Skip to content

Post No. 48 (Divorce revisited)

January 29, 2011

I know … I know … everybody and his brother is at it again. Mention of a referendum has fuelled the fire and jolted me into action 🙂

When the most recent wave of talk about divorce hit us I held the opinion that if you’re a practising Catholic you just ignore it; but you can’t force your beliefs on other people.

Then something happened and made me change my view.

I was strolling along and I saw this lovely LandRover, muddied all over. The driver, who was nowhere to be seen, had left the engine running, keys in the ignition and the door open. I really had to fight myself not to jump in and drive away. The driver shouldn’t have left the car the like that. He (or she, for all I know) was asking for trouble.

I really want a LandRover, and I was casting lecherous glances at this one.  The driver must have sensed my nefarious intentions. He (see? it was a he after all)  popped out of nowhere and drove off. I fought back the tears and walked off.

What if I had really stolen the car? Wouldn’t the police have sent out the cavalry, dogs, helicopters and drug ring infiltrating agents to catch me the minute the rightful owner reported the theft of his Landy? And they would have been right, mind you.

Why? Because you can’t have people deciding to act on what they think is good for them irrespective of the law. And what is the function of the law? Presumably it regulates interactions at various levels and stages of life. Why should interactions – even personal ones – be regulated?  The protection of common good seems to me a plausible reason.

Would I want the law to stop me from [insert favourite felony]? Probably not. Would I want the law to stop someone from e.g. killing me? I would, I don’t know about you.

Why? It is safe to assume that nobody of sane mind wants anything nasty to happen to him/her. It is only natural to ensure your personal safety and that of your possessions, even if someone else doesn’t agree. So if somebody asks you “What about throwing a referendum to deregulate possession of firearms?” Most people would probably SMS everybody they know to go and vote then head off to the nearest polling station that very minute, to make sure that they tick the NO box. (I would buy a pencil on the way, just in case they ran out). Such a reaction would be justified because if people are allowed to carry guns like they carry mobile phones, other people will start dying like flies. That I would never carry a gun is not reason enough for me to refrain from opposing deregulation. What if my neighbour starts carrying a gun and shoots me if I sneeze at three in the afternoon?

Obviously, the trigger happy elements in our society would go out and say that carrying guns is a human right and that you can’t have the majority decide for the minority and that you have to have a gun to know what it feels like to have it taken away from you … you know the drill.

What does this have to do with divorce?

Marriage is the foundation of society. A “good” marriage will produce “good” individuals that will result in a “good” society. Marriage should be put on a pedestal and protected. Its importance cannot be underestimated and it must be made crystal clear to everyone. Anything that weakens marriage – and consequently family life – should be avoided like the plague. Divorce is one of them.

Unfortunately some marriages are riddled with problems and I wouldn’t want to be caught in such a marriage. Some problems could have been foreseen others couldn’t. Does that mean that all marriage is bad? Would you believe me if I told you that BMWs are crap just because the other day I saw one being towed? You’d say “There was a problem with that individual car. You can’t extend it to every Beamer ever produced” And you’d be right. And it would be unreasonable to allow the owner of the broken down Beamer badmouthing BMWs and smashing one whenever the opportunity arises. Or to allow him to evoke an antiBMW feeling nationwide. “OK, so you’ve been unlucky with your purchase. I’m sorry to hear that. Now please go for counselling to come to terms with you loss” would be a kind suggestion, I think.

This is why I am obliged to vote NO in a referendum for the introduction of divorce – if it materialises at all. I cannot allow anyone to harm the foundation of my society. Some will say that in practice we already “have divorce”. People leave each other and set up house with someone else. I couldn’t care less if everybody else is doing it. Putting it crudely: Just because flies swarm to them, it doesn’t mean that cow pats are nice.

Let’s rediscover marriage as the unconditional giving of ourselves to our spouses, the presentation of other cheeks to injustices – perceived and real, the humility and losing of oneself in a union for the greater good of us as individuals and our society.


From → The Elephant

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: