BRENDAN O'CONNOR,
Sir, - Your edition of January 30th carries an interesting report of two conflicting moral judgements on the ethics of lawyers co-operating in divorce cases.
The Pope, considered by Catholics to teach authoritatively in matters of faith and morals, re-stated the traditional doctrine that formal co-operation in evil is always immoral.
The director-general of the Law Society (not considered, so far as I am aware, to have teaching authority in matters of faith or morals) enunciated the novel moral principle that "it would be wrong for the legal profession not to ensure " that anyone who wants a divorce can get one. Subject, one presumes, to their ability to pay.
The novel moral principle is invoked to trump anything the pope can come up with. The basis for this moral imperative? "The Irish people voted in a referendum to provide for a divorce jurisdiction". Hibernia locuta est, causa finita est. God, please note.
The director-general has a short memory. The referendum was "carried" by a hair's breadth, in a process which the Supreme Court held to have been influenced by unconstitutional advertising by the Government.
In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court found the democratic process had been further contaminated by unconstitutional political broadcasts in the final week of the campign.
Before lawyers hang their moral hats (or wigs) on the peg of democratic legitmacy, they would do well to consider if it can bear the weight. - Yours, etc.
BRENDAN O'CONNOR, Dartry Road, Dublin 6.