Martin Scicluna, lead author of the recently-published report 'For worse, for better: Remarriage after legal separation' advocating the introduction of divorce legislation "was taken aback by the paucity of argumentation or reasoning advanced" by me in my column of May 24. To counteract this paucity, he wrote to The Sunday Times (May 31) proposing a battery of arguments.
The first two arguments were of a personal nature. First argument: Fr Borg is ignorant about the subject. Second argument: Fr Borg is either intellectually bankrupt or intellectually lazy. I leave judgement to others, though I would like to thank Mr Scicluna for being kind enough not to describe me as both intellectually bankrupt and lazy. I greatly appreciate his magnanimity.
In his third argument, Mr Scicluna told us readers he did all the necessary reading on our behalf. He "studied the evidence objectively and rationally", then "weighed it in the scales... in such a way as to reach an informed conclusion". He chewed everything for us and provided us with the results.
I find this argument a trifle paternalistic. He is asking us to radically change the paradigm of marriage that the Maltese have used for the last 2,000 years or so, without giving us the possibility to refer to - not to say check - the basis of his arguments. I think Mr Scicluna is expecting too much from us. Even "the likes of Fr Borg" - as Mr Scicluna endearingly put it - has the right and the ability to study "the evidence objectively and rationally".
The need for this kind of study is one of the basic points that I have made in my contributions on the subject: such a radical change has to be accepted or refused only after a thorough and serious examination of the state of marriage and the family in Malta.
Personal experience and anecdotal evidence paint a very grim picture. However, we need something more than anecdotal evidence or superficial reproduction of statistics. What is the number of broken marriages? How many are opting for cohabitation instead of marriage, even if they can marry? What is their profile?
How many separated couples prefer to re-marry? What are the causes of the present situation? Can the negative trend leading to the breaking up of marriage be reversed or halted? What are the consequences on children in a broken marriage and/or in a re-marriage?
Ranier Fsadni, for example, had proposed the setting up of a Human Development Index to get a realistic picture of the situation. When this is compiled, we can then debate, agree or disagree about the way forward.
Such a strategy is in the interest of both the pro- and anti-divorce camp, and society at large. I think that both sides believe in marriage, and both sides believe that everything should be done to have strong and stable marriages.
It is not right to consider the legalisation of divorce as a foregone conclusion. I do not exclude that, in a particular social situation, divorce could be seen, even by practising Catholics, as the lesser of two evils. They could argue that if the culture of cohabitation is spread and the numbers rise alarmingly, a case for divorce may be made.
Others, including non-Catholics, could be of a different opinion and argue that society should concentrate on strengthening marriage instead of legalising divorce. These people would probably see the legalisation of divorce as a slippery slope that would irretrievably harm the institution of marriage.
It is vital that we have a proper and informed debate, and for this to take place, we have to bring to bear on the subject a calm assessment of the situation-as-it-is, the situation-as-it-has-become in places where divorce has been introduced, and a set of impeccable statistics to back the situation-as-it-is.
In my opinion, the report 'For worse, for better: Remarriage after legal separation' does none of the above satisfactorily.