Divorce and outrageous statements

I was puzzled, not to say shocked, by the statement made by Judge Philip Sciberras earlier this month. I quote: “I believe there are financial motivations behind the Church’s anti-divorce campaign because it stands to lose its hegemony on annulments. The Church is afraid of losing its privileges and, like it did in the past, it starts scaring people with the bogeyman”.

Coming from a retired judge such a statement is not simply unbecoming but outrageous. Mud-slinging by the man in the street can be understood and sometimes condoned but coming from a judge, even if retired...

But it does not stop there. The judge retains that, when teaching that divorce is not simply against its law but against the law of God, the Church is just using influence on voters, scaring people with the bogeyman. And he goes on to say that by so doing the Church is infringing the Electoral Polling Ordinance. I presume any member of the legal profession knows that law is to be interpreted strictly when it limits the rights of a person or of a constituted body. How much more when the rights and duties of that constituted body are enshrined in the Constitution (chapter 2, 1,2,3)? Is there no difference between a political election and a referendum on a moral issue? We are lucky that the statement comes from a retired judge.

But we are even more so when the one who thus speaks proclaims himself to be “a practising Catholic” and this, he says, “motivates me to support the minority rights”. Today, it has become so common to speak of “minority rights”. But does anybody wonder nowadays where human rights derive from? These must certainly not include those who deny God the right to make His voice heard. And, unfortunately, among these we find some who pretend to be Catholics.

Truly, the UN human rights charter has been one of the great achievements of the 20th century. That charter derives its values from God the Creator, that God we try to silence, promoting, in this way, a threat to that freedom that is God’s greater gift to man.

What we once condemned as a crime against humanity committed by national-socialism in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and under communist regimes, we now acclaim as achievements of our post-modern society. Why not try to listen to what God has to tell us? Or, are we, like Pilate, afraid to know the truth? While asking Jesus “What is truth?” (John 18,38), Pilate, instead of waiting for an answer, turned to the crowd demanding the execution of the One whom, minutes before, he proclaimed innocent.

And to conclude, while I condemn very strongly those who abuse of religion to put pressure on others, I encourage all those who in a most charitable manner try to enlighten the conscience of many who do not, as yet, know what it means to follow one’s conscience. Only Christ can illumine our conscience and not the voice of the world, which tries to suffocate his voice of truth. Christ’s teaching was valid yesterday, is valid today and will remain valid always. He has told us once and for all: “I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one stroke, shall disappear from the law, until its purpose is achieved” (Mt 5, 18).

Let us be honest and coherent. If we find it difficult to follow Christ because we consider him outdated and his teaching not relevant to our society, then let us say so openly and go our way without tarnishing the Christian name. As He said to the Apostles when He saw the crowds leaving, He will say to us today: “Do you want to go too?” (John 6, 67). And He leaves us free to choose.