The divorce debate (1)

Social Policy Minister John Dalli seems to have set the cat among the pigeons when he broke ranks and added his ministerial weight to the forces clamouring for the introduction of divorce. Mr Dalli restricted himself to the view-point that it is time for the divorce issue to be discussed. In measured words, Prime Minister Gonzi did not mind the discussion , but he kept his powder dry, and gave no indication of his stance on the issue.

Then came Michael Falzon, opinion-maker and former PN minister, who waded into 'the divorce debate' insisting that such a discussion "is needed in a healthy democratic society, even if it leads to the conclusion that divorce should not be introduced" (The Sunday Times, July 27). The debate is not new. In fact, Mr Falzon recalled his own participation in the debate, and his exchanges with Georg Sapiano in July 1993. At that time, he invoked the hoary old chestnut about 'the lesser of two evils', and completely overlooked the moral aspects involved. Now, he argues cautiously that "if the present situation is such that the lack of divorce is leading to social disorder, then the state is obliged to introduce divorce". In the same article, he admitted that, "perhaps", he "stands to be corrected"!

Mr Falzon seems to be inclined to think that the number of cohabitating couples forming legally unrecognised family units has increased to the extent that this phenomenon must be regulated, so that there is order in society. What makes one think that divorce legislation will wipe out the social disorder emanating from widespread cohabitation?

Divorce legislation is about devaluing the institution of marriage and the family bond as we know them. Would such legislation ensure that divorced people who remarry would never be inclined to seek pastures new, or would it merely make it possible for people to divorce and marry again, many times over? In this case, wouldn't social disorder increase exponentially? Mr Falzon has underlined the fact that the PN is not a confessional political party and claims superfluously that "upholding Christian Democratic principles is not tantamount to upholding Canon Law as the law of the land".

Nevertheless, the issue has its clear and unmistakable moral aspects - all related to the challenges which should not be shirked by upright politicians and the enlightened electorate. Among these challenges are oblivion to the common good, social behaviour guided by the logic of the market, the destruction of the models of life transmitted by the family, school and parish community, and the exaltation of individualism.

It is the destruction of values handed down by ancestral cultural traditions, and the undermining of the electoral conscience, in a context of globalised secularisation, that has caused the rot. This should be the focal point of discussion, if and when a meaningful divorce debate is to be launched.