Clerical dueling on divorce

August, the silly season, this year regaled us with an unusual discussion which was heated but not at all silly. Perhaps thanks to the rising temperatures, some members of the clerical state got hot under the collar while debating - you guessed it – divorce but on the whole the discussion is quite civil and well mannered. One reverend gentleman answered another reverend gentleman without even daring to mention names; as if this is discussion between nameless ghosts.

The firebrand Dominican on the attack

Christ is in favour of divorce thundered Patri Mark Montebello OP in It-Torca. He wrote that the Church is against it due to political reasons, or something of the sort. Please don’t pressure me too much for a detailed summary as the logic of the learned Dominican eluded me in more than one paragraph. Since the author is known for his crystal clear thinking and writing, my lack of complete comprehension is quite natually due to my abysimal ignorance.

The Editor milked the cow skilfully and gave the article front page coverage. This effort to sell a few extra copies in such a dry season is understandable. Nay it is even a moral duty since anything which sells more copies guanantees jobs. The actions of the editor were honourable indeed!

The Curia did not co-operate in this noble venture as it neither released anathemas not long statements answering point by point what Montebello wrote. What a spoil sport!

Vella throws his weight around

Whatever It-Torca can do The Sunday Times can do better! They marshalled Mgr Charles Vella, a man of many talents and myriad valid contributions to the church. He is also a very colourful personality. True to form he supplied The Sunday Times (August 16) with colourful statements e.g. “Berlusconi is too honest” and “Craxi was merely hounded for being honest.” Will we perhaps one day see Saints Craxi and Berlusconi joining Saints Cosma and Damien as well as Saints Basil and Gregory in the Catholic canon of saints?

I agree that there should not be twinning between Church and state. Unfortunately the example given by Vella clouds the issue. St John’s Co-Cathedral is managed by a Foundation set up by the Governemnt and the Church. Within this scenario, only an arrogant Prime Minister would have heeded Vella’s suggestion that the Prime Minister should have decided on his own without the consent of the Archbishop.

Mgr Vella also spoke about divorce. He criticised Mgr. Gouder without mentioning him by name. It’s his right to do so; but his responsibility to substantiate his criticism. He then told us that “as a founder of the Cana Movement … he would not like to see divorce introduced ” and that “divorce legislation does not solve the needs of people.” What he subsequently said, which is not always clearly articulated and thus gives the feeling of contradictions galore, has to be understood in the light of these fundumental statements. Many objected to his statement that “the introduction of divorce doesn’t scare me” without contextualising it in his other statement that “if we prepare couples well for marriage then we shouldn't be afraid.” Like him, I say that there should be less prophets of doom in the Church.

Yes, but really no

The Editor of It-Torca tried to take more mileage by interviewing Rev Prof Serracino Inglott (edition of 16/09/09). The heading of the piece is “Id-divorzju ghandu jidhol taht certi cirkostanzi. Fr Peter.” The whole context of the article makes me suspect that instead of “ghandu” Fr Peter probably said “jista’”, which is a very different ball game. The heading shows the bias of the Editor. Fr Peter has repeatedly expressed his position on the subject, a position very close to mine. The heading should have been reserved to the new things that Fr Peter said. His position, for example, is different from that of fellow member of The Public Policy Think Tank Mr Martin Scicluna and the lead author of a report advocating the immediate introduction of divorce. Fr Peter, on the contrary, thinks that the present position of the family in Malta does not justify the introduction of divorce. For Fr Peter the introduction of divorce can only be justified when the number of cohabitating couples is larger than the number of those married. Will now Mr Scicluna direct towards Fr Peter the harsh adjectives he directed at those having a different position from his?

In praise of genuine discussion

Mgr Anton Gouder went on the counter attack in an “interview” of sorts with Il-Gensillum (22 August 2009). He answered a number of arguments put forward by Fr Montebello, Mgr Vella and Prof Serracino Inglott. In the pseudo-interview, there are references to “xi whud” and other general references but once more, no names are attached to the criticisms made. Unlike for example Mgr Vella, Mgr Gouder buttresses his arguments with references to a number of studies made in several European countries and Australia. Like him, I think that there is an important place for scientific studies and statistics in the discussion about the introduction or not of divorce legislation.

The heading of the “interview” highlights its most important aspect. “I believe that genuine discussion can only be beneficial” (tista’ thalli biss gid). This, and not the spirit of condemnation, should animate all of us. There is nothing wrong in different persons, priest included, putting forward diverse points of view on the subject.

The word of the Archbishop

The spirit of genuine discussion animated Archbishop Cremona’s contribution to The Sunday Times (23 August 2009). He referred to faith and statistics to defend the church’s thesis against the introduction of divorce legislation. I will comment on some elements of his article in my column in The Sunday Times of August 30. My only comment here is that the aricle of the Archbishop is a very good example of the slogan “the medium is the massage.” His use of a newspaper is another example of his programme of bridge building and dialoguing with others in the Church and society. This is the way forward.

Final reflection

I am neither scandalised nor awed by this clerical duelling. I think that it is healthy. I express one concern. While the contributions of priests to the subject are quite regular and prominent, the contributions of lay Catholics are few and far between. Generally they are reduced to the level of comments in blogs and letters to the editors. Why are our committed lay Catholics playing second fiddle in this campaign? This says a lot about our Church, I think.