Thursday, 24th July 2008
What I think of the “divorce debate”
There is at least one thing which those who are against the introduction of divorce in Malta and those that are in favour agree about. For the good of society and for the good of individuals we should all strive for the promotion of strong marriages and healthy families.
But are we doing that?
Are we really supporting marriage and the family?
Let me pose some questions.
- The Church through the courses organised by the Cana Movement prepares people for marriage. In a country where civil marriage is on the increase and has today reached a substantial proportion of all marriages, is the State preparing in any way those who choose to marry civilly?
- Is our system of social services open to abuse which favours, even if indirectly and unintentionally, those who decide to live together without marrying? I have heard of cases where people say that they cohabit without marrying so as not to lose social services.
- Are work practices as family-friendly as they should be in a day and age where both married couples are being encouraged (sometimes forced by circumstances) to work? Family-friendly work practices come at a price, but so does family breakdown. In fact the price in emotional and monetary terms is much bigger.
- Are the messages projected by the media – even the local media – promoting pro-marriage and family values such as fidelity, solidarity and dedicated love or are they promoting promiscuity, free love and instant gratification? Is marriage shown as just one of the possible ways for a man and a woman to live together?
- Does the government have a holistic strategy in favour of marriage and the family? Are Family Impact Assessments done prior to the introduction of social legislation and any other measures – legal or administrative – which affects the family?
- Is the government investing enough to help problem families and to save marriages in difficulty? Is it helping enough NGOs who are doing this sterling work?
The list can go on and on.
A foregone conclusion?
I have the impression that the divorce debate which is now being touted by so many can easily turn into a non-debate. A debate is an exercise where different options are examined and one is finally considered – at least by the winners of the debate - as the desired option. I have the feeling that the impression is being created by some that there can be only on conclusion to the divorce debate and that is the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta.
This is not a healthy or desirable situation.
Are we well informed?
Any debate, especially a debate about such an important institution in our society, should be an informed debate. But are we adequately informed to do this debate?
Let me give a few examples.
- The Family Court. In April 1999 Minister Austin Gatt writing in the Report on the Family Court said that the statistics that were given out in reply to Parliamentary questions were exaggerated. The statistics given by the Minister in page 25 of the Report are roughly one third of those given in Parliament.
- Borg vs Lifestyle. In November 2003 Minister Tonio Borg said that “in the last two years” there were 1,140 separations i.e. 2,280 persons were involved. On the other hand according to Table 2 of Lifestyle 2003, a NSO publication, the number of persons divorced, or separated or whose marriage was annulled was 6960. If both statistics were correct it means that one third of all separations etc happened in the two years mentioned by the Minister. Is this believable?
- HBSC vs Census. The Times (June 18) reported that according to the 2005/6 edition of the Health Behaviour of School-Aged Children Study 37% of schoolchildren aged 11, 13 and 15 live with one biological parent. The 2002 edition of the same report shows that only 8 per cent of children lived with just one biological parent. These figures, if correct, would imply that in four years the number of children living with a single parent increased almost five times. The 2005/6 figures imply a high rate of divorced or separated couples. But the 2005 census shows that separated persons are 6.8% of those married. How can it be that in 2005/6 the separated amounted to 6.8% of married couples but 37% of children were living with just one biological parent?
- Unknown fathers. This list started with Minister Gatt saying that answers given to PQs gave exaggerated figures of separated persons. Let us conclude with another exaggerated figure given in Parliament by the same Minister. He had said that during 2007 the percentage of children born to an unknown father was 19.68%. This was more than double the figure for 2006 – 9.2%. Many columnists commented on these figures using them as proof that the situation of our families was going from bad to worse. Then Minister Gatt apologised to Parliament because he had been supplied – once more – by exaggerated figures. The correct figure was 9.095 not 19.68%! What a difference!
Do we have a realistic picture of the family and marriage in Malta? Can we have an informed debate about the introduction or otherwise of divorce in this situation?
Changing the paradigm
Introducing divorce implies changing our marriage paradigm. Up till now marriage was for good and for bad, for health and for sickness; in one word forever. Should we now adopt a different paradigm of marriage and during the marriage ceremony the spouses take each other “for health not for sickness, for the good but not the bad, and till we agree otherwise”?
