Last week I wrote that a “No” victory in the divorce referendum will set Malta back decades. And the way the anti-divorce campaigners, led by the Church, continue to talk from their self-erected pedestals confirms my line of thinking.

This week we even had Finance Minister Tonio Fenech, in his official capacity, joining the crusade against divorce with an article that, in many ways, recalls what used to happen at the time of the Inquisition, or what is happening today in Iran or Afghanistan. Lifting quotes from the Bible and taking the liberty of telling us what God and Our Lady think, he ended up repeating what the bishops said in a letter they sent to priests to prepare them for the battle against divorce. There seems to be no line between Church and State these days.

If the article he sent to this newspaper’s sister daily had not been signed, I would have thought that it had been written by a fundamentalist priest and aimed at an audience of illiterate and unintelligent people. He stopped short of calling us – those who believe in the right to responsible divorce legislation – sinners, but the implication was there. He even ended up saying that those who vote for divorce will suffer “harmful” consequences. What he had in mind was probably that we should be interdicted.

And he even said that anti-divorce campaigners have been harassed for taking the stand they have and spoke of intolerance and persecution being directed at them. I wonder who has really been harassed. Was it that public officer who was granted leave to work in favour of the “No” campaign (would someone who wanted to work for the “Yes” campaign also have been given the green light?), or Iva chairperson Deborah Schembri, who has been banned from practising as a lawyer in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal?

But I guess that, as far as Mr Fenech is concerned, what the Church does is done in the name of tolerance, whereas those who do not share the same thoughts are the persecutors.

I just hope he wrote that article in his free time, and not when he is paid to run the country’s economy and finances. I could not help but think of what happened to the US Ambassador when I read Mr Fenech’s piece – but I suppose expecting a similar outcome would be too much.

In very much the same way, the stand taken by the Church is also reminiscent of times past. In their letter to priests, published on the Curia website, the bishops speak of “irreparable consequences” for those who vote in favour of divorce. They avoid mentioning “mortal sin”, in the way their predecessors did in the 1960s, but they are saying the same thing. Their intention is to play on people’s guilt and instil the fear of eternal damnation. By going down this road, the bishops are hoping that even those who are in favour of divorce will end up voting against, or not voting at all, to avoid going against the Church’s teachings.

It is a very subtle and cunning – not to say dirty – method but, quite frankly, I do not expect anything else. The Church has traditionally always been backwards in its thinking, always believing that any evolution and progress will serve to alienate people from its traditional ways. It has always resorted to scaremongering tactics; the more people learn, the more they will question, and the Church does not like being questioned.

I will mention only one example: it took the Church 350 years to express regret over the way it dealt with Galileo Galilei. The Italian scientist had been accused of heresy and was kept under house arrest for many years until his death because he insisted that the Earth moved around the Sun. The Church, at the time, believed that it was the Sun that moved around the Earth, and would not hear otherwise. Galileo died in 1642, but it was only in 1992 that Pope John Paul II issued a declaration admitting the Church’s errors.

* * *

Speaking of John Paul II, his beatification could not have come at a better time for the anti-divorce movement.

The event is being exploited to drum up religious sentiment. We had Malta’s most popular programme, Xarabank, dedicating a full edition to the Polish pontiff, and today’s beatification ceremony will be transmitted live on the national broadcasting station.

This is the first time that PBS will be making such an effort – which comes at a financial cost – to cover a beatification ceremony involving a foreigner. The only other time it happened was when Dun Gorg Preca was declared a saint a few years ago. But that was another thing because he was the first Maltese to be canonised.

To me, going to such great lengths is just one of the many ways that are being exploited to raise religious sentiment in the weeks leading up to the referendum. I am sure that those listening to the transmission will hear various comments about Malta’s faith and how it should serve as an example to other countries, since it is the only European nation where divorce is not legal.

Let me give them another idea. Why don’t they get Glen Vella to wear a cross and shout le ghad-divorzju at the end of his performance at the Eurovision Song Contest?

* * *

This week, we also had the anti-divorce movement launching its campaign. The slogan it chose – Flimkien ghal uliedna (Together for our children) – brings together two slogans used by the Nationalist Party in recent campaigns. In 2003, the PN had used “for our children” in its campaign for European Union membership and, for the 2008 election, it used “together everything is possible”.

So it is easy to see who is behind the “No” movement, and I see it as another subtle and dirty attempt to rope in those Nationalist voters who are in favour of divorce. By using a slogan that brings back memories of past PN victories, the slogan is blatantly aimed at encouraging Nationalists not to go against their Party’s stand.

It is a pity that, once again, the anti-divorce movement has stooped so low, even going as far as exploiting children.

Voters should remember that the referendum on divorce has nothing to do with politics, nor with faith, but is a matter of civil rights.

* * *

The anti-divorce movement has expressed its chagrin that no studies have been carried out on the impact of divorce on the family.

Are they serious?

How can there be an analysis on the impact of divorce when we do not have divorce yet? It’s like being asked to say whether a plate of spaghetti is delicious, inedible or in-between without being given the chance to taste it.

* * *

“The strong marriages we have in Malta right now will definitely weaken if divorce is legalised,” said anti-divorce movement chairman Andre Camilleri.

Having a situation where one in every five marriages is collapsing doesn’t exactly mean that marriages are strong. But what Dr Camilleri is implying is that divorce will push couples to a parting of the ways even if they have no reason to do so. What he is trying to say is that people with a strong marriage will simply divorce just because divorce is available.

I can’t believe such puerility.

But, then again, numbers are not important. Whether it’s one or a million couples who want a divorce, they should have the right to obtain one. Dr Camilleri – and all those around him – has the right not to divorce their spouses, but they should not be telling others what to do with their lives. That is outright selfish.

With or without divorce, couples will continue to break up. Divorce just offers them the chance to start afresh with someone new, and put that relationship within a legal framework.