Times: Church anti-divorce report - Civil court should get defender of marriage - 'Divorce would only make situation worse'

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090718/local/civil-court-should-get-defender-of-marriage
Saturday, 18th July 2009 by Kurt Sansone

The civil courts should adopt the Church tribunal's concept of having a third person defending the marriage itself when treating annulment cases, according to Pro Vicar General Mgr Anton Gouder.

The Church yesterday made its case against divorce in reaction to the Martin Scicluna report published by The Today Public Policy Institute in May, which had advocated the introduction of divorce legislation.

The 31-page Church report concluded that, from a social perspective, Malta did not need to introduce divorce because the situation of broken families would only be made worse.

Asked to comment on whether civil annulment was the "Maltese way out" to be able to re-marry as suggested by some lawyers, Mgr Gouder said it was wrong if couples obtained an annulment simply because they agreed between themselves. He insisted that an annulment was not simply a case of one individual against the other but of a couple against the institution of marriage.

"It is for this reason that the Church tribunal, which has years of experience in dealing with failed marriages, has an official who acts as the defender of the bond when deciding on annulment cases. The civil courts should adopt a similar principle and have an official who makes the case for the marriage irrespective of what the individual parties say," Mgr Gouder said.

The report highlighted a number of what it termed as faults in Mr Scicluna's document insisting that it was based on wrong statistical data, material that was not sourced and unsubstantiated statements.

It disputed the argument that divorce should be introduced because there were a number of negative social situations in society. None of the social ills could be healed or diminished by divorce.

On the contrary, from a social perspective, divorce would only make the situation worse, the Church report argued.

It also contested the fact that the introduction of divorce would reduce the number of cohabiting couples.

Backing his argument by foreign research, Mgr Gouder said that what sounded logical was however contradicted by facts, which showed that in other countries the number of cohabiting couples actually went up despite the presence of divorce.

The report described as "contradictory" Mr Scicluna's argument that those who were pro-divorce were also in favour of marriage. "They are in favour of the marriage they wish to enter into while, at the same time, they disregard their first marriage," Mgr Gouder said. He insisted that research showed that second and third marriages proved to be less stable than the first.

The report, For Worse Not For Better, was compiled by Progett Impenn, a Church initiative in favour of families and marriage and made up of representatives from the Diocesan Family Commission, Caritas and the Cana Movement. The title is a reference to the Scicluna report called: For Worse, For Better: Re-Marriage After Legal Separation.

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]

Read the complete Chuch's document here: http://www.maltadiocese.org/file.aspx?f=8686

---

Times: Church makes case against divorce

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090717/local/church-makes-case-against-divorce
Friday, 17th July 2009 - 13:01CET

Malta does not need divorce, a report conducted by the church insists.

The report, “For Worse Not for Better”, is a reaction to the Martin Scicluna report which advocated the introduction of divorce.

It was compiled by Progett Impenn, which is made up of representatives from the Diocesan Family Commission, Caritas and the Cana Movement.

Mgr Anton Gouder said the Scicluna report could be faulted on a number of matters including lack of proper sources, wrong data and unsubstantiated statements.

The church report disputed the argument made that divorce should be introduced because there were a number of negative social situations in society. It argued that none of these social ills could be healed or diminished by divorce.

Moreover, from a social perspective, divorce would only make the situation worse.
The church contested the fact that the introduction of divorce would reduce the number of cohabiting couples backing its arguments by foreign research. It said that what sounded logical was contradicted by facts.

Mgr Gouder said that “those who were not part of the solution to the problem were part of the problem”.

Asked to comment on whether people were annulling to still have the right to remarry in spite of the non-existence of divorce, Mgr Gouder said that when a couple were going through an annulment process, it was not a case of one person against another but of a couple against the institution of marriage.

The principle adopted in the Church Tribunal of having a defender of the bond should also be adopted in the civil court when deciding on annulment cases.

Asked whether it was discriminatory that Malta recognised divorce obtained from foreign courts, Mgr Gouder said that discrimination was when people in the same situation were treated differently.

“The law stipulates that a Maltese court can recognise a divorce obtained abroad if either of the couple were domiciled in that country. This is not discrimination because the situation is different,” he said.

[Click on the hyperlink at the top to view the comments on the Times' website.]

Read the complete Chuch's document here: http://www.maltadiocese.org/file.aspx?f=8686