Letters to the Editor: We're only in phase one of Ireland's presidential election
Letter writer Michael Deasy quotes Morrissey of The Smiths to describe the first phase of Ireland's presidential election: 'Shyness is nice and shyness can stop you from doing all the things in life you’d like to'. File picture
As I contemplate the upcoming presidential election, I am reminded of three almost Newtonian laws of Irish politics as enunciated by our literary greats.
For the period prior to launching a presidential campaign, Morrissey (of the multi-generational diaspora) once said: “Shyness is nice and shyness can stop you from doing all the things in life you’d like to.”
To cover the period immediately after launching a presidential campaign (and in equal but opposite reaction), you have Castleisland’s legendary Con Houlihan: “Who does Roy Keane think he is? Maurice Fitzgerald?”
As we await the starter’s pistol, spare a thought for the candidates as they trudge towards the Phoenix Park through clouds of casual derision, because the law that covers the middle and end of a presidential campaign is elegy and vivisection combined.
Brendan Kennelly put it best: “The good are vulnerable... And when most vulnerable / Are most themselves.”
The nation holds its breath.
I must take issue with those seeking to conflate the record of the late Bishop Cornelius Lucey with that of those members of the Church, to which many of us belong, who were guilty of horrendous treatment of children. Ill-informed would be kind to them, bigoted would be more accurate.
Some seeking to denigrate his reputation have made reference to the fact that he was mentioned in the infamous mother and baby report.
However, if one took the trouble to inform themselves of exactly why he was mentioned, it would be clear that there is nothing in the report to suggest that Bishop Lucey had any responsibility for the more shameful practices mentioned in it.
On the contrary, his involvement in providing for children born in the homes was to promote a framework for legal and structured adoption services and to encourage the faithful of his diocese to see structured and legal adoption as better than institutional upbringing or boarding out.
Bishop Lucey was an eminent canon lawyer who gave his people credit for intelligence.
It was his respect for the intelligence of the ordinary people that caused him to deliver his commentary on complex theological and social issues and led him to address these in his confirmation homilies.
It was his interest and concern for the poor and underprivileged that led him to earn his reputation for being “a thorn in the side of the establishment”, a position that his present day detractors should try to emulate.
However, whatever the merits of his leadership of his diocese during his time as bishop, it was what he did when he retired that he most accurately demonstrated the kind of man he was.
As is known, he found himself obliged to restrict the ministry of his good friend Fr James Good — resulting in Fr Good ministering in Turkana.
But when the burden of the episcopy was lifted from him, he placed himself at the service of Fr Good in that most inhospitable place.
Only a man of genuine humility and grace would have behaved in this way.
If we had leaders capable of demonstrating the same humility, intelligence, erudition, generosity, and leadership, Ireland would be a far better place.
Cork should be proud of one of its finest citizens and proud that a place is called after him.
My interpretation of the motive behind the motion to rename Bishop Lucey Park, proposed by councillor Ted Tynan, of the Workers’ Party, and passed by Cork City Council on July 14, 2025, is as follows:
That Bishop Lucey is unworthy because he was the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church in the diocese of Cork and Ross and is condemned because clerical abuse was going on during his tenure, though there is no evidence that he knowingly facilitated this abuse or even knew about it.
The renaming to Women’s Park is put forward as a form of reparation for these perceived wrongdoings.
I voted against the motion because I view this move as akin to historical “post-mortem show trials” which were commonplace in the 50s, 60s, and 70s in oppressive regimes such as USSR and China, where the reputations of the deceased were targeted because they had died holding unacceptable opinions.
I believe it is wrong to judge Bishop Lucey for alleged failures without evidence of personal wrongdoing.
Instead of focusing on retrospective judgment, I urge those supporting the renaming to address pressing issues like the trafficking and exploitation of women and girls in Cork’s brothels and massage parlours, as confirmed recently at a conference in UCC.
I call for a reconsideration of this renaming proposal, emphasising the need for fairness, historical context, and action on present-day challenges. I stand for protecting the dignity of all individuals and preserving Bishop Lucey’s legacy.
My formal schooling got off to a great start in the local Mercy Primary School, where I encountered dedicated and encouraging teachers who awakened my passion for knowledge.
After four years, we boys transferred to the local CBS Primary School where my values, ambitions, and loyalties began to take shape under the direction of teachers who attached great importance to a good education. I began to make the link between study and future success in life.
My teachers, both religious and lay, were fair-minded and enthusiastic. Corporal punishment was (allowed) at the time, but use of the “leather” wasn’t excessive.
The local CBS Secondary School emphasised study, sport, Catholicism, and republicanism, which suited me down to the ground.
During my five years in secondary school, playing on the football and basketball teams was character building. My second-level education was a very happy experience.
Corporal punishment still existed, but most of the physical punishment I took was delivered in good spirits on the playing fields.
Great days indeed!
I am very grateful to the sisters and brothers who educated me and prepared me for a fulfilling life.
They were dedicated people, many of whom I remain friendly with. I never personally experienced the brutality perpetrated on other young people. I deeply regret that any pupil suffered physical or sexual abuse at the hands of sadistic or paedophilic teachers, lay or religious.
But I would appeal to people not to tar and feather all religious. In any sample population, there is a percentage of evildoers. In my experience, the vast majority of religious are blameless in their devoted lives.
I would like to commend the Irish Examiner’s Paul Hosford and Gráinne Ní Aodha for Tuesday’s article in relation to former justice minister Alan Shatter’s position on the Occupied Territories Bill.
I am appalled to glean that he repeatedly described the bill as a Father Ted measure, and then went to compare it to Jewish people being targeted during the Second World War.
He seems to be living on a different planet when he proffers the notion that this bill was based on falsehoods, and that the bill itself abandoned all lessons that we should have learned from our own peace process.
I found it insulting and egregious that he would draw comparisons with Nazi-era legislation. I deemed it to be an outrageous slur.
I believe that Ireland taking this stance sends out a very powerful signal to the world that this country is taking a strong line on what is happening.
One can’t speak for those who are proposing this bill.
However, one senses their argument would be that these settlements were set up illegally in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that Ireland has to take action against that. It’s my contention that we cannot ignore what’s happening in the Middle East.
Mr Shatter’s claim that the Occupied Territories Bill is a thing of complete irrelevance to peace, and comparing the bill to Father Ted is, in my mind, beyond incredulity.
I am curious as to what Mr Shatter has to say about the seven innocent Gazan children who were recently killed by Israeli military while waiting for water at a distribution point? This is about morality and not about economics.
The cashless society being “accelerated” by Christine Lagarde — whom we did not vote for — to October, is the most sinister, stealthy move to take away our financial independence and privacy.
Our “Government” is playing dumb. We are being walked into a situation where “others” will see and control our every transaction, forcing us online into a virtual world. We need to stop this.
The majority of people are not even aware of this further and final grab for control of our own money. We must do more to resist this dictat from the World Economic Forum, which the Government is allowing to control all aspects of our lives.
