A successfully sat for, but energy draining, PhD viva together with the Holy Week celebrations and a three day break kept me from so far commenting on the debate sparked by the homily Bishop Mario Grech delivered on the occasion of the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, March 30.

Bishop Grech has developed a homiletic style which gives a new and more contemporary dimension to traditional Christian feasts. Anyone who follows the homilies he delivers on the occasions of village festas will know what I mean. He quite rightly did the same when he delivered the homily in question.  Homilies should address present day realities for them to be relevant.

Bishop Grech generally tackles a subject on two levels: the theoretical/principled level and the practical/empirical one, while intelligently  joining both together in one strand. Other bishops prefer  a different, and equally valid style. They prefer to discuss an issue at the level of principles while leaving the empirical aspect to others. I can see advantages and disadvantages in both styles.

However, for its best fruition, the style adopted by Bishop Grech has to be actively  followed up by his Curia press office. Let me clarify.

During his homily, Bishop Grech mentioned several empirical facts, including:

* Only a small percentage of IVF processes succeed;

* The  validity of the system called Naprotechnology as an alternative to IVF;

* A reference to an unnamed internationally renowned scientist who had described  IVF as highly abortive;

* Out of the 3 million IVF conceived babies only 100K were born healthy;

* Scientific literature demonstrates that when infertile couples are given psychological help they tend to overcome their infertility.

I did not for any instant expect Bishop Grech to give references while he is preaching. However, I think that, following the homily, the diocesan press office would have done Bishop Grech and the Maltese public sterling service had they provided  references to the peer reviewed literature which formed the basis of these statements. Barring these last three days when I have not read Maltese newspapers, I do not recall seeing such information made public. I think that it is essential that the debate is enlightened by solid and respected scientific studies. I am also certain that there are many people who would like to know more about the subject. This is thus an opportunity not to be missed.

The exposition of empirical facts is not enough. Quite naturally the debate has to be also enlightened also by ethical considerations. Science without ethics is like a body without a soul. In his homily, Bishop Grech  made several valid arguments and  ethical considerations which I think find wide ranging support, including the following:

* Church and state have to address the suffering undergone by infertile couples;

* The state should provide ethically correct solutions which are also consonant with the professional oath taken by doctors;

* Infertile couples should not be financially or psychologically exploited. On the contrary they should be given the medical and counselling attention they so badly need.

 * There are some scientists and professionals who are more interested in making money than serving people;

* The aim does not justify the means.

Bishop Grech then outlined Church teaching which considers IVF as ethically deficient. This would not carry with in the same level of support that I believe would be given to the statement I just outlined. However, does anyone seriously expect a bishop not to preach Catholic teaching on this or any other subject? Should he be so harshly criticised for doing this? He has a duty to do so both as a bishop and as a citizen.

Quite naturally those who do not agree that IVF is ethically problematic also have the right to put forward their case. When they do, they should neither be rubbished nor demonised which unfortunately are two methods used against Bishop Grech.

We are passing through a phase where it seem that everyone has rights but those who wish to put forward the Catholic position. We have even been told that Prof Manuel Agius should not be part of the consultative Ethics Committee set up by government. The expertise of Prof Agius in the field of bio-ethics is so vast that the European Union asked him to join its committee of experts on the subject. Is he good an a European level but not good enough for tiny Malta because he happens to be a priest? Besides, on the committee of experts of the EU there is also another priest besides Prof Agius!

In a pluralistic country, Malta included, it is essential that different  points of view are put forward by anyone who holds them. It is also very important that this is done in full respect of one another. Politicians who are responsible for the formulation of public policy have to inform and form their consciences before adopting the most effective policies which further the common good while finding an equitable and ethically valid way forward preferably after reaching the common ground between the different positions.