Lino Spiteri
Marriage, divorce and the individual
Divorce frightens and distresses me. Marriage is the highest association one can have. The two happiest days in one's life are when one gets married and when one's first baby is born. Divorce is the ultimate confirmation that a marriage has irrevocably failed.
There are other signs of failure. Separation is the first. But a separated couple can return to shared understanding, the basis of happiness. Annulment means that a marriage should never have taken place. Divorce means that a marriage did take place, but the couple have cut themselves apart, most probably forever.
I believe that the ongoing and heating-up debate about divorce is misshapen. The real discussion should be about marriage. About what obligations of sharing it brings with it. The responsibility of parenthood, should it happen. The discussion should be about proper appreciation of, and preparation for such understanding and responsibility.
Marriages are meant to last a lifetime. And that's a long, long time. Time enough for early passion to cool. For differences to creep in. For unexpected discoveries about each other to be made. Time enough to learn to substitute harmony for passion. For putting the partner first. For learning how to iron out differences and, worse, live with them. How to adapt to the unexpected.
Divorce means that not enough effort has been towards all that. Or, it has been made but proved unsuccessful.
The discussion should be about marriage. Its deep beauty. The joy of mutual respect. The real meaning of being joined together to become one. Not, for all too brief moments, in the flesh. But for a lifetime, in the spirit. About its ability to bring out the miracle of forgiveness.
Divorce should be part of, yet peripheral to the ongoing debate. We should be talking of the many marriages that succeed, and not only or mainly of the minority that fail. Of the ability to override pressures, even mistakes. To resist temptation or, having succumbed to it, to make amends. The ability to prevail through life's inevitable storms, and not merely through its bright seasons.
Instead of focusing much, much more on all that, we have shoved divorce, the ultimate confirmation of failure, into the forefront of the debate. Of course, some marriages will fail. True, the incidence of that happening is rising. Sadly, it is forecast to rise much further. We should be discussing why, rather than taking a rising rate of failure for granted. We should concentrate on reality and truth.
We do not have divorce in our legal system for people who marry in Malta, though we hypocritically recognise divorce concluded overseas. The externalising of failed marriages, of rising separations, cannot be attributed to divorce as the cause. That can only be done, tenuously, should divorce be introduced. At this stage, the reality is what it is.
It is a reality for individuals, not for society as a whole. That is another reason why I think the way the debate about failed marriage is unfolding is misshapen. For anyone to give the impression that society is calling for divorce legislation, is wrong. To give the impression that it is society which should rule the individual in a purely personal matter is just as wrong.
This is the crux of the debate so far. The Church is against divorce. Of course she is. It is basic to our faith that what God has joined together no man should put asunder. The Church must always preach and stress that. She is obliged to explain, in a loving manner, that Catholics who opt for divorce move out of her rules - though I believe, because I believe in our mysterious God though without properly understanding Him, not out of reach of His understanding and forgiveness.
The Church has to keep her stand. But it is wrong to let that expand into open or subtle pressure on the State not to legislate divorce. Preaching what the Church holds to be right and wrong is one thing. Pressurising governments to legislate according to the teaching of the Church is another.
Divorce will eventually have to come in because there are individuals who want it. Who through it may not really resolve their problems, but who have a personal right to try in their chosen way. That is why a referendum is not relevant to the issue. The issue of divorce relates to a minority of individuals as a personal affair. It has to happen, in as strict a form as reasonably possible.
Meanwhile, let the focus of the discussion be on the beauty of marriage, on the exquisite meaning of sharing. The meaning of intense love outside the bed sheets. On the need to care for and consider the good of our offspring. Legislating divorce for the individuals who want it should not remove that focus. Rather, it should strengthen it.
With each sad case of divorce, even of separation, we should intensify our discussion of how best to prepare for marriage so that it is truly indissoluble. Tilting ferociously against divorce or rooting avidly for it simply adds to the heat of the debate without in any way helping the institution of marriage.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Steve Pace
Sep 8th 2009, 08:41
@Paul Galea - "But Mr Lino Spiteri concludes his article stating: "That is why a referendum is not relevant to the issue." I find this statement very inappropriate. It shows the arrogance of the politicians who," ...
Then maybe we should also start having a referendum on just about anything that comes out of parliament. Let's take the introduction of speed cameras to a vote , Let's also imagine a referendum was made before local wardens were introduced. Let's take hunting laws to a referendum.
What would be or would have been the outcome (Probably the answer will depend on i) whether the voter received a few speeding fines or not and ii) Whether the voter is a passionate hunter or not )
My point is that people's vote on the subject cannot be objective. It has been far too tainted with Bible slaps and with a typical local Pharisee culture.
A referendum on the subject of divorce will only evoke one ghost . The ghost of MGR Gonzi's political religous fight.
And who will pay the price . Not you or me , but those in minority who are suffering an injustice .
Steve Pace
Sep 8th 2009, 08:15
@Wenzu Vella - ", I for one have been married for 46 years and never ever thought of divorce". That is the message MGR Vella tried to convey a few weeks ago. A strong marriage need not fear divorce.
What Lino Spiteri said " Pressurising governments to legislate according to the teaching of the Church is another" is also another very valid point.
The church should working on the preperation of marriage. Certain members of clergy are so hysterical that their only concern is statistics. Their focus should be on what causes marriage berakdowns and work constructively with couples before they get married in a bid to make seperation, annulment and divorce a rarity.
Prime Minister Gonzi said that "children of failed marriages should be considered"
Yet there are many other circumstances which also need to be considered. Seperated couples who have no children and would like to re-marry and have a new family. Seperated couples who already have what are known as "Illegitimate" children.
Some people try to picture divorce as an easy way out. Divorce legislation can come in different forms and our politicians should be working on creating a just and socially acceptable divorce legislation.
Joseph Meli
Sep 7th 2009, 18:38
@Wenzu Vella::>The reason is coming from the Constitution of Malta section 2 gives the right to speak the Catholic Church in Malta. Then with divorce, this reminded me of what Mr Justice Coleridge said in court of what is happening in other countries and this can happen here too, so he said: "I'm drawing for the general attention as to the endless game of "musical relationships", or "pass the partner", to which such a significant portion of the population is engaged." Such terms cannot be left out in our law, otherwise they can go for an appeal and win it. So, he further stated "the nature of divorce are...just..because one presses the tooth paste from one side and not from the other, Others because, the man used too much toilet paper, or he or she went very..often..to..the..toilet, or because his wife left the toilet seat open, Other divorced his wife/husband..because..she/he..failed..to..buy his favorite sweets or fruits, and many other funny points such as now the wife lost her two front teeth, or in church he often go to sit near our neighbor, or because he was doing too much aftershave or deodorant and the list goes on and on.
Joseph Meli
Sep 7th 2009, 17:33
Good to note what Pope John Paul II...had..."warned many times of the dangers which follow from confusion between the religious..and..political spheres. Extremely sensitive situations arise when a specifically religious norm becomes..or..tends to become the..law of a state without due..consideration for the distinction between the..domains proper to..religion and to political society. In practice, the identification..of religious law with civil law can stifle religious freedom, even going so far as to..restrict or deny other inalienable..human rights".[World Day of Peace: «If you want peace, respect the..conscience of every..person; AAS..83..(1991), 414–415.] All the..faithful are well aware that..specifically religious..activities (such as the profession of faith, worship, administration..of..sacraments, theological..doctrines, interchange between religious authorities..and..the members of religions) are..outside the state’s responsibility. The state must not interfere, nor in any way require..or prohibit these activities, except when it is a question of public order. The recognition of civil and political rights, as well as..the allocation of public services may not..be made dependent upon citizens’ religious convictions or..activities. The right and duty of..Catholics and all citizens to seek the truth with sincerity and to promote and defend, by legitimate means, moral truths concerning society, justice, freedom, respect for human..life and the other rights of the..person, is something..quite important."
