Editorial

Our interview with Mgr Charles Vella on August 16 was not the first occasion where differences of opinion have emerged among the clergy over how the Church should tackle the subject of divorce. Fr Joe Borg, Fr Peter Serracino Inglott and to a much greater extent Fr Mark Montebello have all expressed views which can be said to be not precisely in tune with the line which Curia officials have cast for priests to toe.

But the reactions to it do show a growing acrimony that is developing, despite unconvincing attempts to use camouflaging language of pseudo-camaraderie between the barbs. Even though Mgr Vella said he opposed the introduction of divorce (the offending statement was that it did not scare him), some writers have called him a self-serving attention seeker, others have questioned his sanity, and one priest even said we should pray for the 81-year-old in a short paragraph that had just made reference to a dead man.

This is hardly Christian. Nor is it productive. In fact it risks overshadowing what should be an informed and, if necessary, lively discussion on a subject that civil society in Malta is going to have to deal with either in the months or years to come. And if the clergy cannot lead the way towards clean and ethical debate - there is nothing wrong with them having differing opinions - there is little hope for the rest of us.

Nor is there any point attacking the media, as some are wont to do. We did not force Mgr Vella to express the views he did. Neither were his words manipulated or used out of context (one person in the Church suggested the priest should disown his comments by making such an assertion). As an agent of free speech in this country, we merely provide a platform for people to express their views - whatever their opinion, whatever their creed.

Unlike some of his brethren, Archbishop Paul Cremona has advanced the Church's case by using soothing words of theology and reason. He has said on more than one occasion - reiterating his position in an article in The Sunday Times last week - that what God has united, human beings cannot divide. "While promoting the stability of marriage, the Church also has to show that the introduction of divorce has consequences on this and on society at large, especially children," he said.

There is no question that the Church has a right and duty to voice its opinions on divorce. These it cannot compromise. Nor is there any question that those with opposing views have a right to make their arguments known too. But a proper debate can only take place on the right plane.

While it is perhaps too optimistic, as Fr Borg proposed in his column in last week's newspaper, for the pro- and anti-divorce lobbies to find common ground in terms of substance (even his sensible suggestion that they come up with a document suggesting how the concept of marriage and the family can be strengthened), they must at least embark on a joint initiative to conduct an exercise that will lead to one set of accepted facts, particularly in relation to statistics.

Until they do that, they will just be confusing the public they are seeking to inform. And that is no basis upon which to even begin a civilised debate on whether the introduction of divorce will benefit our society or not.