Last Wednesday, seven priests, my-self included, issued a declaration “on conscience and divorce, and on what stand Christians could take re-garding proposed legislation favouring the introduction of divorce”.
The signatories had, up until a few weeks before, been engaged in public debate about the matter and on sides which seemed to point in opposite directions. Our common position on such a delicate subject aimed to “calm all those who are worried that among us there might be differences regarding the teaching of the Church”.
Naturally, people reacted in different ways to the statement. Many took it for what it is: a quasi-conservative application of traditional moral theology teaching to a current issue. Others thought the statement was almost revolutionary – if not bordering on heretical – although there was nothing new or unorthodox in the declaration. The latter are now in a bit of a fix given that the Archbishop has endorsed the statement.
For a number of reasons I was not surprised with the negative reaction. Many confuse two different aspects of the debate: divorce and divorce legislation. Divorce (accompanied by a second marriage) is not an option for the Catholic.
The question open for discussion is of a different kind: which of Christ’s precepts should we enshrine in civil and criminal law? For example, the meaning of adultery was expanded by Christ to include lustful thoughts. Should we criminalise those as well?
Love for enemies was mandated in the same speech in which Christ condemned divorce. Should love of enemies be part of civil law? The decision to pass from the statement “this is morally unacceptable” to “this should be illegal” is a decision that should be based on the study of the common good.
In the current circumstances prevailing in Malta I think the argument against the introduction of divorce is stronger than that favouring its introduction. However, it is legitimate for someone to arrive at a different conclusion. I would consider such a conclusion as mistaken but I would respect it just the same.
Our statement creates another problem. It invites people to take responsibility for their actions. This flies in the face of a culture of submission that still prevails among us.
The catechetical (de)formation of many makes them derogate to the institution the responsibility they should assume themselves. Instead of responsible use of freedom, many still yearn for passive submission, as this gives them a feeling of security.
Years ago, young people used to ask priests about how long one could French kiss before committing a mortal sin. Today most would laugh off such a question and young people would think this is just a joke.
Nevertheless, many among the grass roots of the Church are still imbued with the mentality that under-pins the question. Sin is still considered an automatic, almost automated result of specific actions, and its gravity can be measured in a way similar to how we measure heat.
Many would be very happy if a sin-o-meter were to be invented and that this would only be administered by priests just as other measuring instruments are used by doctors. Unfortunately, there are many ‘officials’ of the institution who want to prolong this mentality as it enhances the power they exert on the rest of the members.
I readily grant that they do it as they genuinely believe this is the right way of doing things. They still have a vertical, paternalistic and authoritarian model of the Church. Their seminary (de)formation took good care to nourish that model.
Deep down – this is the third problem our statement evokes – it is a question about models and visions of and for the Church; but that is an argument for some other Sunday.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt