Sunday, 5th October 2008
Divorce - no case for moralising
The article by Prof. John Baldacchino of Columbia University (The Sunday Times, September 28) calls for a number of clarifications.
The very first sentence: "To argue for or against divorce has nothing to do with morality" surely needs an intelligible explanation. Morality is concerned with all human acts - of commission or omission - and deeming such acts as being either good or bad. Now divorce is surely a human act, and therefore is to be judged as being either good or bad according to whatever code of morality one acknowledges. To write that divorce has nothing to do with morality means that the writer has to explain what he means by morality.
I need hardly point out that this does not mean that divorce is good or bad, but simply that divorce, like all human acts falls within the sphere of morality.
Of course, the writer contradicts his opening statement because the rest of his writing tends to prove that divorce is a good thing, and that judgment is a moral judgment.
The second, unintelligible, statement read: "To moralise against divorce is to say that those whose marriage breaks down are weak and must suffer the consequences." This statement shows in the first place that 'moralising' about divorce means that to moralise, according to the writer, is to condemn as bad or evil, but does not include that moralising which proclaims divorce as good is not also an exercise in moralising.
The third unintelligible statement is: "The State has no role in judging couples whose relationship has ended." Presumably the writer excludes the authority or jurisdiction of all courts from deciding any claim for divorce by one of the parties against the other party. This appears to be an anarchical position and the writer perhaps should explain what he means.
A fourth strange position taken by the writer is: "Free and responsible individuals are not passive beings who require laws to conduct their lives" but later on Prof. Baldacchino contradicts that statement by saying "which is why the law must be there to preserve one's choice and one's right, and at the same time make sure that legality and morality prevails."
The writer seems to be in two minds about the roles of the State and of the law and this permeates the whole article.
He wants to put out of court, as it were, the State and the law from judging on the relationship between men and women, but then calls upon the two to assist him to bring about the state of affairs he advocates. Among the many parts of the article where this emerges are: "Subsequent 'second' or 'third' families are no less real; just as single parents and same-sex families cannot be ignored. All these are real families and the State cannot force anyone to follow one model. The State must mirror the fact that relationships are plural and that children grow in a variety of contexts. The State must protect its citizens and Parliament must hear and consider everyone's rights."
So it is the State which is burdened with the task of considering "everyone's rights". And, of course 'rights' do have a moral component which the word itself implies.
Lastly, comes the showdown on what the writer really thinks about the human condition: "Although the scenario of women and man, falling in love, getting married and having children seems like the natural thing to do, marriage has nothing to do with natural law."
It would be preposterous of me to think the writer does not know that natural law is concerned with right reason and human basic values, but he should be a bit more attentive about the way he peppers around with the use of common, but intelligible, expressions like morality, the State, the law, and finally natural law, and see to it that their use does not bring about not only contrasts and conflicts in what one writes but outright contradictions.
When these are quite a number and are repeated, it becomes quite tedious to reply.
RSS
Comments
Which is precisely why the church should be denied any unwelcomed intrusion into the private affairs and moral conduct of individuals, endowed at birth to distinguish between right and wrong. No clerical coaching or reproach is required, when the judgment of the public at large in an increasingly secular society, is in practice of a higher caliber than what religion and its undemocratically appointed leaders have to offer.
While the church has an undeniable right to state its opinion(s) on matters of behavior, it must do so within the limits of its denominational constituency. Care should be taken not to overstep its boundaries, where its diminishing influence and outdated ethical codes are not wanted.
The day when the church spoke with unchallenged authority on behalf of its followers is long vanished. So it goes with the key issue of divorce.
You stated "All I know is that when I attend marriage ceremonies of divorcees, the priest says pretty much the same words and gives them communion; same as a catholic ceremony." I don't think the same, because the priest says "until death do us part" and this is an old Marriage Covenant build upon Love [see also Eph 5: 28-29 and Titus Chapter 2: 4] Marriage is a life-long commitment of partners [Mark 10:2-9 Romans 7:2]
All I know is that when I attend marriage ceremonies of divorcees, the priest says pretty much the same words and gives them communion; same as a catholic ceremony.
When divorcees remarry, I am certain that neither that priest's god and his church, nor the couple, nor the state, in fact no one, would treat them as being in an adulterous relationship.
