The divorce referendum campaign, now in its final stage, has been marked by misinformation, twisting of facts and half-truths.

It has, above all, been characterised by a veritable barrage of vituperation against the Church and the Catholic faith. The Church has been accused of conducting a crusade against the introduction of divorce in Malta, when in fact the ‘crusade’ has been carried out against the Church.

The Press in Malta has been dominated by anticlerical, ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ writers who have been harping for years about the ‘need’ of a divorce law for Malta. But in their writings on divorce they have shown an astonishing intolerance towards the Church.

If someone holds prayers for family unity, and if some priest dares make some comment against divorce, these are quickly labelled “corrupt practices”. When a parish priest put up a poster saying “God does not want divorce” it was billed as “outrageous”. Bishop Mario Grech’s forthright spelling out of the duty of Christians and how they should behave, and even the Bishops’ joint pastoral letter, issued last Saturday, have similarly provoked a storm of criticism and bile against the Church.

But when some priest or former priest seems to say something which sounds at variance with the teachings of the Church, something which these writers can use to their own ends – much as the devil does when quoting Scripture - then it does not matter at all that a priest has spoken about divorce.

One of the arguments trotted out by many of these writers is that the Church has no right to talk about divorce because this is a “civil right”. They conveniently forget that Malta’s Constitution, adopted in 1974, states quite clearly that “The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.”

If the teaching of the Church, given to her by Christ, the Son of God Himself, has always been that divorce goes against God’s law, then there is no doubt that the Church in Malta has the “duty and right” to say that divorce is wrong. As she has the right, whenever she deems necessary, to pronounce herself against abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriages – all of them “achievements” of so-called progressive countries.

And, after all, marriage is a sacrament of the Church and in their great majority marriages in Malta were and still are celebrated in church. Naturally every marriage has its civil effects, but this does not detract from its sacramental nature and the solemn vow which the spouses would have made to each other in front of God and of the community.

And divorce is not a civil right. What right is it which entitles you to go against a solemn promise you would have given your wife or husband to be faithful to each other “till death do us part”? What right is it to leave your wife or your husband to marry another and to break up a family by denying your children a loving and caring upbringing?

And there is no lack of ridiculous arguments to stop the Church from speaking out on divorce. A former judge recently opined that the Church in Malta is opposing divorce “because it fears it would lose the profit it makes from annulment procedures before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal”!

Apart from the fact that this is a blatant lie, because the Church makes a substantial loss from the Tribunal’s operation, and not a profit, how does this eminent former judge then explain the fact that Christ himself was against divorce? Did Our Lord speak as he did, namely that “what God has joined together let no man put asunder” because he was motivated by a potential loss of earnings from some tribunal?

By the same argument, then, one could say that the lawyers campaigning for divorce are motivated by the lucrative business in potential divorce cases!

But the campaign against the Church does not stop here. One of the proponents of the divorce bill stated that the politician should not involve religion in what he does as a politician. So if a politician declares himself a Catholic and inspired by the word of God and the teaching of the Church, should he either shut up or approve something which goes against this teaching?

Someone even mooted the idea of barring clergy and religious, male and female, from voting in the referendum because divorce “does not concern them”. How is that for intolerance?

We often hear the silly argument that once priests are not married, they have no right to speak about marriage and divorce. This is like saying that a judge should not judge whoever committed theft or murder, because he himself is not a thief or a murderer. These people do not realise that the priest, by the very fact that he is in frequent contact with families and married couples, has great experience of marital and family problems, and besides, his spiritual and moral formation puts him in a position to offer useful advice to whoever needs it in certain situations.

Church teaching on divorce has always been consistent, inspired by the words of its divine Founder. In the 16th century, King Henry VIII of England wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon dissolved because she had not given him a male heir (though she had sons, these were either stillborn or had died in infancy). So he asked the Pope to annul his marriage and allow him to remarry. When the Pope refused, Henry broke with the Church of Rome and declared himself head of the Church of England, after which he felt free to divorce and remarry, and remarry, and remarry – for another five times in fact!

So it is clear that the Church will never give up her mission of preaching the teaching of Christ, who on more than one occasion condemned divorce. This right should be acknowledged by all, even by those who do not agree with the Church.