The Society of St Vincent de Paul & the Abortion Referendum

I've been thinking a bit about this news item about how the Society of St Vincent de Paul responded to a query about how it stood in relation to the upcoming referendum that seeks to remove protection for the unborn from the Irish Constitution:

The Society of St Vincent de Paul has announced it will not be taking a stance in the upcoming referendum on abortion, and will not be issuing any advice to its members on what choice to make on polling day.

Contacted by The Irish Catholic this week the Church-founded organisation said in a statement that it is a “personal decision for each member, based on their own views, on how they wish to vote”.

However, the statement backed away from an earlier draft obtained by this newspaper which said the stance was based on the fact that SVP is a “member-led organisation”. The statement issued by the spokesman does not contain this line.

Now, I have huge respect for the Society of St Vincent de Paul. Over the past decade of parish ministry I've seen how much they do in tackling poverty in both urban and rural Ireland. I'm happy to support them, and I'm happy to encourage my parishioners to support them. However, I'm unhappy about their response to the referendum question.

Now, I don't think that the SVP should be a campaigning organisation in this referendum. That's not what it receives money for, and I have concerns about the way that the activities of various charities sometimes drift into a form of activism that's removed from their key mission. (There are various legal issue to consider here as well, of course.)

What concerns me is that whilst the SVP might not be active in the current referendum, I do think it should do a better job at articulating an ethos that is supportive of life. In Pope Francis's recent document Gaudete et exsultete, he poses the following challenge:

Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

It seems to me that Pope Francis is challenging us to root our Christian activism in a philosophy that values and cherishes the dignity of human life. It is, in part, a challenge aimed at those involved in pro-life activism to ensure that they are supportive of all just efforts to uphold the sacredness of human life. However, I think that challenge also cuts the other way - if our Christian vocation calls us to be active in the fight against, say, poverty, we need to understand that calling in the context of the unique value and dignity of every human life.

Even though the Society of St Vincent de Paul has as its mission the fight against poverty, one would not expect a statement of bland neutrality were the society asked about, say, the problems of racism or human-trafficking. Therefore, I do not understand why the Society could not see its way towards making some kind of statement affirming the value of human life.

As part of the Catholic community I certainly see the Society of St Vincent de Paul as being part of our Pro-Life activities. I know the Society is at the coalface in terms of supporting families in meeting the financial challenges that parenthood brings. I know that the Society works to create an society where human life flourishes and is welcomed. I just wish that it was better at joining the dots in terms of supporting those values which affirm the dignity of those it cares for.

Choosing between 'Pro-life' & 'Pro-choice'

I must confess that I'm usually irked by complaints that the abortion debate in Ireland is divisive or polarising.  I do believe that we should strive for civility in our public discourse, but am profoundly uneasy with the idea that certain topics should somehow be resolved without discussion on the grounds that the debate itself is somehow destructive of society. Often, or so it seems to me, complaints about the divisiveness of the debate are aimed at closing down the discussion rather than improving the tone of public discourse. One of the prices we pay for living in a free society is the fact that our public discourse can (should?) be unsettling and forces us to think through things that we'd rather not have to deal with.

I was interested, therefore, to read today's article by Canon Stephen Neill, Church of Ireland Rector of Cloughjordan where he discusses the effect of the recent debate about the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill on his own thinking around abortion. Interestingly, he argues that the debate to date has forced him out of his self-described 'middle ground' into a 'pro-choice' position.

Canon Neill's 'middle ground' position was that abortion should only "be available in cases of rape, unviable pregnancy and a threat to the health and/or life of the mother." He also adds: "I would not have been and am still not in favour of abortion on demand, abortion as a late contraceptive or abortion as a means of terminating Down syndrome or other special needs pregnancies. I say this as the parent of a child with special needs who has brought untold joy to my life." 
His overall position is not one that I could agree with, and indeed I'd argue forcefully that it's not entirely coherent - but I can certainly understand how someone could seriously and contentiously reach that position and consider it to be some sort of 'middle ground' between a pro-life and a pro-choice stance.

