I still cannot fathom how in Catholic Malta the majority of those who voted in the May 28 referendum were in favour of introducing divorce. What baffles me is not the result but the fact that many of those who voted in favour considered themselves practising Catholics.

As days pass, I feel tempted to accept the people’s verdict but then, after deep reflection, I question myself why should something that I believe is morally wrong, since it goes against the fundamental meaning of marriage as instituted by Christ (its indissolubility), be accepted as correctsimply because the majority voted in favour?

Does what is right or wrong simply depend on the majority of votes? Herein lies the binding, hidden law of conscience.

At the end of the tunnel, though, there might still be some hope. I believe those MPs who, before the referendum, were convinced that divorce was morally wrong and went against the common good of our society should not now, because the majority votedin favour, go against theirconscience.

Opposition Leader JosephMuscat, when referring to one of his MPs, Adrian Vassallo, who stated publicly that he would vote against the Bill, hinted that it was his responsibility and that he would have to suffer the consequences.

What consequences may I ask? That he would be rejected by the party, perhaps, and looked down upon by those who voted for divorce? Should one go against one’s conscience simply because the majority reasons differently?

St Thomas More, who was not willing to betray his conscience and the Church, refused to sign the 1532 Parliament Act of Supremacy which recognised the King as the head of the Church of England.

This cost him his life, for he was beheaded. His last famous words were: “I have been ever the King’s good and loyal servant, but God’s first.” Pope John Paul II declared St Thomas More patron of statesmen and politicians for “the witness that he bore, even at the price of his life, to the primacy of truth over power”.

What is morally right or wrong does not depend on the will of the majority but on the dictates of a well-formed conscience. Pope Benedict warns one must not allow one’s conscience be reduced “to nothing more than reflex responses to various opinions and preceding social circumstances. Convictions might seem rational but would be only the product of self-righteousness, conformism, and intellectual laziness”.

In other words, ethics that are utilitarian cannot guide us to the right moral actions.

It would be in place to repeat what Fr Mario Attard concluded in his lucid ‘Talking Point’ in The Times (July 2) entitled ‘Conscience of the Catholic politician “Before casting their vote in Parliament to approve or reject the divorce Bill, it would be wise and responsible if Catholic MPs seek the providential guidance of the Church’s magisterium and, hopefully, vote accordingly. To reject divorce is a question of moral principles not of judgments of fact or practical matters.”