Some Reflections On The Ashers Case

The judgement in the Ashers bakery case is disappointing if not surprising. Many of us expected that they would lose the case given the political and legal climate which is developing in the UK (and Ireland) towards men and women of conscience. The McArthur family, who own Ashers, are facing what many other Christian business men and women have been facing for a few years now, including a business in Dublin - a paper shop that was forced to close, and a printing firm in Drogheda which is expecting to hauled before the courts in the not too distant future, all because they seek to reserve the right to conscience in their businesses.

Ms Justice Brownlie, the presiding judge in the Ashers case, revealed in her judgment that while people are allowed to believe what they wish and manifest that belief as they see fit, their faith and its manifestation must be accordance with the law. Now on one hand we see resonances of the tyranny of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I outlawing Catholicism and forcing their subjects to conform to their new religion;  in extremis this may well be the case. However, on one level what the judge says makes some sense. For example if there is a cult out there that believes human sacrifice is a necessary tenet of their religion and worship, as did the Aztecs, it stands to reason that a civilised society cannot permit such practices to be carried out. The law will prevent that and if this cult is to remain in the country it must respect the law and refrain from sacrificing human beings within the jurisdiction. 

On the other hand, for example, Muslims require animals to be slaughtered in a manner consistent with Quranic teaching - Halal. While these methods offend laws concerning cruelty to animals, the State permits them provided the animals are not subject to extreme suffering.  There is, then, a tension between some laws in the State and religious practices, but also a leniency, an understanding. Usually this is no problem. Given that religion has a role in society be to a leaven, though there are many out there who reject this, tension can be healthy and, with mutual respect, can be fruitful. The principle of the common good is usually invoked. But where does the Ashers judgment come in to all this?  

The judgement is the Ashers case is one which offends the common good rather than protects it. The case is specific and concerns freedom of conscience, not the slaughter of animals nor human sacrifice. Freedom of conscience is one of those values a civilised and rational society cherishes and seeks to protect for many reasons including the common good. Freedom of conscience allows for the development of a mature and respectful society and is a guarantee against the growth of tyranny which is always a possibility even within the most democratic of states, as we saw in Germany in the 1930s.  

Embracing this value will mean that there may be certain things a society may have to tolerate, even a blurring of the lines around laws in order to preserve a greater good. The toleration of pacifism within a society is a good case. There are those who refuse to join the army or fight, not because they are cowards or disloyal to the State, but because they seek to remain true to their pacifist principles. A wise government will not force them into the army or into battle, but rather will respect their position and give them other duties to assist the war effort - care of the sick and wounded etc. This may offend some laws regarding a citizen's duty to protect the nation, but respecting freedom of conscience the state is creative and will understand that duty in a broader context.

In the Ashers case we have people of conscience who cannot, in good faith, support gay marriage. They were asked to decorate a cake with a slogan promoting gay marriage - which is not legal in Northern Ireland by the way, using images, Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street, which are in fact copyright. (Ironically, Ashers are prosecuted for refusing to ice a cake with these images and if they had done so they would have been in breach of copyright and open to legal action! No word about that.) For refusing they are sued and lose. They are sued for not adhering to something that is not in force in Northern Ireland. Yes, they are said to have broken the law on discrimination, but strictly speaking one has to ask if a position is illegal in a State (gay marriage in Northern Ireland) and citizens refuse to support that position, can that properly be called discrimination?  In other words, if I can use the Aztec example blunt and all as it is: human sacrifice is not permitted in Ireland, an Aztec arrives to order a cake with the slogan "Support Human Sacrifice" on it and I refuse, can I be prosecuted for refusing to do so? I presume the answer to that question is: no, because human sacrifice is not permitted within the State. So if gay marriage is not permitted within Northern Ireland, why were Ashers convicted of discrimination?

Ashers's right to freedom of conscience should have been respected for the sake of the common good, for one thing their position is in agreement with the Judeo-Christian moral code upon which European and British/Irish society and legal codes are based. Ashers's honest declining to ice the cake (not bake it, by the way - they were willing to provide the cake just not ice what they saw as an offensive slogan on it), did not mean the customer was bereft of a service - there were many others happy to bake and ice the cake. Given the service would have been provided elsewhere and not too far away from Ashers means that the company should have been permitted to remain true to their principles. A wise judgement would have decreed that while Ashers position was unfortunate for the customer, they were entitled to freedom of conscience and the service should have been sought elsewhere. That is the position of most right-thinking individuals: common sense as much as respect for the differing views of others. Of course there is now the question of whether the law allowed space for this respect, or were the judge's hands tied: thatshe had no choice but to implement unyielding legislation?

There will be those who hammer home equality laws and the necessity to enforce them rigidly in order to prevent discrimination. Well, look at the bigger picture then and see where this case will bring us. It is no exaggeration to say that Jewish baking companies can be forced to produce cakes which call for the downfall of Israel or mock Moses; Muslim printers can be forced to print cartoons mocking Mohammed; gay magazines can be forced to run ads for gay reversion therapy; Presbyterians can be forced to advertise novenas to Our Lady in their papers; Sinn Fein can be forced to carry ads in their publications calling for oaths of allegiance to the crown. No one will escape, what is judged to be enforced for one group - Christians, will have to be enforced on all: everyone will have to renounce their beliefs and principles to satisfy this rigid law, there is no room for respect, or diversity! Such laws will not end discrimination, but rather create even greater discrimination, and perhaps attitudes and situations that are even worse.

This enforcement will produce (and I honestly believed it is designed to produce) a monolithic society where diversity and difference are hammered out in the name of a particular ideology.  Today it is the Christians in Ashers bakery, it will be someone else tomorrow, and some will say that's fine because it's only the Christian bigots that will be targeted. But some day soon it will be those who put these rigid laws in place who will fall too. Remember what Martin Niemoller wisely wrote. These harsh equality laws which dispense with conscience, indeed seek to quash it, will one day devour us all, and it seems few have the sense to see it. Today Ashers are the victims, tomorrow the common good, the day after that the very society generations have struggled to build.

UPDATE:  Word is coming through that Tesco is now being targeted by gay activists in an attempt to force the supermarket to cancel its order with Ashers bakery. Though they won in the courts, equality militants want to destroy Ashers completely. This comes as no surprise, it is the pattern we have seen emerge in other cases.

Gross Distortion

Well, the pro-abortion media were not long in replying to the Catholic Archbishops' response to the government’s plans to legislate for abortion.  In the Irish Independent today, a missile is thrown across the abyss to the Church and the one throwing the weapon is the Taoiseach himself who claims he was threatened over the Cloyne Report.  Is the story true?  To be honest I do not know, but given the Taoiseach’s propensity to skitter around the truth I am afraid I am not inclined to believe him.  I notice he will not give details of the threat – just as he would not give evidence for the accusations he made against the Vatican last year.  So perhaps that is an indication to the veracity of his claims.  Besides he now needs to attack and undermine the Church as she prepares to fight for the lives of the unborn, so that too may effect his credibility.

According to the Taoiseach the introduction of abortion into Ireland will not create a culture of death, but rather a culture of life.  I think Blessed John Paul II is probably spinning in his tomb.   Of course this is not the first time that the Taoiseach has misquoted or failed to understand Papal teaching.  In his attack on Pope Benedict last year he tried to be smart and quoted some of Benedict’s writing thinking it could be used against the Pontiff – he took the quote out of context and revealed his incompetence.  

And he's revealing his incompetence again on his understanding of the culture of life, and indeed in thinking that he is only legislating for limited abortion.  In every country where “limited abortion” was legalised, a more liberal abortion regime, even abortion on demand, resulted.  As Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro-Life Campaign said a few days ago: “Once it is conceded that some human lives may be directly targeted there is no going back. Inevitably over time the grounds for abortion would be widened.”  The Taoiseach does not seem to get this, or perhaps he does but just won’t admit it.

Reading this article I am inclined to think that perhaps “the red tail wagging the blue dog” may not be entirely true - unless he's skipping over Labour’s threats.   However it is obvious from what he says that Enda Kenny is pro-abortion, and it is also obvious that he intends to force his position on his party, particularly those members of Fine Gael who are pro-life.  He will enforce the party whip and says that the members of the party have a constitutional duty to support his position.  That is a most interesting comment: do the TDs we elect have a constitutional duty to support their leader and his views, or to represent the people of Ireland in parliament?  

