Last week the pro-life movement savoured one of its most heartening moments in recent years. After a 15-hour debate, the Argentine senate rejected a bill that would have legalised abortion in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, by a vote of 38-31.
The campaign to relax the country’s abortion laws had generated intense international interest. Abortion advocates believed that if they won in Argentina then they could pressurise other Latin American countries to follow suit. As it did before the Irish referendum in May, Amnesty International deployed considerable resources in support of abortion, even taking out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times warning senators that “the world is watching”. But this time its efforts came to nothing.
Why did pro-lifers win in Argentina when they had lost by such a significant margin in Ireland just months earlier? There are several reasons. The most obvious is that Argentina is far less homogenous than Ireland. It is therefore less likely to produce a broad consensus in favour of radical social change (though it did legalise same-sex marriage in 2010, five years before Ireland). Another is that the media are more diverse in Argentina than in Ireland. Argentine pro-lifers were able to argue their case on a more or less equal footing, while their Irish counter-parts struggled for airtime and were muzzled online.
The Church was also far more effective in Argentina, cultivating grassroots resistance to the bill through parishes. It was able to do so because, unlike in Ireland, its credibility has not been destroyed by the abuse crisis. The Irish bishops sensed that they were held in such low regard that if they spoke out they would actually convince more people to vote for abortion.
Pope Francis was noticeably silent during the Irish referendum (perhaps for the same reason as the Irish bishops). But he worked hard behind the scenes in Argentina. According to the newspaper Clarín, he personally appealed to pro-life legislators to lobby senators to reject the bill. His successor in Buenos Aires, Cardinal Mario Poli, was also influential, celebrating a well-publicised “Mass for Life” on the eve of the vote. This explains why, on the morning after, a headline in Clarín read: “The Church, the key player that managed to stop the law.”
Writing for the Catholic News Service, Charlie Camosy suggested a further reason for the pro-life triumph. In Argentina, he noted, prominent female politicians had opposed the bill, including vice president Gabriela Michetti. There were no equivalent figures in Ireland.
It is right for Catholics to celebrate the victory in Argentina. It is perhaps especially welcome as we endure what one publication has called a “summer of shame”, with the abuse crisis once again dominating headlines. But we cannot afford to be complacent. Pro-abortion forces are already regrouping. They plan to unveil a similar bill a year from now – the minimum waiting period for reintroducing legislation. We too must be active, seizing every opportunity to support the unborn and their mothers, both at home and abroad.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, has delivered its report into Ampleforth College and Downside School. The findings are damning. Not only were children abused at both institutions over many years, but also the authorities in the monastery schools consistently failed to confront the problem or deal with it effectively. Among those who failed in their duties, the report implies, was
the sometime abbot of Ampleforth, Cardinal Basil Hume.
Sadly, IICSA’s findings will undermine the perception that the Catholic Church has made progress in the field of child protection in the last two decades. According to the report, the monks of Ampleforth and Downside acted in a manner that was secretive, evasive and suspicious of anyone outside the English Benedictine Congregation. This sort of elitist behaviour, which sees any religious order, no matter how illustrious its history, as somehow exempt from the laws that bind lesser mortals, will only reinforce the stereotypes that lie a little below the surface of the British consciousness.
It will be in vain for the bishops to point out that monasteries are autonomous bodies – their behaviour will be seen as emblematic of the approach of the entire Church. Indeed, the bishops themselves are not entirely without blame, as they could have brought more pressure to bear on the monasteries to reform their practices.
Meanwhile, what is to happen at these venerable Catholic institutions? It is hard to see the schools continuing in their present form. The report is also likely to provoke much soul-searching within the monastic communities. One of its most disturbing findings was that one abusive monk at Downside was removed from the care of children only to be made novice master. That does not constitute a simple mistake but speaks of an institutional sickness.
The English Benedictine Congregation has done English Catholics much service in the past, but its recent errors have caused much harm. While an effective expression of contrition would be a useful start to repairing the damage, root and branch reform is necessary.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.