I cannot but praise Martin Scicluna for deciding (September 17) “…to write an article extolling the need for ensuring stable marriages and setting out fully the recommendations of (his) report on marriages”.

After writing that he hoped he would now entice the government to “do something about the issue in the forthcoming annual Budget” he added that I had done a disservice to him and The Times readers when I omitted (September 7) to quote also “a key passage which followed his recommendations on the measures to be taken to support the institution of marriage”.

And that was what he had written in the press so many times before on the civil dissolution of marriage, on divorce. Strange. Notwithstanding the above I want to believe that, now, Mr Scicluna will write high calibre articles on the five points, in his long report, which strengthen marriage and the family.

I am also confident that, eventually, the Ministry of Education will see it fit to include his articles on “marriage is the bedrock of our civilisation” in the personal and social development (PSD) national curriculum so that, as he hopes “…preparations for marriage and the responsibilities of family life will be inculcated from an early stage, especially in school(s)”.

However, I don’t believe his articles on divorce should form part of this collection. Relishing the prospects (September 20) that just one member of Parliament could press things to Mr Scicluna’s liking is simply not on.

While defending the rights of a minority to have legislation on divorce on grounds of natural justice he now envisages that, again, on grounds of natural justice, a very small minority, just one member of Parliament in a government with a one-seat majority, will force this legislation in Parliament.

He does not want a referendum on divorce, where the sovereign will of the people really lies, and calls this democratic. The common good, “the best interests of society as a whole” comes in here as well.

In fact, he himself seems to have queried this approach on issues of national importance when he reflected on “the decisive strategic move (for Malta) to become a republic” (September 20).

He himself has raised marriage to the status of “bedrock of our civilisation” (September 17) and as such an issue of great national importance.

So why should such an issue be decided by a few in Parliament or by just one person who has great power in the same Parliament, who is not sovereign at all, no matter what Mr Scicluna calls him or her.

Mr Scicluna should adopt more sociological perspectives in his articles and stop bringing in the Church as it suits his purposes. He should be more aware of the norms, values and anchors of Maltese society.

Throwing away the anchors in a very “liberal” way leads easily to drift in very stormy currents, in a very wide ocean which is today’s globalised society.

Maybe in his articles Mr Scicluna will now concentrate on media campaigns on the importance of marriage and the family and reconciliation services in the Family Court and in Maltese society. As Bishop Mario Grech did, as a civil society leader, when, lately, he revamped the family therapy and psychotherapy services of the Gozo diocese. I cannot but praise Mgr Grech for doing so.