I very much believe that those who are expecting the Church to come out strongly in the future and enter the political fray on bioethical issues, bar issues regarding the fundamental right to life such as abortion and euthanasia, are about to be very disappointed. This is not because the Church is changing or diluting its Magisterium, but because of a change of emphasis on personal morality laid down by the second Vatican Council itself.
Josef Fuchs takes his cue from St Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (7) in which he distinguishes that which “matters above all” from that “which also matters”. What matters above all is ‘The Fundamental Option’, belonging to Christ, meaning a person’s very personal choice to follow Christ and enter into a strong personal relationship with him. This, Fuchs and others (eg Rahner) say, is essential for our salvation, a fundamental choice and commitment, preceding and above everything else!
Because of this personal fundamental choice to follow Christ, there should rationally follow a particular method of behaviour – often written down and coded within the Church’s Magisterium – which, being the Church’s, may always be subject to change. However, with human beings and the world being what they are, this does not always happen and human beings often find themselves faced with circumstances which may lead them to behave differently to the Magisterium’s rules and possibly also to sin.
For a Christian, however, what remains fundamental to his salvation is the Fundamental Option itself. In his book The Acting Person, Karol Wojtyla states explicitly that when we pray in the Our Father “Deliver us from evil (moral evil)” do we mean freedom of the person from evil, that is from being personally wicked (a sinner) or freedom of the person’s various acts from evil? Many would agree that it is a prayer of deliverance from personal wickedness, which refers to the former position.
One can see here a fundamental position reflected often by Pope Francis himself, not to over-emphasise so much a person’s individual moral act choices but to emphasise, to underline, to seek out, to potentially induce a person’s intentional choices towards building on the Fundamental Option itself! Let me make myself more clear with examples. A person with a strong homosexual orientation may make personal choices that could contradict the Church’s teaching Magisterium and natural law itself, teachings which it is obliged to promulgate. However, the Church should not be so willing to over-react to such behaviour, which moral act itself could either be sinful or may have the guilt completely mitigated by circumstances, if the person concerned is still open to making a fundamental option for Christ, which will ultimately save him or her.
Another example, about which people often speak to me, is the fact that their adult children in long-term relationships often sleep with their fiancé/ée before marriage itself. Although not strictly innocuous or in line with the moral rule book, this does not really fall under the same moral choices of the frivolous behaviour found in fornication itself. Again, what would be essential here is the fundamental option of both of those involved. One can see now that it is no longer such a clear-cut option for the Church to be so categorical on certain issues. At the end of the day, however, we tend to miss the point that, finally, we ourselves are the Church! What can we opt to do to help others not only choose the Fundamental Option itself but also help them live their lives according to the moral choices that should emanate from this fundamental decision?
In the recent adoption by same-sex couples debacle, an obvious infringement of the natural rights of the child, the PN found itself in a corner forced upon it by Joseph Muscat’s PL effectively silencing those in its party who were not at all happy with the situation. This in itself is a source of moral shame, where conscientious objection has been ridden-over rather haphazardly. Man should be made of sterner stuff!
The PN will now be repetitively subjected to further cornerings of this type. Mark my words, the next issue will be a changing of the IVF law to include sperm or ova donation so that our children may gratuitously have three or four parents with the result that we may confuse them even more than we are currently doing today!
I do not think that the PN can keep on abstaining forever on these issues. It should not fear to proactively discuss any impending bioethical issues in an open manner and have policy documents set out on all these impending issues before they actually come about. Being pro-active does not hurt. The General Council should be deeply involved in all this. It was not consulted at all on the issue of adoption! After all, the party is not composed solely of its MPs and counsel from the party’s roots should be always sought.
Once the party has its policy position laid out on particular issues, then its MPs would be expected to follow suit. There may, however, be issues not purely of taste, but of conscience, and once this is seriously – not frivolously – invoked, I would rather allow these people to vote freely than force everyone to vote the same! We do, however, have an obligation to the common good, which is not very adequately met by abstention or pork-barrel legislation!
What we have just experienced is a taste of things to come. We should guide people towards the common good, show them that we stand for it and act accordingly without, at the end of the day, making too much of a fuss about those who decide to fundamentally go another way.
[email protected]