A new approach

Crossin and Bodin argue in favour of a health-based, Te Tiriti aligned approach that not only reduces harm but saves tax money and police time." (Crossin, R. Boden, J., 2023)

A useful definition of drug ‘harm' is offered by Crossin, Cleland and Boden (2023): (Crossin R, Cleland L, Wilkins C, et al., 2023)

They say harms can be categorised as those that impact on individuals who use a drug, and those which impact upon others, such as families, communities or broader society.

There is a complex interrelationship between harms.

Drug-related convictions and other related harms, for example, tend to further disadvantage vulnerable individuals and communities.

In addition, the illegality of some drugs can add to any harms accruing from merely using the drug.

The current drug laws

What evidence is there that our current drug laws are not working well?

Taking the example of cannabis, there is research clearly showing that:

"an arrest/conviction for a cannabis related offence does not reduce the use of cannabis, with up to 95 percent either increasing their use or continuing with the same level of cannabis use following arrest." (Fergusson, D M. Swain-Campbell, N R. Horwood, L J., 2003)

In addition, as Crossin and Boden point out:

"Drug harm is being created and increased by our drug laws.

"A person charged with drug possession can lose their job, be isolated from their family and friends, be stigmatised and shamed. "In short, they lose the things needed to live a meaningful and happy life, and stigma creates a barrier to seeking help.

"This creates a cycle of harm that impacts a person, their family, their community." (Crossin, R. Boden, J., 2023)

Crossin and Bodin's concerns echo that of others such as Lynne Bowyer and Deborah Stevens:

"A drug conviction has serious repercussions for a person's future possibilities; it narrows life opportunities, making it more difficult to get employment, to travel and to move into more life-affirming and sustainable social spaces.

"Further, if imprisoned, individuals are exposed to more ‘hardened' criminals and little is done to address the impetus for drug use.

"Such negative repercussions have been noted by the Law Commission, who state that individuals who receive criminal convictions as a result of their possession or use often experience levels of harm quite disproportionate to their offending.

"Extending beyond the individuals involved, the harms from a punitive approach to drug use also become woven into families and communities, becoming entrenched with each generation, all of which further alienates those concerned.

"Statistics show that many of those convicted on charges relating to cannabis possession and use are young people from already marginalised groups. (Bowyer, L. Stevens, D., 2019)

In short, "a significant proportion of harm of some substances is caused by the legal status of the drug, rather than from the drug itself." (Vincent, 2023)

Punishment vs justice

Catholic ethicist Dan Fleming, who is Group Manager of Ethics and Formation, St Vincent's Health Australia, recently shared a story relayed to him by one of the addiction medicine specialists from St Vincent's Healthcare Group, Australia. (Fleming, 2023)

A young man from a non-English speaking background struggles with anxiety. Using cannabis helps him curb his emotional turmoil.

He gets caught buying for personal use from someone he knows. He's given a low-level drug dealing offence, and a criminal record.

His family - good people - are thrown into turmoil.

His mother is ashamed and in tears when she sees him. His father and brothers are angry. They disown him.

The community are destabilised, and the family becomes isolated.

The young man can't get a job because of his record.

All of this makes him more anxious. More anxious. More drug use.

He found his way to our addiction medicine service, and very slowly things began to turn around.

But the starting point for providing our help to him is not where it could have been.

We were not caring for a man who needed help dealing with anxiety and who was desperate for some advice on how to manage that stress without drugs.

We were now caring for a young man cut off from family and friends, who was struggling to find a job because of his criminal record, and who was wrestling with his inner turmoil at his family's anguish.

That's a much harder place from which to begin a healing journey.

Compounding problem

Fleming, commenting on the Australian context, which employs a similar approach to Aotearoa New Zealand. It also concludes:

"Rather than acting as a solution to a problem, our solidarity with those we serve has taught us that our current criminal justice framework for illicit drugs compounds problems, undermining human flourishing in an ongoing way, particularly for those who have a substance use disorder."

Drawing on Martin Luther Jr's commentary on the parable of the Good Samaritan, Fleming argues that:

"we ought to fuse concern for attending to a person's immediate wounds and their long- term needs with offering our voice and expertise to bring about the reforms needed to prevent them from becoming wounded in the first place."

To paraphrase Fleming, it's about using our power to effect change, being committed to changing the road so it's not so dangerous anymore, while still caring for the one who is hurting.

The Referendum

Just three years ago, New Zealanders participated in a poorly thought-out referendum that asked people whether or not they would "support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill".

The Bill was ultimately rejected by a small margin.

That led various politicians, including the then Minister of Health Andrew Little (who readily agrees the current approach is causing harm) to suggest that there is now no social licence for drug law reform. (Radio New Zealand, 2022)

Commentators such as Crossin and Bodin, who are specialists in the field, reject the idea that there is no licence for reform. In their words:

"New Zealanders were asked a specific question about legalising cannabis ...

"We were not asked about whether we supported decriminalisation, or increased funding for harm reduction, or expanding programmes like Te Ara Oranga that are proven to reduce drug harm without criminalisation.

"All of these actions must be taken, and we do not need another referendum to do so. (Crossin, R. Boden, J., 2023)

A 2019 amendment allows the police to exercise discretion as to whether to prosecute anyone caught in possession of a controlled drug,.

That amendment led some to describe the current state of affairs as approximating decriminalisation, there is plentiful evidence to show that it is not applied equitably:

"Maori, those with a previous arrest record for non- cannabis related offences and those reporting involvement in violent/property offending were more likely to be arrested or convicted than other cohort members having the same level of cannabis use."

(Fergusson, D M. Swain-Campbell, N R. Horwood, L J., 2003)

Examples of an alternative health-based approach are already in operation.

Court system

Pat Snedden writes passionately about Aotearoa's three specialist Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Courts located in Auckland and Hamilton.

"The court is solutions focused and aims to ‘break the cycle' by treating the causes of offending.

It targets offenders who would otherwise be imprisoned, but whose offending is being fuelled by their unresolved ‘high-needs' issues of addiction or dependency.

"They are also assessed as being ‘high-risk' in terms of their non-compliance: in other words, past sentences and court orders made have not changed their situation.

"Consequently, they are on a treadmill of offending, typically being punished but then going on to reoffend.

"As an alternative to prison, the court applies evidence-based best practices in a potentially transformative programme of case management, treatment, drug testing, monitoring and mentoring. (Snedden, 2023)

Changing the law

To conclude, in 2020, in the leadup to the Cannabis Referendum, the Nathaniel Centre wrote:

"There are good arguments to be made that the current laws and regulations around the possession and use of recreational cannabis are not working well; that certain groups of people are more disadvantaged by these laws than others, including the way the law is applied.

"Saying ‘NO' to legalising recreational cannabis will still allow us the opportunity in the future to revisit our current laws, including the possibility of some form of decriminalisation.

"That opportunity exists now. It needs to be taken up by our politicians using a cross-party approach. There is no shortage of quality information for them to consider.

"The argument for adopting a strong health-based approach and moving away from the current largely punitive approach is supported by a range of robust research.

"Without minimising the harm that can be caused directly by drugs, it is undeniable that a significant proportion of drug-related harm is caused by our current approach to regulating them.

"Let's first agree that the current laws and approaches to drugs are not working and that they are disproportionately affecting some of our most vulnerable populations. Let's then agree to have a mature discussion about an alternative approach.

"Decriminalisation offers an alternative path for reforming our drug laws; for moving from a criminal-based approach to a health-based one focused on the reality of people's lives and a desire for individual, whanau and social flourishing as well as greater social cohesion.

"Whether or not there is a social licence for reform, it is about doing the right and the best thing, and that's what politicians are elected to do.

"Furthermore, from a Christian-Catholic perspective, and in line with Pope Francis' recent update to the Statutes which shape the way we do theology, it's also an expression of "intellectual charity" which recognises and prioritises the questions and needs of those "on the existential peripheries".

• John Kleinsman (PhD) is director of the Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics.

The New Zealand Catholic bishops' Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics is providing a series of weekly briefs for parish newsletters.

The first brief says:

The End of Life Choice Act is not an option of 'last resort.'

