Catholic church advises Belfast school to disband Amnesty branch
The rift between the Catholic church and Amnesty International over the organisation’s new policy on sexual and reproductive rights appears to be growing, and it’s taking on a local dimension too. Henry McDonald reports in the Guardian, and Patsy McGarry confirms in the Irish Times [subs req], that a Belfast grammar school in the Down and Connor diocese has been advised by the church to disband its Amnesty group. The issue appears to be due for discussion at next month’s general meeting of the Irish Bishops’ Conference. From the Guardian report
In relation to the banning of school Amnesty groups, a church spokesman told the Guardian: “An inquiry did come from a school principal, on behalf of the teacher who is in charge of the school Amnesty group, asking for guidance on the future of the Amnesty group in the school. The advice to the school is that it would be inappropriate for the school branch to continue in existence in the context of Amnesty International’s new position regarding abortion.”
Adds While there’s no confirmation of which school is referred to in the reports, here’s an example of a well established and active Amnesty International Group within a voluntary grammar school in the diocese, in the Catholic Maintained Schools sector, which could be affected by any general directive from the Irish Bishops’ Conference.
This is typical of the ongoing dictatorial attitude of the Catholic Church that is repulsing young people in their droves. What of all the good work that Amnesty does? As the founder member of an Amnesty group in a ‘Catholic’ grammar school some years ago, I can certainly say that more benefit was brought to people’s lives through involvement in said group than through any involvement in religious charades at the school.
The Church in Ireland isn’t exactly in any position to be lecturing anyone on human rights.
Hopefully head teachers will have the gonads to simply ignore this pathetic guidance as they must already do on issues such as contraception.
It was a stupid decision of the church to withdraw funding from Amnesty with which it is mostly in agreement.
They’d need some serious stones to go against an order from on high, particularly as many of the heads in question have a dog collar or habit… I suspect their positions would become untenable pretty quickly.
Any idea which school it is…?
To provide another side to this discussion, just for the sake of argument, allow me to ask a question…
Are all the larger human rights problems in the world so well in hand that Amnesty had to enter into this arena, knowing it would alienate a not-insignificant ally? Has Amnesty solved so many larger problems they had to go looking for something new to get into?
As for the Church’s advice, so long as it is their money and their facility, they are well within their rights to give this guidance, consistant with their larger position.
>>Are all the larger human rights problems in the world so well in hand that Amnesty had to enter into this arena, knowing it would alienate a not-insignificant ally? Has Amnesty solved so many larger problems they had to go looking for something new to get into?<<
So if asked a question about their policy on abortion following a rape Amnesty should just have kept quiet?
To reverse your question. Has the catholic church decided that the important work that amnesty does in defending human rights now been taken care of.
Agree that the church have a right to spend their money as they see fit. I hope head teachers also exercise their right to ignore their guidance.
Answered my own question:
http://www.knock.co.uk/ItemDetail.aspx?id=e86f9782-3ea4-49cf-9cc4-34d1e7e34266&mid=2113
Blowing smoke provides only minimal heat and no light, gram. Besides, it is rude to respond to a question with a question.
That said, I gather, by your response, the answer you are striving to avoid is “no, Amnesty has not solved other, larger human rights issues.” Now, knowing that this change in policy would not be well received in Catholic circles, what was the utility, the benefit of this policy change? What is accomplished with this policy? All that is done is some American liberals get to spin the wheel of the organization to the left, potential allies are alienated and nothing concrete is accomplished.
gram: “To reverse your question. Has the catholic church decided that the important work that amnesty does in defending human rights now been taken care of.”
I am sure they don’t. That said, I am certain that only the most ignorant of individuals would have thought that this change in policy wouldn’t be a deal-breaker for the Catholic Church. The Church will soldier on, but I suspect this unnecessary fracture was avoidable.
AI chose an action and, perforce, the consequences arising from that action.
Which school is it?
Heck-
See Jamie’s link. I can see where the Church is coming from- those campaigns they are running at that school are clearly the work of the devil. Not.
Surely the Church has bigger fish to fry. It’s about time they grew up.
Just to point something out. The Catholic Church has not stopped funding Amnesty International because the Catholic Church never provided any funding to the organisation. Individual Catholics did, do and will continue to do, but the Church as an organisation never did.
Amnesty has changed its position not because of liberals going out of control, but because of the use of mass rape as a weapon in Darfur and the Congo, leading to the abuse, murder, intimidation and violence against women.
It’s remarkably easy for the Catholic Church, whose history in Ireland is full more of carrying out human rights abuses than opposing them, to complain about this from its ivory tower in the Vatican. Bit more difficult in refugee camps in warzones.
Amnesty and the Catholic Church can continue to work together on the 99.99% of things they agree on, or the Catholic Church can work against the world’s biggest human rights organisation and try to undermine it.
A small feminist clique in Amnesty in UK instigated this policy change. The sort of people who regard the Church as the enemy, rather than a support. It was difficult enough for Catholics to support Amnesty when they were “neutral” on abortion – i.e. they had no opinion on the rights of an unborn child. Now it is impossible to support them. Personally I resigned last month and I think all Catholics (and anyone who believes in the human rights of unborn children) should do so also. And no way can official Catholic bodies such as schools have anything to do with them anymore. They should do what some Australian schools are doing and form their own human rights group.
Anyone for “Amnesty for Life”?
Good one splurge. Imagine for a moment that you have been gang raped and discover shortly afterwards that you’re pregnant. You then discover that your right to an abortion is being denied by a bunch of bachelors who presided over the rape and abuse of children amid subsequent serial denials and cover-up.
You and I can only imagine the suffering such women endure in places like Darfur. The very least this sorry church can do is facilitate freedom of consience.
And if they’re so touchy about associating with organisations like Amnesty, exactly why are they accepting school funding from the UK govt, who facilitate on-demand abortion on a daily basis? Something stinks.
>>That said, I gather, by your response, the answer you are striving to avoid is “no, Amnesty has not solved other, larger human rights issues.†Now, knowing that this change in policy would not be well received in Catholic circles, what was the utility, the benefit of this policy change?<<
Dread maybe I need to be a bit less subtle in future.
AI’s policy is fully consistent with their human rights agenda. Your initial question was stupid because the abortion issue is a human rights issue. Do you suggest AI goes forward with the statement “Working to protect SOME human rights worldwide”?
What’s the problem with feminists then Spurge? Are you male or female?
NMC — you have to understand — feminism = equality. RC cheerleaders like splurge find such a concept terrifying.
Frank Little: “Amnesty has changed its position not because of liberals going out of control, but because of the use of mass rape as a weapon in Darfur and the Congo, leading to the abuse, murder, intimidation and violence against women. ”
And what, pray tell, does this change, in concrete terms, accomplish. The janjaweed have already made clear they are apathetic regarding the disapproval of the UN and western nations. Does AI imagine that their disapproval will be the straw that turns aside the flood?
Splurge:A small feminist clique in Amnesty in UK instigated this policy change. <<
Jesus wept. It seems that Dread and Splurge would rather Amnesty act as hopocrites and just ignored this obvious human rights issue.
gram: “AI’s policy is fully consistent with their human rights agenda. Your initial question was stupid because the abortion issue is a human rights issue. Do you suggest AI goes forward with the statement “Working to protect SOME human rights worldwideâ€?”
First of all, the lack of abortion facilities in Darfur is not the problem. The janjaweed are the problem. Mass rapes follow the janjaweed the way pestilence follows a flood. Eliminate the janjaweed, you eliminate the problem. Rape, under the Islamic beliefs, is a right of a conqueorer, which given the women-folk of the conquored to the victors.
On a lesser note, the perpetrators and the victims in Darfur are both Muslim. Abortion as a solution to these populations is a hard sell.
Besides, in times of crisis, triage in the appropriate response. Stop the killing first, worry about pushing western liberal values and choices on the native population later.
gram: “Jesus wept. It seems that Dread and Splurge would rather Amnesty act as hopocrites and just ignored this obvious human rights issue. ”
No, but I think that the notion that the lack of Planned Parenthood facilities in Sudan is a low priority item, compared to the ethnic cleansing, is muddled thinking at best.
Crocodiles first, then worry about draining the swamp.
I caught the tail end of a discussion on this on today’s Talk Back. A female guest was arguing that Amnesty International should be like Alcoholics Anonymous and confine itself to one issue. I believe she meant human rights abuses.
I wonder if she also felt it was a good idea for the Catholic Church to confine itself to a single issue, namely piloting souls to heaven.
It seems to me that when Churches meddle in temporal affairs they get it all arseways, AIDS in subSaharan Africa being a good example, now rape in Darfur.
Frank Little made excellent points in his 3.47pm post
its worth pointing out that the majority of abortions are a means of contraception rather than dealing with rape or incest.
In Darfur?
Gerry Lvs Castro (the clue is in the name) wrote “Imagine for a moment that you have been gang raped and discover shortly afterwards that you’re pregnant. You then discover that your right to an abortion is being denied by a bunch of bachelors who presided over the rape and abuse of children amid subsequent serial denials and cover-up.”
Imagine for a moment you have been conceived in Darfur, your mother a victim of rape, your father a monster. Is there anyone will care for you? Ah, but here comes Amnesty International and Medicins sans Frontiers, surely they’ll protect me. Fraid not buddy – sharp knife for you.
The problem I have with most feminists (not all, for there are Feminists for Life) is they begin by talking about equality and a short skip and a jump later they want the right to kill unborn children, the great irony of course, being that most victims of abortion are girls!
So drag out all your usual old crap about child abuse, celibacy, etc – why not throw in some rubbish about Vatican finances when you’re at it and a bit of the Inquisition. In fact lets just call it Popery for short – same anti-Catholic rant we always get when any Catholic issue is discussed and none of it relevant to the issue in question.
And since when is abortion “contraception”?
SPURGE
It’s not a catholic issue. It’s a human issue, and in Sudan it’s an Islamic issue. What Vatican
finances have to do with things I’m not so sure, although I do know of a number of priests that have anally raped young boys, which is obviously ok because boys can’t get up the pole. However if they did get pregnant I reckon a few priests would have dragged their victims away to Scotland for a termination.
none of it relevant to the issue in question.
WTF has the Spanish inquisition got to do with abortion in Darfur, in light of your respect for relevance?
“Eliminate the janjaweed, you eliminate the problem.”
Wish it was that simple. As well as this, the situation in southern Sudan looks like it might dwarf the horrors in Darfur should the peace treaty between north and south fail.
Gum,
I fear you’re correct about Darfur. The way I see it, if the UN or another international force won’t protect the women from the horror of gang rape then the least we can do is to spare them the added humiliation of bearing their rapists’ children.
I may be coming at this from completely the wrong angle and not with the same knee jerk responses I have seen here above.
But if the Church teaches that abortion is wrong and then an organisation that it has had close involvement with for many year decided that actually abortion is ok, does the Church have any other option but to distance itself and let it’s members know that it is doing so and advising them to do likewise.
If tomorrow morning Peter Robinson stood up in Stormount and give his option that actually a United Ireland would be a good thing and he would be working towards that would Ian Paisley be correct in saying he did not agree with Peter’s stance and would advise his party members not to rally behind Peter.
I have I must admit lost my good feeling with Amnesty a few years ago, here in the UK when ever there was any trial involving alledged terrorists we would get the UK rep who would simply whine on and on about alledged abuse of the legal system ad-nausium and not really much on those who commit acts of terror. So really the abortion card simply nailed the lid on it
But as to the threads above just goes to show same old punch up same old suspects
overhere,
Know what you mean about the terrorists but let’s not forget that Amnesty doesn’t (and can’t afford to) take sides. I wasn’t aware its representative whined.
Lastly, are you saying that the British legal system is perfect and above criticism?
overhere,
Before I forget, Amnesty never said “abortion is ok”.
Catholic church acts in accordance with its doctrine shock.
A lot of false outrage here on this thread, and using this as an excuse to ride hobby horses. I’d be more outraged at the hypocrisy if Amnesty – an incredibly flawed and often misguided organisation – was still facilitated in Catholic schools after this.
Garibaldy,
Perhaps you could explain this instead of simply throwing it about. Tell us why you believe they’re hypocrites.
Dawkins,
I’ll give an example. During the NATO bombing of Kosovo, and the cleansing of the area of Serbs by the KLA – who the Americans had only recently themselves described as drug dealing, women-trafficking terrorists – what was the main Amnesty campaign in Ireland? Wife beating in Russia.
Then of course there is the UN Declaration on Human Rights which discusses the right to housing, subsistence etc – don’t recall seeing Amnesty jumping up and down too much about homelessness and unemployment.
Amnesty lets lots of the liberal middle classes feel like they are doing something to address the issue of human rights without ever stopping to think seriously about the issue.
I could go on. But I couldn’t be bothered.
Splurge: ‘So drag out all your usual old crap about child abuse, celibacy, etc – why not throw in some rubbish about Vatican finances when you’re at it and a bit of the Inquisition.’
Well I’m sure the tens of thousands of victims of clerical abuse will concur with your notion that their ordeals were ‘old crap’ splurge. Nice one.
I was alluding to the rank hypocrisy of an organisation overseen entirely by men who seek to dictate to women how they should behave in the wake of multiple rape. An organisation who seek to distance themselves from Amnesty over this issue, yet willingly accept funding from a govt who facilitate abortion on demand. An organisation who as nmc stated are happy to cover up the rape of children by their own priests yet offer no hope to women in desperate situations.
You’re attempting to defend the indefensible in your support for this hopelessly corrupt, homophobic, sexist edifice, and frankly you’re not making much of a job of it.
Dawkins: “It seems to me that when Churches meddle in temporal affairs they get it all arseways, AIDS in subSaharan Africa being a good example, now rape in Darfur. ”
Gee, Dawkins, its not as if the African governments haven’t made a hash of it as well — the President of South Africa proclaiming that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, another claiming to have the cure for AIDS.
And, frankly, the only “church” involved with rape in Darfur is the Muslim faith.
Dawkins: “And since when is abortion “contraceptionâ€?”
The overwhelming majority of abortions do not relate to incest or rape. Nor do they relate to the “health of the mother” in any real physical sense. What is left that is not elective, ex post facto contraception?
sorry for asking again but I am not in belfast and don’t know the details. Which grammar school is it.
st Malachys?
fortwilliam?
Dawkins: “I fear you’re correct about Darfur. The way I see it, if the UN or another international force won’t protect the women from the horror of gang rape then the least we can do is to spare them the added humiliation of bearing their rapists’ children. ”
Come to think of it, if some past investigatons are any indication, a UN presence might just expand the number of rapes.
That said, the odds of opening a busy abortion clinic in Islamic Sudan is about the same of the proverbial snowball in hell.
This issue was always going to be emotive – not least because of the RC Church’s reaction. I’m finding myself at odds with some of the commentators here I’ve largely agreed with over the years on a wide variety of issues.
Let’s set the issue of the rights and wrongs of abortion aside for a moment – but acknowledge it as a reality relevant to life (and death – if you like) in our society here. There’s no need to travel as far as Dafur – though those issues are very relevant to debate on abortion.
Take a step back and think of the issue, the RC Church’s early response to it and whether it is something that should be banned or discussed.
I went to a Jesuit school and there was nothing the Jesuits liked better than engaging with social controversy. Though I often disagreed with them I rarely left such a debate without grounds for serious reflection.
The RC Church is entitled to its view – but it has a responsibility to explain that view, engage in debate and not stifle It – particularly when it comes to engaging with children and formative minds. It’s an opportunity for the RC Church to explain its understanding of life – and answer questions.
Banning and excluding are the failed policies of the church (churches!) past. It smacks of DeValera’s Ireland – long since consigned as the failed wet-dream of a retrograde politician.
This issue isn’t about abortion – it’s about discussion and taboos. The RC Church is entitled to its view and obligated to explain it. Banning Amnesty from RC schools is not an issue of whether they’re entitled to or not. It most certainly isn’t a right arising from “so long as it is their money and their facility, they are well within their rights to give this guidance, consistent with their larger positionâ€.
Dread C. – this issue obligates the RC Church to engage and explain. Banning is no way forward. If a religious belief means anything at all it is to be found in the quality of the believer’s conscience.
Typical Catholic Church in my opinion. How dare young people actually think for themselves and have a social conscience. If the teachers in this school had any collective balls they’ll tell the church to stuck their “advice” up their arses.
The fact is AI produced a lot of the banners and materials for Belfast Pride, not the Jesus Is a Fag Banner I stress to point out, and the RCC is sore about that. From my point of view, as a bisexual man, gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered people are the last minority it’s still ok for society to be biggoted towards. AI where simply following their mandate of supporting human rights for all humans.
As for comments about abortion as far as i know they don’t have a published view on it and posters threw it up as a massive red herring. I guess that unless you’re out with the pointy hat and pitch fork protesting against something you’re suporting it.
Rubicon: ” this issue obligates the RC Church to engage and explain. Banning is no way forward. If a religious belief means anything at all it is to be found in the quality of the believer’s conscience. ”
Mayhap, but the RC church is in no way obligated to support or aid organizations whose beliefs are not in agreement with their own. The Church is under no obligation to share it’s resources — its member’s time or its physical plant — to support AI. Likewise, just as the decision to move away from an abortion neutral to a pro-abortion stance was largely autocratic and without much in the way of introspection or debate within AI, per the previous thread on the matter, why would the RC Church be under an obligation not to be equally autocratic, particularly as it, unlike AI, is an expressly hierarchical organization?
>Eliminate the janjaweed, you eliminate the problem. <
So what do the women do while they wait for liberation? Lie down and think of Darfur?
“#
Rubicon: “ this issue obligates the RC Church to engage and explain. Banning is no way forward. If a religious belief means anything at all it is to be found in the quality of the believer’s conscience. “
Mayhap, but the RC church is in no way obligated to support or aid organizations whose beliefs are not in agreement with their own. The Church is under no obligation to share it’s resources—its member’s time or its physical plant—to support AI. Likewise, just as the decision to move away from an abortion neutral to a pro-abortion stance was largely autocratic and without much in the way of introspection or debate within AI, per the previous thread on the matter, why would the RC Church be under an obligation not to be equally autocratic, particularly as it, unlike AI, is an expressly hierarchical organization?
Posted by Dread Cthulhu on Sep 18, 2007 @ 08:36 PM”
There is a difference between support and actively trying to harm them. The RCC in this case is encouraging the school not to allow the club to exist on the schools grounds.
>Mayhap, but the RC church is in no way obligated to support or aid organizations whose beliefs are not in agreement with their own. <<
I don’t think anyone thinks the church should be forced to support anything it doesn’t want to. We on the otherhand are free to highlight it’s glaring hipocracy namely its intolerance of all forms of abortion with it’s tolerance of paedophilia.
gram: “So what do the women do while they wait for liberation? Lie down and think of Darfur? ”
And do you honestly think that opening a “Planned Parenthood” clinic in the refugee camps is going to help the scenario?
