Plea for sober, civilised debate
The issue of divorce is one that many people feel, understandably, very strongly about, one way or the other. I have my own views about the subject and I feel very strongly about them too. Today's article, however, is not concerned with arguing in favour or against divorce in general. Nor do I intend to argue in more particular terms for or against its introduction in this country in this or the next legislature. Nor am I concerned here with the closely-related question of how, if at all, we should decide this matter, once it will have been decided that we must indeed take a decision.
In other words, I will not discuss whether the decision ought to be taken by the ordinary means provided for by our system of representative democracy - that is by Parliament - or by exceptional recourse (exceptional, by definition, in a parliamentary system) to direct democracy, namely with a referendum.
What I am concerned with today is how the various stakeholders - individual and institutional - intend to behave between now and the democratic resolution of this issue.
Such decisions, whatever their outcome and however they are undertaken, are defining moments of our development as a nation. If we wish to think of ourselves - and if we wish others, not least our children, to think of us - as a society of individuals capable, as individuals, of making responsible, free and reasoned choices, then we have to be concerned with how the various stakeholders will behave in the period that separates us from The Day.
I am reasonably certain - but, admittedly, less than 100 per cent certain - that we are no longer quite the village society trenchantly observed by Jeremy Boissevain, friend and teacher, in the Ph.D. thesis he submitted as a graduate student at the London School of Economics to the University of London 48 years ago, Saints And Fireworks: Religion And Politics In Rural Malta.
If this is the case then today's Maltese (be they ordinary citizens or MPs, young or old, Nationalists, Labourites or none of the two) will not allow anyone to think on their individual behalf. If this is the case, however they will decide, they will do so on the basis of their understanding of the pros and cons of the alternatives put before them. They will consider the facts as dispassionately as is possible and make their own judgements.
I am convinced that if they are allowed to do so, they will. And this is where the institutional stakeholders have a historical responsibility. Let's not beat about the bush: I am referring to the political parties and the Church, centrally as well as locally. If these truly respect the ability of today's Maltese, of the individual stakeholders in this country's future, to discern, to evaluate and to judge, then they will make no attempt to rush, bully, pressgang, scare, awe, mesmerise or otherwise regiment them into deciding one way or the other.
Archbishop Paul Cremona wisely assured the country that the Church "would not be launching any crusade against divorce" (The Times, July 6). The stridently divisive billboard appearing on the parvis of a parish church shortly after contrasted sharply with the spirit of the Archbishop's statement. The person responsible for the billboard is quoted by this newspaper as having paradoxically justified it as "reaction to the divisive debate" (The Times, July 20). Divisiveness as a response to divisiveness or a fulminating statement to foreclose a debate?
Which is not to say that I am denying anybody's right to state a case in favour of this or that position. On the contrary, what I have said implies that nobody, be it individual or institution, has the right to attempt to silence, ridicule or vilify anyone speaking in favour of this or that position.
Archbishop Cremona also said that the Church "intended to take an active part in the debate and that it expected that in a pluralistic, democratic society, its right to take part in such a debate would be respected". Nothing could be fairer.
In an earlier contribution to this column (Forgetting Peppone, March 16, 2009), I criticised a colleague who suggested that this "island of Don Camillo" needed a more resolute Peppone to champion the "secularisation of morals". I argued that old-fashioned Cold War anticlericalism - Camillo and Peppone are the iconic products of the pen of Guareschi, a Cold Warrior per eccellenza - is retrograde. Only Guareschi's Peppone would oppose the Church's participation in the debate. Similarly, the idea of participating in a democratic debate in a pluralistic society with emotionally saturated slogans on a billboard on the zuntier - reminding one of an ancient catapult poised to hurl anathemas at the godless hordes threatening to overrun a militant Church - makes sense only in the context of Guareschi's logic.
All I am saying is that nothing should be undertaken that makes it more difficult for individuals to make up their mind with the serenity that such a difficult decision requires. Emotionally aggressive and invasive crusades of all sorts, in favour or against the introduction of divorce, should therefore be avoided. Wittingly or unwittingly to encourage such crusades is tantamount to disturbing the peace of conscience required for individuals to make a pondered choice. Quietly conducted, sober, civilised debate based on factual information and reciprocal respect, yes. Anathemas and anticlericalism, two sides of the same coin, no.
