During his two-year term as Prime Minister, Dr Alfred Sant appointed a Commission for the Future of the Family designed to examine how the introduction of divorce in Malta could be obtained.

Regrettably, the conclusion and recommendations of this commission had to be shelved and, subsequently, dumped by the Nationalist Party which was elected in 1998. Since then, for presumably tactical reasons, divorce has not featured in the Malta Labour Party's two electoral campaigns.

In the 1992 and 1996 elections, divorce featured prominently in the Alternattiva Demokratika's electoral campaigns. However, AD chose to remain silent on this issue in their last two electoral campaigns. I assume the party's chairman, Dr Harry Vassallo, has remained steadfast in his belief which he, at one stage, expressed thus: "It makes no sense to impose the rigours of my religion on any of my compatriots who are non-Catholics or lapsed Catholics. Religion cannot be imposed by majority rule".

The official PN position remains that of Dr Lawrence Gonzi who, to my knowledge, during his long tenure of office as Social Policy Minister, was reported to have said he would vote against divorce in Parliament as he considered himself a staunch Catholic. He was also reported to have said that, if people wanted divorce, they would have to vote for someone else, for his religion did not allow him to support divorce.

The outgoing Prime Minister, now President of the Republic, Dr Eddie Fenech Adami, is also an avowed Catholic; he, too, is opposed to the introduction of divorce in Malta.

The call of a Catholic politician

This article mainly addresses those Maltese politicians who regard themselves as practising Catholics, whatever this term means in today's Church. It does not exclude those politicians who consider themselves nominal or lapsed Catholics or who, officially or otherwise, have renounced their Catholic faith. They, too, in the main, may espouse humanistic values, have a moral/ethical code they abide by, and regard the common good as their paramount consideration. The divorce issue does concern them as well.

Regarding what they called "the difficult but very noble art of politics", the Fathers of Vatican II praised "the work of those who for the common good devote themselves to the service of the state and take on the burdens of office."

They urged politicians that "with integrity and wisdom, they must take action against any form of injustice and tyranny". (Gaudium et Spes, 75). In essence, they are being counselled by the Church to recognise their duties, protect the rights of the persons, families and groups in their community and make courageous choices in support of those who, in one way or another, are victims of an injustice.

A considerable number of those with a broken marriage behind them, and who wish to remarry, fall into the category of marginalised persons. They and their children are the victims of abuse and injustice by their ex-spouses and, at times, by the state. This situation certainly calls for legislative remedy, and no politician can renounce his or her responsibility to make courageous decisions based on an informed conscience and in the interest of the common good. Turning a deaf ear to the plight of these marginalised people is simply immoral.

Certainly, those, who despite sincere efforts to save their first marriage were unjustly abandoned by their irresponsible spouses, are victims of injustice. Some wish to start a new life and remarry - they do not wish to enter into an illicit relationship or to cohabit.

They, particularly women, perceive cohabitation as either immoral or detrimental to their and their children's psychological well-being. Moreover, the laws of Malta do not recognise divorce; but Maltese couples, married in Malta, can obtain a divorce in virtually any other country and have the Maltese courts recognise it. This situation is, in my view, a form of institutionalised abuse and an injustice perpetrated by the state.

Politicians, like the rest of us, too, may have close friends and family members who are caught in this heart-rending situation. They may feel that, by introducing divorce, they would go against the tenets of their religious faith. This perception or belief should not necessarily be the case.

I believe that, if these politicians, particularly the staunch and avowed Catholics among them, were confident enough to rely on their well-informed Catholic conscience, or were to seek the right spiritual advice (not necessarily religious) on this issue, they would feel more liberated and empowered to take the right decisions.

Moreover, it would be a healthy exercise for politicians if they were, with integrity and imaginative impartiality, and with the right attitude of mind and heart, to ask themselves: Were I one of those marginalised and victimised persons, would I regard my action, or my inaction, of introducing divorce as just and loving?

Pros and cons of divorce

What politicians must decide is whether, on the balance of probability, the introduction of a divorce law in Malta would do more harm than good, by damaging the fabric of society for which they are responsible.

On the one hand, we have the opponents of divorce who would normally base their arguments both on the Church's belief that marriage is indissoluble and on the premise that it eats away at the foundation of the marital system and the social fabric.

They are convinced that the availability of divorce would open the floodgates for more divorces. They also feel that divorce causes children and abandoned spouses needless economical and psychological harm and leaves families of subsequent marriages unusually troubled.

Furthermore, they argue that marriage is a voluntary union of life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. This means that, on entering marriage, husband and wife must intend that their marriage should be for life. It requires spouses taking the duties and responsibilities of marriage more seriously and strengthening their resolution to make their marriage work. Those supporting this view are convinced that, giving husband and wife the right to terminate their marriage at pleasure, is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of marriage as God willed it.

On the other hand, the advocates of divorce would argue that if marriage has irretrievably broken down, it is in the interests of the parties to the marriage, of children of the marriage, and of the community, that the marriage should be ended by divorce, and the parties set free to enter into new marriages, if they do wish.

They point out that if two people are no longer in love, they should not be forced by Church or State to live together. They feel that, without the freedom to divorce, illicit unions are formed and illegitimate children often begotten. In their experience, some of those illicit unions have all the qualities of an enduring marriage and it is a grievous hardship to the parties that they cannot be legally married and have legitimate children. They also claim that it is against the interests of public morality that there should be such illicit unions in that they tend to put the status of marriage into disrepute.

Furthermore, advocates of divorce believe that the bulk of the psychological troubles suffered by children from divorced parents actually is caused by warring parents prior to the divorce. Most would accuse the Catholic Church of adopting double standards in her pastoral practice: they know that the Catholic Church has, since the apostolic times, allowed for various types of dissolutions of marriages, some of which are sacramental - most of these persons were allowed to remarry in the interest of the faith or on the principle of the lesser evil.

Proponents of divorce regard such dissolutions as divorce since the Church does, in effect, dissolve the bond of marriage, leaving at least one of the parties free to marry again, as if he or she had never married before. They are convinced that such dissolutions (and the Church's canonical practice of annulments) do leave psychological scars, at times permanent, on the children involved in such marital break-ups.

What is paramount?

In his address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, delivered on September, 12, 1960, John F. Kennedy had this to say about the role he would play if elected as the first Catholic American President:

" I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all...

"I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make a decision in accordance with these views - in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise".

I would be interested to know the views of our Catholic politicians regarding Kennedy's speech, coming as it was from a Catholic American politician. Would they regard his speech as a betrayal of his Catholic faith? Is it anathema to their ears? What parts of his speech would they wholeheartedly endorse, what other parts would they vigorously object to?

What do they regard as paramount in their system of beliefs and values: Rome or their informed conscience, their party leader or their constituents, the common good or their own political self-interest? What holds them back from publicly expressing responsible dissent within their own party or in the Church?

Undoubtedly, all office-bearers, ecclesiastical or political, are in danger of isolation, of arousing suspicion, and, of attracting intolerance whenever they take the road less travelled - the road of responsible dissent in the name of justice. With regard to divorce, it would help Catholic politicians in particular to bear in mind that the point of departure is neither the highest good, nor 'the general will' nor 'the imperative of duty' with its universal moral maxim. What matters is that, whatever we do to the marginalised, we do it to Jesus. The House of Representatives should be a form of laboratory of humanisation and not the mouthpiece for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith.

Call for a political consensus

Divorce calls for a political consensus. This sensitive issue has often been raised by a number of correspondents in the media but, regrettably, the government does not take heed - it continues to abdicate its position to take legislative action. No politician worth his or her salt seems to have the gall to stand up and speak for his or her constituents.

For many of us brought up to believe in a doctrine of absolute obedience to all human authority and particularly to Church authority, the notion of responsible dissent might seem hard to accept. In fact, responsible dissent has a very solid basis in tradition, especially in the thought and practice of St Paul, Malta's patron saint. It was Paul who "opposed him (Peter, the first among equals) to his face, since he was manifestly wrong". (Galatians 2:11)

To deny responsible dissent, in theory and in practice, to one's subjects is to take the path that leads to totalitarianism. Lest the Govern-ment wants to be seen as such, and to act as such, I suggest it should take the more democratic road to a resolution of this seemingly 'intractable' problem.

If the government really has the national interest at heart, it should have the humility and courage to open, without further delay, the corridors of effective communication with the Opposition for a possible agreement in holding a referendum. This would save the Government the hassle of setting up yet another Commission to examine how the introduction of divorce in Malta could be obtained.

The government must avoid the tendency to consider the Opposition less committed to this issue, or other issues of national interest, because they may have a different legislative strategy to its own, or to attribute to them malign motives.

Finally, the government is fully aware of AD's position on divorce: "Religion cannot be imposed by majority rule".

(Concluded)

Frank Muscat, MA, Ph.Lic., S.Th.Lic., CQSW, is a former member of the Inner and North London Panel of Guardians ad Litem and Reporting Officers, and a former member of the Law Society Child Care Panel. He worked in the High Court and in the Family Proceedings Court in London. He also worked in the Ecumenical Chaplaincy of Queen Mary College, University of London. From 1996 to 1998, he was chairman of the Children and Young Persons Advisory Board in Malta. He has also been a family counsellor and an assistant of the Juvenile Court since 1996.