We are being urged to stand up and be counted with regard to the divorce issue. I had made my stand clear to all some time ago. My greatest concern is that it may have all been too late, that this may be the last stand. The values I grew up with and which I have often written about are in retreat mode and have been for a substantial amount of time. It is not as if the writing on the wall only appeared when the divorce issue arose. Spiritual and religious life in Malta is facing several problems. These include ignorance of the sacred scripture and doctrine, ethical ambivalence, increasing violent crime, private and public corruption, prostitution and extra-marital relations with the consequent frailty of the family structure and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, the belated sexual revolution resulting in a rise of sexually transmitted diseases, the sustained substance-abuse, the superficial work/business ethic and incipient racism (Inguanez, 2009:8). These did not come into being yesterday. I’d like to take a closer look at some of them.
Ignorance of scripture and doctrine: Catholics have never been encouraged to read and study the Bible in the same way as Protestants have and the Church has always insisted that all interpretation of the texts should carry her stamp to prevent any possible error. The result has been that generations of Maltese, including the present one, have by and large generally learnt whatever they know of scripture and doctrine from the not always elevating Sunday homilies. You do not see in Malta, as I saw in the States, congregations capable of referring to passages from Scripture quoted in church to the Bible they carry or have at home. Even ex-students of Church schools do not seem to be any better. For most students, religion was just another exam subject and not considered really important because it did not help you get a job. We are reaping what we have sown.
Ethical ambivalence: in a small country, ethics tend to follow hard on the heels of society’s role models. Since independence, one of the two chief role models of Maltese society, obsessed as it is with tribal politics, have been the politicians. And while there are individual exceptions, as a class (and I formed part of this class for many years) politicians cannot be said to have provided an elevating ethical model. And the Church, that ancient institution that bound us all together, too has seen its primacy dented. Battered as it has been and still is by a scandal that refuses to go away and by the communication revolution that has provided one and all with knowledge that once was not readily available, the institution still persists in believing that covering up is better than going public and getting rid of its bad apples in order to re-ignite the trust that the overwhelming majority of its priests amply deserve.
We cannot expect much help either from a culture that, reflecting the general global trend, has firmly become embedded in the mores of the market place. The latter is based on making profits and everything is for sale and everything has a price. Is it any wonder that this has come to include the relationship between married couples! Life is not segmented. No person can behave amorally during his working hours and then go home and become a moral person. That is why the Gospels strongly recommend the creation of an environment which nurtures ideals. That has weakened in Malta and hence for many, attending Sunday Mass would be worse than hypocritical.
The sad irony is that Malta is embracing secularisation at a time when some countries are beginning to swing back towards religious practices as they belatedly realise that a society with moral values is a far more law abiding one.
Violent crime and drugs: in the eyes of many these are linked but we need to be sure that we are not looking at the superficial symptoms. The powerless can only seek flight when they feel they cannot fight. And powerlessness does not only depend on whether there is food on the table. Studies show that stress is not entirely related to how much people have to live on; poor people in poor countries fare better in measured health and well being relative to their fellow citizens than better-off people at the bottom of the ladder in rich countries.
It seems that relative income and comparative social standing matter more than the absolute standard of living. Those with most control of their life and work thrive, while the powerless and despised suffer. One implication of these findings is that the cost of healthcare could be lower in a society where inequalities are not too pronounced. Doctors, hospitals and drugs may be in demand but they don’t address the underlying causes of ill health and lack of well being due to an unstable society – and doctors are usually the first to say so.
Apart from that, growing inequality in income and wealth undermines democracy. In most countries, it is wealth that buys access to ministers, places at business dinners and privileged exemptions from law and regulation. The American heiress Leona Helmsley may have only intended to refer to the USA when she famously said “only the little people pay taxes”: but that particular malady has spread far and wide.
Democracy is egalitarian – one person, one vote – but wealth makes some votes more influential than others. Silvio Berlusconi is a living example of this. Rupert Murdoch is an even more extreme case because he can bring ministers to heel in Australia, the USA and the UK. We need to look closely over here at the widening gap between the have-a-lot and the have-very-little before society starts becoming unstable. We really need to examine closely whether those utilities that sustain life should be given over to commercial enterprises. And we need to ponder on how business and industry can sustain themselves should large numbers of our people end up with empty pockets. The chain of mutual dependency can only be stretched so far.
If we assume that all the above is significant, then we shouldn’t wonder that private and public corruption has increased. As the Mafia says: it’s just business. We are living at a time when those who go by the rules – whether those of religion or those of society – are labelled as “fidili”, which really means naïve fools. And there is no place for the naïve in the market place.
It is in this context of conflicting ideals and the dearth of values that the present debate about divorce should be put. Does the present crop of MPs possess the ability to recognise the kind of Malta we are living in and the vision to see what will drive society in a relatively short time should they give in to trends that have left a trail of destruction elsewhere? And I am not thinking only of divorce here. Yes, there are people who deserve a second chance in life and there have been successful second marriages, but the price for the happiness of the relative few should neither be paid by society as a whole, nor by future generations who will grow up lacking the tremendous sense of well-being and belonging that only the stable, traditional family can give.