The Embryo Protection Act is not homophobic and does not discriminate against same-sex couples, who would require the intervention of a third party to conceive in any case, according to Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna.
“It does not take much wisdom to understand that no homosexual couple can biologically create a new being. A homosexual couple, be it two males or two females, requires the contribution of a third person.”
Writing in his blog on news portal newsbook.com.mt, Mgr Scicluna argued against the stand taken by the Malta Gay Rights Movement, which described the IVF legislation as homophobic and discriminatory.
The MGRM said last week that by excluding same-sex couples and single people from its definition of prospective parents, the IVF law breached basic human rights principles such as the right to found a family.
Enacting legislation that would deny medical treatment on the basis of sexual orientation would constitute a worrying precedent that had far-reaching implications and engendered serious doubts in the minds of lesbian and gay citizens on the government’s commitment to equality, the MGRM said.
But Mgr Scicluna drew parallels between what the gay lobby was saying now and what it sought in the 1990s when it was calling for the right to be different, the right to diversity.
“I find it hard to understand how, 20 years later, their argument has changed and has almost been turned topsy-turvy. Now they are not appealing for diversity but for equality.
“If one respects the fact that homosexual couples are different, then one is respecting a fact and not being homophobic at all.
“The same argument may be applied to legislation. Legislation that respects homosexuals in all their diversity is not homophobic,” Mgr Scicluna said of the IVF law.
“The child born to a homosexual couple will always be the fruit of an intervention that goes beyond the couple itself.
“For this reason, it does not make sense either from a logical or a biological point of view for one to expect that a homosexual couple will be treated in the same way as a heterosexual couple, who, by its very nature, can provide the right elements for a child to be conceived as a result of their union,” he said.
“In my opinion, the gay lobby should acknowledge and respect the fact that its appeal for social recognition has its starting point in diversity and, therefore, it is unjust that they are calling for equality when, in fact, real equality does not exist.
“Diversity must always be respected even when its consequences are not those that are desired or expected.”
He made it clear that he was “in no way” implying that he was in favour of interventions that lead to the birth of a child by means of technology alone, saying that, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, babies should be the fruit of the conjugal act, which reflects the love of the husband and wife “in all its natural and unifying elements”.
Procreation, he said, should be the result of conjugal acts and technology was not there to replace this but, rather, to be of assistance.