Roamer's column

In an interview carried by this newspaper a fortnight ago, Social Policy Minister John Dalli dealt with a number of topics that come under his portfolio. Character-istically, he called Mater Dei a part-time hospital. The Medical Association did not dissociate itself from this remark as far as I can tell. Perhaps it agrees with the minister.

What attracted my attention, however, was that part of the interview in which Dalli spoke out on the matter of divorce. He expressed himself "terrified" at the way Maltese society was losing what he called its robustness, its cultural and traditional strength. He described recently released statistics as "terrifying".

The source of his dismay, I believe, was a report on an HSBC survey carried out among 41 countries that appeared in The Times, mid-June. It concluded that Malta had the highest rate of secondary schoolchildren who live with just one parent, up from around eight per cent in 2002 to around 37 per cent . If these figures are correct, we have taken an astonishing leap backwards.

I did ask at the time, which part of the air they were plucked from. A couple of days before that, Education Minister Dolores Cristina wrote: "We may question, and should question, the statistic that shows a drastic shift (in four years) from eight per cent to 37.5 per cent." Has she? I suggested to her that it was more than useless to ask "what changes that have taken place in Malta vis-à-vis the family (meant)" and then to come up, as Cristina did, with, "In all probability teachers are best equipped to provide the answer". I thought that an injudicious remark.

There was also this hurried interpretation - not by the minister: "This statistic exposes the reality of life in Malta... we need to equip the children with personal and social values to minimise the effect that this change has in their development", which was all very unwell, I noted, since we were not told quite what those social and personal values were, and who would do the equipping; whether such values were anchored in traditional truths or relativised by the "reality of life in Malta".

Those figures have since been challenged by Fr Anton Gouder and the basis of his challenge was published more than a month after they appeared in that report, an unconscionable time, I thought. In fairness, Gouder went online much earlier, but what use was that when the report had appeared in print? Gouder's challenge should be addressed in detail, not least because on this question there can only be one correct version. The HSBC survey itself should be made public.

I have gone into a bit of detail on this because in the context of that survey, Dalli was asked whether in view of such alarming statistics, Malta should start discussing the introduction of divorce; not what is being done by the State, with its vital interest in the stability of marriage, to shore up the institution.

"Not pleasant", or catastrophic?

Dalli agreed that a discussion should indeed start, "steering away from emotions... (avoiding)... certain aspects, which should not get into the debate." I know what he meant by "emotions" getting in the way, but the fact is that there is nothing more emotional and unsettling than a divorce in search of a marriage, or, for that matter, a marriage seeking a divorce. Ask the children, who are rarely asked anything when things go wrong with their parents and on whom the future of society is tied. Pope John Paul II referred to them as "the springtime of life, the anticipation of the future history of each of our present earthly homelands".

Dalli's enigmatic reference to 'certain aspects' led to the incongruous question, such as the Church? Here, the minister seemed to lose the plot. He agreed that the Church "rightly has its own position". He believed that "religion is a personal matter" and, this bit confused me, "...if I'm a Catholic, it's up to me to analyse the Ten Commandments and the Church project." So I analysed them as best I could and two weeks later I am still unable to fathom what he meant. Nor was the 'Church project' thingy clear.

He agreed, it was "high time to start discussions on divorce in Malta. But we have to be careful not to go to extremes since the destruction of the family is not pleasant." But was he saying that divorce brings about destruction, he was asked?

I would have said, with a wealth of evidence to back me, that the destruction of the family is catastrophic. And had Dalli read the document prepared by Iain Duncan Smith for the Conservative Party - detailed research on what it called Britain's broken society - he would not have hesitated to use that word.

In the circumstances, "not pleasant" was an unfortunate euphemism. But he did say that if divorce were easily attainable it would destroy families; which is not quite the same thing. "...if divorce encourages couples to embark on the road to understanding each other and reconciling as much as possible, then yes - we should seek that path". What path? I may have missed his point, even misread him, but how does divorce "encourage couples to embark on the road to understanding"?

If any dialogue on the subject is to be an honest one, let us at least be clear on this. When divorce was initially introduced in England, 'fault', such as adultery, had to be established. So off one party went for a weekend in Dover, or wherever, leaving a trail that even a blind private detective could follow and hey presto!

Today no fault divorce is firmly in place. I am reminded of Chesterton's prophetic remark, made a hundred years ago, that, "The obvious effect of a frivolous divorce will be frivolous marriage. If people can be separated for no reason they will find it all the easier to be united for no reason".

Dalli was asked a second time: considering those statistics was he willing to engage in a discussion for the introduction of divorce at once? The minister's answer again showed that he had not for a moment questioned those statistics. He took them as read.

Church's engagement essential

Which of course they have been, as part of a report. But the survey itself, had he seen it? Had he read Gouder's objections? Had his advisers? Had he been presented with a report on the report, or on the survey?

If dialogue is to be serious let it be genuinely so. Let us start at the beginning - with marriage. The Prime Minister was quoted recently as saying that, "We believe that what Malta needs most is strong families. Thus we will also be discussing better ways of how to offer more support to strengthen families". That is where any attempt to arrive at a solution has to begin; after all, there can be no divorce if there is no marriage and it is evidently absurd to discuss the former outside the social context of the latter. The State, too, has a stake in healthy marriages; as does society.

Nor can dialogue be fruitful if the hasty, unintelligent assumption is made, as it already has been, that the Church, qua Church, has no contribution to make to the discussion; best leave her out of it. This is nonsense. For one thing, the position of the Church is not limited to the sacramental viewpoint of the indissolubility of marriage for its encouragement of the institution, its distaste for divorce, its respect for a vow.

It draws on a wide range of reasonable, ethical and social platforms to contribute to any debate, not least on her experience and wisdom of the ages and the evidence all around us. She has a place in the public arena, is entitled to it by virtue of her immersion in a society which it is her task to evangelise, a task she has carried out for two millenniums and which she will perform for the next two, long after this is over. Those who would ban it from the public forum are those who are afraid of her wisdom.

Hers the duty and responsibility to preach and explain the sacramentality and, therefore, indissolubility, of marriage to her followers - those who do not follow her may choose to dismiss what she has to say and to that choice they have a right. What they have no right to, is to deny her her rights. And it would be nice to think there may be those who do not belong to the Church, or who have left it, yet still agree with her position on marriage and divorce.

But there is another level at which the Church has the right and the duty to speak, the utterly human level, and this because nobody understands humanity in its fullness and in its littleness as well as she does.

She cannot impose her view but she has the duty and every right to express it, calmly, persuasively, intelligently (above all, intelligently) and forcefully in churches and in the squares, that is, the media.