Saturday, 28 July 2012

The Catholic Church must stand up to IPPF abortion agenda in Ireland

Tony O'Brien (pictured), one of the leading campaigners for the legalization of abortion in Ireland, and formerly chief executive of the Irish Family Planning Association, has been appointed Director General of Ireland's Health Service Executive. The Irish Family Planning Association is, of course, an affiilate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world's largest abortion-promoting agency.

Thus, IPPF has its feet firmly under the top table of Irish government. Read the blogpost of Pat Buckley, European Life Network Ireland director, for further information about the implications of this appointment and pro-lifers' dismay.

Last year IPPF launched It's all one curriculum. A quick review of that document shows the kind of policies which the Irish government might reasonably expect an IPPF man to promote as director general of Ireland's health service executive. I urge all Irish citizens, and all those who love Ireland, to read my earlier post on it.

It tells you everything you need to know as to what utterly corrupt and corrupting policies, targeted at young children, to which at least some in the Irish government appear to want to sign up.

The big question now is: Will Catholic church leaders stand up and be counted - in Ireland, or in Rome - and try to stop what is almost certain to happen to the Irish people unless they act?

Accommodation of the pro-abortion lobby, as we saw in 2009 with Archbishop Rino Fisichella, hasn't worked. It's simply served to embolden the most powerful political leaders in the world - Obama in the US, Blair and Cameron in Britain - who know that they can promote their abortion policies without fear of disapproval.

It's time to take Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of human life, on the duty to oppose the scandalisation and corruption of young people, off the shelf; shake off the dust on the pages which has accumulated after decades of lack of use; it's time to get up in the pulpits and out in the public square; it's time to speak the truth and to defend this generation's families and children - just as the Scottish bishops have done so well over the years and in recent weeks.

As my pro-life colleague in Ireland, Pat Buckley, said to me recently:
"Until now Ireland's fidelity to the Christian faith has helped it stand almost alone in Europe in prohibiting abortion.  At the same time it has led the world in the reduction of maternal mortality.  For both these reasons Ireland is hated by the forces of the culture of death which are preparing the imminent destruction of its pro-life laws."
The pro-life groups in Ireland are doing what they can. Will the Church speak out? will they help them?

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday, 27 July 2012

Pro-abortion "practising Roman Catholic" MP to address Catholic Justice and Peace annual meeting

The Catholic diocese of Brentwood website is advertising the annual conference of its Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility. The conference is to be opened by Bishop Thomas McMahon and it's to be addressed by Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham and Rainham on social justice issues. He is described in the media as a practising Roman Catholic.

If the Brentwood Diocese's Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility was actively planning to endanger vulnerable children, in the sense clearly understood and explained by Catholic teaching, they could not have done better than to invite Jon Cruddas MP, who has told Andrew Marr, the TV political journalist:
“I fully support the gay adoption proposals the Government put into place.”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the other hand, teaches that allowing children to be adopted by couples in homosexual unions "does violence to these children":
"As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case."
If the Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility had been actively planning to undermine the work of the Catholic Church and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in defence of the family, based on marriage - the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman - it could not have done better than invite Jon Cruddas to speak to their annual conference on social justice issues a man described as:
"Someone who believes ... that same-sex couples should be provided partnership rights equivalent to those of married heterosexual couples ... "
and who has expressed his pride in his voting record in support of the homosexual agenda.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has very clear teaching in respect of Catholic politicians and legislation in favour of homosexual unions. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says:
"If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."
And if the Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility were actively planning to undermine the work of pro-life groups and Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, they could not do better than invite an MP who says he supports a woman's right to choose [abortion]; that he's perfectly happy with the current situation (which provides legal sanction for the killing of 550 unborn babies daily); and who has voted 18 times with the anti-life lobby, for example voting in favour of the anti-life Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act at second reading (which denotes approval for the bill's principles) - a law designed to kill millions of innocent human beings deliberately created never to be born.

This is not my idea of justice and peace.
Concerned readers of this post may wish to express their views to the Brentwood Diocese's Commission of Justice and Social Responsibility.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday, 26 July 2012

45 years ago Dr Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, sold the pass on abortion

Today is the 45th anniversary of the Committee stage of David Steel’s Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill in the House of Lords. Although the pro-abortion lobby were buoyed by their success on Second Reading, things did not go quite as well as they had planned when the Bill reached its Committee stage.

Although Second Reading decides the principle of the Bill, the Committee stage opens the whole Bill to scrutiny and amendment, with the Bill being debated line by line and Clause by Clause.

Two major amendments were carried by the House of Lords against the wishes of Lord Silkin (who sponsored the Bill in the Upper House) and the pro-abortion lobby.

Things got off to a ominous start for Lord Silkin and his friends in the pro-abortion lobby when an amendment moved by the former Conservative Lord Chancellor, Viscount Dilhorn, that one of the two doctors required to certify an abortion under the Bill must be employed under the National Health Service as a consultant or must be approved for this purpose by the Minister of Health or in Scotland by the Secretary of State.

Viscount Dilhorne said the amendment sought to ensure there was the right medical advice and opinions of the right medical people before the operation was performed to ensure it was performed by a person well qualified to perform it.

Lord Silkin on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill argued that in his opinion the Bill as it stood was right. Abortions, he said, could be carried out only in institutions for the purpose. He added that the previous week (during Second Reading) 123 peers had wanted the Bill passed. They approved it. He argued that, quite frankly “time is against us and if we pass any amendments of which the Commons did not approve, we have effectively killed the Bill.” The amendments had all been discussed in the Commons who had come to the conclusion as it stood in the Bill.

Silkin begged the House not to play around with it now. He was prepared, if the amendments were withdrawn, to discuss them later and see whether they could find an acceptable form of words to be moved after the summer recess. This drew a rebuke from Viscount Dilhorn who said: “the noble Lord has not promised to put in any words at all. All he has done—and he has done it before—is to say that he would consider it seriously. I am rather tired of that formula. I know the noble Lord does 'consider seriously', but nothing ever happens on this Bill after that consideration.”

Despite the opposition of Lord Silkin, the pro-abortion lobby and of the Labour Minister, the amendment was carried by 116 votes to 67.

The second amendment carried by a narrow 87 votes to 86 removed the words which permitted an abortion if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the women’s existing children.

Viscount Dilhorn who moved the amendment said the provision was seeking to introduce as a justification for abortion a criterion wholly unrelated to the condition of the pregnant woman.

He said he found it difficult to visualise how the birth of a child could affect the physical or mental health of any existing child. Maybe little Willie would get so upset at the prospect of having a little brother or sister that his mental health would become disturbed, but that is no ground for terminating a human life.

Other amendments made on this day to the Bill included a re-writing of the conscience clause and at the request of the Home Office an amendment was carried delaying the commencement of the Bill by six months.

These two defeats led to a hysterical reaction by the pro-abortion lobby and their allies in the media who spoke of a constitutional crisis should the Lords amendments be rejected by the House of Commons.

The full debate in Committee can be seen here.

However, the story doesn't end on 26th July 1967.

During the summer recess, there was a campaign led by the pro-abortion lobby about a constitutional crisis if the House of Commons rejected the amendments and the Lords insisted on keeping them. At one point, there were even calls for the Archbishop of Canterbury to lose his Seat in the House of Lords.

During the Report stage (held on 23rd October, the first day back from the summer recess), the House of Lords reversed the two amendments to the Bill which they had approved in the Committee stage, and then went on to complete the Bill’s Third Reading.

In reversing the two amendments, they thus avoided a clash with the House of Commons which would probably have wrecked the Bill for the 1966-67 Session and could have caused - so the pro-abortion lobby argued - a constitutional crisis.

First the House of Lords defeated by 113 votes to 79 the requirement that one of the two doctors needed to agree on an abortion must be a National Health Service consultant. They had voted this amendment into the Bill in July by 116 votes to 67.

Later that day the House of Lords voted by 80 to 69 to restore the "social" clause, allowing an abortion on the grounds of injury to the health of children of the family. They had defeated this clause in July by a majority of one.

It seemed at first as if the House of Lords would stick with their amendments, led by Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Brock (president of the Royal College of Surgeons), the Marquess of Salisbury, the Earl of Longford, and the Archbishop of Canterbury (pictured above).

The first sign of weakening came when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey, after speaking firmly against the deletion of the requirement of an NHS doctor, voted in favour of its deletion. Rebuked by Viscount Dilhorne, the Archbishop said he had been convinced by arguments during the debate and changed his mind.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Macmillan Cancer Support's response on euthanasia

Last year SPUC re-launched its information on charities as an online index, with new entries and updated information added as and when new information is received. Today's charity is Macmillan Cancer Support.

Macmillan Cancer Support provides practical, medical and financial support and push for better cancer care.

In a letter dated 28 June 2012, Macmillan Cancer Support said:
"Macmillan Cancer Support does not have a policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide. With regard to advance directives or living wills, we have an information page on our website, titled 'Advance decisions'."
As anti-euthanasia groups such as SPUC have pointed out over several decades,
"one of the key problems with living wills is their application in circumstances where it would obviously be contrary to best medical practice enacted in the best interests of the patient. It is no surprise that the pro-euthanasia people are very interested in living wills because they see an opportunity to use the denial of treatment - that would be encouraged as the content of a living will - as a form of soft euthanasia." (Dr Greg Pike, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, 7 August 2008).
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 25 July

Top story:

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time
MPs who vote for David Cameron's gay marriage pledge will be punished at the general election, says SPUC. SPUC was responding to Mr Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph http://goo.gl/fNQJn in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015. John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, commented: "There are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies." [SPUC, 25 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
  • Disability no longer to be legal ground for abortion, announces Spanish government [ThinkSpain, 22 July]
Sexual ethics
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time

SPUC has responded to David Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph this morning  in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015.

As I told the media this morning, there are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies.

Mr Cameron's speech reveals that his understanding of marriage and religion is woefully simplistic and ignorant. His mantra of 'equality' totally ignores the nature, history and role of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman ordered towards the procreation of children.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is outside Mr Cameron's remit as a political leader. The family - not the government - is the first and vital cell and source of human society, and is therefore a pre-political institution. By seeking to redefine marriage, Mr Cameron is also seeking to redefine the family, which is based upon marriage between one man and one woman. Mr Cameron is clearly doing his best to copy Tony Blair as a social engineering guru.

SPUC's position paper on same-sex marriage explains why SPUC, as a pro-life campaigning organisation, campaigns against same-sex unions.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Tue 24 July

Top story:

SPUC welcomes new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow
SPUC has welcomed the appointment of Bishop Philip Tartaglia as the new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow. John Smeaton, SPUC’s chief executive, commented: “Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been outspoken in the defence of the sanctity of human life, as well as the dignity of the family based solely on marriage between one man and one woman. We at SPUC look forward to supporting Archbishop-elect Tartaglia in his pro-life and pro-family ministry in the coming, challenging years." [SPUC, 24 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
Sexual ethics
General
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

SPUC welcomes Philip Tartaglia as new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow

SPUC has welcomed the appointment of Bishop Philip Tartaglia as the new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow.

As I told the media earlier this morning, Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been outspoken in the defence of the sanctity of human life, as well as the dignity of the family based solely on marriage between one man and one woman. In 2011 he said that:
"[T]he fundamental human right is the right to life from conception to its natural end... [L]egalised abortion is the primary fatal injustice of our times, which has no place in a civilised society." (endorsement, 40 Days for Life 2011)
Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been equally strong in opposing same-sex marriage, saying:
"Nature, reason and religion concur that marriage is uniquely the union of a man and a woman, which, by its very nature, is designed for the mutual good of the spouses and to give the children who may be born of that union a father and a mother ... Same-sex ‘marriage’ will change the nature of parenting. The normal mother and father model of parenting will be replaced in law and then gradually in culture by a non gender-specific model of parenting which will deprive children of their right to have a mother and a father" (pastoral letter, 4 October 2011)
We at SPUC look forward to supporting Archbishop-elect Tartaglia in his pro-life and pro-family ministry in the coming, challenging years. We thank Archbishop Mario Conti for the support he has given to SPUC and to the pro-life and pro-family cause over many years.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday, 23 July 2012

Concerned parents in Tower Hamlets hear family issues expert

Dr Lisa Nolland
On 11 July 2012, over 500 mums streamed into the London Muslim Centre, to hear Dr Lisa Nolland, a leading family issues expert. Most of the parents had been active in collecting over 10,000 signatures for a petition calling on Tower Hamlets council to stop funding explicit sex education in the borough’s primary schools.

In a lecture titled, “Giving our children the best”, Dr Nolland gave a social historian’s analysis of how we come to have UK schools showing graphic cartoon sex scenes to young children in the classroom.

It all started with Dr Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956), whose “sick-sex ideology” spread through Playboy, pornography, world sexual health organisations and into sex education programmes.

Dr Nolland encouraged parents to read up on this, to fully understand the background of what we are facing now.

In Dr Nolland’s view Alfred Kinsey’s legacy of perverted sexuality, including sexualising young children through explicit sex education programmes, can be seen today:

• Numbers and rates of sexually transmitted infections have risen costing the NHS £1 billion annually
• Teen pregnancy cost the NHS: £63 million annually

• Family breakdown costs the state around £42 billion annually.

Dr Nolland’s key message to parents was to understand these issues in order to be better prepared and able to protect their children.

“I want you to be the best and most effective mothers (and fathers),” she told the meeting.

“All children need lots of the 4 As from you, their mothers and fathers:

• Your AFFECTION (physical and emotional)
• Your AFFIRMATION
• Your ATTENTION
• Your ADVOCACY"

Please read the edited version of Dr Nolland’s presentation, which includes the books she referred to during the meeting.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy