An explanation

I would like to comment on the articles by Ranier Fsadni and Tim Ripard (October, 31) who referred to my previous contribution on the subject of divorce.

Mr Fsadni prefers to start by loading me with a whole list of negative attributes. These have little or no effect on me, except that they manifest an extra defensive approach on the part of the author. What counts are facts and arguments about facts. These are clearly missing in the rest of his article.

Contrary to his allegation, I am not "angered" by those who want to legalise divorce. I am quite calm by character. Very often anger is thrown at me. One need not recall my participation in various television programmes to prove this because Mr Ripard's article is a clear case in point.

I only have a belief, about which I have made my best to study and to continue to study deeply. I admit that it has all started from my religious belief that divorce is morally wrong.

But I have also acknowledged the fact that religious beliefs hold ground only to believers. So I have also turned to data provided by the social sciences.

To my great surprise and comfort, I have found them to be in tune with my religious belief on several counts. At the same time, I also strongly believe that my God is not an erratic God but a loving God. Therefore, He must have good solid reasons, in our interest, in order to prohibit a certain kind of behaviour.

With regard to the particular issue of divorce, unfortunately to them and fortunately to us, we can have a look at what has happened to various other countries where it has been introduced several years ago.

Hundreds if not thousands of books and articles have been written on the negative psychological and social effects of divorce. I am fully convinced that divorce is disruptive to society, apart from having harmful consequences to persons involved and others not directly involved. I have never claimed that my findings are infallible. That is why I engage in such discussions. I have read my last contribution over and over again to find the source from where Mr Fsadni has brought the whole argument about tolerance, victims and children.

I have found nothing. I am against divorce not only because it damages victims of broken marriages, especially children, but also because it damages society and the very concept of marriage. Who is in favour of divorce must be consistent and insists that the marriage vow "till death do us part" be changed to "till one of us feels otherwise".

Mr Fsadni has classified my contribution as, among other things, "marred by factual mistakes". But I am pleased to note that he seems to agree that "the legalisation of divorce is sociologically linked to a higher rate of marriage breakdown than there otherwise would have been".

He also states that he accepts the statistics with which he says I am familiar. He also acknowledges that these statistics "link divorce, in today's western societies, with certain distressing family conditions that exist to a lesser degree in families where the couple has stayed together".

Later in his article, he also states that divorce law makes a difference in the sense that the number of divorces becomes "probably slightly higher". At least, without knowing, he has acknowledged that I have scored three or four good points.

What are, according to Mr Fsadni, these factual mistakes? He has labelled as "untrue" and "wrong" my statement that "in countries where divorce has become the norm, the number of marriages has gone down and the number of cohabiting couples has gone up". Despite this heavy judgment, in his following paragraph he declares that "it does fit contemporary western societies".

Honestly, I cannot understand why he has claimed that my statement is untrue and wrong, since it is obvious that I am arguing about contemporary western societies. And why are we to presume that what has happened in these contemporary western societies would not happen also in Malta? He himself has concluded that "looking at the European cases helps too."

On the other hand, Mr Ripard does not have the same point of view as Mr Fsadni whom he quotes and supports, and states that "we are not concerned with other countries."

It is unclear to whom the "we" refers because both Mr Fsadni and myself are obviously concerned.

In his attempt to confute my point, Mr Fsadni gives a list of markers that have been present in society scores of years ago, that "have been eroded by developments" and that, in his opinion, "as a result [of which], marriage has become less socially significant".

With all due respect, Mr Fsadni is mistaken because he has based his polarity on the assumption that when I said that the number of marriages had gone down and the number of cohabiting couples had gone up, I had made comparisons with far off times.

Mr Fsadni has been surprised (or scandalised?) because I have put the question: "If these [divorced and cohabiting] couples consider marriage to be a form of upgrading of their commitment, how can they manage to put their marriage in the trash?" Because of this question, I have qualified as having a "narrow view of why marriages break down."

This same question has created concern also to Mr Ripard. To set his mind at rest, I would like to state it clearly that I firmly believe that marriage is much more beneficial to the couple, their children and society than cohabitation.

And I am also aware that in a number of marriage breakdowns, the husband or the wife is a victim. But I feel certain that he is not suggesting to grant divorce to these victims only.

The whole point is that it seems that for both Mr Fsadni and Mr Ripard, marriage breakdown and divorce are one and the same thing.

In fact, later on in his article Mr Fsadni writes: "None of this is to say that a divorce law makes no difference. The number of divorces is probably slightly higher than it otherwise would be".

In fact they are not interchangeable. The question that I have put is concerned with divorce and not with marriage breakdown.

The final point that Mr Fsadni has tackled is the role of the state and of God. For him the state is to regulate behaviour as best it can, in the interests of justice, equality, and liberty.

I am sure that he has at some time come across the concept of common good which he has very conveniently omitted. I have already clearly stated that it is not the role of the state to implement God's law, simply because it is God's law. But what about if what happens to be against God's law is disruptive to society?

I agree with Mr Fsadni that the state (and every individual for all that matters) has to ask the question: "What is more disruptive: legalisation or prohibition?"

With regard to divorce, I have answered this question. Mr Fsadni admits that for him "it is an open question", although the impression I get is that he too has a position. If my logic is correct, who proposes change has the responsibility to provide solid reasons and sufficient proofs to justify change.

Mr Ripard has also touched upon three other points which I would like to answer as well.

He has objected to me asking whether it is allowed to steal one's wife. He argues that there exists "the possibility of a divorcee having a relationship with a single and never-married partner". The answer is identical. In that case the single and never-married partner is stealing the wife/husband of somebody else.

He also has asked whether our law acknowledges divorce given in a foreign country. The answer is in the affirmative and under certain conditions. This is a principle in private international law. I know more than one person who paid thousands of pounds to go abroad and get a divorce and when on returning to Malta it was not registered because certain conditions had been lacking.

But if this is an argument in favour of divorce, then we need also to legalise poligamy because in some countries it is legal and also recognised under our laws.

Finally, he also asked about an issue that has nothing to do with divorce. He asks about my view on gay priests molesting little boys. If I were to take his advice "do not judge others" I would have found it very difficult to give him an answer. My answer is the same as that given by Pope John Paul II himself: "It is an abominable sin."