Roamer's column

I had to juggle quite a bit to make this effort all of a piece and was constrained to re-order its sequence three times. I hope you will discern a connecting thread.

A newsletter published last February - Breakdown of the Family called a 'Triumph' - found its way into my inbox last Thursday. It seems to be the case that a Arie Hoekman declared at a meeting in Mexico City that the breakdown of the traditional family was a "triumph" for "human rights".

This would have mattered little had it been an opinion expressed by some out-and-out liberal loony or one of those New Atheists crawling out of the woodworks as if they were the first with their Bad News.

Hoekman may either, or both, of course, probably both; but he was representing the United Nations Family Planning Fund Agency to which the US President seems to be much drawn. Barack Obama's administration has signed $50 million into the fund and, wait for it, the Population Research Institute recently confirmed that UNFPA was in cahoots with China over its coercive birth control policies.

But back to our Arie, who was not content to leave bad alone; he spelt it out. High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births were not a social crisis; they were a "triumph" of "human rights" against "patriarchy".

This from an agency of the United Nations which states in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights that, "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and State." In that context alone, how does Hoekman collect what I imagine is a very handsome salary from the UN?

Was a time when human rights included freedom from oppression, but today many have concluded that freedom from oppression includes the right of a woman to abort some defenceless embryo she sees as a threat to her right to choose.

Within the space of 60 years a human right has become an inhuman one.

Was a time, too, when the right to life meant exactly that; no longer does, either in the womb (scores of millions of mute, inglorious embryos testify to this) or, indeed, short of the grave.

Was a time when the primacy of educating children belonged to parents. The State is interfering here, full time.

None of this should surprise us given the assault on sexual morality by so many who have made themselves sole arbiters of what is right and what is wrong. It's my life and...

However, here's the thing; for all the distaste one feels for the Hoekmans of this world, even the European Union is giving every impression that the family is for destruction; so it is working on a European Family Law that countenances faster divorce to help international couples find the court best suited to deal with their situation. An attempt to out-Hoekman Hoekman?

Not all is lost, however. Time magazine's July 13 cover story was on marriage - 'Unfaithfully yours', read the cover, and inside - 'Why marriage matters'. The thrust of the story was that the true meaning of marriage and what we teach about it will "determine a great deal about our fate"; and the generation that "will be taking care of us when we are old" is being sorely tested by what it is experiencing.

Hands-on President

I am against all this first 100 days business (Napoleon has much to answer for), which did not prevent In-Nazzjon carrying a two-page interview of the President on the occasion of his first three months and a bit in office.

It has become de annoying rigeur for leaders to have their first 100 days analysed breathlessly by the media.

George Abela was subjected to this treatment and he came through it with accomplished ease. It matters not a great deal what I think but I find the man appealing. He displays a great deal of common sense - not a commodity to be found in abundance - a natural ease and a genuine charm. I cannot help thinking the Labour Party, unlike the Mounties, failed to get their man, last year.

I have only been in the same room with him once and on that occasion I was a member of the audience, as was he, at a symposium on 'The Future: The Family', organised by Projettimpenn, at which Gozo Bishop Mario Grech gave a brilliant opening address and Abela closed the proceedings with a short but impressive speech; in between, speeches from Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici and Labour MP Marie Louise, Coleiro Preca.

The President called on our legislators to heed Mgr Grech's reference for a clear definition on what we mean by family, and added another - the necessity to define what we understand by marriage. Calling for a national plan on the family was all very well but a waste of time except in the context of these two clarifications, marriage and family. Without these, it would be easy to lose focus.

He called on us "to be courageous, not to mind saying that if we believe that among our deepest values, the strongest is the value of the family - and I believe that for our society this is our strongest value, never mind what happens in Europe" to make this declaration. It "ought to be the value that distinguishes us from other countries in Europe and we should not mind saying that our country is an example of how and what the best values in Europe should be".

Abela did not doubt that there were matters that had to be seen to in the area of relationships but, he asked whether they should be considered as though they were marriages, as though they were families? ("...imma dawn ir-relazjonijiet għandhom jiġu ekwiparati? Meqjusa l-istess daqs li kieku ż-żwiġijiet, daqs li kieku huma familja?"). Needless to say, the media did not report this, and for good reason - the media were not present.

Suffice to add that Abela does not intend his Presidency to be a mute one.

'For Worse, Not for Better'

This is the name of the document drawn up by Progettimpenn, introduced last Friday at a well-organised press conference by Fr Charles Tabone, OP, and presented by Mgr Anton Gouder. Progettimpenn is an organisation made up by the Diocesan Family Commission, the Cana Movement and Caritas. The document is their answer to the Today Public Policy Institute's report, 'For Worse, for Better', published last May.

'For Worse, Not for Better. Re-Marriage after Legal Separation' criticises the institute's report for errors in the statistics presented; for confusing separation, declaration of nullity and divorce; for statements unsupported by relevant references; for its claim to partiality; for assertions that Progettimpenn regards as erroneous and not supported by a growing corpus of research; and questions among other things its recommendation to the government that it should introduce divorce legislation "because there are a number of negative social situations in our society."

But Progettimpenn insists: "Research amply showed that none of these social ills may be healed, nor are their effects diminished, by divorce."

Every Member of Parliament would do well to read the Progettimpenn report, not least because the facts presented, the research indicated and the meticulous documentation are a serious contribution to any mature discussion on a subject that is of immense importance to the future of Maltese society (see Hoekman above). "Learning from the various experiences of (other) countries, it would be unwise for Maltese society to embark on proposals that have failed miserably elsewhere. Other avenues need to be explored."

It lists a few examples, largely taken from a memorandum drawn up by Progettimpenn and passed on to political parties in January 2008 a few months before the last general election. The Progettimpenn report includes the memorandum as an appendix and called on the parties to give priority to the family in their electoral programme, understanding of the word 'family', "the total self-giving of one man and one woman... to love and nurture one another... and to bear and raise children".

The report calls for the setting up an inter-ministerial committee to plan and execute a holistic strategy in favour of marriage and family; the inclusion of marriage and family courses as part of the curriculum at every level of education; a National Family Commission to propose and monitor legislation, administrative decisions, curriculums and media productions that promote the family based on marriage; and a family-friendly housing policy especially for low-income couple wishing to get married.

The memorandum also recommends that marriage courses be made compulsory "also for those entering a civil marriage as well as those who marry persons from a different cultural background". It also called for "recognition and, where possible, financial compensation (to) be offered to the parent who opts to remain at home to raise the children"; and for "support to NGOs who promote and work in favour of the family built on marriage (preparation, formation and therapy)".

The Church, too, has a pastoral obligation to help marriages when these experience trying times - a lifetime pastoral commitment demanded from priests but also from parents and friends of couples who find themselves in difficulty. God knows there is work to be done.