Major surrogacy conference seeks international action to ban the practice

 

The Vatican has just released a new document on the topic of human dignity. Among other issues, it addresses the ethical problems of surrogacy—including the commodification of babies and the financial exploitation of low-income women who are contracted to be surrogates.

Ireland is in the process of adopting one of the most permissive laws in Europe on the issue, but elsewhere, opposition to the practice is mounting.

A major conference advocating for a worldwide ban on surrogacy was held in Rome last weekend. Experts at the conference argued that an international treaty is necessary to halt the practice. Although national bans have some impact, couples and single men may still travel to countries where surrogacy is legal or unregulated. This is why it is crucial for states to unite and establish a system to penalise corporations that serve as intermediaries between surrogate mothers and commissioning parents.

Some countries, such as Italy, are in the process of criminalising international surrogacy, punishing Italian citizens who engage in this practice abroad. Such an approach should be adopted by every country, the conference heard.

Banks and financial institutions play a pivotal role in the international surrogacy market, positioning them as critical targets in efforts to achieve worldwide abolition of this practice. At the conference, it was proposed that the responsibilities banks currently have in combating terrorism and money laundering should be expanded to include scrutiny of transactions related to surrogacy.

The meeting in Rome saw the participation of international experts and activists, including the Italian Minister for Family, a representative from the Holy See, various politicians, and notably, two United Nations officials. The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, and a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Velina Todorova, attended as observers.

The politicians represented a broad spectrum of political affiliations, spanning right, centre, and left-wing parties. Similarly, the experts and activists brought a diverse range of ideological viewpoints to the discussion, including feminism, conservatism, and Christian Democracy, among others. This diversity underscored a rare consensus across political and ideological divides on the perils of surrogacy, a consensus that appears to be absent in Ireland.

This conference followed the launch of a declaration in Casablanca (Morocco) in March 2023, signed by 100 experts from 75 countries, calling for the universal abolition of surrogacy. The Casablanca Declaration initiative is led by Olivia Maurel, a French/US feminist activist conceived through surrogacy. The 32-year-old mother of three has faced mental health challenges from a young age, only later discovering the truth about her origins. She has since become one of the most vocal opponents of the “womb market.” At the conference, she gave a moving and powerful testimony about how surrogacy has affected her life, describing the commodification of children and women as a new form of slavery.

Before the conference, Olivia Maurel had a private audience with Pope Francis, who endorsed the conference’s goals. In January, the Pope had already called for “an effort by the international community to universally prohibit this practice,” a call reiterated in the new document on human dignity. Maurel is keen to stress that that she does not come at the issue from a religious perspective because she is an atheist.

The Rome conference continues the commitment of the Casablanca Declaration and aims to promote national and international initiatives, leading to the adoption of an international treaty among states.

At present, Ireland is far behind the curve on the matter, lost in the pretence that any ethical problems arising from the practice can easily be dealt with.

Recommendations for 'assisted dying' are wrong and dangerous, even by their own standards

As predicted, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying has recommended the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia in Ireland. It claims they will be allowed under only strict conditions and with proper safeguards, but when you read the actual report, some of the conditions and safeguards seem neither strict nor proper.

The final report from the Committee, presented last month, includes some criteria to qualify for assisted suicide and euthanasia, but it also recommends a formal review of the legislation after three years of operation, when these criteria could be changed. We all know that they will be changed, as it has happened in other countries.

Specifically, the report recommends that so-called “assisted dying” should be offered to adults who are Irish citizens or have been residents here for at least one year.

In order to qualify, the person should be “diagnosed with a disease, illness or medical condition that is: a) both incurable and irreversible; b) advanced, progressive and will cause death; c) expected to cause death within six months (or, in the case of a person with a neurodegenerative disease, illness or condition, within 12 months); and d) causing suffering to the person that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person finds tolerable.”

This is objectionable enough, but even on its own terms, the report’s recommendations would not create proper safeguards.

For example, take Recommendation 28 of the report. It says: “The Committee recommends that two formal requests for assisted dying must be made, with a set specified interval between. At least one of these requests must be recorded in writing, and before two independent witnesses.”

So, two requests have to be made, only one of which in writing and before two witnesses.

This is extremely loose wording. It does not tell us whether the two requests must be made to two separate individuals. Could the two requests be made to the same person?

We are not told that the person or persons to whom the requests are made should be a doctor. Presumably they ought to be, but we should be told. Then again, should doctors be involved in this at all except to confirm that the person is dying and is within a certain number of months of death?

Who would the “independent witnesses” be? Two friends? Two strangers? Two lawyers? Who knows?

The report does not clarify who will assess the requests and, specifically, no mental health assessment is recommended. It only says that “the doctors have an obligation to acknowledge receipt of the request and should deliver a response within a specified timeframe.” According to the recommendations, a qualified psychiatrist is required only when there are concerns that the person might not be competent to make an informed decision.

The report recommends an interval between the two requests, but it does not specify its length. It could be two weeks or a day. Such intervals are required, in some jurisdictions that permit assisted suicide or euthanasia, as “cooling off” periods that allow the patients to reflect about their decision.

There is no requirement in the report that the family of the patients be informed before the procedure.

In some jurisdictions, health professionals cannot actively suggest assisted suicide or euthanasia to their patients as an option, but they can only accept requests coming spontaneously from patients. This is a protection against patients being coerced or led towards the procedure.

In the Oireachtas report there is no recommendation that would stop doctors mentioning ‘assisted dying’ as an option, which is an appalling oversight, or was it deliberate?

The recommended protections for conscientious protection do not go far enough. Medical personnel will not be obliged to take part in ‘assisted dying’ but will have to refer a patient who requests to die in this way to another doctor. This is seen by many doctors as a form of coerced participation. Institutions are offered no protection. This means a hospice, for example, could potentially be forced to allow its patients to die in this way if that is what a patient wants, regardless of its ethos.

The final report received approval by nine of the Committee’s fourteen members. Three members voted against it. Notably, the Chair of the Committee, independent Michael Healy Rae, voted against, together with Fianna Fail TD Robert Troy and independent Senator Ronan Mullen. One member of the Committee was absent from the final vote and one, namely Pa Daly from Sinn Fein, abstained.

The three members who voted against also presented a minority report, which I will analyse in the future.

The 38 recommendations in the report, while extensive, demonstrate a problematic prioritisation of ‘choice’ over the intrinsic value of life and the potential for unintended consequences, especially for the most vulnerable in society.

The report ignores the opposition of the main medical organisations in Ireland, particularly of those medical professionals who work in palliative care.

The report glosses over the evidence presented by many experts regarding the deeply divisive and contentious outcomes observed in jurisdictions like the Netherlands, and Canada, where the slippery slope of criteria expansion and the blurring lines between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia have been well-documented.

Even on their own terms, some of the recommendations of the report are appallingly lax. The final document has been barely analysed by a media distracted by the resignation of Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach, and which tend not to subject euthanasia advocates to proper critical scrutiny anyway.

In the greater scheme of things this report, which represents a big step towards euthanasia and assisted suicide, is far more important than the resignation of any given Taoiseach. It beckons us to cross a moral rubicon.

Newman e padre Cristoforo

... Ed ora passiamo all’altro Cappuccino, stato presentato esso pure agli Inglesi da uno scrittore italiano, che era un po’ meno credulone e romantico e non naturale di quel buon Arcivescovo di Fermo, il Rinuccini. E quest’altro Cappuccino è il notissimo Padre Cristoforo dei Promessi Sposi. Si sa che il romanzo celeberrimo venne in luce nel 1825-26, e subito tradotto e pubblicato nelle principali lingue europee; quindi anche in inglese — The Betrothed lovers — edito la prima volta nel 1828 a Pisa nientemeno; poi a New-York, nel 1845, poi a Londra nel 1872 e nel 1876.

Vuoi per il nome dell’autore, vuoi per il rumore fatto attorno al romanzo, oppure in grazia dei boni rapporti tra Manzoni e Walter Scott, o meglio per le stupide accuse mosse al poeta lombardo, come quello che avesse scritto sulla falsariga dell’Ivanhoe del romanziere scozzese, oppure per altre ragioni, il fatto è questo, che in Inghilterra il The Betrothed lovers ebbe una grande diffusione. Quando si pensi che capitò anche nelle mani di uno il quale alla letteratura romantica aveva dedicato un’antipatia che rasentava l’odio, come è chiaro da uno dei suoi Parochial and plain Sermons, e per il tempo prezioso che ci ruba, e perchè svisa la realtà delle cose, e perchè eccita a cupidigie folli irrealizzabili e perchè è di una esasperante vacuità, frivolezza, verba, verba, ebbene il fatto che il Promessi Sposi capitò anche nelle mani del Reverendo Enrico Giovanni Newman, ci dice tutto. Ora quell’austero, tuttora ministro anglicano, e se non arrabbiato nemico di cose cattoliche, certo deciso con tutto il garbo e la dignità a tenersene al largo, il Reverendo Newman che poi doveva farsi cattolico, e religioso Filippino, e venir innalzato all’onore della Porpora, fu attratto esso pure verso il capolavoro manzoniano, e lo lesse. Naturalmente, se nessuno degli elementi del romanzo gli dovette sembrare trascurabile, tuttavia la sua maggiore attenzione si fissò sull’elemento religioso e il più pronunciato. Ma tra tutti i personaggi, quello che gli piacque di più, lo affascinò di più colla sua incomparabile bellezza morale, ed ebbe un’accoglienza nel suo cuore, nel suo pensiero scrutatore e misuratore di grandezza sia di genio sia di bontà, fu il cappuccino, il Padre Cristoforo. Nel secondo volume delle sue Letters and Correspondance, pag. 285, sente il bisogno di sfogare l’animo suo nei riguardi dell’impressione riportata davanti al quadro della sublime carità, della coraggiosa franchezza, della tanto naturale e modesta vita d’un autentico eroe della Chiesa Cattolica, e scrive: «Ah! che questo padre cappuccino dei Promessi Sposi mi ha penetrato il cuore come un pugnale; io non posso più liberarmene.»

Ora queste parole d’un Newman, di un genuino rappresentante del mondo intellettuale, esigente, critico, d’Inghilterra, e sono l’esponente dell’accoglienza massima che si potesse fare ad un cappuccino, e sono l’indice di ciò che devono aver pensato e fatto migliaia di inglesi che prendevano l’intonazione e la parola d’ordine dal Reverendo Newman. La figura di P. Cristoforo per i paesi anglo-sassoni avrà quindi innanzi il migliore dei passaporti e la più autorevole raccomandazione; penetrerà ovunque bene accolta, festosamente incontrata, complimentata, benedetta; e tutti i lettori, del «The Betrothed lovers» proveranno un sempre crescente godimento intellettuale, trasaliranno di piacere, di gioia ogni volta che il loro sguardo si arresterà sul cappuccino italiano cinto di tanto seducente fascino quale glielo comunicò Manzoni. ...

L. Meregalli, Il buon cuore - Anno IX, n. 50 - 10 dicembre 1910.

Effort to erase motherhood and traditional family from Ireland’s constitution fails

By Cassy Fiano-Chesser | March 12, 2024

A referendum which would have erased motherhood and traditional family from the constitution of Ireland has been defeated by a large margin.

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar had urged voters to support the referendum, which would have amended Article 41.1 by introducing “other durable relationships” alongside marriage as the foundation of the family. Article 41.2 also would have been changed; currently, it states “that by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved,” and that the government shall therefore “endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.” That would have been replaced by gender-neutral language, saying the government recognizes “the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them,” and that without that, “the common good cannot be achieved and shall strive to support such provision.”

Varadkhar told voters that voting against the referendums would be a “step backwards,” and derided the current amendments as containing “very old-fashioned, very sexist language about women.”

But nearly 68% of voters rejected the amendments, which Varadkhar described as giving “two wallops” to the government. “Clearly we got it wrong. While the old adage is that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan, I think when you lose by this kind of margin, there are a lot of people who got this wrong and I am certainly one of them,” he said, adding, “It was our responsibility to convince the majority of people to vote ‘yes’ and we clearly failed to do so.”

Carol Nolan, an Independent TD for Laois Offaly, believes the push showed that the government is out of touch with the Irish people. “People are sick to death of being talked down to by unelected NGO’s such as the National Women’s Council of Ireland, who should now clearly be seen as an ideological poison within the body politic,” she said. Senator Michael McDowell agreed, saying, “The government misjudged the mood of the electorate and put before them proposals which they didn’t explain and proposals which could have serious consequences.”

Family Solidarity, an Irish conservative advocacy group, released a statement praising the results on Saturday. “This decision by the Irish electorate sends a powerful message about the importance of preserving foundational values in the face of sweeping societal changes,” the statement said. “This victory is not just a rejection of a specific referendum proposal; it is a declaration by the people of Ireland that the core unit of society — the family based on marriage — must remain protected and cherished. It underscores a collective desire to maintain the integrity of societal values that have long been the bedrock of our nation.”

 REFERENDUM

Ireland saves woman and family: surprise victory

The surprise No victory in the Irish referendum to remove a woman’s right to stay home and look after the family and the uniqueness of the natural family from the Constitution. The Daily Compass interviews Angelo Bottone, a promoter of the No committee. "It is a break with the decade of liberal reforms".

For Leo Eric Varadkar, the head of the Irish government, it should have been a way of celebrating 8 March; in reality it was a sort of anticipation of St Patrick's Day, the Patron Saint of Ireland. The referendum on two questions which, if successful, would have continued the drastic process of secularisation underway in Ireland. The first question concerned the definition of the family founded on marriage. The referendum proposal, rejected by 67.7% of the voters, sought to define the family as founded on 'marriage and lasting relationships'.

This expression 'lasting relationships', in the plural, would have included not only so called 'horizontal relationships', i.e. between adults, such as cohabitation, but also 'vertical' ones between single parents and their children. The main issue is that unlike marriage, which must be consensual, public, registered, etc., the State does has no idea who is in these 'durable relationships', it does not know when they begin or end because the registry office does not register cohabitations.
Paradoxically, the inclusion of these 'enduring relationships' in the constitutional definition of family would have given compulsory legal recognition even to those who, by explicit wish, did not want it.

The second question is somewhat more complex. The current wording recognises the value of women's domestic life for the common good and says that the state must ensure that 'mothers are not obliged to work outside the home by economic necessity, thus negating their duties at home'. The language may appear antiquated. Some complain that it reflects the mentality of 1937, when the Irish Constitution was written but, over time, the courts have interpreted the article to refer not only to mothers but also to fathers.

This article justifies public assistance to those who work at home and, unlike what media reports have written, does not force any woman to stay at home. The referendum proposal, rejected by 74.4% of the voters, would have replaced the current article with a completely new wording, based on the recognition for the common good of the care that family members have for each other. This proposal was criticised by those who were not happy with the original wording but considered the new one too weak. Some organisations defending the disabled, for example, argued that in this way the state would relegate care to the family, instead of taking it over.

The outcome of the referendum was the - totally unexpected and surprising - overwhelming victory of the no votes. An almost shocking outcome, even on an international level.
The Daily Compass interviewed one of Ireland's most significant Catholic intellectuals, Angelo Bottone, a professor of philosophy and researcher at the Iona Institute, a pro-life and pro-family think tank that played a leading role in the No campaign. Prof. Bottone is also the president of Family Solidarity, an association of Catholic families, also involved in the referendum campaign. Family Solidarity is a member of FAFCE, the European federation of Catholic family organisations.

Professor Bottone, the outcome of the referendum surprised many observers. Did you expect this result?
Honestly, no. Last Sunday the polls calculated the No vote at 25% and the undecided at 35%. The only thing that gave us hope was seeing support for our positions grow among the most informed citizens. A movement in the right direction was perceived but the days were numbered. The last debates convinced the undecided and the result was outstanding. The percentage of No votes in the second question (74.4%) is the highest ever recorded in the history of referendums, while the first question received the third highest percentage (67.7%). As if to say, never before have the people expressed themselves so clearly.

Yet you were up against everyone, as usual: the media, and almost all political parties with the exception of Aontù, the small formation that broke away from Sinn Fein precisely because of the radical secularisation of the historic nationalist formation. What happened?
True, and this makes the result even more significant. All parties, government and opposition, supported both referendums. Aontù, the only opposing party, has only one elected representative in parliament and, unlike the others, receives no public funding because it did not pass the necessary threshold. It was truly the battle of David against Goliath. Especially since the Yes campaign was led by several non-profit organisations heavily financed by the state, while on our side there were small Christian-inspired groups and a few independent senators, all of whom were well-intentioned but had few resources.
We should also note the participation of some radical feminist organisations in the No campaign, which we opposed on other issues. These feminists were particularly opposed to the second question, which would have removed the word 'mother' and 'woman' from the Constitution. Radical feminists, who have always been against gender ideology, interpreted this as an attempt to neutralise explicit references to women in the constitution.

The government had chosen World Women's Day as the symbolic date, in an attempt to make the two questions pass more easily, and instead the opposite happened. March 8, will be remembered as the day the Irish did not erase women from their Constitution. Among religious organisations, only the Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church stood up in defence of the family: Anglicans, Muslims and Jews were not present. Do you think that was in the name of political correctness?
The Catholic bishops wrote a clear letter, explaining the consequences of the two proposals. The Presbyterians were the only ones, among the Protestant denominations, to publicly oppose while there was no indication of a vote from the Islamic organisations but, I would argue, for a specific reason. The first question sought to equate 'lasting relationships' with marriage and, in this way, would give legal recognition to polygamous unions. Polygamous marriage, accepted by Muslims, would have remained illegal because the Constitution explicitly provides for only two spouses. However, it is not illegal for a Muslim married abroad with more than one wife to come and live with them in Ireland. One of the effects of the constitutional amendment would have been to equate polygamous families with those based on marriage. It is no surprise then that Muslims did not oppose it.

How did you convince the electorate?
Since we did not have many resources, we concentrated on TV and radio debates, rather than TV commercials, posters or leaflets. A highlight was the prime-time debate on public television last Tuesday. Maria Steen, also from the Iona Institute, was the face of the No vote. Mother of five children, architect and lawyer. A woman of faith, very active in the 2018 anti-abortion campaign. In contrast, the Yes side was represented by deputy prime minister and leader of the Fianna Fail majority party, Michael Martin. A prominent, experienced politician who represented the establishment well. It is difficult to quantify the effectiveness of these debates but, given the results, there is no doubt that Maria Steen's contribution was a winner.

Speaking of parties: this vote is a solemn slap in the face of the Fianna Fail - Fine Gael diarchy, but also a signal to Sinn Fein and the other parties, which are far removed from the real country, do you agree?
It was an earthquake that affected the entire political class. The people went in the exact opposite direction of the parties. It was not just an anti-government vote, since the questions were also supported by the oppositions. The distance between reality and its political representation, or rather, the lack of political representation, could not have been more explicit. It was a totally anti-system vote, unforeseen by commentators.

Do think this predicts a hopeful future for the Aontu party?
At the moment it is still small, but it represents the only alternative to the dominant single thought. The referendum campaign has given a lot of visibility to their leader, Peadar Tóibín, and given the extraordinary results, I am convinced that the party will also gain something from it.

Can this clear-cut vote be read as the Irish people wanting to put a brake on the de-Christianising drift of recent years?
I would be cautious in drawing such conclusions. The process of de-Christianisation continues, but Friday's vote represents a caesura. It is the end of a decade of liberal reforms that involved not only the redefinition of marriage in 2015, opening up to same-sex couples, and the legalisation of abortion in 2018, but a whole series of laws and policy decisions. Just in the last few days, a parliamentary committee has proposed the legalisation of euthanasia. It seems that the Irish political class, as if to compensate for a sense of inferiority due to an overly religious past, goes out of its way to appear the most anti-Christian on sensitive issues. The referendum result definitely points in another direction. The people, at least this time, said no.

Could the outcome of this referendum begin a significant recovery, after very difficult years, of the social and political presence of Catholics?
There is no political formation of explicit Catholic inspiration. There are politicians, not many, who are not ashamed of their faith, and there is still a widespread religious sentiment, but this does not translate into a political proposal. Last night, celebrating, we were wondering how to capitalise on this success. There is much to ponder but for now, we want to enjoy this amazing victory.

Paolo Gulisano

IL REFERENDUM

L'Irlanda salva donna e famiglia: «Come Davide contro Golia»

L'inaspettata vittoria del No al referendum irlandese per togliere dalla Costituzione il diritto della donna a rimanere a casa per badare alla famiglia e l’unicità della famiglia naturale. La Bussola intervista Angelo Bottone, tra i promotori del comitato per il No. «È una cesura col decennio di riforme liberali».

Nelle intenzioni di Leo Eric Varadkar, il capo del Governo irlandese, avrebbe dovuto essere un modo di festeggiare alla grande l’8 marzo; in realtà è stata una sorta di anticipazione della Festa di San Patrizio, il Patrono d’Irlanda. Un referendum su due quesiti che, con esito positivo, avrebbero proseguito il drastico processo di laicizzazione dell’Irlanda in corso. Il primo quesito riguardava la definizione della famiglia che, come nella Costituzione italiana, è fondata sul matrimonio. La proposta referendaria, rigettata dal 67,7% dei votanti, intendeva definire la famiglia quale fondata su “matrimonio e relazioni durature”.

Questa espressione “relazioni durature”, al plurale, avrebbe compreso non solo quelle che sono state chiamate “relazioni orizzontali”, ossia fra adulti, come le convivenze, ma anche quelle “verticali” fra genitori single e i propri figli. Il problema principale è che a differenza del matrimonio che deve essere consensuale, pubblico, registrato, ecc., lo Stato non sa chi è in queste “relazioni durature”, non si sa quando cominciano o finiscono perché l’anagrafe non registra le convivenze.

Paradossalmente, l’inclusione di queste “relazioni durature” nella definizione costituzionale di famiglia, avrebbe conferito un riconoscimento legale obbligatorio anche a chi, per esplicita volontà, non lo desiderava.

Il secondo quesito è un po’ più complesso. La formulazione attuale riconosce il valore della vita domestica della donna per il bene comune e dice che lo Stato deve far sì che “le madri non siano obbligate a lavorare fuori casa da necessità economiche, negando così i loro doveri a casa”. Il linguaggio può apparire antiquato. Alcuni si lamentano perché rispecchia la mentalità del 1937, quando la Costituzione irlandese fu scritta ma, nel tempo, i giudici hanno interpretato l’articolo in riferimento non solo alle madri ma anche ai padri.

Questo articolo giustifica l’assistenza pubblica nei confronti di chi lavora in casa e, a differenza di quanto hanno scritto anche alcuni giornali italiani, non obbliga nessuna donna a rimanere a casa. La proposta referendaria, respinta dal 74,4% dei votanti, avrebbe sostituito l’articolo attuale con una formulazione completamente nuova, basata sul riconoscimento per il bene comune della cura che i membri della famiglia hanno reciprocamente. Questa proposta è stata criticata da quanti, seppur non contenti della formulazione originaria, hanno ritenuto la nuova come troppo debole. Alcune organizzazioni a difesa dei disabili, ad esempio, hanno sostenuto che così lo Stato avrebbe relegato la cura alla famiglia, invece di farsene carico.

L’esito del Referendum è stato quello - assolutamente inatteso e sorprendente - di una schiacciante vittoria dei no. Un esito quasi choccante, anche a livello internazionale.

La Bussola ha intervistato uno dei più significativi intellettuali cattolici irlandesi – anche se con evidenti origini italiane - Angelo Bottone, docente di filosofia e ricercatore presso l’Iona Institute, un think tank pro-life e pro-famiglia che ha avuto un ruolo di primo piano nella campagna per il No. Il prof. Bottone è anche il presidente di Family Solidarity, un’associazione di famiglie cattoliche, anch’essa impegnata nella campagna referendaria. Family Solidarity è membro della FAFCE, la federazione europea delle organizzazioni familiari cattoliche.

Professor Bottone, l'esito del Referendum ha sorpreso molti osservatori. Voi organizzatori ve lo aspettavate? 
Sinceramente, no. Domenica scorsa i sondaggi davano il No al 25% e gli indecisi al 35%. L’unica cosa che ci faceva sperare era il veder crescere il supporto per le nostre posizioni fra i cittadini più informati. Si percepiva un movimento nella direzione giusta ma i giorni erano ormai contati. Gli ultimi dibattiti hanno convinto gli indecisi ed il risultato è stato eccezionale. La percentuale di No nel secondo quesito (74,4%) è la più alta mai registrata nella storia dei referendum, mentre il primo quesito ha ricevuto la terza percentuale (67,7%) più alta. Come dire, mai come questa volta il popolo si è espresso così chiaramente.

Avevate contro tutti, come sempre: la grande stampa, e pressoché tutti i partiti ad eccezione di Aontù, la piccola formazione che si è staccata dallo Sinn Fein proprio a motivo della laicizzazione radicale della storica formazione nazionalista.
Vero, e questo rende il risultato ancora più significativo. Tutti i partiti, di governo e di opposizione, appoggiavano entrambi i referendum. Aontù, l’unico partito contrario, ha solo un rappresentante eletto in parlamento e, a differenza degli altri, non riceve finanziamenti pubblici perché non ha superato la soglia necessaria. È stata veramente la battaglia di Davide contro Golia. Tanto più che la campagna per i Sì è stata condotta da diverse organizzazioni no-profit fortemente finanziate dallo Stato mentre dalla nostra parte c’erano piccoli gruppi di ispirazione cristiana e alcuni senatori indipendenti, tutti animati da buona volontà ma con scarse risorse.

C’è da notare anche la partecipazione nella campagna per il No di alcune organizzazioni di femministe radicali, che su altri temi ci vedono contrapposti. Queste femministe si sono opposte particolarmente al secondo quesito, che avrebbe rimosso la parola “madre” e “donna” dalla Costituzione. Le femministe radicali, da sempre contro l’ideologia gender, hanno interpretato questo come un tentativo di neutralizzare i riferimenti espliciti alla donna nella carta costituzionale.

Il governo aveva scelto proprio la giornata mondiale della donna come data simbolica, nel tentativo di far passare i due quesiti più facilmente, ed invece è successo il contrario. L'otto marzo sarà ricordato come il giorno in cui gli irlandesi non hanno cancellato la donna dalla loro Costituzione. Tra le organizzazioni religiose, solo la Chiesa cattolica e quella presbiteriana si sono battute in difesa della famiglia: anglicani, mussulmani ed ebrei non pervenuti. Forse in nome del politically correct?
I vescovi cattolici hanno scritto una bella lettera, spiegando le conseguenze delle due proposte. I presbiteriani sono stati gli unici, tra le denominazioni protestanti, ad opporsi pubblicamente mentre non c’è stata alcuna indicazione di voto da parte delle organizzazioni islamiche ma, io direi, per un motivo preciso. Il primo quesito intendeva equiparare le “relazioni durature” al matrimonio e, in questo modo, avrebbe conferito un riconoscimento legale alle unioni poligame. Il matrimonio poligamo, accettato dai musulmani, sarebbe rimasto illegale perché la Costituzione prevede esplicitamente solo due coniugi. Tuttavia, non è illegale per un musulmano coniugato all’estero con più di una moglie venire a vivere con esse in Irlanda. Uno degli effetti dell’emendamento costituzionale sarebbe stata l’equiparazione delle famiglie poligamiche a quelle basate sul matrimonio. Non è una sorpresa quindi che i musulmani non si siano opposti.

