II try very hard to be one of those people who defends the Church, even though I am not actively Church-going. When people complain that the Church should stop trying to control our psyche, steer clear of our moral compass, keep its nose out of the intimate details of our personal and sexual lives, I am always tempted to tell them that the Church is as controlling and interfering as you allow it to be. The problem is with you allowing it to become an issue and not with the Church per se.

What ironically sets out to celebrate the value and dignity of human life is clumsy, unethical and undignified at best- Michela Spiteri

And yet, I suppose, I’m being a little bit simplistic, naive, or both.

Immunising yourself against an institution like the Catholic Church in Malta is like keeping away from the sun in August, although the latter might actually be easier. We will all recall that the anti-divorce campaign was fought tooth and nail by the Church, when really it should have assumed a much quieter and more dignified role.

I’d have expected, even welcomed, some sort of opposition to divorce, but not the brazen and undignified sort we witnessed back in the day. They went so maniacally overboard that even they realised, a little bit too late, that they might have pushed it too far.

This was what undoubtedly prompted their public apology, broadcast on the eve of the divorce referendum, where they expressed regret and sorrow for the hurt they might have caused unintentionally, while simultaneously forgiving all those who had hurt them. The ‘apology’ if you can call it that, was somewhat facetious. Apart from the 10 p.m. embargo, it sounded more like: “We’re sorry but we forgive you anyway”.

The Church, or should I say the bishops, are now back, doing what they do best. And once again, they’ve chosen the eve of an event to mark their territory. I’m talking about their Pastoral Letter, delivered just a day before Parliament’s publication of the IVF bill. The letter drew criticism from many quarters.

What ironically sets out to celebrate the value and dignity of human life is clumsy, unethical and undignified at best. So much so that its very own members found it hard to digest.

I had a read through and although I was unscathed and not remotely hurt by any part of it, I can well imagine that many others, not as well inoculated as myself, might have been. The letter has all the symptoms of foot-in-mouth disease if you like. The assertion that childless couples should not feel like failures because they can still make something of their marriage and prove their worth in other areas, was, I thought, a tactless and rather inauspicious start – condescending to say the very least.

But the suggestion that infertility could well be a consequence of “certain choices which the couple has made in the past” was most definitely wounding, calculated to sting.

What on earth could these “choices” possibly be, I wonder? Artificial contraception? Abortion? Smoking? Drinking? Sex before marriage? Drugs? We are left none the wiser. Presumably, that would be a matter for you and your conscience, if you have one, of course.

Moving on, the bishops tell us that artificial fertilisation is morally reprehensible because conception should be a consequence of the conjugal act and no third party should ever come between that.

In other words, human life and consequent parenthood should be the exclusive result of the concerted actions of just two people – husband and wife. Presumably children born of unmarried couples or single parent families don’t feature in the Church’s definition of human life or in any case aren’t as valuable, or cause enough for celebration. But I won’t even go there, because it’s far too tedious and besides I tell myself that the Church doesn’t really believe that either.

According to the letter, in matters of human life, there is no room for science and certainly not for any third party intervention. Well, I don’t know how the rest of you feel, but I very much doubt they’d be any human life to speak of were it not for forceps, gynecologists, midwives, induced labour, caesarian sections. I could go on but I won’t.

I’ll just say that I don’t know of any women who would happily leave human life to chance, be it nature or the will of God. Most rely heavily on science every step of the way, after conception. And yes, some have to rely on science and need that extra bit of help to make conception humanly possible.

This doesn’t make conception any less human or dignified. The bishops would have us believe that biology and technology have no real place in procreation.

They seem to forget that sex with the specific purpose of reproduction is in fact the most technical and biological act of all, often divorced from any form of respect or mutual self-giving. The few couples I know who actively and deliberately tried to have children during marriage, would later describe those months as among the most agonising, loveless and joyless of their marriage.

When that sort of pressure walks through the door of any marriage, love and respect go out the window.

To say that we are all accidents of birth, the frequently unwanted byproduct or result of an unusual or irregular cycle or too much to drink might sound too flippant, even to me. And yet, I have no compunction in saying that when it comes to children who are born of IVF treatment, the unwanted, unplanned or accidental factor is ruled out completely. These are definitely children their parents wanted, very desperately in fact. This most certainly makes them children of a Greater Go(o)d.

If the bishops need some help identifying who are the real children of a lesser God, I urge them to read Tony Zammit Cutajar’s article in The Times (August 8), and direct their energies toward the worthy causes he outlines therein.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com