Something is going astray with a public debate when it is weighed down by a single individual, even if it happens to be someone with Mgr Charles Vella's girth. Maybe we would be less distracted from the real secular issues - including some of those he wanted to highlight in The Sunday Times interview - if we switched our gaze from the divorce referendum he mentioned, Italy's, to the first Irish divorce referendum, held in 1986.
That was the one that did not pass, despite government backing. (Divorce was later narrowly approved in a 1995 referendum.) The Church hierarchy urged a no vote. But it would be a gross misreading to think the result was due to theological fear trumping secular good sense.
The hierarchy (though not all individual bishops) explicitly recognised that a Catholic could vote yes in good conscience. Fear-of-God does not explain how, at the start of the nine-week campaign, the yes vote had a comfortable absolute majority, according to opinion polls, but ended up with only 36.5 per cent of the actual vote.
What turned the result was fear-of-man - what the majority thought some people could do to others, or even themselves, if less constrained by marriage law.
The yes campaign was initially complacent, thinking it could rely on just two abstract arguments: the importance of separating Church and state and the need to cater, through divorce legislation, for the social and legal needs of informal second families.
The yes campaign was badly prepared for its adversaries' organised challenge, which made detailed claims about the negative practical consequences of divorce. Although religious considerations were slipped in, the anti-divorce campaign largely framed the issues as social, economic and constitutional.
Some of the salient questions were peculiarly Irish (for example, the alleged impact on farm properties and on the first family's legal status). But the general argument spoke of increased marital instability, higher negative social and economic consequences, especially for children and women, and absence of evidence that the law could deliver what it promised - all footnoted by the (lay) campaign leaders with reference to the sociological record for countries with divorce legislation.
The no vote won largely because it seemed to be taking the real-life issues more seriously than the yes vote. Against many of its opponents, it argued for the truth that marriage is a public good, not just a private matter: we are all affected by the stability of marriage just as we are all affected by the stability of the euro. Seeming the only side to recognise that truth, it was easier for it to define persuasively what was best for the institution.
Its negative campaign was even easier to conduct. Anyone who made divorce legislation sound like a magic wand that would only clear up mess, and not create any of its own, was refuted with facts and figures, as such glib sweeping arguments deserve. The government was unable to persuade voters that its proposed legislative package should allay all fears, partly because it sometimes appeared to be improvising.
Sounds familiar? Like the Irishman said, it should be déjà vu all over again. Much of the anti-divorce argument is the same as that made most eloquently in Malta by ProġettImpenn, which on Monday presented its position to the Prime Minister.
And the refusal to get to grips with the largely secular nature of the anti-divorce argument - sometimes even in simple reportage, let alone commentary - should also be familiar. For example, this newspaper's own report on Monday's meeting with the Prime Minister would suggest to someone unfamiliar with ProġettImpenn's explicit argument that it was at least 50 per cent theological, which it simply is not.
As a part-time critic of ProġettImpenn's argument (I can see its validity for some scenarios but not all), I believe the general avoidance of the argument is a public shame. There are hard questions to raise about ProġettImpenn's arguments on its own grounds.
There is no space today to develop a fair discussion about such questions. Let me just advert.
Take the issue about our marital breakdown numbers. Sometimes ProġettImpenn sounds to me like it is implying that our numbers, given by the NSO, are not just low but in a completely different ballpark from mainland Europe. In fact, they tally with public perception: yes, they are low but within range of the European mainstream. Should this not make a difference to what solutions we consider?
There are other issues. ProġettImpenn says many sensible things about children's interests. But in its positive policy recommendations, it remains ambiguous about whether it is in favour of discriminating against children born of parents who by law are unable to marry each other.
But on this, as on other issues, it cannot be pressed for an answer unless its arguments are taken seriously. And for that to happen, they need to be faced squarely and not caricaturised.
ranierfsadni@europe.com