The Holy See has most certainly NOT approved the transfer of St Vincent's Hospital to the Irish State!

Yesterday's statement from the Religious Sisters of Charity on SVHG and the new National Maternity Hospital raises more questions than it answers

@LeoVaradkar @SimonHarrisTD https://twitter.com/The_Tablet/status/1259054381540036608

@roinnslainte @RoisinShortall @DonnellyStephen @smytho @alankellylabour @loreillysf @PatsyMcGarryIT @paulcullenit @eilishor @ellenmcoyne @paulodonoghue93 @susmitchellSBP @thejournal_ie @AilbheConneely @FergalBowers @IvanYatesNT @PatKennyNT @bankofireland

Second thread from 24/

1/ Any claim that yesterday’s statement by the Sisters of Charity (SOC) clears the way to proceed with building the new National Maternity Hospital (NMH) at the Elm Park site of St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG) does not, I am afraid, survive contact with closer scrutiny

2/ What did we know before noon yesterday, and what do we know now? Has anything materially changed?

The original plan agreed by the Government and the two hospitals in 2017 gave 100% ownership of the planned new NMH to the shareholders of SVHG

3/ The sole shareholders of SVHG were (and are) the Religious Sisters of Charity (SOC). The estimated cost of construction (to be paid in full by the State) is c. €350-€500 million plus.

4/ When the details of the deal emerged, there was widespread public outrage. Over 100,000 people signed a petition expressing opposition.

The Government backtracked and started negotiating with St Vincent’s for ‘a legal framework to protect the State’s investment’.

5/ As of yesterday, some three years later, no legal framework has been agreed. So what has been going on behind the scenes?

Let’s go back to May 2017.

6/ As I have consistently said, there is not a single hospital in the world on Catholic land which provides services such as elective sterilisation, IVF and abortion. Representatives of SVHG and NMH adamantly denied this was an issue in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

7/ All the same, following the public furore, the SOC announced on 29 May 2017 that they would be ending their ‘involvement in SVHG and [would] not be involved in the ownership or management of the new NMH.’ However...

8/ All the same, following the public furore, the SOC announced on 29 May 2017 that they would be ending their ‘involvement in SVHG and [would] not be involved in the ownership or management of the new NMH.’

What did this mean?

9/ In what appeared at the time to be a highly significant move and a victory for ‘people power’, the Sisters said that ‘upon completion of the proposed transaction the requirements set out in the SVHG constitution to conduct and maintain the SVHG facilities in accordance with...

10/ their [Catholic] Ethical Code would be amended and replaced to reflect compliance with national and international best practice guidelines on medical ethics and the laws of the Republic of Ireland.’

This was extraordinary. If the promise was to be carried out ...

11/ ... Canon Law would no longer dictate medical practice at SVHG. The clear implication of the Sisters’ move was that the issue of Catholic ethos was a barrier to the progress of the new NMH.

But the devil as always is in the detail...

12 / Two key issues arose: firstly, the Sisters were not in fact free to make the transfer without first securing Vatican permission. Secondly - and this point is absolutely critical – Canon Law influence on medical practice could only be set aside if ...

13/ ... if the Vatican agreed that the land at Elm Park was transferred out of Catholic ownership and control to fully secular ownership to facilitate the building of a hospital in which sterilisation, abortion, IVF etc could be performed.

Two years passed with no progress...

14/ Both hospitals continued to deny these uncomfortable truths. In December 2018 in a PR blitz to start ‘enabling works’ at the Elm Park site to circumvent new Near-Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) requirements coming into force on 1 January 2019.

15/ It was stated at this time - incorrectly - that the ‘Sisters of Charity have completely left all elements of SVHG’, i.e. the transfer of ownership was already a done deal. This was rebutted by the editor of the Irish Catholic newspaper who noted – correctly it turned out -

16/ ‘The nuns cannot alienate the property without church approval.’ Although two separate clarifications were subsequently issued which made it clear that the process had not even properly started, the question of church permission continued to be denied.

What happened next?

17/ It was only when my book ‘In the Shadow of the Eighth’ was published in November 2019 that it was finally admitted that in fact Vatican permission was needed for transfer (known as 'alienation' in Canon Law).

We were told that permission was ‘imminent’, only a formality.

18/ Here’s where matters get very opaque again. Alienation is a very common event in the Catholic Church – but that is when the transfer is from one Catholic body to another. The transfer of valuable assets *permanently out of Church ownership* is a very rare event...

19/ So, here’s the first major question. What exactly has the Vatican agreed in respect of the transfer of the SOC shareholding in SVHG to St Vincent’s Holdings CLG? Who will own St Vincent’s Holdings CLG? Who are the shareholders and who will appoint them?

There's more...

20/ Will it be bound by Canon Law? Will the holding company have the right to appoint the board of directors of each subsidiary hospital? Will the holding company be the sole shareholder in each subsidiary hospital?

These are critical questions that have not been answered.

21/ According to the most recent SVHG Annual Report, the NMH will be one of four subsidiary hospitals of SVHG (DAC) whose sole shareholders will be St Vincent’s Holdings CLG.

This is not acceptable...

22/ The new NMH which will cost c. €500 million of taxpayers money must be entirely independent of SVHG and its shareholders, not a subsidiary of St Vincent’s Holdings CLG, and must be built on land owned by the State.

23/ In yesterday’s statement, the SOC Superior General the appeared to confirm that Catholic ethos may prevail. The order ‘is confident that the SVHG Board, management and staff will continue to provide healthcare services that foster Mary Aikenhead’s mission and core values.’

24/ This is worryingly reminiscent of the note in the 2017 SVGH annual accounts - six months after the Sisters said that they were leaving - that future directors of St Vincent’s Holdings CLG would be ‘obliged to uphold the values and vision of Mother Mary Aikenhead’.

25/ We cannot know whether or not Catholic ethos will continue to apply at Elm Park unless SVHG publish in full their correspondence with the Vatican. They must immediately do this to allow proper public scrutiny. We need documentary evidence not unverified assurances.

26/ It is a scandal that the question of Catholic ethos at Elm Park has still not been resolved.