That dreaded guilt trip

That awful ‘guilt’ of being bad, we Catholics have all been brought up with, rears its nasty head all over again. With the referendum D Day set at May 28, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech is at it once more, “When the personal judgment of a Catholic disagreed with the teachings of Christ as delivered by the Church, that Catholic would not be free of guilt”, he said at the Xewkija parish church last Sunday.

He was of course talking about divorce. I am not sure how many in Xewkija are mulling over the option, but really the message was intended for a much wider audience. Guilt is something the Church uses to cower the faithful and has nothing to do with Christ’s teachings. It has a lot to do with some of the neuroses Catholics, as well as, perhaps even more, Jews (I am thinking of Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s complaint and Woody Allen’s films) suffer from.

The latest guilt trip is being laid on anyone in Malta who might consider that divorce is not such a bad thing per se and might be what some people will actually benefit from. “Divorce and any legal measures that break down a marriage are intrinsically bad since they go against God’s will”, said Bishop Grech. Hang on a minute though; does not a Church annulment give the green light to ‘break down a marriage’? So is that intrinsically bad too?

What really baffles me is how the anti divorce brigade do not see that Church annulments also sanction the break up of families. I had previously referred to an interesting online comment from Mgr.Victor Zammit McKeon quoting from the Compendium of the Catholic Church, which shows that when comparing state divorce to a Church annulment the result is the same. A married couple is allowed to remarry another partner.

“The Church permits the physical separation of spouses when for serious reasons their living together becomes practically impossible, even though there may be hope for their reconciliation.
“As long as one’s spouse lives, however, one is not free to contract a new union, (and here comes the interesting bit) except if the marriage be null and be declared so by ecclesiastical authority.”

So married couples are allowed to remarry but only when sanctioned by the Church. But surely if divorce breaks up families so do annulments. Yet, last October, during Mass marking the start of the forensic year, Judicial Vicar Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino, the head of the Church tribunals, which examine petitions for marriage annulments, told those attending “those who cooperate in the introduction of divorce, including judges who apply the law, would be “committing a grave sin”.

His message was a bit confused, however, on the one hand he called on members of the judiciary and lawyers to desist from taking part in divorce proceedings and be conscientious objectors, while on the other he said, “The lawyer who takes up the case of the innocent party is doing nothing wrong”. But surely the latter would still be part of divorce proceedings.

Describing the “grave sin” threat as “a medieval imposition”, retired judge Philip Sciberras said “I am a practising Catholic but I believe the state is obliged to regulate such situations by introducing laws. Members of the judiciary should not object to hear divorce cases because of some medieval imposition.”

He was not the only critic other former judges and lawyers condemned the threat. Former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello drew a clear distinction between the civil aspect of marriage and its sacramental dimension.

“Mgr Said Pullicino has every right to say a judge of the civil courts has no jurisdiction on the sacrament of marriage but in our country marriage is also a civil contract. A judge in the civil courts deciding on the dissolution of marriage as a civil contract is in no way entering into religious matters. This distinction has to be made,” Judge Bonello told The Times at the time.

Fr Charlo’ Camilleri, a university lecturer in theology, was another of Mgr Said Pullicino’s critics, “In the context of the pastoral note of the bishops on the divorce debate, I personally find it very imprudent, to say the least, for such comments to be made by a high ranking official of the Church, since on this issue, the bishops never threatened anyone – let alone the judiciary, whose independence is a requisite of the Rule of Law – with sin,” he said.

But, we have had threats from Bishop Grech before, no specifically mentioning “sin” but strong stuff nonetheless. In February last year he linked abortion to divorce “Where the family is united, pregnancy is likely to be accepted and celebrated, but where the family is broken, such as in the case of divorced parents, there is a higher probability that life is refused and threatened.” And although he did not mention sin in his last homily his threat was pretty clear.

“The official stand of the Church is only a prerogative of the local bishops,” Fr Camilleri said, pointing out that the bishops had been stressing dialogue and the formation of conscience over “a divisive crusader mentality”. That was in reference to the Zebbug Parish priest who started his own crusade with a huge poster on his church’s parvis - “Divorce: God doesn’t want it” in July.

In August, the Curia’s Pro-Vicar, Mgr Anton Gouder said on RTK that convinced Catholics who voted in favour of divorce would be going against Christ’s teachings and “this was a sin”, while adding “it did not mean people would be excommunicated from the Church”.

What that means is that the Church does not want to lose followers, but wants them to feel bad if they don’t follow its dictate. The Church has been giving mixed messages over the issue all along. On the one hand it endorsed a position paper on divorce, drawn up by seven of its most prominent priests, which while stating that divorce was wrong, said Catholics could vote for divorce so long as they did this on the basis of a “formed and informed conscience”.

But last Sunday the Gozo bishop made it very clear
“When a Catholic formed a judgment of conscience about marriage and all that was connected to it, he had as guidance the Commandments and Christ’s words. These asserted that any legal measures that break down marriage, such as divorce, as well as adultery were intrinsically bad as they were directly opposing God’s will”, he said.

I loved Ramon Casha’s comment online: “Church: You should vote according to your conscience.
Bishop Grech: Yes, but if your conscience disagrees with me you're gonna burn in hell for all eternity. So, no pressure.”

First of all divorce and adultery are two separate entities and different in that many marriages have survived adultery and it is not always the reason for seeking a divorce. Bishop Grech is hell bent on promoting the fear of God; he said “if one consciously breached moral law, he also breached his relationship with God”.

But whose moral law exactly? Has the bishop got a direct line to God like the parish priest of Zebbug? As far as I know the last time God reputedly had a conversation with a mortal was way back at Mount Sinai with Moses, after he led the people of Israel out of Egypt, when the 10 Commandments were delivered.

Divorce was not mentioned. The 7th Commandment told us “You shall not commit adultery” and part of the 10th “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife.” That of course should include not coveting your neighbour’s husband as well. Anyway, neither of them requires a divorce to commit and have been going on ever since with or without divorce.

We have had sin, guilt and being intrinsically bad, thrown at us, not to mention the linking of divorce with abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia.
A Times letter writer told us on April fools’ day: “Wherever I have travelled, to countries that have legalised divorce and abortion, those working to reverse pro-abortion laws all identify that pivotal moment in their history when they irrevocably weakened the family by legalising divorce.

“They recognise that important event as being the beginning of the downward trend that led to legalised abortion and in some cases euthanasia.
The link between the divorce way of thinking and abortion is there for all who bother to look; it remains an inconvenient link for some but it is there.”

Why does The Times publish such balderdash, or was the date of publication deliberate?