Can the Catholic majority tolerate divorce?

The Sunday Times survey last week made good reading. My only criticism is that it was jointly carried out on divorce and abortion, as if these two are inextricably connected.

There seems to be an agenda to always taint divorce with abortion here, so as to delay as long as possible the former's introduction, something I find to be rather unfair and misleading.

The vast majority of Maltese do not want abortion legalised, except when women or girls are raped. That is a very mature attitude, and like it or not those women and sadly girls too, who are raped, will, if they can financially and with the support of family and friends, go abroad to sort this problem out. We can all beat our chests in shock horror, but if this were your daughter or mother you would probably do the same, whatever self-righteous letters are written in to news-papers to say the contrary.

Divorce is coming. It is now a question of when. I hope the majority of practising Catholics in Malta will allow those who are not as 100 per cent practising to have a state divorce, at the very least if they have a state marriage.

After all, if you choose to marry in church because you believe your marriage should last for ever, that is certainly your choice and it should be respected. But an increasing number are not marrying in church in Malta. Why should they be bound by Church rules on this too?

Allowing divorce to come in here is an issue of tolerance.

Are the staunchly practising Catholics prepared to give others the choice not to follow the Catholic rules of marriage? If your husband or wife commits adultery or beats you, do you believe that marriage should be preserved? If you are a staunch Catholic, you will allow this couple to separate but not to marry again.

I know of one 25-year-old who recently found his wife in bed with another. She doesn't want him back anyway, as he was prepared to try again like the good practising Catholic he is. So according to Church rules he can never marry again? Should his life be ruined, through no fault of his own, at the age of 25? That is a terrible life sentence for one who is not guilty.

And that's only a part of the problem. It's one thing to not allow the guilty party to marry again, the adulterer, the wife or husband-beater, the gambler. But what about the injured party? Why on earth should they never be allowed to marry, not even in a civil ceremony, because the Church rules say so for church marriages?

Those who are against the introduction of divorce believe that there will be even more marriage breakdowns if it is brought in. Yet by not allowing it we are also causing great social confusion everywhere, as new relationships are being formed with no legal ties whatsoever.

It is encouraging more trouble and promiscuity, not less. It is telling men they can two-time their wives, go off with another, have more children and not even have any real legal commitment to them because they cannot marry again anyway.

It is also telling the victims of adultery they had better put up with it because if they leave they can never really find anyone to support them again through marriage. And let's be honest: if you have children, you do need supporting. That is why single mothers are among the most destitute in Malta.

The most common argument I hear against divorce is in the children's favour. That is fine as far as it goes, but then how do the anti-divorce majority defend annulments? How devastating is it to a child to realise that her parents' marriage somehow never existed? That is far more traumatic than a marriage breaking down. It is in fact, in my view, the most hurtful solution of all.

And all those of you who know children whose parents have got an annulment know this to be true. It is a terrible and unnecessary blow. What is the child's legal status after that, after all?

It was one thing in the days of arranged marriages and non-consummation to have annulments, but now? When there are children, how on earth can you plead a marriage didn't exist? It's not that difficult, you know. If you can somehow indicate your intentions were not Catholic and good at the start, then the Church can decree a Catholic marriage didn't exist.

Annulment is an absolutely appalling solution for children and I do wish that the Commissioner for Children would commission a detailed qualitative study of the effects of annulments on children. It would not make pretty reading, I'm sure.

Sadly though, I believe divorce will be more likely to come in when some people high up there are not able to use the annulment route and have no option.

Most politicians I know are not totally against introducing divorce, and even more so when they have been touched by the need for it among family and friends. Politicians, like most human beings, do feel empathy for others and this no divorce rule is not only anachronistic but very cruel too.

One of the great contradictions in all this, and shown too by the The Sunday Times survey, is that couples can separate but not divorce. So if you want to leave your wife or husband you can. You cannot really be stopped. Strangely though, you cannot marry again. You can sleep around, have children with whomever, but not marry? What message is that sending out to people anyway?

In fact, while just over half are against divorce and more than a third in favour, the split on separations is very different. About 52 per cent thought a separation was not a solution to marital problems, while 42 per cent thought it was. So it's a pretty even split as far as separations are concerned.

Why so many don't make the move to accept separations and also divorce is probably down to the relentless propaganda against, not least this always linking together of divorce and abortion.

I understand why the Church holds fast on this but it is different for our political classes. They have to uphold what is right and often do go against popular feeling, on say the refugees. In this case they need to bring in divorce to show this is a tolerant country, where the Church does not rule the state.

It's so strange, isn't it. We are so worried about all those Muslim countries' fanaticism where their religion has such a tight grip on their daily lives. We surely don't want the same here.

It really is time to separate the Church from the State in Malta and for the majority to tolerate that civil marriages should not be bound by the same rules as Catholic ones.

Are we tolerant enough?