St Augustine says that the definition of peace is ‘a tranquil state of order’. If the referendum on divorce proved anything last week, it is that we have matured enough to solve our differences in an orderly tranquil and therefore peaceful manner. This is to the merit of all the different parties involved, which shows that we have come a long way in the past few years in the art of problem resolution without creating any crises, as has often happened in the not too distant past. Like it or not, the civil mandate to introduce divorce was clear and, as we are all living in a democratic state, that result has to be respected by all.

There seems to be a quandary how people ought to vote in Parliament after the referendum result. First of all, MPs are not deputies they are representatives, which allows them to vote on issues according to the guidance of their consciences not simply on their voters’ demands.

They are however representatives in a democratic state where the will of the people is sovereign. How does one reconcile the two issues ethically? The answer is simple. Those who believe conscientiously in divorce entering the statute books now have a clear mandate to vote in favour.

Those that conscientiously are against have two options. They may vote against the introduction of divorce, which I strongly counsel against, being that the public mandate is clear and that divorce is a specific civil right. They may also abstain, which I believe is the consistent way forward. I also believe that MPs have a right to explain their vote after the vote is held. They should then declare their reasons for their abstention whatever it may be. The Speaker should grant this right and the reasons noted for posterity.

I think that the result was not a mitigated disaster for the ‘no’ camp. There are lessons for all to learn. That nearly half the voting population had expressed concern about the effects divorce might have on the intrinsic nature of our society is a very good thing. There are also a large number of those who for their reasons did not vote or who abstained, whose sentiments were still against divorce but chose because of their own circumstances, to remain silent. There are others who simply do not care! I fear these last more than those who cared enough to say yes!

The Church too needs to take things in its stride without losing its centre of gravity. First of all, the Church has a mandate from Christ, so there is nothing to be ashamed of even if people in general have rejected this position. The issue for the Church, now that we have decided to emulate Moses, was never ecclesiology but being faithful to the gospel, which is very clear on this issue! It is now just a matter of re-orienting the nature of its witnessing. Whereas this nature was previously more public and upheld by the state, it now has to enter more deeply into the private sphere. Those Catholics who believe in the non-dissolution of marriage should now be strong witnesses to society about their determination to make their marriages work notwithstanding any problems that might crop up. The Church has to help them in this with its profound support. Those whose marriages break down also need to be counselled and supported by the Church, even those who actually choose to divorce and remarry.

The Apostolate in this respect now needs to be taken to a higher level. We ought to be more respectful of other people’s decisions. Maybe God allowed the whole issue to develop so that our witnessing should become more personally oriented and ultimately founded on a personal, rather than a more public, relationship with him. God craves for intimacy even with those whose circumstances and intentions lead them to choose the wrong moral object. Maybe he does so to a greater degree with the latter than with the former. However, he does take grave issue with those who do not care, the lukewarm.

I have read recent comments concerning the intentions of holding a referendum on the issue of IVF. I counsel against this for several reasons. First, the issue concerns a fundamental right to human life, not only a civil right to do IVF, which has in effect been occurring civilly in the private sphere unregulated for these last 20 years. Secondly, in the two parliamentary committees set up in 2005 and last year, there is much convergence on many of the social issues. The final stumbling block is the freezing and the subsequent disposal of embryos, which is an issue of a fundamental right to life. Not referendum material.

Science has now provided us with a solution to this problem that is in consonance with our specific culture and history as a Maltese people and there is increasingly a way of convergence open for those who want it. This involves the selection and freezing of ova rather than that of embryos, which is in effect eugenic practice at its best. Our best practice scenario ought to be ideally worked out showing respect to our specific culture, as has happened in several other European countries. Simply trying to solve ethical issues involving human beings through empirical solutions alone, ignoring 4000 years of culture and history, is as fallacious as trying to solve purely empirical scientific issues using morality!

Michael Asciak MD

BIRKIRKARA