THE 12 POINTS IN BRIEF

In Sunday's Times, we got a summary of the twelve points that, as far as I can see, are meant to put Catholics off voting for divorce, even the "responsible divorce" promoted, ostensibly, by Joseph Muscat's question.

My reaction, also in points.

1) If battered wives are granted the right to remarry, so too will their abusive husbands.

The degree of compassion for the innocent party is astounding, as is the idea that abusive people are abusive because they are husbands and not because they are abusive. Leave aside the sexist aspect of the assertion, incidentally.

2) Although people have a right to marry, there is no such right to divorce, according to a 1986 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

There's no right to watch television, own a car, eat pizza or catch a bus: so what?

3) Catholics who vote against divorce are not imposing their values. They have a right to vote according to what they think is best for society.

As do the people, hopefully in the majority, who will vote in favour.

4) The Church allows priests to leave the priesthood and get married because celibacy is a Church law, not a law of God like the indissolubility of marriage.

A non sequitor of cosmic proportions: what has this to do with the price of eggs?

5) Divorce weakens the marriage bond, leading to fewer people getting married.

Not a non sequitor: a sleight of hand. If it's easier to get out of marriage, more people will chance their arm. Not an argument for divorce, that, but just saying.

6) If you do not vote it means you do not care about the family or your children.

So it you vote, but for divorce, you do care about the family or your children? Come on, guys, get your lines right.

7) In all countries with divorce, cohabitation increased, marriage decreased and more people fell below the poverty line.

Really? Chapter and verse please, showing an incontrovertible link of causation, and not just simply anecdotes.

8) There is nothing wrong with Malta being an exception in the world. Malta has the most churchgoers. Unlike the US, it does not have the death penalty. Should those things change too?

Another non sequitor. Soon we'll be hearing about euthanasia and abortion. Oops, too late, we already have.

9) Divorce increases marital breakdown by 20 per cent. For society’s benefit, sometimes individuals must suffer. For example, people might have to give up their land to make space for an airport. All efforts must be made to reduce their suffering, but the land must be taken for common good.

Hadn't noticed a runway running down my marriage bed: why should individuals suffer when society is not concerned with their personal lives? The invoking of society's benefit and saying people have to suffer for it also implies recognition of the suffering failure to have divorce available causes, and about time too.

10) People who remarry civilly after a divorce cannot receive Holy Communion or go to confession

This restriction is the Church's right to impose, so my response is "fair enough", but what about people who are not Catholic? Is this a one-religion state, by decree of law, or are we a secular country that recognises the right to freedom of belief. It's enough to turn me Jedi.

11) The Church is against abortion, condoms, sex before marriage and divorce because these are all negative actions. However, it is in favour of positive actions.

And what, precisely, does this mean? I am against Manchester United winning the league and positively in favour of Chelsea winning it, but who cares?

12) The number of children born out of wedlock increases in countries with divorce because cohabitation increases.

I fail to see either the inherent relevance of this statement or any evidence of its accuracy. And are such children, perhaps, children of a lesser god?

If I needed anything to persuade me to ignore the strident pro-divorcists and the political posturing the debate (debate?) has provoked, this was it.