An open, informed and mature debate conducted after the introduction of more steps to strengthen marriage and the family can make us conclude that the answer should be in the negative or in the positive. It could be that the state of marriage and the family is such that divorce should be legalized as it can be considered to be the lesser evil. I, for one, am open to conviction either way. But I think that the onus of proof lies with those who are advocating its introduction.
RSS
Comments
You agree that marriages will fail, but you say nothing about people getting a second chance. Why can't you admit that some people deserve it but can't have it? Do you remember the parable of the lost sheep? It's not a question of majority with Jesus. He will do everything to save a minority of one. Even one deserving case being denied is anti-Christian. Your references to statistics go against the grain of Catholicism.
As for my 'simplistic' interpretation, Fr. Peter Serracino Inglott wrote the same thing in 'The Times' a few years ago. Your advice sounds rather arrogant. You imply that my interpretation is neither serious nor credible. 'Ma tifhimx' qed tghidli, bil-Malti, bil-pulit. However, tell me where to find a serious and credible commentary, preferably on the www, and I will gladly study it. I too am open to conviction, as you say you are.
From what I've seen so far though you are only willing to be convinced by Catholic theologians and that's not really cricket, is it?
True, you never implied that married couples should stay together no matter what, but you also wrote:
"Should we now adopt a different paradigm of marriage and during the marriage ceremony the spouses take each other “for health not for sickness, for the good but not the bad, and till we agree otherwise”?"
Now I find that very insulting to people who choose to end their marriages and start a new life with a new partner only because they were terribly abused (not to mention regularly beaten up) but the person they never suspected would turn violent or abusive.
People do not divorce simply to get a sexier partner after all.
In this process, each individual adopts a very pragmatic attitude with the result that our Church is in practice a communion of churches as is the Protestant communion.
Through God-doubts we travel at times energetically, at times obliviously, as we realise that we still live in the garden of eden; that it was us who expelled God, and it is us who have the power to call Him back through our actions of love.
It is good to see that our Church is taking a very mature stance on the issue so that we can all remain in communion with our culture. Hopefully, such culture may rediscover the essence of God in Love.
1 if it hadn't been for the fact that they wouldn't feel re-integrated within the society they were living in (town, village, committees, social groups, colleagues at work, family friends, families ... );
2 had it not been for FEAR of physical repercussions; financial uncertainty, general uncertainty for the future; health reasons - that the partner depends on the other, or vice-versa.
So many reasons, so many hidden agendas as to why a couple stays together.
And yet, Mr DeGiovanni proclaims that divorce is ....
I think it is really a question of facing the truth and the facts as they are.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King’s horses and all the King’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty in his place again...
This is the destiny of traditional family unions....the quicker we accept the better. We should seek to accomodate new 'family' set ups This will render .. the nostalgic past less bitter. The other option; living in the realms of fantasy.
.
Divorce is an admission of an inability to love in the true sense of the word. To love a loving husband/ wife requires no effort, because directly or indirectly they build my ego. In reality I am loving myself, which is tantamount to a subtle form of egoism. To really love a person, is to wish the happiness of that other person more than my own personal happiness [ti voglio bene], even if s/he destroys me in the process.
With regard to the reference from Matthew’s Gospel, there is another very blunt reference to divorce in the prophet Malachi: "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel…... So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless." Mal 2, 16
My first reaction is to approach the nearest wall and test it with my forehead. In « Leli ta’ Haz-Zghir » Ellul Mercer, uses the Plato cave story to comment on our society. Since then we have moved on but our leaders continue interpreting shadows on the wall while we read the writing on it.
The conclusion that our society is healthier and morally superior because two married adults cannot divorce, is based on false and unsubstantiated premises. Believing that all other societies are falling apart because of the divorce option is arrogant and presumptious.
As I try to reach a logical conclusion while keeping away from walls, I start to miss my grandfather. When I was ten years old he advised me not to listen to people who were convinced that society was becoming « worse » or « more corrupt ». His belief was that society was simply becoming more open and more honest. More than a need for a debate on divorce there is a strong need for politicians to start looking at life rather than at the shadows.
Perhaps we should speak in practical terms - is a civil marriage considered a partnership while a Church marriage is not? Is that what you are saying? Isn't a Church marriage another form of bond? How many do, in fact, appreciate the fact that it is a Sacrament? And what does a Sacrament mean, in lay terms? Because THAT is what the State should be - LAY!
