Who’s afraid of divorce? | Rene Camilleri

Upon being appointed, Archbishop Paul Cremona – a Dominican friar used to living in a community – decided to share a home with a group of four priests: namely, Fr Michael Belizzi, Fr Dione Cutajar, FrAnton Gouder and FrRene Camilleri.

Dun Rene insists that this was not an official appointment and living in the Archbishop’s home does not make him one of the Archbishop’s advisors.

The Archbishop also made it very clear that he did not expect the priests to live in a convent and everyone is given the freedom to conduct his work and other commitments.

Dun Rene compares the Archbishop’s household to a family. “We have the same problems like other families… sometimes we do not dedicate sufficient time for each other… We try to lunch and have dinner together but we do not always succeed because of our commitments.”

The choice of Dun Rene Camilleri and of Dun Anton Gouder was interpreted by some as an attempt by the Archbishop to reconcile the progressive and conservative wings of the church. But Dun Rene refrains from interpreting the Archbishop’s intentions.

“He simply phoned me and I accepted as I presume the other priests did… Obviously we do talk to each other and have our disagreements and this makes it a positive experiment.”

Throughout the interview Dun Rene Camilleri himself defies conservative and progressive stereotypes by defending the Church’s principles on matters like the indissolubility of marriage, without negating the merits of modernity and the distinction between Church and State that comes with it.

“Maltese society is now inserted in a modern and post modern culture. This certainly brings with it many advantages, but also creates new burdens on both individuals and society in general.”

The difference between Malta and other societies, according to Dun Rene, is its small size and the accelerated pace of change. While it took other countries centuries to become modern societies, Malta seems to have leaped from being a traditional society to becoming a post modern one.

“The Church must remain attentive to these changes which shape the identities of human beings. It has a big responsibility to understandand manage this change and to ensure thatthe messageof the Gospel remains valid, as I believe it still is.”

Is there a temptation on the part of the Church to reject modernity in order to affirm its identity in a changing cultural landscape?

“This risk always exists. There are elements in the Church who fall into this temptation. But there is no risk that the Church as a whole will fall in to this kind of temptation.”

He is confident that the Archbishop has made a fundamental choice of putting people at the centre of his mission.That keeps him from just saving the institution.

“I am sure that he has the strength to resist these temptations.”

In April Malta will be celebrating the 50^th anniversary of the imposition of moral sanctions on Labour Party officials by the Church. Has the wound healed?

While recognising thatin life certain wounds are difficult to heal, both the Labour Party and the Church have taken steps to heal the wounds. He points to the recent occasion when the Archbishop celebrated Mass on the occasion of the Labour Party’s ninetieth anniversary.

He is also sure that the Church will never again make choices which prefer one party over the other.That past is buried.

“Individuals will continue to make choices as we live in the world. But I categorically exclude that the church as an institution will ever intervene in favour or against a political party.”

Yet only last week the Zebbug parish church set up a billboard which rekindled memories of direct church intervention in politics.

The billboard featured a man, wearing a tie, injecting divorce into the arm of a young man, possibly a child, while holding in the other hand a paper reading “Private Member’s Bill”. The billboard was removed after a few hours by the parish priest himself.

“Personally I disagree with such billboards… There is freedom of expression but there are alternative ways on how one can convey a message. ”

He also points out that parish priestsshould exercise greater caution.

“When a parish priest takes a decision he involves the entire parish.”

But despite his reservations on these tactics, Dun Rene disagrees with the imposition of clear Curia rules on how priests should tackle the divorce issue to ensure that they do not contradict the Archbishop’sadvice against turning the divorce issue into a crusade.

“This is a double-edged sword. Thank God we no longer live at a time when we received directives from the Curia on every matter. That time is past.”

But is there a risk that the actions of individuals like the Zebbug parish priest result in a “good cop, bad cop” situation of the kind we are used to seeing in the movies? For instance, the Archbishop warning against ‘crusades’ while others around him engaging in actions which may well fit that category.

“I prefer having people doing foolish things than having them muzzled.”

On his own part, Dun Rene takes a very moderate position on this issue.

“I am not scared of the introduction of divorce but from what I understand from what happened in other countries, Malta would be taking a bit of a short cut if it chooses to introduce divorce.”

He also questions the idea that “divorce and abortion are civil rights,” even if he makes it clear that the two issues are not connected.

“It is the post-modern culture which lumps these two together calling them civil rights.”

But what’s wrong with Western democratic societies determining the civil rights of their citizens to ensure that these are not trampled upon?

“Although individual rights are among the greatest gains of modern culture, we should be wary of exalting them at the detriment of the common good of society.”

I point out that what is happening in Maltese society is that many whose first marriage has failed are already living with another partner. So what difference does it make to the common good if these people remarry instead of simply cohabiting with their new partner?

Dun Rene reacts to this by warning that recognising cohabitation would be a greater detriment to the common good than divorce.

“I consider it to be worse if a country legislates in favour of cohabitation than if it legislates in favour of divorce. At least through divorce, the State is saying that it still believes in the institution of marriage. On the other hand cohabitation is by its very nature something which cannot be controlled.”

He recognises the dilemma faced by the Church in dealing with separated persons who are expected to remain chaste for the rest of their lives.

“These persons should not be barred from the Church. But at the same time the Church cannot change its principles to accommodate them.”

Irrespective of whether divorce is introduced or not, Dun Rene Camilleri’s major concern is that people are losing their sense of “responsibility” by entering marriage without the necessary coping skills. He argues that more should be done to prepare people before they marry.

But he fears that divorce will aggravate the situation as more people would marry with the idea that marriage is not a life long commitment.

While warning against using statistics from other countries as “the bogey man to scare people against divorce,” he thinks that these statistics need to be properly analysed because there is much to learn from what happened elsewhere.

“There is no doubt that the availability of divorcecan diminish commitment in marriage.”

He also points out that other countries like the United Kingdom have realised that divorce is coming at a huge cost, not only financially but morally, socially and culturally.

A few days ago UK Prime Minister David Cameron proposedcharging a fee to couples asking for divorce. Under the proposals, separating parents will be encouraged to find a settlement on their own and those who insist on State intervention will have to pay.It was made clear by the Minister responsible that the fee is not meant only to alleviate the State’s expenses, but also to serve as deterrent.

“We cannot discuss divorce in Malta without considering its social implications and at what economic cost it will come”.

He also points out that the major justification for divorce is that it will alleviate human suffering of victims of abuse and infidelity who deserve a second chance.

“But we should not forget that divorce will be introduced for both partners and not just for the victim.”

The divorce issue seems to be heading to a referendum in which Dun Rene’s brother Dr Andre Camilleri will be leading the anti divorce camp through the newly created ‘Zwieg Bla Divozju’ organisation. But Dun Rene remains sceptical on whether a referendum is the best way forward.

“This is a divisive issue and we might well end up in the same situation as the EU referendum when Malta was split along partisan lines. There are signs that this will not be the case but the risk always exists.”

Dun Rene was also irked by the attempt to force the debate through a private members’ bill.

“We have gone from one extreme to another… from having this issue sidelined completely to having our parliament hijacked by those who want this issue settled in the next six months.”

The only exception to this was a short lived attempt by a Labour government in the mid 1990s, when a commission was appointed to study the situation and eventually make its recommendations whether or not it was time to introduce divorce.

“So I feel that just as governments have taken decisions at the risk of facing the wrath of the people and losing votes, political parties should have had the maturity to face this issue”.

But would not the government have continued procrastinating on this issue in the absence of the private members’ bill?

But Dun Rene questions why a private members bill had to be presented on this issue. “How many private member bills have been presented on other issues which directly affect people?”

He would have preferred if this issue was included in the political manifestos of political parties, noting that apart from Alternattiva Demokratika both parties have failed to do so.

“The parties should have decided in a serene atmosphere how this issue should be tackled. It should have entered parliament’s agenda in this way.”

He also laments the scarcity of data on the real situation on marriages in Malta.

But despite his reservations on the referendum he is very categorical in saying that voting in favour of divorce is not a sin.

But he insists that before a decision people should have an informed conscience. In this sense he calls for more information on the state of the family in Malta.

“Everyone is firing numbers. And as we all know numbers can be given all sorts of interpretation. But it is important to get the facts right before making such an important decision.”