However, I find the next part of his article confusing. Rather than argue for this so-called middle ground and justify his position, something about the nature of the debate forces Canon Neill to choose a tribe. He says: [i]n absence of that middle ground I am forced to make a choice fully conscious of the potential for many of the things I do not want to see happen becoming a reality. This, I cannot understand. I can understand having one's mind changed by argument. I can understand lending some support to a group or movement whilst not fully agreeing with them on the grounds that their aims or intents are somehow compatible with my own. I can understand tactical and political alliances.
What I cannot understand is what Canon Neill purports to be doing. Because the "middle ground" in the debate has been "sidelined", he therefore feels as though he must cleave to one or other of the extremes as though being on the right side were more important than taking a stand for the side that is right. That, to me, makes little sense.

It's interesting to read Canon Neill's assessment of both sides of the debate. His impressions are, of course, his.  As I don't open his postbag in the morning or read what comes in on his e-mail and twitter feed, I can't really say that he is being inaccurate. I know that there is an unpleasant and vicious element in the pro-life camp who prefer to shock and intimidate rather than persuade. (Likewise, need I add, there are those on the pro-choice side who smear and belittle those who disagree with them.) I know too that because this literally is a life-and-death issue we are debating that even good-hearted people on both sides of the debate can speak unkindly out of frustration and fear.
Still, looking at the public contributions to the debate and my own engagement with the pro-life movement, I don't recognise the picture he paints of an unsympathetic movement that is eager to accuse women of murder.
I'm also puzzled by Canon Neill's argument that it is "bizarre about non-medical politicians, clergy (of any church) and others trying to argue medical technicalities with highly qualified medical specialists." I would challenge the impression given that somehow it is the pro-life camp that is at odds with the medical profession, when there are plenty of pro-life doctors who argue their case effectively and when the proposed government legislation has failed to attract the support of the professional bodies in the medical field. The core of the debate is not about arguing technicalities with doctors. Medical practice is informed by more than technicalities - it also demands an engagement with bio-ethical philosophy and the fields of legal and human rights. We rightly expect our legal system and our society to challenge medical practice, when (for example) we learn of doctors performing female genital mutilation. The demands of justice, law and social opinion all have their just place in setting down the boundaries of acceptable medical practice.

I'm afraid Canon Neill loses me when he makes a theological point as well. Invoking our role as 'co-creators' with God and suggests that the choice of Mary to co-operate with God's saving plan and become the mother of Jesus Christ somehow points to a theological justification for a pro-choice position. I find that most untenable. His statement that "[w]e have been given the ability to create life, but it is not forced upon us" sits uneasily with my experience of life, of the Gospel and my ministry as a priest. Whether a believer or non-believer wants to talk about providence, fate or chance, it seems evident that much about our lives - for good or for ill - is indeed forced upon us. The Christian tradition does indeed privilege the free and moral choice as being central to living the good and ethical life, but the idealization of choice in itself as distinct from the good freely chosen is alien to Christianity and most ethical systems. If we want to introduce an ethical principle from the Gospel that seems apt to the debate, I'd suggest looking at the parable of the Good Samaritan, where we are invited to a radical solidarity with all of humankind, and in particular solidarity and responsibility for those whom circumstances have placed into our care.

Finally, Canon Neill makes a point about trust.  He argues, "[a]nd finally it comes down to trust. If we are to truly respect the role of women in childbearing then we have to trust them without subjecting them to the kind of overbearing oversight that is proposed in the new legislation."  If only we lived in such an ideal world that 'trust' could be used to do away with all sorts of positive law and that all rights would be respected on the basis of trust. I cannot think of any area of life or fundamental human right that can be protected purely on the basis of trust. We have laws against all kinds of offences and violations of human rights - not because we have some kind of prejudicial lack of trust but because we know from bitter experience that trust can be abused and the rights of innocents are not always respected.