• It will not just apply to the 'exceptionally difficult cases'.
• It does not require that a person first make use of available treatments or counselling, nor that they first receive palliative care.
• A person does not need to be in physical pain.

If euthanasia becomes legal in NZ, people will access it because they think they lack other choices.

• Even though quality palliative care is effective, there is no corresponding legal right to access palliative care.
• Under current law, people can already say 'no' to treatments and can receive whatever level of pain relief they need. These days, no-one need die in pain.

The EOLC Act is badly drafted and seriously flawed. Whatever one's views about the idea of euthanasia, it is not 'compassion' to vote for a dangerous law.

See also:

• Risky Laws
• Vote Safe

Authorised by John Kleinsman, 15 Guildford Terrace, Thorndon, Wellington

The latest issue of the Nathaniel Centre Report is also available online.

It has articles that include scrutiny of the euthanasia and cannabis referendums.

Click here to read Nathaniel Centre Report 61 in PDF format.

Meanwhile in Australia several states are also debating whether to legalise euthanasia.

The state of Victoria, where voluntary assisted dying (VAD) was legalised a year ago, has reported more than ten times the anticipated number of deaths.

Victoria's Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board reported 124 deaths by assisted suicide and euthanasia during its first year.

Source

• catholic.org.nz
• catholic.org.nz
• thetablet.co.uk
• Image: 3.bp.blogspot.com

But the conference specifically takes issue with the proposed End of Life Choice Act that is the subject of the impending referendum.

"I think it will change the way we are as a society ... how we think about old people, how we think about people with a disability."

Kleinsman says as Catholics they are not interested in "imposing" their beliefs on others, and they understand there is a case to be made for euthanasia.

However, he pointed to several issues within the Act of concern to the Catholic bishops, including the absence of a 'cooling-off period', which he believes makes it a "dangerous" piece of legislation.

He says that in a context where elder abuse is rife and "rising" despite a "very clear, robust law" prohibiting such abuse, the question:

"If we can't keep [them] safe now, how do we think we could keep them safe?" has to be asked if such a law was to pass.

The Christian church promotes the idea of autonomy and self-choice, but "we are not individuals in isolation and assisted dying is "not the only way to have a dignified death," he says.

Kleinsman says any euthanasia regime relies on the idea that some lives are worth living while others are not: "if anything, those most vulnerable deserve the greatest protection and care."

He says compassion and mercy are at the core of what it is to be Christian but says it is compassion towards those who will be sucked in unwittingly and experience wrongful death that forms the basis of his opposition to the Act.

Kleinman's statement forms part of a piece about the End of Life Choice Act on Stuff that canvases several opinions about the proposed legislation.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• Image: assets.change.org

Associate Professor Chris Wilkins and Dr Marta Rychert of Massey University argue in Addiction that New Zealand's Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill (CLCB) needs to be strengthened in two critical areas:

Set a formal minimum price for cannabis

The legalisation of cannabis in other jurisdictions has resulted in significant declines in the legal price of cannabis.

Minimum unit pricing has been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol consumption levels and related harms.

The CLCB includes a discretionary power to raise the excise tax for cannabis for a maximum of 12 months if the price of cannabis drops below the level consistent with the purposes of the Act.

This discretionary power lacks clear criteria for activation and thus falls short of a clear minimum price provision.

Lower the potency cap for cannabis products

High potency cannabis is associated with increasing first-time cannabis treatment admissions, transition to daily use, cannabis dependence and a higher risk of psychosis and psychosis relapse.

In the proposed cannabis legislation maximum potency levels for cannabis plant (15% THC) appears to be at the higher end of those currently found in the black market in New Zealand.

Potency levels for edibles and extracts are expressed as milligrams "per unit" and "per package" without defining what constitutes a unit or package. (Edibles and concentrates will not initially be sold but they are included in the CLCB for future approval.)

Wilkins and Rychert also argue that there are two public health objectives of the CLCB that will be difficult to achieve:

Difficulties reducing cannabis use over time via a commercial market

The CLCB objective of lowering cannabis use over time appears at odds with the proposed commercial cannabis sector, which will focus on expanding sales.

Non-commercial or not-for-profit operators can provide legal access to cannabis while avoiding profit-driven commercial companies.

Difficulties taxing products by THC potency

Considerable work will be required to implement a potency-based tax, including consistent sampling procedures, certified testing facilities, and effective auditing to prevent producers gaming the system.

Also, the reliability and replicability of testing THC is problematic. A weight-based tax (similar to the taxation of tobacco) may be a more practical alternative for now.

Source

• addictionjournal.org
• onlinelibrary.wiley.com
• Image: referendums.govt.nz

"Isn't it illegal for a high school to push political opinions on students?" a Reddit user posted in the forum.

According to Education Ministry guidance, boards of trustees as a state agency need to be politically neutral.

They cannot encourage electors to vote or not vote for specific parties, policies or candidates or show political party information on school sites.

But Katrina Casey of the Ministry of Education said the cannabis referendum is an important social issue and "people are free to express their views about it."

She said if the school's parent community had any concerns about the sign, they should contact the school's board of trustees.

An Electoral Commission spokesperson stated they have received an enquiry about the sign and are in the process of contacting the school for more information.

"The election and referendum laws allow any person to publish an election or referendum advertisement as long as they comply with the rules, for example, on promoter statements and expenditure limits."

In Rotorua Patrick Walsh, principal of John Paul College is among community leaders who have signed up to a new alliance of people who will work to oppose any attempt to legalise cannabis in New Zealand.

The coalition is urging people to say no to the referendum.

Walsh said he had seen "first-hand the devastating effect of drug use on teenagers, their whanau and other victims."

In their statement before the 2017 general election, the New Zealand Catholic bishops stated that "moves to legalise 'soft' drugs and other substances - which wreak havoc in particular sectors of our society - are a deeply cynical and cheap way of side-lining a complex social ill that needs to be addressed creatively and resolutely."

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• nzcatholic.org.nz
• stuff.co.nz

But Dr Juliet Gerrard says whether that would come to pass if the country voted to legalise recreational cannabis is unknown.

The report says evidence for overseas outcomes is uncertain, reflecting:

• The short time since reforms were made
• Different regulatory approaches
• A commercial industry that isn't yet fully established

Pre-existing or time-lagged trends in health and social impacts also contribute.

The evidence may never become entirely 'certain', and interpretation will require value judgements.

The Aotearoa experience will depend on the nations unique environment and specific regulatory approach and implementation.

"We're pretty sure of the situation at the moment. We're much less sure of what will happen if we legalise it," Gerrard told the New Zealand Herald.

She has led an expert panel of academics, researchers and health and social experts - co-chaired by Auckland University Professor Tracey McIntosh - in gathering information to inform the debate in the lead up to September's vote.

The panel's work, peer-reviewed internationally and nationally went, live on Wednesday and contains a wealth of information.

A new poll shows 48 per cent of Kiwis would support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill at the referendum this year, compared to 43 per cent who are opposed.

The UMR poll was commissioned by the Helen Clark Foundation and surveyed 1,128 New Zealanders 18 years of age and over. The margin of error is 2.9 per cent.

It showed support had increased by two points since the last UMR poll February, while the opposition had fallen by one point.

Read What might happen if you vote

Read The whole report

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• pmcsa.ac.nz
• Image: nzherald.co.nz

The proposed legislation would legalise the sale and consumption of cannabis at licensed premises.

Cookie Time founder Michael Mayell has partnered with Abe Gray, the founder of New Zealand's first cannabis museum to build a cannabis education centre in the historic Shands and Trinity buildings.

The Trinity building was formally Trinity Congregational Church. It was damaged in the Christchurch earthquakes.

The community hub will contain a museum, a hemp emporium, a plant medicine shot bar, a cannabis dispensary, a café, a hemp eatery and an alcohol-free night club.

"After the earthquakes and the subsequent re-developing of the city, Christchurch lost a great deal of its heritage," says Mayell.

"More than 1300 buildings in the inner city have been demolished".

"It's wonderful to have the opportunity to preserve such beautiful buildings as these."

Trinity will be used for the museum during the day, an education space Mayell dubbed "cannabis university" in the evenings, and for the alcohol-free plant shot bar at night.

The café and restaurant would sell hemp food, a boutique with a range of hemp products and an alcohol-free plant shot bar.

