Feel free to contest any of these, correct me where I may be wrong, and maybe change my opinion with valid arguments. More will be coming later... (these are actually my study breaks :))
- Christians go against their religion if they vote in favour of the divorce legislation.
In my opinion, the most irrelevant from the anti-divorce camp:
Though the Catholic religion does not permit divorce, and Christ is openly against divorce, the Christian is voting for a legislation for his country and not whether he will divorce or not. A Christian should be aware though that if it even crosses his mind before marrying that if something goes wrong in his marriage divorce could be a way out for HIMSELF, his Christian matrimony will be null and void, since the sacrament of marriage within the Church, with and without divorce, is only valid when both enter with the intention to remain loyal to each other till death, whatever happens or is done by any one of them (thanks to my friend Andrea for having highlighted this out). In this aspect, I think the majority of Christian marriages in this country are not valid, and are only made for the sake of beautiful photographs and videos. Leaving that aside, everyone should analyze responsibly the civil effects of the proposed Bill though before taking a decision, and not just accept it because it does not affect the Christian marriage.
- How true is the claim that "Divorce is currently available in Malta for the rich who can afford it as they can go and get it from another country?"
In my opinion, the most irrelevant from the pro-divorce camp:
1. Is a €20 return ticket to the UK what differentiates between the rich and the poor in this country? We would be in a very dire situation if it were so.
2. The standard jurisdiction for any foreign country's court (at least in the UK, but as I found out in the whole EU) is either lex patriae or lex domicilii. This means the court will only have jurisdiction to grant divorce if either one of the spouses is a national of the country, or is a habitual resident of the country (ie. has lived there for a number of months).
Concludingly, no, even if two Maltese nationals are as rich as can be, to obtain a divorce from another country one of them has to be a national of that country or has lived there continuously for a number of months preceeding the divorce.
- Malta already allows separation, divorce is just declaring that the marriage of people who have separated is over and they may now re-marry again.
Quite convincing BUT:
1. Separation proceedings in Malta consider the circumstances where one of the spouses was a victim of domestic violence and abuse, infidelity, abandoning, or any breakage of one of the terms of the marriage bond. In these cases, the spouse who has broken any of these loses property rights, maintenance rights, and others.
2. The proposed Divorce Bill does NOT consider any of these. What makes it even worse is that neither the Divorce Bill, NOR the Referendum question, make it necessary for the couple to have gone through seperation proceedings before asking for Divorce, creating an anomaly between the rights to 'victims' of broken marriages going through divorce and those going through separation.
- The Church is against divorce because it will lose income since less people will resort to annulment in its Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
This is false. As can be seen from the pastoral and financial reports which are published annually, the Church subsidizes the Tribunal with nearly half a million Euro per annum (http://maltadiocese.org/lang/en/press-room/files/2009/09/115-RAPPORT-FINANZJARJU-ENG.pdf). The Church does it because it believes such a tribunal is integral in doing justice with victims of such marriages. Of course, the couple undergoes expenses, as per every legal case there are Judges, Lawyers, Auditors, Defenders of the Bond and Court Experts to be appointed, and proving the circumstances before a marriage is quite a difficult task. This process may need re-vamping and revising, and the Archbishop rightly declared it as one of his mission tasks on his appointment, but I do not believe it is relevant to the Divorce debate, more so when Civil Annulment is currently available. And when will people simply accept the fact that the Church as the representative of Christ on earth will only spread Christ's teachings, whatever people agree or not, and whatever people leave it or not. It was never meant to be a democracy and it will never be. So stop trying to find some conspiratory arguments in why the Church teaches against divorce.
- Christians go against their religion if they vote in favour of the divorce legislation.
In my opinion, the most irrelevant from the anti-divorce camp:
Though the Catholic religion does not permit divorce, and Christ is openly against divorce, the Christian is voting for a legislation for his country and not whether he will divorce or not. A Christian should be aware though that if it even crosses his mind before marrying that if something goes wrong in his marriage divorce could be a way out for HIMSELF, his Christian matrimony will be null and void, since the sacrament of marriage within the Church, with and without divorce, is only valid when both enter with the intention to remain loyal to each other till death, whatever happens or is done by any one of them (thanks to my friend Andrea for having highlighted this out). In this aspect, I think the majority of Christian marriages in this country are not valid, and are only made for the sake of beautiful photographs and videos. Leaving that aside, everyone should analyze responsibly the civil effects of the proposed Bill though before taking a decision, and not just accept it because it does not affect the Christian marriage.
- How true is the claim that "Divorce is currently available in Malta for the rich who can afford it as they can go and get it from another country?"
In my opinion, the most irrelevant from the pro-divorce camp:
1. Is a €20 return ticket to the UK what differentiates between the rich and the poor in this country? We would be in a very dire situation if it were so.
2. The standard jurisdiction for any foreign country's court (at least in the UK, but as I found out in the whole EU) is either lex patriae or lex domicilii. This means the court will only have jurisdiction to grant divorce if either one of the spouses is a national of the country, or is a habitual resident of the country (ie. has lived there for a number of months).
Concludingly, no, even if two Maltese nationals are as rich as can be, to obtain a divorce from another country one of them has to be a national of that country or has lived there continuously for a number of months preceeding the divorce.
- Malta already allows separation, divorce is just declaring that the marriage of people who have separated is over and they may now re-marry again.
Quite convincing BUT:
1. Separation proceedings in Malta consider the circumstances where one of the spouses was a victim of domestic violence and abuse, infidelity, abandoning, or any breakage of one of the terms of the marriage bond. In these cases, the spouse who has broken any of these loses property rights, maintenance rights, and others.
2. The proposed Divorce Bill does NOT consider any of these. What makes it even worse is that neither the Divorce Bill, NOR the Referendum question, make it necessary for the couple to have gone through seperation proceedings before asking for Divorce, creating an anomaly between the rights to 'victims' of broken marriages going through divorce and those going through separation.
- The Church is against divorce because it will lose income since less people will resort to annulment in its Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
This is false. As can be seen from the pastoral and financial reports which are published annually, the Church subsidizes the Tribunal with nearly half a million Euro per annum (http://maltadiocese.org/lang/en/press-room/files/2009/09/115-RAPPORT-FINANZJARJU-ENG.pdf). The Church does it because it believes such a tribunal is integral in doing justice with victims of such marriages. Of course, the couple undergoes expenses, as per every legal case there are Judges, Lawyers, Auditors, Defenders of the Bond and Court Experts to be appointed, and proving the circumstances before a marriage is quite a difficult task. This process may need re-vamping and revising, and the Archbishop rightly declared it as one of his mission tasks on his appointment, but I do not believe it is relevant to the Divorce debate, more so when Civil Annulment is currently available. And when will people simply accept the fact that the Church as the representative of Christ on earth will only spread Christ's teachings, whatever people agree or not, and whatever people leave it or not. It was never meant to be a democracy and it will never be. So stop trying to find some conspiratory arguments in why the Church teaches against divorce.
Comments
Post a Comment