Divorce: An appeal to politicians

Reading Labour MP Marlene Pullicino’s comments on div­orce (August 9) left me puzzled as to how a self-proclaimed “fervent Catholic” politician can come to the conclusion that, although she still “wanted to be convinced that the introduction of divorce would be for the common good”, because of “today’s realities” she would consider voting in favour of “limited” divorce “after seeing that the finalised Bill... did not trivially do away with the permanence of marriage”. She also states that “she is no longer constrained by her Catholic guilt anymore”.

The official teaching of the Catholic Church, which is based on Holy Scripture and, in part-icular, on how Christ him-self taught about divorce in Matthew 19:3-9, is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it is unequi-vocally stated that divorce is one of the main “offences” against the dignity of marriage (see nn 2382 – 2386). The Catechism reminds us that Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble (n 2382).

Jesus eliminated all the permissions which had infiltrated gradually the old law. In Mark’s gospel, we notice that he in fact did not accept to enter into a discussion about the motives of divorce (Mark 10:7-12).

The Catechism notes that divorce is a grave offence against natural law by claiming to break the contract to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death (n 2384). It also does injury to the Covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new marriage, even if it is recognised by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rapture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery (n 2384).

Divorce, moreover, is immoral because it introduces disorder in the family and into society and because of its contagious effect, which makes it truly “a plague on society” (n 2385).

The adult catechism of the Italian Episcopal Conference (La Verità Vi Farà Liberi, 1995) states: “In the relationship between couples, there is also the need for responsibility, fidelity to the commitments taken, a spirit of sacrifice. Tensions will surely arise from time to time but it is always possible to overcome them. One must cultivate dialogue between the couple and bring in the family the spirit of humility, meekness, mercy, right respect of diversity, will for peace... Divorce is contrary to the truth of conjugal love; ...it brings about harm to society. In case of difficult cohabitation, the Christian is called to witness the radical requirements of Christian love. One cannot do away with a marriage because one is not totally satisfied. If the climate of affective enthusiasm becomes lacking, there are still other values to work upon: companionship, reciprocal help, forgiveness, fidelity to God. There remains, moreover, the possibility that the crisis be overcome. At most, in cases of particular gravity, one can apply for separation, without remarrying, leaving the door open for reconciliation” (pp 505-506).

This is the way how a “fervent Catholic” should be reasoning because this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage and divorce.

My appeal to Dr Pullicino and to all those other politicians who, perhaps, despite their Catholic belief, are still undecided as to how they will vote on the question of divorce, is to form their conscience well, basing themselves on Holy Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church. While it is true that they do not represent only Catholics, politicians must be aware that they are elected to act in favour of the common good.

Pope Benedict XVI, in the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, issued on March 13, 2007, when discussing Eucharistic consistency (par 83) addressed all the baptised but especially Catholic politicians by stating that certain fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception till natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman... and the promotion of the common good in all its forms “are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibilities before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature”.

Roman Catholic politicians are “especially” obliged to defend “the Church’s beliefs...”

In the speech on his arrival to Malta last April, the Holy Father said: “Your nation must continue to support the indissolubility of marriage both as a natural and as a sacramental institution and the true nature of the family...”

It is a well-known and proven fact that introducing divorce is very harmful to society and to the family as an institution. Therefore, a Catholic politician should not be in favour of introducing divorce in our country because this would be contrary to the pursuit of the authentic common good.