I was rather amazed after reading some of the reactions to what Austin Gatt stated in his recent talking point The Only Value Is The Family. The arguments proposed by those who vehemently criticised Dr Gatt, illustrate perfectly the blindness or malice of those who try to portray any person who opposes the introduction of divorce as imposing his Catholic beliefs on the masses, be they Catholic or not. There is nothing new under the sun!

Dr Gatt has expressed that he clearly envisages the party he represents as a “lay party”. He never stated that he wishes to oblige other party members to be bound by Catholic moral tenets. Dr Gatt himself insisted that “others may think otherwise” and that he cannot expect his view to prevail “over the majority”. Dr Gatt has only said that if the majority chooses to opt with what he cannot accept in his conscience, he will resign from Parliament.

Is Dr Gatt not free to choose for himself if and when to resign? Is Dr Gatt bound to ask permission from any pro-divorce lobbyer to resign from office?

Furthermore, Dr Gatt has also rightfully made it clear that every MP is ethically bound to take a stand regarding such a crucial issue.

It is senseless to say that by declaring one’s own position, political parties or MPs would be perpetrating an injustice against those who differ from the adopted position. If matters stand in this way, MPs and parties should be abolished since every time they take a stand or reach a final decision regarding some issue or another, they are practically adopting some views but at the same time rejecting others.

I think Dr Gatt’s position, as well as the same position taken by other members of Parliament from both sides of the House, is the most fair and democratic. The intentional lack of clarity of some MPs and political movements spurs me to ask who is really imposing his views on others.

The same gurus who criticised Dr Gatt for his statements have also shown that they fully misunderstand the true basis for the Catholic Church’s resolute stand against divorce. In my opinion, without putting Jesus’s words aside, the Church has been constructing its arguments not exclusively on scriptural or doctrinal claims but primarily on human and social ones (while doctrinal claims are never divorced from human ones).

Although the proposed divorce legislation will not dissolve Catholic marriages, society will still be structurally harmed by the possibility of having continuous dissolutions of valid civil marriages.

One needn’t necessarily be a Catholic to oppose divorce, although Catholics have the full right to do so, even in the name of their religious convictions, that are based primarily on human arguments since what Jesus taught boils down to an authentic anthropological interpretation of marriage.

The needed dialogue is to be encouraged in full respect of democracy, not only from the Church’s side but from everyone. Those who think they can muzzle the Church under the pretext of bringing true liberty to society, show no understanding of her 2,000 years of history.