Although many were encouraged and comforted by the reassurance given by the local Church authorities that they would not allow the divorce debate to degenerate into a fundamentalist crusade, it seems that those expecting this to be the case were sorely disappointed
Meanwhile it also seems to be a given that things can only get worse during the remaining four weeks until the divorce referendum is held.
I never questioned the right of the Church to criticise divorce, particularly since it goes against its own teaching. I have equally respected with a high degree of tolerance, the anti-divorce views of all those members of Maltese civil society, including members of our own parliamentary group.
What I found revolting and disgusting in this day and age was that this divorce issue was used to try and tilt the scales even further into the development of Malta into a theocratic state rather than a secular society as it should be in this modern, globalised era.
Even more worrying was the fact that many of the anti-divorce arguments were based on half-truths and downright lies; misinformation, the fear factor and even the politicisation of the whole debate.
While it is evident that the anti-divorce campaigners are expected to have a better-funded campaign, and have openly declared that they will welcome donations from anyone, including the Curia, we have even learnt that a parish had made unused premises available to them which the movement was using as its office.
When I said that the whole debate was politicised I chose my words judiciously.
There is no better way to describe the manner in which the motto of the campaign Flimkien għal uliedna – Together for our children was chosen.
In the words of the journalist of another leading English newspaper “the motto brings to mind two slogans used by the Nationalist Party for the referendum to join the EU and the last general election: Iva, għal uliedna u għal pajjiżna (Yes, For Our Children and Our Country) and Flimkien kollox possibbli (Together, Everything is Possible).”
While the anti-divorce movement claimed that divorce should not be even considered at this stage since no deep social impact assessment was even carried out to gauge its implications and negative effects, at the same time we were told without any scientific evidence to back it up – that according to the No Movement, children will be the worst hit by divorce.
Children were also used to justify the particular slogan chosen, particularly when the point was made that children were important in the divorce issue, because although they have the faintest voice in the divorce debate, they would be the most affected if divorce were introduced.
Those who argued this way must have surely proved to be insensitive to all the traumas many young and not so young children went through during the breakdown of their parents’ marriage which in the majority of cases eventually led to separations and annulments.
We were told that divorce would make the problem worse for those born out of wedlock, without any much regard being shown to the fact that currently almost one out of every three children were either born outside wedlock or else to cohabiting couples or by being the offspring of separated couples.
Another hackneyed argument that was used was that cohabitation was expected to increase as a result of divorce. This contrasted sharply with the point recently made by Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, who seems to have suddenly fallen very much in line with the thinking of the Nationalist Party on this issue. He recently claimed that with divorce, those who are cohabiting will be worse off, since the female partners will now be more eager than ever to re-marry while the male partners might not be that so enthusiastic about the whole idea.
I have come across various constituents who cited cases whereby relatives were urged by care workers in old people’s homes to vote against divorce otherwise they would not receive the personal attention that they were used to; a particular constituent from Msida was allegedly told by a priest who used to visit her regularly that she might as well forget all about receiving the Holy Sacraments in her home if she decides to vote for divorce.
In some religious groupings, members were told that they would not only commit a sin if they voted for divorce but even if they chose to abstain from voting.
The way the Holy Week festivities were allowed to be flagrantly used as a platform for such militant anti-divorce crusades brought back memories of the sixties when the interdett era prevailed.
I am inclined to agree with a particular political analyst who concluded that whichever way the divorce referendum goes, at day’s end the Church is likely to be the biggest loser – which is a pity since I believe that the Church in Malta carries out some sterling pastoral work and deserves better for its own flock as well as for its own good.
Without politicising my article, while having nothing but praise for all those journalists and columnists who spoke up frankly on this issue regardless of their political views, I still feel that things only took a bad turn particularly when former President Emeritus Dr Fenech Adami chose to join the fray two months ago, when addressing The Theology Students’ Association at the University Chaplaincy.
I agree with him that MPs should have voted on divorce according to their conscience, although I am not so convinced that this was the case with the PN parliamentary group, when the vote came up in the House of Representatives before the Easter Recess, even though nominally they were given a free vote in spite of the party’s own official anti-divorce stand.
Doom laden statements started following overnight in the wake of Dr Fenech Adami’s pronouncement when he warned of disaster if Malta introduces divorce while auguring that this year we should stand up and be counted in defence of the family.
It is a pity that he never dared air his views on marriage annulments and co-habitation even though from what I am told family members of his have experienced both first-hand.
After all it was Fenech Adami himself who had proposed the introduction of cohabitation legislation when he was Prime Minister – a proposal that Gonzi dropped from his manifesto, only to revive it now, without any electoral mandate, under the pretext that this formed part of the President’s Speech from the Throne during the opening ceremony of Parliament this legislature.
Last week’s decision by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal to ban pro-divorce camp chairperson Deborah Schembri by dismissing her unceremoniously from continuing to carry out her professional duties, was nothing but a pure unadulterated case of blatant discrimination. No matter how much the said Tribunal had every legal right to do so.
This decision impinged seriously on the freedom of thought and expression to criticise and disagree publicly with the courts and with the way they operate. In this day and age people including lawyers should feel free to do so without any fear of losing their jobs or assignments.
It is not for me to question the Ecclesiastical Tribunal’s application of its own rules, but when we have a situation where the decision of the Church Tribunal also affects the Maltese State one cannot but seriously start doubting how much of a secular society we happen to be living in.
No wonder that an apolitical person from Gżira told me last Wednesday that in spite of having been in the EU for almost seven years, Malta reminded him of Saudi Arabia in their pre-oil days while others argued that the Talibans were alive and well… living in Malta!
While Finance Minister Tonio Fenech has every right to express his views on divorce, the same way that other colleagues and I do, I found it totally unacceptable that this young minister opted for a fundamentalist approach when he defended all those who abused of the Our Lady of Sorrows processions by arguing that anyone who expected anything to the contrary should have not attended in the first place.
His quote that Our Lady is very sorrowful that Malta is considering divorce is lurid and manipulative. Someone with his political background and experience should know and act better.
Rather than fighting the national deficit he deserves to be at the forefront with the rest of the crusaders.
[email protected]
www.leobrincat.com
Leo Brincat is the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Sustainable Development & Climate Change