And anyway, the last time I looked, we were living in a free country in a free world. Everyone is entitled to 'leave' the CChurch and thus renounce his/her adherence to a CChurch rule which stipulates eternal commitment come what may!
@ Tim Ripard. I agree with you that “with all the goodwill in the world some marriages will fail.” You quoted Jesus quote from the Gospel according to Matthew. Your interpretation is simplistic. It is too complex to answer here. I suggest you read some serious and credible commentary on St Matthew’s Gospel.
@ Kenneth Cassar. I don’t agree that couples should stay together no matter what. There is nothing in what I have written that will even remotely suggest that.
@ Personal freedom was mentioned by many. I will write about it in my next blog.
With all due respect, keeping it simple has been a pretty good solution for my marriage. The rules of the Catholic church are also simple, if one doesn't like them, no ones is forcing them to marry there within. If you had read my previoius blogs you would have noted I am not against divorce....as long as it doesn't affect/involve marriages ordained by the Catholic church. Divorcing a civil marriage is like dissolving any other form of patnership or agreement between two parties, and as long as it adeuately protects any dependants it can have my vote.
Quote: But I think that the onus of proof (that divorce is the lesser of evils) lies with those who are advocating its introduction.
Wrong.
I repeat: Divorce has been debated for thousands of years and is today a reality in all countries of the world (except Malta).
All the religions i know (except for the catholic church) tollerate (because it is a lesser evil) divorce.
Therefore, if there is anything new to contribute to the debate, it has to obviously come from the anti-divorce lobby.
3. "I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for unfaithfulness, and marries another commits adultery" (Matt. 19: 9). These are the words of Jesus Christ but they are never quoted by the Catholic church when it comes to the divorce debate. It is obvious why not - because Jesus Himself clearly states here that divorce and re-marriage are perfectly acceptable in cases of adultery. It is also extremely significant that Jesus associates divorce here with re-marriage. Fr. Joe, what can you say to this? Why isn't adultery included in the list of reasons invalidating a marriage in Canon Law? Can you deny the above quotation?
These points must feature in the debate. I hope you will give them serious consideration.
However, these are the points I object to:
1. Why delay the debate until after 'after the introduction of more steps to strengthen marriage'? The debate has been raging for centuries. The Church had 2000 years of strengthening marriage, if it couldn't do the job in that time, with God on its side, it's weak in the extreme to plead for more time now. You are simply playing for time.
2. With all the goodwill in the world, some marriages will fail. Nothing teaches like experience and there is no doubt that many ex-parties to a failed marriage can have a strong marriage but are denied the chance to do so because of the lack of divorce. Can you deny this?
@ Joseph Degiovanni - 'divorce' is already among us, and teenagers, according to you, will be 'angry' already. All that Malta needs is to have it legalised. If there is a 'price to pay' as you put it, society is already paying for that price.
These two gentlemen, between them, have not given one single point in favour of not having divorce.
What costs will Maltese society pay that are not already being paid by marriage separations?
To say the the "fruits" are borne by divorce (and not marriage failures) simply because the statistics are gathered from countries where divorce is an option (the rest of the civilised world) is like saying that murder happens because of children, since in all countries where murder happens, you will find children. A total non-sequiteur.
Divorce happens because of marriage failure, and not the other way round.
One simple fact: I remember seeing the programme Breakfast with Frost on BBC, and the anger, resentment and hatred shown by British teenagers towards their parents' new partners was truly surprising.
Should we perhaps adopt a different paradigm of marriage, where spouses take each other "for good, no matter how much I am abused, beaten, ignored, threatened, etc"?
It takes two persons to make a marriage. With all the best intentions of one partner, a marriage can fail due to the actions and attitude of the other partner. Since the above quote fails to address this, it is very unfair.
Even if one takes a utilitarian view (as opposed to a rights view) -
1. Is it divorce that breaks down society or is it marriage separation?
2. If children (or society) suffer because of marriage separation (which they do, to some degree), should we then make marriage separation illegal?
3. Is the absence of divorce keeping people from setting up new families with different partners? I think not. And seeing that it is not, should we make co-habitation outside of marriage illegal?
4. A church wedding is a union between two persons,tied by God. It can be argued that such marriages cannot be dissolved (what God joins...). However, this assumes a belief in the Catholic God. Would this not exclude at least people getting a civil wedding or a wedding through another religion? And even if people opt for a Church wedding, is not insisting on the indissolubility of marriage for Catholics imply that they may not change their religion?
5. Following point 4, a civil wedding then (which leaves out the sanction of God) is nothing but a contract. Contracts can be cancelled if all partners agree.
The antidote is education for an informed choice and empowerment.Empowered families know what is good for them if what we mean by education is a search for the truth. Will the empires built around families be able to maintain such an ongoing education based solely on their resources? For pro divorcists divorce cannot be but a neccessary evil. It is a painful process everyone would prefer to avoid. The discussion should be about what the family will truly gain by divorce and whether this would be a healthy issue in the true sense of the word when half of Malta is already related to the other half.
Government intervention now can only be in providing the means for people to discern what is good for themselves and their offspring. A remedy for an individually failed marriage may not be good for the whole country.
Remedies lie on two basic lines ,that of the provision of support and education for failed marriages and a greater and more profound discussion on what is best for the whole of society.
2) Fr. Joe's strongest point is that "Introducing divorce implies changing our marriage paradigm. Up till now marriage was for good and for bad, for health and for sickness; in one word forever..."
In all honesty, divorce does offer a 'have your cake and eat it scenario (with costs)'. It's forever but not quite. The truth is that in our open, ultra-connected and ultra-liberal societies some thinkers are predicting the end of marriage as an institution in a world in which people will increasingly accept the idea of 'multiple relationship over a lifetime' as the new 'paradigm'. The problem with (or advantage of) modern societies, Fr. Joe, is that people are very aware of the opportunities available and act accordingly.
Why collectivist? Because his article never mentions individuals, at all. It goes on about marriage as the bedrock of society, society's responsibility to safeguard it, etc. How about talking about individual freedom for a change?
The argument is actually dead simple, and symmetrical. As I see it: Two people may choose to cohabit. If however they choose to have their relationship officially sanctioned (and it must remain a free choice - all this talk of 'regularising' cohabitation is frightening), for reasons of property, patrimony, or whatever, they must resort to the legal structures of the polity. That is called marriage. If, at some stage, a couple 'choose' (not as casual as it sounds) not to live together any more, the polity ought to have symmetrical legal structures to sanction that free choice, i.e. divorce legislation. Extremely simple; I honestly don't know what the fuss is about.
The rest has to do with models of the family, etc., that the Church has every right to push forward. If the Church believes that marriage is indissoluble, so be it.
@ Franco Farrugia : The Cana movement is a non-profit Voluntary organisation , I can assure you that they are professionally trained in their field , and like all other institutions have a relatively good success rate. Are there any public institutions in this field in Malta, can we know the success rate and how many cases they handle each year?
You made an assumption about today's Church on what allegedly happened some 35 years ago during confession in a Gozitan village. Where could this battered wife go for help?
Her only solace was the confessional with a priest she probably trusted . Do you know what information she gave at the confessional to this priest? Probably she did not have enough courage to recount the whole ordeal she was experiencing, to the priest , and she toned it down. The confessor is bound not to divulge anything he hears during confession.
Have you been to the confessional lately? THEN you can deduce wether confessors are well prepared.
The Church is interested in a successful marriage , have you ever heard about the Cana Movement , and what it has been doing for the past 40 years or so FREE OF CHARGE?Where was Sedqa or Appogg 35 years ago ?
The same applies to M. Neville Ebejer: discrimination??? What discrimination? Perhaps the Catholic Church itself is free of discrimination? Do we realise that the Church is, 'herself', guilty of discrimination towards minorities? Do we realise the harm that the Church sometimes inflicts on certain people, the sadness and the pain that minorities feel? The dejection?
So, if we come to speak about 'subtle forms of discriminatory dispositions', I think that we should first look within ourselves before claiming that others have this disposition.
A constant look at A CHRISTIAN OUTLOOK in The Sunday Times would give volumes of examples of such dispositions.
Yes, it happens to come from a Catholic Priest, which seems to bother some people who give the impression, to have a discriminatory disposition towards this section of the Maltese community.
