Advert

A matter of conscience? (1)

When Mgr Anton Gouder was asked by a journalist about divorce and he answered by giving the Church’s teaching, he was reminded by former Labour minister Joe Brincat that saying that those who vote for divorce would be committing a sin is an offence under the Corrupt Practices Act.

I am not a lawyer, but would I be wrong to say that our Constitution gives the right to the Catholic Church to teach what is right and what is wrong without any hindrance?

As if this attack from the outside was not enough, a few days later this unfortunate priest was attacked again, this time from the inside, by a theologian who said Mgr Gouder should not ‘play God’.

I am sure Mgr Gouder is quite capable of defending himself, but I am put off by supposedly learned people who label others while being themselves guilty of that same offence.

Suddenly the word ‘conscience’ has become very fashionable. Everyone is defining it according to their own whims. It is quite true that everybody has (or should have) a conscience, but then conscience has to be formed and informed. This formation depends on the family and the environment one is brought up in.

Is invoking ‘conscience’, for example, acceptable at law to justify some action or other? I do not think so. What kind of conscience is it when one first says that one does not agree with divorce and, a few weeks later, that divorce is necessary for some.

I am against divorce, but divorce will come one day; however, when that happens I am sure we will have people pressing for euthanasia and abortion. No doubt they will find the support of lawyers, philosophers, and perhaps even theologians and priests who would be undermining the Church from the inside.

Advert

23 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Dr Joe Brincat

Sep 19th 2010, 20:14

Not exactly. Fr Joe Borg corrected the impression that it was the official position of the Church. My great fear in this debate is that there would be the lacerations of past experiences in Maltese society, not only the sixties but even at the time of Sir Gerald Strickland. There can be, after all, no official position about voting, as no referendum has been proclaimed. Hypothetical no ? (This does not exclude the learned opinion which dictates doctrine from people such as Joe Zammit. No one seems to acknowledge him as the "authority")

Joe Grima Brussels

Sep 19th 2010, 18:31

Mr Portelli. You are right: there is no comparison between divorce, abortion and euthanasia. They are worlds apart. But there is ONE thing in common: All three embrace the theory of 'THE EASY WAY OUT'. All three claim to be 'rights', while 'duty' and 'responsibility' are out of fashion. If you have an unwanted child, why bother? Why worry with responsibility? Eliminate it. If you have marital problems, why worry? Our duty is to try and safeguard it, but it is easier to quit. And if someone is too old or too disabled? Why bother with our duty to look after him? It's an easier way out to eliminate (Hilter was a firm believer in this one!) . So, as you see, there is something in common between the three.

Alex Ciantar

Sep 20th 2010, 05:31

@ Joe Grima Brussels that is rubbish you cannot generalise and connect all three together ........... with that mentality why have anything at all as anything can be compared to anything!!!

Farther more you cannot generalise even the granting of divorce either because there are different types of marriages that have gone wrong and broken down .........the most important issue in the divorce debate is that the victims is awarded what is rightly his/hers so he/she may start a new life and move on (without i interference of any hypocritical religious organisation or other)

Joe Grima Brussels

Sep 19th 2010, 18:20

Yes, it definitely is, and a very GRAVE one at that, especially coming from a person who is supposed to give a good example. But does the case of this 'sinner' mean that divorce is holy? I see no comparison. Two wrongs make two wrongs, not one right!

Joe Grima Brussels

Sep 19th 2010, 13:58

Yes, 'alleged' rapist priests still walk free in Malta. (Don't forget that everybody is considered innocent until proved guilty!) And let us HOPE that, if they are found guilty, their walk will be interrupted. But isn't it better that we leave it in the hands of our courts? I know that in Malta 'certain' cases are never ending, but you and I cannot change that. What I wonder is why all this enthusiasm of yours to get divorce introduced into Malta, when, as I believe, you have it in Australia. If you want to divorce, you are free to do it over there. Save yourself all the hassle!

Carmel Serracino-Inglott

Sep 19th 2010, 16:05

freedom . You are free to comment OK but you are not free to silence the Church or lock in buildings. The Church is Jesus and his faithful. They live everywhere in homes churches and streets. You cannot democratically silence the Church. I accept your bias towards divorce and other subjects; it is your idea but to attack the Church and try to silence Her is just not on. Listen, why don't you try your very best to have your own politicians , judges and so forth in places. Why not? You know the answer. The majority wants otherwise.

M Vella

Sep 19th 2010, 13:41

whatever you say Joe ,EU law is supreme:)

wally vella-zarb

Sep 19th 2010, 16:24

"N.B. Article 2(2) of the Constitution is entrenched." Yes BUT Article 2(1) and Article 2(3) are NOT entrenched and may be removed by a simple majority! This is what Article 2 says: (1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion. (2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong. (3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education. With the eventual removal of Article 2(1) and 2(3), as befits a secular state, your Article 2(2) becomes largely irrelevant, at best only of academic interest, given that ALL religions have equal standing insofar as they do not contradict our civil laws (e.g., polygamy is allowed by some religions but are not legal in our country). Article 2 is anachronistic and needs to be removed.

Advert
Advert