Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor talks to Frank Millar in London about Blair's Britain, the royal family and the challenges facing the Catholic Church.
This is an important week in the life of the church. But as he considers their lifestyle choices, can the Archbishop of Westminster claim the church is important in the lives of the people? Unsurprisingly Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor considers it more relevant than ever, not least because, for all the multifarious choice available in the consumer society, there remain choices people don't have: "Issues everyone has to face, of right and wrong, of life and death, the inner quest for something beyond."
While it is true that church attendances have fallen, paradoxically, he suggests, we might ask why so many still go. In congregations around London he certainly finds "a microcosm of what society should be, multi-ethnic parishes, people living happily together, worshipping together, without thought of class or colour . . ."
A microcosm maybe. But the mainstream plainly live their lives without regard to the teachings of the church. The cardinal agrees. Not only do large numbers choose alternative lifestyles: "Others are brought into it by the kind of culture we live in, which is totally subjective. My life. My journey. My rights. But what's my duty? And the duty towards society, a duty in the sense of creating a society that is a community. If you have a society that's totally individualistic what are you going to create? In my view the disintegration or fragmentation of family life is the most serious evil in this country. I think its consequences in terms of social life and crime, in terms of debilitation of the human spirit, are terrible."
Sounds like a country in crisis? "Yes, I think in that sense it is," he replies. If we give up on marriage and the family and the "norms" for which young people should strive, then "it seems to me you're creating a society that will disintegrate in terms of cohesion and moral fibre, in terms of living, as I believe, as God wants us to live."
In the 1980s people worried about the effects of Thatcherism, the concentration on individual advancement to the detriment of society. Are things significantly better today?
"No, I don't see them as much better," he confides, while saying he wouldn't blame it all on Mrs Thatcher.
He sees the same problems inherited by Tony Blair, and ruefully reflects that no one institution can change things that much. "Government can't just do it. The whole culture is giving values to people that actually enable them to break up families. To counteract it in any way is going to need a concentrated effort not only by government but by families themselves, by the teaching profession, by every profession you can think of."
As he agonises over where young people are to get their values from, I ask the cardinal if he is satisfied parents and children are not receiving mixed messages from the Blair government, for example in relation to soft drugs?
Governments sometimes have to make difficult decisions, he acknowledges: "What is always lawful is not always moral and they make a decision for a law in order to keep people as far as possible law abiding." Of course the government does not wish to see increased use of drugs and he would certainly consider any relaxation of the laws on soft drugs regrettable.
"Whether the government thinks it's a regrettable necessity, that I don't know, it's up to them to decide."
Does the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales think a long period of denial about child abuse within the church has blunted its own moral authority? "I think the shame of child abuse by some clergy - a very small, tiny number but significant - has damaged the church, there's no doubt about that. And I think that there's no way in which one can try and find excuses. The past is the past and I think there was a lot of ignorance, I really do. But I think it was not just regrettable but something we have to deeply apologise for."
Recognising the responsibility of the church to act where wrong was done in its name, the cardinal established an independent commission two years ago. As a result of the Nolan report , he says, allegations will now be treated seriously, with child protection procedures in every parish and diocese, agreed by all the bishops.
The cardinal has recently assumed an important new role in relation to the royal household, preaching for Queen Elizabeth at Sandringham. Two of the three main party leaders are Roman Catholic, and the Prime Minister regularly worships with his family at Westminster Cathedral. Yet the law forbids a Roman Catholic to sit on the throne. Is that position sustainable? "In the long run, no, I don't think it is," he predicts: "I think that's something that will be tackled in time and that the Church of England will be thinking about."
When? Plainly it is time "those old laws" dating back to the 18th century were reviewed, but he says. "I'm not going to press it. When the time comes it will happen. I think it will be considered seriously before the next succession. I think the next enthronement of the monarch would have to be slightly different from the last one. If you look at the videos of the queen's coronation it was very much a one church affair. I think that that could not happen in the same way next time."
LAST WEEK the cardinal gave a loyal address to Queen Elizabeth. And he says this new relationship between the crown and the Roman Catholic Church, as with wider society, is important. While their immigrant predecessors may have been content to do their jobs and happy just to be tolerated, with the church itself on the periphery and viewed with suspicion, he affirms: "That's no longer true. I rejoice that Catholics are in politics, Catholics are in the armed services, Catholics are all over the place. We are a normal part of this society and I think that's good."
The danger he divines is that "you become subsumed by the society, become too much part of society and become too absorbed by society's norms and values." So he doesn't want total integration, then? "Well, no," actually: "I don't want total integration because if you have totally integrated then you become part of an ethos which I don't think is a Christian one."
In an off-the-cuff remark a while back the cardinal said that Christianity had been "vanquished" in Britain. "What I meant was that the background, thinking habits, social context of Christianity as it did exist in this country is no longer there. I think that's true, for certainly the majority of people in this country are growing up without any real knowledge of Christ, of his teaching."
What about the Irish, then? "I think it would be hard to say that Ireland is not a Christian country in terms of its values and its background, and in spite of the changed Ireland."
Switching back to matters royal: What does the cardinal say to people who think Prince Charles should regularise his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles by marrying her? "I wouldn't say anything," he insists. "I would say it's his business and I really wouldn't want to comment on that. I know Prince Charles. I think he's a God-fearing, good man. That personal judgment is up to him."
So that new relationship between the royals and the church wouldn't be endangered should the future king marry a divorcee? "You're a terrible man," protests the cardinal, laughing: "I'm a believer in the monarchy. When I say that I mean I accept the monarchy, I think it's a good thing for this country. The other day I accepted on behalf of the Catholic community my loyalty to the monarch. I don't see any reason at the present time or in the future that I would deviate from that, but I think I'd like to leave it there."
Finally, to a moral dilemna of an altogether different order. Many people seem to share Mo Mowlam's fear that the British government is "drifting" into war with Iraq. Does he? The cardinal says a peace settlement in the Middle East would plainly help resolve a lot of other issues in the region. Any suggestion of a direct war in Iraq therefore "has got to be taken into conjunction with all those things". Faced with such potentially serious consequences, people are right to query it, as he would.
While he would be sorry if Britain lost its friendship with or influence on America, the cardinal underlines the competing pressures on Mr Blair. For he would also be sorry if the government "broke the close relationship with Europe of which we are part".
He adds: "The European mind on these questions of the Middle East I think is something that this government must weigh up." But as of now, does he consider the case made for action against Iraq? While plainly not wishing to cause problems for Mr Blair, the answer seems clear. "I haven't got all the intelligence and I think that I would certainly like the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians to be addressed before any concept of direct action against Iraq."