Divorce can be a solution

Roamer seems to be quite lost without his beloved Chesterton at his side.

His renewed attack (June 7) on Martin Scicluna's report on divorce had fundamental flaws which invalidate much of what he has to say.

First of all Roamer's perception of divorce is that of the typical, often high-profile, American style of divorce. He seems unaware of the harsh reality behind the multitude of genuine, sad cases of irreparable marital breakdown among lesser mortals - which is what this debate is all about.

Roamer further trivialises the issue with his simplistic example of "Mr Johnny no-fault". This is an insult to so many who did their best to sustain their marriage against great odds but who were eventually defeated by the sheer horror of a failed marriage.

Roamer can rest assured that marital breakdown is rarely as simple as his capricious Mr Johnny example would suggest. Besides, does Roamer think it is fair to deny Johnny's abandoned spouse the chance to remarry? Should she be condemned to a life of loneliness because of a fickle husband? If so, on what grounds?

Sadly, Roamer's seemingly profound argumentation ignores the basic irrefutable reality that, even when entered into with the purest and best of intentions, some marriages will inevitably break down, regardless of all published reports and finicky statistics. This inescapable fact lies at the centre of the divorce issue.

The question of giving the victims of failed marriages a second chance to regularise their life is one of compassion - not self-righteousness based on flippant examples.

Having reached the end of the road, legal separation is currently the only choice open to people who want to end a marriage gone wrong; this does not give such people a second chance to start anew, which divorce can.

As Fr Joe Borg says in his companion article on the same subject: it is vital that we have a proper and informed debate.

That is all very well; this Roamer has not done.