Jacqueline, the legendary caped crusader
The guardian of the nation’s morals has a fresh crusade and she’s determined that nobody will ever divorce in Malta. Over her dead body will this government or any government introduce divorce legislation. She’s with Dun Anton Gouder and the archbishop on this one. The financial victims of divorce are women? Try telling that to Heather Mills or the legion of men who have been rendered homeless or are living in rented flats because their wife got the house that they paid for. Mrs Calleja needs to keep up with the times: in Malta, as elsewhere, most marital break-ups are now initiated by women who wake up one day after years of working at A Problem, only to realise that they don’t need the problem in the first place. That’s a generalisation of course, but it pretty much sums up the situation.
13 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Daphne,
If memory serves, and I think it does, this woman had the sheer gall to defend those priests of St Joseph Home (I think) who were accused of molesting boys in their care! (By the way what happened to that case any idea?)
She had written something to the effect that we should imagine those priests were members of our family.
If it was not her I apologise but I think I’m right!
(Daphne – We have no way of knowing anything about the case, because the lawyer requested a ban on the publication of all reports about it, and the court agreed.)
She certainly has a grudge against the Roman Empire. It always seems to crop up in her epistles.
Jacqueline conveniently forgets some of Christ’s teachings such as “Do on to others as you would have them do on to you!”
I am sure she would be livid if someone had to try and impose “non-catholic” values on her but she has no problem imposing her “values” on others!
A thought occurred to me – I wonder what her husband thinks of the issue !!!
Sometimes I get the feeling that the REAL reason so many are against divorce (legislation) is that they may lose a weapon so to speak!
(Daphne – Yes, that’s why so many stay-at-home women are against divorce.)
Ok, dissection time…
“Those who favour the introduction of divorce in Malta often put forward the argument that, since there are so many broken marriages around, there is hardly any point in opposing divorce.”
Yes and what a great argument it is, still not refuted, but I’m sure she will try…
“This manner of thinking holds no ground because robberies take place all the time and, yet, nobody would ever dream of legalising theft.”
Oh, so moving on from a marriage is the same as actually stealing someone’s possessions?
“Divorce is likewise a negative experience and this is something nobody can ever deny.”
So all negative experiences must be outlawed? Why don’t we punish adulterers as well, like the in the good ol’ days, or send all these evil cohabiters to prison, where they must belong. King Philip, of France, outlawed sex outside marriage, in a feeble attempt to counter the plague (which was of course divine punishment and not viral). This led to a boom of sudden marriages, proving that sex outside marriage is neither a modern concept nor one limited to non-Christian countries.
“The most important question to ask regarding this issue is whether divorce will contribute to the common good of Maltese society or not.”
It does not have to “contribute to the common good”. It has to be enabled to allow individuals, facing a situation of despair, a reasonable way out.
“Another fallacious argument brought forward in favour of divorce is that in Malta many couples are obliged to cohabit because divorce is not legalised. In countries where divorce has been in force for decades, cohabitation is rampant and in certain countries almost equals legal matrimony.”
Oh wait a minute… So people cohabit because there is divorce, or because there isn’t?
“Divorce is effectively killing the institution of marriage as there is really not much point in going through all the work involved in getting married when, if things do not work out, one has to go through the trouble of having the marriage dissolved.”
So the fact that it’s troublesome getting out of marriage somehow negates the point of getting married in the first place? Shouldn’t then the point that you can’t get out of a marriage at all (bar annulment) negate it even more? I have a vague feeling we are looking at a grammatical slip-up here, because this makes no sense to me.
“Many conclude that cohabitation is the best solution after all as, having no duties and responsibilities, the couple can simply wave each other goodbye when they feel that their relationship has deteriorated to a point of no return.”
So how does this relate to divorce? Again, if there is no divorce at all, shouldn’t that make people stay away from marriage even more according to this reasoning?
“Another misconception where divorce is concerned is that it is a “progressive” product of our post-modern era. It is not, of course. Divorce has been around for thousands of years. The ancient Jews had it and it was widespread in the Roman Empire. It only received a setback with the advent of Christianity.”
Divorce is a solution to a problem which societies throughout history have accepted as a necessity. The early Romans had fairly strict divorce laws, which of course changes when introduced to the wonderful concept of “reality”.
“Introducing it is a throwback to days gone by when women and children were less than nothing before the law and men would leave their wives to seek “pastures new” when they deemed fit and their respective wives and children would have nothing to fall back upon.”
I think we all know that not having divorce laws have not stopped men from seeking “pastures new”, leading to the bizarre state where a woman has to stay married to a man, no matter how many women he have on the side. This also leads to women living with extremely abusive men, have to stay married. How this protects women, is beyond me.Obviously we shall not forget that adultery is not exclusively for men only. Perhaps we should yearn back to biblical times where, as Pat Condell so eloquently puts it “men were men, and women were cattle”.
“Sadly today this is repeating itself in the sense that the great losers in divorce cases are almost always women and their children. The latter are in the majority of cases given in custody to their mothers and, while these end up having all the responsibilities and duties of bringing them up, the same cannot be said of men who are consequently freer to live their own lives as they wish.”
How is this different from the cases where the men takes off without divorcing the wife, leaving the wife just as responsible for all possessions, bills etc (I do have someone close to me who is in this very situation).
“No wonder that in our Western society divorced women with children are more often in a much more precarious financial position than their male counterparts.”
This is why we need proper safety nets for single mothers. Are they better off living on their own, forced to stay married to their (ex) husband?
“A contract that can be dissolved inevitably leads many not to commit themselves to its success as much as they would in contrast to a contract that is indissoluble.”
I would argue the opposite. If I know that my marriage can end and I want it to succeed, I would fight for it much harder. If I knew (or actually know, as my wife can’t divorce me, but I can divorce her due to my nationality) and fell on hard times, I could still pretty much do what I want and there is nothing she can do about it. I honestly and strongly feel it would improve my marriage knowing that my wife could take off without me, but stays, rather than being forced to stay.
“Divorce legislation always starts off by following strict limits but then gradually loosens up to lead to divorce being obtained for practically no reason at all and even after a few months of marriage.”
Again, counters the argument previously that if people knew they could get out easy they wouldn’t marry.
“Divorce in reality pulls the carpet away from under the feet of married couples, especially those who are passing through difficult times in their relationship. It is a weapon one carries around hopefully just for self-defence but often used, with tragic consequences, even if the situation just does not warrant it.”
Or it is a way out for the individuals who are forced to live with an adulterous or abusive spouse.
Fortunately, views of people like Jacqueline and Anton Gouder matter less and less every day.
(Daphne – Yes. I was glad to see a new phenomenon: a storm of protest beneath the story on The Times On-Line, last Monday, that Gift of Life have renewed their efforts at entrenching the abortion ban in the Constitution.)
Pat,
How the hell did you write in bold?????
And now to more serious matters ..
“Those who favour the introduction of divorce in Malta often put forward the argument that, since there are so many broken marriages around, there is hardly any point in opposing divorce.”
“Yes and what a great argument it is, still not refuted, but I’m sure she will try…”
Actually I think that is a non-argument! Divorce legislation should NOT be introduced because there is no point opposing it BUT because it is a civil right. Even if a single couple in Malta wanted to divorce then they should be allowed to do so!
(Daphne – I did the bold tricks. I thought it necessary to differentiate Mrs Calleja’s comments from Pat’s in such a long piece.)
David Buttigieg
It should be “do UNTO others as you would have done UNTO you”. Doing on to others might be a bit painful.
(Daphne – As Anthony Zammit, Labour’s future minister of health, has discovered to his dismay. What on earth happened to that case, anyway? Did the police get their men, or did Mr Zammit ask them to quietly drop it? I think we should be told.)
“I did the bold tricks. I thought it necessary to differentiate Mrs Calleja’s comments from Pat’s in such a long piece.”
Much appreciated, thank you.
David:
You are absolutely right. Will remember that point.
Ah yes! The Anthony Zammit case… He was so happy to tell the world about the beating he received and that he recognized at least one of them. It should have been a piece of cake for the police.
@ Pat “Or it is a way out for the individuals who are forced to live with an adulterous or abusive spouse.”
We don’t even need to put adultery and abuse into the picture. It could easily be a case where the marriage didn’t work and both parties agree to separate, move on and get married again. Even for just one case of this sort, divorce should be allowed.
I still can’t get to terms why there are people that oppose divorce. Their arguments just don’t make sense. I have friends of mine that oppose the introduction of divorce, but when discussing we always go round in circles. It’s so easy. You think that divorce is morally bad? Fine. Simple. Don’t divorce. Divorce is not going to be imposed on you. The Church will not be forced to accept divorce and marriages done in the church will remain indissoluble. Introducing divorce in Malta will only give an opportunity to those that don’t think that divorce is morally wrong to go ahead and rebuild their lives. Can someone please explain for the life of me, what the big deal really is?!?!
(Daphne – It’s because the socio-educational system here trains people from birth not to think and to avoid asking questions, accepting instead the unchallenged certainties laid down by authority. You will find that many of those who argue against divorce do so because they have a non-analytical mind. The only opinions they have are those they received pre-packaged. Take them away, and they are left floundering.)
Stanley J A Clews
You are quite right ofcourse ! *Blush*
Debating about divorce and abortion is useless…
Whatever whatever.. Just give us our Goddamn Rights.
Damn Hitler had a looser belt then the Maltese catholic church.
(Daphne – What does Hitler have to do with this, exactly?)
Daphne if you stop writting on the paper you will do a big favour to the Maltese society. Dont you realise the harm you are doing. How desprate you are!!! Do you have nothing better to do with your life than printing your personel hatred towards MLP
(Daphne – Funny how when keen supporters of the Labour Party write in, they argue that the solution to the problem of criticism is censorship. Go away and learn how to spell, Catherine. And how is the Labour party relevant to a piece about Jacqueline Calleja, anyway?)