It might come as a surprise to someone not familiar with Malta that, even in these contemporary times, civil and political rights are habitually discussed in relation to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Many Maltese deny that their island is a confessional state. Yet, the Catholic Church still wields formidable political weight. In what follows I shall make some reflections on Maltese Catholics and how they think and argue. These are not based on any statistical or scientific data; but simply on personal impression and feeling.

The Catholic position on divorce

To begin with, I would like to highlight something that is normally overlooked by many pro- and anti-divorce lobbyists. Although the Universal Catholic Church is against divorce in principle, its anti-divorce stance admits two notable exceptions where a valid marriage is dissolved (dissolved and not annulled, that is, declared not to have been validly contracted in the first place). Firstly, Canon Law allows (#1148) the dissolution of a valid marriage contracted between non-Catholics in which one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and the other partner leaves the marriage. This is called the “Pauline Privilege” and based on the logic of St Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians (7: 10-15).

Secondly, Canon Law also allows (#1149) the dissolution of a valid marriage contracted between a Catholic and a non-Catholic in which, after separation, the Catholic wants to marry another Catholic. Since the implementation of this divorce is reserved to the Pope, it is called the “Petrine Privilege”. It is also called the “Privilege of Faith” or the “Decree in Favour of the Faith”.

Moreover, apart from accepting the dissolution of a valid marriage in these cases, the Church also officially tolerates divorce is other cases. Paragraph 2383 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states that “if civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offence” (potest tolerari quin culpam constituat moralem).

Most members of the local anti-divorce lobby, including many an ecclesiastic, seem not to be aware of this. The Pauline and Petrine privileges show that the Universal Catholic Church already acknowledges that a valid marriage ‘may not be forever’. It is not the introduction of legislation allowing divorce in certain cases that will entail that valid marriage may not last forever.

The position of Catholics

Although the majority of Catholics in Malta do not practise most of their religious obligations and do not adhere to all Catholic moral tenets, a good number of them are very much conscious of the Church’s opposition to the legislative introduction of divorce, and this plays a part in their understanding of the issue.

Broadly speaking, the thinking patterns of Maltese lay “Catholics” can be grouped in five clusters. First, there are those who replicate the Church’s official position for mere ‘political’ or ‘pragmatic’ purposes, even though privately; in their thoughts and maybe practice; they do not take this teaching into any consideration, if not act in outright contradiction to it. These ‘political’ or ‘pragmatic’ purposes may be various; not to jeopardise a job or promotion, reputation or election to Parliament. Secondly, a number of Catholics endorse the Church’s position sincerely but unquestionably, simply because this is what the Church teaches. Next, a significant number of other Catholics ‘cold-shoulders’ the Church’s opinion and basically ‘goes its own way’, in this debate as in other aspects of life. Then, a possibly larger group of Catholics does respect the Church’s position but, when deciding on the issue, gives greater weight to personal, private, family and financial considerations (e.g. what may happen in case I, my children or other relatives find myself/themselves in this or that situation; etc). Finally, a small number of Maltese Catholics sincerely considers the Church’s teaching, but is ultimately able to make its own mind autonomously.

The Church tends to ignore the members of this last group who, while being ‘concerned Catholics’, reach conclusions that are contrary to its own. It tends to claim that one is either ‘for’ or ‘against’ divorce in each and every aspect of the issue; that one is either ‘for’ or ‘against’ the Church and/or God simpliciter. The Church fails to give proper consider to those convinced Catholics who, in this issue as in others, are aware of the distinction between Church and State; between what is moral/immoral on the one hand and what is/should be legal/illegal on the other. The local hierarchy continuously fails to engage in dialogue with these articulate Catholics. Instead, it prefers to present to all Maltese lay Catholics a one-size fits all crude and simplistic equation: “Being for divorce = being against society = being against God”.

A debate around religion

Indeed, the whole divorce debate in Malta is only indirectly related to civil or political rights. It is more about whether a Catholic might conscientiously vote in favour of the legislative introduction of divorce without committing a moral and/or religious offence. Most participants to the debate have sought to assuage or dispose of such a perplexity. Very few sought to put the debate within the more general context of civil or political rights or even of the progressive ‘Europeanisation’ of the Maltese people, and these have been largely unsuccessful in budging the general drift of the discussion.

This is of course convenient to the “no” lobbyists who, directly or indirectly, rally around the Church and its political/moral authority. To fan the fire, these contend that divorce is only the first of a concatenation of other ills that, to their mind, irreligious people are conniving to introduce into Malta as part of their stratagem to secularise the nation. These other ills include abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriage among others.

Religious quandaries

Notwithstanding, many Maltese Catholics are increasingly seeing the limits of the Church’s extremist position. There seem to be at least five reasons for this.

First, having been used to their Church traditionally ignoring social matters, they now seem to be ill at ease with the shift in emphasis in the Church’s language; arguing against divorce in terms of society’s ‘common good’, even though this ‘common good’ is not sought in other areas, and despite the fact that in other aspects of religious life only individual aspects and dimensions are considered. The same Church, which is so vociferous in its opposition to divorce, did not raise a voice of protest when a recent European proposal to increase parental leave; something that would have allowed parents to spend more time with their children and therefore strengthen family ties, was dismissed by the government and the local employers’ lobby.

Secondly, they find it perplexing that the same Church that sternly opposes the introduction of divorce seems to back legislation sanctioning co-habitation, even though prominent clerics like René Camilleri claimed that although an evil, divorce is to be preferred, as a lesser evil, to co-habitation. The same militant church which strenuously opposes divorce, claims: “The State is duty bound to regulate the right of duties of men and women who have been steadily living together even though not married … it is right that people who are engaged in such non-official but stable relationships are legally protected with regard to certain civil matters” (Doctrinal and Pastoral Note by the bishops of Malta). Legislation which sanctions divorce is said to be corrosive of family and society; legislation which regulates co-habitation and protects such couples is apparently not so!

Lay Catholics in Malta are also well aware how marriage annulments at Church tribunals are acquired, sometimes even for a second and third time. Moreover, while in the divorce debate ‘the good of children’ (simplistically assumed to lay in having the marriage of their parents ‘salvaged’; cases where children are better/worse off in their new/old families are ignored a priori) is presented as the major argument against the introduction of divorce and the right to re-marry, in the case of annulment the ‘good of children’ is never considered an argument against, at least, the right to re-marry. While one may claim that the marriage in question ‘never was’, the same can definitely not be said about the children born of such a union!

Furthermore, some cannot quite fathom how divorce can be so obnoxious to their Church when the Orthodox and some Protestants, both legitimate Christian Churches and in the case of the Orthodox Church an Apostolic Church, accept divorce as perfectly congruent with the Holy Scriptures. Not to mention the fact that various theologians (including Catholic ones) claim that the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the gospel’s passages where Jesus discusses divorce is a gross misinterpretation of His intents, ideas and language.

Finally, some of the older generations appear to distrust the Church when social and political questions crop up. Some of them are likely to recall that in the past the Church also opposed, among other things, the introduction of the sewage system, freedom of the press, taxation, obligatory schooling, woman suffrage, the official use of the Maltese language, social reforms, constitutional independence, equality in front of the law and free formal education. The only socio-political ‘novelty’ that seemed attractive to many a Maltese clergyman in the 20th century was Mussolini’s Fascism; the theory and practice of ‘the Man sent by Providence’!

One thing history seems not to have taught the local Catholic hierarchy is humility, in spite of it backing some many ‘wrong horses’ in the past. How could one otherwise explain the self-righteous nature of the Church’s language? Maybe, if the local electorate shows enough maturity in the coming referendum and votes for a separation between State and Church, the Church might give up seeking to preserve its hegemony through its alliances with the throne and, true to its vocation, seek to become the Church of the poor, the outcasts and the downtrodden.