We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A LABOUR TD has said that Cardinal Seán Brady’s Christmas message ‘misrepresented’ the legal position within which the Oireachtas is required to legislate for abortion.
Clare Labour TD Michael McNamara expressed his “disappointment that Cardinal Brady took the opportunity of his Christmas message to again misrepresent the legal position within which the Oireachtas is required to legislate, as well as the proposed content of that legislation” this morning.
In his Christmas message yesterday, Cardinal Brady urged Irish people to protest against plans to legislate for abortion.
Deputy McNamara said:
That Constitutional position was set out clearly by Mr Justice McCarthy in the Supreme Court in the X case, as follows: ‘The right of the girl here is a right to a life in being; the right of the unborn is to a life contingent; contingent on survival in the womb until successful delivery. It is not a question of setting one above the other but rather of vindicating, as far as practicable, the right to life of the girl/mother (Article 40, s.3, sub-s. 2), whilst with due regard to the equal light to life of the girl/mother, vindicating, as far as practicable, the right to life of the unborn. (Article 40, s.3, sub-section 3′).’
He reiterated the Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter TD’s comments in the Dáil earlier this year, when he said “We are not considering, in any shape or form, abortion on demand as is alleged by some”.
McNamara alleged that it appears Cardinal Brady “ignored that and chooses to ignore the Constitutional position and resultant proposed legislation”.
While I would agree with the Cardinal’s criticisms of the budget, it is worth bearing in mind that 10 years after promising to give the State assets to assist with the cost of redress and support for victims of physical and sexual abuse in religious-run institutions, religious orders had yet to transfer around a fifth of the assets they promised and these assets were to be used by State for the benefit of children.
Abuse redress
McNamara brought up the issue of the deal 18 religious orders struck in 2002 with the then Minister for Education, Fianna Fáil’s Michael Woods, to transfer €128m or property and cash to assist in paying this redress. It has since emerged that that the total cost of providing redress and support to victims is likely to be over €1.36bn.
He said that to bring their contribution up to the 50 per cent level agreed under that indemnity agreement, the bodies which ran residential homes in which residents were abused should pay outstanding costs of around €470 million without further delay.
Deputy McNamara also said that the enormous cost to the State resulting from their failure to transfer assets “should be a particular concern for Cardinal Brady” given his own controversial role in the investigation of abuse by Fr Brendan Smyth.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Brady should have long resigned in relation to his activities in the cover up of child sex abuse. Why anyone would take seriously a word he says is beyond me.
He should have gone to jail for his part as a “note taker” . Under current legislation he would have been charged for not reporting the suspected abuse by the bastard Brendan Smyth to the authorities.
It’s shocking that he allowed to continue in his work as a professional brainwasher !
Well done McNamara. Glad to see someone putting this straight. Can’t get my head around how Brady is so worried about unborn children yet he helped cover up & perpetuate the abuse of already born children. How can he not see the sick irony in that.
Could not agree more!!!!
For once I agree with a labour TD !
As has already been said, the Cardinal would have been better off occupying himself with the results of his own past concerning young children and how he weasled himself out of his responsibilities to protect them. This whole affair is using abortion as an excuse for Rome to rule Ireland once more. When are we going to grow up!
Church sticking its nose in again where it has no right to interfere.
60′s and 70′s they made sure contraception was criminalised – they can’t (well, are not supposed to have sex) have a family but made sure we could not have fun enjoying sex with the safety net of condoms.
The church is far too influential in politics and needs to back off and let adults make their own informed decisions on this
Informed?? By whom or what??
As someone who voted No 1 McNamara, I have been kicking myself with every statement from Gilmore, Rabbitt and that despicable Lynch one, but now I feel happier. Well done Deputy McNamara!
If only full abortion rights were part of the new legislation but unfortunately the change in the law will apply to very few cases. Also, if the Cardinal is so upset about abortion, why isn’t he leading a campaign to repeal abortion law in his country of residence (the United Kingdom)? Or to stop 4,000 Irish women travelling to his country to have abortions? The man and his church have zero credibility.
The cardinal is a Cavan man…’his country’ is Ireland…
correct Brian,
& he’s an Irishman,
& – Mr While – anyone from any of the 32 counties of Ireland is Irish.
how do you propose tha Cardinal stops 4,000 Irish women travelling to England for abortions, mr White ??
He lives in and pontificates from the UK. It’s strange that he doesn’t campaign on a permanent basis to stop abortions in the UK or to discourage Irish women from traveling to the UK to have abortions. He uses his position as Roman Catholic Primate of All Ireland (local head of a private international organisation) to comment on matters in this jurisdiction yet ignores the reality that abortion exists in the UK.
