It is not that long since divorce was not permitted in Ireland at all. The State followed the view of the Catholic Church that marriage should be permanent and indissoluble. This was a country with an overwhelmingly Catholic population, and so when a referendum to make divorce legal was first put to the country in 1986, it was defeated by a margin of two-to-one, and when it was put to voters again nine years later, it was passed by less than one percent. For the first decades of the life of the Irish State, a proposal to permit divorce would probably have been beaten by ten to one.
So, we cannot pretend that our prohibition on divorce was an imposition by the Catholic Church on Irish society. It had enormous popular support.
“Society wanted children to be looked after as well as possible and it wanted men to take responsibility for their children”
The Catholic Church is unusually strict, even by religious standards, in its attitude to divorce because Jesus was very strict about the matter. Other Christian Churches are less strict because Jesus, according to certain interpretations of the Gospels, did permit divorce in cases of adultery.
West
Nonetheless, every Western society made divorce hard to obtain until roughly the 1970s. They believed marriage was extremely important and a vital part of the overall social fabric. Marriage was not simply important for the couple. It was important for society itself, and this was chiefly because nearly all marriages result in children. Society wanted children to be looked after as well as possible and it wanted men to take responsibility for their children, and the mother of their children.
If fewer people married, or if divorce became commonplace, then fewer children would be raised inside marriage, and fewer men would take care of their children. This is exactly what has happened, and it is hardly a good thing. So, societies were not simply being cruel in making divorce hard, if not impossible to get, and in creating extremely strong social norms around marriage. Somehow, we seem to have forgotten all this.
In the Western world, marriage is now seen as being simply about the couple. The social and religious purpose of marriage hardly get a look-in. In fact, marriage is barely even about the couple in some ways, but about the happiness of each individual spouse. If one spouse is no longer happy, then the marriage should be brought to an end, is the dominant thinking, and as quickly as possible, regardless of what the other spouse thinks, never mind any children they might have.
This kind of highly individualistic view of marriage is ultimately behind moves to shorten the waiting time before a marriage can be ended by divorce. Green TD, Patrick Costello, wants to reduce the waiting time for divorce from two years to just six months.
When divorce was first introduced in 1995, the waiting time was four years. This was to convince reluctant voters that marriage would remain a robust legal and social institution and not something that could be easily dissolved.
“Where there is domestic violence or an abusive relationship, being tied to an ex-partner for longer than is necessary is draconian and unduly onerous”
Then in 2019 we had a referendum to reduce the waiting time to two years, and now Deputy Costello wants to reduce it to six months.
Introducing his Bill to the Dáil last week he said: “I have dealt with numerous constituents who are in very difficult situations where their marriages are breaking down and they have found the current law a source of deep frustration and deep pain. It ties them to an ex-partner for significantly longer than is necessary. In cases where there is domestic violence or an abusive relationship, being tied to an ex-partner for longer than is necessary is draconian and unduly onerous. It holds people back and prevents them from starting a new chapter in their life.”
At face value, this seems like an impregnable case. It seems compassionate and it also seems to promote personal freedom, the highest value of a very individualistic society.
But let’s look a little closer. For a start, there is nothing now preventing a couple separating and coming to a separation agreement regardless of the waiting time for divorce. This will cover issues like the division of property, maintenance payments and above all who gets custody of the children and how often the separated spouse can see them.
Divorce
What divorce gives you is the right to marry someone else. That is the only real difference between divorce and a separation agreement. So even if a spouse is abusive, there is nothing to prevent you separating today and hopefully sorting out your legal affairs, although this can be very difficult, and will remain difficult no matter how quickly a divorce can theoretically be obtained. (In any case, an abusive spouse should be in prison).
If there is abuse in a marriage, then there is a strong case to be made for quicker divorces. But if not, then it should not be too easy to obtain one.
For example, you could easily have a case where one spouse is simply tired of the marriage and has met someone else. The other spouse might be content enough in the marriage, or else is prepared to put up with a certain amount of unhappiness for the sake of the children.
“The strong legal and social trend at the moment is to make marriage something that is easy to dissolve and to weaken its position in law”
But that second spouse can be divorced against their will and potentially in just six short months no matter how long the couple have been married.
Admittedly, there is nothing to stop a spouse walking away from the other one anyway, but in a ‘quickie’ divorce regime, they have a stronger incentive to do so because now they can marry whoever they have met more quickly.
Is this truly just? It is just on the abandoned spouse? It is fair on the children? Does the commitment you make when you marry, the solemn vows you exchange, really count for so little in the eyes of the law or society?
The strong legal and social trend at the moment is to make marriage something that is easy to dissolve and to weaken its position in law. Nothing is done to strengthen it. Almost everything we are doing is designed to dilute the social norms around it and to make it easier and quicker to walk away from, even if this suits only one spouse.
Is this really compassionate at the end of day? In an overall sense, is it really making for more happy adults and more happy children? It is debateable, to say the least. It is perfectly possible that weakening marriage in the name of freedom and ‘compassion’ is creating more misery in net terms. This thought never seems to occur to us anymore. It should.
Yet another proposal to further weaken marriage
It is not that long since divorce was not permitted in Ireland at all. The State followed the view of the Catholic Church that marriage should be permanent and indissoluble. This was a country with an overwhelmingly Catholic population, and so when a referendum to make divorce legal was first put to the country in 1986, it was defeated by a margin of two-to-one, and when it was put to voters again nine years later, it was passed by less than one percent. For the first decades of the life of the Irish State, a proposal to permit divorce would probably have been beaten by ten to one.
So, we cannot pretend that our prohibition on divorce was an imposition by the Catholic Church on Irish society. It had enormous popular support.
The Catholic Church is unusually strict, even by religious standards, in its attitude to divorce because Jesus was very strict about the matter. Other Christian Churches are less strict because Jesus, according to certain interpretations of the Gospels, did permit divorce in cases of adultery.
West
Nonetheless, every Western society made divorce hard to obtain until roughly the 1970s. They believed marriage was extremely important and a vital part of the overall social fabric. Marriage was not simply important for the couple. It was important for society itself, and this was chiefly because nearly all marriages result in children. Society wanted children to be looked after as well as possible and it wanted men to take responsibility for their children, and the mother of their children.
If fewer people married, or if divorce became commonplace, then fewer children would be raised inside marriage, and fewer men would take care of their children. This is exactly what has happened, and it is hardly a good thing. So, societies were not simply being cruel in making divorce hard, if not impossible to get, and in creating extremely strong social norms around marriage. Somehow, we seem to have forgotten all this.
In the Western world, marriage is now seen as being simply about the couple. The social and religious purpose of marriage hardly get a look-in. In fact, marriage is barely even about the couple in some ways, but about the happiness of each individual spouse. If one spouse is no longer happy, then the marriage should be brought to an end, is the dominant thinking, and as quickly as possible, regardless of what the other spouse thinks, never mind any children they might have.
This kind of highly individualistic view of marriage is ultimately behind moves to shorten the waiting time before a marriage can be ended by divorce. Green TD, Patrick Costello, wants to reduce the waiting time for divorce from two years to just six months.
When divorce was first introduced in 1995, the waiting time was four years. This was to convince reluctant voters that marriage would remain a robust legal and social institution and not something that could be easily dissolved.
Then in 2019 we had a referendum to reduce the waiting time to two years, and now Deputy Costello wants to reduce it to six months.
Introducing his Bill to the Dáil last week he said: “I have dealt with numerous constituents who are in very difficult situations where their marriages are breaking down and they have found the current law a source of deep frustration and deep pain. It ties them to an ex-partner for significantly longer than is necessary. In cases where there is domestic violence or an abusive relationship, being tied to an ex-partner for longer than is necessary is draconian and unduly onerous. It holds people back and prevents them from starting a new chapter in their life.”
At face value, this seems like an impregnable case. It seems compassionate and it also seems to promote personal freedom, the highest value of a very individualistic society.
But let’s look a little closer. For a start, there is nothing now preventing a couple separating and coming to a separation agreement regardless of the waiting time for divorce. This will cover issues like the division of property, maintenance payments and above all who gets custody of the children and how often the separated spouse can see them.
Divorce
What divorce gives you is the right to marry someone else. That is the only real difference between divorce and a separation agreement. So even if a spouse is abusive, there is nothing to prevent you separating today and hopefully sorting out your legal affairs, although this can be very difficult, and will remain difficult no matter how quickly a divorce can theoretically be obtained. (In any case, an abusive spouse should be in prison).
If there is abuse in a marriage, then there is a strong case to be made for quicker divorces. But if not, then it should not be too easy to obtain one.
For example, you could easily have a case where one spouse is simply tired of the marriage and has met someone else. The other spouse might be content enough in the marriage, or else is prepared to put up with a certain amount of unhappiness for the sake of the children.
But that second spouse can be divorced against their will and potentially in just six short months no matter how long the couple have been married.
Admittedly, there is nothing to stop a spouse walking away from the other one anyway, but in a ‘quickie’ divorce regime, they have a stronger incentive to do so because now they can marry whoever they have met more quickly.
Is this truly just? It is just on the abandoned spouse? It is fair on the children? Does the commitment you make when you marry, the solemn vows you exchange, really count for so little in the eyes of the law or society?
The strong legal and social trend at the moment is to make marriage something that is easy to dissolve and to weaken its position in law. Nothing is done to strengthen it. Almost everything we are doing is designed to dilute the social norms around it and to make it easier and quicker to walk away from, even if this suits only one spouse.
Is this really compassionate at the end of day? In an overall sense, is it really making for more happy adults and more happy children? It is debateable, to say the least. It is perfectly possible that weakening marriage in the name of freedom and ‘compassion’ is creating more misery in net terms. This thought never seems to occur to us anymore. It should.
New Bishop Chairman: No special path for Germany in reforms
Bishop Coll: young Catholics seek ‘doctrinal solidity, not adaptability’
Late Bishop Willie Walsh honoured with plaza on first anniversary
Dr Slim urges humanitarian shift as Trócaire warns of climate impact
Top TOPICS
Unsurprisingly, quite a few Lent related items featured in the media last week. The News
When I was in college, back in the days when the earth’s crust was still
Dear Editor, Garry O’Sullivan makes valuable points concerning the accountability of deceased clerical sexual abusers
Bishop Niall Coll’s recent remarks mark a significant moment in the lead-up to the upcoming