It does not happen very often that a bishop makes it to the front page of The Sunday Times of Malta twice in a row. The unsought for ‘honour’ fell on Bishop Charles Scicluna who has been arguing the Church’s case against adoption by gay couples and gay marriage almost single handed.

Scicluna told The Sunday Times of Malta of December 29 that he was doing so with the express approval of Pope Francis who was shocked by Malta’s same-sex adoption legislation. Then on Sunday 5, this paper reported Bishop Scicluna’s comments to Avvenire, the Italian Catholic paper.

These comments were followed by a lively discussion on the social networks and several features in a number of newspapers and TV/radio programmes. I think that it is important not to understand Scicluna’s comments on the morality of the decision that beckons our parliamentarians as if other decisions they are asked to take are morally neutral.

Humans are moral beings. Every voluntary act that humans perform has an ethical dimension. Morality is not something imposed on us. It emanates from our deepest being that is from our continuous search to decide rightly on matter of importance. Morality can be truly and fully functional only when exercised in freedom.

Conscience is the inner sanctuary within each one of us where we listen to the voice of reason or, in the case of believers, listen to the voice of God and take concrete decisions. There we are really and truly ourselves.

Choosing between one thing and another, especially on matters of importance has implications both for ourselves and for others. For this reason, we are personally involved when deciding one way or another and we would have to shoulder responsibility for our acts.

The above applies to all humans; politicians are no exception. An enlightened conscience should be their guide in all their actions. The decision to spend more on healthcare instead of on education; or to tighten environmental laws or increase the minimum wage are all moral decisions politicians face.

Each of these decisions can lead to a more human or a less human way of living. Each decision can lead to more or to less solidarity, for example.

Moral decisions and conscience matters are not reserved to votes about gay marriage or adoptions by gay couples, or divorce, or surrogate motherhood or abortion. Moral decisions taken in good conscience cover the whole gamut of political decisions.

The attempt to denude political decisions from their moral dimension is to be resisted.

In his comments to The Sunday Times of Malta, Scicluna was very careful to make a distinction between Church teaching and the decision to be taken in conscience by the individual politician.

He was clear that he did not want to repeat the mistake some made during the divorce referendum debate. These people erroneously concluded that they could judge the subjective acts and decisions of individuals. They had stated that those who do not conform to the official position commit a sin.

Scicluna said nothing of the sort. He explicitly said that he does not want to go down the same route. “I am not there to tell them (MPs) how they should vote; I am not the judge of an individual conscience,” he said.

However, these words were effectively silenced by the din created because of the phrase “gravely immoral” in relation to support for gay marriage or adoptions used in the Vatican document. (Some letter writers to this paper used the same document to condemn the position I took on the subject.)

Many people read or heard nothing more besides that phrase, which is not an easy one to digest or understand. Scicluna was then accused of wanting to impose his will on politicians, something he clearly did not do.

It would be a very sad day for democracy and morality in Malta if politicians were to vote one way or another simply because a bishop or their political leader says that it should be so. Politicians should vote one way or another because they are directed to do so by their formed and informed conscience.

Quite naturally, Catholic politicians are in duty bound to give importance to the teaching of their Church. But as they are legislators for a whole country, they have to give importance to society’s particular needs at a particular point in time.

Similarly, other Maltese politicians would not be acting wisely if they dismiss out of hand what the Church, being with its vast experience one of the most significant voice in civil society, says just because it is said by the Church. Dismissive attitudes do no one any good. Genuine social dialogue should have a stronger and a finer texture.

In their attempt to reach the best decision for the welfare of society, politicians of all hues should also give due importance to the will of the people who compose society. It is very obvious that while political parties had a popular mandate for the introduction of civil unions (not gay marriage), they have no such mandate for the introduction of adoptions by gay people.

Morality can be truly and fully functional only when exercised in freedom

Scicluna, during a television programme on Net TV, said that the Church commissioned two different public opinion surveys, both resulting in a resounding 80 per cent no for adoptions by gay couples.

Politicians generally buttress the legitimation of their conscience-based decisions by reference to the popular mandate they receive and are bound to serve. In this case, this principle is being ignored.

Politicians cannot find solace in the valid argument that basic human rights should not be based on popular support. Adoptions by gay couples as well as adoptions by heterosexual couples are not a basic human right. They are civil rights. While the latter is recognised universally, the former is recognised in fewer than two dozen countries out of the over 190 countries in the world. The only basic human right at issue is the right of the child to have the best family possible.

Within this perspective, the title of this piece, which reflects the question that many pose and debate, is of secondary importance. Instead of discussing the ‘singer’ – Scicluna – let us discuss the song. I believe that a mature political and moral decision on the subject needs more discussion with all stakeholders. This can only be done if the adoption clause is removed from the proposed Civil Unions’ Bill to be studied and discussed within the Adoption Act.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt