The debate on divorce is a must

It was about time that the debate on divorce picks up momentum. Some commentators have taken the Church to task for its involvement in the debate arguing that this is a civil not religious matter. In a society like ours, it is both. The Church realises that divorce is a hot potato today as it was in the days of Moses and Jesus. It sees it as its mission to participate in the discussion of such a critical issue for our society.

The Catholic Church has been adamant against divorce. Pope John Paul II repeatedly referred to divorce as a "plague" and sought to put pressure on lawyers and magistrates not to handle divorce cases. Today, while holding fast to its doctrine, the Church is keen to be seen as a "caring" institution. Cohabiting, separated persons are encouraged to attend Mass, even though they are prohibited from receiving Holy Communion.

The Church's strategy is to rely primarily on temporal, socio-economic considerations to back up its dogmatic stance. The recent religious beliefs survey among University students has once again shown that many Maltese are no longer prepared to follow blindly what the Church tells them.

In essence, the Church's argument is that divorce is no solution to marital failure and that experience has shown that it leads to increased marriage breakdowns. The direct link between divorce and increased marital failures has never been convincingly proven. There are too many other factors, such as increased social networking (physical and virtual), female financial independence and a culture of the individual, which are impacting on the outcome.

Most couples getting married believe that it will last forever. The spirit is willing but then people change. It could be about a spouse's wish to escape from the realities of life, the fear of losing one's youth or maybe just a caprice of the all-powerful heart. The search to stop living what one believes to be a lie, while not knowing what the truth is. Luckily for society, there will always be happily married couples. This ensures that marriage remains the mainstay of society.

It is, however, deceptive to impose the debate as being a happy marriage and divorce. It is in the interest of both the state and the Church to implement (if they can afford it) any measure that helps to reduce marriage failure. We need to have a better understanding of why so many marriages are failing. Counselling and marriage preparation are important but not enough. After all, this is what the Cana Movement has been doing since 1956 and the problem keeps growing. The movement's founder was brave to challenge the Church's standpoint when he declared that while divorce is "a menace to the stability of marriage it does not mean that it's going to wreck marriages" (The Sunday Times, August 16).

Well put, monsignor. The debate about divorce should no longer be about crying wolf or even about sheer numbers. Fundamental principles are involved including protecting children's rights and the right of adults to choose what is best for them. Really, no one can be in favour of divorce, which is an admission of failure. Still, marriages continue to fail and people continue to wish for a decent life.

The real issue then is between legal separation (and probable co-habitation) and divorce. Our society admits the need for legal separation. The mess we have is obvious to all those who want to see it. Divorce is about giving separated persons a second chance. It will not solve all but it will give a ray of hope and officialise much of that which is already happening.

It is legitimate to ask why this debate on divorce. Is it a diversion to alienate our society from the other grave realities facing it? Or is it meant to give the impression that something is being done to address the needs of separated persons? Why do we still lack a White Paper on the family, which addresses the needs of our families in a holistic manner?

Hopefully, the debate on divorce is a genuine effort to help our society decide its preferred way forward.

Debate is an integral part of the democratic process. It enables a community to learn, assess alternatives, make a choice and act accordingly.

It is unfortunate that our political class is largely absent from this debate. The few signals they are sending are at best confusing. Is this the political maturity we boast about? Is Malta really a modern, secular European state?

The void created by our politicians is for better or for worse being filled by the Church and its associated institutions. One may agree or disagree with their position but they deserve in pursuing with conviction that which they believe.

By staying out of the debate the political class is failing our society. Is it possible that votes are all that matter? Regretfully, playing for time may not be the right option but it is the most probable one.