• email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Logic, common sense, divorce

Roamer's column last week took me to task for describing the bishops' bundling together of divorce with abortion and euthanasia to make their case against divorce as 'extremely unfair'. He argued that relating the three things together is a "matter of logic and common sense". He then criticised my "spats", as he calls them, "with proponents of this entrenchment business", i.e., Gift of Life's campaign to entrench anti-abortion laws in the Constitution.

The bishops, he argues, "know full well that campaigns for divorce, abortion, and euthanasia abroad followed one another in that sequence". Concurrently, he acknowledges that there is presently no lobby for abortion, never mind for euthanasia. So his grounds for denying the citizens of Malta the right to divorce lie in a supposedly predictable future.

In Europe, the demand for divorce has been around since the 16th century, for abortion and euthanasia since the 1960s - the two are not even close in time, never mind causally related. The clamour for abortion and euthanasia need not necessarily follow on divorce. In logic Roamer's line of reasoning is called a non sequitur and is fallacious.

Divorce, abortion and euthanasia are not linked by logic but the Church's condemnation of all three practices. Since his September 8 sermon Archbishop Cremona has reiterated that "the Church would not seek to impose its beliefs" on society. This is reassuring following the militant language of that sermon where he likened the "threat of secularism" to our society today with that of Fascism and Nazism in the last war. The comparison is unfair and offensive, as the Pope's recent example in France to dialogue with secularism as a modern day reality shows.

Lumping abortion and euthanasia with divorce is not rational. The debate about the first two is a very complex one on life and death issues, divorce is nothing similar. It is about making a fresh start with a new partner when a marriage has already broken down.

Nobody in a successful marriage wants to divorce. The argument that introducing divorce laws creates 'a divorce mentality' is null in a context where cohabitation is both possible and real. The deterrence of stigma thankfully gone, nobody, not the Church, not the State, not the judiciary, can stop families breaking up if this is what they want.

Without the option of divorce people will simply seek their own solutions once they separate, as they are doing now. The question is: is the 'common good' better served by denying the chance of re-marriage or by encouraging cohabitation and permissiveness?

My logic tells me that it is the latter that is antithetical to the institution of marriage, not the right to remarry. Moreover, divorce is a matter of conscience; nobody is forced into it. The moral violence comes from those who impose their conscience on others. Once the state recognises the Maltese as a pluralistic society its duty is to legislate for the happiness and freedom of all its citizens, otherwise its commitment to pluralism is empty talk.

I reject Roamer's gratuitous assumption that I 'find difficulty' with the Church speaking freely in the public sphere. The Church has a valuable role to play in public debate. Gift of Life also has the democratic right to speak its mind and lobby its cause. But then that right cannot be denied any pressure group, even if its cause is the legalisation of abortion.

Freedom of speech gives minorities the chance to persuade the majority by legal means - otherwise one has not a democracy but a tyranny of the majority. Gift of Life is trying to subvert this principle. Like Roamer, it lacks faith in the maturity of future citizens, denying them the right to decide what society they want to live in. In a democracy, a position, like a scientific hypothesis, stands or falls depending on its ability to resist attempts to refute it, not by extraordinary protection, which it does not need if it is sound.

Finally, about law and imposition. There are laws that empower rather than impose; those that give citizens rights, to education, to a decent living, adequate health care, etc. Divorce laws are of this kind. Their objective is not to impose but to empower people to rebuild their lives within the proper regulation of the law.

  • Google Bookmarks Del.icio.us Facebook Blogger YahooMyWeb Digg Reddit Stumbleupon
  • email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Comments

C. Mc Neil (on 13/10/08)
@ Joanne Ellul: I don't exactly know why you did not like my quote coming from an official British Research team held by Social Justice Commission in 1975 led by the Rt. Hon. G.I.Duncan Smith MP while you mentioned that a similar and recent survey was held in Malta!

Yes, the difference was that the one made locally was not an official one presented to any authorities as that made in the U.K. The one stated by me was official, yet you did not say who made it and for whom it was made?.......

In any case I can quote you many other held recently such as that held by Judith Wallerstein who gave similar results, if not even worst due to divorce. Therefore, my point remains that the public must be made aware to what he might enter into. Just remember that not all that GLITTERS is GOLD, but TRUE SADNESS..

Joanne Ellul (on 6/10/08)
@C. McNeil

Why you needed to delve into research dating back into 1975 is bewildering but still besides the point.

For all the huffinmg and puffing, the point is that a research carried out in 1996-7 ( I think there was a snippet in the Times as well) indicates similar research in Malta.

The only difference is that Malta does not have a divorce law. Maltese society has a good element of "divorcees" without a divorce law.

Therefore what is the difference in legislating? In all probability none at all.
V Farrugia (on 6/10/08)
Mr Tabone Adami,

That father has no right to abandon his son and wife for that curvaceous chick. But that won't stop him from doing it. Divorce will let his abandoned wife start over, and find happiness with a man, who won't leave her for the next curvaceous girl.

Divorce benefits both ex-spouses, the ones who break up the relationship, as well as those left behind. It's not fair to expect a spouse who was left for another to wallow in a lifetime of loneliness.

Mario Sammut (on 6/10/08)
@Joe Tabone Adami

Do not confuse the issues here.

The laws of Malta are structured in a way whereby the parents cannot shirk away from their obligations to their children. However if daddy or mummy want to leave there is nothing one can do to prevent this save returning back to the times of the Inquisition.

However this has nothing to do with divorce or otherwise. If you take a look around you you will see that this is a reality that is happening without divorce being legalalized.