Hemp seeds will be cultivated and used to make milk for ice cream, butter and cheese and the bar would have kombucha on tap, medicinal teas and mushrooms in the diner.

The business is trading as the Whakamana Museum Limited.

Whakamana launched a Pledge Me campaign to transform the church building on November 12.

On December 5, with 11 days to go, 219 people had pledged $126,531. The minimum target is one million dollars

Whakamana shares are also available for purchase.

Source

• facebook
• stuff.co.nz
• cannabisinstitute.ac.nz
• pledgeme.co.nz
• Image: screen shot pledgeme.co.nz

Separately, parliament is considering a bill that would decriminalise abortion.

Simultaneously tackling all three could "foster an already growing culture war in New Zealand," said Bryce Edwards, a political commentator and lecturer at Victoria University in Wellington.

The New York times quote Edwards in an article that points out New Zealand appears to be going in the opposite direction to most other nation.

"While conservative populism is now ascendant in some of the world's leading democracies, New Zealand is rushing in the opposite direction, taking on several liberal social issues all at once," writes Charlotte Graham-McLay.

She thinks this "burst of democratic action" could push a generally conflict-averse New Zealand into uncomfortable territory.

"And it could overwhelm an election next year that will determine whether Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern remains in office."

In the article, Edwards also says next year's election could end up being one revolving less around economic issues and more about social and moral issues.

"That would be a shift in New Zealand, where election campaigns have long ceased being the province of personal morality debates."

The government's concerns about the quality of the looming public debate are evident.

Andrew Little, the minister of justice, has plans in place to combat misinformation and manipulation in any campaigns leading up to the referenda.

That includes a specialised team within the ministry of justice to direct people to information aimed to be as accurate and neutral as possible and to be on the look-out for any attempts to deliberately mislead the public.

Little said the Electoral Commission would look after the nuts and bolts of running the referendums.

The justice team would manage public information, websites, and respond to general queries.

Source

• nytimes.com
• rnz.co.nz
• Image: vjmpublishing.nz

If endorsed by the public in a referendum the new law will allow those who are terminally ill to request assisted dying.

Earlier in the day Stuff published an opinion piece by former prime minister Sir Bill English in which he offered five reasons for opposing the bill:

• It does not provide real protection from coercion.
• Many MPs will be finely tuned to the "hard cases". However, for all the talk about narrowing the legislation down, this bill. is much broader than the new Victorian law, as well as those states in the United States where only assisted suicide is available.
• There is the contentious and vexed question of the relationship between suicide rates and assisted dying.
• The review system does not include access to patient records, as is the case in the Netherlands. So it is a much weaker law in that regard.
• There is growing evidence from Canada and the US that people are choosing euthanasia or assisted suicide because of a lack of access to proper end-of-life care.

A Christchurch surgeon Phil Bagshaw has raised concerns about the bill going to a public referendum.

He said the issue was complicated and thought "pressure groups" on both sides would promote it as more simple than it was.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• Image: stuff.co.nz

With the acceptance of the amendment requiring a referendum, the Bill is likely to pass the third reading in November.

However, it will only become law if it is approved in a binding referendum to be held in conjunction with the 2020 general election.

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ is confident that this will happen.

"It is one thing to say yes to a nice-sounding phrase around having ‘choice'", he says.

"But when voters examine the pitfalls and dangers of the bill that may be passed next month, they will quickly realise that assisted suicide is not a simple yes-no answer."

McCoskrie points to a survey in April that showed that most New Zealanders balk in their support of assisted dying when questioned about specific aspects of euthanasia.

The survey, commissioned by Euthanasia-Free NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, comes ahead of the bill's second reading in Parliament on May 22.

The poll suggested the gap in public opinion between those who support and oppose was narrowing.

In a Newsroom article Sam Sachdeva says for the Bill sponsor David Seymour, the prime minister Jacinda Ardern and some other euthanasia supporters, a referendum is an undesirable but necessary evil to get the legislation across the line.

Proponents of the bill point to healthy levels of public support for reform, with upwards of 70 per cent in favour of legalising some form of assisting dying in most polls.

