Sunday church attendance is just 80 per cent of what it was in 2019, Telegraph analysis has revealed, despite the Church of England claiming that it has “bounced back” after the pandemic.
The figures reveal that church attendance has more than halved since 1987, prompting clergy to warn: “This is a doom spiral of the church’s own choosing.”
In 2023, The Telegraph published an investigation which revealed that parishes are closing at a record rate, prompting fears that the Church had been “dealt a death knell”.
The investigation found that almost 300 parishes have disappeared in the past five years alone – the fastest rate since records began in 1960.
They also came amid declining congregation numbers, leaving many clergy afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs.
A former Dutch prime minister, Dries van Agt, has died by euthanasia, with his wife Eugenie. They were both 93. Numbers availing of euthanasia in the Netherlands keep rising and the grounds keep expanding.
Their deaths last week are seen as part of a growing trend in the Netherlands for “duo euthanasia”.
Although still rare, euthanasia of couples was first noted in a review of all cases in 2020, when 26 people were granted euthanasia at the same time as their partners. The numbers grew to 32 the following year and 58 in 2022.
The Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC) has urged a no vote in the forthcoming ‘care’ referendum.
The amendment would delete a protection for mothers to not be forced to work outside the home due to economic necessity and replace it with a new article where the State would merely “strive to support” care within the family without any reference to mothers or home.
FLAC said the wording of the proposed amendment on care is ineffective, “implicitly sexist” and is unlikely to provide carers, people with disabilities, or older people with any new enforceable rights.
It said it is also unlikely to require the State to provide improved childcare, supports for carers or for children with disabilities.
FLAC said it is “hugely regrettable” that the legislative process around the referendum bills was truncated and says the “rushed process” around finalising the amendments has contributed to the weaknesses of both referendum proposals.
It support the referendum on “durable relationships” despite uncertainty around the meaning of the term.
A new bill from Germany’s left-wing Government proposes vaguely defined exclusion zones, banning behaviour that could be perceived as “confusing” or “disturbing” within 100 Meters of medical clinics providing abortion.
The bill has been criticised due to its vague wording and disputed necessity. In response to a parliamentary question on how, when, and where problematic incidents of hindrance or harassment near abortion facilities occurred, the responsible Ministry recently admitted: “The federal government does not have any concrete numerical findings” that would support the need for such a far-reaching bill.
Whereas harassment is already illegal, free speech advocates warn that the language of the bill could criminalise a simple offer of help made to women in crisis pregnancies, as well as prayer.
“The right to peacefully pray is protected by international and national law. No matter one’s opinion on abortion, everyone suffers when we start to censor the right to speak freely, pray, or engage in consensual conversations,” said Dr. Felix Böllmann, German lawyer and Director of European Advocacy for ADF International.
GPs made claims for a total of 9,218 abortions in the first eleven months of last year, according to figures released by the HSE to Carol Nolan TD.
As this figure does not include abortions carried out in a hospital setting, or the figures for the month of December, the total for the whole year will likely be in excess of 10,000.
Commenting on the “shocking” figures, Pro Life Campaign spokesperson Eilís Mulroy said there is an “alarming trend where the annual abortion rate has risen dramatically since 2019, but most especially in the last two years”.
“The government cannot continue to bury its head in the sand and refuse to listen to the voices of those who have well grounded and practical suggestions on how to reduce the soaring abortion rate.”
Deputy Carol Nolan said Ireland is now facing an “epidemic of loss,” adding that there is an “under-promotion” of alternatives.
“Thousands of women are being betrayed by the over promotion of abortion as the only possible response to pregnancy in certain circumstances and the cruel under promotion of life affirming alternatives”.
Greece has become the first predominantly Christian Orthodox nation to legalise same-sex marriage, but has retained a ban on gay couples using donor IVF and surrogacy to have children.
176 MPs from across the political spectrum voted in favour of the bill in the Greek Parliament on Thursday. 76 rejected the change while two abstained and 46 were not present.
Despite facing formidable pushback from within his own centre-right New Democracy party, prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis had championed the bill.
Among the opposition, the former prime minister Antonis Samaras had told parliament that same-sex marriage was not a human right and the “dangerous” law should not have been introduced.
Some supporters lamented that the law in Greece still bans same-sex couples from achieving parenthood through surrogacy. Instead, only single women and straight couples have access to assisted reproduction.
States may prohibit Jewish and Islamic religious communities from slaughtering animals by bleeding them without anaesthesia, according to a landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
In their decision published on Tuesday, the Strasbourg judges rejected a class action brought by Jews and Muslims from Belgium who had opposed a ban on the grounds that it violated religious freedom.
The Flemish and Walloon regions of Belgium ban the practice, but the Brussels region still allows it.
According to the Convention on Human Rights, freedom of religion may be restricted if this is necessary for public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The ECtHR has now interpreted the protection of public morals for the first time with regard to animal welfare.
Speaking on Today with Claire Byrne, the TD for Meath East said he smiled when he heard broadcaster, journalist and barrister Brenda Power, say that nobody would have a problem if the wording was slightly different, and asked if she “ever supported a referendum?” [11:20]
When Ms Power said yes, she had supported the last two, Minister Byrne contradicted her and told her, “You didn’t support the abortion referendum”.
She replied, “I absolutely did, 100%. How dare you come in here so ill-informed”.
He then pressed her on whether she supported “the marriage equality referendum”, and again she replied, “I did, 100%, and if you want to look at my columns on it, . . . go back and check it out”.
She added: “This is exactly the misinformation that we’re getting from the ‘Yes’ side that anyone who disagrees with them are right-wing, conservative, God-botherers. That is absolutely disgraceful”.
The Supreme Court has confirmed it is due to hear an appeal in April based on the protections the Constitution gives to mothers working at home.
However, that date comes after a referendum on March 8th which may see the relevant article deleted and replaced with a watered-down version recognising ‘care’ within the family that the State would merely ‘strive’ to support.
The appellant mother, who effectively provides 24-hour care to her son and has no means of her own, is disputing the Department of Social Protection’s decision that she is not entitled to the full-rate of the carer’s allowance because the weekly income of her partner, the man’s father, is €850.
At a case management hearing on Tuesday, Ms Justice Marie Baker confirmed the appeal would be heard by the court on April 11th, after the referendum.
In a determination last November agreeing to hear an appeal, a panel of three Supreme Court judges said Article 41.2, has not been the subject of extensive consideration by the courts. The constitutional provisions at issue, it added, have never been examined in the context of the provision of public funds to parent obliged to care full-time for severely disabled children.
The case, the judges concluded, raised issues of general public importance “of systemic importance” to carers which should be decided by the Supreme Court.
The text says that the State shall “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”.
The correction points out that Supreme Court Judge Marie Baker, Chair of the Electoral Commission, has already stated that the Constitution does not say a woman’s place is in the home.
Justice Baker clarified that the Constitution says that mothers provide an “important support” to society and shouldn’t “have to go out to work” due to “economic necessity.”
This echoed previous remarks made by Supreme Court Justice Susan Denham in a case more than 20 years ago.
