Divorce and common good – an antithesis

Irespectfully wish to take issue with Fr Charlò Camilleri with regard to the concluding comments of his illuminating Talking Point (Conscience, Autho­rity And Divorce, August 27), where he seeks to throw some cold water onto the backs of those he describes as “over-zealous Cath­olics of draconian rigidity”. Let me rush to assure him that I am not one of these and act only pursuant to academic curiosity and my tuitio fidei obligations.

Firstly, as he correctly states when citing CCC 2383, which, I dare say, must have come as something of a surprise to some, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church tolerates a civil divorce and does not consider it to be a moral offence if it remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights (such as, I would venture to state, maintenance, rights of habitation in the matrimonial home or other property rights), the care of children or the protection of inheritance.

I would however ask Fr Camilleri to confirm my understanding to the effect that such tolerated civil divorce, if as implied in respect of a sacramental marriage, would nevertheless not have the effect of rescinding the matrimonial vows, so that, according to the same Cathechism of the Catholic Church, even the divorcee concerned legitimately seeking to safeguard his or her rights in this way would be deemed to be in a state of public and permanent adultery in respect of any further civil marriage he or she might subsequently contract.

Nevertheless, quite apart from the fact that the unique provision under review is clearly exceptional in nature, and phrased as a measure of last resort in a bid to safeguard other rights and duties when there is no other way, this is surely completely irrelevant in the local context where the divorce debate is raging. Even bereft as it is of divorce, existing Maltese civil law already provides all necessary remedies in the situations contemplated and the introduction of civil divorce would add nothing thereto.

Secondly, he puts it across in his concluding paragraph that if research showed divorce was beneficial for the common good, a Catholic politician can, according to his conscience, vote in favour of divorce.

Although Fr Camilleri subjects this summing up to a very big and wishful “if”, yet, I find it hard to reconcile any postulation of divorce assuming the status of something beneficial for the common good with the teachings of Our Lord as acknowledged by the Cathechism of the Catholic Church so that this hollow hypothetical thesis is deprived of any possible realisation not only now but also at any future point in time.

Thus, CCC 2382, which is the opening paragraph on divorce, listed as an offence against the dignity of marriage, introduces the topic by reiterating Christ’s stand on the subject (with reference to the synoptic evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke, as well as St Paul “The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old law.”

The only possible allowance for divorce and remarriage indicated by Christ, some have sought to argue, is as set out in Matthew alone (Mt 5: 31-32; 19: 3-9), in cases of “fornication” (from the Greek porneia) – the justification being that marital unfaithfulness going against the plan of the Creator would permit divorce in those circumstances although by no means command it.

The so-called “exception clause”, however, is surely the subject of another debate altogether, involving such arguments as whether the reference, absent from the equivalent account in Mark, was in fact to marital infidelity as we understand it today or simply to unfaithfulness during the betrothal period where, according to Jewish custom, the betrothed were considered married, and which appears to be the accepted view.

Furthermore, subscribing to the theory of Marcan priority might account for Matthew, relying on the original Mark, later adding on something possibly more palatable to him and/or his readership. In any event, the Catholic Church has never allowed for divorce even on these grounds and I have no reason to dispute its learned interpretation of Holy Scripture taken as a whole and in proper context.

Furthermore, if divorce is “a grave offence against the natural law” (CCC 2384) and “is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society”, which disorder “brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatised by the separation of their parents and often torn between them and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society” (CCC 2385), how then can it ever hope to fulfil the very essential elements of “common good” as defined in the same Cathechism of the Catholic Church?

Finally, authority (which only comes from God) is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this end it must employ morally acceptable means (CCC 1921).

Pray, what morally acceptable means could ever be resorted to in the quest to introduce the immorality which is divorce and which, let us all be reminded, God “hates” (Malachi 2:16)? Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s unmandated Private Member’s Bill perhaps?