Charles Cassar, London, UK
Fallacies in anti-divorce arguments
I’m always struck by the fact that all of the common anti-divorce arguments being made are logically invalid.
Take the argument “from religion”. This argument states that divorce is against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and should therefore not be introduced in Malta, a Roman Catholic country. This argument is faulty because it assumes that since most Maltese people are born Roman Catholic, therefore it follows that the government should enforce the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith. This argument fails to take into consideration the fact that not every Maltese citizen is a Roman Catholic and that while many are born Roman Catholic, they do not necessarily agree with each and every one of the Vatican’s doctrines. Moreover, in a non-theocratic state, the government does not slavishly follow the dicta of religious institutions. To do so would entail abandoning reason in favour of the rules of religious authorities (which may be, but sometimes are not, rational). In this context it is also useful to note that the Roman Catholic attitude to divorce is by no means unequivocally consonant with Biblical texts, and indeed there are many variants of Christianity which do accept divorce in certain circumstances.
Another, perhaps even more common argument against divorce is that regarding “harm to children”. Indeed, “think of the children” is the mantra of the anti-divorce lobby. This argument is, at least superficially, an attractive one; no one wants to harm children.
However, emotionally powerful as it may be, it is still faulty. First of all, this is not an argument against divorce per se but against divorce in a specific circumstance i.e. divorce between spouses who have children. The dissolution of a union between a childless husband and wife clearly cannot harm “the children”.
Moreover, this argument conveniently ignores the harm to children that occurs whenever a breakdown between a married couple takes place. The argument fails to note that while there is correlation between divorce and harm to children, there isn’t causation: it is not divorce itself that harms children. The harm is caused by the various circumstances (such as marital violence) that eventually can lead to divorce just as they can lead to a separation or annulment. In this context it is useful to ask: Who is better off, the child of a married couple who witnesses domestic violence on a daily basis, or the child who lives with a single parent, bereft of the attentions of a parent but living a life free from violence?
When faced with the above arguments, anti-divorce lobbyists often counter that introducing divorce would increase the rates of marriage breakdown, because people will get married without really thinking things through. The high marriage failure rates in certain countries that permit divorce are often cited in support of this argument. The problem is that this is not an argument against divorce legislation; it is an argument in favour of people being careful before committing to marriage! If this argument were correct, one would expect to have insignificant rates of marriage failure in Malta, since people, aware of the magnitude of the commitment, would be wary of entering into marriage recklessly.
Yet we know that this is not the case and indeed the country’s rate of marriage breakdown is increasing in spite of the fact that divorce legislation has not yet been introduced. Indeed, this kind of argument makes the mistake of considering divorce to be a cause of marital breakdown, when in reality it is a symptom. Marriages fail and then people opt to divorce. No happy couple will resort to divorce, and therefore it is illogical to claim that divorce will in itself somehow lead to higher rates of marriage failure.
I understand that anti-divorce lobbyists are a largely well-intentioned group of people who have the wellbeing of the Maltese family at heart. However, keeping divorce out of the statute books will do (and is doing) nothing to help the Maltese family. Indeed, if we are to truly help the Maltese family, the energies of the anti-divorce lobbyists are better directed towards addressing the root causes of family breakdown, rather than illogical campaigning against divorce legislation.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
42 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Peter Korsten
Nov 3rd 2010, 09:14
Mr Cassar,
A nice letter, but unfortunately full of assumptions and uncorroborated claims. Let me point out that I'm in favour of divorce and the removal of the state religion from the constitution, but your letter is not essentially different from the claims of the nay-sayers.
About the religion argument: Malta specifically has, as the second article of the constitution, Roman Catholicism as the state religion, and that the Church authorities have the duty to tell us what's right and wrong. Out of step with time? Certainly, but try and muster the 2/3 majority in Parliament to change it.
About the damage to children: scientific research indicates that divorce does indeed have a negative impact on children, although I cannot find the news article right now. But the conflicts that precede a divorce also cause psychological damage to women. The fact of the matter is that there are many aspects; the effect on any children is just one of them. And how about couples that are married and don't have children? The whole argument doesn't stick there.
B. Cachia
Nov 3rd 2010, 15:46
The studies about divorce that are conducted overseas usually lump together the whole package of separation and divorce. We already have separation in Malta and, in fact, have a very high incidence of it. Everyone knows that it is painful and harmful for all involved, including the children. So when we speak about 'divorce' in Malta it is exclusively about the right to remarry. What one would have to prove in our case is that adding the right to remarry will have a major negative impact.
Charles Cassar
Nov 4th 2010, 19:27
Mr Korsten,
Regarding the religion argument: I find your comment puzzling. Do you think the religion argument is a good reason for not introducing divorce legislation? Or are you simply suggesting that divorce legislation could give rise to constitutional difficulties? I can't figure out what you mean (most likely due to my vast stupidity).
About damage done to children: I'm genuinely interested in reading any study which provides evidence that divorce in and of itself harms children, as opposed to the various factors that can lead to divorce just as they can lead to annulment or separation. Having said that, I don't think that any such study exists, since logic dictates that divorce / separation / annulment would only be sought following some difficulty, and one would expect those difficulties to be what causes harm to children.
Finally I find your statement that the letter 'is not essentially different' from that of the nay sayers' to be intriguing. Surely you can't mean it's in any way similar to the contributions of Joe Zammit?
Gerry Cowie
Nov 3rd 2010, 01:00
@William P Flynn - please provide firm evidence for your statement:-
"The vast majority of Maltese are not practicing Catholics and want to live their lives away from the dark, life-sapping, death glorifying, miserable Catholic religion." If this is correct then how do you know this to be so? Can you name these people?
Joe Xuereb
Nov 2nd 2010, 02:40
Joe Zammit keeps saying, among other things, 'Parish priests know exactly also those who do not go to Mass every week'. Oh dear! Big Brother Stalin is watching. All to be interned at Siberja (a place near Wied il-Ghajn, Marsascala).
Silvio Grech, jokingly, pleaded 'if wifey left me, I'd be lonely, sob! sob! sob! In fact I am sure that behind a lot of 'solid' marriages there is this fear of being/feeling abandoned. In such setups, the spouse becomes a habit, a bad habit but a habit nevertheless. And of course the insecurity is two-way - not so much a case of opposites attract, but two insecure people cling together. For dear life! I would not want to be an investigative fly on their living-room wall, watching them play out happy families, day in and day out. Maybe praying together has something to do with their togetherness? Maybe?
N. Borg
Nov 1st 2010, 21:42
Mr. Cassar, your letter is well explained and obviously difficult to counter-argue, as the arguments are logically valid. In fact, the only opposition seems to be from Mr. Zammit who is only intellectually capable of throwing in comments such as: "Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!" Very sad indeed.
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Nov 1st 2010, 16:55
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed! While in Malta we are still arguing about divorce, Europe looks at us in awe and disbelief. The real battle of the Church in Malta is not against divorce but against losing her power grip on society. Article 2 of the Constitution is a crime against us, the Maltese citizen. Watch BBC Panorama "sex crimes and the Vatican"--watch it on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06qhnIwEdHE This should be our concern for Battle against EVIL and for Justice!
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Nov 1st 2010, 16:22
It is amazing how this topic is still raging here in Malta when the hot issue of Abortion was started lately in EU countries—but this is another thing. It is much more amazing how someone’s fundamentalist tactics of scaring with mortal sin and hell fire are a constant contribution, tactics which betray an irrational and antiquated mind.
It is a shame that in these days we are reading day in, day out, the battle cry of “Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!”--reminiscent of the Dark Ages church crusades.
The battle against evil should be against the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals because lives are being ruined. Yes, victims of sex abuse are ruined. This must be the real battle today, and not divorce!
It is not divorce that is evil but the fact that one of the alleged victims of Catholic Church sex abuse told the BBC the Pope had known for years about these accusations and yet failed to take action. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8588427.stm
This is the real battle that must be fought and not divorce! Wake up Malta.
victor pulis
Nov 1st 2010, 16:15
The victory is ours. it's alredy guaranteed according to Joe Zammit
Meanwhile he gives us the current score
God - 1 billion souls (catholics)
Devil +5 billion souls and counting (catholics living in sin plus everybody else)
If that'sa victory I'd hate to see what Joe considers a defeat!
Mario Attard
Nov 1st 2010, 12:20
The points you have made are really valid, Mr. Cassar. In fact these solid arguments have also been mentioned other times by other contributors. It is only those who are biased that choose to reject these facts. I say biased because these people tolerate thousands of separations in their midst but then oppose divorce. As if the effects of these two (and here I may add annulment) are not the same! The psychological effects of the break-up on all members of the family, relationships, finances, dividing assets are devastating and all present whether it is a separation, annulment or divorce. Also, the fact that many of these citizens are now cohabiting. All those who are not biased by religious fundamentalism, but free,open-minded citizens know that these are undeniable facts. Conclusion: divorce is not going to change Maltese society; the change has already occurred but most were too selfish to even bother to notice!
Alex Ciantar
Nov 1st 2010, 13:30
So very well explained Mr Mario Attard.
William P flynn
Nov 1st 2010, 11:58
Being baptized a Catholic as a baby makes you no more Catholic than being circumcised makes you a Jew.
The vast majority of Maltese are not practicing Catholics and want to live their lives away from the dark, life-sapping, death glorifying, miserable Catholic religion.
Any government that wants to run The Republic of Malta as though it’s The Republic of Opus Dei doesn't deserve to govern and its leader should be given his marching orders.
Divorce is a natural and moral human right. It’s a disgrace for Malta to be still discussing divorce legislation.
Carmel Serracino-Inglott
Nov 1st 2010, 15:26
I disagree with you 100%.
William P Flynn
Nov 1st 2010, 21:59
But of course you would disagree; I'd be worried if you didn't.
Thank you, Mr Serracino-Inglott, for confirming (by your disagreement with me), that you would be comfortable with a government running The Republic of Malta as though it’s The Republic of Opus Dei.
However, everybody knew that already.
marthese briffa
Nov 1st 2010, 22:20
I disagree 100%
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 08:18
@ Carmel Serracino-Inglott:
With which part do you disagree 100%? (it can't be the whole post, because much of it is pretty obvious).
Some things to consider:
1. It must be obvious that baptism alone does not make one a Catholic.
2. Anyone who (to name just one example) uses any form of artificial contraception (including condoms) and intends to keep on using it, is not a practicing Catholic.
Ms Francesca Abela
Apr 26th 2011, 22:07
well said - I AGREE
Joe Zammit
Nov 1st 2010, 11:13
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. Voting for divorce, whether in Parliament or in a referendum, is a grave sin.
Those churches which favour divorce are proving they are false because Christ does not want divorce.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 1st 2010, 12:06
Divorce is a secular issue. In civil marriage, it is the State, and only the State, who is binding two persons together and whatever Christ "ordered" is irrelevant to non-Christians.
But in any case, if Christ ordered us not to put asunder what God has joined together, what does this have to do with civil marriages?
The Church has NO SAY in the celebration of civil marriage! So, it has no say in preventing the dissolution of civil marriage. Interfering in the regulation of the State's marriages is only an ABUSE of power by the Church.
Divorce is only a grave sin to a minority of Catholic fundamentalists. It is only them who believe that whoever in any way promotes divorce is sinning seriously. Divorce is not a joke, but neither are people's lives, rights and freedoms.
Silvio Grech
Nov 1st 2010, 12:16
To all of you who fancy having divorce introduced in malta, with your rights and common good and all that. What about me? do I have a right to hold on to my wife? What if I know she'll be leaving me as soon as she can do it legally? Cant I defend myself and at least make it impossible for her not to marry again if she leaves? How can you be so insensitive and not realize some of us are really scared? When will you be happy, when we end up all alone posting comments to a newspaper?
Come on! join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! After so many defeats in nearly all the rest of the world, now the victory must be ours, it's already guaranteed!
Charles Cassar
Nov 1st 2010, 12:37
Mr Zammit,
Many people ignore your posts or respond in a humorous fashion. I think it is useful to address your arguments since there are probably quite a few people who hold similar views.
Your argument is flawed in many ways:
'The state has NO say in the celebration of marriage': this is incorrect. Civil marriage is a contract with legal consequences that are dictated by the state. Marriage may been seen to have a dual nature as a 'spiritual' commitment, however this does not remove the contractual element.
'Whoever promotes divorce is sinning seriously': voting in favour of a divorce law does not equate with 'promoting divorce'. Using the same reasoning, voting in favour of a legislation decriminalizing homosexuality would also be a grave sin. Is this what you think?
'Divorce is primarily a moral and religious issue': this begs the question - why? Why is it not primarily a question of contractual obligations?
patrick zammit
Nov 1st 2010, 12:44
"The State has NO SAY in the celebration of marriage!"
Get your facts right for once!
