 |
| Deborah Schembri: banned and unbanned |
Soon after Deborah Schembri started campaigning for divorce the Curia banned her from giving her legal services in marriage annulment cases before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
Quoting church chapter and verse,
the Curia ruled that by negating the indissolubility of marriage she
precluded herself from practicing in a tribunal which is based on
it. Even Pope Paul John II was drafted in to bolster the banishment of Deborah Schembri .
As
much as the ban jarred with the current, intellectually lazy, live and
let live climate, it was logical and consistent. If you belong to a club
you have to abide by its rules. Even, if you are only using its
facilities, so to speak, as Deborah was doing.
But then out of the blue the Curia lifted the ban and Deborah Schembri was back in business. Forgetting all the chapter and verses it feverishly quoted during the referendum campaign, the Curia never explained its U-turn. Was it saying that Pope John Paul II was wrong all along?
Now
let me be clear. This is not about Deborah Schembri. Indeed the Curia
itself had said that she was not the first lawyer to be banned for the
same reason. The argument is about logic and consistency.
Now Mons. Arthur Said Pullicino, the head of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, has taken matters a stranger step further by declaring that those who got or are getting a divorce are eligble for a church annulment.
So picture a typical session
of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal from now on. People who do not
believe in marriage for life will be assisted by lawyers who do not
believe in marriage for life both pleading for an annulment from a tribunal which exists because of the principle that marriage is for life.
Absurd, totally absurd.
Absurd, totally absurd.
3 comments:
I believe that you are on the wrong path of logical thinking.
Those who do not believe in marriage is for life, won't come in the Curia Tribunal for annulment.
Secondly, before spilling beans, you should count them. How about if you ask Deborah, on the conversation she had with Archbishop Paul. Maybe that would be more politically correct and not slimy.
Third, it will take more tweaks in the Divorce law procedure to make solid judgments about the issue of who opens a case for annulment. For example the UK divorce is what is applied immediately, so there is no space for separation. Italy however, has both provisos, since it gives the couple enough time to reconcile and sort things out.
It really depends on how matters will evolve, but even divorce partners who believe that marriage is for life have a right for an annulment hearing. Those who do not, can live their marriage happily ever after.
j
I would think that not all those who obtain a divorce have grounds for a church annulment. Did he really say eligible?
When a Curia Tribunal's decision is binding on the state, and when, if one party opts for a church annulment, his/her spouse has no choice but to go for a church annulment, then that person should (at the very least) have the right to a lawyer of his/her choice.
All other matters are superfluous. This was not about the right of lawyers to work in the Church Tribunal. This was about a person's right to a lawyer of one's choice.
Post a Comment