is incredible about this debate is that people would want to involve a third party (the church) in their marragie contract. Perhaps it's not GOD that puts two persons together, perhaps it merely a hirearchy of men. Secondly, those couples who are brave enough to allow a hierarchy of men to be the intervening third party to their marriage contract surely ought not to be scared or to be affected by divorce laws. Clearly, with or without divrorce laws, they will uphold the sacrament of marriage. Right? Thirdly, does anyone at all has a God given right to deny divorce which - according to the muddled teachings about marriage and annulment - has no value whatsoever? What is the REAL ISSUE here? What exactly does the anti-divorce lobby want? If a 'sacrament' cannot be undone, divorce laws cannot undo it. Right? One final appeal - please Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself - give him / her the freedom to choose - - - - God almighty does.

@ Meddi - there you go you've said it. You disagree with the lack of freedom in Islamic theocracies... and in the same breath applaud the submission of civil law to canon law. Because my dear sir that is what your first post sounded like. You actually made this state of affairs appear oh so convenient for everyone - a one stop shop - how very nice of them. Please note no one is flacking you - I merely questioned the reasoning behind your first post. Ha Ha, in your second post you flacked back - telling us to use some sense. I assure you we do it all the time - which is why we do not accept platitudes and spin.

I have no idea why I'm getting flak for my comments. All I'm doing is stating the facts which Mr. Falzon has kindly quoted from the current laws. I haven't offered any opinions. In simple words: - If one gets a Church Annulment, one automatically gets a civil annulment. - If one wishes to get a civil annulment, one can do so without ever involving the Church. @incredulous: I never said anything about giving power to religious entities. Please explain? @Gecko: What I agree with is the fact that getting a Church annulment automatically qualifies one for the civil annulment. However like yourself, I find it complicates matters for those who do not wish to involve the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, but their 'spouse' decides to do so. In this case, the Ecclesiastical Tribunal 'overrides' the civil court, you're right. And for this reason you think I'd agree with "the lack of freedom in Islamic theocracies."? X'ghandu x'jaqsam?

@Meddi again. Yes sir I am using more than some sense. Sadly it is you who insist on being simplistic. The state of our law as it is lays down that if one party chooses to resort to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal the other party has to follow and civil annulment proceedings either cannot start or are stopped the minute that happens. This would apply even in cases where one of the parties is not Catholic (although that party may have agreed to a church wedding) or to a party that has since become a lapsed Catholic. But my point is - do you really see nothing wrong with the state of the law as it is today? Do you see nothing wrong with the fact that Maltese citizens are forced to go through a church annulment if one of the parties chooses to go there? Shouldn't they at least have the right to proceed with their civil annulment if that is there wish? More so since according to church canon they don't even have the right to a lawyer of their choice once the other party drags them in there? And don't tell me these things don't happen - they just did!

Second Supplementary Protocol 1. The judgements issued by the ecclesiastical tribunals on matrimonial annulment in favour of the validity of marriage which are not subject to appeal or which have been confirmed upon appeal including mutatis mutandis [=any necessary changes which have been made to] the judgements in cases [as outlined] of Article 6.b.(i) of the Agreement are recognized for all legal purposes in Malta and shall be reckoned as res judicata [= matters already judged, i.e., not subject to any kind of appeal – the final word has been given] and not subject to revision on the same grounds by civil courts provided that the Court of Appeal was composed according to the norms laid out in Article 5.(b) of this Agreement. The same Court as outlined in Article 8 of the Agreement shall not proceed to any re-examination/review of the merits of the case. 2. When a request to obtain a declaration of annulment of a marriage is presented to the civil court, the judge shall assess his competence as set out in Article 4.1 of this Agreement and Paragraph 1 in this Protocol. The present Supplementary Protocol forms an integral part of the Agreement relating to the acknowledgement of the civil effects of canonical marriage and all decisions made by ecclesiastical Authorities and tribunals dealing with the said marriages, signed between the Holy See and the Republic of Malta on 3 February 1993. Drawn up in Valetta, Malta, 3 February 1993 in duplicate copy of the original in Italian and English, both being equally authentic. For the Holy See For the Republic of Malta Pier Luigi Celata Guido de Marco

@Meddi, how about doing away with the civil courts altogether then and granting all sorts of powers to all religious entities the world over. By your logic, no problem with that is there? I can't decide whether your comments are chronically naive or chronically laughable, since you clearly have no idea that civil issues SHOULD NEVER be based on belief systems. Use some sense yourself.

Article 2 1. The marriage act must be communicated to the Civil Registrar for the due registration of the wedding within five days of the celebration of the marriage. 2. Should the communication of the act of marriage not be effectuated within the stipulated period, it falls to the duty of the Parish Priest to do so as soon as possible. The marriage partners, or at least one of them, has always the right under any circumstances to insist on such a communication. Any delay in the marriage notification shall not prevent its registration. 3. Once the provisions laid down under Article 1 have been satisfied the Director of the Public Registry shall register the act of marriage at the earliest possible opportunity and shall give written notice to the Parish Priest. Article 3 The Republic of Malta recognizes in all cases the civil effects within the terms of the present Accord of any ruling to annul and of decrees to ratify any annulment of marriage issued by ecclesiastical tribunals which have come into effect.

A very well researched article. It seems that we are unique not only in opposing the introduction of divorce but also in the way annulment procedures are conducted. We seem to live in a timewarp as the last of the dodos. Just like the Galapagos islands and the pigmy beasts found in Ghar hasan we have isolated ourselves from the real world and on our little old rock we still live in a creationist world which never evolves. This is Malta and upon this rock time stands perversely at a standstill maintaining a fossilised church.

Article 1 1. The civil effects of marriages celebrated in Malta according to the canonical norms of the Catholic Church are recognised from the moment of their enactment provided that: (a) a marriage certificate has been issued by the Registrar for Marriages following the publication of banns in accordance with the requirements of civil law, or an exemption from the same has been granted and that the certificate constitutes definitive and incontrovertible proof of the validity of the banns or exemption from the same; (b) the local Parish Priest where the marriage has was celebrated informs the Public Registrar in written original copy of the act of marriage in the form established by mutual agreement between the Above Parties and that it be signed by the Ordinary of the Parish Priest or his Delegate, who has been present at the marriage ceremony. 2. The Holy See takes note that the Republic of Malta recognizes the civil effects of canonical marriage when there is no impediment to the marriage union between the contracting parties according to civil law which would provide grounds for an annulment of the marriage which the same civil law considers binding and not dispensable.

Those who want a civil annullment are still free to do so! All I said is that by getting a Church Annullment, one automatically annulls the civil marriage. This does not mean that one HAS to annull the Church marriage in order to get an annullment from the State. Seriously people, use some sense.

@meddi. So do you really mean to tell me that you see nothing wrong with the fact that the church has power over civil annulments? You see nothing wrong with the Catholic Church having power over all Maltese citizens even if they are non Catholic? Nice spin you give it, as if the church is doing us all a favour offering a one stop shop! Honestly this beggars belief! I bet you are very vociferous about shariya law and the lack of freedom in Islamic theocracies.

The Church is a social institution and like any other social institution it has a right and an obligation to voice its concerns and to debate issues. However it has neither the right to impose nor to twist and squash the truth to get its way...this is far far away from what Christ did while on earth. Indeed, Christ was first and foremost a social reformer, a catalyst of change and not a social Conservative and he spoke the truth but never held grudges against those who did not agree with him...unlike the local Ecclesiastical authorities who are ready to fill us with fear and guilt just to satisfy their bloody quest for power and control!!

Thank you FEHMAWVUCI. Sometimes I feel like a voice in the wilderness.

No wonder the inner political circle of politicians that has been bending over backwards to appease the Curia are against the divorce in Malta. Especially those who obtained not one, not two, but three annullments for their families. Since the Catholic Church around the world demands a civil divorce as a pre-requisite to process an annulment, what happens to those annulments in Malta that did not follow this procedure? Another contrete evidence how the Maltese Curia continues to enslave their Maltese congregation by withholding the truth from them. A vote for divorce is a vote for Malta to move forward in this 21st.Century and a clear victory for the Maltese people to send a message to the Curia to stay out of the state civil rights.

The Church has the power to annul civil marriages???? Only in Malta????? Give me a break. What is this the Taliban?

I can vouch for the accuracy of this information. I was married in Malta and obtained an annulment in Canada. When I applied for my annulment I was instructed to obtain a divorce first, because the Church cannot issue an annulment until there is a legal divorce. I was also told that divorce does not result in an impediment from participation in the Eucharist and the sacraments. It upsets me to no end to see all this controversy in Malta. Oqbra Imbajda.

@author In reply to your question to the Curia: It is not only the Church in Malta which is against divorce, as you seem to imply, but the entire Roman Catholic Church. Simply because a civil divorce is required in order to finalise the Catholic annullment in other countries, does not mean that the Church is in favour of divorce. You have mentioned the reason of why this is needed yourself in the article. Secondly: The Church in Malta is different than the Church in other countries since instead of requiring a divorce decree, it automatically annuls your civil marriage too! The Church abroad does not have the power to annull civil marriages as is the case in Malta (if one is married both civilly and with the Church, and manages to get an anullment from the Church) And this is the reason why it requires a civil divorce, "as evidence that the parties will not reconcile." So it is not the case that the Church in Malta "turns the internationally recognised procedure on its head", but rather it makes it easier for couples who get a Church annullment, since it automatically annuls their civil marriage as well, which is not possible abroad.

There you go! I'm sure we won't hear of Fr Colin Apap again...not until the referendum is over at least :)