The bishop of Gozo, Mario Grech, dared to do his duty and teach youths, who were being confirmed as Christians in the Catholic Church, what it means to be a Christian. He was addressing confirmation candidates and their families, candidates who, out of their own free will, wanted to confirm the choice they made at their baptism.

Does the bishop have to ask anyone’s permission to do this or is it his right, or rather his duty?

In the electronic version of this newspaper there were 184 comments about this news (still counting) and a good number of them were negative comments made by people who seem to know better than the good bishop what he should teach.

There were so many negative comments that I did a double-take and had to read again what it was that he had really said.

He had said, “People who were not in full communion with the teaching of the Church, were not in communion with Christ and could not receive Communion”. “He also said ... that one could not say he was a Christian or a Catholic and not be loyal to Christian beliefs. This, he said, was a farce.”

For this, he was also labelled arrogant. What arrogance is there in a statement such as this?

Let’s take this one step at a time. Could one be Christian and not be loyal to Christian beliefs? Or could one be a Christian just by emblazoning a dome on the banner of his pro-divorce movement? What makes one a Christian? Isn’t it loyalty to Christ’s teaching?

With regard to divorce, purely by chance I have just read this: “Jesus does not enjoin his disciples to marry, but he does sanctify marriage according to the law by affirming its indissolubility and by prohibiting the innocent party from remarrying when the guilty partner has broken the marriage by adultery. This prohibition liberates marriage from selfish, evil desire, and consecrates it to the service of love...” “It would appear that by affirming the indissolubility of marriage Jesus contradicts the law of the Old Testament. But there is another passage (Matt. 19.8) which shows that in fact he is at one with the Law of Moses.”

Before somebody rushes off to comment, this is not a statement by a Catholic scholar but by a Lutheran theologian and pastor who belongs to a church which permits divorce. Yet these are his conclusions. And he was not a run-of the-mill newspaper columnist but a man who put his money where his mouth was. He gave up his life at 39 years of age in Nazi Germany to uphold his beliefs. He is a man still very much respected by Christians of many denominations. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer: The Cost of Discipleship; pp 132-133).

Yes, Jesus was against divorce and one can’t be a valid Christian and opt for divorce.

Could one be Christian and not be in full communion with the teaching of the Church? When Christ chose Peter as the rock, on which he was going to build his church, he said to him: “I tell you that you are Peter. And I’ll build my church on this rock. The gates of the underworld won’t be able to stand against it. I’ll give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Anything you fasten on earth will be fastened in heaven. Anything you loosen on earth will be loosened in heaven.” (Matt 16.18-19)

Also when Saul was on the way to Damascus and Christ spoke to him he told him: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9.4) Now Saul was not persecuting Jesus but the Church. Yet Christ identifies Himself with the Church. Could one not be in communion with the Church while being in communion with Christ?

And thirdly, what does the word communion mean? According to the dictionary it is an act or instance of sharing; an intimate fellowship or rapport. In the religious sense it is the sacrament which makes us one with Christ. What kind of intimate rapport can one have with Jesus if he picks and chooses which statements of his he is going to believe and put into practice?

Can anyone please enlighten me where was the arrogance in the bishop’s words?