For many, divorce is a non-issue. Some say divorce is sinful because God does not want it; others argue divorce is necessary to relieve suffering and give people a new chance in life.

Life – and marriage is life – is more complex, and neither of these positions respects this complexity. Divorce is not simply closing a marriage in order to begin a new one; divorce implies changing the very nature of marriage.

Divorce means entering into a relationship that will go on only as long as everybody is happy. However, with this attitude, even if everybody continues to be happy ‘until death doth them part’, what they will have lived would be totally different from having lived their relationship in an indissoluble union, although outwardly one may not notice the difference.

This is so because accepting divorce would be consenting to a conditional marriage: we will be one until we feel we should split up for some reason. So, love, the very basis of the marriage relationship, would be conditional.

When love is conditional, mutual total self-donation – the very foundation of traditional marriage – is not possible. So introducing divorce simply means introducing a new type of marriage, and the question which we have to ask ourselves is not whether to introduce divorce but whether to introduce this new type of marriage.

I am not oblivious to the fact that some marriages seem to have died and that the best solution may seem for them to be buried. However, before coming to this issue, I want to tackle a connected issue, that of freedom.

Freedom is one of our most cherished values, and rightly so. However, the fear of losing our freedom may sometimes render our committing ourselves to anything, tremendously difficult because we are very aware that every choice is a renunciation, and nobody wants to close doors on possibilities. This could at least partially explain why people prefer to cohabit rather than to get married and, possibly, why others are experiencing marriage as suffocating.

However, freedom is a very tricky business. We cannot obtain it unless we lose it! The child who chooses to be a concert violinist renounces to becoming a concert pianist. Not choosing, so as to keep all doors open, the child would become nothing.

Through freedom we choose, and, having chosen definitively, we lose the freedom to choose again. Although it may seem that we have lost our freedom the opposite is true, we will have actualised it. We will have become truly free, and the audience would be able to appreciate our virtuoso.

Entering into a conditional relationship is an effort at using freedom without forfeiting it. But this is an illusion.

At this point I can hear some object that making it possible for people to enter into this type of relationship without constraining others to do the same would make everybody happy. After all, even though there can be no personal growth without total self-donation, some people are not interested in growing.

This may sound like good reasoning but it fails to put the good of the community – both material and spiritual (not necessarily religious) – into the equation.

Most of us agree it would be preferable if the first marriage were successful and divorce were proposed only as a remedy. The question I am posing here is whether this remedy would be too costly, creating a situation which would be detrimental to society as a whole. We are far from sure that divorce is contributing towards a healthier society.

Others may say that it is not like that at all. All people enter into a marriage intending it to last until death and, as a consequence, their self-donation is total, but then circumstances may crop up which make the continuation of marriage impossible. This may be so, but it won’t change the fact that by having divorce one enters marriage while keeping a door ajar.

Having said all this I do not want to give the impression I do not appreciate the difficulties people in some marriages go through; otherwise this article would simply be an academic exercise. Not only I am aware of the suffering some people suffer in their marriage, but through my ministry I am also in touch with it.

Marriage is a very serious business and needs thorough preparation especially in the art of communication. The late Virginia Satir, a world-renowned family therapist, saved many a marriage by teaching family members better communication. Unfortunately we do not learn communication at school, except in rare cases.

I have a lot of doubt about the validity of marriages that have been entered into without adequate preparation. Through such preparation it is also possible for those intending to get married to understand beforehand whether their partner has the necessary maturity to build a solid marriage.

Also, we now belong to a culture that prefers to throw things away and buy new ones rather than repairing something that breaks, considering this to be more economical. So be it, but woe to us if we were to extend this practice to marriage.

Mending marriages is possible. If we try without succeeding one of two things may be happening: either one or both of the partners may have decided beforehand they do not want to repair their marriage because they have other ideas in mind, or the chances are their marriage was not valid in the first place.

I am aware there are other complexities and, above all, victims of capricious partners who are suffering much more than they deserve. Some of these victims live heroically, suffering in silence and continuing to be faithful to their vows. Others may see this as too demanding.

The Church is always very understanding of these individuals and helps them on the individual level. But stating general principles is another matter.