Archbishop Charles Scicluna is a leader in society who deserves respect and recognition for the bold and courageous stands he took so far. He has stood up to be counted on several issues, from hunting to the environment and to civil liberties. The brutal attacks on the Archbishop by the GWU’s newspaper L-Orizzont and former GWU secretary general Tony Zarb are not just condemnable but reinforce the sympathy and respect this newspaper has for the Archbishop.
However, this doesn’t mean that we stand to agree on all that Scicluna has to say. Last Sunday’s homily in Siġġiewi, promptly delivered on the eve of the opening of Parliament which was set to debate the Marriage Equality bill, is a case in which the Archbishop spoke in rhetoric with little, if any, consideration to those who form part of the Roman Catholic Church, notwithstanding the realities they live, forced on them by nature.
We do not expect the Archbishop to give the new legislation his blessing and declare marriage between same sex couples as acceptable by the teachings of the Church. No one actually expects him to go there and neither should he refrain from bringing forward the arguments on which the Church’s position is based. But what the Archbishop shouldn’t have done is to bring forward arguments which tend to hurt and alienate other members of the Church.
The Archbishop retaliated that God created marriage exclusively for man and woman to conceive children together. How does the Archbishop reconcile this stand with married couples that cannot bear the fruit of their marriage? Is he suggesting that they are children of a lesser god?
The Archbishop said that “whatever one says a man cannot conceive children with another man and so is the case between two women unless technology interferes.” But besides stating the obvious he went further by claiming, “the use of technology is a tragedy because children are a gift by God and shouldn’t be wanted at all costs.”
Is the Archbishop aware of the gravity of such a statement? Doesn’t the Archbishop understand and empathise with couples who desperately need to rear children, to give them the love they deserve and to raise them in God’s faith? What is the difference between a child conceived through IVF and a naturally conceived one? Why should humans discard their god sent intelligence to enhance pro-creation for the good of society? Wasn’t the man who doubled his talents in Jesus’ parable rewarded with God’s favour?
The Archbishop cannot, in today’s world, turn marriage into something exclusive to those who can bear children. Even if this is not his intention, he needs to weigh his words as these hit hard at vulnerable couples that genuinely follow the teachings of the church, despite the fact that they cannot have children naturally.
The argument extends to gay couples being able to adopt. When one considers the fact that church institutions have raised so many happy children into honest citizens it is hard to understand why two men and/or two women cannot do the same. Each case needs to be dealt with by the state and couples that want to adopt should be considered only if the adoption suits the child. This is not a gender issue but one, which places the child at the centre of the decision.
It is sad to observe that when faced with such important legislation the Archbishop showed a lack of regard in his choice of words. We understand that he needs to be firm with the teachings of the church but an inclusive church cannot distinguish between those who have the privilege to conceive naturally and those who need technology to assist them. The womb doesn’t rank before the brain amongst organs. If human intelligence provided options for couples to bear the fruit of their marriage than we should be celebrating God’s gift of the brain and thank those scientists who used their talent to help God’s creations.