In his postface to the book Il-Liġi, il-Morali u r-Raġuni, Peter Serracino Inglott spoke of “that sort of schizophrenia which leads one to act at variance with one’s beliefs”. Il-Liġi, il-Morali u r-Raġuni is a long conversation, published in book form, between former Chief Justice Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici and yours truly; Serracino Inglott was praising Mifsud Bonnici by implication for living according to his beliefs.
Serracino Inglott undoubtedly had a subtle mind, equipped with vast knowledge, and it is a pity that he has still not been studied enough. The only published work I am aware of which analyses Serracino Inglott’s thoughts is Mario Vella’s Reflections in a Canvas Bag, of 1989.
Serracino Inglott viewed himself as a clown, who I understand as the incarnation of the joke made in the spirit of the sadness engendered by curiosity. If you are curious, you set out to seek knowledge, and when you find that it is impossible to harness all there is to know, you become sad, and then joke about it. Or, if you cannot joke about it, you simply fall silent. Not because you would have said all there’s to say, but because you realise that some things you simply cannot talk about. Mostly because language is not sophisticated enough to deal with everything.
Sometimes, the sadness can be due to the fact that you know that there is no real audience for your joke. A joke is like a neurotic question: it maddeningly needs an answer. The implied question is: “Isn’t the potentially sad situation described in the joke in reality funny?” If the audience agrees, then it answers by laughing, and a cathartic moment follows. If no answer is forthcoming, then the joke, which was meant to elicit hilarity, ends up being a vehicle for sadness. Sometimes, the joke is not a vehicle but is itself sad, because there is no audience for it, and it remains an unanswered question.
I think that when Serracino Inglott appeared before the Parliamentary Committee, he could have chosen to remain silent on embryo freezing. Instead, he chose to talk and I suspect he was playing an intellectual joke, which has to be partly understood in the context of his relationship at the time with the party then in government.
Christianity and Catholic dogma
The joke could also be understood in the light of the fact that in the Middle Ages, for almost 500 years, Catholic dogma was that the embryo joined humanity only when its limbs had formed. Before that moment, it was considered first like a vegetable then like an animal. (Reminds you of the famous “embryo is not a human being” insight.) In the Middle Ages, there were those who believed this moment happened on the fortieth day, others on the eightieth. Ironically, it would seem that it was Martin Luther who believed that humanity was there from the moment of conception. In a classic example of “double irony”, Luther is a hero for certain elements within the Labour Party: Lutheranism is associated with Modernity which, in turn, is associated with anti-Catholicism.
For a long time, the Protestant idea that humanity is there from the very beginning was considered heresy. It was only in the 17th century that a papal physician called Paulus Zacchias declared that the embryology supporting that particular idea was sound science. For all those who speak about dogma, intolerance, and what not, there you have it. Modern Catholicism accepted a Lutheran idea which had at first been considered heretical. Modern Catholicism abandoned the very same medieval idea being advocated by the present government.
But things are even more complicated. The argument about the moment when a human being joins humanity had been going on since antiquity. The Stoics believed in humanity at birth; Aristotle, on reaching a certain stage of embryonic development.
Therefore, the argument is absolutely not new. What has changed is that in the mid-20th century, technological advancement made it possible to terminate pregnancies without major risk to the mother’s health. But the philosophical argument has been raging for more than two thousand years, and the medieval position was identical to the position taken by this Liberal-Progressive Government of ours.
The Role of Science
The notion that Modern Science therefore defeats Christianity is preposterous. The argument harks back to pre-Christian, pre-Modern, pre-Scientific Age times!
It is essentially a pre-Christian, pre-Modern philosophical argument, and cold-hearted to boot. It completely bypasses compassion, the hallmark of Christianity. Just recall the story of the Good Samaritan, the principle that the Law is made for Man not Man for the Law, Jesus’ approach towards the adulteress and other “sinners”, and so on – and you will find that, like other utopian philosophies, Christianity hinges on the quintessential value of Compassion.
(I am purposely avoiding controversy by treating Christianity simply as an ethical system.)
Science clearly is not an ethical system. As Max Weber argued in Science as a Vocation, science can teach neither values nor why one should hold to such values.
Science is mostly descriptive; what we make of that description belongs to philosophy. Two friends look at the skies on a cloudless night; one sees distant suns or lonely planets, the other sees next year’s horoscope; when they spot shooting stars, one sees meteoroids while the other sees the opportunity to express a wish.
Embryo freezing and abortion
The IVF procedure fulfils the wish of people to beget children, and this is the most wonderful thing in the world. It should not, however, engender ethical problems, such as the freezing of embryos and their destiny.
One consequence of freezing embryos is that it paves the way for the introduction of, at least, early-term abortion.
Many pro-abortion arguments I have heard or read seem to me child-like. “My body, my choice” and other similar battle cries seem like children who want to play football but then won’t bear the responsibility if they break a windowpane. They are the arguments of people who want to extend childhood as much as possible, who are afraid of growing up.
My personal library (4)
Philippa Pearce’s Tom Midnight Garden (1958) is a book for children about a boy, Tom, who want to grow up as late as possible and an old lady whom he befriends as a girl when they meet in the “midnight garden”, is a magical extension of the old lady’s dreams about her childhood. As the story progresses, the girl grows into a young lady who falls in love with a young man and they get married, whereas Tom remains a boy. Later, in a truly moving scene, Tom meets the old lady in the real world and they resume their friendship. Perhaps Tom will grow up, after all.
Like good children’s novels, it can be understood on different levels. There is the story for children, of magic and friendship, and the fear of growing up. Who has never been asked by a child, “What do grown-ups do?” or “What’s it like to be a grown-up?” Then there’s the story of the adult reading the book with the child, and it can have two meanings: post-war Britain looking at her Victorian past (but this is not pertinent here), and, well... grown-ups who want to remain children all their lives, and avoid their responsibilities.