Last Sunday I thought that we were going to have some honest fun in the divorce debate. The reports about emails written by me (among others) leaked to Malta Today and its associates i.e. It-Torca and One TV, promised that the debate about JPO's divorce would now be held a corti ferri, as the Italians say. That should have provided verbal dueling at short distance. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the dueling is fuelled by grey matter, a genuine interest to explore the subject intelligently and full respect for the others. Unfortunately it seems that we are set for a debate characterized by the lack of these three characteristics.

I have more than once said that there are good arguments on the pro and con sides. Besides, not all the arguments (on either side) can be rebutted by good answers. This situation should favour dialogue between all sides.

I am among those who believe that at the present moment the arguments for the no side are far better than the arguments for the ayes. Does that make me an imbecile, retrograde or a hopeless fundamentalist, as many would like to portray the anti-divorce lobby?

It seems that I am much worse that all these three things put together. According to the Labour candidate for the EP elections, Ms. Marlene Mizzi, I can even qualify for the privilege of being labelled a closet Nazi.

Let me back track a bit for those readers who happen to have other stuff to do besides reading all the gems being mass produced for the divorce debate. I was told that during the discussion in Parliament, JPO had read in the German original a section from the Mein Kampt - Hitler's masterpiece – to "prove" that the common good argument being used by the anti-divorce lobby was just Nazi drivel. I let that vile allegation pass by. JPO is JPO is JPO; end of story. He is a good dentist and has a lot of grinta but his knowledge of the philosophical concept about the common good is not as highly developed as are other of his talents.

However, this week the Labour candidate for the EP, Ms. Marlene Mizzi, repeated the same argument. It is said that she is a good business woman and a bright person. However, is it right to insult people who do not agree with you by using the slur that they are using Nazi arguments? I never thought that Ms. Mizzi would stoop to such lows. Unfortunately she did. Is this a sign that the pro-divorce lobby have exhausted their arsenal? Is it a sign that their arguments dried so early in the campaign?

The common good argument is as old as Plato and Aristotle. Aquinas uses it a lot as does Rawls. The Catholic social doctrine is based on the argument of the common good. Pope John XIII and Pope John Paul II used it in their teachings as did all the other Popes. Does Ms. Mizzi want us to believe that Pope John Paul II is a closet Nazi because he regularly and repeatedly argued his perspectives using the common good tradition? Does she want us to believe that he had a swastika tattooed on his chest and saluted a portrait of Hitler before he went to bed?

Ms. Mizzi, respect for your own dignity should have prevented you from using this insult! It does you no honour and your cause no good. It you want to attack the argument for the common good kindly ask Prof Kenneth Wain for a couple of tutorials. He speaks intelligently about the subject; and he writes in full respect for those who hold a different position. He can teach you a thing or two on the subject.

By the way I do not agree with the arguments of Prof Wain but I admire him and his way of arguing.

In today's pluralistic societies the argument about the common good faces new challenges but it is still a valid argument. (I hope I will find time to write about these arguments.) It should not be ignored as it moves us to reflect and dialogue about the type of society we want to develop together. This lack of consensus about what constitutes the common good has a cultural underpinning. As a consequence, the cultural sphere more than the legal sphere is the apt place for tackling it.

Onward Christian soldiers

This week I was greatly disappointed by the news of the setting up of the Kristu Iva, Divorzju Le Movement. I have repeatedly criticized what I termed the "God says so" brigade. I will not bore you by repeating my arguments. The language, symbols and imagery they use is bound to be counterproductive. It builds no bridges with all those good Catholics who favour divorce because they see it – and very well it could be for them – as a good solution to their problems. The Movement builds no bridges with those good Catholics who after reflecting on Church teaching, studying the local situation and researching about the effects of divorce overseas support its introduction as the lesser of two evils.

Quite naturally the nostalgic Catholics who form the backbone of Maltese Catholics' core audience – and who were described by Archbishop Cremona as a pastoral problem for the Church – will find in this movement the chance to continue pushing forward the spirit of a crusade which unfortunately is taking over.

I was saddened by the decision of the Pastoral Secretariat at the Curia to send to parish priests a script with several references to divorce for use during the Duluri procession. Notwithstanding the good intentions of the originators, I believe, that this initiative was insensitive and, I suspect, will be pastorally and strategically counterproductive. It should have been clear – given the circumstances – that the contents would justifiably annoy several people. The Duluri procession should not have been dragged into the current controversy.

Such act will increase people's temptation to vote for divorce not because they favour divorce but because they view such acts as confirmation of their fear (in my opinion unjustified) that the Church's position results from its desire to dominate not from a desire to serve. There are lines that should not be crossed and limits that should be respected.