In the ongoing controversy between those who advocate civil divorce and those who are against it, several fallacies have been put forward - on both sides.
The principle of separation between Church and State has been invoked repeatedly, but not always in the right perspective. For it does not necessarily mean friction between civil and ecclesiastical authorities. As adopted by some modern states, it can and should encompass friendly co-operation together with respect for the distinct nature of each.
The words of Vatican II are clear and to the point: "The political community and the Church are autonomous and independent of each other in their own fields. Nevertheless, they are both devoted to the personal vocation of man, though under different titles. This service will redound the more effectively to the welfare of all, insofar as both institutions practice better cooperation according to the local and prevailing situation."
However, if divorce is not introduced, there are no grounds for the accusation - in our pluralistic society in which many people profess different creeds or have no religion at all - that canon law is being imposed on the people. The central issue of the divorce debate is not the relevance of Church law, but the requirement that all civil laws should be conducive to the common good. This means that they should comply with natural law.
It is not only Church law which outlaws the destruction of a valid marriage by granting a divorce, but natural law itself. Therefore it is not only Christians, or members of the Church, who are bound by it, but every human being without exception.
In the minds of many people, it is becoming ever more clear that there are natural rights and natural duties. Man knows naturally, by the light of his reason, that there are some things evil in themselves and some things which are necessarily good.
Many theorists through the ages have recognised the importance of natural law, and argued that every human law is subordinate to it. In recent years there has been some sort of revival in this regard, albeit under the label of 'human' rather than 'natural' rights.
However, we should not ignore the fact that in some European countries and elsewhere systems of so-called 'legal positivism' have been steadily gaining ground. This is the theory which defines laws purely in terms of commands, without any reference to moral or ethical considerations. Yet the purpose of civil law is to procure the common good, and this cannot be properly achieved unless legislation is based on a higher authority.
Without the light of the natural law, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to discern what is demanded by the common good, and what is prompted only by private interests or selfish claims.
Contrary to the views held by legal positivists, civil law cannot be detached from its moral basis. Every human law is an ordinance of reason, not an arbitrary or whimsical decision of the legislator. It comes from the will of the law-giver, but from his reasonable will. To be reasonable, a human law must be just and honest, hence not contravening natural law.
Those who deny the force of natural law are, perhaps unwittingly, also denying fundamental human rights and duties. These rights and duties, presuppose a given law without which they have no basis. Therefore, natural rights and natural law either stand together or fall together.
If natural law is shunned or abandoned, human lawmakers would have no criteria to guide them except trial and error or expediency. How can they otherwise determine what ought to be the laws of the State and what is just and fair for its citizens?
If there is no law beyond civil legislation - indeed something superior to it - it follows that there would be no natural rights, no recourse from tyranny, no court of appeal; as happened in the case of the Nuremberg jury of the Nazi war criminals. The end of it all would be that man becomes subjected to the arbitrary will of everyone who has the power to control him by force.
Even at this stage of a debate on divorce, it should be asked whether or not such legislation is compatible with natural law, and if not what are the consequences. We should always bear in mind the old adage 'Prundens est praevidere futurum' (It is wise to foresee the future), otherwise our country might be on the brink of leaping blindfolded from a precipice into an abyss.