Should divorce be a right of democratic citizens? What do you think about the controversial alternative, annulment? What about separation? If divorce is on the rise, is this a good way of discouraging it? Should Malta preserve the divorce ban because Catholicism is an important part of their culture and history? How big a role should religion have in politics and government anyway? Here in Slovakia, do you think Catholicism should have more or less weight in terms of its influence on public and political life?
Probably not surprisingly at all, I completely support Briguglio’s proposal to the government. Like the author of the article states, I cannot help thinking that Malta truly is stuck in the Middle Ages. I can more or less comprehend the fact that the leading religion of the country influences the law system of the country, and I realize that it is not half as bad in Malta than in the most Islamic countries where the Quran limits the people’s, and mostly women’s rights to a much wider extent. But still, I think that the ban of divorces in Malta is a prohibition that limits people too excessively even in spite of their religious principles.
ReplyDeleteTo start with, after reading the article, I came into thinking that the cancelation of the ban would not make such a difference in terms of the number of separated couples. Even from the limited information provided in the article, it looks like the broken marriages get separated all the time anyway and that the divorce would be just an official confirmation of their separation, as Schembri points out. Moreover, as for the worries of the church concerning jeopardizing of the sacred constitution of marriage, the fact that people could legally get divorced does not mean that the state would support them in doing so in any way, it would just give them the freedom of a choice, and that is, I think, what a democratic country should provide its citizens with, when it comes to their personal lives.
Furthermore, I really disapprove of the ways the church is trying to maintain their power, let alone the fact that they do have so much power in the first place. Like Orlando suggests, I think that if the referendum shows that Malteses support the cancellation of the divorce ban, it could mean that they are becoming more open minded in terms of their moral versus what is dictated by the church, and that in the future, the state could become more independent from the church, which I consider an important step in pursuing democracy in the country.
I chose this article, because I have been to Malta not so long ago and I loved it. The article states that Maltese people are one of the happiest nations in Europe and I completely agree with that. It is thanks to leisure life-style of Maltese people, hot climate and lots of tourist leaving large amounts of money in the country. Maltese people don’t really worry much about anything.
ReplyDeleteAs many other South-Europe countries, Maltese people are very Christian. This is also due to the fact that these islands used to be a sanctuary for Crusader knights after they had been forced out of their original island – Rhodos. It is well known that Crusader knights were fighting against Ottomans and defending Christianity in Europe. In Malta, there are plenty of Churches and as the article mentions, Church plays a considerable role in the country.
I agree with Everist Bartolo that in a democratic country like Malta people should be allowed to divorce. Nowadays, people almost everywhere in the world can divorce if they want to and Maltese people know that. I don’t think that it would undermine the commitment of marriage as it would only bring a feeling that one is free and can change his or her life if it doesn’t work out. And of course, those who are strongly Christian don’t have to get divorced.
I understand that the church wants to keep the power they have on the island. But I don’t think that prohibiting something or doing the malpractices mentioned in the text is the right way. As written in the text, Church has the legal right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong. Church should be teaching how to work on marriage and that marrying someone is a commitment, however, it should not deny people’s freedom to divorce. And of course, if people really want to get divorced, they can do so abroad. Allowing it at home would only save people’s money.
I think that Church should consider allowing the divorce, as this would only show Maltese people that their Church is modern and liberal. I don’t think it would lose the power it has, as most people would still be Christians and Church would still have the role of life teacher.
{Part 1}
ReplyDeleteThis story seems to me as very interesting one. The contemporary situation that is present in Malta now definitively had to appear as Malta is one of the two last countries in the world where the divorce is banned (Philippines is the second one). However, it is not absolutely impossible to get divorce – there is something as foreign divorce accepted – but it is to great extend expensive, time consuming and complicated. So the country is split into two opposite groups: Catholics and progressives (what is in fact division between church and state). Till now many of those holding high civil office are prominent figures in the church (the head of the Stock Exchange, the head of the Financial Services Authority, and even the prime minister). Pro-divorce movement is increasing and the tension in the country is greater and greater. Questions as:”Have it reason, if married couple do not live together no more?” appears frequently.
