Rite and Reason: The role of the Catholic should be to witness non-negotiable principles in public and political life, writes Vincent Twomey.
Vaclav Havel, recently retired president of the Czech Republic, once identified the existential source of the malaise of contemporary politics, be it in the capitalist West or the communist East.
This was, he said, the tendency of politicians to consign their conscience to the bathroom, to separate their private convictions from their public commitments. Morality is thus privatised, banished from the public realm. Politics necessarily becomes a naked power game because concepts of right and wrong have been abandoned.
This cultural phenomenon is not the product of chance. It is due to the influence of various schools of thought, the most obvious being relativism, which only recently has been subject to criticism by modern thinkers.
As Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at Johns Hopkins University, perceptively commented: "Relativism - the doctrine that maintains that all values are merely relative and which attacks all 'privileged perspectives' - must ultimately end up undermining democratic and tolerant values as well."
But the situation in Ireland is complicated by a number of factors.
On the one hand, there is the legitimate concern of public representatives to assert their autonomy vis-à-vis the Catholic Church hierarchy and, on the other, the understandable desire of most citizens to avoid creating a denominational State.
In addition, a novel interpretation of the traditional Catholic teachings about conscience and the autonomy of the political sphere gained currency. According to this new interpretation, politicians and citizens could vote for legislation, even when the proposed legislation is at variance with Catholic morality.
Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom was called upon to justify separating one's private convictions from one's public commitments, as though when acting as politicians or citizens Catholics could "in good conscience" vote for what they as Catholics knew to be wrong.
The recent Vatican Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life, therefore, has a particular relevance for Ireland. It is addressed not only to the bishops throughout the world but, in particular, to all Catholic politicians and all who participate in political life.
Its relevance is not limited to the narrow sphere of the recent church-State controversies (divorce, abortion). Its message can also be applied to the broader moral sphere - the criminal justice system, immigration, planning permissions - and above all the very nature of Irish democracy. In effect, the new document argues that, by ignoring the dictates of conscience, people end up undermining democracy.
The document highlights the obligation of Christians to become actively involved in politics. It recognises the autonomy of the political sphere and the legitimacy of plurality in political opinions.
This in turn demands the greatest possible freedom and genuine debate as an essential part of the political decision-making process.
But its central affirmation is: "Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles . . ." And this is precisely what Havel implies is missing from much contemporary political discourse. The role of the Catholic in politics should be to witness to non-negotiable principles. These include as basic principles "The end never justifies the means" and "Some actions are wrong by nature (such as perjury, torture, adultery, abortion) and admit of no exception".
Within the Irish context, the situation is complicated by the fact that some of these "non-negotiable ethical principles" are wrongly seen as faith-based principles.
The Catholic Church rejects the identity of religion and politics (theocracy), just as it rejects all political ideologies (such as Marxism). Politics is the sphere of practical reason.
This means that there is no divine oracle or humanly devised template for the decisions politicians have to make. They must call on their own experience, consult the best advice possible and use their own common sense, based on a sense of justice.
The historical roots of this tradition, the cultural sources of democracy, are Greek philosophy, Western Christianity and the Enlightenment.
Politics thus understood inevitably gives rise to a plurality of legitimate options and of political parties. But this, the document insists, shouldn't be confused with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values.
Since morality stems from our common humanity, and so is universal by nature, there are certain ethical principles that are non-negotiable, such as those mentioned above. They are to be found in various guises in all religious traditions. The Catholic Church claims to confirm and clarify these principles in the light of Christ but does not invent them.
These principles provide the essential moral framework for political debate and decision-making. Some are absolute and admit of no exception; they are summed up in the Ten Commandments. When these are negated, our humanity is violated and society undermined.
The Vatican document rejects the charge that to make such a claim involves a kind of "confessionalism", the attempt to impose a particular version of faith on society, since such ethical principles are rooted in natural justice.
One of the themes running through the document is the need for coherence. We cannot pick and choose our moral principles. And, rejecting any possible misinterpretation of the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom, the document argues that "a well-informed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political programme or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals".
But coherence is also required between our life of faith and our political responsibilities (as indeed every aspect of our lives, domestic, professional, and recreational). Acting according to one's principles is the only bulwark against corruption, be it in politics or work, the execution of the law, carrying out one's business, or exercising responsibility in the church.
Personal faith and public responsibility cannot be separated into two compartments, one private, one public. To deny Catholics the right to act according to their conscience as Catholics would be "of a form of intolerant secularism".
In sum, the Doctrinal Note argues that Catholic politicians, no more than politicians of any other persuasion, religious or secular, may not consign their consciences to the bathroom.
To act with courage and integrity, which is what conscience is all about, as distinct from raw unprincipled pragmatism and the unthinking following of the party line, will not make the task of individual politicians easier. But it will make for a healthier democracy, restore confidence in politics and give a new sense of purpose to society.
In the past those Irish politicians who voted against controversial social legislation, and lost their party whips as a result, did not receive a favourable press.
They deserved better, because the use of the party whip to coerce politicians to vote against their consciences is one of the worst features of our modern democracy. It is potentially totalitarian and may well be unconstitutional. It is definitely immoral.
Vincent Twomey SVD is lecturer in moral theology at St Patrick's College, Maynooth