Who’s in charge here?

There has been some confusion regarding Gozo Bishop Mario Grech's homily last Sunday: the one in which the Bishop once again reiterated the Church's official position against artificial fertility treatment on various theological and non-theological grounds. [note: for reasons of simplicity I shall be using the term 'IVF' to describe all artificial fertility treatments, whether or not they take place 'in vitro'].

There was nothing particular 'new' in what he said last Sunday: nothing that wasn't lifted almost verbatim from various Catholic sources - mostly Papal encyclicals - or stated publicly by other Church exponents. 

So why all the importance suddenly attached to the Catholic Church's views on IVF? And more to the point... why only now?

Everything is in place for the law itself to be finalized by means of a simple vote in the House (though let's face it: there is no longer any such thing as a 'simple' vote, when the government no longer controls a clear majority). And this is the curious situation that Mgr Grech tried - successfully, I would say - to exploit for purely political reasons last Sunday.

Rather than add any new dimension or substance to the argument, Mgr Grech's tirade against IVF was aimed (and timed) specifically to instill a sense of doubt and guilt amongst Catholic MPs when it comes to voting on an issue that will be of direct consequence to a number of citizens, be they Catholic or not.

In practice, it was nothing more than a classic case of political lobbying (and let's face it: if hunters, environmentalists, Armier boathouse-owners and all sorts of other lobby groups can get away with it... I fail to see why the Gozo bishop shouldn't give also give it a shot).

Personally, I won't even bother complaining about the fact that our government is being openly blackmailed on a spiritual level, in order to suppress national legislation on purely religious grounds. But I am slightly concerned at the ease with which such blackmail evidently works; and I am vexed by the knowledge that a law which should really have been passed a year ago or more, has now been postponed indefinitely in spite of broad consensus in the House... simply because the Catholic Church does not approve, and our government seems more concerned with obeying the Church, than which actually governing.

Do I need to spell out why this is represents a clear and present democratic danger, in any self-respecting 21^st century European country? I should hope not; but just in case, this is roughly how it works. As some of you may recall, the present government was democratically elected by means of a popular vote held in 2008. The incoming MPs were all sworn in, one by one, according to our custom - and yes, while God did get his usual perfunctory mention, the oath of office nonetheless very clearly binds its taker's allegiance to the Republic of Malta... and not any other institution or State.

The fact that all these MPs also happen to be Catholic is quite frankly a coincidence. They could very easily all have been Muslim, if history panned out only slightly differently. Whatever their religion, it makes no difference to their oath, which legally binds to legislate in the interest of the people of Malta: not all of whom are necessarily Catholic (and I should, seeing as I myself am one of the non-Catholic ones).

Add all the above observations together, and you will find that the present government's Constitutional legal obligations are very clearly to the people of the Republic Malta... and NOT to the Catholic Church, which:

a) unlike government, is not answerable to the people of Malta;

b) is actually answerable to the Vatican State, which thanks to the Lateran treaty is formally considered a country in its own right, and;

c) will always look after its own interests, even if these are in conflict with those of the Republic.

So personally... yes, I do find it vaguely worrying, when the national parliament of a supposedly sovereign country should so cavalierly abdicate all its Constitutional responsibilities; and instead bow to the will of what is, after all, a foreign power.

And this is exactly what is happening in Malta: not just with IVF, which almost certainly will not be regulated for purely religious reasons; but also in the case of divorce, where the Prime Minister voted against the referendum result last October, because - in his own words, please note - he felt 'bound' by his conscience and its Catholic formation... when in actual fact, he is supposed to be bound by the electorate's will, which urged him in the opposite direction.

Bottom line? Well, the government has to finally make up its mind. Does it consider itself a represent of the Maltese Republic, or of the Catholic Church? It can't be both at the same time, for the simple reason that the two are not interchangeable.