Drop in number of divorces in 2010 ‘is still 153 too high’
Friday 11th February 2011, 2:29PM GMT.
DIVORCES fell last year to 153 from 162 the previous year.
However, the figure was up on 2008, which was 141 and 138 the previous year.
‘It is still 153 too high,’ said Guernsey’s Catholic Dean Father Michael Hore (pictured).
‘I do not think there is enough preparation for marriage. The other thing is people do not take their marriage vows seriously.
‘It is often the case that people are getting married for all the wrong reasons.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Well put Canon Michael!
Society is such a “throw-away” society, when something is broken, just get rid of it, and buy a new one. Whatever happened to “repair”. I know that many marriages cannot be repaired, and that is OK, and the Catholic Church is OK with that too, she is not against divorce in such situations.
But – marriage in a church, i.e. Christian Marriage, is a life-long committment, and when you make your vows, you say to your spouse: “…to have and to hold, from this day forward, for BETTER, for WORSE, in sickness and in health, to LOVE and to CHERISH, until death do us part.”
What God has put together, let no man put asunder.
Report abuse
The contract of Marriage would be taken more seriously if it were made a legal contract similar to that of a business partnership – especially in the area of third party interference. Make the contract of marriage a respectable legal contract not just the joke throwaway piece of paper that many see it as today…. If you dont want the contract then just live de facto. Simple.
Report abuse
Absolutely!
Report abuse
Wil – what are you talking about? Are you suggesting that one party should be able to claim damages from the other in the event that they break the contract? Or that one party can “enforce” the contract against the other to keep it alive?
Personal relationships are a little bit more complicated than business relationships. Both parties need to want to make them work.
Report abuse
No, he didn’t say the drop was 153 too high …. He said the total number of divorces was too high ….
Report abuse
From a Christian perspective, marriage between two Christians is a covenant made between three parties – husband, wife and God. With that in mind, as a representative of the Christian church Father Hore is absolutely right to speak out on the sanctity and serious nature of marriage.
I would only comment that I personally think he is being a bit harsh by suggesting that “people do not take their marriage vows seriously.” With co-habiting now a socially acceptable lifestyle choice, people that don’t take marriage seriously will often simply not bother getting married.
I accept there will always be those who marry with ulterior motives. I also think some people can enter marriage naively without accepting that every marriage (however strong) will inevitably encounter difficult times – and consequently many couples give up on their marriage far too quickly. Like Terry Langlois says – both people have to want to make it work.
I’m nevertheless pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of people enter marriage with the sincere and serious intention that it will last a lifetime.
I would also add that if Father Hore also has a responsibility to his flock. If he REALLY thinks a couple are not taking their upcoming vows seriously, he should think very carefully before agreeing to perform the marriage ceremony. He may not be too popular but down the line some people may thank him for it.
Report abuse
No Terry, Im talking about third party interference “tortious interference”. Malicious and deliberant intent to induce another party to breach a contract with the knowledge of the contract and knowledge that the action will cause harm in order to gain personal advantage or prospective economic advantage from the act.
Report abuse
@Wil – my goodness, that’s an interesting way to describe an affair! No, I’m afraid I agree with Terry Langlois – personal relationships are far too complex to be shrunk into business-type contracts. Degrading marriage into little more than a business contract makes a mockery of its raison d’etre.
Marriage has to be an act of free choice. from the start. What kind of a marriage would it be if a husband (for example) wanted to have an affair but decided against it simply because if found out he and his new partner would get sued? A very unhappy one I’d imagine.
Report abuse
Please explain to me what knowledge a catholic priest has of marriage? No idea whatsoever I am sure.
It is sad when any relationship falls apart, but please, a catholic priest is not entitled to have an opinion.
Report abuse
I agree Paul, Marriage is an act of free choice but it helps if other people respect your marriage too.
Anyone who plays a role in the intentional and reckless destruction of a previously good and happy marriage should absolutely be held accountable for their role in its demise and the subsequent pain and suffering of the spouse and children. The law of tortious interference could be used in this event.
It is a naive individual who thinks that you can’t break up a happy family – I see it first hand all the time. Marriage and especially families are precious, very breakable and should be afforded special protection. If someone intentionally destroys a family, knowing that it could have been prevented if they would just honor and respect the marriage; then they are acting with malicious intent. This is not to say that the husband or wife is blameless but just to acknowledge the role of the third party. The third party may not have signed the marriage contract but they are a part of it. Its time for everyone to face the music.
Report abuse
Wil – you put your point across extremely well and now that you have explained it further, I’m inclined to agree with you – in principle if nothing else.
There are some difficulties with the application of the principle though. To begin, I’m still not quite sure how one could measure, legally, what level of blame could be apportioned to a third party.
Take the example of the unfaithful husband: it could be argued that the marriage was already “over” in his mind before he embarked on an affair – the third party was simply the final catalyst.
Did the third party “cause” the marriage break-up, or was it already broken? A very difficult thing to ascertain – especially if it is a point of law.
Report abuse
spot on PleP, I doubt that there will be many cases of anyone intentionally setting out to break a marriage for the sake of it. People form new relationships for various reasons. If the husband/wife is willing to become involved with someone new, how can you determine that the third party has maliciously interfered? It takes two to tango.
What makes it malicious? Lust? love? a lack of lust or love?
And what “music” would they face? To what end? The marriage would still be broken and you cannot bind it back together just by saying that the third party was a wrongdoer.
I just don’t think that your theory matches reality.
Report abuse
Terry – I agree with Wil’s point that third parties can bear a degree of responsibility in cases of marriage break-up. How much responsibility is debatable though and I firmly believe the onus remains with the married couple to protect and nurture their marriage. To put the blame on someone else sounds dangerously like an abdication of responsibility – all too common in society these days.
In addition, I would also ask is it really a legal matter?
Take my example above. Someone may act morally reprehensibly when knowingly embarking on an affair with a married man, but are they committing a criminal act?
Then there is the matter of determining causation. Did they cause the break-up, or were they part of a wider tangled web of various contributing factors?
As you said, personal relationships are complex things, and I can only conclude that this issue has to be a question of morality and ethics, not law.
In fact the only people I can see benefiting from making third party involvement a legal matter are divorce lawyers – and frankly I think they make enough money out of people’s misery as it is.
Report abuse
Paul Le Page
Agree with everything you say. But i wish you would have included women in your example as we dont want to end up being accused of any kind of discrimination do we? :).
Report abuse
PLP and Wil are right. Blame can be apportioned to third parties in some cases and if it can there could and should be an apportionment of damage.
Yes, it is hard to quantify – but courts make these sorts of judgements all the time (there’s a reason those old fellas on the bench are called judges!). Allocating blame would not be much or any harder than, for example, determining how much responsibility for an accident lies with the person who runs out into a road or the driver changing the radio station responsible for the accident. or, indeed, how much a broken leg or psychological injury is worth in cash as damages. Courts also deal with much harder issues, such a division of assets of a passed loved one who did not have a will – especially where one child (for example) claims reliance for subsistence.
Difficulty in quantifying damage does not equate to no damage and if there is damage, compensation should follow.
Surely it would (if available) only be a civil claim. I agree that as conceived it is not something that the authorities should become involved in (putting to one side of course the ability to prosecute offences that are already on the books).
In any event, I agree with (most if not all) of you in saying that marriage does not carry the same level of respect as it once had. This societal shift should in my view be addressed. one way is to introduce laws along the lines that Wil suggests, but this is but one option.
How’s about mandatory counseling before divorce? Sounds expensive, but actually is probably cheaper than all the broken families out there, with multiple welfare cheques to boot.
Report abuse
Terry there are many many cases of such – for some its become a useful instrument of getting famous, with well paid interviews, modeling contracts and book deals. Other persons will choose a rival and go after their loved one out of spite. Quick fix. Challenge. Boredom. Jealousy. Malicious damage is also willful disregard of the family. Marriage is difficult and rough patches should be expected not used as excuses. I agree with you that it is extremely complex but its an area which needs to be looked at.
When I speak of “the music” i simply mean facing up to the consequences of ones actions, more specifically, accepting your role in the demise of ones marriage and family, whether your role is small or large or you are the husband, wife or other.
Report abuse
Eh – you make the comment that a Catholic priest should not make comments on marriage/divorce for what experience does he have? Well, I would like to turn this statement over … How can a psychologist give counseling on suicide, murder, divorce, etc. when they have never experienced them?
If I follow your logic then only an alcoholic or former alcoholic can counsel an alcoholic. Priests are members of a family having a mother and father and siblings. Their ability to be positive counselers for married couples or to make such a bold statement as Michael Hore has is NOT compromised by their not being married.
If BEING married was a requirement to know what should happen in a marriage, then you should only date divorced or widowed people, because they are the only ones you’ll trust to do it right, eh?
Report abuse
Undercover Guern – In addition to your mandatory counselling idea I think marriage preparation courses are an excellent idea. For many couples more time is spent sorting out the wedding day than preparing for marriage, when actually time would be better spent getting oneself ready for probably the biggest single life change there is.
Before my wife and I got married, we spent a number of weeks meeting up with our church leader and his wife. They gave us good down-to-earth advice about some of the things we might experience – including very practical issues such as communication, dealing with parents, farting in bed, sex, money, dealing with conflict etc.
Although we didn’t get all the answers (and didn’t expect them!) it gave us a good grounding in what to expect….and what we were getting ourselves in for. Of course if you’re not that way inclined this doesn’t have to be done by a religious person. Any trusted, experienced married couple can help.
Sadly I think many people enter marriage naively and with wrong expectations – they think it’s just like the fairy tales….all about skipping through fields with flowers in their hair. They don’t realise that marriage is about sharing all of life – the pleasure and the pain. Ask any long term couple and they’ll say a successful marriage is built over time and requires commitment, effort, tolerance, patience, respect and love. I am constantly grateful for the tolerance my wife shows towards me!
Perhaps if couples getting ready for marriage were given mature guidance about what to expect from married life we wouldn’t see so many divorces?
Report abuse
@Eh, Oh my God, did you fall out of the ignorance tree and hit every branch on the way down? If he is not entitled to an opinion then he cant technically marry people together, meaning no1 would be able to get married through a christian/catholic church which is just completely stupid… He’s completely right in his statement, marrige is a sacrement and if people throw it about here and there then they are not taking it seriously and shouldnt be entitled to get ‘married’ through the church.
Report abuse
WTF EH – Oh YOUR God did I fall out of the ignorance tree? Is that the best you can do? I stand by my comment, how can a celibate man have an opinion on a marriage, any more than I could have an opinion on, for example abortion? Having never been in the postion where I have needed to make that type of decision, I refuse to be in favour or against!
And Vertias, the best counsellors are the ones who have “been there” so thank you for backing up my comment.
Nobody should be entitled to get married in a church, how many hippocrites do we see, getting married in church? Having their children “christened”? When they never attend church at any other time at all!!
Report abuse
Father Michael, please do tell, why should we get married? Since you knwo the right reasons
For love, for security, for children, for financial stability or so we aren’t living in some preconceived notion of living in sin?
I think its the last one don’t you?
Don’t have sex, get married! is the Catholic Church’s position on it, so isn’t YOUR church pushing us to get married so we can have sex without guilt? Which is actually marriage all for the wrong reasons?
Silly man, silly religion!
Report abuse
Not high enough, as borne out by large scale obesity problems,give them some financial security, and before you know it, they are watching X Factor with a plate full of Junk Food.
Report abuse