David Torpiano
Integral discourse on conscience
I must confess I was greatly disappointed by the contribution of Fr Charlò Camilleri O. Carm entitled Conscience, Authority And Divorce (August 27).
It is clear that Fr Camilleri has attacked Mgr Anton Gouder by throwing at him and also at the “over-zealous” Catholic citizens different adjectives such as “fundamentalist” and “retrograde” while he has also termed their stand on divorce as rigidly “draconian”. I remind Fr Camilleri that the pastoral note issued by the Maltese Episcopal Conference was not only aimed at the over-zealous citizens but also at priests and religious so that they might propose their views on the matter without failing to show sincere respect for those who voiced a different opinion from theirs. I think that Fr Camilleri’s contribution lacked this attitude of respect.
In my opinion, Mgr Gouder and others did not challenge the primacy of conscience. I think the real problem arises when some are giving the impression that dissent from the Church’s Magisterium and teaching can be easily accepted if not even welcomed in the name of conscience. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has stated that judgments of conscience can contradict each other at times even on the same matters. Although this discrepancy does not lessen the intrinsic dignity of conscience, it demonstrates that not all choices based on one’s own conscience are correct.
It appears to me that, by appealing to the force of conscience while dissenting from the Church’s teaching on the issue of divorce, many are advocating the right to err. The right is granted but the consequences are to be fully paid. It cannot be that all opposed judgments of conscience are equivalently right “for if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth – at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence” (Card. Ratzinger, speech on Conscience And Truth, Dallas, Texas 1991).
On the question of sin, as Augustine says in his Contra Faustum (22.27), sin is “anything done, said or desired against the eternal law”. Moreover, as Fr Camilleri’s contribution sufficiently argues, “eternal law” is made manifest to mankind through the mediation of conscience (see Gaudium et Spes 16-17). Thus, one who knowingly acts in opposition to the truth made known in conscience always deviates from the loving plan of the eternal law and, thus, offends God as Aquinas demonstrates in his Summa Theologiae (see S.Th. I-II, 71, 2 ad 4; 71, 6).
Contrary to what Fr Camilleri argued (if I understood him correctly), Aquinas gives a list of sins that “generically, whether it be contrary to the love of God, e.g. blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against the love of one’s neighbour, e.g. murder, adultery, and such like” are “mortal by reason of their genus” (S. Th. I-II q.88 a. 2). This means that, although sin is “a matter of the foro interno”, it does not mean that one cannot designate actions that are objectively sinful.
Added to this, to clarify the role of conscience in moral issues, Fr Camilleri has only quoted a small part of Cardinal Ratzinger’s keynote speech on conscience presented at Dallas in February 1991. It is true that one “must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it”. On the other hand, Fr Camilleri has not given sufficient weight to the possibility of one having an erroneous conscience. Cardinal Ratzinger asserts that one may fall in the trap of “hiding behind the screen” of his erroneous conscience, thus causing a “deficiency in listening to the depth of one’s own soul”. He continues that “whoever equates conscience with a superficial conviction, identifies conscience with a pseudo-rational certainty, a certainty which, in fact, has been woven from self-righteousness, conformity and lethargy”.
Although sinning or not is not to be set as the main interest throughout the current debate, if Catholic politicians could be free from sin while following the dictates of an erroneous conscience they could be committing a sin on another count. As Cardinal Ratzinger explains, “no one may act against his convictions, as St Paul had already said (Rom 14, 23). But the fact that the conviction a person has come to, certainly binds in the moment of acting, does not signify a canonisation of subjectivity. It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at – in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper – not in the present act, not in the present judgement of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the inner promptings of truth”.
Furthermore, we have ample evidence to deduce that the Magisterium, that is to be considered as the highest authentic guidance for all Catholics for the formation of a good conscience, including politicians, perceives divorce as a disorder and as a violation that was never contemplated in the eternal law by the Creator of man and the founder of the marital institution. This is confirmed by the words of Christ himself and by countless magisterial documents (Mt 19, 3-9; Gaudium et Spes 48; CCC nn 2382-2386). If in conscience one can choose to opt for divorce he has to know that his “informed conscience” (it can be termed as such) is pretending that Christ’s teaching is not valid for the circumstances Malta is presently facing. Is this a correct judgment or a faulty one?
I also fear that Fr Camilleri’s quotation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2383) could have been very misleading because the context shows it is highly improbable that the appeal to the tolerability of a civil divorce implies also an opening to remarriage. The latest contribution by Gaetano Brimmer who quoted moral theologian Pier Giuseppe Pesce (supported also by moral theologian Karl Peschke in his work Christian Ethics, vol.2 , p.494) and the latest contribution of Fr Camilleri himself have undoubtedly shown that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contemplate the possibility of remarriage through paragraph 2383. I cannot understand how Fr Camilleri quoted the same paragraph so that politicians might “put their conscience at rest” if, according to their conscience, they favour the introduction of divorce.
To my knowledge, those who favour the introduction of divorce in Malta do so because they also favour the possibility of remarriage.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Sep 16th 2010, 09:47
We must see only how the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church considers the exception in St Matthew's Gospel. The one true Church of Christ has never resorted to divorce. She has always considered divorce as an evil to be avoided and a grave sin. What the Orthodox Church does has no value. The Orthodox Church severed itself from the one true Church of Christ and has its beginnings as a separate Church 1000 years after Christ.
Porneia in Greek here means a sin against the Sixth Commandment. So if it means fornication, the man and woman are not married together. If it is adultery, the sending away does not refer to divorce but to a separation. We must remember that St Matthew alone wrote in Hebrew (Aramaic) and his original text is lost. What we have of his is the oldest translated text in Greek.
St Mark does not include the exception. All the New Testament writers were members of the Catholic Church and deposited their writings in the hands of the Catholic Church so that this Church could interpret what has been deposited in her hands.
Edward Mallia
Sep 15th 2010, 22:24
@Dr. Joe Brincat I have seen no interpretation of Matthew 19 by Joe Zammit in any of the present set of comments. However no one I asked suggested that 'porneia' related to a condition BEFORE marriage; neither does the Orthodox church interpret it as such. Moreover prior loss of virginity is no bar to Christian marriage, unless it is concealed from the 'innocent' party.
But most of this is beside the point: which is, as far as the public debate is concerned, the question of the responsibility carried by supporters NOT by practitioners for having divorce on the statute books.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 16th 2010, 07:03
@Edward Mallia.
For the umpteenth time; "porneia" is the Greek translation of the original Aramaic word used by Christ and that has been lost. It has been variously translated into other languages by such words as "fornication", "adultery" etc. but this created difficulties and inconsistencies with the rest of Christ's teachings about the indissolubility of marriage "from the very beginning". Modern exegists translate it into a "wrong union" ("rabta hazina" according to our own Professor Saydon). This implies a defect that already existed at the time of marriage and not subsequently - an annulment from the very onset rather than a later divorce.
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 16th 2010, 09:08
JZ has argued this point on several occasions in the ongoing discussion (not under this article).
When one puts this text against the Mosaic law prevailing at the time of Christ, and one reads Deuteronomy, the concept becomes clear. I have been taught to look at antecedent laws to check the meaning of the present text.
'Loss of virginity" can never be the cause of an annulment today. It would be most unfair on women. What guarantee is there that a man did not have intercourse prior to marriage ?
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 15th 2010, 19:27
I think that the interpretation that Joe Zammit gives to Matthew 19 is the correct one. It does not refer to adultery after marriage. One must go back to Mosaic law, where virginity was a condition of a valid marriage. So much so, that proof of rupture was an important element. If the wife was proven to have lost her virginity, before marriage, she could be repudiated. The Orthodox Jews still have the ceremony of Erusin (betrothal) and we know something about it in the Gospel about St Joseph and his qualms.
Joe Zammit
Sep 15th 2010, 19:19
There is only one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ set up. All other churches are false. Christ spoke clearly: I am setting up my CHURCH not churches on you, ex-Simon, on you PETER. The other churches separated from the Catholic Church and have introduced evils in them. In the beginning there was only one Church led by the Pope. And the string of Popes will continue until the end of time. If other churches allow divorce, they are wrong. Christ tells them: What God has united, let no man, no State, no church put asunder! Blessed are those who are faithful to Christ and his one Catholic Church and remain so until the end of their life. The crown is only for these.
Edward Mallia
Sep 15th 2010, 17:28
I fail to see a moral equality between speaking out against the principle of divorce with re-marriage and supporting its introduction in a society where 'a majority' think otherwise. Still less the rapid transition by way of 'answer', to the case of abortion, as if the two are equivalent. Now what is the position of a local judge who may be called upon to ratify a divorce obtained in a foreign court, as maltese law obliges him to do? Must s/he in conscience refuse the task? Indeed, what is our position on the question of oath taking (in court), in view of the express instruction in Matthew 5 33-37? On another aspect, what does the Orthodox Church make of the condition in Matthew 19? Does it in fact allow divorce and re-marriage? I seem to remember the marriage in church of a once-married Greek shipbuilder and the widow of an American president. It would seem at least illogical if the Eastern Church allows that, but no more illogical than the local translation of 'porneia' as 'zwieg hazin', as if Matthew had a very early intimation of Canon Law!
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 15th 2010, 16:27
Confusion is caused by teachers of theology who try to presuade lay Christians that they must be true to the explicit words of Christ that marriage has always been indissoluble since the beginning of time, and yet it would not be wrong for them to connive with the prodivorce lobby to legislate divorce - as long as their conscience allows it! How could any sane Catholic person reach that contradictory compromise!
edwin formosa
Sep 15th 2010, 20:10
"who try to presuade lay Christians that they must be true to the explicit words of Christ that marriage has always been indissoluble since the beginning of time, and yet it would not be wrong for them to connive with the prodivorce lobby to legislate divorce - as long as their conscience allows it!" Prosit Dr Saliba. Dik hi l-istorja kollha. Storja ripetizzjoni tal-'Kattolci Amerikani ' li qatt ma jaqblu mal-Amerikani Kattolci li huma leali ghat-taghalim tal-Knisja. Indeffsu l-kuxjenza fin-nofs biex jaghamlu kull ma jridu. Dejjem 'skond il-kuxjenza' anki l-ksur sfaccat tal-Kmandamenti t'Alla .
Joe Zammit
Sep 15th 2010, 16:02
Par.2383 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “… If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offence.” This is a case where the validly married spouse is constrained by law to accept divorce as the only possible way for certain legal rights. This provision of the Catechism is in no way favouring divorce. The Church is saying ‘tolerated’, i.e., the action for divorce is made externally only, not internally, materially and not formally. After all, this case does not apply to Malta. So the married spouse continues to consider his or her marriage still valid before God and the Catholic Church and does not enter another relationship.
David Seychell
Sep 15th 2010, 13:42
God is absolute but morality is relative to one's own conscience. The fact that two genuine and valid consciences can oppose one another does not mean that truth is not absolute, it could mean that God assigns different missions to different persons.
Kevin Cassar
Sep 15th 2010, 12:46
What a truckload of assumptions! It's not enough to present an argument and quote references to where the quotes come from. One has to substantiate the argument with demonstrable evidence which is where your arguments hit a solid brick wall.
edwin formosa
Sep 15th 2010, 12:29
"I think the real problem arises when some are giving the impression that dissent from the Church’s Magisterium and teaching can be easily accepted if not even welcomed in the name of conscience." That is the impression one gets in practice, if not in explicit intent, on reading articles from a type of Maltese theologians. Well said Mr Torpiano
Gerard Cassar
Sep 15th 2010, 12:12
Why is David Torpiano contesting article 2383 of the Catholic Catheschism. Its incorporation within the the Cathechism is necessary othrwise Catholics would have been deceived. The Cathechism tries to touch every single situation that Catholics might find themselves in.
Try to ignore that paragraph and observe what would be the reaction of people who get an annulment when they arrive at the point of deviding their assets and the wherabots of the children, paricularly minor ones. They find out that they cannot refer to the Cathechism beause without para. 2383 they will have nowhere to go to get justice. and will hate the moment they got an annulment. This shows the importance of para 2383 of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.
Joe Zammit
Sep 15th 2010, 10:11
We should follow our conscience, but before that point, we have a strict moral obligation to align our conscience with the law of God as taught to us by the Catholic Church under divine protection. We may not say: "But I think differently, my conscience tells me something else".
In Mt. 18:15-17 Christ tells us that when a person does wrong, we should first correct him privately, then, if need be, with the help of two or three witnesses. But then finally, call in the Church: "If he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a pagan and a publican."
We can appeal to our conscience in so far as our conscience dictates to us the teaching of the Catholic Church. We have the obligation to conform our reasoning to the teaching of the Church. If we refuse to do so, we are away from God and evil abides in us.
Robert Henry Bugeja
Sep 15th 2010, 13:46
Joe stop trying to confuse the minds of people with your theological talk and stop manipulating the words of Jesus. If you really believe in Jesus's words start knocking on each door and start helping those in need. By spreading words of division and pointing your finger at people you are only going contrary to what Jesus professed.
Sabrina Borda
Sep 15th 2010, 17:57
God never wrote any laws. So what you preach is baseless. What Aquinas or St Augustine apparently wrote....So many do not care.