Michael, he could issue statements calling on British people to pray for their MPs to vote to repeal the UK’s abortion laws. He could lead a campaign himself to have these laws repealed. But you know he won’t because he’s not interested in talking about the reality of abortion in Ireland.
Naw – his country is the Vatican state.
That is where his loyalties lie no matter where he was born.
He sold his soul to the leader of his community for a little power and a fancy title.
@ Séamus White:
glad you conceded that Cardinal Brady is Primate of All Ireland,
& sure we all know that unfortunately, part of Ireland is still under British rule.
there is you know, a Cardinal in England & he speaks out on abortion there, & that & pray is all he can do.
Michael there’s no concession required from me as it’s a matter of fact that Brady is the local head of his organisation in Ireland. It’s also a matter of fact that over 4,000 Irish women have abortions in the UK, where he resides. He says nothing about those abortions in his statement. I can only conclude that his objective is to deny Irish women abortion rights in Ireland but that he is less concerned that they can acquire abortions in the country where he lives. I don’t recall any statements from Brady regarding the (restrictive) abortion law in Northern Ireland or the more liberal law in other parts of the UK.
@ Séamus White:
don’t know why you make such an issue of where Cardinal Brady resides.
sure, if he moved a few miles down the road to Louth, you’d still be whinging,
i, myself resided outside of Ireland for some years – so what ?
unlike Cardinal Brady, many who comment on the Journal.ie, reside outside of Ireland – as far away as Australia, in fact.
in any event – as far as i’m aware, they don’t have abortion clinics, in any of The Six Counties, anyway.
unlike you – i can’t “conclude” what Cardinal Brady’s “objective” was in referring to abortion in his Christmas TV message, but I would guess that the fact that the subject is being so widely discussed here, at this point in time, may have been a factor.
Michael, there is an abortion clinic in Northern Ireland. See the link below for more information to inform your knowledge on the debate.
The reason why I’ve referred to where Brady lives is that he lives in a country (the UK) which provides abortion services to over 4,000 Irish women each year yet he has nothing at all to say about this. Unlike you, I find it strange that he has made no comment about these Irish abortions or about trying to lobby to change the law to stop abortion in the UK but has plenty to say about stopping abortion services in this jurisdiction. If he was successful (not a chance of that) in lobbying to stop legislation for the X case, Irish women would continue to have abortions in the UK. Presumably that’s something that should concern him yet he has nothing to say about it.
@ Séamus White
Cardinal Brady is Primate of All Ireland & there is another Cardinal in England – i don’t know if Scotland & Wales have Catholic Cardinals,
sure – you’d be whinging too if Cardinal Brady was commenting about abortion in England, Scotland, Wales, or anywhere else for that matter,
& for all i know he may well have done so, at some stage.
& once again – the Cardinal lives in Ireland – Armagh in fact,
& as Primate of all Ireland, Armagh comes under his juristiction.
try & not be so childish, or partitionist
maybe you’re a fan of ol Maggie Thatcher ??
i think she once said that South Armagh was as british as Finchley, or something like that.
Michael, the current head of Catholic Church in England and Wales is an archbishop (his predecessor had a red hat), not a cardinal. The head of the Catholic Church in Scotland does have a red hat. Both gentlemen having been making statements against marriage equality for gay people of late. They, like Brady, are perfectly entitled to campaign for or against anything they like.
It’s a pity that for the sake of debate that you don’t address my criticism of Brady (the fact that he is not campaigning to stop Irish abortions in the UK – where he lives) but instead call my criticism “whinging, childish, partitionist”, Thatcherite. The last accusation is particularly hurtful (:-)).
That you didn’t know that there is an abortion clinic in Belfast should have alerted me to the fact that you aren’t particularly informed about the issue of abortion on the island of Ireland. We’ll just have to agree to differ on Brady’s intervention in the debate. Take care.
Séamus White:
you sure are better informed on some the minutae of the Catholic Church organisation than I am,
sorry – but i’m pretty sure that you’re not comcerned at all, at all, about the fact that Cardinal Brady “is not campaigning to stop Irish abortions in the UK”.
on the contrary – I reckon you’d be whinging too, if he was.,
& your attitude to the partition of our country appears indeed to be close to that of Thatcher.
I didn’t know that there was an abortion clinic in the Six Counties –
my understanding is that the vast majority of the women go to England for abortions, instead of taking the train or by car to Belfast or wherever the abortion clinic is.
Wonder how many women over the years travelled to Britain to have an abortion due to churches attitude to unmarried mothers and the associated “shame” and the fear of being put into a magdeline laundry. Until the church takes responsibility for the thousands of pregnancies they are personally responsible for ending and rid it being a sin to become pregnant outside of marraige or at least let it be a sin for both mother and father their rage at abortion has no merit or justification!!!
Well said! The ‘shame’ of becoming pregnant outside of marriage; continues right to this day; yet I have never heard of a priest or a bishop in Ireland speaking about the obligations and responsibilities of ‘single’ Fathers. Add to this the Roman Catholic catergorisation of children as being either legitimate or illegitimate; the list of ‘sinfull’ categories and labels that the ‘churches’ apply to women, and children born out of ‘wedlock’ appears to be endless.
So why are those assets not claimed and confiscated?
Don’t pay your mortgage and see how long they wait.
Oh, look at me – I’m a big shot in the church!
I can’t be part if a regular family, I know feck all about the cost or problems of rearing children, I know f all about the realities of daily living, I respect and have close communications with women on a regular basis so I know the problems they have (nuns).
You hypocritical twit, live and experience life like the rest of us humans before you give your opinion.
Ahh Paul, you misguided fool, your single voice counts for nothing, I the have the might of the catholic church at my back and can say what I like, we have devoted followers the hang on to our every word and are prepared to believe every single thing we say, we whisper a single line on a Sunday and by Monday that is gospel.
‘No government has the right to remove that right’ … So is the government legislating for mandatory abortions? Last time I checked, termination was a choice, not an obligation
Does the ‘church’ have any views on Unmarried Fathers? For a girl or a woman, the ‘shame’ of becoming pregnant outside of marriage; continues right to this day: I have never heard of a priest or a bishop in Ireland speaking about the obligations and responsibilities of single unmarried ‘Fathers’. Add to this the Roman Catholic and State categorisation of children as being either legitimate or illegitimate; the lists of ‘sinfull’ categories and labels that are applied to women, and children, born out of ‘wedlock’, appears to be endless.
My dad remenbers when he was young and the clergy were more powerfull than the guards. How times have changed.
Anagram of Cardinal Sean Brady:
A dryland brain case!
As long as people keep going to mass, getting married in churches, sending their kids to catholic schools and ticking any census that they are catholic the church will be a powerful force. People need turn away from to church to force them to change. I personally don’t believe in any of it, sounds an awful lot like Santa to me.
Did RTE show a rebuttal on the behalf of the pro choice groups?
Why doesn’t Charlatan Brady just threaten to excommunicate anyone that votes against his wishes? Oh yeah, because we’re not frightened abused little kids anymore.
The church should mind it’s own business – the Irish constitution is nothing to do with them. They swear allegiance first and foremost to Rome and are not loyal citizens of this state.
Labour HQ should summon Brady and swear him to silence on pain of spending all eternity in Hell.
Good on bishop for speaking out on the abortion issue. A lot of commentators think only people who agree with them have the right to speak on this and other issues.
The Bishop speaking on abortion is like Mick Wallace giving advice on tax.
And a lot of commentators don’t understand the difference between disagreeing/arguing and attempting to censor. People come on here to debate, not to listen to a sermon and accept it unquestioningly as truth.
Paul:
you say _
“People come on here to debate, not to listen to a sermon and accept it unquestioningly as truth”
corerect’ Paul.
we’ve had quite a few sermons on this thread so far,
& judging by the thumbs – they’ve been accepted as truth by many.
BTW – i’m still glad that i placed McNamara one place above his blueshirt pals, at the bottom of my ballot paper, last GE.
@ Michael, they’re making their point, as are you. Debate is a two way thing. The tactic of a lot of catholic contributors here is to label anyone who disagrees with them intolerant and attempting to censor -they attempt to claim the right of free speech exclusively for themselves. I wish they’d go ahead and make their point (after consulting with their many advisors, lawyers and consultants) with less of the disingenuous oppressed minority nonsense please.
yeah Paul – but the only people so far on this thread, who have as you put it, delivered “a sermon”, -
how shall i put it ? – anyway Paul, they would appear to be on our side of the fence on the abortion issue.
& Paul – i’d imagine that the vast majority of contributors here are “catholic contributors” -
Catholic contributors, perhaps, Paul ?
Ha!
Paul, you are wrong, that is precisely what the Catholic Church does.
The church is never wrong – until they are caught with their trousers around their ankles (metaphorically speaking). Oh wait, that should read ” factually speaking”.
Or more correctly it should be literally speaking.
Michael O’ Toole you’re as good as your name.
