Marriage: Between statistics and reality

The recent conference on marriage has drawn a lot of attention and triggered many reactions. The interest shown by those present at the conference was no less impressive. Those who read what was reported might question what it was actually about. Seeing the reactions one gets the impression that a systematic attack on single mothers, the unknown fathers and on the welfare system was waged. Although this topic must have come across as the juiciest part, it was not the gist of the conference.

In my paper I proposed a personal interpretation of the present situation and of the future of marriage. In doing so I relied on data that was available and on my own observations in counselling couples. While numbers have a relative value, a precise assessment of the major shifts taking place in our country, though imperative, is not easy to obtain. Social conditions like cohabitation and personal intimate relations are difficult to monitor and impossible to record.

The issue of the "unknown father" stole the attention. The information retrieved from the baptismal records during a particular peak period in the manifestation of such cases meant to be more of an illustration but was instead generalised and blown out of proportion. The mentioning of a biological father taking the role of the godparent in baptism was intended to highlight the farcical nature of these situations. Maybe parish priests now could take the opportunity and give us more detailed information and come out with common and relevant pastoral policies in such situations.

The phenomena of the "unknown father" and of single motherhood are serious social concerns. People falling under these categories, whether by choice or by default, are to be pitied. With or without welfare, their destiny is not a bright one. These cases, however, are just the tip of an iceberg. Behind them lies a mentality which has been slowly encroaching into our society. I am referring to the privatisation of the "marital" relationship and de facto cohabitation. This was the main topic of the paper.

Although many in Malta follow the common route leading to marriage through a series of stages, these tend to be compressed and sometimes confused so that the real meaning of the relationship is often lost. As many of the typical ingredients of marriage, such as deep emotional and sexual intimacy, are taken out of it and invested into early pairing, these relationships lack a structure and a clear direction. The difference between marriage and non-marriage becomes more difficult to grasp. Too much familiarity with the partner's kin, social detachment, and other external commitments, such as bank loans or unexpected pregnancy, contribute to put pressure on the relationship. This condition affects both those who bring children out of wedlock and those who continue with the common road leading to marriage through elaborate wedding preparations.

While I am convinced that, for the majority, the crossing of the threshold has clear legal and psychological implications, these premature deep relationships can also cause problems. A common feature to be seen also in couples who have been married for some time and are facing difficulties is that, in hindsight, many realise that their "commitment" was not the result of a free and conscious decision but more of a yielding to external and internal pressures. Had they enjoyed a little more the freedom of their adolescence and dated more partners perhaps they could have appreciated better the meaning of marriage.

For these, their experience is that of sliding into marriage rather than deciding to enter into it. This is one explanation why a number of couples attending the marriage preparation courses already show signs of disengagement at the eve of their wedding.

Marriage commitment means not only investing in the partner but also in the relationship. All meaningful relationships are structured. Pretending to work through it without a clear structure is an untenable myth. The DIY versions of it are fraught with difficulties. The blurring of boundaries, besides weakening of the institution, does not make it easier for the couple.

What we saw at the national conference was an encouraging common and bipartisan approach to the problem together with a willingness to do something.

The state cannot close an eye to these private arrangements, especially where children are concerned. What the state should do, however, is protect and privilege heterosexual marriages through family-friendly policies and adequate taxation and welfare. The Church will continue to support, educate and offer all the help it can.

It is hoped that the debate from now on will move in this direction and refrain from targeting those who, unfortunately, have made the wrong decisions.

The entire text of the paper, Marriage: Quo Vadis?, can be found on the Cana Movement website www.canamovement.org.

paul.galea@um.edu.mt