At least; and at last; though why the heading given to the text released by the seven priests read, ‘Declaration about conscience and divorce’ when three of the points were uniquely and positively to do with marriage and family, continues to puzzle me. Either way, it was misleading enough to invite this headline in The Times: ‘Influential priests issue position paper on divorce’. They did no such thing; nor did they claim to do so.

Still, it made sense for those seen as ‘warring parties’ on the matter of marriage, divorce and conscience to meet one another to discuss points they made that “may have seemed to contradict each other,” and to clarify their position. Their decision to issue a joint declaration was opportune because they had certainly confused people and given rise to speculation as to the Archbishop’s stand in all this. We now know that the content of their statement has his sanction.

Essentially, the final position taken was that for Catholics, “divorce is wrong whether it is permitted by civil law or not”; that “both as citizens and Catholics they should work hard for stable and lasting families so that in (our) country there should be stable and lasting marriages, strong families bound by love and fidelity because this is of great benefit to society… and strive to have a Christian outlook on the family and marriage and, according to the teaching of Christ and the Church witness to this in all circumstances…” This was all very positive.

On the subject of the introduction of divorce, it stated: “The decision of every Catholic concerning legislation in favour of divorce, in order for it to be a good and responsible decision must be reached with a formed conscience and enlightened by the teaching of Christ who is ‘the Way, the Truth and the Life’.”

Should they be asked to give their judgment on the introduction of divorce, “they 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… 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 may “either reach a right decision”, or, “in all sincerity” reach one that is “in itself, mistaken”. Either way, the paper states, “one is always obliged to follow and decide according to one’s conscience”.

He may have done everything to acquire “all the necessary knowledge” and “to find the whole truth” and “in conscience not see why to vote against legislation favouring divorce” (sic).

Should a Catholic be faced with the choice between two situations which (are) “both in themselves harmful to the common good, it is legitimate… to choose the lesser evil after prayer, reflection and sincere search for the whole truth”.

As for the Catholic who is careless about having “an informed an formed conscience” and “decides to follow one’s whim without seriously paying attention to the teaching of God’s Word and of the Church but only follows one’s feelings, one’s own thoughts or personal advantage, if not also one’s prejudices (he) should “realise that one is not doing his duty as a Catholic. One is responsible for such action before God and may possibly be sinning”. Here it is probable that the authors were trying to marry up the opinions of the Pro-Vicar General and the Deanof the Theology Faculty on the matter of sin.

Very worthy of further consideration was Fr Christopher Caruana’s closely argued Talking Point in The Times last Thursday entitled ‘On obeying an erring conscience’. Towards the end of his contribution he asked whether “one who conforms to conscience when it is mistaken (is) nevertheless sometimes morally guilty of the choice”.

To which he says that the answer is “yes” if the error in judgment that led to a choice made in conscience is one’s own fault; as it patently is in the example about the Catholic careless about forming his conscience who “follows his own whims”. He quotes Thomas Aquinas, as a good Dominican should. If the error in judgment is one’s own fault, “one’s choice in accord with an erring conscience is not blameless”.

On all this, Cardinal Newman, who can no longer roll in his grave now that he has joined the ranks of the blessed, would surely wantto reiterate what he had written in his letter (of which everybody knows one sentence) to the Duke of Norfolk .The context is not divorce but still, I think his line of thought applies.

“If in a particular case (conscience) is to be taken as a sacred and sovereign monitor, its dictate… must follow upon serious thought, prayer and all available means of arriving at a right judgment on the matter in question… Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the presence of God, that he must not, and dare not act upon (a) Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it and would commit a great sin in disobeying it.”

But Newman adds: “Prima facie it is his bounden duty, even from a sense of loyalty, to believe the Pope right and to act accordingly. He must vanquish that mean, ungenerous, selfish, vulgar spirit of his nature, which, at the very first rumour of a command, places itself in opposition to the Superior who gives it, asks itself whether he is not exceeding his right, and rejoices, in a moral and practical matter to commence with scepticism. He must have no wilful determination to exercise a right of thinking, saying, doing just what he pleases, the question of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, the duty if possible of obedience, the love of speaking as his Head speaks and of standing inall cases on his Head’s side, being simply discarded.”

Now here’s anoble one

It is just over a year since The Nobel Peace Prize committee took the questionable decision to nominate a person for what he meant to achieve. This embarrassed even the recipient of the award, but a man’s got to do, what a man’s got to do.

Let it be said that there were those who, having found their voice, lauded the decision. In a feature article he contributed to The Tablet at the time, Michael Byers, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, remarked, among other things, that “initially, (he) thought that (Barack) Obama should graciously decline the peace prize’ but later realised that ‘refusing the award would have been inconsistent” – with what, precisely? In retrospect, some of Byers’ assertions display a certain naiveté. For example: “The new President has proven particularly adeptat managing relations with Iran.” Last week he was stirring things up in Lebanon – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not Obama.

This year our Norwegian friends have honoured a Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, and earned the condemnation of the Chinese government, which summoned the Norwegian ambassador in protest, branded Liu a “criminal” (what else?). It informed him that the decision could damage relations with Norway. Oslo has nothing much to worry about on that score; lots of other places to which it can sell its smoked salmon.

Dissidents of note have this effect on their government. The Soviet Union acted in a similar vein when Andrei Sakharov was nominated in 1975 and the Burmese dictatorship hardly fell apart laughing when Aung San Suu Kyi was nominated.

Last year Liu Xiaobo collected an 11-year jail term for “subverting state power” after he drafted a charter calling for multi-party democracy and respect for human rights. This surely serves as a reminder, if one were needed – and it is – that China remains a country ruled by a party dictatorship that has had, over a number of years now, Western government and entrepreneurs grovelling for their economic space under the Chinese sun. Germany asked China to free Liu to attend the ceremony. Watch pigs fly.

Liu has been an active dissident since 1989 – the year of Tiananmen Square, when he actually returned to China from America to be among the protesters. He was arrested and sent to prison for two years; some time after he was released he was sent for “re-education-through labour”, a detestable process that lasted three years and, evidently, failed. After a one-day trial last December, the court handed down an11-year sentence.

Chile conmucha alegria

Impossible not to remark about the return of the 33 Chilean miners from what could have been, so easily, their grave; about their mind-boggling stoicism, their triumph over fear – and fears; as impossible not to be amazed by the ingenuity of their rescue and the solidarity behind it. (Make the capsule that brought them to earth out of the earth a monument to both).

And pleasing to note that all the Cassandresque warnings from the psychiatric fraternity were just that. “All them psychiatrists and experts”, somebody wrote in The DailyTelegraph. “They’re miners, man. Give them a pint and a smoke and they’ll be all right”.

We were all led to believe that as each survivor was hoisted to safety, he would present a dazed and bewildered spectacle. Instead, they left their claustrophobic residence and emerged into the sunshine as though they had never left the land of the living. For two months, their heroic behaviour transformed Chile into the centre of the world.