Archbishop sounds warning: Catholic MPs must vote against divorce

Archbishop Paul Cremona was interviewed today on Church radio station RTK describing Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s bill for the introduction of divorce as ‘a bolt out of the blue’.

6 July 2010, 12:00am
by Matthew Vella

1 min read

In a warning sent out to MPs, Cremona said practicing Catholics would be wrong if they voted in favour of divorce, and called on Catholic MPs to vote against divorce.

The archbishop noted that neither Labour nor the Nationalist Party had publicly declared themselves to be in favour of divorce, except for Alternattiva Demokratika, in the last general election. Expressing the Church’s opposition to divorce, Cremona hoped that the government would concentrate on the strengthening of the institution of marriage.

He preempted the parties’ stand on the issue by declaring that anything that went against the principle of the indissolubility of marriage “harmed society”, claiming that statistics abroad showed families became unstable wherever there was divorce.

In a reference to Pullicino Orlando’s own statement on the contradiction that foreign divorces were recognized in Malta, Cremona claimed that this recognition could not be used as a way to undermine marriage stability.

Cremona also said the Church was against cohabitation, a clear stand against Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s recent efforts to legislate in favour of non-married couples living together.

Cremona refused the notion that a divorce law could be a solution for spouses who were locked in n abusive relationship, arguing that divorce was sought after by people “who want something else”, singling out men looking for new relationships.

Cremona also said he wanted to see the backlog of church marriage annulment cases being seen too, adding that the Church spent some €400,000 on its marriage tribunal every year.

Matthew Vella, a freelance journalist at MaltaToday, was formerly executive editor at Malt...

More from Matthew Vella Matthew on Twitter

Joseph Bugeja •

Jesus was persecuted and so will the Archbishop be because he is speaking God's word and those who do not like it want to silence him. Jesus spoke out publicly and as His representative, Archbishop Cremona will do the same. We the public have a choice; we can either listen or we can not but we have no right to stop him. The debate will probably not change anyone's mind, but The Archbishop can when guiding the flock. This is why so many of the comments are attacking him personally.

•

Echoes of the past. Looks like archbishop Cremona is trying to regain the influence the church had in the past were it evenly dictated who should govern or not. What about the separtation of the state and the church or are we going back to our Taliban past. Your emminence your job is to teach and help those in need of help. Teach the people how to have stronger marriages and divorce would not be needed even if the law is enacted. Your call on MPs is but an admittance that you are losing the flock, imposition is for dictators not archbishops.

•

divorce should be introduced in Malta, nobody ,church , government or the majority of voters have any right to interfere in an individual way of life. if it suits me but does not suit you well thats not my problem.

Alfred Galea •

Some of you guys make me laugh.....the Archbishop is saying what he, as the shepherd should be saying, and you guys dump on him. The PM ORDERS his MPs to vote the way HE WANTS and there's not a peep from any of you. "I'm an atheist, I'm an agnostic, I don't believe in God, etc etc so he's not speaking for me"......the man said PRACTICING catholics and CATHOLIC MPs, so that rules you out. Besides who cares whether you're a catholic, an atheist or an artist. By the way, I'm FOR divorce.

•

In the past the church wanted our antenants (PEOPLE) to be ignorants because all of the families consists of 8,9 or 11 children now most of the people opened ther minds and they bring only the most 2 children what do you say about this Archbishop this time the people are not ignorants like our antenants and most of them are in favour of divorce .What's the difference between divorce and seperated for me it seems that the families are broken how can a woman been beaten by her husband can continue to live in that life or a husband who goes to work and his wife takes all the money he earns and leave him with a few ewros to live can he continue to live this life because you are against divorce better looks around you for those priests that abuse of children

•

The church is always going on about strengthening marriages and never gives an example. Some marriages will continue to break down no matter how much preparation. Divorce is there for those who want to use it and is not obligatory.

•

Archbishop Cremona admits that the church is against cohabitation. So why does it let certain members to be in this postiion. A case in point is a monk daily fishing near the pixkerija with his cohabitor for all to see.

•

What I am clearly saying is that the archbishop has the right to tell Roman Catholics whether in his view the Church accepts divorce and whether divorce is against the law of God. Read Matthew 19:9 which allows divorce in cases of marital unfaithfulness. So the archbishop is not strictly correct when he says Christ did not permit divorce. Is His Grace so silly that he has not heard of this statement in Matthew. No, he is being very selective in what he quotes and that is mischievous. What the archbishop has no right to do is to seek to influence the law with a view to imposing his views on people who are either not Catholics or if Catholics do not give a hoot about what the Chursh says. Human beings have a right to determine their own destiny. There is such a thing as separation between Church and State. Thank God Malta's youth see Roman Catholicism for what it truly is: a hoax. Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

•

No wonder more people or so called catolics are leaving the church nowadays our Grace The Bishop has all his rights to go against divorce but no right to influence other's beliefs and future - you should thank Dr Pullicino Orlando to open this subject once again as he cares about unfortunate couples who broke up and remember this divorce bill was brought up mainly because of the Curia's incompetence and years to annul a marriage - carry on like this yr Grace and rest assured none will keep marrying in your church starting from my daughters whom I will never let them marry in a Roman Catholic Church unless divorce is legal on this saintly island - before I close I point out that I am happly married person for these last 31 years but have no right to impose on others not to be happy once again

•

The Archbishop has every right to tell Catholic MP's to vote against divorce but it is the duty of every MP to vote according to what are the civil rights of the population in this matter. Every person has a right to conduct his or her affairs as they see fit according to law and each MP should ensure that these rights are not denied as they are being denied now. This is the principle which MP's should follow and not what the Archbishop directs them to do even if he has the right to express his opinion along with others. MP's are in duty bound to forget their religious affiliation where legislation is concerned if this country is ever to become a true secular democracy and not to remain a medieval theocracy wrapped up in cobwebs. They are elected to see to it that no citizen is denied his or her rights and divorce is a right enjoyed in all countries except Malta. That the theists try to interfere is no surprise. They have ruled for centuries either by brute force (the strappado, the rack and the stake) or by moral threats of eternal damnation to the non-consuming flames. Happily, far fewer are left in the world (outside these backward little islets called Malta) who are still cowered by the nefarious fulminations of prelates hurling fire and brimstone. Many have realized it is all phantasy built on scriptures which are nothing but the writing of tales by unknown men of the past, further mistranslated, interpolated and misinterpreted to suit the needs of ascetic, misogynist, misanthropic and erotophobe Fathers.

