The Supreme Administrative Court’s recent decision requiring the Coptic Orthodox Church to allow second marriages for Coptic divorcees has elicited various reactions. The Coptic Church and many of its followers have rejected the verdict, and Pope Shenouda III said he would not abide by it. Yet the court insists on its ruling.
This decision cannot be separated from the sectarian tensions that are currently prevailing in Egyptian society. The Church and its followers reject any interference by the state in matters pertaining to faith. This may lead to a clash between the church and the state, unless the church appeals the ruling and manages to obtain another verdict in its favor. As it stands now, the Church’s decision may draw accusations that it functions as a state within the state and does not enforce the rulings of the judiciary.
Although the ruling has given hope to those Copts wishing to marry again, it also contradicts another verdict, issued by the Court of Cassation, that Coptic divorcees are to be governed by the laws of their religion. The Administrative Court’s decision is a triumph for human rights–particularly the right to remarry–but contravenes the Church’s absolute authority over questions relating to religious creed. So are we on the verge of another clash between the church and state?
The Egyptian state should not pressure the church to change its position, but rather should legislate procedures that permit civil marriages. As to the demands of the church, these should be addressed in the family affairs draft law that all churches agreed to in 1979. This draft law, which the government has kept in the drawer ever since, stipulates that divorce can be granted only in cases of adultery.
This would put a lid once and for all on the other eight reasons for Coptic divorce–enshrined in law since 1938–which the church opposes, but the judiciary still recognizes. Adopting the new draft law would solve the problem between the church and the state, though it would not help those who want to escape their failed marriages for personal reasons.
While the onus is on the state to enable civil marriages, the church should also determine its stance with regards to personal status, and commit itself only to the letter of the law and not to its spirit. The church grants divorces in cases of adultery, as stipulated by the letter of the law. But it also allows a divorced woman to marry again, while denying that right to her ex-husband on the basis that he has sinned. Is the church really applying the letter of the law in such cases? Does the law not say that he who marries a divorced woman thereby commits adultery with her? The church obviously compromises the law in this particular case. So why not compromise the law in all cases?
To solve this impasse, the state has a responsibility to implement civil rights, while the church must reconsider its position on personal rights.
Translated from the Arabic Edition.
