Towards a truly universal ‘zero tolerance’ of family abuse
Dear Editor, The recent correspondence regarding the complexities of the Irish family law system, alongside comments from various public representatives and legal professionals, invites a necessary reflection on the nature of abuse and our collective duty to protect children. While the pain expressed by mothers who have faced domestic hardship is undeniable and deserves our deepest empathy, a significant void remains in the current discourse—one that threatens the very safety of the children we all seek to shield.
To speak of a “zero tolerance” approach to abuse while omitting or actively rejecting the reality of Parental Alienation (PA) is a logical and moral contradiction. If we are to be truly committed to child welfare, our advocacy must be comprehensive, not selective. PA—the psychological manipulation of a child to unjustifiably reject a loving parent—is an invisible but devastating form of child abuse and coercive control.
The evidence for this is robust and growing. A recent peer-reviewed study published by Springer highlights the severe impact of these behaviors on child development. Furthermore, we find profound moral guidance in the Church’s own reflections. As Bishop Michael Router highlighted, referencing the spirit of Amoris Laetitia, the Church recognises the deep “wounds” caused when a child is turned against a parent.
The current legal landscape in Ireland is fraught with inconsistency. While various Irish judges have acknowledged PA in specific rulings, we still lack a legislative framework to address it directly.
We must heed Bishop Router’s nuanced perspective: while legislative reform is long overdue, laws alone will not resolve the deep-seated pain within broken families. We require a systemic cultural shift—one that moves away from adversarial conflict and toward a model prioritising the child’s right to a healthy relationship with both parents.
A genuine “zero tolerance” stance must encompass all forms of abuse: domestic violence, sexual abuse, parental alienation, and the weaponisation of false allegations. To truly protect the next generation, we must have the courage to acknowledge the complete picture of family suffering, regardless of gender.
Yours etc,
Paul Anderson
Ballybofey, Co. Donegal
The value in facilitating debates on the future of the Church
Dear Editor, The editor is to be commended for recent challenging editorials on the future of the Irish Church. His comments on the address by Bishop Niall Coll and the reply by Fr Brendan Hoban are a case in point. Whilst I would lean firmly to Fr Hoban’s view (his track record in the renewal of Kilalla diocese, along with Bishop John Fleming and Fr Michael Gilroy, stand out) it is very healthy to have a forum for alternative points of view. Facilitating the debate is a great service.
The interesting, and I would say prophetic articles, by Frs Cotter and Delaney could be the backdrop for a series on the future? If a priestless parish is not a Christless parish then the future, I believe, lies not in the closure of churches or the importation of foreign missionaries or the stretching of priests to burn out, but in the calling and formation of local leaders, just as in the Acts of the Apostles.
Whilst thanking the editor for these helpful debates I would have to take issue with him on his criticism of Archbishop Dermot Farrell (April 30). Contrary to his editorial, I believe that three of the Archbishop’s recent homilies (St Patrick’s Day, Holy Thursday and Knock), with their emphasis on newness, the value of crisis and synodality are a backdrop to Building Hope, which frees and challenges local partnerships, giving them space to experiment and explore new initiatives. I have personally experienced his encouragement for newness in our Columba Marmion partnership. I believe that the Archbishop is a synodal style leader who has restored morale and enthusiasm to our diocese and is helping us to plan for the future
I thank the editor for doing us all a favour by facilitating such important debates.
Yours etc,
Fr Jim Caffrey PP
Balally, Dublin 16
March for Life speakers combat typical ‘pro-choice speak’
Dear Editor, Less than a week after Social Democrats leader Holly Cairns introduced a bill to liberalise Irish abortion, thousands of people participated in Dublin’s March for Life, protesting current legislation which now sees almost 11,000 terminations per year.
According to her recent article in the West Cork People (May 1-June 4), Ms Cairns advocates scrapping the “patronising” 3-day waiting period. By contrast, march speaker Aontú Councillor Ellen Troy highlights over 10,000 women who have changed their minds after their first doctor-visit, not proceeding to a second visit.
Ms Cairns’ article abounds in the usual euphemisms that characterise pro-choice speak. She cites shortcomings in “abortion care” in our “healthcare” system which apparently lacks “dignity” and “compassion” and calls for “medical treatment” to facilitate abortion far beyond the current 12-week period. But as everyone who attended the March for Life knows, abortion is not healthcare. There is nothing compassionate, dignified or caring about it. The procedure ends a human life, often leaving women with devastating regret and in cases of misdiagnosis with the dawning horror that a perfectly healthy baby was needlessly sacrificed.
Ms Cairns describes the current restrictions on Irish abortion provision as “cruel” and “inhuman”. By contrast, march speaker Ken O’Flynn TD of Independent Ireland recalls that, after failed abortions, many babies have been left to die alone and uncared for in Irish hospitals. How cruel and inhuman are these practices and what do they say about us as a society?
The naked reality is that one in six babies’ lives in Ireland now ends in abortion, yet the Social Democrats don’t seem to think that’s enough. This sobering statistic coupled with the alarming increase in the numbers must surely herald a wake-up call.
Could it be time for a radical re-think about abortion in Ireland? But definitely not on the lines that the Social Democrats are planning.
Yours etc,
Sinéad Boland
Kilmacanogue, Co. Wicklow
New Evangelisation synodality and lay participation amid obscurity and speculation
Dear Editor, Your editorial of April 30 dutifully addressed current pastoral and evangelisation difficulties in the Dublin archdiocese which, if accurate, render it mission territory. Nothing new here in Church history wherein new mission always dictated that celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass depended on whatever the available priests could provide. In Africa historic parish identity counted for little. In Mass-rock-Ireland laity also endured hardship seeking locations to engage with the Eucharist for its own sake. Today by contrast, in urban-suburban Dublin most people can choose between churches within easy reach to experience the indispensability of the Eucharist.
In effect, excessive adherence to historical parish identity puts inappropriate burdens on priests. Assisting laity to use the available new regional patterns of sabbath Eucharistic provision befits a synodal lay approach of organisation and meetings, but only in a New Evangelisation sense of the synodal based on scripture, Church teaching and tradition. Unfortunately, ‘à la mode’ synodality is undefined and oft promoted as a speculative process, thereby incurring obsolescence by advances in speculation.
The editorial coincided timewise with recent personal experiences. One, on April 25/26, was an extended, joyful, inspiring interaction with two young female university graduates, members of a new religious congregation founded in Ireland, pending Vatican recognition. They rely in trust on donations for their upkeep. Their mornings are primarily “Mary schedules” of prayer and study. Their afternoons have a significant “Martha” dimension in ministries in their locality.
Similarly at Knock on April 19, and directly relevant to the editorial, a female leader of the lay Apostolate of Eucharistic Adoration in a Dublin 3 parish described significant growth in both Eucharistic Adoration and attendance at confession, attracting visiting laity from other parishes.
These are two of many examples of lay response to pursuit by the supernatural and reciprocal seeking to “believe in my works” – bearing fruit in accord with scripture, Church teaching and tradition.
Yours etc,
Neil Bray
Cappamore, Co. Limerick
Understating the value of the permanent diaconate
Dear Editor, I was surprised to read how Bishop Donal McKeown (May 7), has justified his decision not to ordain men for the permanent diaconate in the Derry Diocese. I totally agree with him, that we need to encourage the laity to tend to the pastoral and community needs of our parishes, but this does not negate the potential value of the permanent diaconate. It is not an either-or situation with the laity in competition with permanent deacons.
As a married deacon, I hope I bring my life experience from my secular working life, as a father of teenagers, as well as my theological studies to our parish community. Surely it is no bad thing if my ordained role for example, in celebrating baptisms, allows the priest to have some time off, while I share the charism of being both a father and a deacon with the congregation. Perhaps it might be time for a synodal reflection of the value of the permanent diaconate in the Diocese of Derry.
Yours etc,
Permanent Deacon Frank Browne
Rathfarnham, Dublin 14
Foróige: a tool for investing in the next generation
Dear Editor, One of the positive initiatives to emerge in Ireland in recent years has been the rapid growth of Foróige youth clubs around the country.
These clubs are supported by local volunteers but operate under the guidance of a well organised and caring taskforce that are making a huge impact for the good in Irish society by investing in the next generation and is key to suicide prevention on this island.
I would urge any parish council who has not already done so to invite Foróige to assist in setting up a local youth club.
Yours etc,
Andrew Kieran
Derry City, Co. Derry