Politicians: Stand up and be counted
What makes our Catholic politicians afraid to speak out on divorce?
In his address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, delivered on September 12, 1960, John F. Kennedy had this to say about the role he would play if elected as the first Catholic American President:
“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one Church is treated as an act against all...
“I do not speak for my Church on public matters; and the Church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make a decision in accordance with these views – in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise”.
Readers and the Maltese population at large would be interested to know at this stage the views of our Catholic politicians regarding President Kennedy’s speech and how they would vote should they be elected. President Kennedy was Catholic. Would our Catholic politicians regard his speech as a betrayal of his Catholic faith? Is it anathema to their ears? What parts of his speech would they wholeheartedly endorse? What other parts would they vigorously object to? These are some of the questions our Catholic politicians should be bombarded with by the media.
What do our Catholic politicians regard as paramount in their system of beliefs and values? Rome or their informed conscience? Their party leader or their constituents? The common good or their own political self-interest? What holds them back from publicly expressing responsible dissent within their own party or in the Church?
No Catholic politician would want to look at himself/herself as a reed shaking in the wind. Unfortunately, this is how the public perceives them at this point in time. They are in danger of isolation, of arousing suspicion and of attracting intolerance if they were to take the road less travelled, meaning the road of responsible dissent in the name of the common good.
A considerable number of those with a broken marriage behind them, and who wish to remarry, fall into the category of marginalised persons in our society. They and their children are the victims of abuse and injustice by their ex-spouses and by the state. This situation calls for a legislative remedy and no Catholic politician can renounce his or her responsibility to make courageous decisions based on an informed conscience and in the interest of the common good. Turning a deaf ear to the plight of these marginalised people is simply immoral. The sensitive issue of divorce calls for a political consensus. It has been raised by a number of correspondents in the media over the years. Regrettably, most of our Catholic politicians do not seem to have the gall to stand up for what they truly believe. They are afraid to tell us who they are and what they truly stand for.
For many of us brought up to believe in a doctrine of absolute obedience to all human authority and, particularly, to Church authority, the notion of responsible dissent and of following one’s informed conscience might seem hard to accept. In fact, responsible dissent based on an informed conscience has a very solid basis in Catholic tradition, especially in the thought and pastoral practice of St Paul, Malta’s patron saint.
None of our bishops, out of holy obedience to Rome, would dare to follow in the footsteps of Paul who, regarding a completely different issue from divorce, opposed Peter to his face “since he was manifestly wrong” (Galatians:2:11).
By the way, I am Catholic and by the grace of God will die one.
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Sep 8th 2010, 08:22
Where there is sin, there is no grace. Christ told us clearly that divorce is sin and if the divorcee marries another person, he or she becomes an adulterer or adulteress. Adultery is again is another grave sin. Where there is sin, there is no grace. No grace = being on the path to hell.
So those who are proposing divorce are proposing grave sins against God. No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning grievously against God. And no one is going to deceive by saying divorce is accepted by Christ or by the Church.
No, Christ is against divorce. The Catholic Church is against divorce. In 2000 years the Catholic Church has never accepted divorce.
The Pauline privilege and the Petrine privilege are no divorces at all because in these cases it is God who is dissolving marriage. No human person is issuing a decree of divorce.
Sabrina Borda
Sep 11th 2010, 14:24
Where there is grace there is no sin.
There is no proof that Jesus Christ said such things Mr Zammit.
It is time to achieve a level of intellectual honesty.
Alex Ciantar
Sep 7th 2010, 19:34
It is the day and age that religion should in no such way be involved or be an influence in politics. Politicians should dissociate themselves from any religious beliefs and be impartial if they are to be credible and represent ALL the people of the country. If they are Catholics then by all means be a catholic but their religious beliefs should in no way interfere or influence with the running of the country and any decisions made as regards to the people of the country. Any politician which makes or takes such a decision with religious intentions would be breaking the trust of those people who do not share his beliefs.
This is the only way that ALL the people of a country can be governed fairly!!!
Sabrina Borda
Sep 7th 2010, 14:36
Well done Mr. Muscat, you raised some valid points in your article.
Carmel Borg
Sep 7th 2010, 13:41
@ Mr. Frank Muscat Thanks for your open-minded and realistic views.
"For many of us brought up to believe in a doctrine of absolute obedience to all human authority and, particularly, to Church authority, the notion of responsible dissent and of following one’s informed conscience might seem hard to accept."
Oh how true and sad Mr. Frank Muscat!!
edwin formosa
Sep 7th 2010, 12:52
"What do our Catholic politicians regard as paramount in their system of beliefs and values?" A very pertinent question indeed. We electors have the right to know what a politician stand for before giving him our vote. So I expect him to make that clear before asking for my vote. Those who are truly Catholic can choose the ones who follow their faith from both sides (reserving the no 1preference to their favourite party of course). In that way our representatives will be representing both us and our beliefs. By the way, I am faithful Roman Catholic and by the grace of God I will do every thing to die one.
Joe Zammit
Sep 7th 2010, 11:36
St Paul never accepted divorce. The Pauline Privilege is no divorce at all. St Paul was obedient to St Peter and accepted St Peter's decision in the first Council of Jerusalem.
Catholic politicians must always follow the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church condemns divorce because Christ condemns divorce. In 2000 years the Catholic Church has never resorted to divorce. Don't mention the Pauline or Petrine privileges because these are not divorces.
Catholic politicians must be faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church. The point is not whether they die Catholic or not, but whether they go to heaven or hell after they die. In hell there are many who died Catholic, including Catholic priests.