Sting of a dying wasp - Enda Kenny, former Official Sinn Féin and the push for X-case legislation

In 1994, a parliamentary question was put to the then Minister for Justice, Mrs Máire Geoghegan Quinn (Galway West, Fianna Fáil) about the existence of the Official IRA. The minister answered that An Garda Síochána were satisfied they did exist. The deputy who asked the question was the then Fine Gael front bencher, Enda Kenny (Mayo West).

In recent weeks, The Irish Times highlighted correspondence unearthed in Berlin between the General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Ireland, Seán Garland, and the East German government. Mr Garland was looking for financial support for his party and he made clear in the letters what his fellow party members were consistently denying at the time. That the Official IRA not only existed, but contributed to the Workers' Party.

I recall this time very well. Workers' Party spokesmen hypocritically condemned the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin while denying their own paramilitary wing existed. Those who questioned this were treated as cranks. Few journalists made a point of highlighting reports of continued Official IRA activity. Vincent Browne was one of the very few who did so (at great personal risk) and he is also one of the few journalists to ask about the relationship of two of Mr Kenny's cabinet appointees to this body.

Many members of the Workers' Party did not have a clear picture of what the Official IRA were up to in the 1980s. It is hard to credit that this was true of serving Workers' Party T.D.s such as Pat Rabitte and Éamon Gilmore (both of whom had been activists in the Party since the days it was known as Official Sinn Féin), but this may have been the case. What these two men were not blind to was their party's relationship with totalitarian regimes behind the Iron Curtain and elsewhere. This is altogether a more serious issue than the Official IRA and raises questions about the ministers' views on human rights.
Civil war within while face massacre without
At present, the Labour Party is facing an electoral massacre and behind the scenes there appears to be a battle royal between Old Labour types and ex-Democratic Left members. The principal target of the former Democratic Left grouping's anger is the Labour Party chairman, Colm Keaveney (Galway East). Deputy Keaveney has already challenged the leadership consensus on a few issues. One of the most noticeable was the closure of the Irish Embassy to the Holy See.

At the time of the last general election, Labour made all sorts of promises about keeping the public sector intact. The Labour Party leader, Deputy Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour, before that Democratic Left, before that the Workers' Party, before that Sinn Féin the Workers' Party, before that Official Sinn Féin) became Minister for Foreign Affairs. The department gave him proposals to save money by cutting back on staff in the various Irish legations overseas. This plan did not involve closing any embassys or consulates. The department is aware that when diplomatic missions are closed, there are significant costs in re-opening them. The new minister came up with his own plan, which involved closing three embassys – the Holy See, Iran and Timor Leste. There was no trade function connected to the Holy See, he said. If trade was the only reason, there was no reason to close the Iranian embassy given the very favourable trade balance between Ireland and Iran. There are many reasons to keep all three embassys open: as long as the Church maintains its presence in education and healthcare in Ireland, the state requires a mission to the Holy See; that most of us have no great sympathy for the current regime in Iran is a very good argument for maintaining an embassy there; and what sort of message regarding human rights does closing the Timor Leste embassy send out?

The announcement regarding the Holy See embassy was preceded by Mr Kenny's infamous “elitist, narcissistic and dysfunctional” speech about the Vatican. This was not a Labour Party initiative and if Deputy Kenny sings about praise he received from many parish priests, God help them, he had no answer for the detailed rebuttal of the speech by the Holy See. One wonders if it was the Association of Catholic Priests that drives policy here? Be that as it may, the government were forced to back-track on the embassy issue and are now pleading economic circumstances to get the Vatican allow them open an office for the Embassy to the Holy See separate from the Embassy to Italy in the Villa Spada complex. Hard to be sympathetic to people who shot themselves in the foot.

There is no doubt that the government are facing serious challenges on the economic front and that difficult decisions have to be taken. Both Fine Gael and Labour should have been aware of that prior to the 2011 General Election when they made promises they knew they could not keep. The two parties also made promises which could not be mutually accomodated in a programme for government. In the situation Education Minister Ruairí Quinn (Dublin South-East) finds himself, he cynically masks the wholesale cuts he is making in services by cheerleading the voices for secularism in education, going back on some of the reasonable comments he made on the rights of Catholic parents while in opposition. Mr Quinn, of course, was in Labour all along. But one does suspect someone who was a Vladimir Illyich Lenin lookalike in his younger years. Seriously though, some of Deputy Quinn's rants would not be too foreign to the Orange thugs who chased his father and uncle out of Newry in the 1920s.
Sting of a dying wasp
As Labour's support collapses in the polls, civil war continues within the party . Deputy Gilmore did consider expelling Deputy Keaveney from the party, but has apparently dropped the plan. It makes little difference. Labour had the opportunity of being the main opposition party last year with a good chance of leading government after the next election. Fortunately for the rest of us, they were too greedy. They wanted cabinet seats immediately. Which leaves us with another problem. The sting of a dying wasp is very dangerous.

Labour have swallowed the climate of cut backs which Fine Gael have demanded (though it is true that on their own, Fine Gael would have devestated the public sector). There has to be a quid pro quo in the matter. In this regard, the horrid spectre of abortion has raised its head. Labour has a policy, not shared by everyone in the party, of legislating for the X-case; Fine Gael gave a pretty unequivocal commitment not to. I gather the wording was that of the present Minister for the Environment, Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny) who was Fine Gael's Director of Elections at the time.

After the election, Fine Gael already backtracked by setting up an expert group with a clear pro-abortion bias rather than the promised all party Oireachtas committee. Then the Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly (Dublin North) announced six governments had failed to legislate for the X case, and this would not be the seventh to do so. This in itself was not a problem. The issues were somewhat obscured by the so-called Children's Rights Referendum which registered a low turnout and low margin after a campaign in which the government was found to be in breach of the law. The referendum took place a couple of days after Barack Obama won a second term in the White House. Then the Savita Halappanavar case hit the headlines. One has every sympathy for Mrs Halappanavar, her widower and their family, but abortion is a red herring in the case. The woman was suffering from septicaemia and E-coli at the time of her death and an abortion would not have made any difference. However, an impression was created which gave the government an opportunity to move quickly on the matter.
Whip your people into line
There are Fine Gael deputies with misgivings about X-case legislation. In this case the problem appears to be a commitment given by Enda Kenny to the Labour Party on the matter. We all know how much Deputy Kenny's promises are worth, but this is exceptional. The Labour T.D. Anne Ferris (Wicklow) foolishly went on radio to say Deputy Gilmore told Mr Kenny that he had to whip his people into line on the matter. This should be something to make any committed Fine Gael member writhe in anger, but this does not appear to have happened. What is wrong with a party which was overbrimming with confidence at the time of the last election, especially when the threats are coming from another party that is facing electoral oblivion in the polls and are in no position to make demands about anything.

Abortion is the most obnoxious of a basket of issues which the former Irish cheerleaders of the Stasi and KGB want. Fine Gael are showing themselves to have no backbone in the matter. Both deserve the wrath of the electorate, but I rather fear the larger party in government will survive with a slap on the wrist. Which means had Enda Kenny any guts, he could refuse Labour's demands and call their bluff. But it seems he has more courage towards his own backbenchers than with the Labour Party, led as it is by members of the former Official Sinn Féin.

Miner, Journalist, Martyr: Blessed Nikolaus Gross

MINER, JOURNALIST, MARTYR: BLESSED NIKOLAUS GROSS By PEADAR LAIGHLÉIS Oboedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus. (Acts V, 29) I WAS RECENTLY in Frankfurt Airport and called into Terminal 1’s Orthodox Chapel. I saw one icon of a young man wearing a white medical coat over a grey Wehrmacht uniform, holding a white rose in his hand. This is St Alexander Schmorell, the German Russian Orthodox member of the White Rose resistance group who was canonised as a martyr by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad on February 5, 2012. I asked myself how likely was it for the Catholic White Rose members, Willi Graf, Christoph Probst and Dr Kurt Huber, to find their causes advanced for sainthood. For the same reason, one might ask the same of the Catholics involved in the July 20 conspiracy, such as Colonel Claus Schenk Count von Stauffenberg. However, the Church is extremely prudent about whom she venerates as martyrs among political activists and conspirators, even among those who oppose a regime as evil as the Third Reich. For all that, many Germans and other Europeans have been beatified and even canonised for their stand against National Socialism. Most are familiar with Ss Maximilian Kolbe and Edith Stein. Our last issue had my predecessor outline the martyrdom of Blessed Titus Brandsma, the Dutch Carmelite academic and journalist for whom this Review is named. In early issues, Blessed Franz Jägerstätter, the Austrian conscientious objector was described in these pages. Blessed Titus and Blessed Franz present contrasts among the vast gallery of ordinary Catholics—clergy, religious and laity—who opposed Hitler. One was a university rector who was close enough to the Dutch Bishops to have an input into the drafting of the Bishops’ pastoral letter on Nazi racial policies. The other was a married Franciscan tertiary, a peasant with little education and a wild background who served as a church sacristan. Blessed Franz opposed the Anschluss in 1938 and was guillotined for refusing to serve in the Wehrmacht as a combatant. Blessed Franz was born in Sankt Radegund, close to Hitler’s birthplace in Braunau am Inn and not distant from Pope Benedict XVI’s birthplace in Marktl on the other side of the border. Nikolaus Groß (given in English as Gross) is less well known. Nikolaus was born in Niederwenigen (now Hattigen) near Essen (Diocese of Essen) in the Ruhr District on September 30, 1898. His father was a miner. Nikolaus attended the local Catholic primary school between 1905 and 1912 and then went to work in the mines himself, spending five years underground. He used his limited spare time to study and in 1917, he joined the Gewerkverein Christlicher Bergarbeiter (Christian Miners’ Union). In 1918, he became a member of the Centre Party. The following year, he entered the Antonius Knappenverein (St Anthony Miners’ Association). At the age of 22, he was youth secretary for the Christian Miners’ Union, soon after he was assistant editor of Bergknappe (“The Miner”). His organisation work as a trade unionist brought him as far as Silesia. He married Elisabeth Koch, who was also a native of Niederwenigen and together, they had seven children. One of his greatest concerns was the education and religious formation of his family, something he described in a pamphlet Sieben um einen Tisch (“Seven around one Table”). Moral dimension At the beginning of 1927, he became assistant editor of the Westdeutschen Arbeiterzeitung (“Western German Workers’ Paper”), the publication of the Katholishen Arbeiter-Bewegung (KAB or Catholic Workers’ Movement). Soon afterward, he became editor-in-chief. He saw his duty to give Catholic workers guidance regarding society and the world of work, but it became clearer to him that political and social questions involved a moral dimension and demanded a spiritual contribution. In this, he followed the ideas of the 19th Century Bishop of Mainz, Wilhelm Emmanuel Baron von Ketteler (1811-77). Ketteler, known as the “Workers’ Bishop”, believed that reform of society must be preceded by reform of attitude. In Nikolaus Groß’ own day, Ketteler’s grand nephew was Blessed Clemens August Cardinal Count von Galen, Bishop of Münster. From 1929, Nikolaus Groß was based in Ketteler House in Cologne and he already formed a clear opinion of the rising National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Since 1927, he had co-operated closely with figures such as Mgr Otto Müller, Bernhard Letterhaus and Jakob Kaiser, who would become leading figures in the resistance movement many years later. Groß saw Nazism as political immaturity and absence of discernment. He believed the success of the Nazis to be a temporary glitch that would fail as soon as Germany returned to normal politics. He showed this by pointing to the lack of ideas emanating from the National Socialists and the refusal of Hitler to answer questions of policy while pursuing unlimited power. Groß supported Heinrich Brünning’s (Chancellor 1930-32; Centre Party) policy of attempting to integrate the Nazis into political and constitutional office in the hope of diluting their ideological edge. It is only in retrospect, we see this to have been illusory. For all that, Groß opposed Nazism. He identified with the left of the Centre Party (still present in the post-war CDU/CSU). Pointing out the developing relationship between Hitler and the industrialists while the former was appealing to the working class, he said: “This is a pretty division of power: the National Socialists dominate politics, the entrepreneurs the economy. The worker is a carrier donkey for both.” On the incompatibility of Nazism and Catholicism, he wrote: “We reject National Socialism as Catholic workers, not only on political and economic grounds, but decisively and resolutely on our religious and cultural position.” He had already described the Nazi Party as the “Mortal enemy of the present State”, so it is not very surprising that Robert Ley, leader of the Deutschen Arbeiterfront (German Workers’ Front) described the Westdeutsche Arbeiterzeitung as hostile to the state after 1933. Obey God more than men After the Concordat between the Reich and the Catholic Church in 1933, the Westdeutsche Arbeiterzeitung was renamed Kettelerwacht at the urging of Bishop Berning of Osnabrück. Nikolaus Groß had to adapt to the new regime and attempt to write between the lines following a three-week ban on the newspaper. His first priority as a trade unionist and journalist was to maintain the Church’s autonomy. The newspaper was permanently banned in November 1938. The reason seems to have been an understated comparison between National Socialism and Bolshevism: It cannot be said of either world view with the same right that the life of mankind was worthy to be lived and meaningful to the end if everyone would follow it. From then on, Groß had to work through producing pamphlets and speaking personally in attempt to immunise his readers against Nazism. Nikolaus Groß was no orator; he had had to work very hard to obtain the learning he had. However, circumstances transformed him into a persuasive speaker. Henceforth, he was part of the growing resistance to Hitler within Germany, on the simple conviction that one must obey God more than men. Active resistance Mgr Otto Müller, Bernhard Letterhaus and Nikolaus Groß formed the leadership of the Cologne Circle, a network of Catholic opponents of Nazism in the Rhineland and Westphalia. The group had been evolving towards active resistance for some time. Groß established contact with the more extensive Kreisau Circle through the academic Father Alfred Delp SJ. More importantly, links were forged with the Berlin resistance group around Carl Goerdeler. Though there were differences between the Kreisau and Berlin circles, at this point the Cologne Circle were integrated into a comprehensive web of German opposition that ran from Protestant and Catholic conservatives, aristocrats, the military, liberals, trade unionists, social democrats and communists. Members of the various groups took risks to perform dozens of functions to enable to the network to continue to exist. From 1940, Nikolaus Groß experienced arrests, interrogations and house searches. He made every effort to continue his work. He wrote two pamphlets, “Is Germany Lost?” and “The Great Tasks”, which ultimately fell into the hands of the Gestapo. The conscription of Letterhaus increased Groß’ work in Düssseldorf but also meant that the Cologne Circle had regular contact with Goerdeler. Groß spent this time considering his position and the relationship between his faith and the political milieu. In 1943 he put together his personal Profession of Faith. To select a quote: “If it is demanded of us to do something which goes against God or the Faith, not only may we, but we must refuse this obedience. For God’s Law always stands higher than man’s law.” The next question was whether it could at times permissible to take active steps to subvert the authority of the regime. Church on trial for treason The day before the assassination attempt on Hitler on July 20, 1944, Mgr Caspar Schulte of the Paderborn Diocese spoke with Groß, saying “Herr Groß, remember that you have seven children. I have no family for which I am responsible. It’s a matter of your life.” Groß answered: “If we do not risk our lives today, how then do we want one day to justify ourselves before God and our people?” Nikolaus Groß was arrested on August 12, 1944, and imprisoned in Berlin. His wife visited him twice and saw signs of torture on his hands and arms. His letters from prison to his wife and children request their prayers but also show one who was himself in constant prayer. On January 15, 1945, he was sentenced to death by Roland Freisler, President of the People’s Court, with the words: “He swam in treason and now he must drown”. Freisler’s trials of Groß, Mgr Müller, Father Delp and other representatives of the Kreisau Circle was an attempt to convict the Church herself of treason. He was executed on 23 January 1945, following which he was cremated and his ashes were scattered over a sewage farm. One may reject the notion of tyrannocide if one imagines John Wilkes Booth hovering over Abraham Lincoln in Ford Theatre in Washington in 1865 and crying “Sic semper tyrannis”. The July 20 plot was altogether different. It was a conspiracy to displace one of the most evil tyrants ever to take power in world history. Many hundreds of considerate and thoughtful people came to this conclusion and prepared for a coup d’état to replace the entire government of the Third Reich. When Count von Stauffenberg placed the brief case under the table in the Wolf’s Lair, it was to signal a provisional government led by Carl Goerdeler as acting Chancellor which would seek to end the war. Perhaps the traditional criteria of the just war might apply: Were all other options exhausted? Certainly. Was there reasonable chance of success? Yes. Would bloodshed be at a minimum? Had the conspirators succeeded, this would have been the case. The question remains how the Church will evaluate this type of reasoning, however complex it may have been. Nikolaus Groß had no part in the planning or the execution of the assassination attempt, but played a role creating the network that was to enable a new civil and military administration to come to power in Germany following an assassination. As to whether he was right or wrong in the circumstances, the Church herself passed judgement on October 7, 2001 when Pope John Paul II beatified Nikolaus Groß. His feast is kept on January 23. Ora pro nobis.

November-December BR - Out now

The November-December Brandsma Review is now in circulation. Leading with the abortion issue, Dr Joe McCarroll (Pro Life Campaign) calls on us to stop the rush to legalise abortion; David Manly (Family & Life) profiles the Halappanavar case as re-educating a backward people about killing; Nick Lowry gives his reminiscences of the 1983 pro life amendment referendum; Keith Francis asks if Alan Shatter's proposal to amend the Equality Act is another nail in the coffin for Catholic schools; Fr Brendan Purcell's sermon for Advent gives practical advice on the need for watchfulness; Peadar Laighléis argues there is more to St Matthew's genealogy than a list of names; Brian Ó hIcídhe reviews Peter Hitchens' book on the war on drugs which was never fought; Joe Aston and Jim Allen give contrasting views on dialogue; the Editor reflects on the Children's Rights vote and the situation regarding abortion; The Hurler on the Ditch gives some ideas on pro lifers in Fine Gael and slams the European Parliament over the treatment of Dr Tonio Borg; Strammentarius describes conflict between the pro-bestiality lobby and the animals' rights people and the use of almost Nazi caricatures by left wing opponents of Israel; and there is another list from Francis Book Sales. Available in Veritas in Dublin and Benedictus Book Shop in Cork or via www.brandsmareview.ie

The September-October Brandsma Review has editorials by Peadar Laighléis on the Year of Faith and the Children's Rights Referendum; and by Jim Lothian on the US Presidential election. David Manly elaborates on Marie Stopes assault on abortion law in Northern Ireland; Liz Holmes and Éilís Ní Shiocfhradha give different takes on the Children's Rights referendum; Peadar Laighléis profiles the German trade unionist Blessed Nikolaus Groß; Hibernicus gives the second part of his two-part article on Blessed Frédéric Ozanam; Nick Lowry reviews Frank O'Farrell's autobiography; the Hurler on the Ditch and Strammentarius are at their usual antics; there are letters from Louis Hemmings (the most ecumenical Protestant fundamentalist I know), Nick Lowry and Daphne McLeod; and another list from Francis Book Sales. The Brandsma Review is available in Veritas in Dublin; Benedictus Book Shop in Cork; St Kevin's Church, Harrington St, Dublin; Guardian Angels Church, Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin; and Ss Peters and Pauls, Paul St, Cork. Otherwise, e-mail brandsmareview@gmail.com for info.

BR article on Children's Rights Referendum.

WELFARE STATE GOING FOR FULL PARENTHOOD? By LIZ HOLMES

However, the new clause will not state what these rights are. It will be up to the courts to identify them as they arise in specific cases. In doing so the courts are likely to be guided by previous judgments and by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Ireland has signed.

–Carol Coulter, The Irish Times, October 17, 2012 SINCE 1998 there has been sustained and consistent pressure on the Irish government reporting to the UN to meet obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).1 The UN is demanding that children be recognised as separate rights holders. The pressure is enormous. During these confrontations, which take place in the UN’s Geneva Palais des Nations, both the Irish delegation and the UN Monitoring Compliance Committee state that the Irish Constitution is an obstacle in the way of meeting this demand.2 The Irish delegation in 1998 has reassured the Monitoring Committee that the necessary change to clear this constitutional obstacle is underway. Throughout these detailed proceedings the Irish government gave ample evidence of its willingness to be fully compliant with the Monitoring Committee’s demands. Having read the proposal for the 31st amendment from a sociological as distinct from a legal background, my concern is that to separate the child thuswill fragment the unity of the family as the primary cell of society. For fathers and mothers like us—and we are many—the care and protection of children are our life’s work and its fulfillment. The provisions of the Irish Constitution ensure recognition of that calling while, as Justice O’Flaherty (retired) affirms, providing protection for those children who are tragically failed by their parents. More background is necessary to account for the concern this amendment provokes. Revolutionary ethos The establishment of the autonomy of the child is affirmed as the objective in the summary records of the UN Monitoring Committee. Up to now Irish parents and the law limit children’s autonomy in the short run in order to maximize their development of actual autonomy in the long run but now the UN wants the child to be an active participant in the formulation of policies affecting them. This ethos that sees the child as an autonomous rights holder is both innovatory and revolutionary. The Monitoring Committee is adamant that both our attitudes towards children and our policies and services are to be brought into line with its “holistic spirit”. Now the amendment to incorporate Article 42A does not specifically mention the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. You will however find reference to it in the Ombudsman for Children Act 3 , a piece of legislation, among others, put in place as a direct response to Monitoring Committee’s pressure. Emily Logan, current holder of that office, assured the recent UN Periodic Review that it is statutorily mandated to promote the principles and provisions of the CRC and that it aims to ensure that Ireland complies in full with its international human rights obligations. 4 The Ombudsman’s office (OCO) tells children, “The government has a responsibility to make sure your rights are protected.” 5 Reading what is said there about Articles 4 and 5, the UN seems to be redefining the role of parents as merely their children’s helpers in exercising their rights. Look at the CRC’s Articles 13-17 6 and ask yourself honestly how can we steer our children safely through adolescence and yet observe their UN social rights. Emily Logan warns us that, “Building a new culture of respect for children in Ireland will take time and effort.” But is it as reassuring as she thinks to be told that holding this referendum “provides Ireland with the chance to be a leader on [UN] children’s rights internationally”?7 The Alliance for Children, Barnardos, ISPCC and the Campaign for Children are among her collaborators working to achieve this cultural shift. What role do these groups play in so changing our culture, our way of life? Such associations/organizations/politicized charities are generally referred to as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) despite being largely funded as service providers by both government and by philanthropies. (Chuck Feeney’s Atlantic Philanthropies, in this case) Establishing new needs, such as the child’s for UN rights, they are then funded to service these needs while promoting their acceptance at the level of social rights. Here in Ireland, selected NGOs are incorporated into the Community Pillar of the Social Partnership, as is now the voice of children, where programmes for government are agreed. There is a strong tendency in such organizations, infused as they are with a utopian vision of equality, to see the family as an obstacle to “gender” equality and autonomy. Utopian vision of equality Within the forums of the UN and EU these local NGOs are gathered under umbrella organizations which are presented in an effort to offset the democratic deficit as representatives of the “voice of the people”. There they enjoy privileged access to decision-makers and to the bureaucracies that channel funding directed to community development/combat poverty programmes. The CRC was actually drawn up by NGOs and it expressly gives them the monitoring role in its implementation.8 Their published reports like “Small Voice, Vital Rights” are written to alert the Monitoring Committee to where we are not meeting our obligations under the CRC. That Committee has classified Irish government reports as exemplary in their adherence to UN guidelines; such professionalized NGOs may have helped in the drafting; they may even be included in government delegations. Yet in all these proceedings the family is an outsider. Even if its numbers are large, the family has no voice in relation to such access to power and resources. Constitutional preference diluted Mr Justice Hardiman of the Supreme Court has acknowledged how the rights of children have to be vindicated through adults. The risk of turning children into autonomous rights holders is that the intervention of third parties, such as these NGOs will dilute the constitutional preference for parents as guardians/enablers of such rights. Childline’s phones are lifelines for some children but we have all met the exasperated parents of children who respond to their admonitions by threatening to contact the ISPCC. Leaf through “Citizen Child”, its manifesto used in its countrywide counselling centres and here we find children’s UN rights spelt out in detail.9 In response to asking, “What Needs to be Done?”, ISPCC proposes a Constitutional amendment. The specific acknowledgement of the independent rightsof children would, they say, clear the way for legislating to allow children to seek medical help or counselling without parental consent. 10 A focus of the 1998 Monitoring Committee’s concern was how do our under-16 year olds fare on this issue. How will the case for children’s confidential access to medical advice and services be strengthened by the proposed amendment? By 2006 the UN Committee is concerned that adolescents have insufficient access to necessary information on “reproductive health”, noting that Health/Sex education (SPHE) is optional, and that Irish parents can exempt their children. It recommends strengthening efforts to enhance adolescent access to “adolescent-specific reproductive and sexual health information and services”.11 Will the proposed re-wording of current (to be deleted) Article 42.5 and its repositioning facilitate removal of the Constitutional obstacle to allowing a legal framework for making Social Health (Re-) Education Programmes compulsory for Irish children in line with the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation? Once this amendment is in place, the Minister is to announce an ambitious programme including the development of “legislation, policies or procedures to extend this ‘voice of the child’ approach to other spheres of decision-making. Similar to ‘best interests’ this principle is already recognised in existing child care and family law and will be included in further legislation in these areas affecting children. The UN sells the CRC as invaluable for human rights activists to promote “this new concept of separate rights for children with the Government accepting responsibility of protecting the child from the power of parents...” 12 Acceptance of this amendment may not only deprive parents of the power to protect their children but may also facilitate the separating out and politicization of the voice of our children. Their voice will then be added as another category of NGOs lobbing for an equality agenda in which the family is an outsider or even an obstacle to its achievement. Liz Holmes lectures on the role of the UN/EU in changing our culture. In addition to The Brandsma Review her work has been published in Studies, The Irish Times and the prestigious US journal Catholic Social Science Review. NOTES 1 In the CRC children refers to all those under the age of 18. 2 See item 35 where it is noted that in 1997 the Minister who had introduced the Children’s Bill said that he been advised by the Attorney-General that potential constitutional difficultes existed in relation to the provision relating specifically to the rights of the child, which had therefore been reworded. CRC/C/SR.436 3 See Ombudsman for Children Act (2002), Chapter 3, Part 2, S.7 “ d) promote awareness among members of the public (including children of such age or ages as he or she considers appropriate) of matters (including the principles and provisions of the Convention) relating to the rights and welfare of children and how those rights can be enforced,.” And (6) In this section ‘‘the Convention’’ means the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989, as amended by any protocol thereto that is for the time being in force in the State. 4 Ombudsman for Children’s Office (OCO) Ireland Submission to the United Nations Universal Periodic Review Twelfth session of the Working Group on the UPR, Human Rights Council 6th October 2011. 5 See OCO website for UNICEF’s summary of the CRC. 6 Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm 7 Ombudsman for Children Website, Opinion Piece 18th Sept. 2012 8 Article 5 (a). 9 ISPCC (undated) Citizen Child: A Handbook of Children’s Rights and Entitlements and Adult Responsibilities for Parents and Those who Work with Children, Dublin. 10 Ibid.,p. 30 11 CRC/C/IRL/CO/2 p. 11, paras. 52, 53 12 UN 1994/95 Publications Catalogue at p. 64

At last...the July-August Brandsma...

The July-August Brandsma Review contains an editorial on Bl John XXIII's letter 'Veterum Sapientia' by Peadar Laighléis; articles by Dr Éanna Johnson on RE Syllabi; Professor Jim Lothian on the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, complete with statistical data; Nick Lowry on the Brandsma Review's patron, Bl Titus Brandsma; Peadar Laighléis on the Brandsma Review's founder, Nick Lowry; Joe Aston on Europe at the present time; David Manly on the Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly; and Hibernicus' first of two part on the Society of St Vincent de Paul founder, Bl Frédéric Ozanam. Hurling Shots from the Ditch covers the Phoenix' portrayal of the new Papal Nuncio and some of the Minister for Justice and Defence's policies; Stramentarius covers Australian ethicists' support for infanticide and Archbishop Martin's speech in Glenties, Co Donegal. And there is a letter from Eric Conway.

Brandsma May-June in Veritas

The two editorials are Peadar Laighléis' reflection on Paul VI and the Credo of the People of God and David Manly's 'Dangerous Canards are a threat to unborn children' The articles include Paul Fournier's Allez, la Paroisse est Finie (about the Quiet Revolution in Quebec - and don't worry, it's in English), Ralf Siebenbürger's 'Mgr Schüller and the Insurrection of the Dead' (about the Austrian Catholic Priests' Association), Fr Brendan Purcell's 'Dialogue with Atheist's Down Under',Hibernicus and Nick Lowry team up to produce 'Are Orthodox Catholics Pharisees?', Fr John Ogilvie SJ's 'Low Sunday: Salvation and the Mercy of God', Fr Bernard McGuckian SJ's 'Why the Pioneers?' and Fr Roland Colhoun's 'Sermon for Pentecost'. Also the Straws column, the Hurler on the Ditch and a letter from Dom Philip Scot OCSO.