The neck of the Catholic Church. After decades of abuse, lies and deceit regarding the abuse of young innocent children, to take the “moral high ground” here is disgusting. I’m guessing the pro life side are hoping the cardinal keeps his mouth shut from now on.
The Cardinal is right it’s a pity the idiots that make up the Labour Party don’t listen.
Troll
What an idiotic comment !
The church can debate this issue all they want what is a critical fact here and one they cannot ignore is that we have failed for 20 years to implement our supreme court ruling, I mean what sort of country does that. we have also failed to listen to the European court of human rights. There is no excuses. They are clearly misrepresenting what the x case decides that only when the risk to the life of the mother is in danger will termination be legal! I bet hardly any of those protesting against this even read the x case, or the abc judgment or the ms d case or have listened carefully to the thousands of other stories regarding this !
I am a practising catholic iv even been to Lourdes in France 3 times I like most people have my beliefs but would never choose to shove them down others throats or try to interfere with the legislature ! The very essence of a functioning democracy can only exist when the state is not being dominated by other institutions like the church or banks and for far too long this nation has been held back by those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others. The church does do a lot of good work don’t get me wrong there are thousands of examples but on this topic, they to need to realise that this particular very narrow problem within a wider issue is not pro choice or even pro life it is concerned solely with fundamental right to life of the mother! a life that is sacred and should be protected within our laws and should not be interfered with by anyone
‘Cad a dhéanfaidh mac an chait ach luch a mharú.’ ( ‘What would a son of a cat do, but kill a mouse?’)
Do we really expect the Brady Bunch to say anything else?
Archbishop John Charles McQuaid.once tried to ruin Ireland has the church learned anything
If only medical people should be listened to on this topic then the issue is decided as they have said that requiring abortion to save the life a mother just does not happen although nearly happens once in 20 years.
It sure is great that Ireland is a modern country now . We have divorce , abortion soon , let’s get euthanasia legalised , and gay marriage and polygamous marriage . Why should the state prevent three people from loving one another ? Or four ? I think too that we should legalise for infanticide too – only in exceptional cases and only up to a month after birth. After all there is not much difference between a baby at 38 weeks gestation and one a month after birth .There are good reasons for this such as foetal disability that was missed in the womb or if the mother was raped and couldn’t bring herself to deal with it during the pregnancy. She should not be forced to raise a child that was the result of a rape. The sooner we throw off the shackles of the catholic religion , we can start to grow up and make our own morality which has nothing to do with the oppressive catholic past !
Nice sermon Anthony. Amen ;p
I don’t agree with infanticide. Sounds a bit like murder to me. I think you’re going a bit far there. The rest is good though. *smileyface
No one thinks abortion is a good thing in and of itself. We all know that it involves extinguishing a life, and that’s not the ideal scenario – but in this instance – we are talking about where there’s a possibility that BOTH may die, it’s the lesser of two evils to simply terminate the pregnancy.
Abortion on demand is a separate subject, and I reckon we should have access to it. Those who feel as though they do not agree with it do not have to have one, but they are not walking in the shoes of the woman accessing the service and they have no right to cast their judgement upon her.
Having said that, we should have free access to contraception and factual, honest and open education not only about sex, but also about emotions and relationships too. It’s always going to be better to prevent unwanted pregnancy than to terminate it.
Sadly – if this fails abortion being illegal will not stop women seeking it out if that’s what they wish to do, and unless they have the means to travel, when it is illegal it is not safe – again, you run the risk of losing two lives rather than one..
The pro life side never seem to quite understand this.. It seems their concern for women in this debate is solely in the role of incubator and not as human, if that’s not anti woman then please, explain what is..
Well done to the Cardinal. At least he is now showing courage to speak up and defend the vulnerable, something he and his fellow bishops failed to do in the past.
It is sad indictment of our political system that the catholic church is one again becoming the sole voice for the weak and defenceless in our society
Thousand tweets on your account. I scrolled through a few hundred, ALL related to the subject of abortion.
Hmmmmmm………..
If you were to be cynical about this the true facts maybe the asset’s that the religious orders promised
was 126 million pre downturn .To-day that is of what value now,I would say 470 million which would mean the most the goverment could now expect is 50 percent of 470 million,unless the orders are to sell more of thier assets, and personally i do not think this will happen and if the goverment were to demand contrubution in full the valuable service’s provided by the religious orders would come under extreme pressure thus exposing further hardship on service user’s,even @95% funding from the taxpayer as is currently the case,So how then does it seem right the original deal was a 50:50 surely the taxpayer’s funding @95% should mean the liability equals 95% ? As for the abortion debate it is a completely different agenda, completely seperate debate .
have your say