A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE OR OF VALUES
I am very much intrigued to hear the opinion that the guiding line in the stable marriage-divorce question is based on the ‘principle’ that society should be led by the ‘rights’ of minority groups, before all other considerations. But has this really been so with other issues, or have they been guided by a different procedure?
Let me put forward an example. Research has shown that smoking pollutes the air which affects the whole population. I suppose that this could be called pertaining to ‘the common good’. There was a campaign against smoking. Our society decided to limit the ‘right’ to smoking, and justly so. As a consequence, and because smoking was a health hazard, smokers were curbed to the point that there were many limits set on their habit. The reasoning was that one could not preserve this ‘common good’ without curbing that which could endanger it.
The reflection did not depart from the ‘rights’ of smokers as individual persons. It began from the question: whether to choose between the ‘common good’ of the whole population, and the ‘freedom’ of smokers to smoke. Our society selected its priorities: love and compassion towards the present situation of smoking habits, or love and compassion towards the whole of society including future generations. Our society chose this latter kind of love, which we refer to as the ‘common good’, above the former ‘freedom’.
Was this lack of compassion, or defending the ‘common good’, which includes the wellbeing of others? In this case the reasoning was very different from that which is being presented today by those proposing divorce.
The movement which clamoured for these values had clear ideas: they lobbied for legislation protecting the value they had embraced. And obviously they knew that they could not at the same time clamour for a value, and leave the door open for practices which would endanger and weaken this value. Defending the value which relates to our health was translated into: ‘No smoking’. The same happened with other values like the environment. Their decisions have resulted in a great benefit for us today and for future generations!
Another thing emerges clearly from these issues. No one could have said that they would have defended these values by proposing legislation that would weaken the same value they were defending! Why is it so different with marriage? It is a contradiction to say that we shall promote stability of marriage – included in the ‘common good’ – by introducing legislation about divorce which weakens this same concept.
The question regarding marriage and divorce revolves around the same type of decisions. The main question is about values: physical damage as in smoking is clear, environmental values are clear. But are we convinced that ‘Marriage and Family’ constitute a foremost part of the ‘common good’ to be defended?
The whole question is about choosing what we prefer: the difficulties of the present situation, which would result eventually in an increased incidence on marriages today and for future generations, or to consolidate and protect this value.
Countries that have introduced divorce are now perhaps reflecting that this kind of reasoning on favour of the ‘common good’ would have been an act of love for those who are seeing their marriages break down, or for the great number of children suffering from an increased number of marriage breakdowns.
On the same line of reasoning, we have to accuse Our Lord Jesus Christ of not being compassionate. Or did He know better?
.
+ Paul Cremona O.P.
Archbishop of Malta