A number of stories concerning whispering campaigns, public talks and other mutterings and scribblings are doing the rounds. Blanket statements about committing mortal sin and allegedly even excommunication are being dished out in relation to the divorce debate.
Perhaps, the reference to the declaration about conscience and divorce written by seven Maltese priests (October 13, 2010) could be helpful.
They included the dean of the Faculty of Theology, a rector emeritus, the pro-vicar general and the director of the Cana Movement. I was allowed to scribble my name.
The statement was later publicly approved by Archbishop Paul Cremona as being representative of Church teaching on the matter.
The signatories agreed that if asked to vote about divorce legislation, all citizens, Catholics included, “have the right and duty to follow their own conscience which needs, however, to be well informed and well formed, keeping in mind the common good”. A formed conscience has to be enlightened by the teaching of Christ who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life”.
Catholic teaching about the family and marriage, and the duty of Catholics to work hard so that there “should be stable and lasting marriages, strong families bound by love and fidelity because this is of great benefit to society at large”, is emphasised in the statement.
What if a Catholic does not care about his conscience and the teaching of Christ and the Church but only follows his whims and prejudices? The answer is that “one is responsible for such action before God and may possibly be sinning”.
The statement then comes to the heart of the matter. If one votes for the introduction of divorce does one necessarily commit a sin?
I reproduce paragraph 7 of the statement in toto:
“In order that as Catholics we reach a good moral judgement whether we want or do not want the introduction of divorce law wemust in a responsible manner form our conscience and then decide according to this conscience.
“Therefore, after trying seriously to form one’s conscience according to God’s Word and the teaching of the Church, and trying sincerely to discover the whole truth and what really leads to the common good, a Catholic:
“a) may either reach a right decision or may also, in all sincerity, reach a decision which, in itself, is mistaken. But whatever the case, one is always obliged to follow and decide according to one’s conscience;
“b) may still, in spite of having all the necessary knowledge and having done everything to find the whole truth, in conscience not see why to vote against legislation favouring divorce. This one too has the right and the duty to follow what one’s conscience tells one.
“c) may also see that in this matter one is faced by the choice between two situations which both in themselves are harmful to the common good. It is legitimate, in this case of conflict, for one to choose the lesser evil, after prayer, reflection and sincere search for the whole truth.”
All signatories believed that the declaration had cleared the matter definitively. A friend had told me that the declaration was a flash in a pan, as it did not reflect clerical grass roots.
In the 19th century, priests refused absolution to parents who sent their children to study English, as we feared that they would become Protestants. In the 1930s, we told the Maltese that voting for Strickland was a mortal sin, and 30 years later, we said the same thing about voting for Dom Mintoff.
The wounds created by those incidents still fester. However, there are those who seem to be dead set on opening new wounds. I am afraid that such an attitude would embark the Church on a lose/lose situation.
When will we ever learn?
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt