Casuistics is the combination of two words, ‘case’ and ‘ethics’ and refers to the consideration of applied ethics with respect to a particular issue. When the ethical arguments surrounding a particular act are to be considered, three considerations need to be evaluated to decide whether the act is good or bad. One should keep in mind that one is always acting out of full liberty otherwise the dynamics of a case are changed completely.

The first consideration is the moral object. Is the substance of the act good or bad in itself? Killing someone, stealing, lying, cheating on one’s wife or husband, having sex outside marriage, living with another partner outside marriage including having sexual relationships, relationships that are not platonic ones (if these exist at all – Plato’s concept of the ideal was transcendental after all). All these are considered to be objective criteria for rendering the act itself as immoral and, as the name suggests, since they are objective criteria, their nature cannot be changed even by the other two criteria considered below, otherwise a form of relative utilitarianism ensues.

The second criterion is intention. What one’s intention is can modify the guilt and, even if the moral object itself remains bad, the guilt may be reduced. Killing someone accidentally in a car accident does not have the same punishment and associated guilt as killing someone intentionally in a car accident, or a knife for that matter.

The third and final criterion is the circumstances in which the moral object was carried out. Again circumstances do not change the moral objectivity of the act but again may reduce guilt even rendering it nought. Lying to my wife about cheating on her or to my parents or authorities about my covert activities consisting of stealing expensive mobile phones from unsuspecting teens obviously is not in the same guilt league where I lie to an investigating SS officer about the whereabouts of the Jewish girl I have hidden in my home. In the latter case the circumstances remove the guilt completely I should think.

The final arbiter on the integration of these considerations is the well-informed conscience where one meets God in privacy.

I have followed the issue on communion for separated couples living with other partners with interest over the past few months. Many people tell me that they do not really care as they are not interested anyway, but I care about a God who instituted this particular sacrament to be intimate with people, and |I care about people not receiving communion, which sacrament leads to the achievement of eternal life (for those who care).

I particularly relish the advice given by three priests on this matter. Fr Louis Camilleri, former director of the Cana Movement, who advised people to seek a spiritual counsellor who could help them unravel the complexities of their individual ethical case, their own case ethics, which may be very complicated indeed. Fr Paul Pace SJ who asked the Church to consider a pastoral approach to this problem in view of the ever-increasing number of separated couples who may stay away from communion. Mgr Mario Grech who drew attention to the problem of scandal to others who may be making sacrifices to keep themselves in a state of grace. This last matter needs to be given due consideration and there are of course ways and means to deal with this issue. People in general should however also learn to refrain from passing judgement on others, as it is impossible for others to gauge intentions and circumstances adequately although the moral object may be visible to all.

At the end of the day, it all rests on the decision in the personal space of a conscience vis-à-vis God, a conscience that is well informed and advised by a wise and experienced spiritual counsellor. Refusing communion to these people should not even be considered as an issue in this case.

Dr Michael Asciak MD

BIRKIRKARA