Luther’s message to a new Taoiseach

“With abortion legislation, he did not permit deputies to vote according to their consciences”, writes Mary Kenny

Europe is this year marking the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s famous first protest, in 1517, which became in effect, the beginning of what is sometimes called the Protestant Revolution, and sometimes the Reformation.

The Catholic Church has, I think, made its peace with Luther in the Second Vatican Council: and in any case, through the Counter-Reformation, had acknowledged that some of the practices associated with the Church were in need of reform. Today, Catholic-Lutheran relations are, for the most part, ecumenical.

Conscience

And there is one important lesson we have learned from Martin Luther, and again, reinforced by Blessed Cardinal Newman: and that is the importance of respecting conscience. Luther famously said about his own convictions: “Here I stand. I can do no other.” Cardinal Newman said: “I’ll drink to the Pope. But I’ll drink to conscience first.”

It seems to me to be vitally, seriously important to uphold that principle of respecting Christian conscience. In a world where our values are so often under assault, we must be able to stand by our consciences on what we believe is right.

And, much as the departing Taoiseach Enda Kenny achieved some good things during his tenure of office – he proved to be a steady steward of an economic revival after the financial crisis of 2008 – it is regrettable that in this matter his administration was stained: with abortion legislation, he did not permit deputies to vote according to their consciences. He applied the government whip to what should be, absolutely, a matter of conscience.

Whoever the next Taoiseach of this country shall be, will he honour that principle which Martin Luther brought to light – the defence and respect of conscience? It seems to me that this is the most significant question there is when scrutinising the candidates.

Catchphrases offer powerful spin

A clever phrase can dictate a politician’s fate. When British Prime Minister Theresa May proposed a system of social care for Alzheimer’s patients which would mean better-off pensioners making a contribution, it was quickly dubbed ‘the dementia tax’.

That made it look as though helpless people with Alzheimer’s were being uniquely excluded from the National Health Service. She had to revise the details pronto. It was an honest effort to re-think elderly care, but a tactical error undone by one phrase.

In Ireland, the phrase ‘baptism barrier’ is being used to describe the policy of over-subscribed Catholic schools giving priority to children baptised Catholic. It immediately sounds like a form of cruel educational apartheid.

Veto

This has sometimes happened before in political history. The Irish Parliamentary Party, under the leadership of John Redmond, coined “the House of Lords veto” after the British Upper House repeatedly refused to endorse the Home Rule Bill passed by the Commons. The idea that the unelected Lords were imposing a ‘veto’ immediately seemed an injustice, and in 1911, the said power was successfully removed.

Any political spin-doctor knows that it is not always the details of the policy that count – it’s the accessibility of the catchphrase. So, for those framing policy – watch your language!

Manchester bombing

When an outrage like the Manchester bombing occurs, my thoughts turn to those lines from Sean O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock when the young girl Mary says that if there is a God, he wouldn’t let wicked killings happen, and Mrs Boyle replies: “These things have nothin’ to do with the will o’God. Ah, what can God do agen the stupidity
o’ men!”

American working class held in contempt

Joan C. Williams is an American academic who has just published a study about the white working class (WWC) in the US, who, she judges, have been ignored or held in contempt over the past 50 years. She doesn’t blame them for voting for President Trump, she writes. He gave the WWC attention and “respect”.

Ms Williams has distilled some lifestyle contrasts between the American white working class and the “professional managerial-elite”. WWC men may use sexist language – but they actually do more childcare than elite professional men, who are too busy getting ahead in their professions. WWC people indulge in “straight talk”, while the elite use sophisticated and evasive language, often honed in professions such as the law and academia.

For the WWC, abortion is wrong and an outcome of careless living, whereas for the elite professionals it’s a right that “enables women to lead lives of self-expression”.

WWC are loyal to their community: the elite are too mobile to be loyal to any rooted place.

The WWC are sometimes heard to use racist language while the elite professionals are careful never to do so: but the elite exclude non-whites from elite universities and other jobs just the same.

There could be some sociological parallels with Ireland – with, probably, an exception on the issue of regional roots, which remain quite strong, still, in Irish culture.