Paul Galea
Sep 7th 2009, 17:24
One may agree or disagree with the subject of divorce. But Mr Lino Spiteri concludes his article stating: "That is why a referendum is not relevant to the issue." I find this statement very inappropriate. It shows the arrogance of the politicians who, although they are the representatives of the people, do everything without the peoples's consent. We live in a dictatorship of the politicians, because the politicians disregard the will of the electors. In Malta the politicians think that they know better than the electors. Often times the politicians do their best to manipulate the will of the electors for the politicians own gain. The arrogance of the politician is also manifest in the Maltese Governments approval of the Lisbon Treaty, which affects also the Constitution of Malta, without consulting the will of the people. The Citizens of Malta deserve better. If the government feels that it should legislate on such an important an issue as divorce, the will of the people should be taken into account. In the last resort the citizens of Malta, EXPECT THAT THIS ISSUE WILL BE DETERMINED BY A REFERENDUM.
Raymond Bezzina
Sep 7th 2009, 17:14
@ Lino Spiteri I have some comments to make about your letter entitled "Marriage, divorce and the individual", but the space provided here is very limited. Hereunder is my e-mail address should you be interested to discuss these issues further. e-mail: gmg2512@melita.com I thank you in anticipation for your kind attention.
David Borg
Sep 6th 2009, 23:11
A very good article.
Unfortunately in the present divorce debate, there is no or little discussion on the causes of marriage breakdown and what can be done to prevent marriage breakdown, as well as on the negative effects of marriage breakdown, especially on children.
Joe Tabone-Adami
Sep 6th 2009, 17:06
A contribution worthy of a man who knows the world and its miseries. A contribution putting ideals in their proper perspective - there to be reached, but only through hard effort in the face of, sometimes severe, adversity. I consider the last three paragraphs, in particular, as representing the climax of the contributor's strong pro-family conviction.
wenzu vella
Sep 6th 2009, 15:56
Why is it, that we Maltese have to include religion in everything. The catholic church always preach the sanctity of marrage yet would not allow its priests to marry.
I live in Australia where divorce is both common and very easy to get, I for one have been married for 46 years and never ever thought of divorce, like me, I know scores of people from different religions and non believers alike who stay married to the same partner for all their lives, so religion have nothing to do with divorce, so the church should stay out of it, and let those who wants to start a fresh life and settle their differences legally and be free to do so without hindrance from anyone.
Dr Emmy Bezzina, B.A.,LL.D.
Sep 6th 2009, 14:36
Let us halt once and for all these idiotic and nonsensical arguments for and / or against divorce.The rest of the EU Member States,including staunch Catholic countries like Spain,Portugal,Ireland,Poland and Italy to refer to but a few,all have had DIVORCE for a number of years and the stupid and illogical ``debates`` being raised here,were all raised there and have proved unfounded.The late Senator EDWARD KENNEDY had an annulled Marriage followed by a Divorce before he left a twenty-year younger divorcee widow lawyer: all the top brass in the Boston Catholic Church hierarchy were not only present at his funeral,but officiated as well.So why do we not accept that we are hypocrites attempting to be holier than though with stupid Artcles and comments.Divorce is regarded as a corollary right to a Marriage which once it fails,must have the obvious remedy namely Divorce.With our largely unprofessional and inadequate Family Court [ sic! ],Legal Separation & Mediation Proceedings have become a Black Comedy where the State is causing untold harm and damages to the Couples involved and ignoring the true supreme interests of Minors.DIVORCE LEGISLATION must be legislated for IMMEDIATELY - THANK YOU FOR SINCERITY!
Adriano Spiteri
Sep 6th 2009, 13:14
Nowadays, this reactive establishment of ours is considering divorce. Not because they want to but because it is inevitable.
Years later: when even marriage is out of fashion !
Joe Zammit
Sep 6th 2009, 11:20
All married couples can be successful in marriage if they build it on what to give rather than on what to get, on love and sacrifice rather than on egoism and self-gratification, on Christ's model of his love for his Church rather than on the devil's stubbornness and pride.
vfarrugia
Sep 6th 2009, 10:37
Wise words indeed.
g. scerri
Sep 6th 2009, 10:02
wisely said.