Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/236916
News maltatoday, Sunday, 5 January 2014 Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna (left) with Archbishop Paul Cremona Auxiliary Bishop's comments fan debate on politicians and morality CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Admitting that morality and politics are not easy neighbours, PN deputy leader Mario de Marco said the Bishop's comments on whether politicians have a moral duty to vote against the civil unions bill could spark an interesting debate. However, he also made it clear that "the main function of a legislator was not to impose his personal opinion on others but to recognise the reality situation in the society he forms part of and regulate such a situation for the greater good." By having a civil unions bill and ultimately a law, de Marco added, one was recognising a state of affairs existing already in society. "The law regulates such a state of affairs and gives a couple rights and obligations against one another," he said. "As things stand today, a gay couple living together has no rights or obligations against one another because their current state of affairs is not recognised by the state. It is as if their relationship does not exist." "One could indeed argue whether it would be immoral to vote against [the bill]," PN deputy leader for parliamentary affairs Mario de Marco said, when contacted for his reaction to Scicluna's statement. He argued that the matter was compounded by the fact that often there was no definition of morality or who was the ultimate arbitrar on what was moral and what was not: "Morality can be absolute or relative. Morality is often considered to belong to the individual. Politics as belonging to the public." Conceding that it was important to have "moral politicians", de Marco noted it was not necessarily a contradiction for a politician to be guided by matters that go beyond individual morality when it comes to legislating. "By way of example, whilst a politician may view gambling as immoral, it does not necessarily mean that such a politician will have a moral duty to vote against legislation that regulates gambling. "For prohibiting gambling may have worse consequences on society than regulating it, because it would ignore the reality and drive it underground making it harder to control." He said that the same argument could be applied to a multitude of different situations. "We certainly lived through the anguish of politics and morality a couple of years ago in the divorce debate." 'Not an ecclesiastical matter' – Minister Civil Liberties Minister Helena Dalli said it was the Church's right to speak according to its teachings but the issue at hand was not an ecclesiastical matter. "This issue has nothing to do with the Church. This is a civil issue, not an ecclesiastical one. We are MPs elected to represent the people first and foremost," she said. Paediatrician and backbencher Chris Fearne pointed out that the right of adoption was "a child's right", while parents adopting were giving a service. He said that as a Catholic MP he listened to what the Church had to say, but this would not be the only consideration he made before taking a decision. "One has to bear in mind that not every citizen holds the same religious beliefs," he said. "As another example, a politician may view gambling as immoral, but this does not mean that they would have a moral duty to vote against legislation that regulates gambling" – Mario de Marco On her part, Labour backbencher Deborah Schembri said she disagreed with the Bishop's comments. "I believe the rights that will be given to gay couples are merely rights they should have been given long ago as human beings. The nature of their intimate relationship with one another is for them to determine. The role of the MP, Catholic or otherwise is to ensure the promotion of equality before the law and basic human rights to all humans without distinction," she said. Schembri said that what was considered to be "gravely immoral" was "being able to prevent years of unnecessary hardship to people and not doing so". The Labour MEP candidate added that gay couples have been able to adopt for years, but not as a couple. "What will be given is a right to be considered for assessment as prospective parents to children and the final decision will always be taken in the children's best interest. Therefore, although I respect the opinion of others, including that of the Auxiliary Bishop, I would be acting against my conscience if I voted against law, not if I voted in favour of it," Schembri said. Opposition leader Simon Busuttil, currently abroad, directed this newspaper to a spokesperson for the PN, who took a more cautious approach to Scicluna's comments, saying that the PN has already taken "a common position" on how it will proceed in the coming stages of the civil union bill. This also includes what amendments it will put forward at committee stage. The PN has said it backed the civil unions bill but is also calling for a social impact assessment on adoptions by gay couples. The amendments it put forward in parliament were two-pronged, with some of the amendments aimed at making a clear distinction between marriage and civil unions and the rest of the amendments aimed removing all references to adoption from the bill. Opposition MPs, including the PN's spokesperson for civil liberties Claudette Buttigieg and MP Jason Azzopardi, declined to comment referring this newspaper to the party's spokesperson. On his part, Nationalist MP Claudio Grech said what the Bishop said reflected the doctrine of the Church. "I am sure that any Catholic MP was already familiar with Article IV of the 2003 considerations," he said. "I feel it is premature to comment on the vote on this bill at this delicate stage." Grech added that the position on the vote in parliament need to be assessed in due course following the consideration of the amendments put forward by the PN. Article IV of the 2003 consideration states that since Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as have "a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." The same document describes homosexual acts as going against natural law because they "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."