Interpreting Church teaching

THE Archbishop's reference last Sunday to the weakening of the faith among the Maltese was as welcome as it was timely.

In his address during the Christ the King activity at Zejtun Mgr Mercieca spoke of religious indifference which, he stated, was becoming widespread. The Archbishop Mercieca also referred to those Catholics who, though having contracted a civil marriage, still go up to receive Holy Communion against the teaching of the Church which states, with reference to Catholics who decide not to marry in church, that not only is their marriage null and void but also that they are considered to be "living in sin" and hence cannot receive Communion.

This should be elementary to those who have been brought up in the faith. But is it? And if not, whose fault is it that such a fundamental principle of the Church is being ignored? Is it the Church's? The school's? The family's?

The truth is that the teaching of the Church on faith and morals is not always being scrupulously followed by some of those whose duty it is to do so. Too many liberal and subjective interpretations of the Church's Magisterium are often being given, in good faith no doubt, which eventually lead to situations about which the Archbishop spoke.

Recently members of a Catholic gay rights group in the United States, wearing rainbow sashes and all, were allowed to receive Holy Communion in Minneapolis cathedral. Referring to a group demonstrating against them outside the cathedral, a spokesman for the archdiocese said: "Holy Communion ought not to be used as a form of protest or a litmus test: it is up to people's individual consciences. They are supposed to be in a state of grace."

Two months ago the head of the archdiocese was reported to have said on the same issue that "it is not my responsibility or anyone else's responsibility to pass judgment on Catholics as they proceed to the Communion table." He went on to say that it should not be an occasion for political scrutinising and judgments."

He was right, of course. After all, haven't we been warned "judge not lest ye be judged"? But surely the archbishop or his spokesman could have taken the opportunity to reiterate the Church's teaching on homosexuality and the clear distinction it makes between the person and the act and not leave this to personal interpretation?

Admittedly, it is "up to individual conscience" but the same individual is no less conscience-bound to follow the teaching of the Church on all matters of faith and morals.