The procedure is against the beliefs of both the aggressors and the victims. Assuming the Darfurians don’t run them out of town on a rail, all you will accomplish is give the Janjaweed’s backers a propaganda victory they can exploit to excite the thugs for more raids, since the presence of the abortion clinic will be a clear demonstration of the corrupt and non-Islamic nature of the Darfurians.
On a simply practical note, do you imagine that such a clinic could be established without the presence of a sufficiently capable force to prevent the janjaweed from destroying it? Like I said, if this is a crisis, treat it like a crisis — triage — solve the most crucial problems first. The lack of abortion clinics is not one of the most crucial problems in Darfur.
Rubicon: “There is a difference between support and actively trying to harm them. The RCC in this case is encouraging the school not to allow the club to exist on the schools grounds. ”
Their physical plant, Pounder, ergo, their rules.
The Church has chosen a position against abortion. As such, they should not be obligated, directly or indirectly, to support groups that approve or promulgate abortion.
Once again I point out that the abortion thing is a red herring. I reitterate that AI have no defined opinion on abortion. They chose not to comment on this, are you saying that unless you are against something you are supporting it, you don’t believe in abstaining a point? I’m not asking the RCC to support AI, thats their choice, but they are advising their school not to allow their students to support AI, thats very different and hippocritical.
gram: ” don’t think anyone thinks the church should be forced to support anything it doesn’t want to. We on the otherhand are free to highlight it’s glaring hipocracy namely its intolerance of all forms of abortion with it’s tolerance of paedophilia. ”
Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelins or virtues that ones does not hold or possess.
Ergo, the Church, while perhaps reprehensible, is not hypocritical in their rejection of abortion, gram, even in light of their other sins, including the protection and reassignment of paedophilic priests.
Pounder: “Once again I point out that the abortion thing is a red herring. I reitterate that AI have no defined opinion on abortion. They chose not to comment on this, are you saying that unless you are against something you are supporting it,”
Actually, if you read my first post on the list, I posited a question, primarily to keep this thread from becoming the rather pedestrian and predictable Catholic bashing it was shaping up to be.
That said, to quote the original post of the thread…
“The rift between the Catholic church and Amnesty International over the organisation’s new policy on sexual and reproductive rights appears to be growing, and it’s taking on a local dimension too.”
Likewise, to quote the AI press release in the previous thread on this matter:
“Amnesty International committed itself to strengthening the organization’s work on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and other factors contributing to women’s recourse to abortion and affirmed the organization’s policy on selected aspects on abortion (to support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure women have access to health care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women’s access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger), emphasizing that women and men must exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion, discrimination and violence.†“
Just to point out that I’ve updated the original post.
Dread.
While there is some merit in the “Their physical plant, ergo, their rules” argument.
There is also a Board of Governors. And the administration of public funds through the CCMS.
Additionally, in the example Jamie provided earlier, there’s an Amnesty International group in a school in that diocese which had been set up by the students themselves.
And if I can just make a general point to commenters.. could we try to keep to the actual topic? AI’s policy was dealt with in a previous post – linked above.
Pete Baker: “Additionally, in the example Jamie provided earlier, there’s an Amnesty International group in a school in that diocese which had been set up by the students themselves. ”
Assuming they do not allow the inmates to run the asylum, all student groups would require a teacher-advisor and the approval of some higher authority, would they not?
I’m not saying its right, I’m not saying its fair. What I am saying is that its the Church’s perogative. Likewise, as I have noted on other occasions, the Church, when thwarted in its perogative where it has some hand in personnel decisions, will see their will donel for good or for ill.
Pete Baker: “And if I can just make a general point to commenters.. could we try to keep to the actual topic? AI’s policy was dealt with in a previous post – linked above. ”
I would humbly suggest (since I wouldn’t dare argue with the mods…) that the two are linked, after a fashion — or do you imagine the Church would be feeling cranky re: AI without the change in policy. The policy change at AI, to my mind, is the cause, the policy “guidance” provided by the RC church is the effect.