Roamer’s column

It is no coincidence that the Soviet Union was the first state to introduce ‘no-fault’ divorce, and that in 1917. This New Creation believed in the perfectibility of man and earth as his paradise – if reluctant to be perfect the state would swiftly disabuse him of such an absurd notion! – this New Creation understood that its greatest enemy was the family, whose essential was, as Chesterton reminded the world a century ago, “that a free man and a free woman (chose) to found on earth the only voluntary state; the only state which creates and loves its citizens”.

For the Marxist mind this competitive spirit was inimical to what it regarded as the New Man, the New Age that communism had the self-appointed duty to usher in if the “opium of the people” was to be consigned to its proper place in the dustbin of history. Alas, it was the dog that died.

Yet, less than six, seven decades later and for various reasons, none stronger than a weariness with God (a false one) and Christianity, Catholicism (a false version) in particular, the various components of a Europe started to see matters the same way as their political and ideological arch enemy. More ironical it could not get.

On the subject of marriage and the family, the views of a godless atheism were adopted by an increasingly godless secularism (itself donning the mantle of a religion, an offshoot however illegitimate, of the Enlightenment.

‘No-fault’ divorce has since been adopted lock, stock and barrel by many Western governments. This republic of ours is being asked, in a referendum that takes place in a fortnight’s time, to ape our civilised brethren to the north.

To fail in such mimicry, we are warned, is nothing less than reprehensible and to crusade against it – well, words fail the no-fault proponents. Those who are not in favour of this mechanism are accused in pejorative terms of conducting just such a crusade. And the campaign in favour is what, precisely?

Yet, with Chesterton once more, those against can make the valid point that we may “really sympathise much more with an ordinary jolly burglar than with a green-blooded and sneeringBolshevik who, instead of stealing decently for his family, wants to steal the very idea of a family from his fellow-men”.

There is something selfish and manifestly self-serving about this no-fault when one bothers to think about it seriously; one cannot brush aside a thought that surfaces, unbid.

I mean the children; for, if there is a party in all this that demonstrably has no fault it is the children; and it is precisely these faultless creations of “a free man and a free woman (who chose)... to found the only state which creates and loves its citizens”, who are voiceless in a world that caters for adults and not at all, orprecious little, for them. Illogical to argue that this applies tolegally separated couples; thisis rather like saying that ifthese can hurt their children,why should divorced people not add to the sum of unhappiness and wretchedness.

The children

Yet, and still amazing for all that, the pro-divorce movement is making the chilling demand that children (and religion) are best kept out of the discussion; which is somewhat like leaving out the good fairy in a tale in which the wicked fairy would, if it could, dominate the story.

One campaigner in the pro-divorce camp actually said, and I presume believes, that no fault divorce was a “good thing” because it meant there would be less conflict, the hardest part of marital breakdown for children. It is exciting, even if in a macabre sort of way, to ponder this a while.

A is married to B whom he vowed to love (we have set aside that vow) until death did them part. Along the way A and B created two or three children. Further along the way A fell out of love with B, in love with C and decided to renege on his or her first love, who has not fallen out of love with A.

As I understand it, A now wishes to vow to love C until death does them part and files for divorce citing the irretrievable breakdown of his, her marriage.

B, whose only fault was not to fall out of love with A, has four years in which to change A’s mind, during which time, I imagine, there is bound to be some conflict displayed, if only by A who finds B’s love somewhat of an obstacle to that golden second chance.

For four years the children are part of this drama and hope against hope that mummy and daddy will make up. Don’t know about you, but to me there is a grave conflict going on there, a conflict of hope and expectation to be dashed four years later when the court hears the case which does not need A to give a specific reason, still less just cause, as to why he is seeking a divorce. Divorce granted; next, please.

And the children? The case is made, or rather not made, that at the end of such a process they need not be subjected to a procedure that could re-open new wounds when the old ones never closed. The false assumption is made that they will live happily ever after. Not good enough by a chalk as long as you care to have it.

Religion

The Religious Affairs correspondent of The Daily Telegraph posted an article last Friday in which he reported on the findings of a major three-year international £1.9 million Oxford University-led study.

This found that “humans are naturally disposed to believe in gods and life after death and that human thought processes were ‘rooted’ to religious concepts”. The project involved 57 academics in 20 countries around the world.

The co-director of the project was quoted as saying: “We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies... attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted in religious concepts.”

Perhaps a spokesman of the Yes to divorce movement who wishes to keep religion (and children) out of the discussion may wish to chew over that one; perhaps not.

Either way, it remains the fact that any attempt to censor children and religion out of theno-to-divorce, yes-to-divorce debate is not merely suspect; it smacks of the very intolerance secular worshippers accuse those who disagree with them and in the UK led the Archbishop of Westminster to declare on Radio 4’s Sunday programme that “public life is not a neutral place. Everybody comes with their setof values and religion has justas much right to be there asanybody else”.

There are those who write against the introduction of divorce in a style and with a content that leave much to be desired; as there are those (I can name quite a few) who write in favour in a manner that is dysfunctional, dishonest and not a little arrogant – a mantra, for so it has become, the yeses like to hurl at the noes.

I recall the charge of “obsessional hang-ups” levelled at me, of being “blindly wedded to the Church”, and any other number of sheer lies. It is alright to indulge in such language, it seems, but it ill-behoves anybody to throw this back at its users – that brings on the accusation of involving the Church in matters civic on which she has no right to pronounce; or so they say, incorrectly. What has not been said about Gozo Bishop Mario Grech for his expression of forthright opinions?

For it is as obvious as the fact that the sun rises from the east that those who belong to a religion can no more leave their belief in their sitting room and speak out in the public square in terms at odds with that belief, than can an atheist abandon his belief, or disbelief, when he crosses swords with a believer.

To quote Archbishop Paul Cremona, citing Pope Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est, this “makes clear the individual Christian’s responsibility to contribute in the political and social sphere, obviously in a way that is a logical consequence of his beliefs, otherwise he would be living in a dichotomy between his beliefs and his political stance”.

Truth...

...has been at a premium. Take the assertion made, among many others, that while rich Maltese go abroad for divorce, their poorer brethren cannot avail themselves of this opportunity; ergo, notto introduce divorce is an actof injustice for the financiallydisadvantaged.

Again, the Archbishop pointed out in his wake-up call that “of the Maltese asking for divorce in another country in the last seven years, just 13 were participants in an all-Maltese wedding andthe rest were Maltese-foreignerweddings”.

And addressing Brazilian bishops in September of 2009, Pope Benedict declared: “There are forces and voices in present society that seem committed to demolish the natural homestead of human life.”

More and more couples were building their unions on the fragility of impermanence of cohabitation; divorce was sabotaging the traditional sense of an extended family by creating too many “parents”.

In fact, the majority of children today “who feel like they are orphans are not children without parents, but children who have too many parents.” Quite.