The duty of a Catholic MP

It is not easy to be a Catholic MP in a non-Catholic environment like the United States, France or Great Britain, for example. Nor is it easy to be a good Catholic and a good MP in a Catholic country, e.g. Malta.

In a culture where values are changing and where different sectors of the population think differently about a number of issues, how is a Catholic MP expected to behave?

During the 2004 US presidential campaign there was a big controversy about Senator John Kerry. He said that he personally was against abortion but, at the same time, he was not in favour of giving a legislative framework to his beliefs as he felt that this meant imposing one's values on others.

He and other like-minded politicians were threatened with the withholding of communion. Church leaders said that in fact it was not the Church that withheld communion in such an instance but the politician him/herself who withdrew him/herself from the possibility of receiving communion.

Recently, Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Edinburgh and St Andrews told Catholic politicians that support for abortion was incompatible with the reception of Holy Communion. But while church dignitaries, such as Archbishop Raymond Burke of St Louis, threatened to withhold Communion, the Scottish cardinal stopped short of that position and instead said that he left receiving or not receiving Communion to the conscience of the individual.

The controversy in Italy about the recognition of same sex couples and recognition of unmarried couples is still brewing, though it has perhaps somewhat abated thanks to other more urgent problems for the Italian government.

A relevant document on this issue was the instruction published by the Vatican and signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2003 on the legal recognition of homosexual partnerships. It stated: "The Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it."

An editorial published by The Tablet on June 9, 2007, addresses the issue. The Tablet says that the premise used by the Church in such instances is not that of freedom of conscience. The Church holds that "on certain issues Catholic politicians have a duty to be the voice of the Church in the lawmaking process, and to repeat what the Church tells them to".

It says that, according to the theory of parliamentary democracy, this is not the politician's duty. "Politicians, in that theory, stand for election, making clear what moral principles they embrace. They then take part in the argument and make an honest judgment.

"That has to include the possibility, both in the case of abortion and of gay partnerships, that the politician might see reasons why the application of Catholic teaching might be ill-advised in the circumstances."

The editorial of The Tablet gives an example. "For instance, the politician might conclude that to press for an extension of the criminal law, in a way that the great majority would object to, risks undermining the consent of the public on which the criminal law ultimately rests. Indeed, the movement from 'sin' to 'crime' must involve judgments of practicality, expediency and the common good."

It is relevant to point out here that Catholic moral theology does not expect that what is sinful should always be considered to be criminal. There are several examples. No one will dream of saying that masturbation should be criminalised. Up to two decades ago, adultery and homosexual relations were considered to be crimes in Malta. No one will dream of suggesting such a possibility today.

The Tablet's editorial further explains its position. "Edmund Burke's famous 'Address to the Electors of Bristol' in 1774 declared what has become the core principle in democracies throughout the world.

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests... parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.

"You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament." In other words, MPs are elected for their personal qualities to make an honest judgment after due deliberation, and they must have the freedom to do so.

The Church ought to respect that, but the penny has not quite dropped. An MP, in Burke's terms, is not, and cannot be, simply a delegate of the Pope or Cardinal Archbishop.

The conclusion of The Tablet was premised by the first sentence of the editorial: "Democracy is not entirely understood by the Catholic Church."

Food for thought indeed!