The results of the referendum on the introduction of divorce legislation are clear. In a turnout of 72 per cent, 53.2 per cent of those who cast valid votes expressed themselves in favour of introducing divorce in Malta. But the people’s decision has yet to be confirmed in Parliament.

Before voting on the bill, MPs have to bear in mind two other important factors, besides the one that the majority has voted in favour. The first is that the referendum was a consultative one and so not binding and the other that all MPs would be given a free vote to enable them to vote according to their conscience. This was promised by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

In his first reaction to the result, the Prime Minister said it was expected that all MPs would respect the will of the majority. Fr Joe Borg, in his weekly column (The Sunday Times, May 29) also stated: “It is not acceptable for Parliament to thwart the will of the majority.”

I beg to disagree. First of all, since the referendum was consultative and therefore not binding, MPs should not be bound by it in any way, although they should take it into consideration.

Secondly, MPs were promised that they would be allowed to vote freely according to their conscience and not according to the result of the referendum. In fact, I admire those MPs (unfortunately very few) from both sides of the House who publicly declared that both in the referendum and in Parliament they would vote according to their conscience.

Now here is the crux of the argument. What does voting according to one’s conscience mean in the current circumstances? What does voting according to one’s Christian conscience imply (since it is assumed that the majority of MPs – if not all – are Christians)?

We have heard so much about conscience and what makes a fully informed conscience. It is worth reflecting what the Church teaches about the moral conscience and making erroneous judgments.

Unless one who is asked to vote according to one’s conscience does not take all factors into consideration one might be unconsciously making the wrong judgment. Surely voting according to one’s conscience does not necessarily imply voting according to what the majority says since, in this case, it had been decided beforehand and stated publicly that the referendum was consultative.

It would be interesting to find out how many from both camps, in percentage terms, voted for or against divorce because of their allegiance to their party rather than according to their conscience.

I am sure that a good percentage, especially Labour supporters, voted in favour of divorce not because of the dictates of their conscience but because of their party allegiance.

So, when MPs are asked to confirm or deny the will of the majority they have to consider all factors, including the fact that the referendum was consultative, and the main reasons which led voters to vote as they did.