A dangerous slippery slope

The discussion between me and my dear friend Fr Anton Gouder regarding divorce is a principled one. It carries the unease that necessarily ensues when two friends are publicly poles apart on such a sensitive topic. Each of us carries the tension and the uncomfortable feeling which comes from the suspicion that what one writes could hurt the other, although surely no hurt is intended.

I am sure that my friend writes because he feels conscience-bound to do so. I am equally certain he attributes to me the same sense of duty.

This is not a discussion about the introduction of the legalisation of divorce. I discussed that in a number of my blogs. This discussion is about the respect that should be given to decisions taken in conscience by others even when we strongly disagree with the decisions and cannot understand how these people arrived at the conclusions.

Total respect for such decisions is a must and a basic tenet of Christian moral theology.

Unlike Fr Gouder, I believe that a Catholic MP has the duty to follow his or her conscience if, after due prayer, instruction and reflection, he or she arrives at the decision that, at a particular point in the history of their nation, the introduction of divorce would be for the common good as a lesser evil. In his letter to The Sunday Times (November 2) Fr Gouder wrote that even Catholics who feel conscience-bound to cast a pro-divorce vote in a referendum would be committing a sin.

Fr Gouder buttressed himself with a number of quotations from the 2002 document 'Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life'. I re-read it and discussed it with a number of moral theologians. All agreed that the position I explained about voting by Catholic politicians is still a valid one.

Ironically, in my current blog in timesofmalta.com, I referred to a document published by the US bishops last year. Different bishops basing themselves on that document gave radically different appraisals of how Catholics should vote in the election. Fr Gouder surely knows that stating principles in documents is one thing, while translating the same documents into difficult and complex situations is something different, even though it is closely related. As a consequence, people who agree on the same principles can, and in fact do, reach different conclusions in concrete situations.

Not every position buttressed by a particular interpretation of a document of the Magesterium, or of a theologian for that matter, will necessarily be the only legitimate or best position. The position of Maltese Church authorities in the 1960s was similarly buttressed, but with very negative consequences. Unfortunately, parallels with the 1960s are coming to the fore and this is most alarming and dangerous.

An unnecessarily intransigent interpretation of Catholic moral teaching can lead us to a most dangerous slippery slope. I will do everything possible not to let the Church slip that way.

I am sure that my friend Fr Gouder will also strive to do the same.