Archaic Homo Sapiens has been forming family units (under different forms) since his begining about 400,000 years ago with Modern Homo Sapiens doing the same from about 250,000 years ago. At that time he had no idea of your God let alone Jesus. Marriages were just a social process.
"For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Europe
It was only about 1,900 years ago that the Church started toying with the idea of making marriage a "religious" contract.
So for all those thousands of years, man had been living marriage with little control from the state let alone from your Church (God).
If indeed their exist God (with all that you attribute to Him), He would have made His wishes known to man from the very begining and not from just two thousand years ago.
Grow up and face facts!
David Ganado
Nov 1st 2010, 13:18
Again you keep failing to understand that the State has a BIG say in the Marriage contract! Every marriage that takes place in Malta is first done a the registry and then formalised at the church (for those who want to get married in the church). If you can't understand this simple fact, they you are really living in coockoo land!
As for Silvio Grech, you are a really sorrry person and extremely selfish, if you really believe you can keep control of you wife even if she is miserable in her marriage to you! If there is anyone being insensitive that is you.
patrick zammit
Nov 1st 2010, 13:31
S G
The letter "your" in "your wife" does not make a wife the property of her husband. All wives are free to love their man or leave him whenever they want irrespective of divorce legislation. This is a reality in life.
A man has no right to controll a woman or her behaviour once she is not with him any more (or vice versa).
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 1st 2010, 14:04
I think Silvio Grech was being sarcastic ;)
Silvio Grech
Nov 1st 2010, 14:11
@patrick zammit
I'm with you Patrick. But I could'nt help wondering if some folks who are making all this fuss against divorce could have this hidden motivation after all!
Joseph Calleja
Nov 1st 2010, 15:35
@ Joe Zammit
Divorce is:
A solution for all those who fall under domestic violence.
A solution for those who are mentally and physically abused.
A solution for those spouses who are cheated on day after day.(Adultery)
A solution for those who cannot bare to see their children physically and mentally abused by the other spouse
A solution for those who see their spouse come home drunk and reek the smell of another woman/man.
A solution for those whose marriage has already failed.
Divorce is not a disease like you would like everybody to think it is, but a cure for a failed. marriage which has no other recourse. Divorce is only there for those who need it. Divorce is a human right which should be afforded to all.
victor pulis
Nov 1st 2010, 15:56
Those churches which favour divorce are proving they are false because Christ does not want divorce.
That church which favours separation and annullment is false because separation means putting asunder and annullment is nowhere mentioned by Jesus in his teachings.
Joseph calleja
Nov 1st 2010, 16:10
Nobody is forcing anybody to get a divorce, nobody. What is it any of your concern if I get a divorce or not? How dare you condemn people who favour divorce to damnation? Who are you Mr Zammit? What gives you the authority and the power to tell everybody that God does not love anyone who favours divorce? Who are you to threaten a politician if he favours divorce he is heading straight to hell? Mr Zammit I have a surprise for you. ONLY God can judge us and as far as I know you are not God so stop acting like one. Don't judge lest you want to be judged.You are doing a lot of harm to the Catholic Church with your fantasies. Stop being so righteous and come out of that bubble from the past. Save your soul and leave ours alone. Divorce can be a good thing. It should be there for those who need it.
patrick zammit
Nov 1st 2010, 17:31
S G I must admit I fell for it hook, line and sinker. I am also convinced about some having a "hidden motivation".
r millam
Nov 1st 2010, 11:04
it is incorrect to say Malta is a Catholic country. there is at least one Mosque in Malta and some 30,000 Muslims living in Malta. not counting all the Atheist's.
David Caruana
Nov 1st 2010, 10:53
I do agree with your arguments but unfortunately the issue here is not about people's good intentions about divorce legislation, the health of the family or maltese society. The root of the issue here is about the separation of church and state.
The church authorities are aware that their influence on maltese society will be dealt a severe blow with such legislation, with the consequence of having to adapt to the same level of significance that the church has in most european countries. On the other hand, others who for various reasons are longing for the downfall of the catholic church in Malta, are smelling a significant turning point in their favour.
Of course, no one is willing to admit it, and so we talk about what the bible says, the family, and the common good. While I do acknowledge there are geniune people on both sides, who really have such things at their heart, the source of contention is a much bit deeper than that.
One side will lose one day. It is just a matter of accepting change and reaping opportunities from it. Yet, some from within would rather send it crushing into oblivion, than change their attitude.
