Following Mgr Charles Vella's interview with The Sunday Times (August 16) on the question of divorce, Mgr Anton Gouder and some other correspondents have reacted in an unconvincing manner to the Cana founder's comments.
Those who were so quick to criticise Mgr Vella and other priests for daring to express their views fail to realise that a government is not only elected to safeguard the needs of the majority, but also those of minorities.
They seem to want to keep looking the other way as if the problem does not really exist. Or if it does, they seem to think it is only the problem of those whose marriage ended up on the rocks, and the State should not get involved because those people are in a minority.
Mgr Gouder and those who oppose the introduction of divorce at all costs offer no solution to those who wish to have a second chance at a relationship within the framework of the law once their previous marriage has disintegrated. All they are interested in is what the Church says about divorce. But the Church is not the State.
Mgr Gouder pointed out that, between 1995 and 2005, both legal separations and divorces in Italy had increased. The same thing happened in Malta with regards legal separation, even though we do not have divorce.
Mgr Gouder thinks Mgr Vella's statement - that as a priest he disapproves of divorce, but as a human he cannot close his eyes to the existence of the problem faced by many who are being denied the right to re-marry - is "another confusing statement". I see no confusion, but rather compassion.
Mgr Gouder seems satisfied that children "born outside marriage" are catered for by the State. But why should they continue to be "born outside marriage" when their parents could get married if divorce were introduced?
The "pain and negative long-term effects suffered by children of divorced parents" mentioned by Mgr Gouder is just the same as that of children of separated parents. I assure Mgr Gouder the effects are even worse on children who live with their "married" parents whose "lifelong commitment" is not one of love and respect, but of verbal and physical abuse.
Mgr Gouder states that "social sciences prove that second marriages are less stable than the first". Obviously, he cannot speak from personal experience. If he were to ask cohabiting couples if their relationship is more or less stable than their first marriage, he would probably find their answers oppose the results he read about in the "social science" report.
Mgr Gouder believes that once divorce is introduced, "marriage does not remain a lifelong commitment". I believe that when a couple decides to get married, they intend for it to last. But how can they foresee certain problems that may arise?