•

It's very nice to note how sensitive the local leader of the catholic church is towards those in difficult situations! It's nice to note that the stand of the catholic church in Malta is to leave these unfortunate individuals (who can't afford to get divorced abroad) with no hope! Well done! All this convinced me even more that the catholic church institution is there only to safeguard its very own interest to the detriment of the weak.

•

While the church can make its views known just like any other commercial enterprise, it's grossly unethical to tell elected MPs how they are required to vote. Imagine how people would react if, say, the CEO of a major business publicly instructed politicians to vote in a particular way. Well, this is no different.

•

With reference to the comments below, I ask whether you people are suggesting that the Church should keep its mouth shut and not fulfill Christ's mission to preach His Word? Our Archbishop is in no way trying to impose his personal opinion on others! He is merely repeating the Word of God on the issue of divorce, and obliging Catholics to live up to their Faith and take a stand in favour of family protection! Surely you do not suggest that a democratic society should impinge on the Church's freedom of expression, especially when so many immoral stances are being taken by so many people? (abortion etc)

•

Oh, I see, so the Roman Catholic Church believes in religious freedom. What about agnostics like me who believe in divorce, are we second class citizens? Or what about protestants who believe in divorce? These self-styled men of God just want to have it their own way all the time. And they want secular govenments to enforce their teachings. They have a big surprise waiting for them when they die.

Rayman Jumbo •

Dear Archbishop, just as the State stayed out of your business in the sexual abuse issues, please stay out of the State's business on discussing divorce! You chose your life to priesthood, not marriage and family so hence you have no right to debate such issue because you do not understand the meaning of it. How about focusing your energy on better issues such as the religious aspect of Festas that are still being celebrated in pagan ways big time!

carmelo penza •

I agree with Thorny and Gakki. MPs are elected to represent the needs and aspirations of their constituents, not even themselves. That is why in our system we call them Deputies or Representatives. If I were an MP I would use my helpers to conduct a proper scientific survey amongst my constituents to gauge their opinions on the matter and vote accordingly. But then, do you all really believe that the Honourable Jeffrey Pullicino is not playing a political game? And are you all so sure who is behind this? For all you know this is just a ploy to pull the rug from under Joseph Muscat's feet while gaining some personal brownie points for bravado! Mark my words - you and I, the little people, will gain nothing from this.

Norman Buckle •

So wrote Dr. Michela Spiteri in her Sunday opinion piece (timesofmalta.com): "Whoever said that we need a third political party in Malta overlooked the reality that, in fact, we already have one. The Church rules supreme. Every five years we have an election for its runner-up." So true! it is no surprise that the Archbishop utters his oft-repeated sophistry. What is really galling is to have Dr. Joseph Muscat compound the Spiritual Leader's inanities by calling for a "proper debate". 'Skjuz me Dott. What debate? -- here, I have to make a huge effort to suppress the urge to invoke the tri-starred alphabetical 6th. Malta's problem is the crisis in leadership. We don't have leaders, we have showmen; which may explain why a certain cartoonist regularly portrays Dr. Muscat as a Joker. Muscat must be hell-bent to prove the cartoonist right. Oh Malta! Is there no hope?

Keith Goodlip •

Can the Archbishop tell us how many VOTES he obtained in the last election that qualifies him to interfere with state decisions?

Frans Laus •

MPs should be there to represent the whole nation and not Catholics only. As far as I am aware, whenever they come knocking on our doors during election time, they do not ask for our baptism certificate - and encourage everyone to vote and not only the Catholics. Therefore MPs are there to represent all citizens and not one particular religious group. So if parliament decides to pass a bill in favour of gay marriage/union the Archbishop is going to issue another statement declaring that Catholic MPs should vote against it as well? Is the Church another party in parliament? Also should we regard the fact that Malta is used as a hub for the European porn industry as something the Church agrees with, considering it has not issue any warnings to our MPs?http://archive.maltatoday.com.mt/2010/01/24/raphael.html Perhaps it is time the Archbishop read what Jesus said about Caesar and God. Of course, I would have accepted the Archbishop calling on to its flock to beware of divorce but not to blackmail the representatives of the people in this way.Whether to divorce or not is after all a personal matter between the couple, and if they are practising Catholics, between themselves and God. After all not divorcing your spouse simply because you cannot is just a travesty of marriage and in no way will it contribute to "strengthen the institution of marriage."

•

What the archbishop wants couples leaving each other ,abondon their children couples separtes and one live with a woman and the other one living with another man that's want you want archbishop Cremona

Luke Camilleri •

MP's are the Appointed representatives of the people and not the Annointed. Their loyalty is to the electorate and should not even be to their Party. Quote: that statistics abroad showed families became unstable wherever there was divorce. Does that imply that in Malta families are stable because there isn't divorce? Or do one has to get the "divorce" Maltese style in the form of "Annulments", which some are quite questionable and at what cost?