Come avete fatto a convincere l'elettorato?
Non avendo molte risorse, ci siamo concentrati sui dibatti televisivi e radiofonici, piuttosto che su spot televisivi, manifesti o volantini. Un momento culmine è stato il dibattito in prima serata sulla televisione pubblica, martedì scorso. Maria Steen, anche lei dell’Iona Institute, è stata il volto del No. Madre di cinque figli, architetto ed avvocato. Una donna di fede, molto attiva nella campagna antiabortista del 2018. Il Sì era invece rappresentato dal vice-primo ministro e leader del partito di maggioranza Fianna Fail, Michael Martin. Un politico di primo piano, esperto, che bene rappresentava l’establishment. È difficile quantificare l’efficacia di questi dibattiti ma, visti i risultati, non c’è dubbio che il contributo di Maria Steen è stato vincente.

A proposito di partiti: questo voto è una solenne sberla alla diarchia Fianna Fail - Fine Gael, ma anche un segnale per lo Sinn Fein e gli altri partiti, che sono ben distanti dal Paese reale, non trova? 
Si è trattato di un terremoto che ha riguardato l’intera classe politica. Il popolo è andato esattamente nella direzione opposta dei partiti. Non si è trattato solo di un voto antigovernativo, visto che i quesiti erano appoggiati anche dalle opposizioni. La distanza tra la realtà e la sua rappresentazione politica, o meglio, la mancanza di rappresentazione politica, non poteva essere più esplicita. È stato un voto totalmente antisistema, non previsto dai commentatori.

Si può guardare con ragionevole speranza al partito Aontù? 
Al momento è ancora piccolo ma rappresenta l’unica alternativa al pensiero unico dominante. La campagna referendaria ha dato molta visibilità al loro leader, Peadar Tóibín e, visti i risultati straordinari, sono convinto che anche il partito ne trarrà qualche profitto.

Questo voto così netto e chiaro può essere letto come un freno che gli irlandesi hanno voluto mettere alla deriva scristianizzante degli ultimi anni? 
Io sarei prudente nel trarre simili conclusioni. Il processo di scristianizzazione continua, ma il voto di venerdì rappresenta una cesura. È la fine di un decennio di riforme liberali che hanno comportato non solo la ridefinizione del matrimonio nel 2015, aprendo alle coppie omosessuali, e la legalizzazione dell’aborto nel 2018, ma tutta una serie di leggi e di decisioni politiche. Proprio in questi giorni una commissione parlamentare ha proposto la legalizzazione dell’eutanasia. Sembra che la classe politica irlandese, quasi a compensare un senso di inferiorità dovuta ad un passato troppo religioso, faccia di tutto per apparire la più anticristiana su temi sensibili. Il risultato dei referendum indica definitivamente un’altra direzione. Il popolo, almeno questa volta, ha detto no.

A partire dall'esito di questo referendum potrebbe iniziare una significativa ripresa, dopo anni difficilissimi, della presenza sociale e politica dei cattolici? 
Non c’è una formazione politica di esplicita ispirazione cattolica. Ci sono politici, non molti, che non si vergognano della propria fede, e c’è ancora un sentimento religioso diffuso ma questo non si traduce in una proposta politica. Ieri sera, festeggiando, ci chiedevamo come capitalizzare questo successo. C'è molto da riflettere, ma per il momento lasciateci godere questa bellissima vittoria.

EL REFERÉNDUM

Irlanda salva a la mujer y a la familia: “Como David contra Goliat”

La inesperada victoria del “No” en el referéndum irlandés para eliminar de la Constitución el derecho de la mujer a quedarse en casa para cuidar de la familia y la singularidad de la familia natural. La Brújula Cotidiana entrevista a Angelo Bottone, uno de los promotores del “No”: “Es una ruptura con la última década de reformas liberales”. 

En las intenciones de Leo Eric Varadkar, a la cabeza del Gobierno irlandés, se suponía que iba a ser una forma de celebrar el 8 de marzo; pero en realidad ha sido una especie de adelanto de la fiesta de san Patricio, patrón de Irlanda. Un referéndum sobre dos cuestiones que, de haber prosperado, habrían continuado con el drástico proceso de secularización en curso de Irlanda. La primera pregunta se refería a la definición de la familia, que, como en la Constitución italiana, se basa en el matrimonio. La propuesta de referéndum, rechazada por el 67,7% de los votantes, pretendía definir la familia como fundada en “el matrimonio y las relaciones duraderas”.

Esta expresión “relaciones duraderas”, en plural, habría incluido no sólo las llamadas “relaciones horizontales”, es decir, entre adultos, como la cohabitación, sino también las “verticales” entre padres solteros y sus hijos. El principal problema es que, a diferencia del matrimonio, que debe ser consensuado, público, registrado, etc., el Estado no sabe quién mantiene estas “relaciones duraderas”, no sabe cuándo empiezan ni cuándo terminan porque el registro civil no tiene en cuenta las cohabitaciones.

Paradójicamente, la inclusión de estas “relaciones duraderas” en la definición constitucional de familia habría otorgado un reconocimiento jurídico obligatorio incluso a quienes, por deseo explícito, no lo querían.

La segunda cuestión es algo más compleja. La redacción actual reconoce el valor de la vida doméstica de las mujeres para el bien común y dice que el Estado debe garantizar que “las madres no se vean obligadas a trabajar fuera del hogar por necesidad económica, negando así sus deberes en el hogar”. El lenguaje puede parecer anticuado. Algunos se quejan de que refleja la mentalidad de 1937, cuando se redactó la Constitución irlandesa, pero, con el tiempo, los tribunales han interpretado que el artículo se refiere no sólo a las madres, sino también a los padres.

Este artículo justifica la ayuda pública a quienes trabajan en casa y, a diferencia de lo que han escrito algunos periódicos italianos, no obliga a ninguna mujer a quedarse en casa. La propuesta de referéndum, rechazada por el 74,4% de los votantes, habría sustituido el artículo actual por uno completamente nuevo basado en el reconocimiento por el bien común de la atención que los miembros de la familia se prestan mutuamente. Esta propuesta ha sido criticada por todos aquellos que no estaban conformes con la redacción original y que además consideraban que la nueva era demasiado débil. Algunas organizaciones de defensa de los discapacitados, por ejemplo, argumentaron que de esta forma el Estado relegaría los cuidados a la familia en lugar de asumirlos.

El resultado del referéndum ha sido la -totalmente inesperada y sorprendente- aplastante victoria del “no”. Un resultado casi chocante, incluso a nivel internacional.

La Brújula Cotidiana ha entrevistado a uno de los intelectuales católicos más significativos de Irlanda, Angelo Bottone, profesor de filosofía e investigador del Iona Institute, un think tank provida y profamilia que ha desempeñado un papel destacado en la campaña a favor del no. El profesor Bottone es también presidente de “Solidaridad Familiar”, una asociación de familias católicas implicada también en la campaña del referéndum. “Solidaridad Familiar” es miembro de FAFCE, la federación europea de organizaciones familiares católicas.

Profesor Bottone, el resultado del referéndum ha sorprendido a muchos observadores. ¿Se lo esperaban los organizadores?
Sinceramente, no. El domingo pasado, los sondeos daban al “No” un 25% y a los indecisos un 35%. Lo único que nos daba esperanzas era ver cómo crecía el apoyo a nuestra posición entre los ciudadanos más informados. Se percibía un movimiento en la buena dirección, pero los días estaban contados. Los últimos debates convencieron a los indecisos y el resultado ha sido extraordinario. El porcentaje de votos negativos en la segunda pregunta (74,4%) es el más alto registrado en la historia de los referendos, mientras que la primera pregunta recibió el tercer porcentaje más alto (67,7%). Que es como decir que nunca antes el pueblo se había expresado con tanta claridad.

Teníais a todo el mundo en contra, como siempre: los medios de comunicación y casi todos los partidos con la excepción de Aontù, la pequeña formación que se ha separado del Sinn Fein precisamente por la secularización radical de la formación nacionalista histórica.
Cierto, y esto hace que el resultado sea aún más significativo. Todos los partidos tanto del Gobierno como de la oposición apoyaban ambos referendos. Aontù, el único partido de la oposición, sólo tiene un representante electo en el Parlamento y, a diferencia de los demás, no recibe financiación pública porque no ha superado el umbral necesario. Se puede decir que ha sido la batalla de David contra Goliat de verdad. Sobre todo porque la campaña del “Sí” estaba dirigida por varias organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro fuertemente financiadas por el Estado, mientras que en nuestro bando había pequeños grupos de inspiración cristiana y algunos senadores independientes, todos ellos bienintencionados pero con pocos recursos.

También hay que señalar la participación de algunas organizaciones feministas radicales en la campaña del “No”, organizaciones con las que estamos en desacuerdo por otras cuestiones. Estas feministas se han opuesto especialmente a la segunda pregunta, que habría eliminado la palabra “madre” y “mujer” de la Constitución. Las feministas radicales, que siempre han estado en contra de la ideología de género, lo interpretaron como un intento de neutralizar las referencias explícitas a la mujer en la Constitución.

El Gobierno había elegido el Día Mundial de la Mujer como fecha simbólica, pensando que las dos preguntas se aprobarían más fácilmente, y en lugar de eso ha ocurrido lo contrario. El 8 de marzo será recordado como el día en que los irlandeses no borraron a las mujeres de su Constitución. Entre las organizaciones religiosas, sólo la Iglesia Católica y la Iglesia Presbiteriana se levantaron en defensa de la familia: anglicanos, musulmanes y judíos no estuvieron presentes. ¿Quizás en nombre de la corrección política?
Los obispos católicos escribieron una bonita carta explicando las consecuencias de las dos propuestas. Los presbiterianos han sido los únicos, entre las confesiones protestantes, que se han opuesto públicamente, mientras que no ha habido ninguna indicación de voto por parte de las organizaciones islámicas, pero yo diría que por una razón específica. La primera pregunta pretendía equiparar las “relaciones duraderas” con el matrimonio y, de este modo, daría reconocimiento legal a las uniones polígamas. El matrimonio polígamo, aceptado por los musulmanes, habría seguido siendo ilegal porque la Constitución prevé explícitamente sólo dos cónyuges. Sin embargo, no es ilegal que un musulmán casado en el extranjero con más de una esposa venga a vivir con ellos a Irlanda. Uno de los efectos de la enmienda constitucional habría sido equiparar las familias polígamas a las basadas en el matrimonio. No es de extrañar, pues, que los musulmanes no se opusieran a ella.

¿Cómo habéis convencido al electorado?
Como no disponíamos de muchos recursos, nos concentramos en debates televisivos y radiofónicos, más que en anuncios de televisión, carteles o folletos. Lo más destacado fue el debate en horario de máxima audiencia en la televisión pública el martes pasado. Maria Steen, también del Iona Institute, ha sido la cara que representaba el “No”. Madre de cinco hijos, arquitecta y abogada. Una mujer de fe, muy activa en la campaña antiaborto de 2018. Por el contrario, el bando del “Sí” ha estado representado por el viceprimer ministro y líder del partido mayoritario Fianna Fail, Michael Martin. Un político prominente y experimentado que representó bien al establishment. Es difícil cuantificar la eficacia de estos debates pero, a la vista de los resultados, no cabe duda de que la contribución de Maria Steen ha sido mejor.

Hablando de partidos: esta votación es una solemne bofetada a la diarquía Fianna Fail - Fine Gael, pero también una señal para el Sinn Fein y los demás partidos, muy alejados del país real, ¿no cree?
Ha sido un terremoto que ha afectado a toda la clase política. La gente ha ido en la dirección exactamente opuesta a la de los partidos. Y no ha sido sólo un voto antigubernamental, ya que la oposición también apoyaba el referéndum. La distancia entre la realidad y su representación política, o mejor dicho, la falta de representación política, no ha podido ser más explícita. Ha sido un voto totalmente antisistema que los comentaristas no habían previsto.

¿Se puede mirar al partido Aontú con una esperanza razonable?
De momento sigue siendo pequeño, pero representa la única alternativa al pensamiento único dominante. La campaña del referéndum ha dado mucha visibilidad a su líder, Peadar Tóibín, y dados los extraordinarios resultados, estoy convencido de que el partido también se beneficiará de ello.

¿Puede leerse esta clara votación como un freno que los irlandeses querían poner a la deriva descristianizadora de los últimos años?
Yo sería prudente a la hora de sacar tales conclusiones. El proceso de descristianización continúa, pero el voto del viernes representa una fractura. Es el final de una década de reformas liberales que implicaron no sólo la redefinición del matrimonio en 2015, abriéndose a las parejas del mismo sexo, y la legalización del aborto en 2018, sino toda una serie de leyes y decisiones políticas. Justo en los últimos días, una comisión parlamentaria ha propuesto la legalización de la eutanasia. Parece que la clase política irlandesa, como para compensar un sentimiento de inferioridad debido a un pasado excesivamente religioso, se desvive por parecer la más anticristiana en temas delicados. El resultado del referéndum apunta definitivamente en otra dirección. El pueblo ha dicho no, al menos esta vez.

¿Podría el resultado de este referéndum iniciar una recuperación significativa, tras años muy difíciles, de la presencia social y política de los católicos?
No hay ninguna formación política de inspiración católica explícita. Hay políticos, no muchos, que no se avergüenzan de su fe. Además sigue existiendo un sentimiento religioso muy extendido, pero esto no se traduce en una propuesta política. Anoche mientras lo estábamos celebrando nos preguntábamos cómo capitalizar este éxito. Hay mucho que reflexionar, pero por ahora, vamos a disfrutar de esta fantástica victoria.

Ireland: proposed constitutional changes on definition of family and role of women rejected, FAFCE is satisfied

“The Irish people have chosen to promote the family and protect womanhood at the referendums by rejecting the constitutional proposals”, said the President of the Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe (FAFCE), Vincenzo Bassi, welcoming the result of the Irish referendum and speaking of a return to “common sense”. 

Two questions were put to the popular vote: the first question proposed changing the definition of the family in the Constitution, currently based on marriage, by enlarging it to include all “durable relationships”. Which, according to FAFCE, was a “vague concept”. The question was indeed rejected by 67.69% of voters. The second question, known as the “care referendum”, proposed a second amendment to the Constitution by removing the reference to a woman’s work in the home as a good that cannot be provided by the State and as the freedom of women to work in the home. 73.93% of the vote was against the amendment. Mr Bassi spoke of a “shock result” and congratulated Family Solidarity, an association linked to FAFCE, which, together with the “Iona Institute and Lawyers For No”, supported the campaign for the repeal of the amendment. 

The President of the Irish Association, Angelo Bottone, expressed the hope that the Irish politicians “have heard the voices of families loud and clear. Instead of taking us for granted, they should pursue policies in favour of the family, mothers, and marriage”.

Irish referendum on family and motherhood: “common sense is back”

Brussels, 11th of March 2024

The people of the Republic of Ireland rejected proposed constitutional changes during two referendum votes on Friday. Family networks were crucial to the successful NoNo campaign, whereas the failed YesYes campaign was supported by almost all political parties.

The Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe (FAFCE) is pleased with the result of the two referendum votes in Ireland on Friday. Vincenzo Bassi, President of FAFCE, said: “Common sense is back. The Irish people have chosen to promote the family and protect womanhood at the referendums by rejecting the constitutional proposals.”  

Known as the ‘family referendum’, the first of the two constitutional proposals was to change the definition of family, currently based on marriage, by including the vague concept of  ‘durable relationships’. The ‘no’ vote achieved a 67.69% vote. Only one constituency out of 39 returned a ‘yes’ vote.

“The absurdity of equating marriage to ‘durable relationships’ in defining the family was rejected by popular common sense”, said FAFCE President Vincenzo Bassi. 

The second proposal, known as the ‘care referendum’, was to change the wording of the constitution that currently provides freedom for women in families to be care-givers. The ‘no’ vote achieved 73.93%. Every constituency in the Republic of Ireland returned a ‘no’ vote.

A significant factor in the shock result was the campaigning of FAFCE member Family Solidarity. Organisations that also campaigned for a NoNo vote included Iona Institute and Lawyers For No.

Angelo Bottone, Chairman of Family Solidarity, said: “The entire political establishment of Ireland threw the weight of their resources behind their campaigns and lost. We hope they have heard the voices of families loud and clear. Instead of taking us for granted, they should pursue policies in favour of the family, mothers, and marriage.”

Vincenzo Bassi, President of FAFCE, commented: “We congratulate Family Solidarity, active FAFCE member organisation over many years. Their example to Europe is that family associations can effectively network with other civil society organisations to promote the family – and win.”