I undertook to offer some reflections – from the perspective of having spent thirty-eight years as a civil servant, though they ended a fair time ago now – on the challenges that face Catholics in public life in today’s world. We have been sharply reminded of some of these challenges by the publicity there has recently been over what course of action Catholic MPs, including three Cabinet Ministers, should take when there comes before the House of Commons the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which has several features that, to put it mildly, sit uncomfortably with the teaching of the Church. I am not going to argue about the content of the Bill – I’m sorry if that disappoints you, but I’m not qualified to do so – but I plan to explore with you briefly what the underlying principles of conduct ought to be.
... Two basic truths ...
Two basic truths to begin with. The first is that none of us can leave our conscience or our ethical standards behind us when we go to work, like leaving an outdoor coat in the cloakroom. The second is that public servants of all kinds in Britain have chosen – no-one nowadays is conscripted – to work for a community that is diverse in many ways, not least in religion (or its absence) and in views of what morality requires. The problems arise when particular situations bring these two truths into tension with one another.
The tensions naturally differ to some extent according to the role the individual Catholic has taken on. Our roles may constrain or channel what we do – not arbitrarily, for the demands of role are, in essence, the rules that have been found to be necessary, the part that has to be played, if the particular job is make its proper contribution within our complex system. Consider, for example, the role of a barrister defending a man whom he is privately convinced is a murderous psychopath who ought to be locked up for the protection of the public. The barrister still has to do the very best he can in arguing the man’s innocence. That doesn’t make the barrister irresponsible or dishonest, any more than I was being dishonest when, as a civil servant, I made the very best fist I could both of developing some Ministerial policy I thought was fundamentally unwise and then of expounding it as positively as I could, short of direct untruth or significant misleading, in front of Parliamentary committees. Indeed, anyone who is in a team business – whether working in a Government department, or belonging to a political party or a Cabinet, or indeed running a school, say – may well find himself or herself unable to give entirely free rein to personal preference in terms of either words or actions.
The difficulties arise when playing the part normally expected of us within the role that we have taken on seems to collide not just with our private view of prudence and wisdom but with clearcut principles of moral conduct as Catholics understand them. There is then, I would hold, no option for a Catholic but to decline to go along, to refuse to take part – as Thomas More (the patron saint of civil servants, perhaps?) said: “I am the Crown’s good servant, but God’s first”. But I want, if not quite to qualify that, at least to develop or elaborate it in a number of ways.
... give the best service we can ...
The first way is that, to my mind, the public servant ought to set a pretty high threshold for the serious step of withdrawing our service – of resigning, or refusing to help, or (I would say) voting against a three-line whip on properly-agreed party policy. The deal that civil servants and elected politicians have voluntarily accepted is to give the best service we can, in good times and bad, to a pluralist society governed by laws democratically arrived at and by office-holders legitimately put in place; and we ought to recognize that baling out, in whatever form, when the going gets awkward is a grave matter, to be done only if we are very sure of our ground and of its importance. And I do believe that that question of importance – of relative degree - has somehow to come into the reckoning. Having nothing to do with abortion? – plainly imperative, we might agree. But does that mean that a Catholic MP should play no part in debate on whether to shift the permitted cut-off point from 28 to 24 or 20 weeks? Joining in might be construed as condoning the basic idea; but then as again Thomas More said: “”One should so order what is bad that it may not be very bad, for it is not possible for all things to be good unless all men are good”.
How about getting involved with shaping divorce law or taking part, for example as a judge, in divorce proceedings? – a good deal less evident a call, I submit. And what about those elected Spanish mayors, a few years ago, who were urged by their Bishops to refuse to play their statutory part in the gay marriage ceremonies which a democratically-elected Parliament had decided to be lawful? Again, not an easy call. Many of us will recall the classical utterance by Edmund Burke to the effect that an MP owes his constituents his honest judgment, not slavish following of their opinions. But in a society like ours I am inclined to think that an MP is obliged – and not just as a matter of electoral self-preservation – to pay heed if the settled values of a large majority of those being represented point in a direction that he or she might not personally have chosen.
I haven’t a tidily-settled rule to put before you; but my instinct is to be very wary about actually withdrawing one’s service (as distinct from arguing against, if there is the chance to do so at an appropriate time) in relation to properly-enacted laws unless there are major life-or-death issues at stake such as abortion, euthanasia, perhaps some kinds of genetic manipulation – and I’d include also systematic and deliberate use of torture.
My second point of development or elaboration concerns how closely one is involved, and with how much responsibility. Let us imagine you believe – as I always did, very strongly – that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not only highly unwise but gravely wrong in moral terms. I shan’t go now into that argument itself; but suppose that, holding that view, you’re working in the Ministry of Defence. You’re a typist in the Secretary of State’s office. Do you refuse to type Geoff Hoon’s speeches defending the invasion? – surely not, I would say – you have no significant responsibility. But if you’re a soldier in the armed forces, with misgivings? – I would say that you are entitled to rest on the fact that the Attorney-General has said that the operation is legal and Parliament has endorsed our participation. But next, you’re the Chief of the Defence Staff, head of the armed forces, and you know a lot more of the inside story than the soldier does? – a different matter, I would say, though even then not entirely clearcut, and I don’t criticize the holder of that post at the time, or indeed my own successor but three, for staying aboard.. But suppose that you’re a Cabinet Minister sharing in the final decision-taking? – the answer then becomes clear, as Robin Cook saw.
... look ahead when one takes on a particular form of public service ...
One final elaboration about the duty of a Catholic over collision on moral principles. There is, I think, an obligation to look ahead when one takes on a particular form of public service. One can’t always foresee the stumbling-blocks, but sometimes it is clear that a given field of work is going to be potentially awkward – a Catholic doctor doesn’t accept a job in an abortion clinic, for extreme example. If you’re a convinced pacifist, you obviously don’t go to the Ministry of Defence; but even short of that, though that Ministry is a very big and diverse place, you should think hard about accepting posting there if you happen to believe that the possession of nuclear weapons is always and unconditionally immoral (not that the Church teaches that). Again, some folk have difficulty about some of what the intelligence services necessarily do, though I know good Catholics who have held senior posts there; if you feel moral discomfort, don’t join. In brief, our pluralist society would be entitled to be cross if a Catholic suddenly held up a red card over an issue that was an integral and entirely predictable element of the role that had been accepted. I would guess, though I don’t know, that some overseas aid arrangements may include advice of some sort on contraception; but I wouldn’t expect even a very traditional Catholic to resign from DFID on that account.
But I am conscious that I have been talking essentially about what some might describe as the negative side of Catholic obligation in public service – what a Catholic should refuse to put up with or go along with. I note, in passing, that for most of us – certainly myself, in a long and quite varied civil-service career – these hard-edged dilemmas are in practice very rare. Perhaps my conscience was too pliant – I know a lot of Catholics, including Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien, disagree deeply with me about nuclear weapons, for example – but I never felt gravely uncomfortable from the ethical standpoint (wisdom was occasionally another matter) about what I was asked to do.
There are lots of other groups of issues for which there isn’t time within the twenty minutes of your President’s stern injunction. Just for instance, do Catholics in public office or employment, when they are exercising their public functions, have any duty to the practical interests of the Church – over schools, say, or charity status – which they do not have equally, in line with the law, to every other denomination or religion? My gut instinct is to say “No”, but perhaps that’s an issue for discussion. I note that a few weeks ago Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor apparently suggested that the BBC should have a bias of some sort towards Christianity and Judaism, but that seems to me a slightly different point.
... values to run through all that we do ...
I want to end, however, on the wider and more positive side of Catholic duty. What our faith and its moral standards equip us – or ought to equip us - to bring to bear in public service is a sense of values to run through all that we do: values like straight dealing, committed effort with the gifts God has given to us, fairness to all, obedience to the law, proper stewardship of the natural world and its resources, and special concern for the poor and those otherwise disadvantaged, both at home and around the world. Putting all this into practice amid the complications of modern life in a pluralist society is often a tricky business, with awkward judgments to be made between good arguments that are sometimes in collision. But keeping those values in the forefront of our minds as we work is the prime challenge to Catholics in public life, and, I suggest, the prime contribution that we can make. That would seem to me closely in line with the Catenian ethos.
© MICHAEL QUINLAN 2008
Sir Michael passed away in February 2009 R.I.P.
If you reached this page directly click here to find the Wimbledon Catenian's site
This information is valid at March 2009