Sent by the Convener of PCI’s Council for Public Affairs, Rev Daniel Kane, and the Convener of the Council’s Republic of Ireland Panel, Rev William Hayes, the two ministers said that “…we recognise that in a changing society there are a great many other households that count as families, and while we acknowledge the merits of a number of the amendments being proposed, we are concerned that this constitutional exercise has been a missed opportunity.
"The ambiguity and lack of clarity contained within some of the amendments will mean that it is unlikely to introduce meaningful change, which could have been of benefit to society as a whole. The proposed amendment, which seeks to remove the link between marriage and family, is also disappointing, but is an indication of Ireland’s changing culture.
The letter, which was sent last Wednesday in time for Sunday services yesterday, and ahead of this week’s referendum on Friday, addressed the proposed amendments to Bunreacht na hÉireann, The Irish Constitution. Mr Kane, who is minister of West Presbyterian Church in Ballymena, County Antrim and Mr Hayes, who is minister of Tullamore Presbyterian Church in County Offaly, said to minister colleagues that, “As Christians, we see the scriptures speaking consistently and clearly with regards to all aspects of life.
.png.aspx?width=300&height=250)
“As a Church, we have a clearly defined definition of marriage, as stated in our marriage service. But we also recognise that this is not everyone’s experience and reality. In looking at what is being proposed, with regards to Article 41.3.1, which states that ‘the family is founded upon the institution of marriage’, we are disappointed that the proposed amendment seeks to remove the link between marriage and family.
“Having said that, we recognise that within society there are a great many other households and families, which are not founded on our view of marriage. While we recognise each of these families, we would want to hold to the biblical definition of marriage, as God’s intended design for society,” they said.
In the letter, the Presbyterian ministers referred to the fact that the Government was suggesting amending the wording of Article 41.3.1 to include the term ‘other durable relationships’. “We recognise that there is significant debate around this term as a new way to define ‘family’, which considerably widens its definition. Given this, we are not alone in foreseeing major problems that will arise from the lack of clarity surrounding this new definition and interpretation of ‘durable relationships’ in the proposed new text,” they said.
With regards to Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2, which concern the position of women and mothers in the home, the ministers acknowledged that at the time of the Constitution’s drafting nearly 90 years ago, the language employed was seen as deeply controversial.
“As a Church, we acknowledge that the Bible teaches that the role of women is much greater and more varied than that defined in Article 41:2:1 and extends beyond a woman’s role within the home. The picture of the wife of noble character that we find in Proverbs 31, for example, praises and encourages many different roles that women can fulfil both inside and outside the home.
“While, we recognise and affirm the pivotal role that mothers have in nurturing and bringing up children, we are, however, concerned that the deletion of this Article may unintentionally devalue their pivotal role to the determent of society.”
The ministers continued, “In this regard, we are also concerned that the rewording of the second part of the Article 41.2.2, with the removal of the words ‘economic’ and ‘labour’ and their replacement with the general concept of ‘support’, moves us in a direction that fails to recognise the huge economic, as well as the social value of parents (mothers and fathers), who have the ability to stay at home with their children during their formative years.
.jpg.aspx?width=300&height=208)
“We do, however, broadly accept the acknowledgement in the proposed amendment for 41.2.2, which includes the role that family can have for the care of one another. However, we are concerned that the lack of inclusion of any reference to parents undermines the significant role that they have in a child’s life, as we would like to see the relationship between a child and their parent/s affirmed.”
In conclusion, Mr Kane and Mr Hayes said, “…as we have already stated, we recognise that in a changing society there are a great many other households that count as families, and while we acknowledge the merit of the removal of 41.2.1, we are concerned that this constitutional exercise has been a missed opportunity. The ambiguity and lack of clarity contained within some of the amendments will mean that it is unlikely to introduce meaningful change, which could have been of benefit to society as a whole. The proposed amendment, which seeks to remove the link between marriage and family, is also disappointing, but is an indication of Ireland’s changing culture.
“Having said that, we acknowledge the State’s commitment to ‘strive to support’ families caring for one another. We look forward to working with them, as a Church, to see how this provision can be enacted to the benefit of the common good, should The Constitution be amended.”
The two ministers continued, “As Church that embraces democracy as part of its Presbyterian ethos, these are matters for the people to decide. We therefore encourage Church members to vote and consider these matters prayerfully and with great care, reminding ourselves of the words of the Westminster Confession that “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.”
Images (1) Front cover Electoral Commission booklet (electoralcommission.ie) (2) picture credit Element5Digital on Pexels)