Presidential oath means only Christians need apply

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has expressed concern over Ireland's constitutional oath. Simon Tierney asks why we aren't changing it

Wed, 24 Sep, 2025 - 01:01

Simon Tierney

Before Éamon de Valera put his new constitution to the people in a nationwide plebiscite in 1937, he sent an envoy from the Department of External Affairs to the Vatican in order to try and get it endorsed by Pope Pius XI.

This mission underlines the approach that was taken in drafting the document we still live with today. It is a Catholic document which has been chipped away through various referenda over the decades.

But its heart still beats in Article 12.8. The Irish president must take their oath “in the presence of Almighty God”. Can a conscientious atheist, a humanist or even a non-Christian ever run for the highest office in the land?

The 736,210 people who ticked “No religion” on the most recent census are excluded from this office, along with the Council of State and the judiciary, which require similar oaths.

While “No religion” doesn’t necessarily equate with an absence of faith, we have to assume that a significant proportion of the Irish population - 14% in fact - don’t subscribe to the language of Catholic dogma inherent in our constitution.

Let’s be honest about it and label the job with its required credentials: “only Christians need apply”. Not long ago, our current president suggested that change is required. During an interview with BBC Radio Ulster in 2021, Michael D. Higgins suggested the oath be replaced with an affirmation.

Simon Tierney: 'Not long ago, our current president suggested that change is required. During an interview with BBC Radio Ulster in 2021, Michael D. Higgins suggested the oath be replaced with an affirmation.'

On three separate occasions - in 1993, 2014 and 2022 - the United Nations Human Rights Committee has expressed concern over the constitutional oath.

Most recently, it stated in its report, “[The committee] is…concerned at the slow progress in amending the provisions of the Constitution that oblige individuals wishing to take up senior public office positions to take religious oaths.”

The committee then called on the Irish government to take action: “The committee reiterates its previous recommendations that the State party should: Consider taking concrete steps to amend articles 12, 31 and 34 of the Constitution.”

I have little doubt that these arguments will be met by some with the usual chorus of apathy. “It’s just an oath!”

Despite the secularisation of Ireland, we often seem happy to continue a casual, and often fatuous relationship with the Church when it suits us. Up to 90% of our primary schools remain Catholic, with the divestment process painfully sluggish.

Roisin Shortall's case against the constitutional oaths was eventually tossed by the European Court of Human Rights because they decided the litigants were not directly affected by the oaths. File photo: Damien Storan.

Couples still get married in churches but often don’t bother going to mass. And the president of a modern, uninhibited and multicultural Ireland is required to uphold a constitution “in the Name of the Most Holy Trinity.”

But many of us take these words seriously. How can you take an oath in the presence of something you don’t believe in? Surely a devout Catholic wouldn’t want someone to make a mockery of their religion by taking this oath insincerely?

Politicians love to tell us that religion is a personal matter. But in this instance, it isn’t. In the case of a public oath in Dublin Castle, before the eyes of the nation, a religious oath becomes a very public declaration of one’s faith indeed.

Four years ago, a number of high-profile citizens, including former Social Democrats leader Roisín Shortall, took a case against the constitutional oaths to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

They argued that it infringed on their human rights because the oaths “exclude conscientious non-Christians, non-believers and those who do not wish to violate their consciences both from the office of President and from membership of the Council of State.”

The government vehemently defended the oaths' inclusion in the Constitution and the ECHR eventually tossed the case because they decided the litigants were not directly affected by the oaths, as they were not personally running for the offices in question.

An opportunity

The ECHR’s conclusions establish a unique opportunity for whoever wins the presidential election in November. The person elected will be directly affected by the oath they are required to take.

Irrespective of their personal religious affiliation, our new president-elect should refuse to take the oath as it stands, thus forcing a constitutional crisis. If our new president truly wants to represent all the people of Ireland, then they have the power to test the Constitution.

How could the government continue to stand over this oath when the new president, elected through the popular will of the Irish people, insists that their confirmation is conditional on a change to the oath?

While the wording in an oath may seem trivial to some, this question has broader implications for how we see ourselves as a nation. Who does our Constitution serve? Everyone, or just the people who subscribe to a particular set of beliefs?

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

At the end of a president’s swearing in, the oath reaches a breathless crescendo, pleading with the Almighty for guidance. “May God direct and sustain me,” the new president is required to state.

This isn’t a brief religious flourish in the Constitution. This is heavily loaded language, calling on a deity to work through the president in divine communion.

Secularisation is something to be celebrated because it is, by its nature, inclusive. Ireland is coming towards the end of a long and arduous secularisation process. But elements of our Constitution, and this oath, remain stuck in the past.

The State is completely failing non-Catholic families