Removing God from Ireland's Judicial Oath

"May God direct and sustain me"

The Bar of Ireland hosted a debate this evening on the topic of removing God from the Judicial oath. The members only event took place at the Law Library and featured conservative Catholic barrister, Maria Steen BL versus Fine Gael TD Barry Ward.

The bill, currently at second stage before the Dáil, was presented by Deputy Ward,(also a barrister) in March 2025.

The current judicial oath reads in English:

“In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office … without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws … May God direct and sustain me.”

Ward’s Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Judicial Oath of Office) Bill 2025 seeks to remove references to “God” from both the English and Irish versions of the oath, and change the word “man” to “person” in the English version:

“I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully, and to the best of my knowledge and power, execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any person, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws of Ireland.”

This evening, he faced a fierce opponent in Maria Steen, known for her sharp intellect and outspoken commitment to the Catholic faith.

Barrister Maria Steen

In presenting his bill, Deputy Ward told TD’s that requiring “people of a different faith or no faith at all” to make an oath referencing God is “inconsistent with modern Ireland.”

“I am not anti-religion. It is hugely important. Many judges believe in God, but it must also be the case that many do not believe in God.

“As a result, it seems unfair to expect them to take an oath that essentially expresses a belief in God or else is a nonsense,” he said.

Let’s start with the question, is making an oath referencing God inconsistent with modern Ireland?

If God is removed, then to whom or what is the Oath made?

Is the concept of a Christian God inconsistent with modern Ireland?

I don’t believe it is and I expect this bill will go the same way as the attempt to remove the word ‘mother’ from the Irish Constitution in March 2024, a year before Deputy Ward’s proposed amendment was presented.

In its Preamble, the Irish Constitution features a strong devotion to Christian ideals, invoking the Most Holy Trinity.

But who is responsible for the Preamble? How did it get there in the first place?

Dr David Kenny, Assistant Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin argues that God was invoked in the Irish Constitution to secure the support of the Church and in doing so, the Irish people. He argues that ‘condemnation from the Church would have scuppered its passage.’

“Ireland in 1937 was a very Catholic country—93.6% according to the 1936 Census—and very pious. A constitutional document that was insufficiently Catholic would not have been passed by referendum. The draft Constitution was sent to the Vatican for comment in an attempt to offset criticism from the Catholic Church in Ireland. While the Constitution fell well short of the Catholic ideal, it was sufficient to secure a stance of acquiescence and silence from the Pope, and thus from the Irish Church,” Mr Kenny writes.

But even so, the Constitution passed by only 56.5% of the vote.

“In essence, the document had to be Catholic enough, and its religious rhetoric and pro-religious stance were how this was achieved,” according to Kenny.

He further argues that the authors of the Constitution were mindful of the reunification of Ireland and as such, the document had to ‘accommodate Ireland’s Protestant minority while placating its Catholic majority.’

He also notes that Ireland’s move towards secularism has already removed the more Catholic elements of the Constitution with the introduction of divorce, abortion and gay marriage.

“This process is likely to continue as Ireland becomes a much more secular society,” Mr Kenny writes.

At this point, it might be worth asking the following questions:

Is Ireland’s moving away from our Christian heritage a good thing?

And if so, why is there a need for the Irish media to downplay Jihadist attacks on Irish soil?

Today’s debate in the Law Library took place against the backdrop of what appears to be an attempted beheading of a man on the streets of Belfast.

“We the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation…”

Would it be worth considering that the forefathers of our nation had greater insight than we give them credit for? That our ancestors who survived two centuries of Penal Laws - when Catholicism was outlawed and the death penalty hung over the heads of both priests and faithful - preserved their devotion for a reason?

It is refreshing to read then, in The Bar Review’s October 2025 edition, an article by Elizabeth O’Connell SC, who argues against the proposed amendment on the basis that it is ‘not rational.’

She writes:

“The fundamental rights provisions drafted in 1937 met with widespread approval and have stood the test of time. The edifice of the Constitution and indeed the common law protecting the rights of the citizen, though of course, and thankfully, secular, were built with, or around, the concept of the individual that was shaped by a belief in God, with its deepest roots in medieval Christian culture. It would make sense to remove “God” from the oath, if it were the case that God was also excised from the constitutional frame of reference.”

Ms O’Connell argues that the ‘stakes are high’ and ‘that removing a fundamental part of the philosophy underpinning the Constitution is a radical change.’

She makes the point that we are now living in ‘especially turbulent times’ and, echoing the Preamble itself, humbly suggests our view of what it means to be human ‘animates’ the interpretation of rights within the Constitution - a refreshing nod to the worthiness of our Christian heritage.

She writes:

“Disavowing a fundamental part of the philosophy underpinning the Constitution is a radical change. The stakes are high, as with all societal change but particularly now in these especially turbulent times. I humbly suggest that our view of what it means to be human animates the interpretation of rights and further, that only citing the words “modernity” or “pluralism” as a justification for change to long-developed concepts, without an alternative philosophy for the source of rights, is not rational.”

If the bill becomes law, a referendum would be required for the proposed change to the Constitution to take effect, which means ‘we the people’ will have the final say.

*This Substack has asked Maria Steen for the speech she delivered today and will publish if received.

The Preamble to the Irish Constitution as Gaeilge