Divorce harmful to Maltese society as a whole

In the debate on divorce in this newspaper over the last few weeks, there were two clearly discernible approaches.

The first approach favours stable marriage between one man and one woman, which does not allow for divorce, citing saddening social realities in countries where divorce exists. The 'strong suit' here is theological: it is derived from the Christian faith and can succinctly be stated as follows: Jesus is the Son of God, the Truth personified, and He spoke out against divorce - so we should learn from Him and not legislate in favour of divorce, which in any case has shown itself to be socially harmful where it in fact exists .

The other approach, which strongly advocates divorce legislation as being long overdue in Malta, is based on tolerance and is rather pragmatic: we would all agree to work out a solution which pleases both sides. So those in favour of stable marriage would by all means be allowed to organise their lives accordingly, but there would be legislative provision for those wanting to dissolve their first marriage and enter into a new one.

This live-and-let-live option seems at first sight plausible, fair and tolerant, the best that can exist in an increasingly pluralist society such as ours. I shall here be arguing that there is and has to be a third approach.

The philosophical foundation of the stable marriage alternative has to be explored and stated in language accessible to all, even to non-Christians, otherwise it will effectively remain unintelligible to those who advocate the divorce solution.

At the same time it must be shown that change in the national community affects us all, and that therefore introducing divorce is not merely offering an option only to those who wish to marry again, but is in fact a decision profoundly affecting the whole of Maltese society now and in the future, not just those seeking a divorce. Such a profound change would be harmful to Maltese society as a whole, so we had better not go down that particular road!

Human beings made for communication

In the divorce debate, ultimately what is at issue is the value of the human person and the concrete measures society must take to promote and defend human dignity. The human sciences have amply confirmed what the Bible says about man in its first pages "it is not good for man to be alone".

Experimental psychology tells us that the human person can only be a person to the extent that he or she is a person-with-others; a child who is not brought up with other human beings or who is never spoken to does not develop a human personality, sickens and dies.

The more a person is capable of communicating and sharing himself or herself, the more a person gives himself or herself fulfilment in deep and lasting personal relationships. What seems at first sight a loss of human liberty and individuality proves to be the only road to authentic personal self-fulfilment.

If we accept this vision of the person which places human fulfilment with the capacity to love others, we have to conclude that a society which encourages deep human relationships is better than one characterised by division and individualism, and consequently that a society with stable marriage and where definitive promises are maintained is logically preferable to one where promises are broken with the blessing of the State.

In other words, the human person's innermost nature is that he or she seeks to enter into that deep communication which is beneficial to others, to oneself and to society as a whole. This deep communication reaches one of its most intense expressions in the love relationship that bonds man and woman in marriage.

This very special covenant necessarily implies the communicative promise of lasting fidelity and mutual trust. The keeping and living out of that promise is of incalculable benefit to the couple, to their children and to society as a whole, which profits when love promises made and kept are held in high regard.

Marriage is an institution, perhaps the most important in human society, where values of deep and lasting human relationships and mutual commitment are not only lived out but also learnt and transmitted to others. Hence one would be hard put to argue that society should not defend marriage and its stability by all the means at its disposal, including legislation. It follows that the stability of marriage and the keeping of promises are basic values, on both a personal and social level.

In the hope of communicating through philosophical discourse with those who favour divorce legislation, I thus here restate the case for stable marriage in terms that I hope are accessible to all, not only to Christian believers. I consider the stability of marriage between one man and one woman at civil law, as well as the keeping of promises, to be basic values that Maltese society is built on. To jettison them lightly, in the short or long term, we would indeed need very serious counter-arguments, which so far are not forthcoming in the present divorce debate.

True humaneness

Denying persons who have suffered from an unsuccessful marriage the possibility of remarrying, will seem perhaps to be inhumane. We are all painfully aware of the large number of marriage breakdowns, Most of us have relatives and/or friends who have suffered or are suffering terribly because, in their marriage, for whatever reason, the strong love that had bonded the couple in the first place now is, or seems to be, irrevocably dead.

The children of such a couple suffer when seeing their parents quarrel and when they sense a lack of love and harmony, and/or coldness and anger between their parents. What is written here bears such situations in mind: it is in no way formulated in a void or in an idealistic context where human relationships supposedly always flourish. It respectfully bears in mind the suffering of many human beings.

It is here respectfully submitted that the solution to such heart-rending situations does not lie in the introduction of divorce. When societies around us introduced divorce, this in fact weakened the stability of marriage! The result has been that when, sometimes inevitable serious differences arose between the spouses, rather than allowing time for things to calm down and later seeking reconciliation and pardon from each other, many couples just gave up trying and took the divorce way out.

Unfortunately, as Sergio Cotta, the former professor of Jurisprudence at Rome's La Sapienza University once wrote, "Il divorzio crea divorzio"; the existence of divorce legislation begets further divorce, by favouring the growth of a divorcist mentality. A society with a stable marriage institution educates those thinking of getting married as well as its married citizens not only that it is important to work at a relationship within marriage, but that it is also often necessary for the couple to be humble and to seek forgiveness of one another.

The reconciliation of the couple, perhaps with the aid of professional counsellors and/or spiritual directors, is more humane towards them and their children in the long term than the sanctioning of the end of the marriage through divorce. It also serves the good of society, which has much to gain through stable marriages.

Divorce is not a right

It is also often claimed that divorce is a 'right' that society should recognise. This however cannot, at the level of reason, be demonstrated! In the divorce debate, it is at times claimed that, since a person has a right to make life-choices, (s)he has a corresponding choice to enter a second stable relationship; the role of the State here is not to make any value-judgement but merely to recognize the right to remarry through introducing the institution of divorce. I have argued above that the human person's innermost nature is to communicate and that through marriage, a person enters a special life-covenant that necessarily implies the promise of lifelong fidelity.

Since human rights must emerge from the innermost nature of the human person, the human right in question here can only be that of entering a first marriage and of living out to the full the lifelong personal promise it involves. It is, to say the least, paradoxical to claim that a person has a 'right' to remarry and give a new promise of fidelity, when the condition for this to come about is the prior breaking of a lifelong promise made some years earlier which reflected (the human being's) innermost nature!

Remarriage cannot be said to be a right, insofar as it involves the irrevocable breaking of an earlier promise involving the communication of self.

In fact the experience of other countries demonstrates that the introduction of divorce has always led to a lowering of the value of marriage in the eyes of society. Divorce has become progressively easier to obtain with time, since the value of the marriage bond as permanent became weaker and weaker. This is one reason, among many others no doubt, why cohabitation is most common [not less common!] where divorce is easy to obtain!

If marriage is not perceived as permanent, why marry at all? So divorce (and remarriage) cannot be considered a right, emanating from the dignity of the human person. Divorce and remarriage can be said to be, at most, tolerated by the society that has divorce legislation.

In the strictly religious sphere, divorce is not wrong because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is harmful to both spouses, the children and society! For this reason the Second Vatican Council, in its 1965 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes, para. 47), a decree widely acclaimed even by non-Catholics for being open to the world's real needs, did not hesitate to call divorce a "plague".

Children are often said to be necessarily better off when their estranged parents separate or divorce as their children would no longer experience acrimonious quarrels between their parents. But this is an over-simplification. Even children whose parents go their different ways suffer a lot.

This corroborates the findings of Dr Jack Dominian, founder and director of the Marriage Research Centre in England who writes that "second marriages are twice as likely to break down as first ones... the final twist is provided by evidence which suggests that when children (of divorced couples) become adults in their turn, the chances of their own marriages breaking up are increased".

Something distinctively Maltese

Malta should have the courage to have some things - other than its language, art and history - that are distinctive of its people: its traditions and its culture. Over the years, men of goodwill worldwide exulted when the rights of the poor and downtrodden were publicly and courageously defended by the now-ailing Pope on his travels to various countries. Hopefully they will also slowly come to appreciate the human value of stable marriage, as taught by the Catholic Church and to this day upheld by Maltese legislation.

The models of marriage legislation that are available to us from the Western world, riddled as it is by decadence in its various forms, should not be seen necessarily better than ours, making us feel inferior. We ought, on the contrary, as a society to opt once again for the model of a stable marriage between one man and one woman, in the full knowledge that this is the better and thoroughly reasonable alternative. Rather than feel embarrassed about this model of marriage, we ought to consider it a good and healthy integral element of our national heritage and be proud of it.

What has been said so far in no way implies that the present legislation in Malta is perfectly satisfactory. A series of measures has already in fact been taken to support the stable family solution, both in the civil and the ecclesiastical spheres and these can be further strengthened. In particular, as a matter of justice, children born outside wedlock should in no way be discriminated against, since they bear no responsibility at all regarding the state of the relationship they were born into.

Solidarity and friendship

Above all perhaps, it is important for all to show sincere solidarity and offer generous support and friendship to persons whose marriages are unhappy, or have already broken down, or who de facto cohabit with a person who is not his/her spouse. This human (and in religious terms "pastoral") support and solidarity can indeed do a great deal to help people.

One can only hope that this discussion on divorce will help us all to understand better what we hold to be the basic values of our society. This would enable our society to devise a legal framework which upholds and inculcates the tremendous importance of stable conjugal relationships, while regulating humanely and equitably the situation of the parties (spouses and all the offspring) involved in the breakdown of marriage.

Both those who are arguing for or against the introduction of divorce have much to learn from each other and can contribute meaningfully to the construction of a more humane and kind Maltese society.

Affecting us all

This article has been an attempt to state the Catholic case for legislation concerning a stable marriage between one man and one woman, the only such union from which, at a biological level, new life can emerge. Hopefully this has been done in terms accessible even to those who do not identify either with the Catholic faith or with the moral obligations that flow from that faith.

My hope is that the reasonableness of the Catholic position, based on the dignity and nature of man, will now stand out and be taken seriously by everyone, even those in the divorce lobby. I also hope that this article will make clear for good that introducing divorce would not just be offering an option to those who want it, but will affect everyone - and that is why those who uphold the stable marriage option are right in saying that introducing divorce would affect them and all Maltese and Gozitans as well.