That two learned, elderly gentlemen should come out, in one weekend, not in favour but certainly making positive sounds regarding the long-and-winding issue of divorce in Malta is highly significant.

That they are both respected members of the Maltese clergy makes it all the more exciting for all of us who believe the issue should have long been done away with and buried in EU-member Malta of the 21st century.

That they are both known to have very close ties with the party in government and have, over the many years, exerted a huge influence on its policies and electoral meanderings, confirms once and for all that, at last, an end to this hugely comical controversy could at least be imagined.

Why? Being the undoubted intellectual gurus that they are, both Mgr Charles Vella, founder of the family-oriented Cana Movement, and Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, Rector Emeritus of the University of Malta, could easily have said very much the same things two decades ago when we were already idly discussing the pros and cons of divorce.

But then, a majority for divorce was not yet perceived, as it is now in this land of the naive, and the Labour Party in Opposition had not taken the initiative or shown the courage of its convictions, as it has done now, by insisting it is high time the issue is dealt with before more harm and discord are inflicted on Maltese society.

Then too, there were no government party MPs, as there are now, who have spoken of the need to address the issue, probably much to the chagrin of Prime Minister Gonzi who is known, at least unless we are to assist to yet another of his incredible somersaults, to be steadfastly against the introduction of a divorce law. He is, after all, an ex-president of the Malta Catholic Action and now, listening to these two influential thinkers from within the same Maltese Church must provoke in him both a political and religious conundrum.

Then too, it was easy to assume that a stance against divorce would win an election hands down whenever it came, hence the complete disregard to people’s suffering and to people’s rights and the permanent shelving of the issue. The Opposition was aware of these realities and could hardly be expected to insist on resurrecting it, at least forcefully enough to make it an electoral issue. The Greens did, but were sadly and predictably ignored by the electorate.

So what can one make of the recent pronouncements amid some leitmotif realisations, you may rightly ask? First of all, discussing divorce is still a tremendously convenient source of alienation when the country is in dire economic straits. Secondly, when a government is known to have reached a level of unpopularity big enough to see it crumbling in tatters any day, taking up a contentious issue that has been simmering for donkey’s years and finally addressing it could possibly help salvage some credibility.

Whatever the motives, it is good to hear Mgr Charles Vella say that the introduction of divorce “does not scare him.” Nor would I dare to modestly challenge his addendum to that, which quickly said, “provided that marriages are built on rock and not on sand”.

All words of wisdom, no doubt. And more of them, still. In submitting his theory that “while divorce from the Catholic viewpoint is considered a menace to the stability of marriage, it does not mean that it’s going to wreck marriages”, Mgr Vella rightly counselled against the staging of a “crusade” against divorce, saying the Church should instead focus squarely on better preparing couples for a healthy marriage.

Fr Peter, on the other hand, has been quoted by a Sunday newspaper in Maltese as saying that “divorce should be introduced when certain circumstances occur”. When the paper pressed him for details or at least to state what these “circumstances” are, he first said they are not yet occurring in Malta, until he explained they actually come about when there are “more people in co-habitation than in marriage”.

This, in my view of course, is a fallacy. You don’t introduce a law to keep a majority happy, but to make sure that every single citizen gains the right to a happy marriage when the first has been a complete failure. There are thousands of examples to date, alas.

It is exactly why, one assumes, Mgr Vella says the issue should not be decided by a referendum. The State is there for everyone, not for one like-minded majority, even if this majority too could very well have shifted over the years from one anti-standpoint to a pro-other. Happily, Fr Peter does not hesitate to grant the State its right to legislate when social conditions dictate as such.

Interestingly enough, these priestly interventions came about only a week after another member of the Maltese clergy, Fr Mark Montebello, younger and obviously fresher, typically threw himself into the breach by writing in his weekly “Torca” column that Jesus “was in favour of divorce”, a claim soon disputed by some firebrand, Church-friendly organisation, though not – interpret it as you may wish – by the official Maltese Church.

I would find it hard to assume that Fr Montebello had some hidden political motive in bringing up this twist to the topic. He has never been known to dabble directly in politics, though he has also never been prone to shy away from any political debate that focuses on social issues, particularly in defence of the underprivileged.

Indeed, it takes two to tango, because Fr Montebello, though a valid virtuoso, does not seemingly want to create a triumvirate with a purpose. The rest, really, is for Gonzi and Joseph Muscat to dance for on the national stage.