Politicians tell Church to ‘know your place’

In the last week, two senior politicians, Justice Minister Dermot Ahern, and Green party leader, John Gormley, have effectively told both the Church, and by extension, religious believers, to ‘know your place’.

In an interview with The Irish Times, Minister Ahern reiterated his view that politicians must leave their religion to one side when legislating and not let it ‘cloud’ their judgement.

But on RTE’s radio yesterday, John Gormley went a step further. He was reacting to the Catholic hierarchy’s statement on the Civil Partnership Bill. He said he “thought we had left the era of Church interference behind.”

He advised the Church to “concentrate its efforts on looking after the spiritual needs of its flock and not intrude on temporal or State matters.”

Dermot Ahern’s attitude is bad enough. (Why should politicians be made to exclude religious values, and only religious values from their considerations when legislating? Why does religion ‘cloud’ a politician’s judgement? (One is tempted to retort that the various vested interests do plenty of that)).

But at least he did not question the right of the Church, or of religious believers to express an opinion about the form the law should take. He ‘merely’ said they shouldn’t be listened to, on principle.

But John Gormley questioned even the right to express an opinion publicly. His use of such loaded words as ‘interference’ and ‘intrude’ were very telling.

Both imply that the bishops’ statement on Civil Partnership Bill was somehow democratically illegitimate.

His statement that the Church “concentrate its efforts on looking after the spiritual needs of its flock and not intrude on temporal or State matters” could scarcely have been more pointed and really did amount to saying ‘know your place’.

Mr Gormley would deny the Church the same right to comment on matters of State that IBEC, Siptu, the IFA or the Vintners Federation enjoy.

In fact, recently the IFA criticised the provisions of the Bill that deal with cohabiting couples, but neither Dermot Ahern nor John Gormley attempted to deny them this right.

The fact is that both men, and especially John Gormley, are attempting to deny to religious believers and their leaders the same democratic rights enjoyed by every other citizen.

Why should religious values, out of all values, be singled out in this way? It is because they are ‘divisive’? At a certain level all value systems are divisive because none enjoy universal approval.

Is it because they are irrational? But who says they are? That is a judgement call, often based on a particular ideology. Some would say secularism is irrational, or that environmentalism can be irrational, or that the attachment to the property boom was irrational. (That was most certainly the case).

In the end, the attempt to drive religion out of the public arena, to privatise it, is based either on a complete misunderstanding of what Church/State separation really means, or else it is based on prejudice.

One way or the other, the desire to privatise religion amounts, in practice, to a form of aggressive secularism which all religious believers must reject strongly.