Has anybody ever heard opinions about a subject, read about the matter ad infinitum but, try as they might, been unable to reach a conclusion whether they are for or against the topic under discussion?

For a long time now, people writing in newspapers have expressed various opinions regarding divorce. Some are inclined to pass judgment on those opting for divorce as though the latter are freaks of nature striving for Malta to be akin to Hollywood, while others living in miserable marriages pride themselves on being intellectuals and modern enough to want to follow other countries and bring in the divorce act because the rest of the world is “into it”.

I started to think about whether I was in favour of or against divorce, but though I battled to and fro, I could come to no conclusion for a long time. With regard to euthanasia, abortion and the death penalty – my feelings were always as clear as crystal. I could not agree with any of them, the ultimate reason being that I am a Catholic and therefore could not submit to agree to something that goes against my principles and my faith. There is no doubt that most of your readers will think that I am old-fashioned but I will not budge an inch.

Although I know I will never be a candidate for sainthood, the Bible does mean something to me and no words, no sentences in the Bible, approve of mercy killing, terminating the life of an unborn child or being on death row awaiting death.

Quite recently the light dawned, the penny dropped, the bright bulb in my brain supplied an answer to this sensitive subject and I found myself definitely not in favour of divorce. Even in this day of modern trends, of hearing about separations galore, broken marriages, etc., I simply will not agree. Even as I write this I feel the anger of readers who are eagerly awaiting divorce with relish so they might re-marry but sorry, boys and girls, your point of view is simply not mine.

Years ago, though, a genius priest came up with a rather favourable solution – that the “doors” of annulment should be opened wider – not just to those who have the money to pay for it, but also to those whose reasons are valid. Let’s face it – many marriages are annulled and some people, I hear, have to pay the earth for their freedom. Maybe this is just hearsay. I hope so.

Annulments should not be permitted to couples who differ in opinion constantly, or to those whose mornings start with a row and end up by sleeping in separate beds, but to those who break the marriages vows. In marriage the couples pledge to love one another in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer and for better and for worse, right?

How come, then, that infidelity is not grounds for an annulment? Why shouldn’t battered and bruised husbands and wives deserve to be freed through an annulment? If a husband is a paedophile, is the wife not entitled to an annulment or should she stay married to a monster?

Frankly, I don’t really care what is happening in other EU countries where divorce is on the cards the moment a married couple face their first obstacle, but I do care about our country, where our Catholic values should not be allowed to disintegrate.

I repeat, I don’t agree with divorce but the grounds for annulment should certainly be discussed by the Church, thus giving a chance to people who are really and truly suffering because of the breaking of the promise on their wedding day.

If divorce was granted to every Tom, Dick or Harry for just irreconcilable differences, I bet my last 10c that more and more women would be trying to surpass Elizabeth Taylor and more men would be competing against Donald Trump. I sincerely respect other people’s opinions. In turn, I hope that they will respect mine. Even if this divorce debate finally ends up being a political issue, my views will not change.

Valerie Borg

MLP Councilor

VALLETTA