And that other church/priest believes in the same ten commandments and the world doesn't turn upside down every time a divorcee remarries.
It is just that catholicism is against divorce and wants its rules to be mandatory on everyone. I don't think that's fair and I don't think it will work. People whose marriage doesn't work aren't going to live with the stigma of adultery for the rest of their lives - or become celibate. It's just not the wont of the human condition to do that.
The catholic church's drive is unacceptable, won't work, and won't stop people divorcing elsewhere. But don't worry divorce will not become mandatory.
Thanks for praying for me. Goodbye Mr McNeil.
Both you must have not read what I actually said as to what might have been the cause to some separation in couples! On speaking with married couples or separated spouses, the majority approximate 90% stated that they were too busy doing two or three jobs and too tired to find time as to pray. More than 82% stated that after their confirmation age of 9 to years, they either neglected or did not go any further to learn more on our catechism or done any praying or bible reading, but they did find time as to participate in sports, play games on computers, courting at an early age or/either chat with the opposite sex on the internet. This indicated that they did not have a solid formation and when they took there married life they did not have a solid formation as how to face the facts of life with a solid catholic foundation. This could have been mostly the major cause for their brake-up situation and which followed with their separation. So what do you expect in life with these facts...
Well we heard on radio weekly of knife crimes and these came from such families! So would you accept that these facts be with our children? So, if devorce came, the majority of men are inclined to re-marry again, probably three or even four times. He would be responsible to support his ex-wives and children if any. So how on earth could he maintain his former dependents and children. This sort of person would end up as burden to the state and society.
Non-Catholics can marry in Civil, when fed-up, can separate and re-marry again, but not in church. You stated “the introduction of divorce in other countries has not changed the position of catholics married by a priest of God who disallows divorce.” My reply is “did you mean that there is another God or one that allows divorce?” Who is this new God of yours? So you don't like church' laws or the ten commandments that Christians/Catholics have to follow? Maybe you prefare to live in a lawless country with the atmosphere that does not care if the world is upside down or not!!
Let's wipe the slate clean and start again; turn back the clocks.
Perfect! That'll work!
Goodbye Mr Fenech.
Is marriage good? Yes because it is the ultimate expression of respect towards each other.
Is divorce bad? Yes because it is the culmination of events leading to failure.
So my argument hinges on the premise that it is the ultimate obligation of the couple to make a success out of marriage. If for egoistic motives they shy out from honouring their obligations, then ethical they are wrong!
I prefer to view the obligation of marriage and the consequence of divorce away from religion or civil law. The vow of marriage is the voluntary and free desire of the couple to share their life together. It is an intimate rapport between the couple, civil law or religion provides the ceremony to this state. While divorce is the acceptance by the couple of their failure, law or religion is incidental to the cause.
It is society obligation to help in the preparation of marriage and to provide guidance for a stabilise marriage; franchise unconditional failure of its citizens in this quest will be like admitting that failure is accepted by society as second nature!
What would Aquinas think of a priest accompanying, (let alone assisting) lawyers offering money to silence a Gozitan child rape victim's family? Isn't this a crystal clear example of your moral relativism? Isn't this morality as defined by geography/ethos/culture versus a universal evil - the rape of a child; like the Vatican's decree Crimen Sollicitationis shielding predator paedophile priests, putting the church's interests above the protection of children?
Any reader judging these examples with your comment would easily see the irony; and why the world has largely ceased paying any respect/regard to ecclesiastical law and its version of morality.
Also, how could you possibly know what my perception of the marriage vow is? And since you can't possibly know it, how could you state it's a reflection of my arguments and justify your non sequitur as a premise substantiating your argument?
Why can't my arguments be, for example, just one-of-many reflections of my perception of my own marriage vows; which survived for 42 years without any church/religious input, in a state which has an easily accessible no fault divorce system?
Mr. Flynn: Your comments; 1)” Mr Fenech, wants the state/community to enforce the marriage contract in Shylock fashion - no escape clauses” and 2) “If morality doesn't differ by region, why do Bollywood movies never show a lovers kissing” and 3) “People in countries all over the world have treated a marriage breakdown as a "force majeure"; a contract-release on a no-fault basis”
1) Enforce = impose; Marriage is not imposed but approved to freely.
2) Your information about Bollywood was incorrect so were your assumptions.
3) Regarding the no-fault requirement for divorce American Lawyers and judges objected to the legal fictions used to satisfy the requirements for divorce and felt that they made oaths meaningless and threatened to hamper the integrity of the American justice system by making perjury into a commonplace occurrence. The Bolsheviks main reason was to eliminate ecclesiastic law.
Moral Relativism states there are no fixed values, there are only fluctuating human valuations, or that ethical truths are relative, that is, the rightness of an action depends on or consists in the attitude taken towards it by some individual or group, and hence may vary from individual to individual or from group to group.
My comment “Divorce is not immoral it is the >action or inertia< leading to the dissolution which might be >immoral.
The married couple must endeavour to fulfil their ethical obligation beyond the tenant of creed or decree of law. Failing to resolve their predicament due to egoistic consideration will be immoral.
It is 'good' that the sentiments as expressed in the vow should be ethically binding without reservations or ulterior motives. And ethically >culpable< if either one will renegade the vow for selfish reasons.
As regard to civil law and morality there is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law, laws are often evaluated on moral grounds. Moral criticism is often used to support a change in the law. Some have even maintained that the interpretation of law must make use of morality (Dworkin).
Aquinas holds a natural law theory of morality: what is good and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from the rational nature of human beings. Good and evil are thus both >objective and universal
Catholics who cohabit and/or divorce would make their own conscientious/membership decisions.
Non-Catholic's marry without going through the catholic-filter. To me, you make a zero-sum argument.
Mr Fenech, we agree: "divorce is not immoral".
The marriage contract IS an enforceable contract.
Divorce also enforces rights under the dissolved marriage - property/ finance/ children. Where we differ is that I believe there should be a "force-majeure" way out; you don't.
Please quote what I ACTUALLY said; not what it's "LIKE".
You extrapolate morality to conscience.
Conscience emanates from ethos and, by definition, differs by cultures/peoples/regions; ergo is not universally the same and is subject to change. If Indian morality NOW allows Bollywood kisses, doesn't that strengthen my point on ever-changing morality?
However, I believe there are indeed universally held, innate, unalienable, and unchangeable beliefs of good and evil. But civil law didn't make them; they, coloured by people's ethos, made it!
Divorce is not immoral it is the action or inertia leading to the dissolution which might be immoral. Your excuse is that morality is selective to the individual needs at any particular time; like “Moral Relativism” which asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical "truths" depend on the situation, culture, one's feelings, etc. But you contradict your self when you acknowledge that Genocide is universally wrong irrespective who the perpetrator is.
Conscience is universal independent of race or creed. Personal choice has to be a responsible action, for it to be so it must be evaluated against an irreversible standard, derived from the ethos or the civil law. Therefore to avoid ethical confusion the standard must not be diluted.
I have never implied that the state should act as the big brother to the married couple, so I do not understand your inference.
P.S. Divorce is not a play as “The Merchant Of Venice”
Intoxication is forbidden not drinking & re check your bollywood info.!
These parental factors are all related to delinquency and can be grouped into four categories:
1. Parental neglects in large families, poor supervision, inadequate parent-child
interaction.
2. Parental conflict & discipline such abuse or nagging, harsh, erratic or inconsistent
discipline.
3. Deviate (parental) behaviors, or attitudes, parental criminality, or violence or tolerance of
violence etc.,
4. Associate to family disruption, in chronic spouse conflict or marriage
brake-ups.
Children of divorced are likely to finish up in this situation. States be burden with increase in criminality acts. The Church & Government need to study more careful before considering divorce!!!!!
But do we know what sort of misery most of the children of separated spouses would be facing? I will just mention a case of an eight years old boy who his parents being separated were already living with someone else. This boy has now indicated to be in a rebellion state.
Later he has 98% of becoming a criminal (see DR.P.MORGAN....)
8 % those who lived with natural parents
16 % coming from single mothers.
19 % coming from women living with another man (divorced or separated)
70 % of those in prison came from families without a natural father (broken families)
Recent news on television or newspapers told us that criminality increased enormously in the UK since divorce was introduced. Social Justice Commission presently led as it's Chairman; Rt. Hon. George Iain Duncan Smith PC., MP., listed 190 recommendations to address such problems of social decay, like high crime rates, low aspirations, low educational attainment, & high dependency on the state. Marriages based on a solid foundation with rules followed and observed gave no divorce. Local Government should discuss & study why our children could be at risk Without rules then disaster may follow up in life.
