Report in favour of the introduction of divorce in Malta

In his dismissal of the recently published report 'For Worse, for Better: Re-Marriage After Legal Separation' which argues for the introduction of divorce in Malta, Fr Joe Borg (The Sunday Times, May 24) insists that "radical" change such as the introduction of divorce in Malta cannot be effected without a "clear and researched study about the state of marriage and the family in our country".

Given the available statistics on the relentless increase, in spite of the unavailability of divorce, in the frequency of broken marriages and legal separations in Malta in recent years, it is hard to imagine how "further studies" might alter the situation which the report addresses.

Fr Borg went on to inform readers that, upon receiving reports of "this kind", he "immediately goes to the bibliography and reference pages" because "a look at the bibliography and the references used for the compilation of a report gives the reader a feel of the validity and the worth of the report".

To illustrate his point Fr Borg queried the inclusion in the bibliography of opinion pieces that are "regularly penned in various newspapers"; surely such opinion pieces - whether misguided and bigoted or informed and erudite - are also relevant because they provide an indication of attitudes peculiar to Malta?

Irrespective of the bibliography, the pivotal point is this: Martin Scicluna provided a series of well-reasoned arguments - not opinions - in favour of introduction of divorce in Malta. Under the circumstances, nothing less than a well-reasoned refutation of these arguments will do. This Fr Borg has not done. The accusation of an "amateurish list of references" is nothing less than dodging the issue because it does not address the contents of the report.

Fr Borg is perfectly within his rights to publicly claim that the report is not well-founded, not worthy of consideration, etc. But his critique will only gain credibility if it is based on firmer ground by addressing the contents of the report rather than the references at the end.

Fr Borg's write-up suggests that he merely reviewed the bibliography of the report but did not bother to read the report itself carefully - or maybe he did not even read it at all.