There were quite a few ripples in the ecclesiastical pond these past couple of weeks. The ripples were caused by differing positions of several ecclesiastics on the role of conscience in taking moral decisions and whether an Member of Parliament, or an individual voting in favour of divorce legalisation would automatically commit a sin.
This is an age-old argument. St Thomas Aquinas had said that Peter Lombard, whom he described as his “master”, was wrong to say that one is not obliged to follow one’s conscience when at odds with Church teaching. Aquinas had responded that we ought to die excommunicated rather than violate our conscience.
I had made my position very clear on both counts and so I will not bore you with repetitions.
One should not be surprised that different theological positions are taken by different individuals. We disagree on issues but we respect each other. We take positions on the basis of our love for the truth as we see it, the Church, the future of the family and of our country.
I was therefore surprised when I met people who expressed their surprise that I had publicly come out in the defence of Mgr Anton Gouder, with whom I share a decades-long friendship and a theological/pastoral disagreement of a few months about this issue. I think there is an attempt to demonise the man; and such a thing I will resist.
He was called all sorts of derogatory names which do not fit him. He was even accused of potentially breaking the law. Such an accusation is inane, as Mgr Gouder threatened no one with any spiritual or other penalty.
He just said what, in his opinion (others, including I, have a different position), would be the automatic consequence in moral sphere of a decision in the political sphere.
In their pastoral note on marriage and the family, Archbishop Paul Cremona and Gozo Bishop Mario Grech were correct not to enter the sin-yes/sin-no fray. The silence of the bishops on this matter shows it is legitimate for Catholics to follow the position that most satisfies them spiritually, morally and intellectually.
They emphasised that every Christian should act responsibly and be accountable for his actions. Responsibility should be the name of the game. Their message was very positive, reasoned, and communicated in a language that people of goodwill can connect with, even if they do not agree with it.
Nowhere did they mention the ‘s’ word, and nowhere had they mentioned it in their talks, homilies, pastoral letters, and so on. I was, therefore, surprised that the director of the Cana Movement wrote in September 9 edition of The Times that “yes, it is a sin to vote in favour of divorce”.
The bishops are quite right to point out that every marriage breakdown means pain and suffering. Independently of one’s position on divorce, all should strive to strengthen marriage and the family. A lot can still be done and should be done.
Every marriage saved is good news for the individuals concerned and for society. The divorce debate should not alienate us from this reality and from our responsibility to alleviate it.
The bishops warned against embarking on crusades. They said a crusade implies seeking a victory over another person of different belief and opinion, by whatever means.
Several in the Church have the mentality that the bishops warned against. They are nostalgic for a past that has long ceased to exist. Mgr Cremona described them as a great pastoral problem for the Church.
However, there are secular crusaders as well. Anyone who reads some of the comments online can feel the spirit of great intolerance that animates some of those who attack the anti-divorce camp.
Mutual respect should guide our search for the truth and for the best path to take to strengthen marriage and help those married couples in difficulty.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt