Michael Kelly: Always be careful when casting the first stone

RELIGIOUS leaders must speak out on moral issues– and be ready for the inevitable backlash, writes Michael Kelly

Our readers were well ahead of me in reacting to Cardinal O’Brien’s attack on the coalition government. Its economic policy was immoral, he claimed, specifically because its opposition to Robin Hood taxes “overlooks the needs of the poorest in society and those of the less well-off”. Many, including me, agree the poor are being disproportionately hit by Tory policies. However, it seems simplistic, if not naïve, to condemn one single aspect of economic policy without considering the strategy as a whole and failing to put forward a coherent alternative.

There is, of course, a moral case taxing the better-off disproportionately more. But there is no guarantee a tax on certain financial transactions would not adversely affect the UK economy by driving business abroad. Tories could well argue savage austerity is the best way of restoring the living standards of the less well-off in the shortest possible time. On the other hand, while popular protests across Europe have led opposition parties to put more emphasis on growth there is not yet a coherent alternative.

This kind of detail is not something that Cardinal O’Brien is equipped to argue. He gave the impression of being unaware that this change, like many tax changes, might well produce adverse consequences. It is sensible for churches to lay down what they regard as the principles by which a society should be measured as just while leaving the details of how that is implemented to democratically-elected politicians.

So Cardinal O’Brien cannot be surprised that his intervention has attracted as much criticism as it has support. Of course, much of the condemnation is from those who take every opportunity to have a free smack at the Catholic church. Many of them have picked gleefully on the charge of hypocrisy – a wealthy church of “obscene opulence” criticising the morality of others. On the face of it they do have a point, a point which is always swerved by Catholics uncomfortable with having to defend it. The criticism comes in two parts. First, there is the contrast between a rebellious church founded on eschewing all the trappings of riches and power and an institution which owns property and countless works of arts. Should all of its wealth not be liquidated and given to the poor, as per the example of the Boss?

This is simply not practical. If the Church were to sell off Notre Dame in Paris, it wouldn’t be to knock it down and build houses. Ownership would pass to the state or some institution which would be faced with the costs of upkeep. As far as art treasures are concerned, it could make money from them. But it would be a one-off event, not a source of long-term funding. For an organisation that has been going for over 2,000 years and which intends to keep going, it would be short-term folly. In holding these historic buildings and works of art, the church is guarding the finest fruits of western civilisation for the current generation and many to come. The £4.5 million refurbishment of St Andrew’s Cathedral in Glasgow, criticised by the National Secular Society falls into this category. It is a listed building. What was the archdiocese to do? Let it fall down? And the secularists are wrong if they think the poor regard the building as “useless”. It gives great solace to believers of all income levels.

The accumulation of wealth has not come at the cost of the church neglecting its duty to the poor. The church is responsible for one-fifth of the world’s spending on combating Aids. It spends more on international aid and development than most governments. Caritas Internationalis, the umbrella body for 165 national aid organisations such as our own SCIAF (Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund) raises and spends $5.5 billion on aid in the developing world – third behind the United Nations and the Red Cross. The church in Scotland alone last year raised £5m to fund overseas anti-poverty programmes. There is no hypocrisy here.

Is it that people find this charity too cold? Are they looking for the church to be spontaneous rather than bureaucratic? There is some interesting evidence recently published by the University of California at Berkeley that may cast some light on suspicion of the Church’s business of charity.

“For less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not. The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns,” concludes social psychologist Robb Willer. World poverty is too serious to be left to unpredictable emotional giving.

The second part of the charge of hypocrisy is directed at the clergy. In Scotland, despite their low stipend, they do not live the lives of the poorest of their parishioners. They have cars and iPhones. When prelates visit overseas aid projects they do not travel economy. They live in large comfortable houses. Indeed, one villa in Glasgow’s Pollokshields is being renovated to accommodate the new archbishop whenever he arrives. He’s not moving into the traditional archbishop’s house in slightly less affluent Newlands because the incumbent wishes to remain there after retirement. Would the cardinal care to comment on that?

Priests follow the culture and mores of the society in which they live. While clergy in the United States may be better off than those here, there are hundreds in Bolivia, as a specific example, and all over Africa who live in abject poverty. The church can take this worldwide view than many of its critics miss.

Churchmen who speak out on issues of morality are to be applauded. In the ethical morass we find ourselves in, it is good they have the courage to take a principled stance. However, although there is no clear line as to where morality ends and politics begin, they must avoid straying from their field of expertise and end up discredited.

While the charge of hypocrisy can be dismissed, the more they preach by example, the more weight their pronouncements will carry.