Simon Oosterman takes me to task for mixing the definition of solstice and equinox in my last letter. The error is, of course, regretted and shows that my knowledge of astronomy is not so acute. Unfortunately, however, the rest of his letter points towards his lack of any acute knowledge of biology and medical embryology. His assertions that the early human embryo is similar to any clump of cells removed in any operation, make two very common mistakes. The first is that no distinction is made between the concept of a living cell and a living organism. There are several single-cell organisms in nature that are self-moving and propagating, such as an amoeba. The human being is composed of millions of cells, but there was a time when the number was just one or a couple. As any embryologist will tell you, there is a difference between a human skin cell and a human single-cell embryo! One has the potency to develop to adulthood, the other does not. Individuality of the human being is established during fertilisation. The second mistake is that he fails to look around him and observe the results of 4,000 years of human history and recorded culture. Common sense should tell him that he ought to respect members of his own species even if at the one cell stage from which he himself developed several years ago. That is unless his personal liberal agenda is so extreme, as to lean towards a form of existentialism where he becomes completely divorced from the cultural past of humanity itself.

The main thrust of my piece today, however, is about something completely different but related in a way. Many people are suggesting that, in view of adopting more liberal views, the PN should remove its motto of Religio et Patria as it is a relic of a cantankerous past. I for one disagree. This motto was never meant to signify that the party had any political confessional agenda. It is meant to highlight the Christian principles and popular national agenda that the party has always held to its heart, even arising from the Maltese particular situation at the time. It does not signify that the party has ever given up its political agenda of a liberal democracy, it simply signifies that the party should conduct its affairs according to public and personal values derived from Christianity, especially the cardinal and heavenly virtues. Different times call for different mentalities, and the development of natural law through the study of science shows us how to interpret things differently to the way in which they were interpreted in the past, but the research material I have read also shows that the worse thing a Christian Democratic party can do is to cut its links to its Christian roots! It would then really lose its soul and its votes would follow suit! Imagine the German CDU changing its name because a more liberal agenda is called for!

The biggest issue I see now is that people are asking for a bigger share of their own moral decision-making. The party should have no problem with providing this space, as long as the national interest – that is the common good – is preserved. It’s the Devlin vs Hart debate all over again, 50 years later. While one argues for social restraint and the other for more personal space for decision-making, they both agree that the common good needs to be preserved above all else. The quickest way by which the common good can be lost, is by allowing aspects of positive law to counter those of the natural law which precede it and in the light of which it needs to be interpreted. I am currently reading a good book by the American jurist Hadley Arkes who shows that, during the Great Depression, many American states sought to counter the depression by passing positive laws, badly re-interpreting many aspects of the American Constitution which were based on natural law. These were re-interpreted in the light of the then bad situation, often leading to decisions that simply made matters worse. People in Minnesota, for example, were pardoned in respect of their obligation to pay back any borrowed money, with the consequence that the money required for the right investment needed to counter the effects of the depression, such as those leading to more employment opportunities, became extremely difficult to obtain at reasonable interest rates.

In my opinion, the important thing to maintain is that any development in the agenda of the liberal democratic state should not alter the precepts of natural law from which any positive law is derived by our parliament. Issues associated with personal sexual choices, which will now become high on the political agenda, need to always respect this case. One issue which is obviously pressing, and which has been for some time, is the relationship between same-sex couples and other similar relationships. I believe that the state should cater for the recognition of a legal civil union between such couples for several reasons, which I do not have the space to go into here. However, this should not be called a “marriage”, otherwise one ought to expect a redefinition of marriage, which might counter the natural law in essence!

Michael Asciak MD