Ranier Fsadni
Divorce on planet Zog
The opinion pages are awash with dismay and sprayed with contempt at the way the divorce debate is being conducted. But much of the criticism of the principal lobbies has been aimed at their respective emotional appeals. Turning away from the billboards and the confessionals to fact-checking shows something interesting: the Church hierarchy turns out not to have informed its conscience properly; the Yes to Divorce movement, the self-styled scourge of hypocrisy, is a slacker when it comes to practising what it preaches.
You might call it poetic justice. I call it the problem of living on planet Zog.
On planet Earth, divorce laws are elbow-deep in what’s best, worst and simply mediocre about human society. It could not be otherwise since divorce laws are connected to fundamental social arrangements to do with distribution of wealth and property, children’s well-being and gender equality. Unless you’re a marriage libertarian, any rational case for or against divorce calls for nuance.
Not so on Zog, the planet where everything is either black or white. Once you decide to use planet Zog arguments for a human society, you’re bound to suppress some facts or conveniently fail to inform yourself adequately about a pet argument.
Let’s take a look at a few of the Zogian arguments made in Malta.
First, do divorce laws simply respond to demand or do they themselves contribute to raising rates of marital breakdown?
The Yes to Divorce movement has yet to admit that divorce laws (specifically, no-fault divorce) do generally contribute to raising breakdown rates. Yet, the point was earlier acknowledged in the Today Public Policy Institute report written by Martin Scicluna, today a member of the yes movement. Was it simply forgotten?
The impact of divorce laws has been raised by the anti-divorce lobby, of course. In the (first) divorce Q&A pull-out, distributed in the national parish magazine Flimkien (April), the answer to Q9 concludes: “Research shows that with a divorce law marriage breakdowns increased by 20 per cent.”
No, it shows no such thing. The reference is to a sophisticated statistical study of 18 European countries, which concluded: “Overall, we estimate that the legal reforms (the authors mean principally no-fault divorce) account for about 20 per cent of the increase in divorce rates in Europe between 1960 and 2002.”
There is a huge difference between saying that divorce laws increased breakdowns by 20 per cent (as Flimkien states) and saying that they account for 20 per cent of the increase. Flimkien is saying that marital breakdowns will go up from (say) 100 to 120 just because of a divorce law. The cited research actually states that if breakdowns go up from 100 to 120, the divorce law will account for four out of 20.
Is the anti-divorce lobby being mendacious? I doubt it. The evidence suggests they are simply ignorant about key areas of the historical sociology of the family they so confidently pronounce on.
But it is a degree of ignorance that is culpable. Can one really responsibly state (as the answer to Q7 in Flimkien does) that rates of marriage decreased and rates of cohabitation increased “in all the countries where there is divorce, after divorce was introduced”?
All countries, eh? The answer to Q12 refers to “no country in the world where divorce was introduced”. Even Muslim ones? And how would one know what the rates for African and Asian countries were before divorce was introduced, given that, generally, divorce has been established there as long as records have been kept?
As for cohabitation in contemporary western societies, independent factors that are often cited by professional historians, sociologists and anthropologists include: widely available contraception, the spread of an experimental sexual culture and important changes in the status of women (less dependent on marriage for status, more aware of the raw deal that marriage often deals them – throughout the 20th century, barring two short exceptional periods, the majority of petitions for divorce across western societies were filed by women).
The problem with many members of the anti-divorce lobby is that they wax long on “information” but fall short of adequately informing themselves. With the divorce lobby, one finds the excoriation of any sweeping of the facts under the carpet even as some facts are brushed away.
Deborah Schembri’s take on the success rate of second and third marriages is one example. Given the theme of “second chance”, it is significant that, statistically, such marriages have a markedly higher failure rate. There is a broad sociological consensus that such rates should be taken at face value, that the high rate of breakdown from a small pool of marriages indicates the fragility of such marriages (given the difficulties of dealing with step-parents, stepchildren and former spouses); but Dr Schembri simply brushes aside the professional consensus.
Pointing out the shortcomings of both lobbies is not an argument for agnosticism; I will be voting (for a divorce law). But the quality of our debate will have post-referendum consequences, no matter the result.
Arguing in terms of planet Zog but legislating for planet Earth means the social consequences will not live up to the referendum promises. That is a recipe for social bitterness and feeling cheated. Hardly the right environment in which to address the nuanced problems we will have to face, whichever way the referendum goes.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Edward Mallia
May 12th 2011, 17:32
What a relief to hear Ranier Fsadni utter the word "nuanced", as a quality present in (non-local )assessments of information related to the social sciences. The notion seems to pass most of us by; we are too addicted to absolutes, in situations where there can be no absolutely water-tight arguments or lines of causality. Another recent demonstration of this trait has been the conclusion, supposedly based on a recent report of a group from the British Geological Survey, that we can do nothing to rescue our groundwater supplies from destruction by infiltration of nitrates. The culprits should be turned out to grass on a small pension and the money saved used to pay fines imposed by the EU.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 12th 2011, 16:12
Christ was clear on the evil of adultery and said that, if one divorces his spouse and enters another marriage, one lives in adultery. (Mk 10, 2-12; Mt 19, 2-9). In the first letter to the Corinthians, St Paul says: “Do not be deceived; neither … nor adulterers… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor.6, 9-10).
Divorce is a grave sin. Par. 1789 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church runs: “One may never do evil so that good may result from it”
On July 13, 1917 the Virgin Mary told the three children of Fatima that “many go to hell on account of the sins of the flesh”. Among the sins of the flesh there is adultery. Padre Pio had regular mystical contacts with God, saints, angels and devils, and used to say that "divorce is a passport to hell".
Divorce leads to hell because it transgresses God’s categorical law on marriage, namely indissolubility. Divorce purports to do what it cannot do, namely to dissolve a valid marriage.
Let no one try to deceive God by planning to live in sin and die in grace. Such a plan will be the devil’s snare. You die as you live!
Mr Denis Pace
May 12th 2011, 15:14
Mr.Fsadni
Congrats to a clear, well-referenced article.
What you missed (or possibly, implied subtley) is that our black and white "zog" mentality stems from political allegiance more than anything else.
Our politics and our religion are both a-la-carte. Where is left and where is right. Our LP does not have a leftist mentality...it is a matter of convenience and votes.
Mr William Flynn
May 12th 2011, 14:48
It is natural that once divorce law becomes effective where there hadn't been divorce law, there would be a spike in the participation rate.
But this would be no different than, say, if the present system of church annulments was suddenly changed so that anyone could get an annulment based solely on an unhappy marriage. In this hypothetical scenario, the annulment rate would rocket for, within the shades of the spectrum of different levels of marriage contentment or otherwise, there are likely as many people living a marriage lie and staying together because of religious considerations as there are staying together solely because of the lack of divorce law.
I live in a no-fault divorce law regime and in my experience couples regardless still go through hell and high water before they turn to divorce as a last resort; much as one would resort to an amputation of a limb.
Nothing will destroy a good and happy marriage and conversely nothing will save a bad one.
Mr Michael Debono
May 12th 2011, 11:23
Michael Debono
All those who are writing against divorce and have voted Nationalists in the last election must not forget that they voted for the P.N. program. The P.N.program provides for the establishment of cohabitation which in France they call PACS
Short for “pact civil of solidarity”meanong Civil Pact of Solidarity.
It is strange how this was by passed by the Church authorities.
It is worst, in its interpretation than Divorce. They pledge to live together just through a simple contract. It is open to couples of different sexes as well as of same sex, and it respect individual freedom. It was voted in 1999. In the first year of its promulgation 150 000 couples signed this agreement.
This is what Dr, Gonzi and his government intend to enter into the local legal administration.
Nobody paid any attention during the elections,absolutely no one not even a churchman…
The announcement of such pact is issued in these words
N.N. and X.X are happy to announce that they have been tied by a Civil Pact of Solidarity
N.B. N.N. and XX could be of different or same sex.
Most probably Gonzi has been inspired by the French situation.
Mr Ranier Fsadni
May 12th 2011, 12:39
Actually, it is not at all clear that the draft cohabitation bill has a civil partnership in mind. It could indeed be a PACS-like law; that is, a law that enables a cohabiting couple to enter into some kind of partnership regulated by law.
On the other hand, it is possible that what the government has in mind is a law that regulates the dissolution of cohabitation, not the life together. The latter's main concern would be to minimise the potential for exploitation.
The government's statements to date do not make clear what is being proposed in the draft bill.
Emanuel Muscat
May 12th 2011, 11:00
One can be too clever for one's own good!The great majority of voters in the divorce referendum will not look up any statistics to make up their mind up:they will consider what they want out of it and vote accordingly.
Both sides are making mostly non-objective statements because they have a personal interest in the outcome:it is typical of the italo-maltese syndrome of melodrama and 'not dealing with the real problems'.
Since this referendum is not really on a political question,a low turnout will probably happen.The side that wins will be that which can get their side to vote.
I do agree however, with your last paragraph.
Mr John J Borg
May 12th 2011, 09:16
unbiased and straight to the point, these people have to understand that we live between their yes and no, and what is good for some may scare others, i will vote no
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 12th 2011, 15:51
There goes your No Vote Mr Borg because my vote is Yes. This is why everybody should vote whether it be Yes or No. Make your vote count. Being able to vote freely is a human right, there are a lot of places where you do not get that free choice. Especially women, take note. You are entitled to vote just like any man, there are still some counties in this world where women are not allowed to vote.
Mr Ranier Fsadni
May 12th 2011, 09:16
The column makes reference to a statistical study that shows a causal link between no-fault divorce laws themselves and breakdown rates. Some readers might reasonably wonder how a causal link can be established using statistics.
It is true that statistics usually establish only correlations, not causal links - a point my own column makes about rates of cohabitation, which the anti-divorce lobby mistakenly claims to be caused by divorce legislation. However, for Europe, the link between divorce laws and (formal) divorce/separation rates can be tested quasi-experimentally because of the different timing of divorce-law reform across several national jurisdictions.
Such testing, for 18 countries over a 54-year period has been undertaken by two researchers, Libertad Gonzalez and Tarja Viitanen. My column alluded to their study, The Effect Of Divorce Laws On Divorce Rates In Europe, published in 2008 in the European Economic Review. (For readers who would like more nuanced information on method and results, a free 2006 version is available online: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2023.pdf .)
The study does not include Ireland (since its divorce law only came into effect in 1997) but it does include countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal; that is, countries that enable one to compare rates of separation (prior to divorce legislation) with rates of divorce (after divorce legislation).