Tuesday, 19th August 2008
Divorce and breakdown
Ranier Fsadni opted for two consecutive weeks, to write on the issue of divorce. In his last contribution (August 14), while analyzing our Bishops' statement, he acknowledged some important assertions like: "Undoubtedly, yes [divorce weakens marriage]"; "any private behaviour that weakens our trust in the stability of marriage damages the institution" and "some scholars ... tend to agree liberal divorce laws push [marriage breakdown] up". These are all strong statements indeed and one would be tempted to shout with Caiaphas "What need of [other] witnesses have we now!" But we do, because throughout his article, Prof. Fsadni shed doubts upon these statements.
Prof. Fsadni referred to Professors Libertad Prof. Gonzalez and Tarja K. Prof. Vittanen, who studied divorce legislations and their effects in 18 European countries. These scholars concluded that "the introduction of no-fault divorce accounted for about 20 per cent of the increase of divorce". This too is a very eloquent conclusion. He tried to water it down by qualifying these results as "provisional". Nowhere in the 31-page paper did Prof. Gonzalez and Prof. Vittanen state that their results were provisional. On the contrary, they referred to their results as "our most conservative estimates" and asserted that "the combined effect of all the legal reforms that took place in Europe between 1960 and 2002 amount to about 20 per cent of the increase in divorce rates in Europe during that period".
Prof. Fsadni admitted that "20 per cent is a high figure". However, after such an affirmation, an exception is expected to follow. He remarked that "it leaves 80 per cent of the rise to be accounted for". The truth is that the researchers set out specifically to study the relation between change in laws and increase in rate of divorce. Their results clearly established that 20 per cent of the rise in divorce rates has a single identifiable source, namely, divorce laws. Nobody blames the law for 100 per cent of all the marriage breakdowns, as Prof. Fsadni hinted.
In his article, Prof. Fsadni thought it convenient to quote the study and inform us that "the introduction of unilateral divorce on the other hand, had no long-term effect." One must comprehend the meaning of "unilateral divorce" as provided by the researchers themselves in order to understand why the introduction of this type of legislation did not leave a long-term effect. They explained that "under unilateral divorce, the break-up will take place unless the spouse who wishes to stay compensates the one who wishes to leave." It sounds strange and precisely because it is strange, it is not embraced by a great number. As a result, it is much more difficult for this type of legislation to make a conspicuous difference in divorce rate.
Moreover, for some reason which I cannot grasp, Prof. Fsadni desisted to communicate to his readers one of the important conclusions of this study: "The effect of the move towards 'no-fault' divorce laws seemed permanent (allowing for the time scale of the panel) with strong, significant long-term effects." Is this not worth underlining?
We are not to be tricked. All countries introduced divorce legislations with a number of restrictions attached. Yet all went down the slippery slope and in practice introduced no-fault divorce legislation.
With all due respect I would like to ask: Is it possible for those "who believe in the value of marriage and the family" and/or for any wise and prudent policy maker or legislator to turn his or her back on this?
RSS
Comments
Divorce may not remove the pain children feel, more than seperatation does. Of course, seperation does, usually, bring pain to children, but divorce will not increase that pain.
While I am impressed with Profs Fsadni's way of countering what Fr Gouder wrote, I am of the belief that to the common people, statistics and quotations are no longer important!
Where does that leave Fr Gouder’s accusation that I omitted an important finding of the study? This is the conclusion that the move towards no-fault divorce had significant, permanent, long-term effects.
This conclusion is the same as the statement in my column: “the introduction of no-fault divorce accounted for about 20 per cent of the increase in European divorce rates between 1960 and 2002.” Twenty percent over 40 years is indeed significant, permanent and long-term.
The abstract of the IZA paper makes it clear that these are not two separate conclusions but one, and that I conveyed it clearly: ‘We find that the different reforms “that made divorce easier” were followed by significant increases in divorce rates. The effect of no-fault legislation was strong and permanent, while unilateral reforms only had a temporary effect on divorce rates. Overall, we estimate that the legal reforms account for about 20 percent of the increase in divorce rates in Europe between 1960 and 2002.”
There is something very strange about being accused of resisting the findings of research that I took the trouble to publicise, plainly showing I considered it important.
On the day my column appeared – five days before Fr Gouder’s letter was published – I wrote to Dr Gonzalez. I sent her a copy of the column and explained I had had to base it on the 2006 version of the paper. I added: “I took care to say that your conclusions were provisional (as required of all IZA papers). If I have misrepresented your conclusions… I’d be happy to carry a correction.”
Dr Gonzalez has told me that I described the main findings accurately and did not in any way misrepresent them.
I am very surprised at the spirit with which Fr Gouder is conducting this exchange. He accuses me of a cover-up while using information I freely provided. He attributes to my words a meaning they plainly do not have.
For example, he writes that I say I knew of the final version of the study when I wrote the article. What I said was that I wrote to one of the authors, Libertad Gonzalez, to ask if a final version had been written; the one sent arrived too late.
I did not know a final version existed when I submitted the article. Until I knew whether the conclusions were revised, I was bound by the title-page of the IZA paper, which states: ‘Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character.’
And why did I write to her? Evidently, because I would have preferred to present the conclusions as final. I read her reply when my article was in press. I took the first available opportunity – this online exchange – to publicise the final version of the paper, including the fact that the main conclusions had remained unchanged.
As regards the question of Holy Orders, I can only offer the Anglican understanding. Marriage and Holy Orders are two completely different entities with different rules. Priesthood is never and can never be deleted, one is given permission to cease carrying out the priestly office. From the outside one is a layman but the ontological change given in Ordination remains for ever. Most of our priests are married and they too have difficulties in their married life, but we believe that with Christ all things are possible and that his transformating love can renew every situation. But the two are completely different realities.
@ E. Fitouri: I find it difficult to see as stable a situation when a five year old has to spend week ends with one set of adults and week days with another, everyone ignoring what they need or want. This situation creates high tensions when one set of adults competes with another and the child is literally spinning round as if they have no feelings of their own. I know that marriages go through difficult times but the vast majority work at it, some want an easy way out...you have to hear and see to believe.
@ F. Farrugia: You seem to know the pain children feel, divorce will not remove this pain. Maybe you can help those who work with them.
Fr Anton Gouder: You remind me of a Prime Minister I worked with . From an entire multi-pronged agrument coming for his opposite side, he would pick just one sentence and harp on that for the rest of the evening, ignoring every other facet of the argument. Without being selective this time, just answer the one question you keep ignoring, if you want your views to be respected. Vincent Galea put it eloquently in this same blog:
" This question (in relation to divorce): Why can a priest (or a nun, for that matter) easily defrock (TU ES SACERDOS IN AETURNUM!) and happily marry, as if nothing has ever happened? None of the clergy, be they the bishops or others, have ventured to give us a veritable explanation for this phenomenon. And please no dogmas or other usual evading rhetoric! A clearcut and simple answer "
In my world, the title page is part of a study. The title page of the Gonzalez-Viitanen paper available on the IZA website (Discussion Paper 2023, March 2006) states: ‘IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.’
The corresponding author, Libertad Gonzalez, inhabits the same world I do. When, before writing my article, I wrote to ask if the conclusions had been revised, she cheerfully sent me a copy of the final version of the paper, which will be published in the European Economic Review. (It arrived too late for me to use last week. The revisions are mostly but not only presentational; some numbers are slightly different but the main conclusions remain unchanged.)
Fr Gouder raises one or two other points about my article. Interested readers can make up their own minds by comparing my column with what Fr Gouder says about it.
Reading Fr Anton Gouder’s letter, I wondered if we inhabit the same world.
In my world, when a columnist wants to pour doubt on a statement, he (or she) does not begin by supporting it, let alone by saying that it is ‘undoubtedly’ true. He just pours doubt on it.
In my world, a columnist does not waste 23 percent of the column highlighting a piece of research – which had hitherto not even entered the local debate – to undermine it. He uses such precious space to highlight an article whose main findings he considers important.
In my world, if a columnist gives enough bibliographical detail about a study to enable a search engine to locate it, this is so that interested readers can engage more closely with the findings.
You refer to the pain of children where a divorce takes place. I can mention to you many more children who are in pain because their parents are still together! I am an educator and I see these children every day!
Children hava a right to a stable environment. Again, I know many marriages where the environment is anything but stable. In such cases, only divorce is the solution!
With all due respect, what do you call the environment when mummy and daddy are always fighting, always at each other's necks, when daddy is hitting mummy and when she's calling him names, when mummy is crying at night and when daddy goes out to drink and doesn't come home before dawn?
