From Dr J. L. Attard

I refer to the two letters by Emanuel Gauci and Peter P. Dingli titled “What legislating divorce really means” and “Divorce and the family: what family?” (TMIS, 17 August). These two gentlemen replied to my letter “Divorce – what does it really imply?” (TMIS, 10 August). Unfortunately, I think their reply regarding the discussion on divorce was most probably prompted by wounded feelings and emotions, rather than by unbiased reasoning. Any type of discussion, which is meant to lead to a reasonable conclusion and to careful decisions, should start from facts and be based on objective information.

I will not engage in scrutinizing and rebutting their arguments why divorce should be introduced in Malta. I think readers can judge whose arguments make more coherent sense. What I wish is that the State begins an analysis on the common causes behind marital breakdowns, such as lack of agreement, financial burdens and infidelity. As the English saying goes, prevention is better than cure. This type of information can be useful to protect the majority of Maltese families that want to remain together for life. Furthermore, this type of analysis will enable access to important information on the consequences resulting from divorce. Unfortunately, divorce has throughout history been referred to most of the time as one of the principal sources of social discontent in any country.

In some European countries divorce is granted without difficulty and it can also be given for very insignificant motives, just by presenting a petition to the ordinary courts of the place. Nonetheless, there are other countries where divorce can be obtained only from the courts on just and specific grounds. The very fact that governments have felt the need to change the divorce law so often, the vast diversity between one State and another is in itself an indication that, even where it has been introduced, many problems remain unresolved. We have much to learn from other countries that have gone through this hard and painful experience.

The law of the country must seek to attain the common good of society as a whole. As a result, it must echo the fundamental human principles and never contradict them in any manner. Natural law is the supreme law of the land that must be kept in mind by any type of government. Both the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the country must put into effect rights and duties, which they themselves did not make and are not entitled to change or abrogate. Not even a parliamentary absolute majority, or a popular referendum, can go against the fundamental tenets of natural law. They cannot make something look truthful when in itself it is fundamentally not. All legislation that goes counter to natural law is not truthful. This in turn renders that legislation null and void and does not oblige the conscience of the ordinary citizens of any State.

On a final note, I must assure Mr Gauci and Mr Dingli that apart from myself, I am sure that in the near future there will be many other people who still regard marriage as an essential institution, together with those who still give great value to the traditional family and will contribute their thoughts to the current discussion over whether a divorce law will endanger the values they subscribe to.

Joseph L. Attard

XAGHRA