Minister Gormley would do well to look up the concept of pluralism, which as Archbishop Martin has said respects constructive voices whether they are welcome or not. Last year in the debate over the Lisbon Treaty the bishops were criticised for not advocating a Yes vote and yet some Government ministers would now prefer the Church to stay silent when it expresses a view on the Civil Partnership legislation.
Ministers Gormley and Ahern should look at the respect for the diverse input of religious communities in the US into the national debate. The purpose of the separation of Church and State in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. The very testing of the religious voice opens the public debate to assessment by moral criteria.
These were the sentiments echoed several decades ago by Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago, someone for whom President Barack Obama had, and still has, immense respect even if they didn't always agree. Speaking to reporters in 2009 he said his encounters with the cardinal continue to influence him, particularly his ''seamless garment'' approach to a multitude of social justice issues. He also told the reporters to expect a conscience clause protection for health care workers currently under review by the administration that will be no less protective than what existed previously.
The Irish bishops have asked for a conscience clause with regard to civil partnership and haven't been given an opportunity to put their case. It seems the Irish bishops would at least get a hearing under President Obama which raises disturbing questions about the path down which Irish politics is going.
Some Catholics may feel that the bishops chose the wrong subject and the wrong time, coming on the heels of the abuse reports, to argue their case on civil partnership. But this is to misunderstand the role of Church participation in public policy development. Morality is not limited to only personal matters. If it was then Minister Gormley would be right, but Catholics believe that human life is both sacred and social and must be protected, nurtured and developed in a protective societal environment. That is why religions are forceful voices for the poor and disenfranchised in society.
The second misconception is that the development of public policy is a purely secular or political endeavour, a misconception that seems prevalent in the Green party. A healthy society orders contemporary life in light of a moral vision, which is the welfare of the human person and the human community.
The third misconception is that the Church must put its own house in order before it comments on public policy. The Church is not arguing from the position of a perfect institution, but rather from the position of sharing a perspective with society that it feels is beneficial to the good of people in society. Politics must be held to account and as the last number of years has shown, this patently did not happen.
It is also true to say that the Church has failed to convince the majority of the populace, and presumably, many politicians, whether they be Catholics or not, of their good faith in advocating moral viewpoints in areas of public policy. Issuing statements from Maynooth is too reminiscent of the 'bad old days' for many; a new strategy is needed. This strategy must develop a communications policy that learns from the experiences of the Catholic Church in America in building a respectful dialogue with Irish society and actively explains to an often hostile public why the Catholic Church, despite its clear failings, has something of value to give to the betterment of society.