He insists that morality doesn't differ from country to country.
It does; and shouldn't be confused with universally held basic human concepts of good and evil.
If morality doesn't differ by region, why do Bollywood movies never show a lovers kissing; yet even in catholic censored Malta in the last century, no one cut the kiss at movie's end? Why do Maltese get freely drunk at festas and partygoers drinking alcohol jailed in Dubai?
Genocide is a universally held evil; but was morally correct during the (un) Holy Inquisition and the Nazi eras, in certain countries.
The state can never take responsibility to vet each marriage contract individually to ensure its constant performance. That would be a preposterous and unacceptably intrusive task.
If support fails, when the marriage dies, morality and decency demand a decent burial.
People in countries all over the world have treated a marriage breakdown as a "force majeure"; a contract-release on a no-fault basis.
From what I observe, "force majeure" just about sums up divorce.
Modern society takes the view that it is immoral NOT to have divorce.
I applaud Prof. Mifsud Bonnici, who at least argues his case in a civilised manner, as opposed to some of the hysterical bible-thumpers out there! I do not agree with him on many things, particularly this "natural law myth", but at least he does, unlike some others, bring something to the table.
On the article itself,I do not think that everything necessarily has to be judged as being objectively "good or bad" by a court of law.This extends to the matter of whether a marriage has failed or not. I disagree that it is anarachy, just the expression of a civil right. Not all issues which do not fall within the jurisdiction of courts lead to anarchy.
When Prof Baldacchino states that a responsible human being does not need laws to tell him how to conduct his life he does not, I suspect, allude to lawlessness. He criticises paternalistic laws which restrict civil liberties beyond necessity
It depends on the couple’s frame of mind when the marriage is heading towards a crisis, whether they will do their outmost to salvage their marriage or let it slide until it is beyond reconciliation.
If the couple are capable of salvaging the marriage but for egoistic reasons they prefer not to, than that act is immoral. From this perception it might be argued that divorce will weaken the family value.
It is a valid argument to say that the divorce act is a contradiction to the marriage act. Or to put it in another way the availability of dissolution might give a false sense of security which will mitigate the firm obligation of the marriage contract. And it will favour those who due to materialist inclination wish to revert back to a single status.
Democracy facilitates the right of the individual irrespective of the consequence to others!
Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici, Chief Justice Emeritus, Valletta needs to catch up with current trends in family law, observed by other progressive nations, rather than be stuck with antiquated religious based values, and an inflexible mindset.
The age of individual freedom, for better or worst is upon us. Within the larger framework of abiding by the law of the land, each person is held responsible for his own moral choices, without the necessity of dealing with undue pressure from the state or church, on what is deemed best for his family.
In a true democracy, a man's home should be his castle.
I would add that each type/definition of morality changes over time and in different geographies. Divorce hasn't been "immoral" in England for centuries; many religions have always considered divorce as a safety valve for imperfect humans in bad/dead marriages; and almost the entire planet has legislated for divorce.
So. while as Mr Mifsud Bonnici says, "all human acts fall within the sphere of morality", clearly morality has different meanings to different people over different times.
However good and evil never change; morality, good and evil are separate (if connected)concepts; for evil is the total absence (and not a type or degree) of all morality and good is the total absence of evil.
I don't agree it's "the State which is burdened with the task of considering "everyone's rights".
It's no burden for progressive free states to respond to the everchanging types/definitions of accepted mores within their communities. It's their job.
In Malta, however, the state has decreed it cannot make social/secular decisions without the church as a moral filter. Therein, Sir, lies its unique burden.
Most modern societies have 'no fault divorce', which means that the granting of divorce is not at the discretion of the judge. Just the fact that one party requests a divorce and an end to their marriage is enough. In this respect, judge's role would be to ensure that property and assets as well as child custody and maintenance are established and enforced.
To treat divorce other than a legal mechanism that society uses to remedy the suffering for those whose marriages have irrevocably broken and to end the disruption of family life and the attendant psychological trauma that children in these situations go through, is to do a great injustice to these families.
Treating divorce as a branch of philosophy to be argued endlessly in the halls of academia abstracts the sufferings of real people.
This hair-splitting about the meaning of morality is just 'gooblygook'