On the one side, church wants to keep its dominant position that is to "teach which principles are right and which are wrong". It is said that church takes actions to stand its ground: it sends ambulances to ferry elderly to voting stations, it makes anti-divorce propaganda and it excludes 18-year-olds from the vote (because they are in general liberally-minded). Church point of view is naturally different:"These accusations are just a distraction from the real debate." said Anna Vella, leader of the catholic movement. Her arguments against are: divorce makes children 15% more susceptible to mental-health problems, it would devalue the commitment of marriage. She also things that by legalization of divorce, there would be more cases of “irrational divorcing”: divorce when wife got fat or husband went bald (just examples of many other stupid cases). Her conclusion was that people would not work on the marriages (what is according to her the essential problem) and children would be those who would suffer. “My husband and I constantly work at our marriage, otherwise it would fall apart. That is the sort of mentality we need to promote, not the opposite.” What was also discussed in the article was domestic abuse. She had answers also to this tough topic: "Women who have been abused do not want to remarry.“ and "Anyway, if we allowed an abusive man to marry another woman, he would just beat her up as well.". Her last argument is that according to the study, Maltese are one of the happiest people in Europe, they have special culture, based on religion, secure family unit in the centre. In overall, she is aware of the problems there are but she still think that: “We are better off as we are.”
{Part 2}
ReplyDeleteThe other part of the population thinks that Malta is stuck in the 15th century. "The church pulls the strings. Everyone knows that.", said Michael Falzon, member of pro-divorce movement. He perceives it as an option to start a new life: “But I cannot turn my back on those people whose marriage has broken down and would like to start a new life.” The chairwoman of the pro-divorce movement, Deborah Schembri, said that Malta has the same problems as the rest of Europe: the rate of marriage breakdown is comparable, separation and foreign divorces are increasing, 1/5 children are born to unmarried or separated couples. What they propose is the Irish model – the most conservative in the world – the rule is that if one wants to get divorced, there are 4 years of separation compulsory. Their idea is that – divorce is certifying that marriage is dead, not killing it. They agree with the fact that they are in happy country, but they still think that the minority of the people trapped in system deserve the right to remarry if that is what they want. What I consider as very inhuman (and also unreasonable) action is that church barred Deborah from practicing in ecclesiastical tribunals, what is about 40% of her income. Her answer was: “I would rather light a candle than curse the darkness.” – and this could be very influential step in the election. But their conclusion is that country is not so much different from other countries in terms of problems and that divorce could lead to even greater happiness in the view of options of population.
To sum it up, the situation in the country is very complicated. Even though the country is separated, all of the civilians know that outcome of this referendum would be irreversible and therefore their choice will affect their future. People feel the tension and think about the best solution for them: whether they want modern, liberal society or moral teaching of the church with it advantages and disadvantages. People see that these elections are important and consider both possibilities. My opinion is that divorce should be allowed, however the conditions to divorce should be strict in order to prevent useless problems. But it is all in the hands of the people…
To me, the current religion/political status in Malta seems almost unbelievable. As I was reading the article, I found one quote to pretty much sum up my feelings about the article. Mr. Batolo says that “Malta is stuck in the 15th century. The church pulls the strings. Everyone knows that.” It seems incredible that even in the 21st century the church can hold so much political power in one state. In my opinion, the church and politics should be completely separated. Otherwise, we would end up like in the Middle Ages with the church dictating the rules.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Maltese government (including the part heavily influenced by the church) should vote for allowing divorce. It simply should be a part of the rights of every person to call for divorce if their marriage falls apart. The way that it is in Malta now, these people just have to live separately. The fact that the percentage of separated marriages in Malta is almost equal to the European average goes against the claiming of the church that it will cause many more families to break up.
What strikes me as the most peculiar part of this situation is that the church is willing to do almost anything to keep their ideology standing. When Mrs. Schembri spoke out in a pro-divorce fashion, the church officials barred her from practising in ecclesiastical tribunals, which in the end cost her 40% of her monthly income. This is a huge attack on part of the church and it just shows how the only thing they care about is holding on to their medieval sense of power. I hope that the Maltese manage to pass the law on divorce.
Before I reveal my opinion on this issue, I would like to raise and look at a question that agreeably deals with this topic and i.e. Would God want a man and a woman stay together once their love and affection for another has vaporized and drained out? I assume most of you would answer no. Unfortunately, the church has got a different opinion about this. When you marry someone, you promise and swear to love him in bad and in good and to the end of the time. But what if, your heart “changes”? Are you supposed to suffer, just because the church thinks it always knows best and always interprets God’s intentions in the right way? I definitely think you aren’t. However the addressed weddings in article are civil weddings and not classic church weddings and thus we are dealing with an even bigger problem.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, what is happening in Malta crosses all possible borders. Not that I see problem in the state being religiously influenced, but since, in a democratic country you can have inhabitants of all possible religions; you cannot just force someone to follow the prevailing religion in the country. I absolutely think the church should take a step back and drop the oppressive attitude that it has developed in the last 200 years. And it shouldn’t stay only by that. The people defending the church should be far more open-minded. To demonstrate my point I will choose an example that speaks for all:
Anna Vella, the leader of the Catholic "Cana" movement and the anti-divorce campaign, states (after being addressed the issue of domestic abuse) that women who have been abused do not want to remarry. Subsequently, she thinks that if we allowed an abusive man to marry another woman, he would just beat her up as well. Finally she argues, considering the dangers of divorce, battered women should be content with separation. But how can you be so sure of all the things you’ve said? First of all, how do you know that not a single woman wants to remarry? Second of all, how can you suggest that battered women shouldn’t be aloud to get divorced, just because there’s that threat that their husbands will marry another woman? How can you possibly know that a divorced husband finds immediately and automatically another woman that will want to marry him? And finally, how can the battered women be content with separation, if their husbands can come any time back home, beat them and claim, they had the full right to do that, as they are still their legislative husbands.
All in all, as you could see, the idea of forbidden divorces is sick and violates the basic principles of a democratic state.
Branislav Skocek IB3
Who has the right to divorce? The answer to this question varies broadly due to the nature of the person or communities asked. According to the catholic church, it is an abomination and a blasphemy, a violation of the holy concept of marriage. I am not a catholic and maybe that is why my opinion differs from theirs. I think that every person should be allowed to divorce, even if, and I have to admit that this is where the Catholics are right, it diminishes the importance and seriousness of marriage. Consider that you are a person that accepts marriage as something profound and meaningful, something that is not to be taken lightly. After some time you find that special someone and after long and thoughtful consideration you realize that this is the person you want to spend your life with. You marry and you are exceptionally happy for few years, however things start to change. Your spouse is no longer the person you thought them to be and there are a lot of problems with you living together. It was just not meant to be. You realize that you are suffering, as well as your spouse and if it continues, it will only get worse. Is this what life has to be like? Is this really what the Church wants for us? Please do marry, but suffer the consequences? Why would we even want to marry if we knew that we are not going to be able to fend for ourselves when something goes wrong?
ReplyDeleteAnd I’ve not even mentioned the marriages that feature abusive husbands and wives in them. Anna Vella does not make any sense. How could she state that: "Women who have been abused do not want to remarry"? Women who have been beaten can perfectly well recover and remarry if they want to, as opposed to them staying bound to the abusive husband and suffering for a lifetime as well as this having an effect on their children. She practically condemns them to a life of misery and defends herself by saying: "Anyway, if we allowed an abusive man to marry another woman, he would just beat her up as well". Even if it’s true it does not mean that even if they separate from each other, that he wouldn’t find another woman to beat up without having to marry her first. It just doesn’t make sense.
As to the Malta crisis, I think that it legalizing divorce would be a huge step forward. Although the writer of the article says that there are certain ways of getting a divorce, it is tricky, costly and emotionally difficult to carry out. Practically, there is a very little chance, if any that these people will be able to divorce if they wish to. Furthermore I think that the way the Church is trying to win the referendum is very sleazy and unfair. Unfortunately, I think that it just might work for them to keep things the way they are.