Fr Peter vs Dun Anton?

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott and Fr Anton Gouder presented contrasting ideas during the October 10 edition of Xarabank. Although both said that divorce should not be introduced in Malta now, there was very little else they agreed on.

Fr Peter hypothesises a scenario where the introduction of divorce could be legitimate. Dun Anton thinks this can never be the case. He also thinks Members of Parliament would be committing a sin if they vote in favour of the legalisation of divorce, even if they reach their decision as a matter of conscience.

Fr Peter thinks exactly the opposite is the case. An MP would commit a sin if he or she votes against the conclusion reached as a matter of conscience. He also thinks there is no need for a Church tribunal in marriage cases, whereas Dun Anton disagrees.

I will not today discuss my position on these different matters, barring one comment. While fully respecting the views of my friend Dun Anton, I strongly agree with Fr Peter's position on a pro-divorce vote by MPs. I find comfort in the advice I was given by various moral theologians - local and foreign - of great repute.

What I would like to discuss is the scandal and astonishment some expressed at this public display of disagreement between two priests on such a sensitive matter.

Anyone who is familiar with the history of theology in general, and moral theology in particular, knows it is peppered with contrasting ideas put forward by different theologians.

Besides, disagreement is greater when different moral theologians apply principles to particular circumstances. In the 1950s, for example, moral theologians were divided between those saying that organ donation was legitimate, nay praiseworthy, and those saying it should not be allowed. Today there is a great debate about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in the case of people in a persistent vegetative state.

Thus, the expression of contrasting opinions should give rise to neither scandal nor astonishment as long as the exchange of ideas is done in a civil and mature manner, as both Fr Peter and Dun Anton did during the programme. Their disagreement was expressed in a more civilised manner than that expressed, for example, by several most reverend excellencies who came to blows during the Council of Trent.

On the contrary, both Fr Peter and Dun Anton still respect each other as much as they did before the programme. It was never a case of Fr Peter versus Dun Anton. It was a case of presenting different ideas and models. It would be a very sad day for the Church if people with contrasting ideas were to shun each other because of their differing ideas.

Discussion and creative debate helps us reach new synthesis. Let it continue to be so. Let a thousand flowers bloom, I once read. We should be scandalised by lack of discussion and the absence of divergent opinions. Contrasting theological currents and different models of the Church have always existed together, sometimes peacefully and sometimes not so peacefully.

Pope Benedict has given us all a very clear example of how healthy pluralism is for the Church. He has allowed the unfettered celebration of the Tridentine liturgy, signalling very clearly that even different liturgies can exist together.

People should not be stigmatised because of their opinions. Aquinas, Rahner, de Lubac and de Chardin were held in suspicion by people highly placed in the ecclesiastical establishment. Today, they are considered to be luminaries.

Let us promote intelligent debate and the expression of contrasting ideas. The contrary would be a disaster.