The following are a few points, which, in the current debate about divorce, should be seriously reflected upon.

To break a solemn contract such as matrimony undertaken before civil authorities can never be considered a civil right, let alone a human right. If it were so, the very pillars of our society would be seriously undermined.

It is simply not true that divorce concerns only those whose marriage is undergoing difficulties. It includes the whole of society, including the purse strings of the state. It is a Trojan horse that wreaks havoc in families. Something as negative as divorce goes against the common good of society.

Divorce slams the door shut to reconciliation between spouses, something which separation does not.

It is a myth to believe that people in second marriages will necessarily live happily ever after. A few might perhaps have a better quality of life but many will not for the simple reason that a second marriage is no miraculous cure for the defects and frailties that have led to the collapse of the first marriage. Those faults are only carried forward to the second relationship.

How long will it take for a small society of less than half a million individuals to be negatively affected in its physical and mental well being by a multitude of half-brothers, half-sisters and half-cousins?

Slavery was formerly accepted by a large number of countries but this did not make it right. Unfortunately, an innate inferiority complex born of the fact that we have a long history of colonisation, convinces many that since everybody is doing something, then it must be good. The criterion to decide whether something contributes to the well being of society or not cannot be the number of countries that practise it.

Divorce legislation accelerates the collapse of many marriages. The efforts put in to save a marriage will greatly diminish once the temptation to quickly put an end to it all is always present. It is like running around armed with a gun for the purpose of self-defence. The temptation to use it should the occasion arise, even if not quite justified, is often too strong to resist.

It is purely illusory to believe that the initial restrictions imposed for the granting of divorce will remain in place. With a few exceptions, this has not been the case. Such restrictions will be gradually relaxed to arrive to a situation where divorce will be easily granted for the most trivial of reasons or no reason at all. This in turn makes a mockery of what a marriage contract should be.

Divorce effectively kills the very idea of a stable and committed relationship between a man and a woman. It has had devastating effects on family life wherever it was introduced. It has a multiplier effect. In nearby Italy, according to the latest figures published in July, the number of divorces granted during the last 15 years has doubled.

In countries where divorce abounds so does cohabitation. This makes sense because there is no point in taking on the commitment and duties of a marriage that can end at any time if cohabitation is readily available. The latter enables two people to live together and then walk away from each other if they so desire with no grave consequences whatsoever.

Cohabitation is in turn contributing to a population decline and a demographic winter in many European countries. This is a very serious problem and is consequent to the fact that cohabiting couples are less likely to have children than those in a stable marriage.

Women and children will always remain the big losers when a divorce is granted. The latter will see their dream of a stable family life shattered forever. Women are nearly always worse off than their husbands since they usually have custody of the children, with all the difficulties of raising a family alone. Moreover, the biological clock works against a woman since a man can anytime look forward to starting a family with a younger woman, while a woman over a certain age has no such possibility.

Catholics have a right, as everyone else, to air their views without being subjected to attempts at intimidation, which often result in the hurling of insults and all sorts of epithets. These should be just ignored.

Opinions expressed by members of the clergy, be they academics, theologians, philosophers, journalists and so on, favouring the introduction of divorce, or all other matters which dissent from the teachings of Christ and His Church, should be considered as simply their personal opinion and treated as such.

For Catholics consistent with their faith, the question of divorce does not arise. Christ was against it and that should be enough. Moreover, He went so far as to say that even looking at a woman and desiring her in one’s heart amounts to adultery. The latter is one of God’s commandments that do not change to fit the whims and desires of passing generations. Indeed, as Pope Benedict recently said, “For Catholics there is no such thing as a second marriage but only two people living in adultery.”

Jacqueline Calleja

BALZAN