.png)
.png)
Church defends lawyer's ban from tribunal
Curia says the 'proper treatment of marriage nullity cases presupposes the right doctrine about marriage and its indissolubility' in justification of the ban of pro-divorce activist Dr Deborah Schembri.
28 April 2011, 12:00am
Nestor Laiviera
Nestor Laiviera
3 min read
The Catholic Church has defended the ban on lawyer Deborah Schembri from practising canon law in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, for her public activism on the introduction of divorce.
Curia spokesperson Fr Charles Tabone said the Apostolic Letter Justi Judicis of 1988, which specifies that exclusion from the ‘Album’ can be justified in the cases of “those who agree with or are active in associations or movements which promote ways of thinking or acting that are contrary to the faith and the Catholic teachings about morals, or defend proposals and advice about civil order which go against the precepts of natural and Christian law."
Tabone ignored questions on whether lawyers who are banned can appeal the decision or have some sort of redress. Further questions on the subject sent remain unanswered.
He added that the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura laid down the “norm” that “according to Canon 1483, the advocate must be of good repute... The proper treatment of marriage nullity cases presupposes the right doctrine about marriage and its indissolubility, which right doctrine also requires that it be manifested in life. “
Furthermore, he said that Pope John Paul II's address to the Roman Rota on the 22 January 2002, said that legal workers in the civil field should avoid being personally involved in anything that could imply cooperation towards divorce.
Tabone maintained that the Ecclesiastical Authorities felt justified in making such decisions “because the advocate’s role is not only to defend the interests of his/her client but also to defend the validity of marriage as a life long commitment. Embracing divorce hinders this aspect of the advocate’s mission in the Tribunal.”
He added that during their formative years, advocates are informed of these norms so that they can be aware of the consequences of their options. “The advocate remains free to make his/her choices in life even to be in favour of divorce but they already know that this incides (sic) on their participation in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.”
“The procedure comes into action when a client proposes an advocate to assist him in the Tribunal. It is at that moment that the Tribunal informs the client of the decision about the advocate,” he said.
He also pointed out that this is not the first time that an advocate was not admitted or was excluded from the Album, but did not specify who these lawyers were.
The pro divorce movement’s chairperson Dr Deborah Schembri had her licenciate to represent clients in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal for marriage annulments withdrawn by the Judicial Vicar over her activism to introduce divorce.
In a letter addressed to her clients, the tribunal's chancellor said she had been instructed by the Judicial Vicar Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino, that "because of the well-known position taken by your advocate in favour of divorce, [Schembri] is not in a position to represent you as an advocate before this tribunal since her views on the indissolubility of marriage are not in conformity with the law of God and the church."
Judicial Vicar Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino told MaltaToday he had personally taken the decision to remove Dr Schembri from office, and that this was in line with Canon Law - which regulates the suitability of lawyers to appear for parties in the Ecclesiastical Tribunals.
"I didn't 'remove' her from office. She excluded herself from the very start of the campaign in her public propaganda in favour of the introduction divorce," Said Pullicino said. "Canon law specifies that you must be a catholic and of good repute. As soon as she went public on divorce, I informed her clients that she was not suitable to appear for them."
But Schembri said Said Pullicino’s reason was specifically related to her political activism. "Nowhere in the letter was it mentioned that I am not a catholic or not of good repute."
•
Din hi il-knisja kattolika Maltija , ma titghallem qatt mill-izbalji , issa tergghu titolbu skuza , bhal ma ghamiltu ghal hnizrijiet li l-knisja wetqet fis - sittinijiet . Komplu ghafgu kemm tifilhu u aktar nies jitbieghdu minkhom , ahjar tghidulna x inthom taghmlu fuq dawk il-qassisin pedofeli li ghad ghandkhom maghkhom
•
Inthom tahsbu li kappell se jmejjel iehor?
Back to the sixties.
•
Beware of those wolves dressed in sheep clothing.
•
Where are those enlightened "wise men" in France, Germany, Spain, Poland, Russia, China, England ... who know better how it should look like family? Today, when Europe is depopulating but it may be true teachings of the church.
•
EMM you are right.
I know of persons who were having their annulment case heard before the civil court and when one of the spouses saw that it was going to lose it applied for annulment at the Church Tribunal to lengthen the proceedings because once one of the spouses applies at the Church Tribunal, the Civil Court has to stop hearing the case because that is what the PN Government in the 1990's agreed with the Church.
This is notwithstanding the fact that what the church Tribunal decides is not limited in its effects to the religious implications, but has civil implications.
In practice you may have grounds for annulment at civil law but you will not get an annulment from the Church Tribunal with the Church criteria, except, that is, if you are not the child of someone who is able to get three annulments in a very short time due to his political standing, two of them within three years for the same person.
Joseph Sant •
I totally agree with EMM. What we have here is a case of the Church being above the law for a variety or reasons. As already pointed out, any of the spouses can end up before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal not of his or her own choice but because the other spouse chooses to go there. To preclude the spouse's legal counsel for the reasons given by the Curia is discrimination on the basis of religious belief and that is in breach of the Convention of Human Rights. I would go further and say that the very Canon quoted is in breach of Human Rights.
Yes my dear friends, Malta became a theocracy back in the 90s while we were all napping. If you are not in agreement with this state of affairs now is the time to stand up and be counted.
