An Irish Catholic editorial has claimed that even if the Taoiseach marries his partner, Ms Celia Larkin, it appears the relationship "will not be satisfactory from the point of view of those who subscribe to a more traditional view of morality and society".
The newspaper carries a frontpage news report on an opinion article by Mr Bruce Arnold, a columnist with the Irish Independent, who contends that the Taoiseach's "partnership with Celia Larkin" runs "directly counter to his solemn duties, as head of the Government, in upholding the Constitution".
Mr Arnold argues that Mr Ahern has "a political and legal obligation" to uphold Article 41 of the Constitution, which pledges the State "to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack". The family is described in Article 41 as "the necessary basis of social order and indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State". Mr Arnold raises the possibility of someone seeking from the High Court "an imperative on the Taoiseach to uphold the Constitution", which is arguably "faintly absurd" but not impossible.
The article argues that until recently a government's obligation to uphold the Constitution had "an amorphous character". However, when the McGimpsey brothers took their High Court action on Articles 2 and 3, a "constitutional imperative" was discovered by the Supreme Court, which "laid down that the government was not free to regard its supposed obligations under these two articles - and by implication, under all articles in the Constitution - as aspirational".
While the Irish people had "amended this article to allow for divorce . . . we have not gone further, as I have frequently argued we should have done and redefined the family, so that it embraces new and second families, or even families which are not blessed by any union," he writes.
He concludes that the Taoi seach's failure "to publicly respect his own marriage" should be "a matter of deep offence to those who value family life and the institution of marriage . . . Our Constitution does not allow our politicians, when in power, to give scandal. For that we should be grateful and we should make sure this does not change."
In its editorial, the Irish Catholic argues that if Mr Arnold is right and the Taoiseach is failing to uphold the Constitution's provisions on the family, "then one must fear for those provisions".
According to the editorial, if it became clear to the Taoiseach that "his public relationship with Celia Larkin is constitutionally untenable" then there were only two courses of action open to him: "to divorce and remarry, or to broaden the constitutional definition of the family to include non-marital forms".
The Irish Catholic articles follow a Church of Ireland Gazette editorial last month which described "the sight of Miss Celia Larkin accompanying Mr Ahern at home and abroad as he goes about State business" as "astonishing".
The editorial said it was remarkable that the Taoiseach felt no need to apologise for the public nature of his relationship and "even more remarkable that the Roman Catholic Church, until recently the staunch defender of public morality in this country, has been so silent in this instance".
A Church of Ireland spokeswoman confirmed earlier this month that at least one senior member of the church's clergy had written to the Taoiseach "to say that the editorial was not the official stance of the Church of Ireland, but rather the personal view of the author".
