Intellectually bankrupt or lazy?

I was taken aback by the paucity of argument or reasoning advanced by Fr Joe Borg in his column (May 24).

Fr Borg bases his whole reaction to the arguments adduced in the think-tank report, 'For Worse, For Better: Re-marriage After Legal Separation' on a reading of the bibliography used as background for the compilation of the report which, he asserts, does not show evidence of supporting the report. He then uses this unfounded assertion to argue that the report is simply an opinion, not a study.

For the record, the bibliography includes, over 20 major reports or documents, from a very Catholic range of sources, dealing seriously with every aspect of marriage and the breakdown of marriage. To seek to cast doubt as he did on, for example, Emery's report, 'Interpersonal Conflict and the Children of Discord and Divorce' by querying whether it was "an article from the News of the World tabloid, an academic paper, a book, an opinion piece downloaded from the internet or an entry in Wikipedia" says more about his ignorance of the subject than it does about the quality of the think-tank report.

Every reference and every document quoted in the bibliography helped, in its own way, to inform the judgments which the lead author of the report reached about the future of marriage in Malta and the urgent need to get away from the unjust and worsening situation which Malta finds itself in.

Each of the documents quoted in the bibliography - some merely short articles by the likes of Fr Borg or letters from concerned members of the public, others consisting of named authors and researchers in this field with their substantive and detailed analyses of the effects of marriage breakdown and divorce - acted like witnesses for the defence or the prosecution in guiding the lead author to reach a carefully balanced judgment about whether or not Malta should introduce legislation to allow people who are legally separated to remarry after the civil dissolution of their marriage, and what kind of legal provisions should be made to suit the Maltese context.

To draw on the wealth of evidence adduced from the broad range of references quoted in the bibliography, and the accumulation of knowledge which this inevitably achieves, does not require numbered references scattered throughout the report. It is enough to have studied the evidence objectively and rationally, and to have weighed it in the scales in such a way as to reach informed conclusions. This is precisely what the lead author did.

In the final analysis, what we decide to do about divorce in Malta is a matter for Parliament. This report is not an academic thesis or dissertation.

It is an attempt to confront the painful realities faced by thousands of people in Malta whose lives have been blighted by the current gap in our legislation which refuses to acknowledge that giving legal recognition to relationships, which are marriages in all but name, can only advance the institution of marriage and bring justice and rights to those currently marginalised by our society to the greater public good.

Unable to counter the overriding arguments for new solutions set out in the report, Fr Borg resorts to attacking the... bibliography!

When somebody bases his criticism of a report on inconsequential presentational details as a way of distracting from having to refute (or concede) the powerful arguments for change it deploys, it is a tacit admission either that he is too intellectually bankrupt and incapable of deploying counter-arguments to support his own case, or too intellectually lazy to do so.