Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Bishops set to lobby politicians in abortion campaign

  • 27-08-2012 08:20AM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Bishops set to lobby politicians in abortion campaign

    DEAGLÁN de BRÉADÚN, Political Correspondent

    Mon, Aug 27, 2012

    DÁIL DEPUTIES and Ministers will be lobbied by bishops and priests as part of a full-scale campaign of opposition if there is any attempt by the Government to legislate for abortion.

    The Church’s position was confirmed by the Catholic Primate of All-Ireland, Cardinal Seán Brady, yesterday who suggested another referendum on abortion was possibly the only solution to deal with the controversial issue.

    His comments drew a swift response from Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte, who said it would be a retrograde step if the Catholic Church went back to dictating to elected representatives how to address the issue of abortion.

    Previous referenda on the issue proved extremely divisive and involved often bitter clashes between Church and State figures.

    The Government last year established an expert group, chaired by Mr Justice Seán Ryan of the High Court, to examine how best to implement the 2010 decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the State had violated the rights of a woman who had cancer who said she was forced to travel abroad to get an abortion, and to provide a legislative basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling in the X case.

    A report from the expert group has not yet been delivered to Government but if it is seen to recommend legalising abortion, the Catholic Church has made clear a strong drive will be launched to persuade the Government not to take any such action.

    As to the form this campaign would take, informed church sources told The Irish Times priests would be equipped with ample, high-quality “pro-life” material for preaching and personal contact with parishioners.

    The church would also co-operate with lay organisations, including non-Catholic ones, in such a campaign. Church members, the source said, would be “encouraged to contact their local public representatives to say they do not want abortion in Ireland and pointing out that this country is recognised as the safest place in the world to have a child”.

    Priests and laity would lobby public representatives with a view to “raising awareness among the political class with material consisting of reasoned argument and correct facts”. Bishops would also speak to politicians.

    “Why not? They are citizens like you and I,” the well-placed source close to church thinking said.

    A Fine Gael Government TD, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed lobbying on the issue by priests and laity, as well as the bishop of the diocese, had already been taking place for about six months.

    A number of Fine Gael TDs have already made clear they would also oppose abortion legislation.

    When asked yesterday how the church would react if the Government decided to legalise the carrying out of abortions, Cardinal Brady told RTÉ’s This Week radio programme that the response would include a “media campaign” and “lobbying public representatives”.

    Mr Rabbitte, on the same programme, said he would be “somewhat surprised at the cardinal’s reference to lobbying and engaging with, canvassing, public representatives and so on, on the matter.

    “I don’t have any objection to any of the churches stating its position and making it clear, but I think it would be a retrogressive step if we were to go back to the days of the Catholic Church dictating to elected public representatives how [they] should address an issue,” he said.

    Responding to the remarks, Dr John Murray of The Iona Institute said: “It is Minister Rabbitte’s comment that is actually retrograde. First of all, lobbying is not the same as dictating.

    “Secondly, why should business organisations or farming organisations or trades unions be allowed to lobby politicians but the churches cannot do this?”

    What do we think?

    I have to say my initial reaction was in line with the boldened part. I'm sure that Pat Rabbitte isn't suggesting that the Church shouldn't be allowed to lobby, but nevertheless it's a bit ill-advised for a cabinet minister to single out one organisation and tell them to shut up. They're perfectly entitled to lobby politicians if they want. It's up to the politicians to have enough moral courage to make hard decisions regardless of what the Church says. If the politicians are too easily swayed by their Bishop, then we need better politicians.

    This from an atheist with no time for the Church BTW...


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭Boulevardier


    I can only say that Cardinal Brady, the paedophile's friend, has some neck in lobbying our elected government on anything.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 9,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    I'd support the Bishops' right to get involved and express views via the political process, as per any stakeholder in this issue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Well you can tell from reading between the lines what Rabbitte's concern is. He's not concerned that TDs will be lobbied, he's concerned that TDs will be "dictated" to. That is, that the more closed-minded of our Dail will allow their opinion to be decided by what the Catholic church tells them, rather than actually speaking to their own constituents and working in accordance with their wishes.

    It is a little bit of a sideswipe at Rome, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Labour's commentary on the topic will revolve around encouraging people to make up their own minds rather than falling in line with the catholic church.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    seamus wrote: »
    Well you can tell from reading between the lines what Rabbitte's concern is. He's not concerned that TDs will be lobbied, he's concerned that TDs will be "dictated" to. That is, that the more closed-minded of our Dail will allow their opinion to be decided by what the Catholic church tells them, rather than actually speaking to their own constituents and working in accordance with their wishes.

    It is a little bit of a sideswipe at Rome, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Labour's commentary on the topic will revolve around encouraging people to make up their own minds rather than falling in line with the catholic church.

    I'd imagine part of people making up their own minds will be squaring it with their religion. I'm pro-choice but I find it bizarre that the minister is asking people to disregard their religious views on this subject. And what is 'your own mind'? Some secret mental sanctuary immune from external influence?

    There IS a big difference between lobbying and dictating. What next from Rabitte? Telling Muslims to disregard their Imams direction on the issue?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I'd imagine part of people making up their own minds will be squaring it with their religion. I'm pro-choice but I find it bizarre that the minister is asking people to disregard their religious views on this subject. And what is 'your own mind'? Some secret mental sanctuary immune from external influence?
    You're probably reading a bit too much into it - for a start Rabbitte never said anything about people making up their own mind, that was me :)
    Yes, people will have to square their opinion with their religion, but I think in most quarters the phrase "making up your own mind" involves taking the facts and opinions from various sources and then coming to a conclusion as to what it is that you believe as an individual.

    Not "making up your own mind" is where you ask your wife/husband/brother/imam/priest/cardinal/hairdresser what the correct answer is and then just follow their direction without considering whether they may or may not be correct.
    Even if you conclude in the end that they are correct, at least you have considered the issue.

    Irish politics still suffers a lot from the curse of people doing what they've been told to do, rather than thinking about it for themselves. Rabbitte is right - the church "dictating" policy is a retrograde step, belonging to the fifties. TDs should consider the church on the same level as any other lobby group and not give them any additional weight.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    seamus wrote: »
    You're probably reading a bit too much into it - for a start Rabbitte never said anything about people making up their own mind, that was me :)
    Yes, people will have to square their opinion with their religion, but I think in most quarters the phrase "making up your own mind" involves taking the facts and opinions from various sources and then coming to a conclusion as to what it is that you believe as an individual.

    Not "making up your own mind" is where you ask your wife/husband/brother/imam/priest/cardinal/hairdresser what the correct answer is and then just follow their direction without considering whether they may or may not be correct.
    Even if you conclude in the end that they are correct, at least you have considered the issue.

    Sorry seamus, my reply was directed at you as well as at Rabbites comments. The thing with religion is, it is supposedly the word of God for those who believe, so unless Rabbite is asking people to question their faith, your point on people considering whether a view is correct isn't really applicable to religion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭Boulevardier


    Lets not forget that in the 1950s, the Hierarchy never admitted they were dictating poliitcal matters. What was supposedly happening was that Catholics were being led in "matters of faith and morals." The reality of course was that as soon as the Bishops spoke, Catholics felt obliged to accept what they were told, and the politicians immediately caved in.

    That is the reality of what "direction" from the clergy is like. It turned us into a theocracy in the 1950s. We should not let that happen again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'd imagine part of people making up their own minds will be squaring it with their religion. I'm pro-choice but I find it bizarre that the minister is asking people to disregard their religious views on this subject. And what is 'your own mind'? Some secret mental sanctuary immune from external influence?
    ........

    Presumably legislators would be expected to do so, as the twice voted on amendment on abortion allows for it in limited circumstances. Thus the dail/government is obligated to pass law on the matter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    There entitled to make their views known as is any other organisation or citizen. I'd love to know what the thought process was though when they decided that Sean Brady was the man for the job - he has zero credibility and is completely compromised. Someone like Diarmuid Martin would have been a better choice, they really know how to shoot themselves in the foot...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Nodin wrote: »
    Presumably legislators would be expected to do so, as the twice voted on amendment on abortion allows for it in limited circumstances. Thus the dail/government is obligated to pass law on the matter.

