Senator Bacik speaking on the Bishops' talks in the Vatican, and the Influence of the Catholic Church on the Constitution

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I join Senator Fitzgerald in expressing concern about the outcome of the bishops' talks in the Vatican. It is appropriate, given the enormous influence the bishops continue to have in the institutions of the State through the system of patronage of schools, that we express our concern, as legislators, about the lack of any sense of responsibility or accountability on the part of the Vatican for the appalling abuse of children that continued for so many years in our religious-run and State-funded institutions. It is relevant for us. On the day that is in it, I ask for a debate on the relationship between the church and the State and, in the light of what Senator O'Toole said, on the ongoing control of the churches, particularly the Catholic Church, of our national school system. Considering that 92% of national schools are still run by the Catholic Church, it is important that we debate the relationship between church and State. Yesterday I expressed concern about the recognition by the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, of two new Catholic schools at a time when parents were crying out for more choice in education and more multi-denominational schools. Archbishop Martin has recognised this. We need to debate the issue as a matter of urgency.

Let us not stop with the education system; let us also debate the role of prayer in our national institutions. Why, for example, do we have a prayer every time the Seanad sits? Why does the national broadcaster still broadcast the “Angelus”?

Senator Donie Cassidy: We are proud of them.

Senator Ivana Bacik: These are issues on which people on both sides have very strong views. Therefore, we need to debate them.

The influence of the Catholic Church on the Constitution is still felt very strongly in respect of the role of women. It is very welcome to see a proposal to have a constitutional amendment to enshrine the rights of children in the Constitution. I am glad to see the place of parents, as carers of children, is recognised. We could include the phrase “parents of guardians” but that is a matter for debate. When talking about parents in respect of the new children's rights amendment, we should be deleting from the Constitution the specific reference to mothers which remains in Article 41 and which has been condemned internationally and by our national review groups, including the expert Constitution review group in 2006. We should be replacing the reference with one that recognises the role of carers. I refer to gender-neutral recognition to allow fathers a place in the Constitution and remove the outdated notion that it is only women who have caring responsibilities in the home. Why not hold that non-controversial referendum at the same time as the children's rights referendum? They are closely linked and it would improve the children's rights referendum, improve the Constitution significantly and contribute to our status as a developing pluralist republic and move us away from the unhealthy dominance of the Catholic Church that still lives on in so many institutions.