Defending God’s laws

Thu, May 17th 2012, 09:07 Last updated on 17/5/12

I fully agree with Martin Scicluna when he, in an authoritative tone, asserts that, in last year’s divorce referendum result, “the real losers, sadly, were the Maltese Church” (April 21). But I utterly disagree when he gives as a reason “through its bullying tactics”. I rather believe it was due to lack of explaining to people the “heresy” of divorce, preferring not to embark on “crusades”!

"

... Not only politicians but all other classes of Christians are to abide by the laws of God and Church- Mgr Anton Gauci, Victoria

"

Again, in an authoritative tone, Mr Scicluna takes Bishop Mario Grech and my poor self to task, asserting that we “appear to have learnt nothing and forgotten everything from last year’s experience”. Does he expect we do not defend the Church’s teachings?

Of course, the Church holds no “monopoly on establishing the moral foundations of society”. These have long ago been established by God, very much before the Church itself came into existence. But it is to the Church that Christ entrusted the preaching of these same “moral foundations”, definitely not to my friend and ilk.

No, the Church is not “a human institution, like any other”, but one divine established by Christ. Not if they want to remain Christian, is “the ultimate responsibility for the kind of society” to be adopted in the hands of parliamentarians, whether in Malta or elsewhere in the entire globe! I am sure Mr Scicluna agrees with me, not to say with Pope Benedict XVI, head of Italian Episcopal Conference Cardinal Bagnasco and Bishop Grech, when I write that “the sovereign will of the people” is definitely not above that of Almighty God!

I know not on what authority Mr Scicluna has noted that Mgr Grech and I “think they know the will of God”, unless it be that he is fully sure that we are merely and simply following the unerring teachings of God’s Church in its infallible Magisterium! I believe he has gone very much afar when he noted that we think that we “have an obligation to impose” the will of God “by all means on the unwilling”. God Himself has made it clear that He leaves it to man’s hands to choose between life and death (SIR. 15, 17)!

I know not how justified Mr Scicluna is when he accuses Bishop Grech of launching “a scathing attack on in vitro fertilisation”. Mgr Grech was simply giving us the Church’s teachings.

I am not inclined to agree with Mr Scicluna when, in a judging tone, he accuses Bishop Grech of “straying from his belief as a prelate into the world of politics”. The sphere of politicians, no less than that of other professions for that matter, is always under that of pastors in matters touching conscience and Divine Law. As quoted by me, Pope Benedict has also touched the sphere of parliamentarians. Will Mr Scicluna also accuse Pope Benedict? I had quoted Pope Benedict most clearly!

Posing as a judge, Mr Scicluna accuses both Bishop Grech and my poor self of “unwisely taking a side-swipe at politicians”. When Bishop Grech, like Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bagnasco, spoke of “politicians”, he restricted himself to the sphere of a “pastor of souls” – in which case absolutely no category of servants or members of society ceases to fall under his responsibility. No? Yes, not only politicians but all other classes of Christians are to abide by the laws of God and Church. And if they fail to do so, it is always sinful hypocrisy to receive Holy Communion. I do not dare say that Mr Scicluna too easily judges and accuses of “blinded by their own self-righteousness” and of “losing sight of charity, compassion and tolerance”.

“Losing sight of charity, compassion and tolerance” when a shepherd, as duty bound, opens the eyes of his sheep? In our case it is absolutely no such matter, but solely that of a spiritual pastor opening the eyes of the faithful, as in duty bound before God.

Suffice it for Mr Scicluna to read the Bible in order to hold that the end absolutely justifies not the means, also in cases of non-Christians who are always creatures of the Almighty and come under His Divine Law. This last remark is in connection with Mr Scicluna’s last two paragraphs.

Thank you very sincerely, my friend, for having given me the opportunity to do my duty and defend God’s laws and those of Mother Church!