Does Liz want a State takeover of the Church?
These attacks go beyond normal criticism and call into question the right of a major religion to exist independently and without State control.
Ms O’Donnell’s description of the “special relationship” that exists between the Catholic Church and the State almost beggars belief.
For at least 35 years the only thing special about Catholicism in Ireland is that it is the only major religion practised in the country which politicians have felt free to deride, insult and offend with impunity and without fear of condemnation by a press as hostile to religion as it is to truth.
Ms O’Donnell, oddly enough, refers to the Harry Whelehan case of 1994 to support her thesis. The facts are that Mr Whelehan was hounded out of office as president of the High Court after less than a week because he was a practising Catholic while his successor as attorney general was questioned about his religious practices, and whether he was a member of a Catholic lay organisation, before the Government agreed to appoint him. Some special relationship!
Ms O’Donnell’s characterisation of the Catholic Church as “a secret organisation” recalls the ‘enemy within’ type of propaganda beloved of cynical and opportunistic politicians seeking to gain advantage by the promotion of a racial or religious intolerance against a section of their community in order to gain support from another section.
Anti-Catholicism has been an underlying tendency in the prosperous middle class in Ireland, and it is a tendency which can be inflamed by politicians.
Towards the end of her meandering and bitter speech to the Dáil, Ms O’Donnell’s true purpose is revealed; it is to exclude Catholic influence from future debates on abortion, homosexual ‘marriage,’ and the enforcement of coercive population control measures against the Third World by First World countries, including Ireland.
The classic elements of a totalitarian State include the exclusion from the public square of those sectors of society which the ever expanding State does not control.
As the Catholic Church and those who live by its principles are not under direct State control, they must be excluded from debate and consultation. The other alternative was also hinted at by Ms O’Donnell when she claimed that the Church was “incapable of self regulation”. In other words, the State should take over direct control of the administration of the Catholic Church which, after all, “we cannot accept will be truthful.” (The State will?).
Could it be that Ms O’Donnell is in favour of a State-administered and “regulated” Church (the Chinese model comes to mind) which could be relied upon to support the State in its ongoing campaign to restrict the rights and liberties of the people?
Is that the real purpose of her suggested audit of Catholic Church assets?
Ms O’Donnell’s attack comes as part of what seems a carefully orchestrated post-Ferns bandwagon, and may well represent the first steps in the effort to make the Catholic Church subject to direct State control.
It should be resisted by all true democrats and by all who treasure the values of liberty, justice and tolerance on which this State was founded and without which this nation will founder.
Michael Leahy
Clifden
Corofin
Co Clare
