RITE AND REASON: Those who hold an absolutist line are vulnerable to the charge that they are harsh and uncaring, writes Archdeacon Gordon Linney.
It was the meeting of the Masters that did it. Heralded as three Yes men in the referendum campaign, not in any derogatory way but as men of integrity from Dublin's three maternity hospitals, their certainty became a little less certain when it came to specifics. It was their integrity and commitment to women's medicine that led them to concede that in a case where an unborn baby has no possibility of independent survival, termination [ie direct abortion] might be appropriate.
They were specifically thinking of Deirdre de Barra whose plight had been reported in this newspaper when she wrote so painfully about her "very much wanted baby".
That development highlighted issues not always to the fore in the debate while tragic situations like hers were not even being considered. The agenda in targeting the X case judgment was not only the disputed risk of suicide but also the principle of direct abortion. That was the big question.
Some hold the moral position that the line between direct and indirect abortion must be held at all costs if we are to avoid the introduction of abortion on demand. But the weakness of that position was illustrated by the dilemma facing the three Masters, that tension between principle and practice which often arises in complex moral matters. Those who hold an absolutist line are vulnerable to the charge that they are harsh and uncaring, and that troubles people, especially when told it is consistent with Gospel values.
The Church of Ireland has always held that these complex issues cannot be dealt with adequately by Constitutional amendment. In his column on March 2nd Garret FitzGerald referred to the fact that the wording of the 1983 amendment had been approved by the then Archbishop of Dublin. It has to be pointed out that the archbishop was acting in a situation where the formal position of the Church of Ireland, which was anti- amendment, had been rejected by the political establishment then as it has been since.
We have now had three messy attempts to amend the Constitution which were felt by some to favour a particular denominational viewpoint. Certainly the recent campaign created the impression of a grand alliance between the two Government parties and one church, which in an all-island context, did not go unnoticed. We must find better ways of doing things. That will not be easy. The Church of Ireland has been consistent in its disapproval of abortion "save at the dictate of strict and undeniable medical necessity". However, as the debate moves on and medical science progresses we will have to be more explicit about what constitutes "medical necessity". A recent report of a Church of Ireland medical working group failed to win acceptance at General Synod by two votes in an electorate of 330. [50.3 per cent against 49.7 per cent - figures close to the referendum result].
It advocated a legal structure within which abortion is illegal but exceptions permitted. Suggestions were made as to possible exceptions including a medical risk to the life of the mother, lethal or severe congenital abnormality in the foetus and pregnancy after rape or incest. The report went on to stress that all these criteria would require precise and clear definition to ensure that they would not become a back door to abortion. However, as indicated, the church hesitated when it came to decision time and as a result sent out a somewhat confused message when asked for an opinion.
SO WHERE do we go from here? First of all it is difficult to believe that there is anyone on this island who is totally anti-abortion, no matter how devoted to the protection of unborn life. There is agreement today, for example, on the commitment to save the life of a mother threatened by physical illness. The question is therefore not whether abortion is morally acceptable but when. It is a matter of where one draws the line. The people rejected the line drawn in last week's proposals.
Secondly, there is much common ground for rejecting a free-for-all abortion regime. It would be helpful therefore if responsible voices in the "pro-life" movement would accept that many who disagree with them in other matters are not necessarily advocates of abortion on demand. Like the Masters of the maternity hospitals, when confronted by exceptional circumstances, they are prepared to live with moral compromise when compassion deems it necessary. They accept that from time to time moral choices are not between black and white but involve shades of grey. Absolutism leaves little room for this.
And, thirdly, whether it is the Church of Ireland closing its mind to a disturbing report, the "pro-life" movement regrouping to have another go or simply a Government wishing the whole thing would go away, the reality is that if we as a responsible and united people do not arrive at a moral and compassionate consensus we will lose much credibility. And others will decide and few of us will like the outcome. There is no time to lose.
Gordon Linney is Church of Ireland Archdeacon of Dublin