In left-wing optics, divorce is presented as a neutral “solution of the problem” and even as an average administrative procedure, which needs to be simplified as much as possible. In this spirit, a government task was created to introduce the anticipation of solving the matrimony with a signature before the head of the civilian State Office. What the improvement promoters say is "burdening the courts" and "enhanceing the lives of citizens", in practice could become another step towards weakening the institution of matrimony as a permanent foundation of social order.
The Tusk government is forcing express divorces. It is not just about method improvement of the administrative path, it is about changing the sense of the legal standard. The state, allowing an “out-of-court divorce”, sends an apparent message: matrimony is an agreement that can be concluded rapidly and without peculiar reflection on the consequences. However, even if, in a given situation, divorce seems to be a "common decision", the social consequences of loosening the sustainability of this institution are serious: a culture of temporaryity is growing, the motivation to solve crises is decreasing, and subsequent generations learn that commitments are cancelable erstwhile they are no longer comfortable.
Supporters of simplification argue that "if matrimony is dead, it should be terminated at no unnecessary cost". The problem is that the law is not just an accounting and administrative tool. It shapes certain social attitudes. If divorce becomes easier, it is besides more common from the vending device – due to the fact that the intellectual and social threshold is decreasing to carry it out. Ordo Iuris Institute notesthat the states which liberalised divorce law were confronted with an increase in their scale and a weakening of the sustainability of matrimony as institutions.
Moreover, the “express divorce” removes an component that may be the last space to halt and effort to repair a relationship: contact with a court, mediation, even a minimum assessment of the situation by 3rd parties, looking at a matrimony with a cool eye. Of course, not all relation can be saved, but the state – alternatively of creating incentives for a liable transition through the crisis – builds in practice the shortest way – ends with each another and that's all. As a result, matrimony ceases to be a well-being requiring state protection and begins to be seen as a private contract, without any relevance to social order.
The criticism of divorce is not simply a “religious opinion”. The matrimony has historically served as a basic stabilizing institution: it fosters long-term planning for individual development, household development, reduces the hazard of poorness in households, provides a framework for intergenerational solidarity and, even without children, builds social capital. The law, which normalizes a fast resolution of marriage, weakens these mechanisms and moves society towards greater atomicization and pathology. It is besides worth mentioning the Constitution, which clearly indicates that matrimony should be under peculiar protection.
At this point it is worth recalling the position of the Catholic Church, which consistently teaches about the inextricability of marriage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that divorce is simply a serious offense against natural law, as it seeks to break the voluntary commitment of surviving together until death. In this spirit St. John Paul II wrote in an adhortation Familiaris consortiothat the inseparability of matrimony is required for the sake of children, and its eventual fact is God's intent toward man.
Even if the secular state does not talk the language of theology, it should be able to admit a simple relationship: a society that builds standards to facilitate the dissolution of marriages will be a little unchangeable society. Express divorce can so be a solution which, alternatively of mitigating crises, will strengthen them by promoting policies that are easy to overcome. actual modernisation of household law is not about shortening the way to decay, but about strengthening the conditions for sustainability: mediation, responsibility, protection of the weakest and promotion of a culture of faithfulness.
Poland will never be strong without a strong Polish family.
We besides recommend: Indian “Mercosur” is coming. It's gonna get worse.
