Cardinal Sean Brady made a spirited defence of the Seal of the Confessional in Knock on Sunday, correctly pointing out that any legislation requiring priests to break the Seal will challenge religious freedom in this country. The government, however, is determined to go ahead, and Alan Shatter, the Minister of Justice, has responded to the Cardinal's defence by insisting that priests will not be exempt.
Indeed such legislation would contravene our Constitutional rights with regard to the practice of our Catholic faith, that is why I think this legislation may be a non-runner, unless of course the present government seeks to change the Constitution and limit religious freedom in certain circumstances. Now having spoken to some friends on this they all said that if such a referendum is presented to the people they would reject it. They might, I say, if they know about it. But then there are other ways of getting the consent of the people.
There is due to be a referendum on children's rights in the next few months - seeking a change in the Constitution which may introduce particularly worrying developments. This proposed amendment to the Constitution may dissolve certain parental rights, transferring them to the state, in order to protect children and give them more rights as citizens. What is stopping the government from including a clause, a nice ambiguous clause, into the wording of the amendment which will state that certain religious rights may be suspended or overlooked in certain cases in order to protect the life, health or welfare of the child? Nothing. Groups will argue about the amendment, its supporters roll out the hard cases and try to win the assent of the people. Is this what the goverment intends to do?
You know, Father, you could be right. I would not trust Kenny, Shatter, Fitzgerald or Gilmore - they would sneak such a provision into a Constitutional amendment and then justify it by talking about children's rights. The people of Ireland need to be very careful. Many freedoms have already been lost through equality legislation - there is a vertible persecution of orthodox Christianity in the UK thanks to equality laws. Expect the same here.
ReplyDeleteA child cannot be "given" more rights than he already has as a human being, under Divine or Natural Law and as recognised by the Constitution. However, a child naturally requires an adult to exercise or defend those rights in practice, and the mother or father is, naturally, the person who has the duty (and, as against a third party, the right) to do so on the child's behalf. It is the Constitution's recognition of this fact, in the Family and Education articles that it is proposed to tamper with, to permit agents of the State to usurp the role of parents. Such amendments to the Constitution, if they were to purport to do so, would be invalid as being against Divine or Natural Law, and in conflict with the Natural Law and Christian philosophy upon which the Constitution is founded, and around which it coheres. The same is true for any amendment that would purport to impede the practice of faith per se. Lynda A child cannot be "given" more rights than he already has as a human being, under Divine or Natural Law and as recognised by the Constitution. However, a child naturally requires an adult to exercise or defend those rights in practice, and the mother or father is, naturally, the person who has the duty (and, as against a third party, the right) to do so on the child's behalf. It is the Constitution's recognition of this fact, in the Family and Education articles that it is proposed to tamper with, to permit agents of the State to usurp the role of parents. Such amendments to the Constitution, if they were to purport to do so, would be invalid as being against Divine or Natural Law, and in conflict with the Natural Law and Christian philosophy upon which the Constitution is founded, and around which it coheres. The same is true for any amendment that would purport to impede the practice of faith per se. Lynda
ReplyDeleteSt. Thomas has this all covered in the Summa Theologica. There is guidance there for priests on what to do should such situations as these arise. It is most interesting. Apparently, a priest could, under questioning in court, deny knowledge of one man's sin without injuring his conscience, since he knows it not as a mere mortal man knows it, and in the realms of which the secular powers deal, but only as God knows it, as he came to his Godly knowledge of it with the Sacrament of Penance. I think it is in the supplement.
ReplyDelete