How's that for a truthful answer?

mary camillleri (on 5/10/08)
Is the pro divorce lobby happy with the way the injured party is treated in separations at the moment? It is usually the woman who is abandoned, but she is threatened with removal of maintenance if she so much as squeaks. Would divorce remove all injustice? Or will we have blame-free divorce, making marriage the only contract you can breach with impunity? To say nothing of the fact that men are more likely to marry again and start another family, putting a further strain on the finances. I can understand some men wanting divorce but I think women should have a look at the way separations are working out before they clamour for it. Otherwise it will really be a case of one person's rights cancelling out the other's. it's the money, stupid. As for imposing views on others, well, we are all affected by separation. Because we are Christians we suppport the victims of broken marriages. So we have a right to express our views as strongly as this very hot issue demands.
C. Mc Neil (on 5/10/08)
@ Anton Portelli: If divorce introduced do you expect to have your second marriage in CHURCH? According to universal church teachings this will never change? God said to Prophet Malachi “For I hate divorce” and stated “To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty,” and the Lord of Heaven also told Malachi “so guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife.. “And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery.” This is not “an exception” mentioned. The Pharisees hoped to trap Jesus by having him choose sides in a theological controversy. Two schools of that time thought they represented two opposing views of divorce.

@ William Flynn: How do you your marriage ways when Jesus focused marriage not on divorce, because God intended marriage to be permanent with four important reasons for Marriage.

(1)God made humans as “man and female,” and not “man to man/woman to woman.”
(2)They leave their parents to become one “husband and wife.”
(3)They are jointed together as “One” with God in between them.
(4)Let no one split apart what “God joined together.”


C. Mc Neil (on 5/10/08)
@ Profs: Some separations could be coming from:-
Drug habit; Anti-nuptial; Joining cults; Disbelieves; Cohabitation spouses; Vagrancy of husband; Violent temper; Sexual abuse; Venereal disease; defamation spouse; attending to Mens or women's night; misbehavior and wickedness. Many are getting married w/o preparing themselves properly. They've been too busy doing other jobs to build a luxury house. Causes: Many had jealousness, lack of contact, violent temper; misbehaviour, public defamation, daily quarrels for nothing, egoism, etc. Four very important ways to save his/her marriage by keeping in mind the following points:
1.Be thankful to each other's (be with complements to what ever the wife/husband done in the
house)
2.Study God's word [read the explanation of Colossians 3:16-17]
3.Admonish wisely – if quarrelling, forgive each other quickly, don't be afraid to take blame, even if you are right (don't sleep before you make up)
4.Set Home your first and not your office or meeting friends [Malachi Chapter 2:
(a) Take time with your spouse from time to time (Appriciate and Praise her or his work)
(b) Both parents must offer more time with Children, ask God for guidance to grow in love.
C. Mc Neil (on 5/10/08)
@ Profs: From studies it was established that males are more likely to commit crime between 12 to 18 years. They had parenting indication was of juvenile involvement in crime, when family environment was absent (divorced).
These related to delinquency:
1. Parental neglects in large families, poor supervision, inadequate parent-child
interaction.
2. Parental conflict & discipline such as abuse or nagging, harsh, erratic or
inconsistent discipline.
3. Deviate (parental) behaviors, or attitudes, parental criminality, or violence or tolerance
of violence.
4. Associate to family disruption for example in chronic spouse conflict or marriage
brake-ups.
State would be burden with an increase in criminality acts. We do need to study this more careful before we can consider divorce in Malta.
C. Mc Neil (on 5/10/08)
Study by Dr. Patricia Morgan, British Criminologist stated after effecting studies in U.K. discovered a link between braking-up of families & criminality. National Development Study held in 1975 on 18,000 young boys/girls before became sixteen years, majority had already appeared before the court for criminal offense. The result was:-

8 % those who lived with natural parents (divorced)
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)

From news on television or newspapers criminality had increased enormously in the UK only especially since divorce was introduced. Social Justice Commission presently led as its Chairman Rt. Hon. G. 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 need to be based on a solid foundation with rules to be followed and observed. Unless the Government discuss and study this in a deeper stage our children could be at risk.
Joe Tabone-Adami (on 5/10/08)
A very persuasive attempt at propounding divorce as a civil right. A six-year old may - will surely, I would say - ask himself "What right does my dad have to abandon me, and my mum, because he has cultivated a raving infatuation for that curvaceous blonde (or red-head, or brunette) at his office (or elsewhere for that matter)?. An educationalist would probably find it very hard to come up with a truthful answer - because he would find none!
William P Flynn (on 5/10/08)
What a spot on response, Mr Wain. A tyranny of the majority is bad enough; but in Malta, the church is a tyranny of thought by the minority. "Denying them (people) the right to decide", is what the church has always done.

May I add one more little thing? Roamer, Roamer, what's your real monicker? I'm not asking you to change your tune; just to drop the nome de plume.

We all have to put in our names. What's so special about Roamer?
Anton Portelli (on 5/10/08)
Very good arguments I fully agree especially with paragraphs 4, 5 6 and 7.
As it is now in Malta any body who seeks divorce is because he or she wants to start a new family. Lack of divorce is not keeping families from breaking up, it is only encouraging cohabitation because very few would live like hermits or nuns.
James Coleiro (on 5/10/08)

What a superbly presented article that puts Roamer to shame.

I couldn't agree more with Wain.

Roamer - this is the common sense you fail to grasp.

Poll

Do you agree with the European Court decision on the removal of Crucifixes from classrooms?

  • yes
  • no
  • don't know
  • don't care


View results

Fun Stuff


Play Sudoku