This poll is ridiculous and pointless

I didn’t realise Macafee had an official stance on the catholic church and abortion.

The year is 2012. Not 1922. The Catholic church has done enough damage to this country. It’s time for them to be quiet and stay quiet. A woman’s choice is just that, her choice, for whatever reason. This state must have the removal of religion in politics and education as a priority. Personal religious beliefs can never influence the decision of Irish politicians. The only decision politicians can make is for the good of all Irish citizens. This country is Ireland. Therefore the citizens of Ireland should decide what is best for them, not some life dodging person in black robes, who never have to face the harsh realities that living in this country bring every day. Any member of a religious order who seeks to influence political decisions in this country should be told to keep quiet, and if they do not, they should be jailed.

Church should stay out of this. Start having christian compassion for people instead of branding them murderers. Abortion is already in ireland, we export them. Its terrible we should be looking after our own here.

I think that your request has fallen on deaf ears.

I agree Gavan, there are two seperate issues here. (i) The right of the Catholic church to organise and comment on issues in the Republic of Ireland, and, (ii) the specific issue under discussion – abortion legislation. Its hard to seperate the two points sometimes, but its an important and necessary distinction if we really want to have healthy distinctions between church and state.

I don’t see a problem with Fr Peter McVerry and Sean Healy lobbying on issues of social justice,

likewise I don’t see a problem with other clergy lobbying on the issue of abortion.

Freedom of expression in a church for Pussy Riot but not for the Church outside of it?

Hypocrites

Where was Cardinal Brady when the rights of particular BORN children were being grossly and disgustingly infringed by the paedophile, Father Brendan Smyth?

Oh wait….., we know, don’t we?

‘The Church’ I think that there are several churches in this country and the one referred to here is the Roman Catholic Church.

Very valid point David Higgins.

If Seán Brady wanted to protect children he could have started a long time ago.

David Higgins, the church does not have the same sordid history when it comes to housing issues as they do with womens bodies. They ruled over social policy for generations in this country and they should be taught to butt out.

I would legalise it but it should never be free in my opinion.

How much is a life worth these days ?

No idea how much, but I find it wrong as a pro choice person to have pro life people subsidise it through their taxes. Too divisive an issue.

Who? The Government.

Both at this stage!

They have as much right as anyone else to weigh in on this debate, it really is that simple. I don’t agree with them on a lot of things and agree that they have destroyed their credibility but that isn’t the point is it.

When we get people like Micheal that freedom of expression should be reserved to those that tell the “truth”,that is disturbing and sounds like statements that dictatorial Archbishop John McQuaid said.

or, they could do with a bit more rope.

They are damned if they open their mouths and they are damned if they keep shut. Looks like they are damned..

They should be “allowed” to campaign of course. And of course, we are free to ignore them or expose their hypocrisy as we see fit.

Consider yourself corrected.

Very good point. If the Church takes sides on political issues then what should those do who disagree. Leave.

Well put jack .
That’s probably the worst situation a woman or couple can find themselves in .
And they Have To Live with it .

Totally agree! if that ever happened to me I wouldn’t give it a second thought, its bad enough that you would have to grieve for the loss of the baby without being made to feel like a criminal because of it by the amoral hypocrites in the Church & in goverment. There is definitely a case to be made for abortion when the baby will die anyway

We don’t normally consider euthanasia if a child has a terminal illness. Why should we in the case of an unborn child? Perinatal hospice care is much kinder that the trauma of an abortion procedure. Some of these babies survive for hours, weeks, months or years.

So very true. How the man has the balls to weigh in on this when he should have resigned is beyond me!

What a horrible comment. Twisted lunatics because they don’t want “abortion on demand”?? They want to protect unborn & that makes them twisted lunatics??

No, they’re twisted lunatics because of the hate-filled campaigns they run, which involve intimidation, trying to shame vulnerable women who have had abortions and basically shouting down anyone who disagrees with them. And their stance on abortion in the case of rape is particularly interesting http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/08/20/youth-defence-and-legitimate-rape/

And by the way Annie, if you really believe that lawmakers here are trying to introduce abortion ‘on demand’ then I suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts fairly quickly.

Couldn’t agree with you more Brian, their recent billboard campaign was sickening.

FB campaign against their actions can be found here – https://www.facebook.com/#!/notalwaysabetteroption

I have to agree with Brian, the Youth Defence are particularly nasty in their approach, scaremongering and ridiculing as opposed to actually giving the facts why abortion should not be legalised. I also don’t get the labeling of the no to abortion side as “pro-life”. Its not like people in favour of abortions/abortion in some cases/the choice for women to choose are anti-life.

Its funny isn’t it, for decades they didn’t give a monkeys about all the kids that were abused and that THEY KNEW were being abused but now they’ll get up on their high horses and try to state what people should and should not think.

Problem is nobody gives a monkeys what the church thinks anymore, its proven that it lives in the dark ages and it does not care about the rights and well being of the individual, they only care about the image of the church.

Which is why I’m surprised the Catholic Church WANTS him campaigning. As someone who’s pro choice, I would think this campaign would hurt the pro life side quite a bit (primarily by illustrating that most abortion objections are religious.)

Yep, fingers crossed. The sooner the church talk themselves out of existence, the better.

My thoughts precisely. On the other hand, leaving them out of the debate might be counterproductive.

That’s just idle speculation, unless you have information to back up such a claim.

Will celibate people who aren’t priests be allowed an opinion?

What about members of the Church who are not actually celibate. Married people, single people etc.

The church is just being lumped into the category of “hierarchy” and “celibate priests”. In reality it is every single catholic on the planet.

Not on this issue it’s not. Their claim to the number of people within the church is also disputable given that you apparently can’t leave it anymore! They don’t even speak for all the catholics in Ireland. The 2002 census had Ireland at 88% catholic but the 2002 referendum fell against the CC’s wishes.

Ooooh-tough talk there.

Yeah, I will physically defend my right not to be lectured to by paedophile protectors. Do you have a problem with that?

so you won’t go to mass so….. ?

i’m sure they’ll miss you!

Brian-you get the award for keyboard warrior of the month. Now go off to find a wet teabag and try to fight your way out of that.

Yeah, I forgot you know all about me John and what I do in my life every day.

Bang on, they have a right like any other group within our democracy( questionable ??) to express their opinion if they want.

When you are responsible for as many crimes as the church are why should you be entitled to freedom of speech and opinion . Surely the church should be denied all rights until the rectify their sin of the past .
Nobody takes any notice of a criminal behind bars and what he has to say so why take notice of criminals outside the bars .

Going by that logic, Jonny, the state should shut up too! How many children have died in state care?

We don’t need a referendum on the question before the expert board at the moment, we’ve had two. We’re acting illegally in not providing abortions for women whose lives are in danger. I do think it’s time for another referendum on elective abortion though

I agree Kate. Is it explicitly defined what constitutes “mother’s life is in danger”? Is it only physiological medical issues or do psychological issues count, such as a desire to commit suicide rather than carry a child to full term (for whatever reasons). As I understand it this is a grey area and not addressed in legislature.
Given the taboo way suicide itself is treated in this country, I don’t hold much hope for this particular issue being openly discussed.

‘its her body, her life, her choice’… What about the Father of the child? Does it not matter what he thinks of the woman making a decision about his child? It may be her body but genetics dictate that 50% of the childs genetic structure is his. This is backwards thinking, the reverse of ancient times where the mother was merely the flower pot in which a seed was sown.

No referendum is needed. Legal precedent as established by the Supreme Court makes it unnecessary.

MJ Murphy, when a man can concieve and bear a child, then he can make the decision as to what’s the best option for him.

Good point, Daisy! Can we also assume should a woman decide to go ahead and have the child, the she alone will be responsible for looking after it and providing for its needs?

/the she alone/that she alone/

@mj…well said its the other half of this quetion that is never brought up,If she has Their baby he will be dragged into to court to pay up. For the rare cases of rape,a woman should get help straight away,but as we all know their will be certain women who will be crying rape in their final trimester to suit their own selfish needs.

MJ, if you honestly care about fathers’ rights, you should be a bit more concerned for the men who have decided, with their partners, that they wanted to terminate a pregnancy (75% of fathers are supportive). As the law stands, they have no right to do so. As a supporter of fathers rights, does that not bother you?

Then don’t! Simple. I usually don’t listen to lefties because I find the majority of them to be self contradicting fools that love to talk rot.

Beware Deborah, this John Ryan is an embittered little man.

Firstly I’ll say this – I’m gonna be entering a religious order to become a priest along with several other guys in about 2 weeks. I’m 24.

I think the church has every right to campaign against abortion. Catholics believe that abortion is wrong.

The church should not however, become directly involved in the politics of a nation.

I am a young catholic man who has done nothing wrong but I shall still have to deal with the abuse scandal of the past.

Is it perhaps the case that people tend to tar the catholics of the next generation with this brush of intolerance merely because they are embittered with the crimes and evil of the past.

@ Adam.

I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense.

Nowhere on this thread has anyone ‘tarred the catholics of the next or any generation with the brush of intolerance’, so please lose the persecution complex. People have serious and legitimate issues with the arrogance of the hierarchy and the silence of the clergy (not general lay catholics as you imply). Those individuals kept quiet during the systematic abuses which went on as late as the 1990s, hardly ancient history. Restitution and a genuine apology have not yet been forthcoming, you know, the kind of thing that that fella Jesus might do?

Just noticed a Youth Defence poster on your FB profile as well. Please by all means, campaign against something which is an option for women in difficult cirumstances all across the Western world all you want, but remember that while you are entitled to your own opinion, you aren’t entitled to your own facts.

@ Tunewire

There is a general attitude on here about Catholics. I have summed it up as intolerance. That is exactly what it is. I don’t have to apologise about these things because I wasn’t even born for most of them.

I have, for the past five years, worked with a catholic youth organisation as a child protection officer. You have no idea of the amount of work that goes into child protection in the church right now.

I’m not a member of the hierarchy so I don’t know about that. I do know that children will be safe in the church now if guidelines and proper practice are followed as they should be.

I do not have a “persecution complex” I am simply being realistic.

The Catholic church is a shadowy and dangerous organization with a criminal history.

@ Adam

Please don’t equate genuine criticism with intolerance, they are two very different things. Condsidering that the church basically dictated social policy in Ireland from independence until recently, with disasterous results, don’t get so defensive when people challenge it’s motives and experience in this area.

Secondly, “I’m not a member of the hierarchy so I don’t know about that” was your response to my criticism of the arrogance of the hierarchy in dealing with abuse cases. For someone who is about to devote themselves to an entire lifetime of celibacy, chastity and obedience while answering directly to the likes of Cardinal Brady, this strikes me as utterly naive.

@ Tunewire

I said clearly that there should be no problem with the church – or anyone – campaigning for political change in a country. The problem is becoming involved in dictating policy, as you stated.

I understand the catholic church to be more than it’s hierarchy. It also consists of the people who are involved in it, who attend mass and practice the faith.

The fact that you ignored my comment about the modern child protection policy of the church tells me that you just may not be interested in what any catholic has to say on this matter.

Just FYI: 30th May 2012, Summer meeting of Irish Bishops (including Matrin & Brady) – “Bishops joined with the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI in expressing deep sorrow and concern regarding the now 14 month civil conflict in Syria and in particular the massacre in the town of Houla last Friday 25 May in which an estimated one hundred people, including many children, lost their lives. Bishops expressed support for the renewed appeal by the Holy Father for an end to all forms of violence, and on his call to the parties involved, and to the entire international community, to spare no effort to resolve this crisis through prayer, dialogue and reconciliation.”
What I find interesting here is how and why things get reported and groups get set up as ‘against one another;. The statement above was released as a national press statement to all media, Bradys conference speech to an international group wasn’t given as high a release. Interesting whats made newsworthy and also to watch how Church-state and FG-Labour are being set up as against one another … it isn’t an orchestrated conspiracy, but it is a set of cultural assumptions being worked out …

Why do people never make the same comments when the Church speaks on issues of poverty or workers’ rights?

Because the last time I remember the Catholic Church speaking out about poverty, they were complaining that American nuns focused on it too much.

Or perpetuating it in the form of campaigning against birth control in the Philippines.

I’d let them at it. If anything, Youth Defence are likely to score more own goals than garner support for their cause.

It is opinions like Jim’s here that I respect very much. On the other hand, there are some truly repressive and hateful people who would deny the right of freedom of expression and belief to those they disagree with.

And yes, I would say the same thing to so-called “conservatives” or Catholics who tried to repress debate on the other side as well.

There is a huge difference in the right to freedom of expression and interfering in matters of the state.

Precisely how would you define the difference between expressing an opinion and interfering in matters of State?

Brian, you could then say that about any group that expresses an opinion on any government matter, Should the AA express an opinion on Government road policy, the Hoteliers Federation express concerns on Government tourism policy, the Penal Reform Trust criticise Government Judical policy and so on? All of those could be considered as interfering with matters of the state.

I’m pointing out the difference between disagreeing with a group’s stance and trying to silence that group because you disagree with them. There’s a huge difference and one that is not acceptable.

They are a religious organisation in a society with multiple faiths. If they want to voice their opinion they are free to do so, if they want to run a political campaign then they should give up their religious position and become a political organisation.

Jim, those organisations you mention cannot in any way be compared with the Catholic Church, which deals in matters of personal faith. Their remit is to spread the word of their particular god or deity and I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with them advising their flock on how to vote in a referendum. However, they are not lawmakers, they are not a political party elected by the citizens of this state and therefore they have no business in interfering in actual matters of the state. It really is that simple.

Sorry Brian that doesn’t stand up at all.

According to your parameters the only people who can express an opinion in any way on this matter will be the 166 TDs and 49 of our 60 Senators because they are the only people in the country who were elected lawmakers (The other 11 Senators were appointed not elected). Even you or I can’t speak out on this matter according to your definition.

The reality is that there will be hundreds of groups who will speak out on both sides of this issue when it does come up for debate. Practically none of them will include elected representatives. Are you seriously saying that none of these groups will have a right to express an opinion? Or are you just discounting the Catholic Church because they are a religious organisation. It just too easy a dismissal because you can then extend that to every other religious organisation or church (all of whom will probably be against abortion).

Being a religious organisation is not grounds for the curtailing of free speech. To quote Volatire “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Jim, stop trying to put words in my mouth. Nowhere in my comments have I said the CC is not free to express its personal beliefs in whatever matter it chooses and nor have I implied that only TDs and senators should have the only say in what goes on in this country. Feel free to point out where I said and/or implied these things.

Brian, I’m sorry if you though I was trying to put words in your mouth. I wouldn’t do that. I’ve clearly just misunderstood what you are trying to say.

Your first quote said that “there is a huge difference in freedom of expression and interfering in matters of state”. To that I said that anybody who speaks out is in effect interfering with matters of state no matter what their affiliation.
You replied that they are “not lawmakers, they are not a political party elected by the citizens of this state and therefore they have no business in interfering in actual matters of the state.” The implication of this seems to be is that only political parties (or their elected representatives) can speak out on the matter.

So can you tell me then who you think CAN speak out on this matter. What organisations are allowed to express an opinion and why? This is a serious question. I’m not trying to be smart or clever with words.

I’ll state it again that I actually am 100% opposed to the Catholic Church’s view on abortion but I can’t support the concept of telling them that they have no right to express an opinion on the matter.

It’s worth it for the comedy…

No one has a problem with members of the church saying whatever they like. It’s the institutional Church lobbying that is unsettling…

As individuals yes, as an organization no!

“As individuals yes, as an organization no!”

Can other organisations get involved though? Could Christians organise themselves into an organisation that isn’t the Church and get involved?

Absolutely, Damocles. While I am pro-abortion in certain circumstances, and not a Catholic (not a Christian for that matter), I believe that this is a big decision we are making here and one that should be informed by a debate which allows the free expression of all opinions, as long as those opinions are expressed in a reasonable manner.

They may be citizens but their loyalty isn’t to the Irish Republic it’s to a small screwed up Italian state called The Vatican. They are little better than 5th columnists.

William, are people whose first loyalty isn’t to The Glorious Irish Republic not allowed to comment on matters concerning the state in which they live?

Damocles, would you ask the same question of Irish supporters of the Communist USSR who’s objective was the same, the elimination of our democracy? The Communists and the Church both oppose freedom, particularly freedom of the individual. They both use brainwashing techniques to control the masses. To me there is little difference between a Catholic Priest and a Communist spy.

You’re asking me if Irish Communists have a right to speak out over their beliefs?

Well, yes, they do, obviously.

Damocles, even if the Communists were known to be controlled by a Communist Dictatorship??

Agree completely – was a very foolish thing of Rabitte to day – cos he’s absolutely powerless to stop them lobbying on their position!

They have failed to protect the living in the past so why should they have a say in the unborn of today .

So now lack of maternal instinct is grounds for abortion! There were horrific failings and children were betrayed and abused. Is that not reason enough to make sure that vulnerable children will never be targeted again? The recognition of rights for the unborn goes hand in hand with working hard to protect the rights of every child and doing all we can to make sure that every child grows up free from abuse, torture, neglect or pain. We can’t label children unwanted-we’ve had enough of this approach in the past and look where it got us! Anyone who has a voice should speak out and the Church is no exception.

The problem isn’t “labelling” children as unwanted, it’s that some children are. Abused and neglected children don’t care what they’re labelled as.

It’s entitled to its opinion… not it’s position, not any more.

I’m not sure I see the distinction, Daisy. If you mean they can hold an opinion but be utterly devoid of either moral authority or validity in holding that opinion, I’m with you.

Yes, they are entitled to their opinion and yes, they are entitled to make it known. They are not entitled to work behind the scenes to bully politicians into doing their bidding, as would have been the case in the past. And we are free to take or leave their opinion as we wish.

You’d be surprised at the considerable sway the Catholic church still holds in this country Johnny, despite the enormous and might I say deserved amount of criticism the church in Ireland has taken over the past two decades or so there are still an awful lot of shall we say closet believers out there who will still take guidance/ instruction from the Church on matters they are not quite sure about or have never taken the time to really think about for themselves. While I may not agree with them I respect those who are against abortion for reasons they have actually though out and decided upon with reason,this however is not a typical thing done by the Church or many of its followers as belif in God ultimately in my opinion requires one to dispose of reason and have faith.

Belief in God ultimately requires faith. However, to be a catholic and truly understand what that means one must not under any circumstances dispense with reason.

I totally 100% agree that the Church should not be involved in the running of the state.
However, faith is not a private matter for members of the state, as citizens in a democracy we are entitled to express our faith.

“ect against children”

Really? ECT? Blimey, never heard that particular allegation before.

Typos? You’ve reduced yourself to pointing out a typo.

Get a life!

“You’ve reduced yourself to pointing out a typo.”

Well you’ve reduced yourself to pointing out that I’ve reduced myself to pointing out typos. That’s almost zen.

just to add I’m pressuming that they would be within their rights to do so if there was a referendum. The church putting pressure on the government to have a referendum is a different matter – they have no place or right in directing government policy.

The Church not using sensationalism, incorrect or misleading information, scaremongering or intimidation? You must be mad lol , that’s exactly what it’s very foundations are built on!

Well yes, the suggestion might be lost on some….considering that standing outside a minister’s house or constituency office with a placard saying “Murderer” pretty much covers all of the above.

Fair point Jake :D

Fancy seeing you here!

Who would? However, there are many women in Ireland who are parenting children conceived through rape. Let’s spare a thought for them. Their children are loved as the special people they are- their mothers value them for themselves. The sins of the fathers should not be visited on the sons! These women have had it tough, but they deserve support and praise, not constant reminders that they gave birth to a “child of rape.”

Why can’t we give them support when they don’t want to continue with the pregnancy?

Freedom of speech should be limited to those who spread the truth.

Its a long time since we heard the truth from either side during a Referendum.

Whatever hope you have of hearing it from the yes side, you have no hope of hearing it in the no side!

And I suppose, Michael, that you are the arbiter of what is, and what is not, truthful???

When it comes to the CC and abortion, a monkey can see the difference between truth and lies.

In which case, you have no reason to deny a group their freedom of expression if their supposed mendacity is so clear for all to see.

Michael, that’s a dangerous road to suggest.

Then those with any sort of ideology or belief system should refrain from approaching politicians. They could just sit in their offices all day and not engage with wider society at all.

When did we stop living in a democracy?

I am a member of the church. So is every catholic. If the church collectively chooses to run a campaign against abortion there is nothing legally to say it cannot be done.

Here Here! Gas! did ye say….Hilarious!!! My Opinion too but, it is based on solid proof and keen observation. You can’t take those lads seriously, sure you wouldn’t what they will get up to next.

This is such a confusing statement. The Church is “enttitled to their say” so they can speak out on the matter but its “not right for them to take a political stance” which means that they can’t speak out because anything they say will be political. Every independent organisation in the country takes a political stance when it speaks out on Government policy (either for it or against it).

And then you use pejorative terms like “dictate”. Since when is expressing an opinion dictating? The Church has that right to express its opinion just like any organisation does. We the citizens then have the right to ignore or contradict what they say. But we don’t have the right to “dictate” to them and tell them that they can’t speak out.

Apologies Jim, I’m posting from my phone in work and that was a bit of a collision of statements combined with poor wording. I’ll rephrase.

While everybody in this country is free to express their view, it bothers me that Brady and his ilk encourage those who follow them to obstruct the right of others to choose. If lucinda creighton, bosco the puppet or Rob Hunt the journal commentor tell people to vote a certain way the view might be taken on board but people will just see that as another person’s opinion. If the church does the same, many people will toe the line not because they feel that way themselves but because they don’t want to go against the church. I know people in their 20s who are against abortion because the local priest told them they would go to hell if they supported this in a referendum. That’s emotional blackmail and I think it represents a fairly clear cut example of why it’s inappropriate for figures such as Brady to wade into the fray.

I personally don’t know if I would choose abortion or support the choice of a partner who wanted to abort, but I would never let my feelings get in the way of somebody else’s right to choose. For the church, as a large religious organisation, to tell their members that NOBODY under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE should have the right to choose is a lot different from any other public figure expressing the same view.

I’m sure I’ve managed to contradict myself there again somewhere but the coffee machine is broken.

Fair enough Rob. I actually agree with you on the substantive issue (right to abortion) and I don’t agree that any religious organisation has the right to impose their moral view on the laws of the state. I have the same objection to majority Muslim states imposing Sharia law on non-Muslims as well.

But I am disappointed that many people here would say its perfectly all right to tell the church that they can’t speak out on a matter because they oppose their view or because of what has happened over the last while in the church. Its too easy to fall into that sort of attitude. Ultimately the right of free speech means listening to that which we would rather not listen to

As for the church’s influence, while I wouldn’t say its not there, I honestly think most people will make their minds up as a matter of consience. To be honest if the Church still held that sort of sway we wouldn’t be even having this debate at all.

The number of people in their twenties who would vote a certain way because the local priest threatened hell is few and far between. Young people I know who are against abortion often see it as a human rights issue and it’s not that surprising that the Catholic Church would row in on an issue of rights. In fact, it would be unusual if they didn’t contribute to such a debate.

You must have very little knowledge of the charity work of Catholic organisations worldwide. Actually, in our present times, you may well be safer in a Catholic Church than in the care of the state. Your extreme view would place no limits on abortion and is effectively abortion on demand with no consideration for the rights of the unborn baby.

I know exactly what the clergy have done worldwide and this does Not excuse their HORRIFIC abuse of children!!!! I believe it is a woman’s right to choose. It is nobody else’s business. It is her body. The Vatican wants total control of women and their bodies. They are more concerned about the unborn than they are about the woman and the baby once its born!!!! You obviously condone whatever the clergy do……well for your information, I DON’T!!!!

Anti-Science….HA!

You almost made me spit my coffee at my computer screen.

Please research a little church history and look at some of the documents of the Vatican Academy of Sciences before declaring a whole bunch of people to be anti-science.

Are you aware that a Jesuit priest developed the Big Bang Theory and the Scientific Method.

Its the same result at the of the day. What if she just so happened to be on her way to have an abortion?

By attempting to make this comparison you really are portraying your view of women very well. Her choice is really completely irrelevant to you isn’t it?

Be careful Johnny this John Ryan fella is a very angry man.

The Church is entitled to lobby about anything. They are citizens and like other citizens they can lobby their local politican if they want.

Morality (be it secular or humanist or religious) should be the foundation of all laws.

They may be citizens but they are controlled by another non democratic state, The Vatican. Therefore they are subversive.

Citizens are free to get their ideas and opinions from another party, be it Amnesty Internation or the Vatican.
That’s what freedom is.

You have no right to ban people from excercising their democratic right to be heard because you don’t like what they’ve to say, or from where their views derive.

I think Jim’s underlying point is that it’s hypocritical for the Church to both engage in the politics of secular law-making while *at the same time* arguing that it’s outside mere mortal law when it suits it.

And he’s right – it’s hypocritical. It doesn’t, however, invalidate their right to state their view: rather, it should simply be kept in mind by anybody considering the Church’s arguments.

I’d rather they have the freedom to say their bit and for me to retain the freedom to ignore it, thank you!

And paul maybe they should add ( no sexually assaulting young kids to that list .

I think that Brady is more than a little skewed.

Colm, have paedophiles? Some years back there was an organisation of paedophiles called PIE (I think). Had they a right to be heard?

Of course they have a right to get involved, just as we have a right to ignore their opinions. If they waste the money of their adherents, that is a matter for them and their adherents to sort out.

They should be beaten with a big fat yardstick.

I’ll just make the assumption that you have to mental age of a child based on the strength of your last comment and your inability to press the reply button.

Ad-hom much!

John ryan
Grow up you clown , I’d reckon there’s more brains in a rocking horse .

Why? Because it’s a free country.

You’ve been given a load of logical reasons. Read the posts above.

Here’s another one. The Catholic Church exerted its baleful influence behind the scenes for decades. Hardly democratic? They are not an open democratic organisation and do not support democracy. Furthermore they are controlled by The Vatican and dance to their tune. Therefore they have excluded themselves.

In most democracies it is illegal for agencies outside the state to influence elections and fund political parties.

William, in most so-called democracies, lobbying of one form or another is rife. Lobbying by special interest groups to create or change legislation is profoundly undemocratic, but it still goes on. Also, if we exclude the Catholics on the grounds that they are “controlled by the Vatican” we would need to examine where the pro-choice lobby get their funding from, and if any of it originates from outside of the state, we would need to exclude them from the debate too.

Far from being logical reasons, most of the arguments against the Catholic Church participating in this debate are emotional reactions and some are downright illogical. A far more logical and democratic approach would be to let them have their say and allow people the choice to ignore it and make up their own minds.

Perhaps you believe the Irish people are not mature enough to be able to sift out the truth from the bullshit and come to a reasoned conclusion?

Tom, lobbying by fellow Irish citizens and organisations is one thing but lobbying and infiltration by an organisation who’s first loyalty is to another state and its interests is another matter altogether. I don’t suggest excluding the Catholics but the Catholic Church. It would also be wrong of pro-choice groups to get funding from outside the state and use that funding to launch a political operation in the republic.

Ask yourself who decided Evolution wasn’t taught in Biology in Irish schools until relatively recently. Was it Irish people or The Vatican? What vote was cast on the subject? What secret Catholic inspired committee vetoed the teaching of the core subject in the science of Biology? As I said above in another post the Catholic Church is a subversive and anti-democratic organisation.

As for claiming that the Irish people are not mature, it’s not an issue of maturity it’s an issue of whether or not the Catholic Church brainwashed their members as children. It’s not that they lack maturity it’s that they lack their own minds. That form of child abuse is yet to be universally recognised.

Here’s another reason; the Catholic Church blatantly ignored the plight of thousands of raped Irish children rather than get the Italian based Vatican into trouble. How could anyone possibly suggest they be allowed interfere again in our laws when they totally and flagrantly abused them?

Firstly, it was Eamon De Valera who gave the church so much power which they did abuse in fairness.
But you need to remember, only for the catholic church Irish people would never got an education in the first place under British rule. And that wasn’t so long ago. Many a priest lost their lives because of it.

The church is also involved in groups like Social Justice of which I support , trying to highlight the inequalities in our society. Your comments below are nothing more than a rant.

According to the last census over 90% of this country are catholic and if you have a problem with that you can move over to England where you will quickly find catholics are being institutionally discriminated within schools and most notably the Royal family.

Ooops! Seamus: ye made me spill me coffee,
Don’t ye know that the church or any religion is not based on Logic.
The guys who think that they are turning wine into blood and biscuits into flesh are devoid of logic.
I wonder what the nuns are putting in them biscuits.

Seamus, was that an education the Catholic Church gave us or indoctrination?

If it’s not indoctrination isn’t it amazing that 90% of the Irish educated by the Catholic Church are Catholics according to the census? Do you think by some absolute amazing coincidence the Irish people all just decided to become Catholics? Do you not realise WHY you are a Catholic? In case that’s a hard question I’ll give you the answer, you and the rest of the 90% were brainwashed. Many people, including myself, rebelled and they failed to destroy our minds. In my case it’s just lucky my genes coded for scepticism. Your’s didn’t.

As for Social Justice, I was sent to an expensive fee paying Christian Brothers school. Where was the social justice in that? I suspect the reason the Catholic Church now target the poor is for the same reason the Jehovah’s Witnesses do, they are less well educated. Belief in religion to a large extent correlates with education and wealth. The less well educated the more likely one is to believe in fairies.

If you seriously think that 90% of the Irish are actually practicing Catholics you are extremely naive. Mass attendance would indicate less that 50% are. In cities even less. Far less among the young. All religion is dying as the world becomes better educated.

shu-POW!! http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Gavin, the “slippery slope” argument as you put it is very much a reality. Just look at what has happened in the UK. Legal abortion was introduced on “restrictive grounds” in 1967. Today in the UK, abortion is available up to birth for even a minor disability like a cleft palate. A sad irony for a country that is preparing to host the Paralympic Games.

you still committed a logical fallacy. You’re using hypothetical situations to say we shouldn’t legislate for the X case!!
Also do you have any evidence to back up that “cleft palate” claim?
But in a larger sense Abortion isn’t what THIS article is about!!

Hi, Cora. According to the Department of Health in England and Wales, only 1 percent of abortions are carried out under the law due to a serious handicap and the majority of those were at 19 to 20 weeks (still before viability – so not so much birth!) These tend to be serious medical conditions, many of which are incompatible with birth. Can you point out a case of a woman who had an abortion for a cleft palate?

@Gavin – In the absence of an actual case, we can only look at what the X Case ruling said – which is what Labour want to legislate for. Abortion in the case of suicide with no time limits set. This is very far-reaching indeed when you consider that the court heard no medical and psychiatric evidence. How then could they decide that abortion was a reasonable solution to the problem of suicide following rape?

@Nick – The fact remains that allowing for abortion in the case of “serious handicap” makes a mockery of our efforts to form an inclusive society which accepts every member, regardless of disability. We have made great strides in this area, as can be seen in events like the Special Olympics and Paralympics. It is hypocritical of the Labour Party to campaign for the introduction of a procedure which will encourage parents to end the lives of unborn children who may need special care.

As Gavin says, this article is not about abortion per se. It relates to democracy, and the fact that every member of our society is entitled to have their voice heard on this important issue. Pat Rabbitte may not appreciate the fact that Catholic teaching is not in line with abortion – and this will likely not sit well with many supporters of the Labour Party who are also Catholic. Nonetheless, it is extremely undemocratic of him to try and censor debate in this way. We deserve an honest and open debate on abortion which will only be facilitated if every interested party is given a hearing.

Ah, so you’re backing away from the cleft palate claim? And I would argue the best way to eliminate abortion for those with disabilities is to actually make society a more inclusive place and to increase protection for carers, rather than forcing families which do not have the finances or ability to care for a special needs child to do so against their will.

And tell me, Cora, if you’re so concerned about an open and honest debate, why did the publicised results of the most recent pro life poll ignore the fact that 22% of the respondents said they didn’t know or didn’t answer? I would think that kind of relevant information is the sort which should be disseminated to the Irish public. Why don’t you?

you could try asking the woman what SHE thinks is best for her? y’know give woman the old, bodily autonomy!!

@Nick and Gavin –

I have steered away from discussing the substantive issue of abortion out of respect for the request of the writer of this piece.

There is plenty of cases where a cleft palate has been used as a reason for abortion. Here is just one link going through some of the cases – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8616978/Twenty-six-babies-aborted-for-cleft-lips-or-palates.html.

It is horrific to think of even one human life being ended for any reason, yet alone for a minor complaint like a cleft palate. This is something which can be easily rectified by a minor procedure. The fact that it is used as a reason to have an abortion is indicative of the lack of respect for human life that prevails in societies like the UK, where abortion has been freely accepted as a part of society.

Regarding your comments on the recent Pro Life Campaign poll, I have already discussed same at length on other threads so will not comment further here, apart from saying that it is entirely standard for polls to be reported in this way. There was nothing underhand about the poll whatsoever.

Fighting for the rights of the most vulnerable would be a good way to regain lost credibility. It would be awful if the abuses of the past were used as an excuse to remain silent on major issues affecting humanity.

The Church can never regain its credibility because it never had any. It just fooled a load of egits into thinking it had. They’ve been censoring, abusing, torturing and killing people for centuries.

Maria Conroy Byrne, do you think an organization that not only ignored the rights of the vulnrable, but made rape victims feel guilty and sign non disclosure documents, then critisized the irish people as unforgiving.. when people were knowingly raped and innocent children were put at risk of rape and were rape, really should choose, their long standing an intransigent view on abortion, as their redemption?

They have always has this view on abortion, it’s just the same as they always have ben. Just as the abuses are not abuses of the past, they are of the present while they defend their actions… you cannot defend the actions of the church in the past and claim it is the past, it is not. the crime was not just the rapes, it was the cover up and denial.. which is right up to this moment. It is also from rapist priest to the highest level of the church.

Their crime was remaining silent, to put it mildly, to say it as it was is they bullied people, made decent people feel guilty for their sexuality, straight, gay, whatever it was…. the only thing they seemed to have a soft view on was a priest raping a boy or girl! Cop on Mary. No one is forcing silence on them by the way.

Priests lining up at the border to stop women from crossing? I don’t remember that? Do you have any photos to back that claim up? I didn’t think there were enough priests in the country to block one main road let alone the entire border.

This was in the 1970’s Tom where you couldn’t move for priests. I’m not sure about the border lining story (sounds apocryphal) but the actions of a group of Irish feminists travelling to Belfast by train to purchase contraception elicited a hyperbolic statement from the Bishop of Clonfert.

“… never before, and certainly not since penal times was the Catholic heritage of Ireland subjected to so many insidious onslaughts on the pretext of conscience, civil rights and women’s liberation.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

“I dont think the church should be allowed to run a political campaign simply because any campaign run by the catholic church will heavily rely on the teachings of the church…”

Um…Duh!

Indeed, the Liberal Battlecry! Freedom of Speech for those with whom we agree!

The Vatican or any other non democratic state has no right to interfere in our democracy. This isn’t a theocracy, it’s a democracy.

They are not “interfering” in our democracy. They are, like any other citizen, lobbying their politicians.

They isn’t McQuaid laying down the law to Inda. It’s being treated like everyone else.

Cheers Ruth for ignoring the swathe of liberals on here arguing that they should be allowed speak. Picking and choosing the comments you respond to is the hallmark of a disinformation campaign. The CC is entitled to speak but we should have well regulated campaign rules to ensure no-one attempts to portray opinion as universal truth like YD have done in their recent campaign.

What is freedom of speech worth? when the reality is:
You are free to Say what you like but, when the shouting is over, you will do as We say.
I have no objection to other peoples opinions but it seems that they object to mine.
The church, however! does not have opinions, it has demands and is hungry to impose those demands on everyone, regardless of our persuasion.

You’re right, Stephanie. Sorry.

Well said…

Religious organizations only have a moral authority over their members. The rules of a golf club only apply to its members and do not affect non members. So they can inform their members and keep their soiled noses out of everyone Else’s business. Clearly!!!

Sarah, what about all the clergy that covered up what was going on AND as a consequence allowed thousands of more children to be abused.

Sarah, where were all these so called good clergy when all the abuse was going on???? They all knew!!! But nobody spoke out in defense of the abused children. Instead they covered up and moved the abusers from parish to parish and allowed the abuse to continue. How you are surprised at the response of such anti-clergy comments is astonishing!!!

Good comment Sarah. Unfortunately people have short memories.

Read up on the history of the Catholic church for enlightenment. You might also ask them how they accumulated all that treasure they’ve stockpiled in the Vatican. Hint: it didn’t have much to do with Jesus and turning the other cheek.

Fortunately, Sarah, the majority don’t hold such strident opinions. There are always a few who will attack religion, no matter what. There’s a huge amount of tarring all clergy with the one brush which is totally unfair and is an injustice to those who were involved in no wrongdoing.

Maria, when you say “involved in no wrong doing” are you saying knowing it was going on and doing nothing is not wrong? Do you seriously think there was ANY priest or Bishop in Ireland unaware of what was going on? What the f**k do you think they discussed every time they met?

You have a good point Sarah. I have done a good bit of work speaking to people about my faith and at retreats over the last few years. And as I mentioned above I was a child protection officer with a catholic youth organisation.

I’ve noticed that people are a lot more venomous online than they would be to your face.

Not many people here would dare to say any of the more extreme things to a priest or any catholic in a real life context.

It’s just convenient to have an online forum to let off steam.

and if its about separation of Church and State that goes both ways.
The State cant dictate to the Church what it can or can not say. Disgraceful

to be totally frank: what is the church? an oddball bunch of social misfits; where they got their mandate to direct society is somewhat questionable.

Frank, what intellectual freedom has someone who was brainwashed by the Catholic Church as a child?