Divorce and conscience (1)

A prayerful reading of the life of St Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, family man, eminent judge, statesman and “A Man for all Seasons” could help the clergy, politicians and persons of good will to ponder how, in practice, a person well versed in the law and religion had to exercise all his skill, faith and reason in order to listen to the dictates of his well-informed conscience, which included an objective reality: The Pope’s final declaration (after vast consultation with and theological debates among the theologians and canon lawyers of Europe’s leading universities) regarding the validity of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

Thomas More’s conscience was in stark contrast to that of the king’s own conscience “formed” by what he had seen as the “common good” of the realm – to provide a male heir to the throne of England; in contrast to the conscience of a large number of the clergy, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who acquiesced to the king’s demands, the nobility and of course Parliament! The subsequent result of Henry’s divorce and re-marriage (the 1534 Acts of Succession and Supremacy) and their effect on the “common good” of England, as well as the consequence of More’s almost solitary position (bishop John Fisher and the Carthusian monks shared it) is common knowledge.

Sir Thomas had recognised – not without a struggle – that ultimately in such a situation it fell squarely on the statesman’s shoulders and conscience to stand (or kneel) in front of God’s supremacy and one’s conscience in order to decide which course to take when faith, reason, the teaching authority of the Church and socio-political situations are involved around a particular issue. In this case Sir Thomas chose to uphold the dignity of marriage and maintain that divorce is a serious offence against it. He chose the more difficult path and it cost him his life!

There is ample bibliography about St Thomas More’s life as well as the Church’s teaching on marriage which one could leaf through in order that reason enlightened by faith and the teaching authority of the Church in the light of God’s Word, will be able to continue forming one’s conscience, especially those upon whose shoulders the responsibility to refrain from or to introduce civil divorce in Malta ultimately falls – those who would vote in a referendum given the option, members of Parliament and he who has the unenviable onus of signing the “Malta Divorce Act” into law!

There is a caveat though, if one refrains from using all the necessary objective and subjective criteria in the process: “Conscience is very elastic. It can be stretched to the furthest point one wants to!”