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.