The Church’s Pro-Vicar Mgr Anton Gouder tells Kurt Sansone that the Church has to perform a soul-searching exercise to understand why people voted for divorce.

Did the result of the referendum, particularly the margin by which the Yes vote won, surprise you?

Yes it was a surprise. We had a number of polls throughout the last weeks. Sometimes they swayed with a slight advantage towards the Yes vote and sometimes towards the No. But the greatest unknown was always the high percentage of those classified as undecided. These have proved to be those who abstained and I think that in this lies my surprise.

Do you feel the referendum result represents a yearning for greater separation between state and Church?

With respect to the relation between Church and state, it is the official teaching of the Church (as found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council) that both are autonomous in their own right.

But for the benefit of the citizens (who might also be members of the Church) they should cooperate together. I sincerely cannot see where the Church is overstepping this position. I am certain this will never hinder the Church from proclaiming and applying the teaching of the gospel whether this teaching is accepted by the majority of the citizens or not.

Why do you think people ignored the Church’s anti-divorce stand and overwhelmingly voted in favour?

I believe there is more than one reason. I can mention the fact that a greater number of Maltese are distancing themselves from the Church’s teaching on moral matters while at the same time feel they may remain Catholics.

Secondly, there was a certain amount of confusion in the air about how a good Catholic is expected to act. I was personally involved in this controversy and I was also one of the priests who issued the statement about voting according to one’s proper conscience.

Yet, not everyone adhered to all the points mentioned in that statement. Up to the last minute, the Yes side felt free to say it was no sin – even quoting that it has the support of priests. The No side did not exercise such freedom and if priests dared to speak about divorce or the gospel, they had to bear the suffering of being manipulated.

Thirdly, this campaign has also shown that the religious knowledge and experience of many Catholics leave much to be desired.

The Church in Malta needs to perform a good soul-searching exercise with regard to these three reasons.

Apart from this, some of the media exponents did their best to attack the Church on more levels besides merely the divorce arguments and created an atmosphere of anti-clericalism based also on lies and exaggerations.

Was it right for some priests to torment people by withholding absolution or not administering Holy Communion to people who said they would vote Yes?

I have already explained this several times. We know of only one case of a priest withholding Holy Communion. He apologised the day after. Media reports claimed there were other cases. Our communications officer asked these reporters to supply other names. Not even one single case was mentioned.

With regard to the sacrament of reconciliation, it is much more difficult, because the priest cannot even say that a particular person has come to him for confession, let alone disclose what was said between them.

I have explained this to the media and it was reported that I am shielding myself behind the confessional secret. In these cases, one can approach the priest only if there is circumstanstantial evidence.

Was the bishops’ apology on Saturday too little, too late when many Catholics had endured spiritual pain throughout the divorce campaign because of the message diffused by some priests that voting Yes was a sin?

The bishops’ statement was a call to unite forces to work concretely in favour of the family and marriage.

They issued the statement prior to the publication of the referendum results because, as they stated, the results are no longer the aim, but rather they become the point of departure. Some media quarters opted to ignore all this and twist this statement in accordance with their whims.