Fortunately the publication of a pastoral letter and draft legislation about IVF have notched up the level of public discourse in Malta from the gutter that was the political discussion fuelled by inflated egos.
Research conducted five years ago among university students showed that only one-sixth believed artificial contraception to be morally wrong- Fr Joe Borg
This subject has been on the political agenda for many years. Committees made up of members of both sides of Parliament reached a consensus on more than one occasion.
The government now has clear enough views to propose legislation. The opposition wants to study the matter further.
The commercial IVF sector was not at all pleased with this important milestone, thus giving credence to the pastoral letter’s quotation of Pope Benedict’s accusation that “the logic of profit seem(s) effectively to dominate the field of infertility and human procreation”.
Contrary to usual practice this pastoral letter was published mid-week on the eve of the publication by the government of the draft legislation on IVF. Was it a coincidence? The letter was not read in churches in Malta (with some exceptions). I am not sure what happened in Gozo. A synthesis of the letter will be read in Maltese churches this weekend.
This is quite an untidy business when seen from a communications strategy point of view. Ten days after the publication of the draft legislation the faithful would prefer to know the bishops’ comments on this legislation than their general reflection on the subject.
The bishops mention three values among which, quite naturally, there is a hierarchy of importance.
Undoubtedly the most important one is safeguarding of human life from the moment of conception. This value is supported by most Maltese who are against all forms of abortion.
Even many of those who think it is not appropriate to use the term abortion to describe the death of an embryo on a Petri dish still consider this action as an immoral destruction of human life. The Church would do well to build more on this popular support for its position.
The proposed law amply supports this supreme value. It also defends to a large extent the value of conjugal unity since it prohibits any third party involvement in the process.
General support, on the other hand, is unfortunately not forthcoming for the bishops’ emphasis (in line with other Church documents) on the intrinsic link between the unitive and the procreative dimension of the marriage act.
Most Catholics do not understand or do not agree with this position and consequently also do not accept Church teaching on artificial contraception which is based on this value.
Research conducted five years ago among University students showed that only one-sixth believed artificial contraception to be morally wrong. I am certain that figures for the rest of the population would not be much different.
The proposed legislation does not reflect this value mentioned by the bishops since no IVF legislation can respect this value. But is this value, important as it is, to be considered as important as the value safeguarding life from the moment of conception?
The proposed legislation, on the other hand, reflects the social reality existing in our ethically pluralised environment. Isn’t this an important criterion that legislators have to factor in?
Quite naturally I am not suggesting that the Church should base its teaching on opinion polls. What I am saying is that a thesis based on an argument whose validity is not recognised by the recipients tends to lose its validity in the minds of the same recipients. This is a huge communications and pastoral challenge for the Church.
Another pastoral challenge lies in the choice of words used and emphasis made while speaking or writing about the subject.
There is absolutely no doubt that the bishops are compassionate and caring towards those couples having fertility problems. Unfortunately this did not come through.
Many people felt offended by the reference to IVF children as “children of God”. The stating of something which is manifestly so obvious gave people the wrong impression about the bishops’ intentions.
The reference to “the temptation of taking ‘easy’ solutions” was considered to be particularly hurtful as resorting to IVF is anything but an “easy” solution.
Others felt that the reference to abortion and the “new orphanages” will probably load the subject with highly-charged emotive words and make it more difficult to have a serene debate.
It is very important for the Church to know and gauge people’s reactions.
Were people hurt because words were not chosen carefully enough? Or was their reaction due to a fundamental objection to Church doctrine?
Pastoral letters cannot but be relatively short documents. Consequently, arguments are not developed at the length they deserve. A case in point with reference to this pastoral letter is the treatment of the relationship between law and morality.
The bishops state that legislation on the matter should aim (my emphasis) to safeguard the values they mention. But what can be seen as a clear de facto acceptance of the maxim that politics is the art of the possible, and in the light of the fact that ‘aiming’ does not necessarily imply ‘achieving’, they also state that legislators “are duty-bound in conscience to try and achieve the best possible benefits, or as far as possible, to mitigate dangers”.
In assessing the ethical dimension of the law one should keep in mind that there is a hierarchy of importance among the values mentioned by the bishops.
Perhaps our legislators can find further help in the statement signed by seven priests and endorsed by Archbishop Paul Cremona in the run-up to the divorce referendum.
I suggest that Maltese legislators should also be guided by the statement of Cardinal Camillo Ruini after IVF legislation (more liberal than the Maltese draft) was approved by the Italian Parliament. He had said Italy enacted the best possible law in the circumstances.
Committed lay Catholics in the pro-life movement in Malta are already saying the same about the proposed legislation.
Maltese parliamentarians must try to achieve the best possible law.
Besides enlightening their conscience by the teachings of their own religious (or non-religious) persuasions, they have to take into consideration our socio-cultural situation characterised by the need to regulate a 20-year old practice, existing pluralistic ethical positions, the hierarchy of importance given to different values, and possibly varied political positions due to which a political compromise would be the only way to achieve the best possible results.
Voting in Parliament is a matter of conscience; so is writing this commentary.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt