Separation between Church and State I

 

I have so far been trying to resist joining the debate on divorce, which has recently returned to the fore in the local political debate, but today I read a letter on The Times by a Mr. John Ghigo that makes what I believe to be a very valid point, and one which I agree with fully, and I've decided to reproduce it here:

I find it disappointing that many of those who declare themselves to be against the introduction of divorce base their arguments predominantly on their religious beliefs. It's a pity that many haven't yet realised that Malta is supposed to be a secular country, and that, therefore, our laws should not be based on, or influenced by, religious doctrine.

If divorce is eventually introduced, it would only apply to civil marriages, not Church marriages. Today, someone whose marriage has ended, and who seeks to build a new relationship, has no choice but to cohabit. If divorce is introduced, then this person would have the choice of either cohabiting or entering into a civil marriage with his or her new partner. If this person was originally also married by the rites of the Catholic Church, then in both situations he or she would still be considered by the Church as being married to his or her original partner, unless the Ecclesiastical Tribunal declares the original Church marriage to be null. Divorce wouldn't change anything in this respect.

Although, of course, everyone is free to express his or her opinion, I think that any religious argument on the issue of divorce is irrelevant, and only serves to blur the dividing line separating the roles that religion and politics should play in our lives.

I admit that it has always been something of a mystery for me why the Church in Malta exerts so much effort to defend the 'sanctity' of civil marriage. As far as I know civil marriages as such have no validity whatsoever in the eyes of the Church. Moreover, those who will seek divorce in order to remarry are by definition not observant Catholics. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that the Church is interfering in the private affairs of those who have voluntarily left its fold, or who have never been in it in the first place.

One can, of course, argue against divorce on several 'secular' grounds (social, economic, psychological or whatever) and the Catholic anti-divorce lobby, and the Church itself, also occasionally make use of such arguments. However, it's not difficult to see that these arguments are for them secondary and that the real issue is a refusal to accept the separation between church and state.

Having said that, it seems that the position of the new Archbishop is more respectful of the separation between spiritual and secular matters than was that of his predecessor.