Sir, – What an extraordinary comment by Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte (Front page, August 27th) when he suggests that 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”. The Minister should understand that the days of the Roman Catholic church dictating to our elected representatives, or indeed the general populace, are long gone, and it is completely disingenuous of him to try to propagate this fear.
Why should the Catholic Church or indeed any church not be allowed to contribute to this important debate by lobbying on the issue?
Why would the Minister discourage healthy debate? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Cardinal Brady is wrong. The Government has no option but to implement the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)judgment in the “ABC” abortion case, unless it were to envisage the politically unimaginable notion of leaving the Council of Europe.
ECHR judgments, based as they are on the European Convention of Human Rights to which all the 47 member states of the council are signatory, trump not only decisions by national governments but also rulings by national courts.
The court in Strasbourg often gives member states a “margin of appreciation”, which tends to be larger in cases involving religion, but there is a limit to it.
What needs to be understood – including in Government Buildings, where a working group has been established which can have only one sane outcome – is that Ireland, North and South, is hopelessly out of step with the rest of Europe on this issue, as was previously the case on gay rights until the landmark Dudgeon (in the North) and Norris cases. Only Malta similarly outlaws abortion, which is legal (under various conditions) in strongly Catholic Italy, Spain and France.
A “groupthink” prevails in Ireland that fails to recognise that a fundamental human-rights principle is non-discrimination. It is perfectly legitimate for those of a conservative Christian disposition to take the view that human life begins when a soul is incorporated into the embryo at conception. It is totally illegitimate for them to impose that view on non-believers, whose model of life is medical (life begins at viability outside the womb) or social (life begins at birth).
Both latter perspectives allow for abortion, albeit with a reasonable debate between them about time limits, compatible with recognition of a woman’s right to control her reproductive capacity. They do not, of course, require women with strong religious beliefs to avail themselves of the option to terminate a pregnancy (although they do require all publicly funded medical staff to act professionally as the individual patient demands).
The State must be neutral between competing citizens’ views of the good life. A democratic society guaranteeing equality of citizenship is incompatible with discrimination in favour of one or other faith. This is not “secularism” (“militant” or otherwise): it is an understanding that the only guarantee that everyone enjoys freedom of conscience is impartiality on the part of public authorities.
That is the alpha and omega of it. The Government must act accordingly, without further prevarication, and implement the ECHR ruling. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – Cardinal Seán Brady referred on This Week (RTÉ Radio 1, August 26th) to lobbying public representatives when the question of abortion arises for legislation in the coming months.
Following this, Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte said he was surprised at the cardinal’s reference to lobbying, and said he would not welcome such engagement in the political campaign. He viewed it as “retrogressive”, describing it in terms of the church “dictating” to State authorities.
It is most unlikely in the present climate that the church could dream of “dictating” like that, or that the Government would accept dictation, given recent statements by the Taoiseach and other Ministers.
It is not surprising that the Minister would not welcome such engagement. It is extraordinary, however, that he should be surprised at what the cardinal said in this regard. Surely he is not saying that the cardinal, or the church, does not have the right to be engaged in the political life of the State, just like any other citizen or legitimate group?
If the church were forbidden to lobby, then every other interested group in the State – including The Irish Times – would equally have to be barred. We would all be the losers.
In the interests of fuller democracy, all such engagement should rather be promoted and welcomed. – Yours, etc,