•
Dan it-tgerfix kollu rega inqala ghax il-PN -fin-90s rega ta lill-Knisja il-monopolju fuq iz-zwieg. Biex innehhu dan, jehtieg separazzjoni vera bejn Knisja u Stat. Din l-arja kollha ma tinstab imkien! Anqas fl-Izlam fejn kull individwu jimxi skond il-kuxjenza tieghu u jigi igiudikat biss quddiem Alla! Jien Agnostiku, imma il-pozizzjoni tal-Knisja f'Malta hija wahda arretrata aktar minn dik Izlamika!!
•
The State can play the same game too! Do not recognise Church marriages. Do not recognise Church annulments. Give them the same medicine they dish out to others. No preferential treatment for followers of a phoney god whi is, who was and who will always remain a man.
•
Leopards do not change their spots ... and Cremona's spots are the same as Mikiel Gonzi's.
•
Fr Tabone . Your church does not believe iin riights let alone human rights. What about those many priests who abused children all over the world, Malta included. Did you or your church ban them ? Definitely no. They were merely transferred to new dioceses to enable them to find new preys, that is to pastures new.
Igor P. Shuvalov •
With the same reasoning those who are in favour of separation and cohabitation should be banned from from practising canon law in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
•
Baptists who were imprisoned or died for their beliefs have played an important role in the historical struggle for freedom of religion and separation of church and state in England, the United States, and other countries.
•
But there are lots of people , whom belive in Jesus Christ, and they want to be free from the church (roman Catholic).
The point is that , and also that in Malta not Freedom of choice, cause one religion is teached at school.
Than who want to be an Atheist , that is her/his choice.
All are free to choose.
•
@ falzonsilvio
What is the point of hopping to and fro between the frying pan and the fire?
That age of religion is past. Man has evolved sufficiently to face the world without any fantasies and psychological crutches.
•
The church is a hyprocratic organisation that goes against its own principles. For instance, the main function of the church is to act as a mediator between God and man. Yet, in my opinion it does a better job instilling doubt and question in the people than anything else. I will vote in favour of divorce, not because I believe in divorce but because I don't believe the church should have a say and use physcological terror on people!
The older I get to more the church drives me away from it.
•
@ bejn il-linji
"Resign" from what?
•
what a bunch of w**k**s,
the church did not act as quickly towards those members of the church involved in abuse towards children.
•
This matter has very serious Constitutional Law repercussions; namely the right of every person to have a lawyer of his/her own choice. The Church has a right to regulate over this matter; but not against the fundamental human rights of the individual. One must not forget that a spouse may be dragged before the Ecclesiastical tribunal out of his/her own choice and that the decision of the said Tribunal effects the Civil rights of the individual. So I believe Dr. Schembri or better still her clients should take this matter to the Constitutional Court as they are denied the lawyer of their own choice where the judicial investigation effects his/her civil rights and not his/her religious rights. Food for thought. The European Court on Human Rights could also ultimately decide if the local Courts adhere to Mons Said Puliicino's homily last October. I think the Camera degl'Avvocato should also take a stand otherwise the independence of the legal profession will be ridiculed. I think all lawyers should be given instructions not to appear before this Tribunal that thanks to the PN/Church agreement was gven such vast power in civil matters.
•
This Religion is far more good than the roman catholic.
Baptists Christian religion, but here no, only roman catholic they teach( I blieve that other religions must be teached at schools, so one will chooose his/her religion on his own free way) , that is the main problem here in Malta, So much confusion:
Historically, Baptists have played a key role in encouraging religious freedom and separation of church and state.
Soul freedom: the soul is competent before God, and capable of making decisions in matters of faith without coercion or compulsion by any larger religious or civil body
Church freedom: freedom of the local church from outside interference, whether government or civilian (subject only to the law where it does not interfere with the religious teachings and practices of the church)
Bible freedom: the individual is free to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, using the best tools of scholarship and biblical study available to the individual
Religious freedom: the individual is free to choose whether to practice their religion, another religion, or no religion; Separation of church and state is often called the "civil corollary" of religious freedom
Baptists define their church membership as a congregation of baptized believers in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.[citation needed] The primary external qualification for membership in a Baptist church is a public profession of faith in Jesus, followed by water baptism.[35]
Baptist churches do not have an age restriction on membership, but will not accept as a member a child who is considered too young to fully understand and make a profession of faith of their own volition and comprehension.In such cases, the pastor and parents usually meet together with the child to verify the child's comprehension of the decision to follow Jesus.
This is a message to all who belives in GOD and Jesus as your Savior!
Leave the Church and turn to other Christian teachings. The roman catholic , Magesterium is all lies, manipulated to control over your minds, to possess you. So who belive in god but not in the church (roman catholic) there are Pastors ready to comfort you and tells you the TRuth .
•
Tabone ignored questions on whether lawyers who are banned can appeal the decision or have some sort of redress. Further questions on the subject sent remain unanswered.
If he replied we would call him arrogant. The answer from my layman knowledge is very simple..no there is no redress.
He also pointed out that this is not the first time that an advocate was not admitted or was excluded from the Album, but did not specify who these lawyers were.
If he replied we would call abuse of data protection..why name such persons?
My Statement....Ms Schembri should have resigned as soon as going public on this issue. At least there still remains an institution that call a spade a spade.
