Nine years ago, as a private citizen, I visited the President of Malta to voice my concerns at the way our society was going. In particular I implored him, as the nation’s father figure, to start doing something to combat the secular invasion of our islands and stop the breakdown of the traditional family. I felt that references to “family”, to “values” and other loaded words unaccompanied by some form of commitment were just smoke.

Being a hard-headed sort of guy, I visited again some time later and this time I was simply told that one cannot turn the clock back. And so it proved to be. More fool me for trying? Perhaps.

In my last foray into politics, I had suggested the setting up of an Institute for the Family to research the problems that were at the basis of so many broken families and to undertake action to help overcome the identified problems. Of course, in the race to eliminate any potential rival, neither of the two main parties took up the suggestion. I had also asked that special units use empty schools in the evening to give an opportunity to married men and women, either singly or alone, to seek advice on how to tackle their familial dilemmas. We had suggested then, that the State should provide preparatory courses for those choosing civil marriage. None of these suggestions was taken up. Yet today, the anti-divorce campaign loudly complains at the lack of research available, which is why they insist that a win for the Yes vote is a leap in the dark. However, in Malta, once you demonise an opponent then, logically, he has nothing of value to offer.

This contribution is appearing on the day when the results of the referendum should be known, or at least the direction in which the vote is going. I don’t think that there will be either victors or losers, except in the sense that those whose own marriage hit the breakers, for whatever reason, will feel vindicated by a Yes win. But what a hollow victory that will be, one of personal justification at the expense of so many who in the future will be guided by the escape clause being proposed.

Additionally, a government that has been accused by many contributors of paying only lip service to the empowerment of the family should really have room more for regret than triumph whatever happens. It should not be alone in this. A Church that has continued in the same way it has for centuries, that always finds reform a tremendous problem, that has done its utmost to close all the doors and windows opened by Pope John the XXIII, that still insists it is answerable to nobody except the God in whose name it speaks and lays down the rules, will have much to regret and very little to gloat over whichever way the result goes. It is no wonder that the far-sighted among those opposing the introduction of divorce continually harp on the fact, in one meeting after another, that a No majority would, in history’s famous words, mean that it should not be the end, not even the beginning of the end, but hopefully, the end of the beginning.

Despite his promise to give his MPs a free vote on the matter, Joseph Muscat’s own choice for divorce means that strong attempts are being made to sway the vote by the LP, even if officially the party has not taken a position: a wise political move. Nevertheless, the LP too will be hurt if the Yes vote does not go in the direction that Joseph and his wife would like it to go. In fact, throwing his wife into the fray shows how keen the Labour leader is to influence the result. That is simply pure political opportunism. Not that the LP is the only organisation trying to ride the tiger.

Those who are so fed up with the stats thrown at them are very right to be so, which is why I have resisted the temptation. But it may be of some interest to learn that in the USA, some states, worried by the ever-increasing divorce rate, are trying hard to find ways and means to slow it down. Louisiana for example, introduced the concept of Covenant Marriage, which asks those who choose it to take pre-marriage counselling and, should divorce loom, pre-divorce reconciliation meetings. I know here we have the Cana movement, (incidentally not every priest’s idea of the ideal marriage preparation) but on the civil side nothing has been done. Getting married has become more a question of banqueting, dressing-up and having a jolly good party than anything else.

I have seen one exception personally though. This was a neo-catechumens wedding ceremony where the young people getting married really were at the centre of the ceremony rather than the priest and the formal order of words, though of course, priests to witness there were. They led the ceremony, they gave their own witness in their own words, and the promise they gave each other had a strength that no other ceremony I have attended ever measured up to. Why this kind of commitment, and joy in the commitment, is allowed to languish on the margins rather than in the mainstream is highly significant. If everybody goes into marriage in this way, we would not be wasting our strength on finding legal means to destroy it.

And commitment is what is urgently needed. Whatever the outcome, the time has obviously come for a culture that merely celebrates the rite to end, and for committed belief to be regained. Better half the usual congregation, nay even a third will do, but one composed of people who are there because they want to be there and are prepared to live the principles of the gospels to the best of their ability, than to have a full house made up of rite Christians who mouth “I believe” unthinkingly. But for that to happen, a way must be found of truly instilling belief, of encouraging people to understand and accept and follow the way mapped out to us by the carpenter’s son from Nazareth. The quick fix every Sunday is mostly water off a duck’s back.

But then for this to happen much needs to be changed. Will lessons ever be learnt?