Dr Vella blogs at watersbroken.wordpress.com.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
22 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Aug 5th 2010, 21:08
Divorce is an illusion.
Divorce and remarriage is a greater illusion.
Divorce and remarriage for infinitum is the greatest illusion.
There is absolutely no reason for the introduction of divorce. Divorce is evil and to the detriment of all people. Any reason given in favour of divorce is flawed, groundless and unconvincing.
sciortino m
Aug 2nd 2010, 21:38
Mr. Zammit
You don't know what you are talking about. The Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church does not recognise civil marriages involving Catholics. For the Church, Catholics in a civil marriage are in a state of grievous sin since their marriage is not valid.
Therefore be honest and if you need to quote doctrine do it properly.
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 17:16
Divorce is first and foremost a moral and religious issue. The basic evil of divorce lies exactly in purporting to do what it cannot do. In marriage, it is God and only God who is binding two persons together and Christ ordered (not advised) us not to put asunder what God has joined together!
The State has NO SAY in the celebration of marriage! So, it has no say in dissolving marriage. Pretending to rescind marriage is only an ABUSE of power by the State.
Divorce is grave sin. It is thus the moral issue of divorce. Whoever in any way promotes divorce is sinning seriously. Divorce is not a joke. Through divorce the sinner is separating himself or herself from God and placing himself or herself on the path to hell.
Divorce is primarily a moral and religious issue. Those who love God cannot be in favour of divorce. No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning grievously.
rgalea
Aug 2nd 2010, 18:13
Evidently you have not taken up the author's plea :))))
Leila Gomez
Aug 2nd 2010, 18:27
Honestly I don't understand, if me and my partner are not baptised, and we are not married in a church, and God plays no part in our lives, what difference does it make if we divorce, as according to your beliefs we would already be condemmed to hell anyway.
Dr John Baldacchino, New York
Aug 2nd 2010, 18:47
Mr Zammit, if you genuinely believe that divorce is something akin to an "evil" that Malta should never legalize, you should read carefully what Dr Vella is saying in this article and maybe take his advise and make your argument differently. Your name keeps popping up in almost every article dealing with divorce. However I am afraid to say that your intransigent tone is not only unkind and unforgiving of anyone who does not agree with your line, BUT it also alienates anyone who may be in agreement with you.
Jonathan Vella
Aug 2nd 2010, 19:02
Mr Zammit the more you continue mixing Religion with State affairs the more you continue convincing me in favour of divorce. Your line of reasoning is at the same level as that of any other form of fundamentalism. I am a Catholic person but this doesn't preclude me from speaking my own mind. I want a secular state and not a state which observes Church teachings. Any Catholic, worth his salt, who does not agree with divorce it should not affect him in any way if there is divorce or not in Malta. Your line of thought induces me to conclude what I have always believe, that is, that religion for the majority of Maltese is just a tradition and not a conviction.
Michael Grech
Aug 2nd 2010, 19:17
Pathetic...the state celebrates marriages; regulates marriage, etc. So if divorce (and apparently marriage), are primarily religious issues, then no non-Christian should be considered to be married! If you do not recognise marriages celebrated by the state or their denominatios, then do not bother yourself with the same state granting people the right to divorce.....
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 19:56
Michael, the State does not celebrate marriage. The State has nothing to do in the celebration of marriage. The State has to do only with the civil rights and duties that flow from the celebration of marriage. But in the actual celebration, the State has absolutely NO say! So the State has no power or right to dissolve marriage. Marriage is essentially for ever. DIVORCE NEVER!
Michael Grech
Aug 2nd 2010, 21:00
@ joe zammit. Have you ever heard about 'civil marriage', officiated by a state official rather than a priest?
Do you know that there are secular law courts even on our tiny islands which can annul a marriage; an annulment which is recognised by the state and not the church?