The concept of discrimination amongst us seems to limit itself to just colour of skin or race. Discriminatory comments directed at a person because of his creed, faith or appartenence to a society or religious order such as 'holier than thou' ' hypocritic' selfish' 'communist' etc. show immaturity to face serious discusions.We do need to educate ourselves into a discussion process. Irrispective of our opinion.
What is worrying is that this subtle form of discriminatory disposition goes by un addressed even when it appears in the writings of columnists who hail themselves as flag bearers of anti discrimination movement of other categories, freedom of speech, good writers and educated persons.
Divorce and the Church are like oil and water, they don't mix yet we keep shaking. Unless we accept that the two are not related we can never start discussing the issue seriously.
No one is asking the Church to revise her teachings on divorce. The Catholic Church will never be in favor of divorce. If one chooses to marry in front of God then "what God has joined together, let not man separate." The rules of the church are clear, whoever chooses to marry under these terms and conditions then the union IS ‘until death do us part’.
A civil marriage is different, it is a legal procedure, a contract
between two individuals, hence another legal action can dissolve it. Divorce is a human right; an end to pain and a new beginning for many.
Let us stop once and for all confusing the two. If one truly believes then no government or legislation can mess with a union sworn in front of God.
With regards to Fr. Joe's 4th point/question, several people often make the mistake of attributing "values such as fidelity, solidarity and dedicated love" exclusively to marriage and the family and some even go on to equate "promiscuity, free love and instant gratification" with all other forms of relationships. I don't think that this is the case with this blog, however, it is quite a common occurrence in local and international media.
In my opinion, fidelity, solidarity and dedicated love are the hallmarks of every good relationship. Some may not agree. This is my opinion and it is also the way I live my relationship even though I cohabit. I am not for or against the introduction of divorce yet because like Fr. Joe, I am still “open to either way” and have no need for it. But I agree with Franco Farrugia that "it is the duty of the State to legislate, bearing in mind ALL sectors of society” and not just Catholics.
There is one main argument for the introduction of divorce (no 'proof' incidentally, we're not doing theorems): individual freedom.
Why is it that the Church and churchmen begin to panic and try to reach action-stations WHENEVER THE WORD DIVORCE IS MENTIONED? Let me elucidate:
A question to be asked: Shall we protect the 'sacro vincolo' of marriage AT ALL COSTS???? WHATEVER THE PRICE TO PAY, even if it implies a life-long sacrifice???
Consider the murder case that took place some years ago in Gozo, when an unfortunate man shot his father dead: it transpired, from what was said in Court, that the father had butchered, physically and mentally, the whole family for years on end. His wife, testifying in court, spoke about the humiliation for which she had to submit and when she used to speak about it in the confessional, the answer was: be patient, moreover, try giving him another child, perhaps it will change him.
Sorry, Father, but from this case, typical of what is said in the confessional in such circumstances, one can deduce that the Church is not interested in what happens within the marriage but only speaks out, when the words 'separationg' or 'divorce' are mentioned.
To me, this is disgusting.
With regard to your question about how the State is preparing those who choose a civil marriage ... do you expect the Church to do the necessary preparation as well? Just a question.
What do you expect the State to do viz. social services? Only direct benefits to those who are happily married by the Church? With all due respect, the Church should not interfere in this matter.
Is marriage the only way for a man and a woman to live together? With all due respect again, Father, why not? If a man wants to live with a woman - two adults - why should they be forced to get married?
I conclude by opining that the State should provide Divorce for those who request it. The Church, in turn, should do its best to continue teaching and advocating, while keeping its feet firmly on the ground.
By the way, I am not married, do not need divorce, but pity all those who require, need and therefore have a right to it in a lay State.
What he writes, makes a lot of sense, as well.
However, let there be no mistake, Father - the State has to cater not only for those of its citizens who adhere to the Catholic Church's principles which will never accept divorce, obviously; but also for those who are NOT adhering to the said principles of the Church. Hence, it is the duty of the State to legislate, bearing in mind ALL sectors of society - and by all, I mean, even if you have one citizen who is different from the rest, the State's duty is to look after that citizen's needs as well. I hope we agree, here.
I am an educator. I meet so many, many, children coming from separated couples - parents who either start another life with another partner; or individuals who remain 'stuck', as it were, with the pasts.
I also meet couples who had to separate because they absolutely had no other choice. For these people, the Maltese State says that they cannot ever re-start. The Church understands them, but suggests chastity. Whatever, Father.