It is rather sad that the public debate on divorce should amount to no more than a diatribe. I am much more troubled as a Catholic priest and theologian by vocation and profession to listen to poor argumentation on the part of over-zealous citizens presenting the Catholic stance on the issue. This becomes especially unbearable when the one in question happens to be (with all due respect to his person and ministry) “a curia spokesman”. One should always keep in mind that, when taking part in a heated debate, especially on moral issues, there is the risk of stretching logical arguments for the sake of holding fast to one’s position, slipping into dogmatism.
Surely, everyone agrees that the Church had “a right to deliver moral judgment” and to participate in the debate on the issue but, unfortunately, the Church is choosing not to contribute to the debate, to leave its members “free to take part in the discussion with all the means at their disposal”. Notwithstanding all the good intentions motivating such a decision, it is evident that the result is confusion inasmuch as this is amounting to having particular people who voice, not always objectively, their own understanding of Catholic moral thought, acts of conscience, what constitutes Magisterium, etc.
Would it not have been wiser for the Catholic hierarchy in Malta to ask a group of expert moral theologians to objectively present the Catholic position on marriage, divorce, conscience and moral obligations? It stands to reason that there is no need for Catholics to ask permission from the Church authorities to freely take part in any discussion and debate, much more so on civil and social issues in the interest of all citizens.
Arguments based on an “I command, you obey” attitude, such as “voting in favour of divorce is a sin”, “no MP can vote for divorce without sinning seriously against God”, put forward by particular people, be they “curia spokesman” or zealous Catholics voicing their opinion, sound as nothing more than a fundamentalist retrograde interpretation of the positive teaching of the Church on marriage.
Sin is a matter related to one’s own personal conscience. It is matter of the foro interno! And while the Church is surely in duty bound to form consciences by proposing objective guidelines, she cannot coerce the individual conscience of its members even when these take decisions that differ from the official Catholic teaching.
Thomas Aquinas, in line with authentic Catholic moral theology, while stressing that everyone is in duty bound to properly form one’s conscience “in conformity with the will of God”, is nonetheless equally adamant in holding that “man is obliged to act in conformity with his conscience” after “reaching a reasoned conclusion about his own duty” (Summa Ia Qq 80) even when this, for some reason or another, “is mistaken and the conscience judgment is false”. Since for Catholicism reason is never to be understood as opposed to faith, the former (the thinking mind), enlightened and guided by our interior objective thrust towards goodness and truth, constitutes “the natural guide in moral matters” (Summa IIa IIae Qq. 19-20).
On the same level, in discussing the thorny question of the relationship between “morality of conscience” and “morality of authority”, in 1991, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated that, given that there is an authentic search for truth, “it is, of course, undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it” since, in his search, man discovers “the voice of truth in himself.” In this view, endorsed also by great theologians such as Cardinal John Henry Newman, authority and conscience come together in the search for truth, namely Jesus Christ who is for us God’s “transforming forgiveness above and beyond our capability and incapability”.
In this light, pro- and anti-divorce lobbyists should at least consider that, in the particular view of their “opponents”, there is probably a truthful search for what is the best for the common good of our nation.
To do justice to the Catholic stand on divorce, over-zealous Catholics of draconian rigidity should consider that, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, while emphasising the principle that “divorce is a grave offence against the natural law”, recognizes that “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offence” (CCC 2383).
Finally, we should put out consciences at rest that, if research showed divorce was beneficial for the common good mentioned also in the Catechism, a Catholic politician can, according to his conscience, vote in favour of divorce.