"That may explain why Seymour sees a referendum as an acceptable compromise," says Sachdeva.

"But recent trends for the other referendum topic which the End of Life Choice Bill will likely feature alongside next year would caution against any complacency."

Sachdeva suspects referendum on euthanasia and the one on cannabis, and the sentiment they stir up are almost certain to bleed into each other too."

Source:

• scoop.co.nz
• newsroom.co.nz
• Image: france24.com

"You should pay attention to other parties' policies. I know what their policy is," he said referring to Labour's election campaign.

"They campaigned on it. We didn't," Peters told Sky News on Thursday morning.

He also said that that there was no mention of abortion law changes in the Labour-New Zealand First coalition agreement.

New Zealand First will ask for a referendum

Peters has confirmed that the party would seek to add a referendum to the bill at its committee stage.

Justice Minister Andrew Little was taken by surprise, saying it was "a bit unusual" to raise it at this stage.

Peters said that Little should not have been surprised to learn that the party would push for a referendum on abortion law reform.

He said it has long been the party's policy to seek a public mandate on conscience issues.

Peters says he's not concerned that Little has said he doesn't want there to be a referendum on the abortion bill.

"So that's one member of 120, he's got one vote just like everybody else.

"What about the other 119, let's find out from them", Peters said.

Martin apologies

The proposed law changes followed a series of consultations with New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin.

She told RNZ on Tuesday morning that the party had no plans to push for a referendum on the abortion bill.

On Thursday Martin told reporters one NZ First MP had at their caucus meeting announced she would be putting forward an amendment and that she went to see Little to tell him about it about 1 pm on Tuesday.

"And I apologised for the fact it had never come up," she said.

That left Little facing questions about why he had told media he had not heard about the referendum at about 2 pm.

It was "only a minute's difference", he said.

The debate begins

On Thursday afternoon Justice Minister Andrew Little introduced the bill.

He paid tribute to National Party leader Simon Bridges who supported the bill at first reading, despite his Christian, conservative background.

In her speech, prime minister Jacinda Ardern asked those who disagreed with abortion not to allow their views to impede the rights of others.

National MP Agnes Loheni said abortion was a lifestyle choice.

"The reality is for the vast majority of women who decide to terminate their pregnancy do so for material reasons in their lives," she said.

Labour MP Apuito William Sio said he was personally opposed to abortion but would vote in favour of the bill to improve it at select committee.

"I do not support abortion, but I am on the record that I support a woman's right to choose," he said.

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: rnz.co.nz

The referendum - tentatively scheduled for next June - will mark the end of a 20-year peace process that followed the end of the Bougainville civil war in the 1990s.

The people of Bougainville will be asked whether they want the national parliament to agree to either greater autonomy or full independence. Continue reading

They were on a fact-finding mission to the Autonomous Region of Bougainville ahead of next year's planned vote on possible independence.

The aim of the mission was to understand the role churches could play in a peaceful and credible referendum on Bougainville.

They were officially welcomed by Bishop Abraham Toroiod the United Church.

Toroid the party and wished them a successful outcome for their visit.

In his response, Ribat said that his team were happy to visit and get to educated on the issues confronting the region as it prepares for the referendum next year.

After their arrival, the team met with the Autonomous Bougainville Government's President, Chief Dr John Momis at the Administration Conference room in Buka town.

They met several groups and individuals before they return to Port Moresby on Wednesday.

The Church leaders who accompanied the Cardinal were, Reverend Roger Joseph, General Secretary PNG Council of Churches, Bishop Rochus Tatamai, President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of PNG and Solomon Islands, Colonel Kevin Alley from the Salvation Army, Pastor Daniel Hewali Chairman AGAPE International, Bishop Denny Bray Guka, Chairman PNG Council of Churches Board, Josephine Advent Pitmur and Beatrice Tabeu from the UN Women.

The United Nations sponsored the trip.

Source

• bougainville.typepad.com
• radionz.co.nz
• Image: bougainville.typepad.com

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin also said the Church needs to ask itself if it has drifted away from young people.

In the referendum on May 22, voters were asked if they agreed with the statement: ""Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".

Of votes cast, the "Yes" vote was 62.1 per cent to 37.9 per cent "No".

The total turnout was 60.5 per cent.

Archbishop Martin acknowledged that there had been a "social revolution" - but it didn't begin with the referendum.

"It's very clear that if this referendum is an affirmation of the views of young people, then the Church has a huge task in front of it to find the language to be able to talk to and to get its message across to young people, not just on this issue, but in general," he said.

When he met Pope Benedict after he became archbishop, the pope asked him about the points of contact between the Catholic Church and the places where the future of Irish culture was being formed, he said.

"And that's a question the Church has to ask itself here in Ireland," Dr Martin said.

"Most of these young people who voted ‘Yes' are products of our Catholic schools for 12 years," he said.

"There's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the Church . . .We need to sit down and say ‘are we reaching out at all to young people?' . . . We're becoming a Church of the like-minded, and a sort of a safe space for the like-minded," he said.

The archbishop said this didn't mean the Church renouncing its teaching on marriage and family.

Rather it needed to find a new language, which it owns, but others appreciate.

"The Church's teaching, if it isn't expressed in terms of love - then it's got it wrong," he added.

Sources

• Irish Times
• BBC
• RT
• Image: Independent

Mrs McAleese said her son Justin was a "willing and happy" altar boy and an enthusiastic member of his local Catholic youth club.

But he went through "torture" when he discovered what his church taught about homosexuality, Mrs McAleese told the Irish Times.

"When our son came out to us at the age of 21, we at that stage were just broken for him that he, in a gay-friendly household, had not felt able to confide in us his loneliness, the bullying that he was exposed to," she said.

Mrs McAleese said she had spoken to other parents of gay children "coming from the mortuary" after their children had died by suicide.

Friends of hers had found out their children were gay the night the child had attempted suicide, or were attending the doctor with depression.

She said there was "a lot of homophobia still out there", but it was a "fading reality".

Ireland is holding a referendum on legal same-sex marriage on May 22.

The Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality made it "difficult but not impossible" to be a committed Catholic, Mrs McAleese said.

She praised the "phenomenal leadership" shown by a number of Church of Ireland bishops.

The thought of leaving the Catholic Church had come into her mind from time to time, but what had kept her from ever really seriously considering it was the "truly wonderful" late Archbishop Dermot Ryan.

"I detect that same openness in Francis, Pope Francis," she said.

Mrs McAleese described as a "wonderful thing" Pope Francis's establishment of a working group on the Church's teaching on homosexuality that will report to the synod on the family in October.

"I'd like to think that maybe down the line it would change, but believe me, a ‘Yes' outcome in the referendum will not change Church teaching," she said.

Sources

• Irish Times
• Image: Catholic Ireland

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was speaking to a group of diocesan communications officers, ahead of Ireland's referendum on legal same-sex marriage on May 22.

"There can be an ethic of equality which is an ethic of recognising and respecting difference," he said.

"A pluralist society can be creative in finding ways in which people of same-sex orientation have their rights and their loving and caring relationships recognised and cherished in a culture of difference, while respecting the uniqueness of the male-female relationship."

The archbishop acknowledged the Church had, at times, used "harsh", "insensitive and overly judgmental" language to present a message of love.

He said that the Church had given "harsh" treatment to gays and lesbians in the past - "and in some cases still today".

It had also presented rational argument as a dogma everyone must accept.

But this was no justification for people today to replace dogmatism with "sound-bite-ism" as a way of avoiding rational debate, he said.

He was critical of politicians on this score.

Nonetheless, the Church still needed to learn to voice its criticism "clearly and without fear", but in language that "which respects her Master".

He chided people who say the debate is not a religious one, yet selectively quote the Pope.

"I find it interesting that many of those supporting the yes campaign object to the use of religious language, but they are not shy in quoting Pope Francis in support of their arguments, although I feel that their knowledge of Pope Francis' repertoire is somewhat restricted," he said.

The "complementarity of men and women, of male and female, in the nature of humanity" is a fundamental philosophical concept, Archbishop Martin said.

"That we exist as male and female is not a marginal dimension of being human," the archbishop added.

The Church's teaching on marriage and the family and its relevance to social ethics will remain the same, whatever the referendum result might be, he said.

Sources

• The Tablet
• Irish Times
• Dublin Archdiocese
• Image: Irish Catholic

Ireland is to have a referendum on legal same-sex marriage next month.

If the bishops' warning comes to pass, it would mean couples married in the Catholic Church in Ireland would have to go elsewhere to have their union legally recognised by the state.

Currently, the signing of a Marriage Registration Form, a civil document, takes place after wedding services in Irish Catholic churches.

The priest, as "solemniser", as well as witnesses and the married couple must sign the form.

This form is returned to a local registrar before a marriage certificate is obtained.

A spokesperson for the bishops said priests probably wouldn't have a problem with dropping the civil aspects of church weddings.

Martin Long said: "If the referendum is passed the Church's view and the state's view of marriage will be radically different.

"It's reasonable that the bishops may decide to separate the two."

Fr Brendan Hoban from the Association of Catholic Priests said that he had heard suggestions that the Church would refuse to carry out the civil role "in a huff".

But Fr Hoban didn't think it would happen.

He said: "Why would it bother? It would be unnecessary.

"You're only making it difficult and more expensive on these couples. I wouldn't expect to see it."

The bishops had warned in 2013 that any change in the definition of marriage would mean the Church wouldn't co-operate with the civil aspects of marriage.

About 4121 of the 5461 people registered as "wedding solemnisers" in Ireland are Catholic priests.

There are only 107 civil registers so the move by the Church would result in a significant delay for couples getting their marriage legally recognised by the state.

Mr Long said that guidelines for dioceses would be considered at a meeting of the Bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family later this month.

Sources

• Irish Times
• Image: crimmigrationexperts.com

Speaking at a meeting of the Iona Institute, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said much of the discussion on marriage and family in Ireland today is polemical.

The archbishop referred to some correspondence he has received in the build up to Ireland's referendum on same-sex marriage in May.

He said the language was "not just intemperate, but obnoxious, insulting and unchristian in regard to gay and lesbian people".

He warning the correspondents about using such language to support a position they felt was Christian.

"Then all I can say is that they have forgotten something essential about the Christian message."

The archbishop said that discussion on the definitions of marriage required time and frank and balanced discussion.

But he noted that an ethics of equality did not require uniformity.

"There can be an ethic of equality, which is an ethic of recognising and respecting difference," he said.

Dr Martin suggested that a pluralist society could be creative in finding ways in which people of same-sex orientation had their rights and their loving and caring relationships recognised and cherished in a culture of difference.

"I'm not saying that gay and lesbian people are unloving or that their love is somehow deficient compared to others," he said.

"I am talking about a uniqueness in the male-female relationship."

Archbishop Martin said there is something "irreplaceable in that relationship between a man and a woman who commit to one another in love and who remain open to the transmission and the nurturing of human life".

"We are all the children of a male and a female and this must have relevance to our understanding of the way children should be nurtured and educated," he added.

Sources

• Irish Independent
• Iona Institute
• Image: Sunday Times

In announcing the date, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said the referendum would underline Ireland's reputation as a tolerant and inclusive nation.

Mr Kenny said that most members of the Irish Parliament were in favour of same-sex marriage.

He hoped support for the referendum would be maintained.

The proposal to be put to Irish voters will read: "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."

The Catholic Church in Ireland has opposed legalising same-sex unions.

But an opinion poll published in the Irish Times late last year found more than two thirds of voters would back gay marriage in a referendum.

Continue reading

Writing in The Times, Professor Sir Tom Devine of Edinburgh University noted that, historically, Catholics in Scotland have not favoured devolution.

This was because they were sceptical about the Presbyterian majority using devolution to gain greater influence.

This scepticism has, however, been declining since the 1980s.

Polls now suggest that the 30 per cent of Catholics support independence, compared with 26 per cent of those with no religion, and 17 per cent in the Church of Scotland.

The professor argued that with the decline of sectarianism and equalising educational and social opportunities, Scottish Catholics are more at peace with their national identity.

Add to this the fact that the Scottish National Party has developed relationships with Catholic Church leaders, while "Scotland's Catholics were taken for granted by Labour for a generation".

The referendum is on September 18.

Continue reading