Vince DeBono
Aug 2nd 2010, 21:35
STOP and THINK. There are Catholics / Christians, and there are non-Christians. Catholics worth their salt should never agree to divorce. Period.
Non-Christians - whether they profess a faith or not - have their own life to live within CIVIL SOCIETY. Example in Malta, anyone claiming his faith allows marriage with multiple partners may BE observing his faith but will break Maltese Civil Law.
Maltese Law requires marriages contracted in Malta to be registered with the relevant Government Department. Not Church archives.
Your conviction is admirable, but you live in a democratic country where people enjoy the same right as you, to live their own convictions without harming you.
If Malta started off as 100% Catholic and the church was all pervasive in propounding her doctrine ( through MUSEUM, CANA Courses ) look around you now. So many marriages are failed because the church did not churn out 'perfect Catholics'. The church recognises failed marriages not 'annullments'). It recognises - as does the state - that people end up separated. Separated people move on in their lives. Some may want a stable relationship that is legally recognised. Outside the church and within Civil Law.
What do you propose to them?
Michael Grech
Aug 3rd 2010, 07:19
@ joe Zammit. Joe dear, have you ever heard about 'civil marriage', which as a matter of fact exists in Malta since 1975, and is normally officiated by a state official and not a priest?
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 17:15
The teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage excluding divorce is based on the infallible words of Christ. Christ knows more than all of us what is good and bad for us. He told us clearly not to resort to divorce and spoke limpidly as well when he said that those who divorce and enter a second marriage are adulterers and adulteresses.
To speak in favour of divorce is irresponsible.
No MP can vote for divorce without sinning grievously. Christ forbids us to resort to divorce because what God has united let no man, no State put asunder! The great majority of Maltese and Gozitans who form the Maltese State are against divorce!
V Sultana
Aug 2nd 2010, 16:17
I just read your article and I agree with the sociological points you make - we need to behave as a mature and civilised nation. However, you are asking the Maltese to behave in ways that are alien to us. We like fireworks and this debate will certainly offer us a good spectacle. Reflect in silence? Is it really possible in this land of Saints and Fireworks?
In addition, I believe that as a Nation we like to be spoon fed and this situation offers a good opportunity for anybody wanting to push their own agenda.
Alfio Micallef Grimaud
Aug 2nd 2010, 16:14
D. Vella does not seem to have a very clear view of democracy. It seems he wants the Church to deny her mission. If we accept democracy as a practical model, then the Church is within her constitutional rights. Democratically speaking, she has all the right to express her views. Politically speaking too, she has the right to lobby. Like all lobby groups, she can threaten with the votes of her adherents - for that is democracy after all. The Church is politically powerful because she has many members’ which is quite evident and is not in itself something to be criticised. It means that marketing-wise, the Church is effective; it sells a good product which the market wants to buy; it gives excellent after-sales services and all in all, keeps her clients happy. Hence, she has many client-followers. Her voice, thus, is very strong, and only fools would dare not listen to what she has to say. But like all other lobbyists, she is a lobbyist in a democratic society. She does not have the power to legislate; but she has the political power to make her voice heard.
Michael Grech
Aug 2nd 2010, 15:36
Though I subscribe to the gist of the argument, I think that Dr Vella should extend the appeal he makes to political parties and the church to certain sectors of the media, particularly to those who are experts at misinforming citizens, at presenting the issue only from the perspective of certain socialess class (namely that of certain segments of the bourgeoisie) and who have turned civisiled and sane debate (if there ever was one) into a bear-pit spectacle, where contributors are chosen in terms of their ability to increase the audience rather than to produce sober, rational, arguments.
Moreover, I think he is a bit over optimistic about people's ability to think. Unfortunately, church, political parties, media apart. Maltese people are still schooled not to think in our educational set-up, this latter being a formidable means through which children's natural intelligence is inhibited....and this comes from a teacher.
Dr. John Baldacchino, New York
Aug 2nd 2010, 13:53
By far this is one of the most well reasoned articles about divorce legislation that I have read in the Maltese press. It comes as a welcome change from the posturing and hysteria that have overshadowed the debate. Dr Vella’s essay complements an interesting number of insights presented by Fr Serracino Inglott in yesterday’s Sunday Times of Malta. Indeed this augurs well, and one hopes this kind of civil approach will prevail over the uninformed knee-jerk reactions which the Maltese chattering classes have become all too used to when it comes to delicate issues such as divorce, fertility rights, sexual orientation, gender politics, immigration and a myriad other subjects which in other societies have become part and parcel of everyday life. If indeed the Maltese are proud of their 46-year-old political independence, such pride must be earned by the serenity of dialogue and real democratic conviviality — without which, any claim for independence and socio-political maturity would simply sound hollow.
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 19:52
John, the Maltese and Gozitans are proud first and foremost of their 2000-year Christian and Catholic life. Many thought in the past the Church would come to an end. These poor fellows have disappeared and the Catholic Church in our Catholic islands is still growing strong.
John Baldacchino
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:05
Mr Zammit, I am sure every Maltese and Gozitan is proud of what they consider to be their legitimate heritage -- be it religious, secular or indeed both. However I am afraid you are missing the point of my comment. I do not think there is anyone out there trying to destroy the Catholic heritage of Malta. I also hope you would agree that heritage is never monolithic, and to put the argument as you do, you are in effect jeopardizing the same heritage you are so proud of. The essence of democracy is pluralism and conviviality and as both Dr Vella and Fr Serracino Inglott's articles rightly state, any discussion that involves such sensitive issues, must be conducted with serenity and a sense of conviviality. Without this sense of dialogue, anything held dear -- be it religious or secular -- will be lost in chaos, sentimentalism and bigotry. Let's keep a sense of proportion for all concerned!
D Vella
Aug 2nd 2010, 11:21
As someone once said, ‘Don’t bother me, I’m thinking’. Regarding the
Church, its role in the divorce debate should be purely informative,
making known to those who wish to know them its teachings on the
dissolution of marriage and its perceived consequences . Beyond
that, attempts to manipulate thinking on this and similar issues of
conscience is tantamount to a violation of the public’s moral space.
Old-fashioned he may be, but essentially Peppone is still right:
The Church is not a political institution and it should desist
from treating people as mere means to its end, which unfortunately
is what it is clearly out to do with its rather obtrusive
anti-divorce campaign.
Joseph Calleja
Aug 2nd 2010, 15:23
Dr Vella maybe you are talking about the next generation of MPs, the younger generation. Most of the MPs in power right now are still empowered and dictated too by the church. It's not entirely their fault because it's the way of their upbringing, most of us Maltese are brought up that way. One MP mentions divorce and he creates havoc. It's going to take a long time for MPs to think on their own and make their own decision. I think it's going to take the new generation to fix that. Some, well OK one person is already threatening the MPs or any other person that whoever votes for divorce is voting against God and will face the God of Doom. See Dr Vella, the Mps and some others have not yet learned to separate the church from the state and that's where the problem lays. All the MP did was mention the word divorce. What is going to happen when this ugly word divorce comes up for debate by either party? Are these MPs going to vote their conscience or are they going to vote the way the man tells them?
Michael Grech
Aug 2nd 2010, 15:54
I am in favour of the right to divorce, but I do not think that one should limit the church by claiming that its role should only be 'informative'. As any other player in civil society, the church has the right to attempt to influence people; it is the means it uses in societies like Malta that are highly questionable. As is questionable the way it deals with those within its frame who express a different position regarding the issue; the case of Fr Montebello a few months ago is a case in point.
Nor do I accept the idea that the church should not do politics. Religion, as any other human activity (art, music and even apparently more detached practices like medicine), is inevitably political. Khomeini was right when he stated that 'Islam (this applies to any religion), is either politics or it is nothing', . It is the way in which this political aspect is expressed that may be questionable; alliances with the throne, if not the actual hijacking of of the latter.
Non-political religiou is generally one ideological means through existing power relationships in society (entailing the inclusion of some and exclusion of others ) are maintained.
Please choose the reason of your report below: