Better to be safe than sorry, ‘Vote No’

Better to be safe than sorry, ‘Vote No’

Dear Editor,  A USA lady bravely faced applause when she declared she sleeps with Bill Clinton every Christmas. She brought to mind people having a similar ‘durable relationship’ with our very own Taoisigh. All of this gains fresh relevance as our Government asks us to vote in a referendum, March 8.

They say existing definition of ‘family’ is insufficient; that amendment of the Constitution is the only way forward. Insert a new clause containing the buzz-words ‘durable relationship’ and all will be well. But, those buzz-words comprise a legal term – the meaning of which remains so uncertain.

Lately, our Supreme Court has deemed an un-married man to be entitled to widower’s allowance on the death of his long-time partner, the mother of his children. This is but one example of why a durable relationship does not require amendment to the Constitution for justice is to be served. Because the Constitution has already promised us equality of treatment before the law. Moreover, the proposed formal introduction of a virtual alternative definition of ‘family’ could open a Pandora’s Box. How it will impact tax, inheritance, and, controversially, immigration, we know not.

Better be safe than sorry. We had best vote ‘No’.

Yours etc.,

Cathal Ashbourne-Loftus

Ashbourne, Co. Meath

 

The thin veil between the spiritual and physical world

Dear Editor, Years ago, I heard a story which intrigued me. A family just had a new baby and her older brother, still very young himself, was always trying to be with the baby. The reason was revealed thanks to a bit of technology. They had an intercom set-up in the baby’s room in case she woke up and they would be able to hear her cries from the living room or bedroom as there were speakers there.

One evening as the parents sat in the living room, they heard their son talking to the baby through the intercom and he said to his baby sister “tell me what God is like; I can hardly remember”.

It was the word ‘remember’ that caught my attention. It points to the intimacy of the act of creation; like in Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”

And in the Psalm 139:13 and 16: For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. and your eyes saw my unformed body.

I wonder, as our Father created our immortal soul and incorporated body and soul, did we catch a glimpse of him? Did he pause to gaze on his handiwork as he loved us into existence for his own purposes?

The veil between the spiritual world and the physical is thin but quickly becomes blurred. I know of a family who when they used to pray the rosary together the toddlers could see their guardian angels but as they grew older their vision of the invisible world was lost.

The ache in the human heart to return to God is helpful as it is unsettling. It points to the possibility of union or reunion with our heavenly Father, with the one who made us.

With open, persevering hearts, all of us can be made new, and we can grow in the experiential knowledge that we are truly his sons and daughters, beloved and precious to him and utterly dependent on him.

Yours etc.,

Stephen Clark

Malate, Manila, Philippines

 

A trajectory to extinction

Dear Editor, Many of those calling for us to change the Constitution, claim the existing wording is sexist and out of date. It’s their trump argument and a conversation stopper!

Article 41.2 requires the State to “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”. Thus, it seeks to avoid the neglect of children, etc. due to financial pressures.

For anyone who finds the inclusion of the word ‘duties’ objectionable, it is also found in the section of the Constitution dealing with children, where Article 42a.2 tells us that parents have ‘duties’ to their children. In the first instance these are met in the home.

Éamon de Valera – the main architect of our Constitution – had personal reasons for putting this provision into the Constitution. Born in New York and without financial help from his father, his mother found that she was unable to simultaneously go to work and care for him. So, in spite of his pleading, he was sent to be reared by relatives in Ireland.

Across the world, societies which have become so focused on economics that they have neglected home and family life, are slowly waking up to the consequences. Recently the South Korean president said that their plummeting birth rate was their top priority as current figures suggest that the Korean people are on a trajectory to extinction.

Perhaps those who drafted our Constitution all those years ago, had the enlightened foresight to realise that if we do not take care of the human ecological basics, so essential for the next generation to flourish, then we will no longer exist as a people?

Yours etc.,

Gearóid Duffy,

Lee Road, Co. Cork