Daphne Caruana Galizia’s article entitled The Good Life (TMID, 22 March) would be funny if it was not so sad. It seems to me that Ms Caruana Galizia is making short shrift of an extremely serious matter under the guise of journalism. I feel that most of her observations are fickle. The connected themes of marriage and family life are by far two of the most relevant topics of all time and they certainly deserve a more profound reflection than Ms Caruana Galizia has cared to provide us with.
To begin with, the changes in the understanding of family life in our secular world are clear to all and sundry; however the marital experience remains a legitimate, full-valued and strong basis for the development of Christian life. In this respect, I sincerely believe that we are to try and uphold natural values and behaviour, as promoted by the Church. Moreover, since it is within the nucleus of the family that our children – the future of our society – are born and bred, it is therefore up to us, as their parents, to primarily ensure that they receive the best possible start to life.
It is a fact that today mothers are caught in a cycle generated by a conflict of values: on the one hand, they are called upon to respond to their vocation and mission to stay home and raise their children; on the other hand, they are enticed by the state to return to work.
However, the state should make provision for mothers who choose to remain home and in no way should a mother be pressured to take on a job outside the home, in order to make ends meet. What right has Ms Caruana Galizia to denigrate the role of the stay-at-home mother, or even go so far as to specify that she “might as well be stuck with three” children if she is going to do so.
It may be true that the father’s salary “might be sorely taxed” in the process, but the final outcome is that the children have a loving, caring mother who is available to give them all the physical and moral support they need to grow into mature, responsible adults – always granted that this is a decision taken by both partners, together. The noble choice which a woman makes to stay home and rear her children demands its tribute and our society needs to acknowledge that this role is one which can be compared to any other professional status.
I also dislike the casual way in which Ms Caruana Galizia treats such a serious issue as children born out of wedlock to “school-girls and teenagers – and mistresses”, to say nothing of her remarks on contraception. If we are ever to make any headway in educating our youngsters in an authentic human sexuality, then such flippant remarks are to be avoided. The very institution of marriage comes from God: the ends for which it was instituted as well as the blessings which flow from it, also come from God. Children are such blessings – they should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere, so they may grow up in a setting that best ensures their survival and development.
The family is the environment where profound relationships blossom and grow, where its members open their hearts and find comfort, where one is received and embraced in a true and genuine way. Let us therefore treat the subject with infinitely more respect than Ms Caruana Galizia has done.
Christine Galea
Sliema