It's hard to admit, I know. But ... NEWS FLASH! Divorce might even bring some much needed stability to a child's life. And not just the child, but to all involved.
Whilst admiring the fact that you dedicate your time in helping these families, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. Is the trauma and pain due to divorce or due to separation? Would the siblings still go through these hardships if the parents simply separated and did not divorce?
I think it is important to make the distinction between separation and divorce, because the former is permitted by law in Malta and is increasing in alarming numbers, which is why we are now discussing the latter. Given separation divorce is simply giving back the legal marital status a couple had before they tied the knot, and honestly I cannot see any hardships in that.
As an Anglican I am a married priest but I can not claim expertise on Marriage more than a celibate priest can or any other expert. Marriage one grows into and lives as an exciting adventure and when things go wrong one works hard at it. What we need is more help for married couples and not money wasted in divorce setting and procedures.
I work in a country where divorce is a well established. As parish priest I have to work alongside those who have gone through the trauma of divorce. No one mentions the pain of divorce and the problems inflicted on siblings and the financial hardship that results from divorce. My small experience indicates that the solution for problems in marriage are not found in divorce. Why are so many forgetting the right that children have for a stable environment?
Fr. Gooder brings forward valid arguments but the reality is that marriage breakdiwns are happening anyhow and neither the church nor the state can stop these. Watever we call them, sepreations, annulments they are still there staring us straight in the face.... what divorce will bring is a chance for people to re marry with whoever they choose and not get stuck in n o mans land ....
Church worshippers need not do this, they may live their life as they deem fit ..... but let the minority live as they wish...
Fr Gouder, I did not mean any disrespect; but most arguments you and people of your opinion seem to make (i) are either religious in nature; or (ii) tend to throw the baby out with the bath water. What I mean by the latter is: there are people whose marriages failed (even though in the eyes of the Church their marriage was valid, and therefore annulment is not an option). With what right do any of us have to deny these people a fresh start.
I am very aware of Catholic teachings and one thing your Christ always gave people is a second chance in life. How about following his example?
Whoever has studied the matter as these two gentlemen seem to have please come forward and come to enlighten us. Married or not, religous or atheists whatever, as long as their studies are serious and honest..
'A 2000-year-old book' - yes, indeed, which is unequalled in words of wisdom, many of us seem to lack.
What is wrong is that these people expect to impose their ideals of what is demonstrably fairyland onto the rest of the population, completely disregarding the reality that abounds around us. They point their fingers at the 'sinning' partner while screwing their eyes firmly shut to the wronged spouse. They talk about 'the will of the majority', disregarding the needs - tangible needs - of a not-so-minuscule minority. They are content to sit smugly in the comfort of their successful marriages and thumb their collective noses at others who are less fortunate.
An attitude that clearly translates as "I don't need it, therefore YOU cannot have it!"
What sense is there in that attitude? What logic? What compassion?
This question of why a priest (or a nun, for that matter) can easily defrock (TU ES SACERDOS IN AETURNUM!) and happily marry, as if nothing has ever happened, keeps cropping up! None of the clergy, be they the bishops or others, have ventured to give us a veritable explanation for this phenomenon. And please no dogmas or other usual evading rhetoric! A clear cut and simple answer!!
when a priest voices arguements contary to divorce you tell him to shut up because he is not married, but when a married or seperated person has arguements against divorce you tell them to shut up because they are 'christian fundamentalists'
Big deal. If the studies showed that divorce legislations lead to an increase in marriage breakdowns it would be a different matter.
* Even a single divorce, divided by zero (the current rate) gives infinity.
Another major flaw in your analysis, Fr. Gouder, is the classical problem of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes in an unrealistic world, where everything is and should be perfect. However, nature does not work in that way, there are flaws in nature wherever you look. This also means that according to the law of probability a percentage of marriages will break up, as is this case with a percentage of people being born gay. The Catholic Church has and will continue doing life hell for these unlucky people who do not fall in line with the perfect world that the Catholic Church naively thinks is possible for all. Others have realised these flaws in nature and gave the liberty for people to choose for themselves so that everyone can have a go for happiness in this short existence of ours.
If divorce is introduced, Catholics will _not_ (!) be forced to divorce. If divorce is not introduced, non-Catholics whose marriage failed will be forced to live in misery. It really is as simple as that; so, please, spare us your preaching -- we've heard it all before and are rather unimpressed.