Religious leaders are as entitled to an opinion on politics as any other part of the public. Indeed, they should provide moral leadership to their flocks. It is awkward, however, when archbishops and cardinals appear to be offering a partisan direction in the advice provided to their congregations. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor prob-ably did not intend to trigger a political controversy when he issued a letter urging Roman Catholics to question parliamentary candidates on six policy issues before the expected general election. But by implying that Labour was no longer the party of the working class or, by inference, of the Catholic community, he has done so.

In truth, the diligent Roman Catholic elector who aspired to be steered by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales would probably be confused by the exercise. While he or she might assume that the Conservative Party was closer to what the Archbishop of Westminster would prefer to hear articulated on what are described as “right-to-life” issues and marriage, he or she also has to consider subjects such as education, criminal justice, refugees and the global common good.

When placed in this political territory, many Catholics might feel closer to Labour or the Liberal Democrats. It is hard, for example, to imagine that the Cardinal is very hostile to the views of Ruth Kelly, the staunchly devout Education Secretary. His other pronouncements about the need to express solidarity with the potentially unpopular immigrant, his assertion that even the most cynical criminal can be reformed and his evident desire to direct more resources at the world’s poor, chime more easily with the language traditionally expressed on the centre-left of the political spectrum.

None of which is that surprising. In democracies everywhere the “moral” teachings of the Catholic Church tend, to put it crassly, to be associated with “the Right”, while the “social” teachings made by the Vatican are often, to be equally unsubtle, on “the Left”. It is a matter of personal choice which of these realms is awarded the higher priority. The Catholic Church in the Uni-ted States, for example, was badly split between those who concluded that George W. Bush’s stance on abortion and stem-cell research was to be admired and others who insisted that John Kerry’s positions on domestic policies and his (eventual) opposition to the Iraq war counted in his favour.

Where the Cardinal is correct is in his assertion that Catholics are no longer in the pocket of any one political party. This is, though, as much a consequence of the changing character of Catholics in Britain as the evolving ideological identities of the main political parties. Apart from a few atypical constituencies in Lancashire and West Scotland, to speak of a “Catholic vote” any more — with the obvious exception of Northern Ireland — makes little more sense than to refer to a Protestant one. Individual Catholics will consult their consciences across a range of matters before deciding how to commit their ballots. That Catholics today have catholic tastes in politics is welcome and a sign of social progress.