The common good and society

It is worth noting that when debating the subject of divorce, some individuals refer to thecommon good.

Lou Bondi, for example (‘You can’t see clearly now’, The Sunday Times, October 24), seems to imply that because of the common good divorce should be introduced in Malta.

He also states that “many of our politicians are incapable of distinguishing between morality and the common good,” and further on concludes that “a politician ...is there to legislate on facts pointing to the common good and citizens’ rights.”

What are we implying exactly when we speak about the common good? Why should a politician – or any person for that matter – distinguish between morality and the common good for a decision tobe taken? How can a deed that is morally wrong be considered by the state to be for the common good?

The Compendium – Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “by the common good is meant the sum total of those conditions of social life which allow people as groups and as individuals to reach their proper fulfilment” and “the most complete realisation of the common good is found in those political communities which defend and promote the good of their citizens and of intermediate groups without forgetting theuniversal good of the entire human family.”

It is important to emphasise the words ‘proper fulfilment’ in the first quote and ‘without forgetting the universal good of the entire humanfamily’ in the second.

We cannot make society as a whole suffer in order to please a few individuals. But to safeguard society as a whole, there might be individuals who suffer. By common good, we in no way mean looking at the interests of every individual or group of individuals at the cost of jeopardising society at large.

Sometimes a part of the human body has to be amputated to safeguard the life of an individual. In a family, a family member might be deprived of certain necessities to safeguard the subsistence of the whole family, and so it is with any community or society.

By legislating for divorce, the state, in order to sympathise with those individuals whose marriage has broken down, would be undermining society as a whole. In other words it would be going against the common good.

As Justice and Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici clearly states in his lucid article (The Sunday Times, October 24 “It is not in the public interest to discard indissolubility and introduce a form of union which is, in essence, temporary and subject to being dissolved on certain conditions. The public interest militates in favour of stability and of a bond remaining a bond.”

In other words, it is the responsibility of the state to legislate and safeguard the stability and indissolubility of marriage. We would be fundamentally changing the nature of marriage as instituted by God by introducing divorce.

In fact, I feel the state will be abdicating its responsibility by not taking it upon itself to legislate against divorce and in favour of the common good. Again, in the Compendium – Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is clearly stated that “authority is exercised legitimately when it acts for the common good and employs morally licit means to attain it.”

Let us not be disillusioned by thinking that by legislating for divorce we would be merely helping couples whose marriage hasbroken down.

By voting in favour of divorce, we shall be voting forthe dissolubility of marriageand proclaiming publicly that the bond of marriage is no longer permanent and unconditional.

Let us, as a nation founded on Christian values, promote the common good and give value to those institutions that strive to safeguard the good of society at large rather than encourage and legislate in favour of individual interests and personal rights.