“This [Britain] is a largely secular, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm do not include Christianity.
“Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century.
“The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence over religious rights”
Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the above remarks in February when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong. It was one in a long line of judgements that seemingly aim to drive faith, any faith, underground and replace it with secularism.
Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, described the judgment as “absurd”. He pointed out that the monarch took a coronation oath promising to uphold the laws of God. Only recently, we saw the wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton and heard the vows they made. Acts of Parliament are passed with the consent of “the Lords Spiritual”, and the Queen’s Speech finishes with a blessing from Almighty God.
“What really worries me” the Right Reverend said, “is that this spate of judgments leaves no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swathes of public life, including adoption and fostering.”
One may ask what this has to do with the divorce issue. It’s simple. In any war, including one against faith, the attacks do not come from one direction. In a shooting war, air, land, and sea forces are involved. Additionally, there are Special Forces acting behind the front line as well as the civilian forces of the resistance. So divorce is simply one of the many ways, some of them insidious indeed, that are aimed at killing and maiming faith and the family.
It is not the first time this has happened. While much blood has unfortunately been shed in the name of God, the attempts of the French and Communist Revolutions to wipe out religious worship failed, as failed the ideology that maintained, among other things, that the absence of religion would be a step towards a more peaceful world. Can anybody claim that that has realistically worked anywhere? On the contrary, what brings about peace is the elimination of inequalities and there is no better formula for achieving that than the one found in the Bible.
When the “No” camp says that not enough study has been carried out on the consequences of divorce they are not being alarmist; they are saying the truth. Divorce in other countries has created a new kind of society never before seen in human culture. Divorce is altering the institution of marriage and the family in ways not yet fully comprehended, which is why I don’t want to play the stats game for that simply adds to the confusion. But I think all sides would agree that the introduction and the increased tolerance of divorce have produced profound changes in societal attitudes towards marriage and the family.
These societal changes removed the commitment to stay in a marriage in order to make it work, and it gave way to an attitude of moving on if the marriage was in difficulty. The former motivation is what we must regain should the present fight be won. There is nothing more dangerous than not realising that we are sitting on a powder barrel and that simply putting out the fuse is not enough. The proponents of divorce, the drive towards secularism, will not abate with a positive result in May. Civil and religious authorities need to seek new ways of motivating our people and that means that responsible politicians, for a start, should stop attracting votes by resorting to the distribution of goodies/bribes and instead start competing with each other by offering serious, responsible, transparent governance that will encourage people to debate issues, not simply count the benefits. The Church, on the other hand, has to clean out its stables even if that means copying one of Heracles’ feats and diverting a river to wash out the accretions of centuries.
We must all accept that, as with most sweeping societal changes, divorce was offered as a measure for good. Those locked in loveless, miserable relationships could end an unhappy marriage without the burden or unpleasantness of proving fault or apportioning blame. It would guide them to better choices and happier subsequent relationships. That was the hope. And such intentions were then held by men and women of many political persuasions, by lawyers, judges and mental health professionals alike. Those initial well-intended aims are still being pedalled by the “Yes” camp today in Malta.
There is a very important difference, however. Apart from the fact that we now know that divorce is a far from a certain route to a happy second marriage, those initial aims had nothing to compare them to. This cannot be said now. When I attack divorce as a bullet aimed at the heart of the Maltese family, it is because those proposing divorce are now well aware of the unintended consequences it brought about elsewhere.
And whilst they do their best to make it sound ever so plausible, they fail to tackle what is the most important point of it all, something that the “Yes” camp is now focused on. Marriages tend to produce children and while those in favour of divorce continually talk about what that means to the adults involved, they rarely dare walk into the minefield of what divorce means to the children caught up in the crossfire. They only mention it to dismiss it by saying that children caught up in the crossfire of broken marriages suffer just as much.
But all studies show that divorce is a life-transforming experience. After divorce, childhood is different. Adolescence is different. Adulthood – with the decision to marry or not and have children or not – is different. Whether the final outcome is good or bad, the whole trajectory of an individual’s life is profoundly altered by the divorce experience (Wallerstein).
Children identify not only with their mother and father as separate individuals but with the relationship between them. They carry the template of this relationship into adulthood and use it to seek the image of their new family. “There is nothing that hurts more than the wound that is meted out by the most important people in our childhood, our mother and father, because it violates the promise, implicit to life itself, to provide continuous safety and care. I believe most human beings unconsciously believe that a mother and father, when they create life, enter into a tacit agreement to continue the family as a unit and to be present to guide the children until they can claim the world as adults. When parents do this, it nourishes trust and allows the children to build a healthy foundation for all of life’s tasks ( Hirschfeld).
Divorce brings radical changes to parent-child relationships that run counter to our current understanding. Parenting cut loose from its mooring in the marital contract, is often less stable, more volatile, and less protective of children. Divorce is weakening the basic building block of society. The children of divorce carry the impact into adulthood and in turn affect another generation.
And this is where the question of divorce ties up with the secularisation of society and eventfully its laws. Marriage is a covenant: it is not independent of God. The prophet Malachi (consider him a social worker) is very clear on this: “Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously, yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.” This passage also says that the wife is not inferior but is a companion in whom the husband should take delight. Some things were thrown into our lap long ago but in our ignorance most don’t even know that such acts preceded our modern social attitudes.
Another aspect of marriage assumes that it is a sexual union which goes beyond mere physical experience, or should. It is the union of mind and spirit, that mysterious something that makes two people become “one flesh”. This relationship between husband and wife is essential to a healthy family.
The “Yes” camp makes it sound so easy. Wait for a short time and you are free to go your own way into a glowing sunset. But the divorced family is not a truncated version of the two-parent family. It is a different kind of family in which children feel less protected and less certain about their future than children in reasonably good intact families.
The culture of divorce must be kept out for it is death to the society that has enabled this small nation of ours to survive through centuries of occupation and cultural death. Divorce is a choice between two people, just as marriage is a choice. But marriage is a choice based in love and commitment while divorce is a choice that either or both partners demand in the absence of the will to live up to promises spoken and commitments made.
In 2003, the term “marital status” was deleted from official forms in the UK. Most government-sponsored research refers only to “couple parent families”
What State and Church must strive to bring about is a reversal of this thinking, family by family. Just as the divorce issue has brought together people from opposing political factions to propose what to me is a destructive message, so should a positive message of healing bring together the best elements in the different persuasions of our society.