What makes man happy? Money? Property? Love? Power? Philosophers have been trying to answer this question for years. One calls to mind Aristotle’s struggles with this question and his turning to the character related virtues and intellectual virtues as the true way to achieve happiness in life.

What makes man happy? Money? Property? Love? Power? Philosophers have been trying to answer this question for years. One calls to mind Aristotle’s struggles with this question and his turning to the character related virtues and intellectual virtues as the true way to achieve happiness in life. Among the intellectual virtues one finds that of phronesis or practical wisdom. Phronesis is enshrined in what are called the Cardinal Virtues as prudence, which has nothing to do with the popular connotations of prudence that most of us have.

I have set this background because I have been reading several articles on the issue of divorce that are anything but prudent. Since the issue of whether divorce should appear on our civil statute books or not is not one of fundamental human rights but one of civil rights, it should be civil society itself therefore which ultimately should decide this issue, with such extensive social consequences, in a democracy and nobody else. Besides, one should consider all arguments especially from those who are not directly involved in specific separation issues as hard cases may make bad law.

I cannot understand the arguments of those who are calling for the Prime Minister to step down if the referendum in favour should pass because he expressed his personal opinion against divorce. He has a right as a citizen to express his opinion. He should resign only if he is not ready to implement what the sovereign will of a nation should decide in a free ballot. Dr Alfred Sant did not resign after he lost the EU referendum nor should he have. I only expected him to resign when he was usurping the freely expressed will of a nation, which in a democracy is sovereign.

Nor can I understand the reasoning that a referendum is uncalled for, as it is a foregone conclusion. Everyone should be allowed to have his or her say even the illiterate or quasi-illiterate or silent masses. They count too in a democracy, not only the vociferous newspaper or media columnists who may have their own agenda. Incidentally, the Church too is a player in civil society and in a democratic society the Church and its members should be allowed their say too. Many in the media often paint church members who express their opinions as retrograde ignoramuses who are living on another planet rather than respect their opinion too. Nobody calls those in favour of divorce names such as antegrade anarchists! More respect for opinions is called for.

Then there are those who think that it is presumptuous for Christians to assume that God is against divorce, as nobody really knows what God wants. This rather strange remark seems to ignore revealed scripture where there is no doubt what Christ wants, and philosophically since God wants it, it must be good for society. One must not try to phase off Christianity as a myth as there is a cultural and historical basis to it as opposed to the existence of the Greek gods for example.

Christianity has included together with Aristotle’s virtues those of charity or love, faith and hope. They were not much valued in Aristotle’s society but we now talk of the new people of God. That is what is new about it. It is charity that has to win the day for a Christian otherwise his practice is imperfect. Agapic love incorporates within it the virtue of fidelity to one’s spouse. That one publicly (and before God) promises one’s fidelity to a spouse till death must mean something to society, otherwise the whole of society is that much poorer for it. In marriages, things can and will go wrong but one should seek to find solutions consistent with that promise of fidelity and love.

There will be those who disagree with me for several reasons. Fine, let them have their reasons and their opinions, but it is important for all not to get hysterical and to let everyone in society has his or her say without being called names, and let everyone partake in the final decision in seeking the common good even if, like in Moses’ time, the choice might not be the right one. May eudaimon not be so elusive for all of us.

Michael Asciak MD

BIRKIRKARA