Ethical challenges

Perhaps more than ever before, parliamentarians are today facing issues having important ethical considerations. Matters such as euthanasia, gay marriages, abortion, divorce and bio-ethics create big moral dilemmas everywhere, but this is perhaps especially so in Catholic Malta. Though according to Church teachings these are all on the same level from an ethical perspective, from a secular standpoint this is not necessarily so.

The predicament facing parliamentarians is, therefore, far greater than it would seem. On one hand Malta is a secular state and therefore Parliament has to cater for the needs and morality of all our country's citizens, even if these profess different faiths or none at all.

On the other hand, our Constitution declares that the official religion is the Roman Catholic religion. On account of this fact and even more so on account of the oath of allegiance to the Constitution parliamentarians take, one cannot simply ignore this statement engrained in the Constitution.

Respecting the official state religion doesn't merely signify the paying of lip service. On the other hand, Malta is no fundamental religious state and therefore parliamentarians also have a moral duty to uphold the secularity of our government.

Politicians have to distinguish between two aspects of morality. There are those that have a purely religious disposition or merely a religious undertone, and those that are universally acknowledged even by those sectors of society which do not embrace the state religion.

In this respect we must emphasise that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religious practice and therefore Parliament cannot impose Christian values on others in an arbitrary fashion. However, parliamentarians who also happen to be practising Roman Catholics cannot ignore capriciously directives emanating from the Vatican on the way they should vote or pronounce themselves on certain issues.

This context makes it easier to appreciate the pressures and difficulties Catholic politicians across Europe encounter where these ethical problems are being heatedly debated.

It is in this context that the proposals being made by the Justice and Interior Minister regarding abortion have to be considered.

The Minister is proposing nothing less than entrenching abortion as a criminal offence under all circumstances in the Constitution. As expected, while nearly everybody is in favour of the notion of preserving abortion as a criminal offence in Criminal Code, this majority shrinks when it comes to entrenching this criminal offence in the Constitution. It must be pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution do we find any offence so entrenched and. Abortion will be the exception.

One can appreciate the Minister's preoccupation, however, with the fact that there may come a time when due to changes in social attitudes, which could also be the result of external pressures, Parliament would feel inclined to repeal this offence from the Criminal Code. He therefore aims at preserving this status quo indefinitely.

On the Labour Party's side, the spokesman for social affairs, Marie Louise Coleiro, has already gone on record that she will back such a move wholeheartedly. This notwithstanding, there are parliamentarians who would disagree and who would insist that it is nonsensical to insert in the Constitution certain criminal offences.

Their reasoning could be that it is not politically correct to bind tomorrow's generations with today's moral values. MEP John Attard Montalto went so far as to vote in favour of a motion encouraging the liberalisation of abortion.

Generally, however, the vast majority of parliamentarians from both sides of the House seem to agree with the Minister's initiative.

I make a clear distinction between what is ethically correct behaviour from a religious perspective and what is regarded as incorrect behaviour even from a secular standpoint.

Without sounding too judgmental, I tend to agree with those who say that aborting child is intrinsically heinous and that the state is correct in wanting to protect the rights of the unborn child.

Although, perhaps entrenching such rights in a Constitution might appear far-fetched and extreme, and maybe, even unnecessary, if ever I were to be faced with such a motion in Parliament I would in all probability feel morally obliged to vote in favour.

Regarding other burning issues, these are surely pleasures yet to come. After giving their due consideration, parliamentarians will have to vote according to their conscience in the prevailing circumstances.

Dr Herrera is a Labour MP.