Things are never quite as simple as they seem. The furore about Rocco Buttiglione is indeed about the relationship of public service and religious beliefs, but, as usual, in the labyrinthine world of EU politics, more is at stake, writes Breda O'Brien.
Some of the heat has been generated by the European Parliament's desire to flex its muscles, and to make the new President of the Commission sweat a little. While the Parliament can only vote down an entire commission, if it can force Barroso to change a commissioner, it will be pleasing evidence of the increased influence of the Parliament.
Also, the French are allegedly unhappy about the portfolio that they have been given. A reshuffle increases their chances of a higher-profile commissioner. In contrast, many of the other countries are happy with their portfolios, and have no intention of jeopardising anything over a mere spat about Catholics and their right to parity of esteem.
Meanwhile, the Economist suggests that the real question mark over Buttiglione is the fact that members of his party to whom he is close have been arrested on suspicion of corruption. Further, he is part of a government which seems to be bent on assiduously protecting Silvio Berlusconi from prosecution by whatever means necessary.
This is probably guilt by association, because despite some mutters by the Daily Telegraph about money-laundering in Monaco in which Buttiglione was allegedly involved, there seems no case to answer there.
The consensus seems to be that Buttiglione is not personally corrupt, but merely suspect because he has never made any secret of his fervent Catholicism. The irony is, had Buttiglione lied about or fudged his beliefs, there would be no controversy.
We have heard much trumpeting of the fact that the EU is a secular, liberal institution, and as a result there is no room for people like Buttiglione who admit to believing, for example, that homosexuality is a sin.
The distinction that he drew, that homosexuality is not a crime or something into which the state "should poke its nose", does not seem to matter a whit. Was it a case, as his humble apology for using the word "sin" in political debate implies, of using the wrong language in the wrong forum?
Or is there a more serious question, about how real or wide-ranging the application of values such as diversity and tolerance are?
If so, this controversy has implications for far more than Catholics. Can the EU really claim to represent in any meaningful way all the varied peoples of the Union if it cannot cope with someone expressing views that diverge from whatever the prevailing orthodoxy is?
Have alleged liberals and left-wingers become far more oppressive than the religious institutions they so distrust?
Barroso's proposed compromise, of appointing a committee to "shadow" Buttiglione in areas where he is apparently not to be trusted, sets a dangerous precedent. The implication is that anyone who deviates from the prevailing orthodoxy must be watched carefully for heresy. The assumption is that strong beliefs disqualify one from acting in a fair or balanced manner.
If that is true, then the whole idea of democracy is undermined. Democracy is rule by the majority with the consent of the minority. That consent rests on the belief that those trusted with public office will act in the interests of all the community, and not just of those who agree with them.
There is a lack of natural justice in the idea that, to prevent religious people from imposing their beliefs, it is necessary to impose another orthodoxy. Remember the passage about the Holocaust attributed to Martin Niemöller?
It begins: "First they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist." He works his way through socialists, trade unionists and Jews, repeating that he did not speak out for any of them. He ends with "When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for anyone."
What is at stake here is a confusion between imposing and proposing ideas. There is an assumption that all religious belief involves imposition of views on others. In a democracy, all people of strong beliefs can do, whether those beliefs be religious or secular, is propose them in a public forum. The voters then decide to accept or reject them according to their merits. If someone who proposes a set of beliefs is censored simply because they have those beliefs, then that really is imposition of a value system.
Thus far, it has been represented as if only high-ranking church people and the Vatican have any concerns about Buttiglione's potential demotion. It has been conveniently ignored that his views are representative of those of many Europeans. Naturally, they are deeply disturbed by the way in which he is being treated.
There are already large question marks over the possibility of any form of true representative democracy in a Union of some 450 million people. The very manner in which the president is appointed, in a massive display of horse-trading by the member-states, is anti-democratic.
John Bruton's proposal for a democratic election of the president has merit in that regard, though one shudders to think what the turnout would be. The Union is remote from most of the peoples, and they feel little engagement with its institutions.
It is difficult to see how meaningful campaigns could be conducted for candidates, given language and cultural barriers. Still, it would be nice to see potential candidates forced to visit the countries to present their policies.
Having a tiny number of Irish MEPs, a commissioner and representatives on the council as proxies in any debate scarcely counts as representative democracy.
Take Buttiglione's repetition of a proposal for holding camps for asylum-seekers on African soil, where people could be processed before they ever set foot in the EU. It is an idea which I find repugnant, yet in opposing it I may as well be a grain of sand on a beach. Decisions are taken so far away from citizens that the whole enterprise is undermined.
It is undermined still further if people's strong beliefs are censored in the name of liberalism and tolerance.