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: 3 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

Archbishop says children’s rights vote is no ‘magic formula’

Diarmuid Martin says the Children’s Rights referendum is welcome, but will not solve all challenges for parents and children.

Image: Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland

THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN, Dr Diarmuid Martin, has welcomed the proposed wording of the Children’s Rights Referendum – but warned that its passage would “not be a magic formula” to resolve the country’s challenges.

In a homily to mark the start of the new law term, Martin said the approval of the referendum would not “resolve all the challenges for parents and children which sadly often emerge in our complex society”.

“A change of culture will take a long time to be embedded within the various levels of society and public service,” he said.

The Archbishop added that, on a personal level, he believed the formal wording of the referendum had “attempted to address the rights and obligations of the various interest groups in a balanced way”, while also giving adequate focus to a child’s own interests and opinions.

He further called for the public to join “in a united and unambiguous way” to condemn the recent spate of gangland attacks, many of which had been carried out in front of children.

“No economic or no political aim can be achieved by such violence. It is simply amoral,” he said.

Dr Martin’s homily was delivered at the so-called ‘Red Mass’, held at St Michan’s Church close to Kings Inns, which marks the start of the Michaelmas law term and is attended by many members of the judiciary.

The final wording of the referendum will be confirmed this week, when the Seanad completes its consideration of the necessary legislation.

Read: Sinnott accused of engaging in ‘hysterical hyperbole’ over referendum

Read next:

Comments (17 Comments)

  • I am not pushing an anti abortion agenda by looking for clarity on whether the Amendment protects the unborn in priority to a distressed mother. Quite the opposite. I don’t want this Amendment further challenging a distressed mother’s right to an abortion in Ireland.
    The rights of the unborn child via this Amendment are exactly what the pro-life campaigners are going to latch onto if the Amendment is passed in its current vague form.

    Reply
  • Stupid old fool should be kept well away from children’s affairs.

    Reply
  • The archbishop has gotten his facts wrong. To see the real facts have a look at http://www.facebook.com/childrens.referendum?ref=tn_tnmn

    Reply
  • “Magic formula” and him a priest, surely that’s blasphemy.

    Reply
  • It’s like King Herod commenting that new babysitting guidelines are good enough.

    Reply
  • He has a point – the only way to safely protect our children is up dissolve the catholic church in Ireland and lock up the priests and nuns.

    Reply
  • There are no childrens’ rights nor parents’ duties described in the amendment. Can someone explain what they are to be?
    Also, does a child need to be born to qualify for these unspecified rights?

    Reply
    • Could you not figure that out yourself? Let me give you a clue, a child should be loved and nurtured, protected from abuse whether mental or physical, cared for, roof over it’s head, clothed, fed, educated, the list goes on. Do you really need the govt telling you all that?

      Reply
    • nice try with ur anti abortion suggestions, ask the people who want to kill themselves because they’ve been raped by priests as children that ridiculous question.

      Reply
    • There really are some nutjobs on this forum judging by these responses.

      The point I was making is that the Amendment is dangerous if it doesn’t specify what exactly it means in terms of rights and duties and what a child is.

      Otherwise it is going to be another legal goldmine up in the Four Courts as all sorts of interpretations of the vagueness of the Amendment are put to the test if it is passed in its current form. You can’t just suggest what you think the rights are, or ‘figure them out for yourself’. If you know anything about Consitutional Law, the vaguer it is, the more arguments it creates as it will be stretched into all sorts of unforeseen interpretations.

      Those objecting to greater clarity can only have an agenda to interpret what is not contained in the Amendment according to their ASSUMPTIONS.

      I for one do not want an Amendment that generates years of billable time at lawfirms and that clogs up the courts. Let’s state the Amendment clearly rather than vaguely.

      Reply
  • Go away Diarmuid Martin.
    Till you hand over Cardinal Brady for his crimes and pay up what you owe – you can sod right off!

    Reply
  • According to the Indo Martin came out in support of CR referendum?

    Reply
  • Red Mass for the judges etc???

    All clear now how both go hand in hand and how so many children were ordered by secret courts to be abused- all legally sanctioned by judges….who still answer to Rome.

    So, by voting yes, creators/parents will hand over their power from one group of patriarchs to another- but in truth are one and the same.

    What a scam.

    If corporate care is so wonderful then why are children 7 times more likely to be abused there?

    It appears children are still the commodity by which many people make a profit and a living $$$$$$

    So a good supply of children will be needed to keep the child rescuing business going, in the same was as the soul rescuers did in the past.

    Wow, we learned well from them men in dresses.

    Reply

Add New Comment