The author argues that divorce issue pose
serious problems in many Copts’ private life and
are causing a severe conflict between the state and the
Coptic Orthodox Church. The conflict is due to the
state’s desire to impose its rules and laws on all citizens,
Muslims and Copts, who have equal rights and
duties before the law. It is also because the church wants to regulate
the life of its people according to
Pope Shenouda’s beliefs on the gospel’s provisions.
Between
the two disagreed parties many
problems that amount to disasters have occurred. Estimates amount the number of
Copts who were divorced by
court rulings and want marriage permission to 100,000 people. The church for its parts
refuses these court
rulings because it prohibits divorce other than in cases of adultery. Therefore, many Copts
resorted to
converting to another religion or to ‘urfī marriage away from the
church’s
administrative complications. Others stand outside al-‘Abbāsīyah Cathedral
every
day, waiting for Bishop Būlā to grant them a divorce that seems they will never be
granted.
Orthodox Copts were subject to non-Muslims personal status law no 462 of 1955 issued in
application
of the personal status regulations issued by Coptic Orthodox Majlis al-Millī in 1937. According
to this law,
divorce was permissible for nine reasons [Reviewer: the author did not mention these reasons].
This law remained
effective during the era of Pope Yu’annis, Pope Makarius and Pope Yūsāb. It
was revoked when Pope
Shenouda, after assuming the papal chair, issued papacy decree no 7 of 1971 that does
not permit or acknowledge
divorce obtained by court rulings for any reason other than adultery. Pope
Shenouda justified his stance by saying
that he cannot violate the Gospels or Jesus’
teachings.
In 1979, Orthodox Church submitted a draft of a
personal status law that was agreed by
all Christian denominations to the People’s Assembly. The draft law was
to substitute law no 462 of
1955 in order to solve the problem of Copts who obtain divorce from courts that are
incompatible with the
divorce reasons mentioned in the Gospels. The draft law was to confine divorce to adultery
instead of the
other nine reasons. Although the draft law was approved by the Ministry of Justice and the Azhar,
the
People’s Assembly did not discuss the issue and accordingly the law has not been applied.
Father
Andrāus ‘Azīz, in a study conducted by him about Christian marriage between
religion
and state, believes that the agreed personal status law rejected by the People’s Assembly
[Reviewer: the
author used the word ’’rejected’’ instead of ’’not discussed
by the
assembly’’] does not solve the existing problem but rather complicates the issue. He says
that this draft
law was issued by the current church’s administration, and that it differs from the
law that was presented and
had been applied in courts during the former administration. He questioned
whether the provisions of divorce differ
from one day to another and what will be the state’s reaction
towards other changes that could be issued by
the next administration. He also believes that the
disagreement between the different Christian denominations make
it difficult to apply a unified law on
divorce.
While writer Karīmah Kamāl wrote in another
study that supporters of Pope
Shenouda’s decision on divorce believe that the decision is based on an explicit
text in the Gospels,
and that the other permitted divorce reasons mentioned in the Laity Council regulations in
1955 were issued
to cope with the evolution of time but have no base in the Gospels. On the other hand, supporters
of the
council regulations believe that the Gospels granted Christian religious clerics a discretionary authority
to settle cases, including issuing licenses to remarry after a divorce ruling is
issued.
Kamāl
concluded that the situation will remain problematic even if the draft law
presented by the current church’s
administration is applied. This law will solve the controversy between
the church which refuses divorce except in
cases of adultery, and the court which gives this divorce ruling
according to the nine reasons of the Laity Council
regulation. She believes that the draft law will solve
the dilemma of the church while the people’s suffering
will remain the same.
