Keeping divorce discussion on track

No respectable citizen can bury his head in the sand as the divorce controversy gathers momentum. It may not be necessary to take sides at this stage, but it is imperative for everyone to be aware of what is going on and to weigh up the arguments for and against.

It is no less important to get to know the interlocutors, since there is some truth in the saying coined by American philosopher Emerson: "What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say." The claims from both sides, besides having intrinsic value, gain or lose weight according to the person putting them forward.

It may not be that difficult to guess who is against divorce even if they do not dare speak their mind openly. Catholics who have formed their conscience in the light of the teachings of the Church would presumably be very reluctant to adopt divorce as a solution to their marriage problems, and would not be easily persuaded that its introduction would make our society better, healthier and happier.

On the other hand, those who advocate divorce are not a homogenous group, and their frame of mind and motives may be quite diverse.

One could perhaps put on the front line of the pro-divorce lobby those who have, sadly, experienced an unsuccessful marriage. On account of their suffering, they deserve our respectful consideration. But this does not mean that their reasoning is sound or that they are entitled to recommend divorce and remarriage as a panacea for couples whose relationship has run into problems.

Divorce and remarriage may bring some relief and a chance to start happier life for some couples, but it does not follow that this will happen in all cases. Besides, there is no guarantee that the woes of the former marriage will not re-emerge in the second or third. A husband and wife's happiness means a lot, but it is not the sole issue to be considered in dealing with family problems; there are numerous instances in which other, equally important issues counsel against dissolving a marriage.

Some demand the introduction of divorce because they feel such a law would place our country in line with other progressive states in Europe. But they neglect to mention any of the negative consequences of divorce laws.

It will without doubt be a big headache for law-makers when they come to vote for the introduction of a divorce law. However, their main concern should be whether such a Bill, and the divorce mentality which may emanate from it, will make present and future families more stable. Or whether it will indeed make them more vulnerable. It is no secret that more families are broken when spouses are free to seek divorce.

One visible drawback in the divorce controversy is that the advocates of its introduction, as well as its opponents, risk being lost in endless verbiage, without arriving at any conclusion, since they are not using a common language. Nor are they trying to find common ground.

Some terms we hear repeated so often are ambiguous, because they carry a different meaning according the whim of the user.

For example, freedom of conscience is one of the favourite postulates of pro-divorce campaigners. But the dictate of conscience is not just a subjective judgment, swayed by public opinion or by one's pleasure. Conscience must follow the right norm; it needs to be well-formed and in conformity with the true good, which we Catholics believe is willed by God.

The divorce debate would be easier and smoother if the disputants are prepared to accept Divine revelation, because no sophistry can conceal the fact that divorce is against God's law. But once the Gospel's teachings are bypassed, the only common ground that remains and can be tried in the debate is that of natural law. However, some people imbued with legal positivism deny the very existence of even that, while others seem unable to understand its meaning.

Once natural law is rejected, the possibility of finding common ground is done away with, and the controversy becomes a dialogue between deaf people. When the contenders perceive that their views are miles apart, and cannot agree on anything, the temptation creeps in to indulge in insults and name-calling, in a mean attempt to daunt or humiliate the opponent. This is the worst thing that could happen.

In a democratic and pluralistic society, there should be room for different opinions, and freedom of expression needs to be duly respected. One hopes that the debate steers away from such a morass, and will be held in a tone of polite and decent dialogue.