The Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore obviously had qualms before he attended his first meeting of the Council of State on Monday. He sought legal advice concerning the swearing of the oath which precedes all such meetings.

The oath on which Gilmore sought (and received) legal advice reads: "In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties". And if anyone, including the Tanaiste, is not sobered by the awesome implications of that declaration, then there is no understanding of morality in our society.

To swear a false oath in court proceedingx is to commit perjury, one of the most serious criminal offences on the statute book. To swear an oath in which you do not believe creates an ethical mire. The courts provide a way out for witnesses faced with such a dilemma. It was provided even when it was assumed that the entire population in the country was (at least nominally) Christian.

But for some time past, a non-believer has been permitted to "affirm". That is, to state solemnly and before witnesses that what you are about to say is the truth. God is not called upon, but the affirmation has the same standing as the oath.

Interestingly, until comparatively recently, most practising lawyers would advise you unofficially that somebody who asked to affirm was regarded with suspicion. After all, if you didn't believe in god, legal thinking apparently was that you were untrustworthy.

That, fortunately, has changed, and there is usually some admiration for a person who thinks seriously enough about a court case not to want to shame the proceedings by swearing an empty oath. At the very least, such refusal implies a respect for the court proceedings and for the moral implication of an oath.

Eamon Gilmore is an agnostic, apparently. That is, literally one who "does not know". A theist believes in a supreme being or beings; an atheist denies the existence of a godhead. The definitions are quite clear. And of course, it also means that to swear falsely by "almighty god" may not only amount to perjury in a judicial context, but also blasphemy which (controversially) was made illegal under law in this country as required by the Constitution. So for an agnostic to be prepared to swear an oath is not as unedifying as it would be for an atheist to do so.

But guess what? Eamon Gilmore is off the hook, despite all the normal definitions of solemn oaths. In typical fashion, there is a piece of legislation enacted which allows him to take the oath which is not, according to his spokesman, as "inclusive" as he would like, and therefore fulfil his Constitutional obligations.

Presumably it would have created a Constitutional crisis if Eamon Gilmore was told

that legally he could not swear an oath in which he did not believe.

But in this case, the law of Ireland seems to be as flexible as Canon Law in permitting equivocation.

It all seems to make a mockery of the proceedings of the Council of State, and indeed of the Constitution as a guiding document for an ethical society.

Eamon Gilmore's spokesman said on his behalf that the wording of the oath required before sitting on the Council of State is set down in the Constitution and could not be changed without a referendum.

The Tanaiste also said that "it is not proposed to hold a referendum on the matter", despite the glaring hypocrisies it represents. Why not?

Is it considered acceptable that eminent people should continue to take a solemn oath when they do not believe in it? Or is it once again an example of our Constitution having been drafted by Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics, and excluding anyone not of that persuasion?

It would have been very uncomfortable for Eamon Gilmore had he informed the President, the Taoiseach and the Chief Justice that he could not in honour take the oath, and therefore, equally in honour, could not be a member of the Council of State, despite legislation which allows him to get round it.

Yes, it would have created a Constitutional crisis: Article 31.2 of the Constitution states that "the Council of State shall consist, ex officio, of the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the Chairman of Dail Eireann, the Chairman of Seanad Eireann and the Attorney General".

Standing up for a principle might even have cost him his position as Tanaiste. But he would have gone down in history as a man of the kind of iron integrity that the country needs. It might also have made clear that contortions in public life are not acceptable.

Lucinda Creighton spent weeks wrestling in public with her conscience recently, and garnered much admiration. She believed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act to be immoral. No wrestling should have been necessary: she knew the price to be paid for her principle.

We, of course, deserve a better Constitution than the archaic document which arbitrarily excludes people of non-religious principle from positions of power because they refuse to compromise those principles.

But sadly, the Tanaiste does not seem to be one of those people.

Sunday Independent