Or more precisely, continues. Now Mgr Gouder, quite a grey eminence in the Church Organised, has contributed his couple of cents worth to the divorce debate, saying that it would be a sin to vote for divorce.

He goes on, somewhat quixotically, at least to those to whom the notion of sin and subsequent forgiveness is a bit alien, to say that if the sinner repents, then he or she would be forgiven and all would be OK.

I've never been comfortable with this thought, perhaps because I have something of an Anglo-Saxon outlook on life, because it seems slightly weird to me that you can do what you like, knowing full well that you can trot off to a priest and spill your guts, wiping the slate clean.

Of course, you have to have a genuine intention to repent for the confession to be valid, so if you're fessing up to - say - participating in a spot of extra- (or pre-) marital rumpy pumpy in order to assuage your conscience, but intend to continue with said rumpy pumpy next weekend, then if my admittedly slightly ropey grasp of matters theological is accurate, you're actually guilty of an even more grievous sin, that of abuse of process.

Sorry if that's put a bit of a damper on your pursuit of your hobby, mate, but that's life in the sacred lane. On the other hand, if, like me, you think that men who have chosen celibacy as a way of life and who base themselves on books that themselves are based on the recollection of what was handed down from mouth to mouth shouldn't really expect to be taken seriously when it comes to matters of personal morality, you're probably comfortable with not being particularly worried about what you're being told to do.

Is that a la carte religion, and am I being hypocritical? Perhaps, but in my own defence, there are plenty of lines about how in My Father's Kingdom there are many houses and not casting the first stone and such to give foundation to a theory that the Catholic Religion is actually a sight more tolerant than what it has been turned into.

But let's get back to Mgr Gouder and his crack about voting for divorce.

With all due respect to the clerical gentleman, if they ever get around to doing what they're elected and paid to do, our Honourable Representatives will not be voting for (or against) divorce. They will, again if they ever decide to do their duty, be voting on whether to make available to those who want it that which is available in every other country in the world, with the exception (thus far) of the Philippines. That is to say, a means of dissolving a civil contract that has not worked out and for which there are valid reasons, at law, for a court to order dissolution.

This means had been recognised under our law, as I have had occasion to point out some time ago, when the institute of civil marriage was introduced along with the facility to register a validly-obtained foreign divorce, thus rendering the parties to the now dissolved marriage capable of marrying again, under Maltese law.

Convoluted? That's as may be, but if you want convolution, take a look at some court cases that law students had to ingest when no less an august body as the House of Lords performed some pretty amazing gymnastics to allow - if memory serves - a lady of noble Maltese birth to rid herself of an inconvenience and get married respectably in Malta. I won't cite the cases, as by so doing I might get the names wrong and besmirch some fine escutcheon. Let's just say that the twists and turns in their Lordships' legal logic were pretty breathtaking.

So let's get this clear once and for all, shall we? The current debate is not about whether divorce is a good thing or a bad thing: if you're a Catholic, you're pretty likely to say that it is a bad thing, probably in capital letters, and that's all well and good, but hey, no-one is telling you that if divorce is made available in Malta, you've got to resort to it if your marriage fails, and I hope you have the strength of character not to, if you're a good Catholic.

Me, I don't know, I haven't had to to test myself and just as I wouldn't presume to judge you, I hope you won't judge me if I'm found wanting, though that is a bit of a forlorn hope, since I've already been told that I'm heading down to the hot place by some good Catholic folk.

And let's have a little less guff about how divorce is not a private matter because it also affects the unwilling spouse. He or she can just choose to live his or her life as a married, but separated person, just as is the case now, today and as it has been since marriages started failing.

Which wasn't when divorce was introduced for the first time in the world, either. Or when legal separation was introduced, for that matter.

So this brings me to the point, which is where I do try to fetch up eventually: Mgr Gouder's line of attack is unfair and it is clear that the Church Organised is trying to influence the debate by diverting the discussion into one about the morality of divorce. This is not where the debate should be had: we are not talking about morality, because if we were, we'd go back to making adultery and homosexuality criminal offences.

And from there, it's but a hop, skip and a jump to stoning women to death. Or prosecuting teenagers for stripping off and showing their bums to the world at three in the morning.