Canon Neill has done us a favour in writing this article. Even though I don't recognise the picture he paints of the pro-life side, it's a pertinent reminder to us of how we must conduct the debate with clarity and in charity. It reminds us too that the pro-life cause isn't just about changing laws, but about effectively living and communicating a philosophy of life that respects both mother and child in a way that makes the deliberate termination of an unborn child's life unthinkable. Whilst we have a short-term objective before us in defeating a disastrous piece of legislation, our fundamental mission is cultural.
However, despite being thankful to Canon Neill for setting down the details of his philosophical journey from being someone who held the 'middle ground' to the adoption of a more radically pro-choice position that would go even further than the government's proposed legislation, I have to declare myself puzzled by some aspects of the journey. What is it Canon Neill sees in this debate that left him unable to defend his 'middle ground'? Why the seeming need to join a tribe (either pro-life or pro-choice) and why frame the decision in terms of seeking the less objectionable tribe rather than the rational pursuit of justice and the good?      

Draft of a letter to Professor John Crown

A response (in draft form) to this article.

Dear Professor Crown,

I write to you as a citizen and a Catholic Priest in order to take issue with a number of the points you make in your article in today’s Sunday Independent.  I find myself astonished that a respected parliamentarian could have penned an article that so profoundly misunderstands the nature of justice and democracy and that seems to be aimed at discrediting the participation of ordinary Catholics in the democratic process by branding their contribution as being at the service of a foreign power.

I’ll trust you not to simply dismiss this letter as being just the special pleading of an agent of a foreign state, but ask that you take me seriously when I say that your talk of coups and plots is profoundly insulting to Catholic clergy and ordinary Catholic people who have been lobbying their politicians on the abortion issue.  The depiction of Catholicism as being foreign and sinister was a familiar trope of English anti-Catholicism and it’s worrying to see an Irish parliamentarian try to imply something similar.  You may not agree with the position of the Irish Bishops, ordinary pro-life lobbyists or some of your parliamentary colleagues on the proposed abortion legislation, but on what basis can you seriously throw around accusations of sinister foreign influence and coup d’etat?
The people who lobby against this legislation and your fellow parliamentarians who oppose the legislation are Irishmen and women with a full stake in the past, present and future of Irish society and a concern for the common good.  It is this concern for the common good that causes them to express their concerns and participate in the democratic process articulating a vision of human rights and justice that encompasses a holistic concern for human life.  Yes, many (but by no means all) of those arguing against the legislation will have their views formed by Catholic teaching and the statements of the Holy See (not the same thing as the Vatican City State, by the way), but surely it’s absurd to suggest that the free diffusion of ideas between cultures is somehow antithetical to democracy or the progress of humankind.  I would not have thought you such a cultural isolationist.
Apart from suggesting that some Irish people and parliamentarians allow their thoughts and philosophy to be shaped by Catholic teaching – as is their right – I fail to see why you have reason to imply that the Vatican’s influence in the matter of abortion legislation is somehow sinister, unless it is your belief that no one should allow their thinking to be in any way informed by unIrish influences.

You were somewhat clearer in your explanation as to why you regard opposition to the proposed legislation as being contrary to our system of constitutional government.  However, I would argue that your understanding of the role of the legislator in a democratic society is fundamentally flawed.
You are unhappy with the fact that some of our parliamentarians see a huge injustice in the X-Case decision of the Supreme Court.  You point out that Article 34.4.6 states that “the decision of the Supreme Court shall in all cases be final and definitive.”  That means that there is no further recourse for any individual legal case in our domestic system beyond the Supreme Court.  However, what you fail to do is establish that the judgement of the Supreme Court in a particular case should somehow constrain legislators in their decision to vote for or against a particular Bill in the Dáil or Seanad.  That’s not in our Constitution and that doesn’t respect the separation of powers.  To suggest that an elected representative’s choice between the ‘Tá’ and Níl’ lobby can be controlled by the Supreme Court has no basis in our Constitution or our laws.
Legislators who hold that there is a grave injustice and faulty reasoning at the heart of the X-Case decision are perfectly entitled under the Constitution to propose and lobby for legislation – even though it does not seem to accord with the X Case – with the hope and expectation that the Supreme Court might re-visit its own reasoning should the new legislation come before it.  Our system of checks and balances works by allowing the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional legislation, not by tying the hands of our legislators.

Your understanding of the duties of legislators to the Constitution is belied by the fact that the Constitution itself is capable of amendment and such amendment always has its beginning in the Houses of the Oireachtas.  Loyalty to the Republic and the work of the legislator cannot be straitjacketed into a blind devotion to the Constitution.  Even though it expresses the basic principles according to which our State is run, making contentment with the Constitutional status quo a prerequisite to participation in the legislative branch closes the door to Constitutional reform and development.  I know that it is not your intent to exclude reforming voices and votes from the Dáil and Seanad, and yet it is unsettling that you seem to believe that some reforming voices should be excluded on the grounds of disloyalty to the Constitution.

The very fact that the Constitution is open to amendment should also make it clear that written law and court decisions are not the final determinants of what is just and good in our society.  Certainly they set the limits by which the machinery of State can operate in order to promote the common good and protect the rights of citizens, but the Constitution and court decisions are not irreformable and unchangeable.  The legislator, therefore, needs to have a broader understanding of rights and justice so that he or she might participate in the work of refining and improving our Constitutional system so that it better fulfils its role.  Of necessity, the legislator will take account of the representations his and her constituents, but will ultimately need to decide how to legislate, how to vote on particular matters, based on his or her understanding of justice and the common good.  Imposing some kind of litmus test that excludes particular understandings of justice and the common good from the Houses of the Oireachtas is a profoundly anti-democratic suggestion.

I would also take issue with a number of other points you raise in your article:

·         If you are able to discern the will of the Irish people from the failure of a Constitutional Referendum opposed by both Dana Rosemary Scallon and Ivana Bacik, then you have a greater gift of reading the intentions of the Irish people than DeValera claimed when he looked into his own heart.

·         The concerns of parliamentarians regarding the potential abuse of seemingly restrictive procedures in approving abortions are well-justified if one looks at the experience of the United Kingdom where supposedly restrictive criteria have become de facto abortion on demand.  Why should we suppose that things should go any differently in Ireland.

·         It is most unfair of you to throw mud at Cardinal O’Malley of Boston regarding child abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston, given the fact that he had no involvement in the Archdiocese until he was brought in to ‘clean out the stables’ after the disastrous tenure of Cardinal Law.

Professor Crown, I never thought that I’d have to write to an Irish parliamentarian to ask him to refrain from painting Catholicism as being a sinister, foreign influence in the country with designs on the integrity of our State.  I would have thought that a man of your intelligence would realise that such an absurd suggestion gives validation – inadvertently, I’m sure – to the crudest forms of religious bigotry.
Nor did I think I’d ever have to write to a man of your reputation in order to remind him that it is not an unhealthy thing for a legislator to develop an understanding of justice and the common good that is rooted in something other than blind devotion to the Constitutional status quo.  Indeed, it is to the credit of the legislator when he understands the extent of his responsibility to the common good and exercises himself or herself in seeking to understand the nature of justice and how our current system might serve us better.

Yours sincerely

That Fornication Speech...

In yesterday's parliamentary debate on Abortion legislation in the Dáil, the speech of Mayo TD Michelle Mulherin attracted the most attention. Or, to be more precise, her use of a single word, namely "fornication" attracted people's attention.  It's not a word one hears too often, but it is usefully defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

Anyway, Miss Mulherin said:

Abortion as murder, therefore sin, which is the religious argument, is no more sinful, from a scriptural point of view, than all other sins we don’t legislate against, like greed, hate and fornication. The latter, being fornication, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

Now, fornication isn't a politically correct word, so this caused all kinds of uproar.  (It also caused Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan to exclaim, "Hurrah for fornication," which could well serve as his next election slogan.) And even though fornication is a perfectly precise and accurate word for a particular sin, it's one that I don't use very often myself because it has an inflammatory effect which detracts from the calm and rational discussion of things.
Anyway, her speech - or at least the reported parts of it - have led to her being subjected to all kinds of online mockery, implying that she's typical of the pro-life Catholic crowd who want to send Ireland into an age of pre-enlightenment darkness.  However, if one actually goes to the bother of reading her speech - a thoroughly confusing contribution - it seems to me as though she doesn't represent mainstream pro-life thinking or Catholic thought and that her position on abortion seems to be a personal opposition, but an unwillingness to legislate for its illegality.  Indeed, reading many of the contributions made to the Dáil yesterday and the day before, many of them seem to base their opposition to Clare Daly's bill on pragmatic political grounds rather than on a principled concern for the life of the unborn.

On another online forum, a commentator made the astute remark about Mulherin's speech that it was written as though "two people with opposing view took turns writing paragraphs."
She starts by welcoming the debate and her concern for the Irish women who travel abroad for abortions.  Then she says:

We are moving and have moved away from an Ireland where morality was shoved down people’s throats. The question is whether responsibility for people’s moral conduct falls on the shoulders of Government or whether we go down the road of talking about the personal responsibility of the individuals involved.

She's raising a valid question here - albeit in an unsatisfactory manner.  One of the questions faced by legislators is the extent to which morality or good behaviour should be legislated for.  It seems self evident that the state should be allowed to forbid murder or kidnap or theft.  These seem to be the easy cases. Likewise, there is little appetite in modern Western democracies for the State to legislate to outlaw sexual misbehaviour in cases where consent can be responsibly given.   However, there are tougher questions.  What restrictions should the State place on cigarette smoking, drunkenness or pornography? What about drug-taking? The evaluation of what the State and criminal law can and can't do is a non-trivial question.  And whilst morality is often used in a pejorative sense (Is Mulherin doing this?), a legislator MUST reason in moral terms in order to decide what the State does or does not have the right to do.  
Questions of justice are moral questions, as are questions of human rights.  We are comfortable making the moral judgement that such-and-such a foreign state should not imprison political prisoners.  Whether we like it or not, that is a form of moral decision.  Likewise, the pro-life movement would argue that the question of what protection should be afforded to the unborn child is, of course, a moral one, but it is precisely the kind of moral question which the State must get involved in order to justly protect the human rights of mother and child.
Mulherin then goes on to make the fair point that hard cases make bad law.  Anyone with an iota of life experience know that difficult situations arise where we are torn apart by a whole nexus of competing thoughts, emotions and principles. Legal and moral decision making isn't easy and even though particular cases may sway us one way or the other, careful legislation cannot be based solely on particular "hard cases" without regard for underlying principles. She follows this argument (which you could imagine being taken from a pro-life briefing paper) with the following paragraph:

I will be voting against the Bill, which I believe is untimely. However, it does open a debate and I welcome that aspect. There are some questions I would raise during the debate. The major objection to abortion in Ireland is religious but the rest of the Western world has no objections in this way. In the book Free and Female, dating from some decades back, Ms Barbara Seaman put abortion as part of the lifelong struggle of women for effective contraception and to be able to take control of their own bodily integrity. That is both liberal and feminist. When we legislate, we do it with an all-inclusive paradigm for our society. In short, it is not for the majority alone.

Here she sounds, not like a conservative religious pro-lifer, but rather like someone in favour of enshrining abortion rights in legislation.  Her objection to the Daly bill is a question of timing. Her statement about Ireland's objection to abortion being uniquely religious is somewhat of a puzzler.  Yes, the vast majority of those who oppose the introduction of abortion to Ireland are Catholic and are motivated by their faith.  I suspect however that in the Western world, religiously motivated opposition to abortion is far from being uniquely Irish.  (Malta? Poland? The USA?)


However, even though religious people are opposed to abortion, their grounds for doing so are far from being simply religious. It's a question of human rights and the extent and manner to which human life should be protected by the State.  Most arguments against abortion are rooted in philosophical and scientific issues, rather than questions of scriptural interpretation and there are a fair number of agnostics and atheists who make common cause with their religious fellow-citizens in arguing for the right to life.In Catholic terms, opposition to abortion is rooted in the Natural Law and is not a religious stricture which we seek to impose on society, but rather a genuine injustice against another human being which the State has the right and responsibility to prevent. Our opposition to abortion is not akin to our suggesting that everyone should go to Mass on Sundays or face imprisonment, but is based on the exact same principles as the treatment of theft or kidnapping as illegal activities.

Anyway, having put forward an argument which seems to come from the pro-choice playbook, Mulherin then makes a sort of personal profession of faith which seems to be somewhat of a non sequitur: 

I am against abortion in any form. The grace of God is so liberating and provides so many options to get the best out of life despite our fallen nature, and we all have that. Having said that, it is an ideal to aim for. In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no unwanted babies. However, we are far from living in an ideal world. An honest and a scriptural view is that things are getting harder for people, so what then for the weak in our society?

I'm not sure what Deputy Mulherin's religious background is. Certainly a belief in original sin and the power of God's grace is Catholic teaching, even if some of my online correspondents detect a US-style evangelical accent in her credo.  (I'm a fan of St Augustine & don't think we Catholics think enough about grace or original sin.)  She also makes a clear (personal?) statement of opposition to abortion, but leaves it unclear as to how that opposition should inform her legislative duties.  Likewise, her description of our less-than-ideal world raises questions... Does she mean to imply that because the world is fallen or imperfect that somehow we are held back from striving for the best because it is unattainable?  Are good and evil only relative categories in a less-than-ideal world?  Her self-expression is so unclear that it's hard to see what she's really getting at, but it doesn't sit well with me.  (That thing about "an honest and scriptural view" sounds like something an American fundamentalist would say.)Her next paragraphs speak about the 1st World becoming "freer and more autonomous." She presents a narrative of Ireland moving from a society legislating according to religious principles to one where such legislation is now unthinkable.  She then makes the statement which seems to give the clearest insight into her thinking:

Perhaps the Irish, like the rest of the world, are maturing to the point that they can be trusted with freedom of choice. In fact, although divorce became legal, marriage still remains very popular in Ireland and throughout the world, including the USA. It could be argued that when people are free to abort, they will fight harder to keep their unborn babies by choice and they will value their pregnancies. For those who do not, and I believe them a minority, they will be free to choose what to do with no legal pressure. In other words, any legislation will not make a good Catholic choose abortion against her conscience.

 Deputy Mulherin presents an Ireland where there is "freedom of choice" as being a more mature place.  She seems to loom forward to the day when the minority who do not "value their pregnancies" will be "free to choose what to do with no legal pressure." Despite all the controversy surrounding her, it seems to me that Deputy Mulhern falls into the camp of those who are personally opposed to abortion but who do not want to legislatively forbid it. So, all the mockery of her as representing religious pro-lifers is mis-directed. She sounds a lot more "pro-choice" than "pro-life."
  Finally, she concludes with her notorious fornication paragraph:

Abortion as murder, and therefore sin, which is the religious argument, is no more sinful from a scriptural point of view than all other sins we do not legislate against, such as greed, hate and fornication, the latter - fornication - being probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country. At the end of the day, however, it is the nature of religion to fuss over appearances above the truth and the inner state of the person.

Mulherin puts abortion into the the category of sin - and based on that paragraph and her speech as a whole, it seems as though she understands "sin" as a purely personal matter, and not something that touches on the question of the human rights of others.  It's telling that she says,  it is the nature of religion to fuss over appearances above the truth and the inner state of the person - hardly the opinion of a mainstream Christian thinker, let alone the right-wing theocrat she is accused of being in various places on the internet. It's not my business to offer spiritual diagnoses over the internet, but it seems as though Deputy Mulherin has a curious understanding of sin and its relation to religion.  Sin seems to be something outlawed by a particular religion, very important to one's personal conscience, but not something at all to do with society in a broader sense or with issues of human rights.  She presents the general thrust of Ireland's social and moral changes in recent years in an unquestioningly positive manner, but above all, I think the weakness of her position - in as much as I understand it - is a total failure to consider the question of abortion as involving the rights of an unborn child.  


It's curious that Deputy Mulherin's use of the word "fornication" had the effect of triggering a tribalistic instinct. I've seen her praised by sincere Catholics (most of whom hadn't read her entire speech) for having the courage to call a spade a spade.  I'm not sure that many of them would have much time for the pro-choice argument Mulherin seems to be making.Similarly, speaking about fornication made her an ideal whipping-girl for many in the pro-choice world who could point to her as an example of pro-life Catholic ignorance from the backwoods of Mayo - an excuse to paint pro-lifers as being ignorant and insensitive zealots.  They totally pass over the fact that her speech seems to be that of someone who doesn't at all seem happy with the idea of legislative restrictions on abortion.     Anyway, I think the real thing to remember from all this is how poor the public discourse is in our country, especially where issues of religion are concerned and how unreliable a picture of things the media can paint.  Is there anyone out there in the mainstream media trying to give a true account of what Deputy Mulherin was arguing?

Archbishop Clifford on UCC Stem Cell Decision

From the Irish Times:

THE ARCHBISHOP of Cashel, Dr Dermot Clifford, a member of UCC's governing body, has distanced himself from its decision on stem-cell research.
In a brief statement last night, Dr Clifford said he had informed the governing body of Catholic Church teaching on stem-cell research "and reiterated that human life is sacred from the moment of conception until death".
He said he believed that "it is wrong to conduct research on embryonic stem cells and such research should be prohibited by law. It is contrary to the ethical and moral teaching of the Catholic Church because it is contrary to the common good."
The Pro-Life Campaign has accused the UCC governing body of gross misrepresentation and hypocrisy, while Senator Ronán Mullen said the decision was "irresponsible" and "to be deplored".
Dr Audrey Dillon of the Pro-Life Campaign said it was "a gross misrepresentation for UCC to claim it has found an 'ethical solution' to embryo research that does not involve destroying human life".
She added: "Under the UCC proposal, human embryos are destroyed somewhere else. The university imports the stem cells to use in their research, hypocritically denying their complicity in the killing that produced them."
Dr Dillon said: "The onset of induced pluripotent stem cells [iPS] offers the prospect of a win-win solution, where science and ethics can successfully coexist. Shamefully, UCC has chosen to ignore these possibilities and opted for a socially divisive stance.
"It has absolutely no authority to speak for the Irish people on such sensitive matters. Clearly, it is the preserve of the legislature and electorate to decide these issues," Dr Dillon said.

I've tried in vain to locate a copy of Archbishop Clifford's statement. I'm a little puzzled by his reference to the 'common good' rather than the dignity of human life, but without the full statement it's difficult to assess his statement.
On this issue, I think it's important to stress that Catholic opposition to embryonic stem cell research is based on the natural law rather than simply referring to Catholic doctrine. Our Catholicism should make us passionate in our defence of the unborn, but the basis for that defence is rationally defensible.
UCC's decision is doubly-flawed. It obviously fails to respect the dignity of the embryonic human person. Additionally, the idea that one can avoid the moral problems of embryonic stem cell research by having the 'dirty work' of destroying embryos performed outside the State is a fudge... and an inherently contradictory one at that. If there were no moral reservations about using embryonic stem cells, UCC would not be stipulating that the cells come from outside the State. However, once one admits that there are moral difficulties, then the fact the destruction of the embryo happens abroad changes nothing. It seems to be a case of keeping the embryos out of sight and out of mind.

Amnesty International drop Abortion Neutrality

As a youngster, I remember questioning an Amnesty Internatial speaker at my school about whether the organization was doing anything to protect the human rights of the unborn. As I recall, he was rather taken aback by the question, but did make me aware of the charity's position of neutrality. Now, however, that policy has been changed, as this BBC News story explains:

Amnesty International has confirmed its controversial decision to back abortion in some circumstances, replacing its previous policy of neutrality.
The human rights group will campaign for woman to have access to abortion in cases including rape and incest.
[...]
The decision in April by Amnesty's executive committee to support access to abortion for women in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy jeopardises a mother's life or health was greeted with an outcry by churches.
Roman Catholic leaders in particular accused Amnesty of betraying its commitment to human rights, and a senior Vatican official called on Catholics to stop funding it.
But Amnesty's international council - meeting in Mexico - has overwhelmingly supported the decision, insisting it was upholding the ability of women to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion and violence.

Personally, I find that more and more of my charitable giving is going to Aid to the Church in Need which does some splendid work.

The Sisters of the Gospel of Life

The Sisters of the Gospel of Life, based in Glasgow, are some of the most encouraging and upbeat people I've ever had the pleasure to come across. I'm therefore delighted to see that they've started a blog. It's terrific to see the Holy Spirit at work in the Church, by raising up a new congregation of active religious whose devotion to the Gospel of Life represents a charism sorely needed today.
Sr Roseann explains their origin and work in this video and Sr Andrea explains the vision of the sisters in this Podcast.
Any young woman in Britain or Ireland who is considering a call to the active religious life should give the Sisters serious consideration.