Dear Editor, I note with surprise and dismay the recent statement of the Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) on the Eighth Amendment.
On first reading, it appears that what bothers the ACP is that laity are involved in articulating the pro-life message to Mass-goers – a curiously inconsistent position for an association which garners much of its media attention through lamenting the lack of lay participation in the Church.
A closer reading of the statement, however, reveals that the ACP simply and dogmatically objects to the pro-life message being communicated during Mass. This is extraordinary and reveals both its impoverished understanding of Church teaching and how out of touch the association’s leadership is with ordinary Catholics, laity and clergy alike.
Ordinary Catholics are well aware of the social doctrine of the Church and, for this reason, find it unexceptionable, when, from time to time, representatives from Trócaire, St Vincent de Paul, and various missionary organisations speak from the pulpit. The Church has always sought to inform and enlighten the consciences of humanity, helping people discern the truth and the obligations which truth enjoins.
Commitment to justice and peace is a vital dimension of Catholicism and not just some ‘optional extra’. It is for this reason that the Church holds up figures like Dorothy Day, Oscar Romero and Mother Teresa as exemplars worthy of veneration and emulation. The most fundamental tenet of Catholic social doctrine is respect for the dignity of human life in all its forms, but most particularly, at its weakest and most vulnerable.
The ACP statement adverts to a “great variety of opinions” among Catholics on the upcoming referendum. This regrettable fact is, at least in part, attributable to the confusion spread by certain prominent ACP members which has produced the spectacle of Catholic politicians advocating “in good conscience” a vote to legalise widespread destruction of innocent human life.
This scandalous phenomenon only underlines the need for pastors and laity to redouble their efforts ensure that the Catholic faithful have an appropriate appreciation of human dignity and the responsibilities which its defence imposes upon them as citizens.
Yours etc.,
Séamus Ó Cearra,
Drogheda, Co. Louth.
The Irish jury must vote ‘not guilty’
Dear Editor, It seems to me that on radio and TV debates those advocating a ‘Yes’ vote constantly push the most difficult and rarest of circumstances in order justify removing the Eighth Amendment from the constitution. My heart goes out to those who experience these most distressing of situations and in my experience the best response is always to offer these mothers real care, actual support (including a home and financial support if this is needed) and true compassion.
As a clinical psychologist who has worked for a long number of years in the public health service I know first hand that there has been very little help available to those who were experiencing post-abortion negative psychological effects. In addition, there has been a reluctance to come forward to even seek help.
One of the key reasons for this not seeking support for mental health issues which arose or worsened after the abortion in my opinion was that often times they were counselled into their decision by public health service professionals who also told them that there were very few negative psychological after effects.
Thanks to wonderful life-affirming groups such as Rachel’s Vineyard and womenhurt.ie these mothers and all family members affected can experience help and healing and peace after their abortion journey.
I heard it described recently that in a way we are all being asked to be jurors on May 25 with our task to either say ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in other words ‘yes’ or ‘no’. I think this is a very true analogy. I hope that the people (‘the jury’) will be voting overwhelming to say ‘not guilty’ and thereby protect the equal right to life (the most basic of all human rights) of our future preborn boys and girls.
Yours etc.,
Dr Sheila Gallagher,
Co. Donegal.
‘No’ vote must get mobile
Dear Editor, In general elections, political parties identify supporters who cannot get to the polling stations and arrange for transport on the day. I have done this for several elections. Obviously the various ‘No’ groups don’t have the same back-up to do this. This is where the parish can become the back-up. By collecting names of parishioners who need transport and organising volunteers to provide it on May 25, parishes could be the difference between success and failure. This could be vital in both rural and urban areas.
Yours etc.,
Patrick Conneely,
Ballymun, Dublin 11.
ACP on a strange road
Dear Editor, As a lay woman who spoke at Mass on the forthcoming referendum, I strongly object to the Association of Catholic Priests presuming that I and others like me are insensitive to the feelings of the congregation. How quickly they want to silence the voices of women who stand up for Church teaching on the right to life of the unborn. Perhaps from now on ACP should translate as ‘All Consuming Power’ because that is the road they are travelling now whether they are aware of it or not.
Yours etc.,
Rosarie O’Sullivan,
Cork City, Co. Cork.
How consistent is ACP’s stance?
Dear Editor, I note that the leadership of the Association of Catholic Priests had called for an end to referendum campaigning during Mass.
If the leadership of the ACP believe that church pulpits should not be used to help defend the rights of the most vulnerable in society, I presume they will also, in the interest of consistency, call for an end to the use of Catholic churches for Trócaire’s Lenten campaign.
Yours etc.,
Edel McDonough,
Killiney, Co. Dublin.
Was information withheld from voters?
Dear Editor, The majority of Irish obstetricians and gynaecologists have advocated for repeal of the Eighth Amendment. Some have given expert testimony to the Oireachtas and public. Many trained/worked abroad at pre-consultant / consultant level, usually in the US or UK, where abortion on demand, even in the last trimester, is permissible in certain circumstances.
Did these pro-repeal obstetricians, in particular those who appeared as expert witnesses, perform terminations of pregnancy routinely according to the grounds and gestational limits of the jurisdictions they worked in abroad or did they invoke conscientious objection rights (which, who knows, might affect career prospects)? If not, surely that would be relevant to know given they would steer us in favour of liberalisation of the law?
Though silence on this is understandable, to avoid a negative reaction, we are nonetheless being asked to trust their professional opinion on the Eighth. Is it not an omission or even disingenuous to neglect to state if true, that one is pro-choice, upfront to TDs and the public?
In particular one’s experience of performing abortions on demand (ground C in the UK is the mental health risk ground responsible for 97% of over nine million ‘social’ abortions to date) or in cases of severe disability abortions including Down’s Syndrome should be shared.
There are activists in all walks of life. If you are a pro-choice obstetrician, performing abortions is activism and the UK and US colleges of Obstetrics and Gynaecology both advocate for further liberalisation. Could all our obstetricians now clarify, under what circumstances, in the past they performed abortions? They rightly command enormous respect and exert great influence over the current debate, but given the enormity of what is at stake, it is only fair to inquire, as otherwise an inaccurate picture of objective impartiality while advocating for repeal, may have been presented to our Oireachtas and public.
Yours etc.,
Kevin Dolan,
Booterstown, Co. Dublin.
Clarity brought to bear
Dear Editor, There is no doubt that voting in a referendum on social issues can be challenging for people of Faith too. Many of us want to do the morally right thing but also be as compassionate to others as possible. In discussions with practicing Catholic friends, I discovered that some were struggling with how to vote in the abortion referendum. They told me that they were struggling because of the hard cases that some women face.
But on reflection when we discussed that this referendum was not about legislating for hard cases or even some change in our Constitution but the removal of all rights for the unborn in our Constitution, they became clearer that there was only one option but to vote no in the referendum.
Yours etc.,
Frank Browne,
Templeogue, Dublin 16.
There comes a limit beyond which we can’t go
Dear Editor, There is a song (‘Rhinestone Cowboy’) that says, “there’s been a load of compromising on the road to my horizon”. Undoubtedly each one of us has compromised to greater and lesser degrees. It might even be fair to say that without compromise there cannot be harmony and co-existence. But for each one of us there is a limit beyond which we will not go.
For me that limit was and is wellbeing and life. When playing sport was an important part of my life, my colleagues and I, no matter how hard and uncompromising the on-field battles, were always aware of the reality of Monday morning and its call to duty for us all. To deliberately injure or in any way physically harm another player was anathema.
How much more so should each one of us have respect and concern for the feeblest and weakest of all, the unborn and the fragile aged! Undoubtedly the defining mark of the wellbeing of any society and individual is how we care for those who are absolutely vulnerable and totally dependent. Failure to treat the unborn and our fading elders with care, love and kindness fractures society and dishonours individuals.
The Referendum Vote on May 25 is our challenge as individuals and as society, our challenge to publicly affirm our commitment to the right that is pre-eminent – the right of each individual to be born and take his or her chance in the sometimes stern but always exciting game of life. Ours is not the right to deny anyone that great privilege. Our decision in the polling booths will determine and define our national psyche and our attitude to all other humans – in the womb, born and elderly – for decades or maybe even centuries.
Yours etc.,
Cllr Michael Gleeson,
Killarney,
Co. Kerry.
This vote will have long-term consequences
Dear Editor, As we approach polling day to decide the fate of the Eighth Amendment, we must be conscious of the fact that in this decision we’ll decide the fate of many, many lives, into the years ahead, and, the fate and nature of future society’s attitude to, and the degree of respect for, the giftedness of life. The decision which our society in this State will make must be made in the full knowledge and awareness of the ramifications of that decision. Those ramifications will inform and shape the nature of society which we’ll hand to our children, their children and their children’s children. This will not be just another referendum!
If the Eighth is repealed abortion will become a civil right as the State will assume for itself a right over life. The Rubicon will have been crossed. There will be no turning back. So May 25 will not just be the day of another referendum, it may be the day that political correctness will triumph over the power and courage of the human mind and see our society change and change utterly.
For those who do not want our society to change utterly, in that regard or to see the emergence of abortion and then (after a respectable time lag) euthanasia as a civil right, voting ‘NO’ on May 25, albeit politically incorrect, is I believe, the correct thing to do.
Yours etc.,
John J. Lupton,
Roscrea,
Co. Tipperary.
Who exactly are the ‘laity’?
Dear Editor, What would the Church do without abortion? This opportunity to feel righteous and useful obscures the empty pews and scarcity of ordinations. We appear to be “the largest Christian denomination worldwide” but in fact only 5% of those registered actually attend Mass or understand what we are supposed to believe in. The Gospel reading of May 13 defines what ‘Faith’ is , but since the lapse of the charistmatic renewal movement how many can cast out demons, heal the sick or speak in other tongues?
Yet Pope Francis in 2015 clearly told the clergy to have everyone baptised in the Spirit ‘so that they could have a closer relationship with Jesus’, but how many bishops responded except by holding seminars and talking about it? It seems the laity is condemned to define ‘Faith’ as kneeling before a picture of the Sacred Heart or statuette of Our Lady and whining at it.
Yours etc.,
Alex Dahn
Bangor, Co. Down.
Good to see crazy claims rubbished
Dear Editor, Anyone online nowadays in Ireland must find themselves battered with anecdote after anecdote from a Facebook group called ‘In her shoes – women of the Eighth’. The anonymous stories in it are often heart-rending, but reading them it’s hard to wonder to what extent they’re true.
Certainly, they make me think of how in a recent issue of your paper one GP criticised what he called “a litany of falsehoods and exaggerations, instilling fear into the debate” (IC 26/4/2018). I can’t help but wonder if he had the likes of this group in mind.
In particular, a recurring claim that simply will not die whether in that group or elsewhere is that women with cancer cannot be treated for their illness in Ireland if they are pregnant, and must either wait until delivery or have an abortion before being treated. It was, therefore, reassuring to see you reporting on how three oncologists – including one in the UK – have rubbished these claims.
Yours etc.,
Clare McMahon
Tallaght, Dublin 24.
Public must read the proposed bill before voting
Dear Editor, I am writing to encourage members of the public to read Minister Harris’ proposed bill before they vote on May 25.
As a 22-year-old medical student, I’m worried for what would be expected of me in the event of a Yes victory. I’m amazed that, given all the media attention this debate has received, we seldom hear the wording of the Eighth Amendment and we seldom hear the wording of this draft legislation.
I have read it. It shocked me. Having read the facts and questioned everything I’ve read I have found myself firmly on the ‘No’ side. If the public are made aware of exactly what would happen as a result of a Yes vote then I am totally confident that we will vote No.
Let’s love both mother and baby, let’s vote No in order to keep the Life Equality Amendment in our constitution.
Yours etc.,
Philip Kennedy,
Terryland, Co. Galway.
Pray the Chaplet
Dear Editor, I know there is a lot of storming of Heaven going on in Ireland and elsewhere for a successful outcome in the upcoming referendum. Can I prayerfully suggest to the Irish Bishops (and also maybe the Vatican) that a Novena of Divine Mercy Chaplets be prayed in all churches in Ireland (and elsewhere) starting on May 16 and finishing on May 24 (the day before the vote) to implore Divine Mercy on our country to avoid this catastrophe?
Yours sincerely
Pat O’Neill
Crosshaven, Co Cork.
Is the Irish Family Planing Association a ‘charitable organisation’?
Dear Editor, So Atheist Ireland is questioning the charitable status of the Iona Institute. What about the Irish Family Planning Association being accepted as a ‘charitable organisation’?
I queried this some time ago and was informed that ‘it was decided to give it charitable status’. How can this organisation, affiliated to the biggest abortion provider in the world, International Planned Parenthood, be considered a charity and be funded by our Government? IPP is a multi-billion dollar industry and is treated as a charity.
I suppose with all the lies being told regarding the Eighth Amendment preventing doctors treating pregnant women etc., it is not surprising but it is most disappointing that this situation is accepted and any effort to change it is thwarted.
We do really need to consider the sort of society we are tolerating and to realise that removing the Eighth Amendment, the only protection available for unborn babies, will only further damage our country’s reputation as one caring for the weak and vulnerable and certainly not intent on deliberately killing the weakest and most vulnerable of all.
A No vote will show that we are fully aware of the consequences for generations to come of legislating for abortion and are not prepared to go the route of so many countries with widespread abortion and no means of rowing back on the decision to support abortion.
Yours etc.,
Mary Stewart,
Donegal Town,
Co. Donegal
Fears for democracy in Ireland live on
Dear Editor, During the marriage referendum of three years ago I began to fear for democracy in Ireland.
Posters were regularly torn down with one establishment offering a reward for stolen posters, but An Garda did nothing; the Garda Representative Association urged voters to vote to change the Constitution, and the head of the IDA said such a vote would be in Ireland’s economic interest. The ‘Home to Vote’ movement took off in this environment, as throngs of emigrants who had – for whatever reason – foregone their right to be entered on the electoral register turned up en masse in a collective attempt to swing a vote.
The Government looked the other way during all of this, just as Simon Harris has stood by Amnesty after it succeeded in using foreign funds to purchase the current referendum, so it doesn’t surprise me to see them similarly smiling indulgently at Google’s actions last week, when the California-based internet colossus pulled the rug from under Irish ‘no’ campaigners in an apparent attempt to preclude a ‘no’ vote.
Where will this end?
Yours etc.,
Maurice Connolly,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.
Next time I’ll take advice of Web Watch!
Dear Editor, Despite the warnings of your Web Watch column (IC 3/5/2018), I made the mistake of listening to the Spectator podcast on Ireland’s abortion referendum. It didn’t take long before I was blinking at the claim that the Government wishes to introduce abortion on demand during the first trimester, omitting how the proposed second trimester regime is functionally identical to the abortion regime here in England. I should have trusted you!
Yours etc.,
Bernadette Doyle,
Coventry, UK.
