TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

Cardinal appeals for abortion referendum – but minister sees no need

Seán Brady says the ruling in the X Case was “flawed” and a referendum is needed to reverse it, but Pat Rabbitte disagrees.

Cardinal Sean Brady is
Cardinal Sean Brady is "appealing for a calm, reasoned discussion" on the "very important issue" of abortion.
Image: Peter Morrison/AP

THE CATHOLIC PRIMATE of all Ireland, Cardinal Seán Brady, has said the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1992 ‘X Case’ is “flawed” and that a referendum should be held giving the public the opportunity to overturn it.

Speaking on RTÉ radio this afternoon, Cardinal Brady said the “only remedy” to the ruling in the case “would be another referendum”.

The X Case saw the Supreme Court rule that the Irish constitution permits abortions in circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk, including through the risk of suicide. So far, however, no government has legislated to give effect to this finding.

“That decision of the Supreme Court seemed to open the door to abortion,” Brady said. “So it’s a very complicated situation, it needs addressing, yes, and we believe that possibly a referendum is the only solution.”

Health minister James Reilly has formed an expert group to report on the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on A, B and C versus Ireland, which criticised Ireland for failing to give effect to the Supreme Court’s ruling 20 years ago.

Brady told RTÉ Radio 1′s This Week programme that if the expert group recommended legislating for abortion under limited circumstances, the Church would respond with a vigorous campaign.

“We would have a media campaign, we would by lobbying public representatives, and hope to write a pastoral letter on the situation,” the Cardinal said, saying the Church would also provide “resources to priests to breach on this topic in the pulpit”.

Brady added that he was “appealing for a calm, reasoned discussion of this very important issue”, but insisted that the Church’s attitude to abortion did not mean women had to carry a pregnancy even if it meant threatening their own life.

“Two rights are to be respected – never, and in no case, has the Church taught that the life of the child has to be preferred to the life of the mother.”

‘Undoing what has been done’

Speaking after Brady, communications minister Pat Rabbitte said he did not see “any necessity” for any measure which could result in “undoing what has been done to date”.

“We see a necessity to address the fallout, if you want to put it that way, from the X Case and the decision of the European Court of Justice” [sic], he said, later adding:

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 it should address an issue that every large section of our society believes that governments in the past already have done.

He agreed with Brady, however, that it was important to avoid any “bitterness and divisiveness” in approaching the issue of abortion.

Separately, Brady affirmed the Church’s opposition to legislate for gay marriage, saying a union between a man and woman was “the most favourable position in which children can be reared”.

“We feel that to call it ‘gay marriage’ is, in fact, to weaken the traditional notion of marriage which is so important to society,” Brady suggested.

“To any way equate this with marriage, as is traditionally understood, does in fact weaken people’s commitment to marriage.”

Read: Pro-life campaign challenges Junior Minister over remarks on abortion

Read next:

Comments (82 Comments)

  • I welcome the good Cardinal’s comments on this important issue. I feel his past experience leaves him in an excellent position to pontificate and moralise on the safety and wellbeing of children.

    As regards ‘gay marriage’… I’m again with the good Cardinal. I want to marry a man and have no intention of calling it ‘gay marriage’. Marriage will do me just fine.

  • Brady added that he was “appealing for a calm, reasoned discussion of this very important issue”, yes that is very likely to happen.

  • Unfortunately Cardinal Brady himself does not speak from a position of any credibility whatsoever.
    Unfortunately too , his withholding of critical evidence against known pedophiles, to be passed on to the Police and to the Parents of the Abused , has left him as an anaemic and worthless Spokesperson on any subject.
    He should resign now and present himself for prosecution as an apologist for the huge number of crimes perpetrated on Children , by his Churchmen !

  • You can call for what you like, Cardinal. Until you’re an elected representative, that’s all you’ll do.

    • The Cardinal seems to overlook that the Supreme Court has made a decision and the Oireachtas ought legislate
      accordingly. The Cardinal should try to stick to Canon Law , although it is worth pointing out that Law did not serve our children well in the past when being raped by clerics of his Church.

    • Law didn’t serve children well because it wasn’t used. All cases of child abuse could have resulted in dismissal from the priesthood, the option just wadn’t used. Cardinal Connell was the first to use the procedure in the world

    • Fergus. That is the point. He ignores Canon Law and now try’s to dictate what Civil Law ought to be. He is not a fit person to make observations on Law. Anyway , given his address he does not even have a vote on the issue. He ought not interfere in OUR laws.

    • The supreme court judgement on the constitution can hardly rule out changing the article in question. Changing the constitution is entirely legally possible and the supreme court can’t stop us

  • The Cardinal can be assured that few people favour “gay marriage.” Marriage equality for consenting adults is what’s required.

  • Butt out. The politics and laws of this country don’t concern the church except to abide by them.

    Calling in to question a state decision (through the highest court in our land) is outrageous and shows in what regard the church holds our democracy.

    Mr Rabbitte is quite right that we don’t want to return to the days of low-towing to this interest group.

    Butt out.

    • Every citizen has a right to comment on the laws of the land and religious leaders have the right to comment on matters from the perspective of their religion. To suggest otherwise is to suggest religious people are second class citizens

    • He wasn’t speaking as a citizen, he was speaking on behalf of the church

    • @Fergus you’re on the back foot here and very defensive. @HairyLemon never suggested that he wasn’t entitled to his opinion, just that he should Butt out. Which I agree with. Let him preach to his followers. He’s no leader of mine and until he’s democratically elected in Ireland, he never will be.

    • His call for a referendum rings of desperation considering the fact that we have had a number of referenda since the X case which appear to uphold the decision of the supreme court and not expand access beyond that of the X decision.

      Why waste more money, especially considering polls would suggest an increasing pro-choice stance on this country?

    • In all fairness, he doesn’t have to butt out. As a representative of the Catholic Church, an organisation that holds a position on the issue and as an organisation a proportion of the population look to for moral guidance, he has every right to have an opinion on the issue. I personally do not fully agree with his position, nor do I respect him as a man but we live in a democracy so he has every right to outline his organisation’s position on the matter.

  • Only in Ireland would a bunch of elderly celibate men get to dictate what a Woman can or can’t do with her body. The sooner the Catholic Church dies off the better

    • I think your remark about elderly celibates is unfortunate. The bishops are not preaching their own opinions but the worldwide, consistent catholic position on this question. This is more then can be said for pro abortion or pro choice voices who don’t seem to have a clear justification for allowing abortion. The only saving grave for pro abortion voices is that the reality of killing is ackowledged and even recognised as being part of late term procedures before removal of the corpse.

    • Barry 26/08/12 #

      so Fergus, Say a single mother with two existing kids becomes pregnant and if she proceeds with the birth she has a extremely high likelyhood of death ( for clarity let’s just say she has a 100% chance of death)

      Do you put the life of the unborn child above the life of the mother and the life’s and well being of her two existing kids,

      remember she’s a single mother with two existing kids who will be taken into care and grow up without any mother if she proceeds with the pregnancy,

      does that women’s life and her kids well being mean so little to the likes of you and the catholic church?

    • Weither a person is celebate or not should really have no bearing on them entering the debate on Abortion. However and with respect Fergus, you must agree that considering Sean Bradys and the churches flawed past, they certainly do not have the moral authority to “call upon” anybody to do anything.

    • Barry, i take it u really mean danger of death from continued pregnancy? Birth in ireland is safer than abortion. The situation of 100pc risk u mentioned doesn’t exist. Difficult pregnancy can be managed. In any case, is life after killing a child in the womb worth living? It wud be the same as killing a new born in china to avoid the family size police and them attacking u and ur family as revenge. We need to acknowledge that this current debate has absolutely nothing to do with saving women’s lives or avoiding emotionally difficult situations like carrying a sick or dying child term. It’s about the right to kill the child in the womb. Medics admit as much. Why can’t non medics admit as much?

    • Barry 26/08/12 #

      Fergus, Goodman you didn’t disappoint………..you completely dodged the question as expected,

    • No Barry i didnt dodge the question. I just won let Anyone set the agenda with a loaded scenario. Killing an un born baby is always wrong and unjustifiable whatever the circumstances

    • Barry 26/08/12 #

      Fergus, thanks for finally answering,

      its awful to hear that in such an awful situation you value a women’s wife so little :( (let’s not also forget the well being of any existing children)

      upholding catholics beliefs and standards at any cost I guess……

    • Barry 26/08/12 #

      Fergus, thanks for finally answering,

      its awful to hear that in such an awful situation you value a women’s wife so little :( (let’s not also forget the well being of any existing children)

      upholding catholics beliefs and standards at any cost I guess……….

    • Fergus: Italy which has abortion on demand is the safest place for a pregnant woman, just ask the respect publication the Lancet? Also in the case of continued pregnancy threatening the life of a woman then |Ireland is a very dangerous place for her. Sheila Hodgers being a very tragic example.

    • Conor, if a woman wants to abort her own body she can…the issue here is that she is proposing to abort the life of another.

    • comment of the week there by conor coneally

  • Sean Brady now wants to lobby politicians over abortion. It wasn’t that long ago Sean Brady was ignoring politicians that called for him to resign over the Brendan Smyth scandal.

  • Ill- informed debatable comments. Children with gay parents are not in a less optimal situation and research shows this. Using the concept of ‘dysfunctional children’ is not a valid argument for opposing gay marriage. In fact it’s deeply flawed. Again, priests preaching from the pulpits to increasingly empty churches are hardly best placed to advocate for the Church. Legislating for abortion and gay marriage is a progressive step for Ireland. Cardinal Brady who covered up for the sickening Brendan Smyth is totally devoid of credibility. Him and his dwindling flock of priest sheep can’t be allowed to prevent timely progression and equality.

  • Will 26/08/12 #

    “Two rights are to be respected – never, and in no case, has the Church taught that the life of the child has to be preferred to the life of the mother.” Then what is his problem with X Case judgment?

    • That wud include unintended side effects of say cancer treatment. Refusal of such treatment is not expected bt catholic teaching

    • Really Fergus?
      Is witchcraft not against catholic teaching?

      Because the term that was translated as witchcraft in the bible was the Greek “pharmakeia” which as I’m sure you can spot there contains “pharma” or “drug”, meaning that medicine is witchcraft, so in reality – were Catholics to take that book as seriously as you would imagine they would take the word of their supreme being, they would be rather anti medical treatment..

      Mind you, they would also realise that their god does not reside in temples, and that those running the show in the Vatican are the modern day Pharisees, hypocrites and followers of the doctrines of men..

  • Smiley 26/08/12 #

    It’s my understanding that courts exist to interpret and apply the law of the land. That being so, the cardinal is making an unnecessary request. The Supreme Court made its ruling which can now be used as precedent in other similar cases and refined as needed by other cases. Cardinal Brady is on a hiding to nothing even suggesting a referendum because of the Court’s decision.

  • Fergus your spelling/grammar is terrible . Abortion happens . Plenty of young women travel to England daily to obtain Terminations privately for whatever reasons . They then return to Ireland the same day with no medical aftercare and the fear they will be stigmatised if they seek medical treatment for complications . Some terminations are procured for severe foetal abnormalities which are not compatible with life . I think it’s barbaric to force women in these circumstances to travel overseas to obtain medical care that they should be able to access in their own country where they pay tax . In the meantime politicians will keep their heads in the sand and continue to export our own problem . The church is also against contraception which would prevent the oh so many unwanted pregnancies . Celibacy is not realistic however much we would prefer our youngsters to not be do promiscuous or careless .

    • Concise, to the point and accurate. I couldn’t agree more Sorca.

    • The church would have us reproduce at a rate, the planet couldn’t sustain and they’d say it was gods will. When we have exhausted the planet and living things, the church would be found no-where and plead ignorance. When we should be controlling the population, with contraception and preventing the misery of a child not compatible with life. By doing this, it won’t put a strain on society and would-be parents. Its a harsh reality, but it’s life!

  • If the Roman Church opposes marriage equality then they shouldn’t marry them in their (very empty) churches, but the Irish state should not allow Rome to continue its campaign to strip LGBT people of our rights and our families of their rights and protections under the law.

    • Why are lgbt ‘rights’ untouchable?

    • Why are religious rights untouchable?

    • Fergus, Vos estis in tutum territorio hic, accipere deuincere et regrediendumque propter temetipsum

    • Who said they were? Persecution of catholics is vero near

    • If you’re stuck for an answer Fergus, it’s this; most western nations are now liberal democracies, they believe that everyone has certain inherent and inalienable rights and to enjoy those rights all a person must simple respect the equally inherent and inalienable rights of everyone else.
      We have religious rights to prevent people being persecuted on the bases of their religion, we have LGBT rights to prevent people being persecuted on the bases of their sexuality.
      If you refuse to respect the rights of others you have little right to complain about your own rights being ignored.

    • Fergus as a priest, Which it is obvious that you are from your Facebook page. If you think that the Catholic church is being persecuted in Ireland then you are having a laugh, The church is doing itself no favours with its backward declarations that are out of step with in modern secular Ireland

    • Michael I have no intention of backing down. Being popular or winning popularity contests is not the point.

    • David i’m on my iPod, battery dying, on a bus and that’s what’s slowing me up not my Brain

    • Conor did i say the catholic church is being persecuted in ireland? It probably will be’ in the future, ordinary practicing catholics are isolated of they re open about their faith. Wot Wil it be’ like in the future?

    • Never said anything about your brain Fergus, I simply suggested that you didn’t have a good answer to my little question about the inalienablity of human rights. Unlike many atheists, I don’t belief that all theists are fools, instead that they are simply misguided.

    • Fergus, I suggest you research Buddhism and see the Light. It’s the begining of the end, for the church and its narrow minded, bigoted homophobic and everyone is a sinner attitude in life. Be a man, grow a pair and live in the real world!

  • Cardinal Brady as a citizen of this country is entitled to his opinion, I’m far more concerned about the people who take this person seriously..

  • Given brady’s previous form when it comes to human rights, perhaps he and the church should stay out of the country’s business.

  • Let him go to hell.

  • Just finished reading through the comments – didn’t take long for the religious freak to call ‘persecution of Catholics’, always the sign of having lost the argument.

  • We do not elect anyone in the church to represent us on civil matters , I think that they would be best advised to get their own organisations in order before pontificating on civil matters , the disgraceful behaviour of the church over many years in terms of the moving around paedophile priests from parish to continue abuse and to consistent,y cover up for rogue priests leaves them morally bankrupt , get their own house in order , accept times have moved on and thankfully they do not have the major influence on how we live our lives like they did inform way too many years in the past.

  • this guy should not be getting any publicity

  • Let’s have referendum on banning the Catholic Church – in fact ban all churches and religions. They’ve destroyed this island and the lives of thousands of children

  • Brady would rather we continue exporting our “little problem”… much like the Catholic Church exports its pedophiles, rather than having them brought to justice.

  • Don’t see the cardinal pushing for a referendum on the consensual age of boys – Brady you have much bigger things to be sorting out so off with yourself.

  • i hate to say it, but maybe he’s right. its not like this or any govt is about to legislate properly on this. ignore eu court rulings on this but enforce guidelines on turf cutting? the govt is really a shower of [insert your personal fav expletive]

  • Maybe a referendum on expelling the church, we be much happier without them and that’s a fact!

    • Who are you to say that though? You can only speak for yourself. Also just by saying “thats a fact” doesn’t make it a fact, wheres your empirical evidence that shows that the nations happiness would increase if the church was gone?

  • I think that it will be practically impossible to legislate for the X case. Firstly, to define what is considered a suicide risk will I suspect prove very problematic, secondly and more fundamentally the standard template for intervention where a mothers life is at risk based on current medical practice is that the baby is delivered any time after 24 weeks. In legislating for X if medics follow this protocol they could be at odds with the ruling in X as no time limit was set in the X case ruling. Therefore if legislation is introduced to give effect to X and that current medical practice is followed then a person who is deemed suicidal could if an abortion is refused after 24 weeks seek an order that it be granted in accordance with X and would in my view succeed in such an application.

    • I hit send inadvertently, the point I was trying to make was that I don’t think this is a situation that anyone wants.

    • I would imagine that this is part of the function of the expert group.

      Obviously permitting abortion at a time where a still born would be awarded a birth cert as well as a death cert (eg, after 24 weeks gestation) would prove a legislative nightmare. So it stands to reason that this would be considered a cut off point. As indeed it is in most countries where abortion is available. In some countries the cut off is much lower.

      In reality, in most countries where abortion is permitted up to 24 the overwhelming majority of abortions take place before the end of the first trimester anyway (90% approx in the UK). Later term abortions are usually in far more extreme circumstances, such as late discovery of health problems for mother or baby.

      I can appreciate the point that you are making because after 24 weeks a delivered baby has a 50/50 chance of survival, and this would most certainly need to be considered. But I would sincerely hope that this is why an expert group were employed rather than to just drink tea and defer the matter even further.

  • Once again the debate has drifted off-topic and has been dominated by the pop-science Dawkins brigade, who never fail to dish out ill-informed and highly arrogant comments, that have more to do with ridiculing people of faith than actually looking at the morality of the issue at hand.

    What is unfortunate is that in between the avalanche of absurdity, some commentators advocating on both sides have raised points that the other side should answer. But the majority seem to be content in ridiculing and insulting.

    • The morality of the issue is that Brady and his ilk want to force women in danger of their lives or suicidal women to carry on with pregnancies they dont want. He has no right to tell these women they cant make this decision and he seeks yet another refrrendum despite the general public showing their disagreement with him in two previous votes.

  • Gavin – please explain why my perfectly reasonable comment which is illustrates a widely held view was removed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • A wonderful man and we need more like him in Ireland. Forward thinking and should be given a lot of credit.