Joseph Muscat, Mosta
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.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
23 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Apr 7th 2011, 16:23
Par.2384 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Divorce is a grave offence against the natural law…. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: …”.
‘A grave offence against natural law’ means a grave sin against God who is the author of natural law. So, divorce is a grave sin. Adultery is a grave offence against God as well since it transgresses seriously the Sixth Commandment of God. Adultery denotes sexual acts by married persons outside a valid marriage, i.e. outside a valid marriage that is valid before God.
Christ spoke clearly of the evil of divorce: “What God has joined together let no man put asunder”. ‘Let no man put asunder’ means ‘let no-one resort to divorce’. This is a command not an advice and it is so serious a command that amounts to a grave sin if it is ignored. Moreover, the fact that it is expressed in the negative clearly shows that it admits of no exception. The Catholic Church has never resorted to divorce in her 2000-year-old history.
Kevin Cassar
Sep 20th 2010, 14:15
Teaching people what is right or wrong is not acceptable. On the other hand, teaching people how to tell right from wrong is the ONLY way to go. A lot of people unfortunately fail to note the difference. I said it many times and I will repeat it to infinity - Don't teach people what to think, but rather how to think. This is the only way in which people would then be able to make the "informed decisions" that so many people are mentioning. Of course if one has a hidden agenda, then it would not be in his interest to give the people the tools to think for themselves.
charles caruana
Sep 20th 2010, 10:36
Dr. Brincat, did you take into consideration your ‘great fear’ before you created a minor rumpus with your premature and public shouting about possible ‘corrupt practices’? Were’nt you in some ways not contributing to raising past ghosts by your hypothetical claims? To give you credit, you did dampen down your stance with hindsight. And what is the official position of the church that Fr Joe is supposed to have clarified? Have you, or he, ever heard the Bishops state anywhere that divorce is not a sin, a ‘grave offence’ as the Catholic catechism defines it? Has not the Archbishop said that it is wrong for a practising Catholic to vote for divorce? As reported by Matthew Vella on Malta Today of Tuesday July 6, 2010, during an interview on RTK Archbishop Cremona ‘said practicing Catholics would be wrong if they voted in favour of divorce, and called on Catholic MPs to vote against divorce.’ Could you, or Fr Borg kindly spell out the difference between ‘wrong’ and sin? Or is it merely a question of strategic and pastoral diplomacy? For those who have ears to hear, let them hear, but not quibbles.
J.V.Micallef
Sep 20th 2010, 08:55
@ Joseph Muscat " 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’."
Mr Muscat singles out one priest as being unfortunate. Then he attacks another priest. For him that it not unfortunate.
Nor does it seem unfortunate to attack a number of other priests, theologians or not. The good priest seems to be the one who agrees with me.
Andrew Farrugia
Sep 19th 2010, 19:41
So Dr Brincat feels reassured that Fr Borg rather than Mgr Gouder is right and that the notion/concept/responsibility of sin has been excised from human action and behaviour! De gustibus!
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 Zammit
Sep 19th 2010, 19:16
A simple argument: The authorities of the Catholic Church have the right and duty to teach what principles are good and what are bad. There is no time limit for this right. To teach means to impart knowledge through instruction and/or training, part of this instruction states that voting for divorce is grievously sinful. Therefore, the Catholic Church has the right and duty to teach that voting for divorce is grievously sinful always, also in a referendum, general elections and during a vote in Parliament. N.B. Article 2(2) of the Constitution is entrenched.
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 19th 2010, 18:15
From published letter "Is invoking ‘conscience’, for example, acceptable at law to justify some action or other? I do not think so. " Yes it is. Compulsory military service and engaging in warfare is the law in some countries. The objectors of conscience had to fight hard to have it acknowledged that they cannot be forced to take up arms. Do you remember the story of Cassius Clay ? No, that is no longer the position, even under American law. Objectors of conscience have the right to be relieved of combat military duties.
Ramon Casha
Sep 19th 2010, 17:52
I am not a lawyer either, but isn't there a difference between teaching what is right and wrong, and deciding what is right and wrong? A math teacher teaches maths, but cannot decide to start teaching that 1+1=3. It's not like the church hasn't been wrong in the past.
Anton Portelli
Sep 19th 2010, 14:25
First of all there is no connection between divorce, euthanasia and abortion. Groups who are pro abortion and euthanasia can still press for their cause even in the absence of divorce if they want to. Secondly if the constitution gives the catholic church any right to obstruct the rights and beliefs of others then the constitution is outdated and has to be changed. The catholic church cannot impose its teachings on everybody whatever his or her religion or beliefs. If divorce is introduced in Malta it will not affect by any means those who want to follow the catholic church's teaching. The church and its fundamentalist followers should let the government introduce divorce which is a right enjoyed by all EU citizens including those in some of the most catholic countries like Ireland and Italy. The church can then preach and persuade its followers not to avail themselves of it. This, as I and others have stressed is not a law that everyone has to obey like Paying Vat, Income Tax, and utility bills whether we like or not. We woulddefinitely be going back to the sixties and breaking the Corrupt Practices as if Mgr Gouder's advice is followed.
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)
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 19th 2010, 13:48
You say that the Church has the right to teach what is right or wrong. Agreed. In the particular context, you equate Mgr Gouder with the "Church". This was the original impression given by the article in the Times. When I reacted, it was on a hypothetical referendum, and I said that it might amount to a "corrupt practice". When Fr Joe Borg in answer made it clear that Mgr Gouder was expressing his personal opinion, to which he is entitled fully, an opinion with which Fr Joe Borg does not agree on theological/pastoral grounds, the question was settled for me. When the Bishops issued the pastoral note, and they were representing the Church, there is no instance of the word "sin" in their note. With time, it was apparent that Mgr Gouder was only expressing his view, which is not necessarily shared by all priests. Why one is the Church and another priest is not ? This is my last comment on the subject of Mgr Gouder.
G. Cutajar
Sep 19th 2010, 13:21
May I humbly ask Monsignor Gouder if a practicing high ranking priest is having an overt affair with a separated woman is also a sin?
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!
William P Flynn
Sep 19th 2010, 12:31
So what if, as former Labour minister Joe Brincat suggests, that the priest Gouder saying that those who vote for divorce would be committing a sin is an offence under the Corrupt Practices Act?
If rapist priests walk free in Malta; why worry about the piddly "offence under the Corrupt Practices Act". Which Maltese judge with a big crucifix above his head behind his bench is going to indict Gouder?
These priests are above the law and we know why; because we let them.
Same as Article 2. It's there because we let it remain there.
Malta shall never really be free until these priests are put in their churches and we annihilate Article 2.
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.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 19th 2010, 12:12
The Corrupt Practices Act prohibits making threats to intimidate voters. Stating obvious facts, such as that it is wrong for the Catholic to be an accomplice and to connive with any lobby advocating pro-divorce legislation, is not a threat or a corrupt practice. Snatching the voting document from the hands of a voter queing up to cast his vote would be corrupt practice - not that it has deterred everyone.
Chris Reiff
Sep 19th 2010, 11:56
You make it look like the Church is being humiliated. It is the non-Christians who are humiliated every day by comments such as these, claiming that voting for divorce is a sin, being taught that we are to burn in hell for eternity for committing an earthly sin, and other such disgusting teachings.
You make it look like divorce is the same as abortion and euthanasia, and that voting for one thing is like voting for everything at once. Don't go into extremes. I don't think euthanasia is wrong, but that's a different topic.
You make it look like everybody is OK with Article 2 of the Constitution. While the Constitution is above the law and therefore the Corrupt Practices Act is illegible, we may still criticise this sick teaching that voting for divorce is a sin according to a character in a rusty old book.
Yes, divorce will most probably come, and if you want to teach your flock what you want, fine by me. But don't humiliate us non-Christians anymore. Thanks.
Joe Zammit
Sep 19th 2010, 10:24
A simple argument:
The Constitution is above all national laws.
The Constitution states that the authorities of the Catholic Church have the right and duty to teach what principles are good and what principles are bad.
Therefore, the right and duty of the authorities of the Catholic Church to teach what principles are good and what principles are bad are above ALL national laws, including the Electoral (Polling) Ordinance, such that the Church can continue to teach also in a referendum, general elections and during a vote in Parliament.
N.B. Article 2(2) of the Constitution is entrenched.
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.