Joe Zammit
Nov 1st 2010, 10:38
In Malta church attendance to weekly Mass is 72% because there are those who do not go regularly. Parish priests know exactly also those who do not go to Mass every week.
Besides, the others who do not attend are still Catholic. They still baptize their children in the Catholic Faith. They still send their children to learn their Catholic Faith at school and Church societies. They still prepare them to receive the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Eucharist. They get married in the Catholic Church. When they die they are taken to a Catholic church and after Masses are offered for them in Catholic churches.
On Trinity Sunday 96% of Maltese and Gozitan children of their peer group have made their First Holy Communion. This augurs very well for the future of the Catholic Church on our Catholic islands until the end of time.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Albert Borg
Nov 1st 2010, 11:01
are you comparing myself and people of similar thoughts to all that you believe is evil? I do not believe in the devil so i cannot really take it as an offence, but it is still demeaning and incredibly obtuse of people like yourself who believe they can take a moral high ground because they because they blindly accept was has been force-fed and hardwired into your brains since you were a child, because you're too afraid to step outside into the real world and make a single decision on your own with your own FREE conscience... and not as dictated by a sect.
Kevin Sultana
Nov 1st 2010, 11:22
Dear Joe,
I am interested in joining the battle between God and the Devil (let's agree to print Devil instead of devil, since it kind of gives the game away if we use the smallprint for the second contender, and slightly indicates that the fight is rigged, would also harm the betting busines... example in a boxing match, you always have both contender names in capitilised format: Holyfield vs Tyson). Also claiming victory beforehand kind of ruins the thrill.
I am very excited to say the least, and will be honoured to carry a ticker whilst going out and about counting the new soldiers joining our ranks on Trinity Sunday and people attending mass on any other given Sunday. We need to keep our stats high and the island will remain ours!
Raphael Vassallo
Nov 1st 2010, 11:24
"The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!"
... so why are you fighting?
L Vella
Nov 1st 2010, 11:40
Please post one of your simple arguments, they never fail to put a smile on my face :)
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 1st 2010, 11:58
Yes, the victory is yours, just as it was in Ireland ;)
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Nov 1st 2010, 15:17
@JZ
dawra durella, qabsa sigarella.....
OH! these catholics.
Joseph Calleja
Nov 1st 2010, 15:24
Joseph Calleja(4 hours, 32 minutes ago)
@ Joe Zammit
Divorce is:
A solution for all those who fall under domestic violence.
A solution for those who are mentally and physically abused.
A solution for those spouses who are cheated on day after day.(Adultery)
A solution for those who cannot bare to see their children physically and mentally abused by the other spouse
A solution for those who see their spouse come home drunk and reek the smell of another woman/man.
A solution for those whose marriage has already failed.
Divorce is not a disease like you would like everybody to think it is, but a cure for a failed. marriage which has no other recourse. Divorce is only there for those who need it. Divorce is a human right which should be afforded to all.
B. Cachia
Nov 1st 2010, 15:38
@ Joe Zammit: Attendance at weekly mass is 72% because virtually all of those over 50 attend mass as a habit. The figure is completely different among the younger generations. As is well known, a third of Maltese children are currently being born out of wedlock (let alone a Catholic marriage), and of those who are getting married, only 65% are doing so in the Catholic church.
But even if this had not been the case, and had 100% of the population actually been practising and fervent Catholics, it would still not have been the State's business to impose Catholicism by law. Religion is simply something the individual should be allowed to choose freely.
victor pulis
Nov 1st 2010, 16:06
According to JZ;
"In Malta church attendance to weekly Mass is 72% because there are those who do not go regularly. Parish priests know exactly also those who do not go to Mass every week."
Yesterday I was present in church for my son's confirmation (I will leave it up to him to decide whether to be a practicing catholic or otherwise) One 'godmother' spent the entire mass sending SMSs and chewing gum! Undoubtedly she is one of those 72%! Not all those who go to church are good catholics Joe. It doesn't auger well if catholicsare behaving like this in church so don't feel so crtain that all is well and you know it. The victory is far from guaranteed especially when according to you 5/6 of the world's population is going to hell.
Incidentally, during mass one of the prayers went like this; "Ftakar f'hutna li mietu fit tama tal qawmin, FTAKAR FIL MEJTIN KOLLHA" A far ry from your mentality of sending everyone to hell.