In his opinion piece, ‘Personal views don’t count’ (October 2), Vanni Xuereb referred mainly to the fact that Kim Davis, a county clerk in the US State of Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples.

Davis is on record saying that “to issue a marriage licence which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience”.

To say that when one follows one’s conscience one is simply expressing one’s views is simplistic and untrue.

Conscience is not a question of opinion or a figment of one’s imagination. Anne Murphy in her book on Thomas More clearly explains what conscience meant for More when she states that “a matter of conscience is no trifle, no mere scruple, no wisp of straw, but the very heart of what it is to be human”.

This is not a question of public opinion or of what one thinks but a question of fundamental beliefs and doctrine to which one adheres, irrespective of what one feels or thinks.

Unless we are able to distinguish between conscience and opinion then what guides one when decisions are taken shall be based simply on what one feels or thinks or on what the majority holds. It is neither a question of fostering “a culture that allows greater tolerance and genuine respect for diversity”, as Xuereb asserts.

In fundamental beliefs and doctrine one has to first respect natural law and the dignity of the human person before one’s personal rights and opinion. Should doctors, then, be obliged to carry out abortions in those countries where abortion is legal rather than follow their conscience and refuse to perform such heinous acts?

Both Davis and President Emeritus George Abela did what they deemed correct by following their conscience when one refused to issue marriage certificates to gay couples and the other refused to sign the Civil Unions Bill for, after all, each one’s conscience is supreme and above all human laws.