Wrong reactions after divorce shell-shock

As expected, much of the shell-shocked reaction to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's private divorce bill bombshell is wrong. The main participants in the debate flare up - the Archbishop and the Prime Minister, plus various happily married people - have immediately given what should be an orderly discussion the wrong twist.

Who, in their right senses, would wish to end a working relationship, whether brought about through a Catholic or other religious marriage, civil marriage or cohabitation? Divorce as a civil arrangement does not concern the majority who are in such a relationship. It is the realm of those whose human relationship, for whatever reason, may have irrevocably broken.

Archbishop Paul Cremona surprisingly implied that one such - main? - reason could be that an "older" man might wish to ditch his wife for a pretty young thing. Plausible, but how likely? And would not such a character face the rigours of carefully thought-out divorce legislation as implied in Pullicino Orlando's bill and in similar pronouncements of intention repeatedly made by opposition leader Joseph Muscat? I do not believe the discussion is about American-style "blameless divorce".

I fail to see why the Archbishop should have chosen that particular example of human behaviour. It is natural enough for the head of the Catholic Church to emphasise that the Church does not accept divorce. It is the right and duty of the Church to teach its principles and beliefs and to exhort Catholics to abide by them.

Those who do not do so have a price to pay. Hopefully, that price is not to lose sight of our mysterious God of love and forgiveness. I quite see the desire of the Archbishop to participate in any public debate about divorce, but in all humility do not agree with that. The Church should continually remind us of the sanctity of marriage, of the fact that love, forgiveness and hope steer us through many years of marriage, not all of which are necessarily smooth or without trespasses.

Yet the Church and its representatives should not get involved in the legislative process and its debate. There is nothing to gain in that. The gain lies in lovingly teaching and helping those who stay in marriage, in preparing younger people well for that step.

The debate about the civil mechanism of divorce is just that - a civil affair. It is not about morality. In that regard, the Catholic Church's morality is clear enough. And final. The Archbishop's reaction also offered the promise that the Church would not launch a crusade (against the introduction of divorce).

However, by already effectively condemning Catholic MPs who might vote in favour of divorce legislation should it ever be put forward, he started just that. He gave power to the elbow of those who insist on not discussing divorce as a civil measure, but bringing religion into it.

The Prime Minister's reaction was also less than measured. He was right to dispel the notion that his MP was flying a kite on behalf of the PN, to take the wind out of Muscat's sails. And one can understand him in not agreeing with the way Pullicino Orlando went about his private member business, not giving him advance notice of it. The MP should have had the common courtesy to do that.

But to extend the reaction to a clear trumpeting of the drawing up of the gate of the final bastion by saying that it should be up to the people to decide, meant that Gonzi, in my view, went a bridge too far. Minority situations should not be decided by the majority. If that were to be the case the Prime Minister would also have to get the people's consent on such things as the proposed legal measures to extend some civil rights to cohabiting couples.

The basis of the discussion should rest on everybody doing their best to strengthen marriage, religious or civil, a point also made by the Archbishop. Better preparation before marriage is required - by both the Church and the State. More help needs to be extended by Church and State to those who encounter difficulties. That is best done broadly through education.

But specific cases require specific action. Does the State, for instance, have enough counsellors and therapists to assist those who might turn to it because their marriage is failing? Parents too need to be better educated and prepared. We cannot pass on to the young what we do not possess ourselves.

So what has Pullicino Orlando achieved by his action? In all probability it will turn out to be more of a boomerang than a bolt. The discussion is delicate. It is not helped by bravado. It requires detached deliberation by all MPs in their role as legislators who must always keep tuned in to civil rights for all as measured in particular by the rights extended to minorities. That is one yardstick of democracy which is glibly ignored by quick references to referendums or electoral programmes.

The Nationalist MP had every right to present a Private Member's Bill. That's what the parliamentary mechanism is for. Yet the way he did it probably means it will not lead to discussion in the House, let alone to legislation, which has to be proposed by the government of the day. The discussion will rage for a while, and then peter out.

It will rise up again at the general election, with the PN targeting Muscat as a leader who believes there should be the mechanism of divorce as a civil right. Now, it will be a weaker charge than the PN was preparing for it to be.

That is not the point. This is not about politics. It is about working to strengthen marriages and other relations, and to provide the means for reconsideration to those unfortunate enough to face an irrevocable breakdown. It is not about breakdowns externalised after the introduction of divorce legislation. It is about realities that are painfully there, whether such legislation is enacted or not.