It is also obvious that there is no room for conscientious objection; or at least if someone’s conscience disagrees with party policy they are not permitted to object.  This is not constitutional duty, it is tyranny, and Irish governments have shown that they are inclined to such tyranny when it suits them.  The recent imposition of the Civil Partnership Bill without a vote in parliament and its draconian punishments for registrars and wedding services providers who object on grounds of conscience is one such example: a Fianna Fail/Green Party government was responsible for that.   This is ironic given that our Constitution was written in an era of tyrants – when Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Stalin were enforcing their will on their political minions, and it was designed so as to prevent the rise of such a dictator in Ireland.  Somehow our politicians have managed to get around that.

To suggest that the introduction of abortion into Ireland promotes a culture of life is nonsense.  When we can say that a life is unworthy of life, regardless of the situations, then we have decided to use death as an instrument of social policy to further a particular agenda – that agenda is part of the culture of death.  A culture of life will respect the lives of both mother and child and will do everything in a crisis situation to preserve life – the lives of both mother and child.  A culture of life loves both mother and child and does not concede that the child has to be intentionally killed in order to save the mother.  A child may die in the attempt to save both lives, that is a tragic outcome, one which is being used cynically by the pro-abortion lobby to further its agenda.  The death of the child in those circumstances was not intentional, and that is difference. Enda Kenny in his legislation, and pro-abortion advocates, want to kill the child - it is their intention that the baby dies; not naturally, but by a direct act be it poisoning, dismemberment or other grotesque means.  There are many names for this, but in no way can this be considered part of a culture of life. 

In this struggle, we must all remember that abortion is not a Catholic issue: it is a human issue: it is a flesh and blood issue, literally.  It is not just Catholic babies who die - human beings from all races and countries die in abortion.   The media want to make this struggle one between the government and the Church: it is not - the Church should be just one organisation in that struggle.  Ultimately it is a struggle between the government and the citizens of this Republic.  I think the only way to resolve this issue to allow the citizens have their say, and it is the constitutional duty of the Taoiseach and his government to consult us by means of referendum - a clear and concise referendum. 

Bishop John Buckley of Cork and Ross has issued a response to the government's decision, reiterating Church teaching and respect for human life, as he taught clearly in his recent pastoral letter.

The Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Michael Jackson, has also issued a statement regarding the government's decision: however he supports the decision to legislate for abortion, which is disappointing. 

"Only Have Faith"

Watch this space!  After all the abuse scandals of the past twenty years, is there about to be a subtle u-turn concerning the legitimacy of paedophilia?

We know that in the Sixties and Seventies various organisations in the West, including some here in Ireland were working towards the normalisation of paedophilia in society.  The American Man Boy Love Association was one of the most prominent of these organisations.  To put it in official language, the aim of these associations was to reduce, or get rid of, the age of consent so as to enable inter-generational sexual contact.  Such opinions were uttered as recently as last year here in Ireland. It was the abuse scandals in the Church which led to a stalling of these organisations lobbying: the public were rightly horrified, so the climate was not favourable to lobbyists.  However, are they getting the campaign cranked up again?

Here is an article on CNN's website by James Cantor asking if paedophiles deserve sympathy?  It is an article looking at the nature-nurture debate.  Chelsea Schilling offers a few reflections on the article here.  The question one might ask: if they are saying someone is born that way, can we assume, then, that it is wrong?  If people begin to answer that question in the affirmative, then interested parties may well be laying the foundation for the new "civil rights issue of this generation".  Watch this space.  We may soon find ourselves trying to argue against the tide of those who believe "minor-attracted" people should be allowed to live as they see fit.

In related news, here's a good article by Michael Kelly on the abuse crisis in Ireland - how canon law was not the problem - it was not to blame for the Church in Ireland's pitiful response to child abuse, but rather its being ignored.   It was the liberal attitude that rules and laws do not matter anymore that created a climate in which a false view of love and compassion neutralised the Church's strict laws and punishments due to offenders. 

And here's another example of secularists's tolerance with regard to those who disagree with them.  Jane Pitt, Brad Pitt's mother, is pro-life and pro-marriage, as are many millions of Americans. She expresses her opinion, as is her right in a democracy, but she is attacked, reviled and even threatened, and the media hang her out to dry and paint her as a bigot.   Jane said that she will not be voting for Barack Obama because he is pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion (which he is) and she advised Christians not to dismiss Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon (which is correct and fair).   Journalism worthy of Pravda during the darkest days of Soviet oppression.

I was in a book store yesterday and I saw the pornographic novel Fifty Shades of Grey was number one in the store's bestseller chart.  I have heard a few debates about the novels and it seems some of our secular feminists have no problem with them - the books tell the story of what is, in all intents a purposes, an abusive relationship in which a man uses a woman for his own pleasure.  Some would say it is not abusive since the woman consents: well, that's the subject of the debates.  Pia de Solenni has a few interesting points to make on this issue.

And here is an interesting article on democracy, tyrants and the role of constitutions in keeping public order.  In recent years we have come to see constitutions are pliable - they can be changed.  Of course they can be amended; but as they are, we need to be careful and ask the simple question: in changing parts of a constitution are we undermining the whole?  If, as Fr Schall in this article points out, a constitution is there to help keep public order, can we constantly subject it to human whims which may, in the end, create disorder and chaos?  Have we not been a little flippant with the constitution in Ireland in recent years?  The present government has initiated a constitutional reform process in which a number of amendments will be considered among them gay marriage and the abolition of the upper house of parliament (this, I think, is a bad idea too - reform the Senate, make it more democratic, but do not abolish it - we need an upper chamber to keep an eye on the lower).

Fr Schall also reminds us of what Plato and Aristotle teach us - something which is undeniably true today because we can see it happening before our eyes: "[A] tyrant arises out of a democracy when the citizens have little or no inner principle of order other than what they will for themselves. The tyrant becomes the “leader of the people” and, finally, their master. He can impose on them his cure for their well-being. But he is seen as a savior because the people, no longer in contact with the rationale of their own tradition, have little else in their souls with which to judge him. Hence, the loyalty and enthusiasm [to] follow the “leader.”" The sidelining of religion to the private sphere coupled with the establishment of an secular "church" and a selfish concentration on individualism and personal desires is a perfect breeding ground for tyrants.

And today is the feast of St Benedict, patron of Europe.   A man who helped preserve the Christian faith in Europe, and the best of European culture and civilisation with it, he is a worthy patron of these times.  We pray that he will watch over all of us and help us in our needs; given the issues above, we certainly need his intercession.  One thing the Holy Patriarch teaches us is that we must never lose hope. Looking at the attack on the Church, and indeed on what is best in humanity, I see the devil at work, and he seems to be desperate.  He must know something great is coming, a great flowering of faith, and he is doing what he can to stop it.  As followers of Christ we must always remember that the victory is already won.  So we must not be afraid and we must have confidence.

Here's a video on Pope Benedict's visit to the tomb of St Benedict in 2009 - the Holy Father has some interesting things to say:

"Trust Us..."

Worrying developments here in Ireland.  As the Presidential election is capturing most of our attention, voters in Ireland will also vote on two referendums which seek to give parliament/government more control over the Judiciary.  One seeks the citizens' permission to reduce judges' pay - thereby undermining the mechanism within the Constitution preventing a sitting government from holding the judiciary to ransom. 

The second referendum wants to give the parliament more powers to hold enquiries into matters of "public concern".  The politicians will decide what is of public concern, they will appoint an investigator with almost "super powers" to seize materials, the politicians will judge the case, and the politicians themselves will oversee whether or not they are working within the parameters of the new legislation.  Consoling, isn't it?

Well, today eight former Attorneys General have come out against these referendums describing them as going too far and seriously weakens the rights of citizens.  The minister in charge of the referendums has dismissed the criticisms calling them "nonsense" and then engaged in an "ad hominum" attack on the individual former Attorneys General.   That in itself reveals a great deal. 

The main arguments the government is making in support of the changes are, first, they will reduce the cost of lengthy enquiries and tribunals; they will be able to get offenders who have so far escaped justice, ie bankers; the legislation will not be abused.  So they are asking us to trust them - they will not misuse the powers that have been given them. 

The Irish Constitution, while not perfect, is a finely balanced document written in the 1930's as tyranny and fascism was growing in Europe.  Hitler has siezed power in Germany and was on his way to creating an empire.   Communism was controlling every aspect of people's lives in Russia, and there were many other threats to democracy.  Eamon de Valera who wrote the Constitution did not want the same to happen in Ireland, and so he divided power, and ensured that the judiciary could not be controlled by the government.  This was a wise move on his part, and it is for this reason our Constitution is much admired among democrats - indeed India adopted our Consttitution, with some minor changes, as their own following independence.  

What these two referendums are doing is diluting those safeguards which prevent anyone from taking total control of the Republic.  Of course politicians tend not to like such finely balanced safeguards and I believe that even de Valera would later find the restrictions he had put into the Constitution troublesome.  

I think we Irish need to think very carefully about how we vote on this one.  While times are financially hard, we must be careful not to sign away our freedom in order to save money - see what happened Esau when he was hungry - he sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of soup.   According to the polls it seems these referendums will be passed - is it possible that this generation will take the soup and with the stroke of pen wipe away the liberty our fathers and mothers fought hard to win for us? 

PS:  Lest anyone accuse me, a priest, of interferring in State matters, I draw their attention to the present criticisms of the Catholic Church which, it is said, remained silent in Germany as the Nazis diluted the rights of its citizens and the Jews.  Should this be one of the first steps towards a tyranny in Ireland, well then let history record that some in the Church were not silent when human rights were being threatened. 

Learning From History

Ireland 2011?

Reading history is a worthwhile and profitable venture, something the men and women of our time should really make part of their lives, especially in these difficult times.  We have often heard the phrase that history repeats itself - not totally true, but history does influence the way we live now, whether we want to believe it or not, and as men and women are susceptible to making the same mistakes over and over again in each generation, history can serve as a wise teacher.  

Well, after listening to some on the radio yesterday, we could all do with a history lesson today.  On an afternoon talk show people were ringing in complaining about the state of the country - nothing new there.  But some of them wanted reform, no problems there either, but the way they wanted it was bordering on the naive.  "Get rid of the Senate" was one of the slogans.  Some even wanted rid of the Dail.  You could dismiss such comments if they were uttered only by a certain constituency in the country, but such ideas are now common parlance.  Now our parliamentary structure is not perfect, but when Eamon DeValera, the one who drafted our Constitution, was trying to come up with a system of government, he tried to share out the State's powers so it would be incredibly difficult for one person to assume total power in Ireland.  The Constitution was written and adopted in 1937 at the height of fascism and communism in Europe.  DeValera saw how Hitler came to power, how Lenin and Stalin rose to control half a continent, and wanted to make sure that no tyrant could do the same in Ireland. 

Now our system needs reform, no doubt about that.  Our Senate does need to be restructured to give it more power, with less dependence on the Dail, so as to be able to throw a spanner in the works when the Dail wants to rush through legislation - at the moment, for the most part it merely rubber stamps Bills.  It needs to be a real and effective check on the government and the lower chamber. We also need to open the franchise for the Senate - at the moment only certain citizens can vote in a Senate election.  But to get rid of the fine balance of power shared between partners in the state seems to me to be opening a Pandora's box.  It was in similiar circumstances - economic chaos and frustration, that Hitler could convince the Germans he had the answers, and they were so desperate for improvement they endorsed his party and handed the state to him and Nazi tyranny took control of German democracy.

History teaches us not to be so silly, and people who are willing to throw out the checks and balances because they are angry or desperate, are silly because there may indeed be another Hitler waiting in the wings to step into the void.  Is what I say stupid, unrealistic?  Well, that is what the Germans would have said in the 1930's.  Things may be difficult, but that does not mean we run around like headless chickens.

The Church has a long memory, she has lived through many such periods of history, and, hopefully, she listens carefully to history.   The state could do well to imitate her in this.