    I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws on this matter. And I do think a states laws should supersede religious doctrine (e.g. allowing same-sex marriage, outlawing female genital mutilation, and IMO allowing abortion in particular cases). My point is that expecting people (even TD's) to make up their own mind while denying that for some (or many) a part of their own mind will be their religious beliefs, is a silly position. You cannot tell people to ignore their religion while considering what most consider a moral issue, and by extension, you can't tell leaders of a religion to refrain from comment.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    I believe everyone has a right to lobby, it is the essence of freedom, it shouldn't be based on whether he agrees or disagrees with the position of whoever is doing the lobbying.

    We supposedly live in a republic and to exclude the voice of anyone or group from the public representatives of this country would be a bad move.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws on this matter. And I do think a states laws should supersede religious doctrine (e.g. allowing same-sex marriage, outlawing female genital mutilation, and IMO allowing abortion in particular cases). My point is that expecting people (even TD's) to make up their own mind while denying that for some (or many) a part of their own mind will be their religious beliefs, is a silly position. You cannot tell people to ignore their religion while considering what most consider a moral issue, and by extension, you can't tell leaders of a religion to refrain from comment.

    The fact of the matter is that the electorate via the referenda have decided on the issue, and certain members of the Government may have religous objections to the fact. As a result, they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religous belief. While it would be fair enough for them to resign, blocking the process would strike me as an abuse of their position.1


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    Poor old Pat.

    He never did get his Communist Utopia did he? Where he could have sent every Priest, Bishop and Cardinal off to a Ghulag for re-education...:D


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    In all seriouness though, Ireland in one of the last bastions of saftey for unborn babies and we (Religous and non-religous) Irish People must do all that we can to continue this proud and noble fact...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    In all seriouness though, Ireland in one of the last bastions of saftey for unborn babies and we (Religous and non-religous) Irish People must must do all that we can to continue this proud and noble fact...


    ...no idea what that has to do with anything. Abortion here is only to be provided for in very limited circumstances.


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...no idea what that has to do with anything. Abortion here is only to be provided for in very limited circumstances.

    One abortion is too many...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    One abortion is too many...
    I see you've clearly researched this topic in-depth and understand all of the circumstances under which an abortion may be sought.

    You're in favour of forcing women to carry a dead foetus to term so?


  • Posts: 3,918 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Nodin wrote: »
    The fact of the matter is that the electorate via the referenda have decided on the issue, and certain members of the Government may have religous objections to the fact. As a result, they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religous belief. While it would be fair enough for them to resign, blocking the process would strike me as an abuse of their position.1

    Exactly! We don't need the Catholic Church with all of their bizarre beliefs blocking the legitimate will of the people in Ireland, 2012.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Nodin wrote: »
    The fact of the matter is that the electorate via the referenda have decided on the issue, and certain members of the Government may have religous objections to the fact. As a result, they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religous belief. While it would be fair enough for them to resign, blocking the process would strike me as an abuse of their position.1

    Is this legislation not (terribly overdue as it is) off the back of a Supreme Court ruling and not a referendum? Isn't that the point Brady was making, that it should go to a referendum? Not that I agree with him, I'm happy to accept the interpretation of the Supreme Court. Of course I think that politicians should abide by the will of the people despite their internal beliefs....but they must have the luxury of having reservations and the space to air those reservations - otherwise they only represent the populist majority. Saying 'they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religious belief.' would mean that politicians would have little room to object personally if the majority of the country held some backward notion on some issue, which the Irish electorate have done and still do on many things.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    seamus wrote: »

    You're in favour of forcing women to carry a dead foetus to term so?

    No. The removal of an already dead unborn is not an attack on life...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


    In all seriouness though, Ireland in one of the last bastions of saftey for unborn babies and we (Religous and non-religous) Irish People must do all that we can to continue this proud and noble fact...

    Bollox!
    Let the government bring in laws that reflect the Supreme Court judgement.
    And anyone that disagrees with it can arrange a protest mass (or a march whichever suits)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,130 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Is this legislation not (terribly overdue as it is) off the back of a Supreme Court ruling and not a referendum? Isn't that the point Brady was making, that it should go to a referendum?
    It's off the back of both:
    • In 1983, the constitution was changed by the 8th referendum to protect the rights of the unborn and its mother
    • In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the 8th referendum meant a woman had a right to abortion in certain circumstances
    • Later in 1992, there was a referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It was defeated. This is when the legislation should have been implemented. It wasn't
    • In 2002, there was another referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It was defeated. Again, legislation was required. Again, it was ignored
    When people go on about "what the people of Ireland want" in regard to abortion, it's worth noting that, since the SC ruling, there have been 4 referendums on abortion issues. The pro-life side have been defeated in all 4

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,130 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    No. The removal of an already dead unborn is not an attack on life...
    And if they're just brain-dead? Say, in cases of anencephaly?

    What about a case where a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and needs chemotherapy straight away, even though the chemotherapy will kill the baby?

    How about a case where a fourteen year old girl had been raped by a neighbour and became pregnant, and told her mother of suicidal thoughts because of the unwanted pregnancy? You know, the case where the Supreme Court and, not one, but two subsequent referendums decided she should have the right to an abortion?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Posts: 81,308 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Jaxon Curved Sidewalk


    I would like to remind everyone that this thread is about the right to lobby and the actual lobbying of politicians. This is NOT an abortion thread.
    Further nonsense one liners and discussion of abortion will be treated as derailing


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    I am saying they should not be allowed to lobby.

    The Catholic church is discouraged from getting involved in politics elsewhere.

    Everyone should have the right to lobby...except if it endangers a strong separation of church and state.

    When you look at what is happening in the states it is frightening how religion drives politics.

    The catholic church controls too much regarding eduction already.

    Their input is no longer welcome in Ireland as i am concerned. They have done enough damage with their fairy tales and scams.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    28064212 wrote: »
    It's off the back of both:
    • In 1983, the constitution was changed by the 8th referendum to protect the rights of the unborn and its mother
    • In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the 8th referendum meant a woman had a right to abortion in certain circumstances
    • Later in 1992, there was a referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It was defeated. This is when the legislation should have been implemented. It wasn't
    • In 2002, there was another referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It was defeated. Again, legislation was required. Again, it was ignored
    When people go on about "what the people of Ireland want" in regard to abortion, it's worth noting that, since the SC ruling, there have been 4 referendums on abortion issues. The pro-life side have been defeated in all 4

    Well in this case, let the church lobby but the legislators have an obligation to uphold the Supreme Court ruling and the will of the people (as evidenced in the referendum outcomes), an obligation they have quite obviously been shirking.


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    28064212 wrote: »
    And if they're just brain-dead? Say, in cases of anencephaly?

    What about a case where a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and needs chemotherapy straight away, even though the chemotherapy will kill the baby?

    How about a case where a fourteen year old girl had been raped by a neighbour and became pregnant, and told her mother of suicidal thoughts because of the unwanted pregnancy? You know, the case where the Supreme Court and, not one, but two subsequent referendums decided she should have the right to an abortion?

    I would happily discuss the immorality of killing the unborn in any or all of those intances but we've been warned already so i'll nt go into it any more in this particular thread.

    Of course the Church should and will, vigourously, lobby and campaign against any form of introduction of abortion.

    Pat Rabbitte had better get used to the idea...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,130 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    I'm happy to let the church lobby away as best they can. When you have people like this coming out and saying "you can't be Catholic and open to abortion", it might encourage people to actually look at whether they are Catholic, which can only be a good thing

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Is this legislation not (terribly overdue as it is) off the back of a Supreme Court ruling and not a referendum? Isn't that the point Brady was making, that it should go to a referendum?.

    It's gone to a referendum twice. Three times if you count the 2002 one over threat of suicide as a legitimate reason. It's disengenous of Brady to suggest that another referendum is needed, given that the electorate decided to allow the latter to remain as cause for abortion.
    Not that I agree with him, I'm happy to accept the interpretation of the Supreme Court. Of course I think that politicians should abide by the will of the people despite their internal beliefs....but they must have the luxury of having reservations and the space to air those reservations - otherwise they only represent the populist majority. Saying 'they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religious belief.' would mean that politicians would have little room to object personally if the majority of the country held some backward notion on some issue, which the Irish electorate have done and still do on many things.

    They can "air" reservations all they want. It's the notion regarding blocking of legislation wherein the problem lies. Theres never been much effort to protect minorities in the past in this country, so its a bit rich for any such defence to enter the question now.

    And I might add that as only a minority will ever have an abortion, and that as there's no plan to make them mandatory, passing the legislation is in the minority interest.


Advertisement
Advertisement