Friday, 4 January 2013

SPUC's Anthony McCarthy writes on the pro-life significance of Christmas 2012

Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education manager, has written the following article on the pro-life significance of Christmas 2012:
"Karl Marx once said to his daughter, one Christmas long ago:
'We can forgive Christianity much, because it taught us to worship the child.'
And who hasn’t had at least some part of that feeling, contemplating the extraordinary symbolism of the crib, of how the first Christmas turned the world upside down.

Yet the Church that was to flow from that event continues to be, like its founder, a sign of contradiction. Even the most rigorous Marxist historians – to say nothing of lesser 'cultural marxists' - can't quite account for that Church’s puzzling existence. Thus Perry Anderson comments:
'one single institution ... spanned the whole transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages in essential continuity: the Christian Church. It was, indeed, the main, frail aqueduct across which the cultural reservoirs of the Classical World now passed to the new universe of feudal Europe, where literacy had become clerical. Strange historical object par excellence, whose peculiar temporality has never coincided with that of a simple sequence from one economy or polity to another, but has overlapped and outlived several in a rhythm of its own, the Church has never received theorisation within historical materialism.'
With that rhythm of its own, the Church shows up the disorder of the State - and of our own souls – and in doing so perturbs us. With the birth of Christ comes also the Slaughter of the Innocents: the State invading the family and eliminating those whom Christmas teaches us to revere. Yet in the modern era, with abortion and now the Orwellian 'gay marriage' promoted by the most powerful elites, we are returning (and then some!) to a darker age. DH Lawrence, certainly no Christian, saw this clearly when he reminded readers that if you destroy marriage:
'you will go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era...Christianity made marriage in some respects inviolate, not to be violated by the State. It is marriage, perhaps, which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big Kingdom of the State, given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust State....It is true freedom because it is a true fulfilment, for man, woman, and children.'
Such a kingdom is an outrage to the modern State: a State underwritten by the usurious bankers who do their own oppressing of the family. King Herod was, in a sense, right to take alarm: the Holy Family was a threat to his 'values', and those who would defend the family today, while their taxes are liberally used to support the slaughter of innocents, are in a similar position.

And so, this New Year, we face a battle royal on abortion in Ireland, following epic levels of media and political distortion, in a country whose opposition to abortion has been an outrage to Barack Obama's backers at Planned Parenthood. In England there is already a battle royal on 'gay marriage'. David Cameron's former speech-writer (yes reader, he's actually proud of it!) revealingly tells us that:
'With luck, a rapid appeal to the European court of human rights will remove any opt-outs given to hostile religions.'
Despite Cameron’s own worthless assurances that religious groups won't be forced to conduct 'gay marriages', this Cameronian is quite clear that such marriages must and will be imposed on all religions, and conscience be damned.

The New Year will also see the next stage in the campaign of two Scottish midwives to challenge a judgment against them which would oblige them to oversee abortions. They had become midwives to care for pregnant women and their babies. Now, if they wish to remain midwives, they must co-operate in destroying those same babies: no way out for those who wish to retain their integrity as health promoters, not destroyers.

Caring for babies, honouring marriage. Quite Christmassy, one would have thought. Yet those who persecute defenders of the Holy Family, and families and children everywhere, for all their talk of a season of goodwill, would more honestly celebrate a different King who tried, with all the power of the State, to eliminate one who dared to be born in what he took to be his own domain.

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year."
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, 2 January 2013

Thank you Archbishop Nichols for ending the "Soho Masses"

I am delighted to learn in the latest news from the Catholic Herald that Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, is ending the so-called Soho Masses.

This decision is hugely important - not least because of the evidence that the Soho Masses were organised by and for Catholics who dissent from the Church's teaching on homosexuality.*

Archbishop Nichols's action is further confirmation of the clear leadership he is currently giving.  Last weekend I wrote about his pastoral letter, read out in every parish in the diocese of Westminster, urging Catholics to write to their Members of Parliament as soon as possible to oppose the government's proposal to re-define marriage "with all its likely consequences particularly in schools and in how children are taught about the true nature of marriage".

Thank you, Archbishop Nichols.

*As I've mentioned many times, the late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in paragraph 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

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, 31 December 2012

An unborn child has a legal personality in English law

One of the best-informed pro-life blogs is simply entitled ALDU - which stands for The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn.

Last week it re-published an article by the late Gerald Wright QC, B.A., B.C.L.. Mr Wright was commenting on the abortion case, Paton v BPAS, in which William Paton, in May 1979 " ... sought an injunction to restrain the B.P.A.S. Trustees, and his own wife, from aborting a child, his child, which his wife was then expecting."

George Baker, the President of the Court, said in his judgement:
"The foetus cannot in English law, in my view, have a right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from its mother."
Mr Wright disagreed. He says in his article:
"However despite this obiter dictum (for such it must be) it is submitted that a claim made on behalf of the unborn child, the "nasciturus" as it is sometimes called, would stand a very much better chance of success than did Mr. Paton's personal claim as husband and father-to-be. The arguments in favour of a claim so framed are outlined [in the full article]"  
Mr Wright's article is characteristically easy-to-read and erudite - much like ALDU's blog which I recommend to all pro-lifers.

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