Bishop questions society's ideal of being rich

The Bishop of Limerick, Dr Donal Murray, has questioned whether being rich is the only ideal put before society. As the Celtic Tiger "lopes majestically through the land", the uneasy question "what is all this for?" presented itself.

When the inadequacy of such an ideal began to dawn, perhaps people would be ready to hear that "we do not live by bread alone".

In an address at the recent opening of the Irish Centre for Faith and Culture in Maynooth published in the January edition of the Furrow magazine, Dr Murray said it was no accident that modern democracies and the EU itself seemed to be marked by a profound disillusionment with the political process.

He noted "a certain rejoicing in the debunking of politicians and heroes, churches and traditions, moral values and past achievements". There was a danger we could find ourselves with no heritage of which to be proud and no foundation on which to stand.

This disillusionment was at least partly due to a context which seemed to say religious views were a private matter and moral views, which were divisive, must not intrude into political life.

European history could hardly allow us to forget the ways in which the pursuit of deep convictions and loyalties could lead to conflict which destroys peace and social justice, Dr Murray said, but "if only the visible, functional aspect of ourselves is relevant to the public arena, then there is no need to seek further to find why our participation in the political process is less than wholehearted".

Pluralism could not be based on the idea that views and attitudes which were to be respected were mere matters of opinion which had no reference to society. "If you think my beliefs are just my idiosyncratic opinions and that I should not let them influence my vision of society, then you are not respecting them, because you are not recognising the significance they have for me," he said.

A society made up of abstractions, "with a life which is lived in the shallows, without roots and without depth", was being risked. What was to stop us arriving at a circumstance where it was believed only that what was profitable was good, what was legal was moral and what was bigger was better?