In the current controversy following Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino’s words about the course which judges should follow with regard to divorce proceedings, a very serious consideration has been made which cannot be left unanswered.
This is that once a legitimate government enacts laws in Parliament in the constitutionally correct manner, judges should always apply them even if they are diametrically opposed to their deeply held beliefs and consciences, which, in this particular case – divorce – pertains to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic religion which our Constitution declares as being the religion of Malta.
A short look at history quickly disproves the veracity of this statement.
Henry VIII was a legitimate king and this historical fact cannot be disputed. At a moment in time he felt that he had to enact laws which would have made him head of the Church in England. Nearly all the English bishops sided with him. The few who did not, like John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, and Thomas More, Chancellor of the realm and a layman, paid with their lives for their refusal to be the king’s servants having chosen God first.
In more recent times the shameful behaviour of the judiciary in Nazi Germany comes to mind.
During the elections held in 1932, the Nazis were the largest single party to be elected. After having tried various options, President Paul von Hindenburg, in January 1933, reluctantly accepted Hitler as his chief minister.
Thus the Nazis had gained power by democratic means and to all intents and purposes theirs was a legitimate government.
The German judges, even those who did not harbour Nazi sympathies, reasoned that since this was a legitimate government they had no option but to apply the laws that it enacted, no matter how heinous they were.
The judges were the only ones who could possibly collectively have stopped the Nazis but to their eternal shame, they did not.
Catholics in this country, as elsewhere, are being repeatedly faced with a choice. The first is that of a continuous compromise with the tenets of their faith, which leads them to justify words and actions that go against God’s immutable laws.
Sadly many are those who find refuge and legitimacy for this in the vagueness, ambiguity and confusing statements of some of our clergy (who risk losing their credibility) in order to go on living lives which cut them off from the grace emanating from Christ, the source of all joy and happiness in this life. This is the wide gate that Christ talked about and which He said many will choose eventually leading them to perdition. On the other hand there is the narrow gate which Christ said few would choose. It is torturous and hard and it was the road He took. It means living one’s faith to the full, despite frailties and continuous falls, refusing compromise even if the price to pay is hard. Remembering the Lord’s words that, “What does it profit a man if he wins the whole world and then loses his life?” makes it all worthwhile and surprisingly easier.