Friday 30 May 2014

Scottish registered abortion numbers fall again

Top stories:

Scottish registered abortion rate falls again
The annual rate of registered abortions in Scotland has fallen again, reports The Scotsman. According to the newspaper, "A total of 11,777 terminations were carried out in 2013, representing a rate of 11.2 per 1,000 women aged 15-44, official health statistics show. It is the lowest abortion rate since 2002, when the rate was 11.1, and continues the downward trend since 2008, when abortion rates peaked at 13.3. In 2012, the rate stood at 11.9." [Scotsman, 27 May]

Government abortion guidance "weak" and "fails to uphold law" says SPUC
The government’s newly-issued guidance on abortion is "weak" and "fails to uphold the law", says SPUC, the UK’s main pro-life political organisation. The Department of Health last week issued guidance on various aspects of abortion law and practice, such as sex-selective abortion, pre-signing of abortion authorisation forms and doctors’ assessment of abortion cases. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, said that the guidance "endorses weak restrictions on some practices but promotes an underlying agenda of abortion-on-demand." [SPUC, 27 May]

Other stories:

Abortion
Embryology
  • Christian GP under investigation for refusing fertility treatment to lesbian couple [Mail, 27 May]
Population
Sexual ethics
  • Philippine bishops and local officials argue over teen pregnancies [UCA, 28 May]
  • Archbishop Smith/CBCEW defends homosexual civil partnerships, despite Catholic teaching to the contrary [John Smeaton, 22 May]
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

Thursday 29 May 2014

Bishops' draft guidance appears to recommend Catholics assist transsexual people through "gender reassignment"

It is a matter of great concern to me and, I am sure, to many Catholics, that a draft document (of which I have recently become aware) prepared for the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales should seem to recommend that Catholics co-operate with acts that are gravely contrary to the moral law. Applying Equality Law in Practice: Guidance for Catholics and Catholic Organisations, which is intended to give practical guidance to Catholics on the application of Equality Law, states:
"Transsexual people face many difficulties before, during and after transitioning to another gender. As such it is recommended to seek guidance on how to make the transitional process as easy as possible. This could include training for co-workers, as well as reference to medical and social advice".
The draft document appears to be recommending Catholics to assist another person in pursuing a course of action which will prove physically and psychologically damaging in order to protect themselves from the risk of coming into conflict with equality laws.

This is far from being the only problem with the draft document. My personal assistant, Matthew McCusker, has helpfully written an analysis of the document. The Executive Summary of Matthew's analysis can also be found below.

You may wish to send your comments on the draft document to the bishopof the Catholic diocese in which you live and to Archbishop Peter Smith, Chairman of the CBCEW’s Department for Christian Responsibility and Citizenship at Archbishop's House, 150 St George’s Road, London, SE1 6HX or to his email: aps@rcsouthwark.co.uk. If you have any further queries about this matter or about Matthew's analysis, please contact him at matthewmccusker@spuc.org.uk

Executive Summary

Matthew McCusker's paper is an analysis of Applying Equality Law in Practice: Guidance for Catholics and Catholic Organisations. Applying Equality Law in Practice, which is said to be approved by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, aims to “provide an accurate overview of equality law as it stands ... with a focus on religious issues.” The legislation under discussion is the Equality Act 2010, with subsequent legislation taken into account. Applying Equality Law in Practice is out for consultation until 31st May 2014. [JS: I am in correspondence with Archbishop Smith and I have requested that the Consultation close at a later date.]

Matthew's paper raises concerns about the content of Applying Equality Law in Practice and challenges the claim that it offers “informed advice and guidance”, which will prove to be “a resource which can be referred to when a particular issue arises”.

In particular Matthew argues that Applying Equality Law in Practice:
  • Fails to place the Equality Act 2010 in its social and political context.
  • Incorrectly claims that the “framework” of the Equality Act 2010 “is in line with Catholic teaching”.
  • Provides a distorted interpretation of the law by failing to distinguish acceptable definitions/usage of key terms from the distorted definitions/usage of key terms used by proponents of equality law.
  • Urges conformity to the Equality Act, and promotion of it, without adequate consideration of the moral dimensions of the law.
  • Fails to enunciate Catholic teaching on the questions under discussion and thus fails to offer real guidance to those seeking assistance “when a particular issue arises”.
  • Confuses “religious rights” and the natural moral law in such a way as to undermine claims to objective truth in moral matters.
  • Fails to uphold the rights of non-Catholics by retreating from the natural moral law to “religious rights”.
  • Fails to uphold the authentic dignity of those falling under the protected characteristics of “sexual orientation” and “gender reassignment” by acquiescing in the false ideology which underpins the law and by failing either to share the truth in love, or to encourage others to do so.
  • Fails to offer moral support or encouragement to those who are concerned that the law poses a risk to their authentic rights.
In short, Applying Equality Law in Practice as currently drafted is inadequate as guidance for Catholic dioceses and “Catholic individuals and organisations” who need  advice “when a particular issue arises” relating to current equality law.

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 28 May 2014

Bishop Sherrington celebrates national Mass for pro-life groups

Last night I was in in Bedford representing SPUC at a national Mass for the work of pro-life organisations at The Church of The Holy Child and St Joseph. The principal celebrant was His Lordship Rt Rev John Sherrington, auxiliary bishop of Westminster, who also preached on the abortion crisis in Britain and on the work of the various groups labouring in the pro-life movement. He thanked Dr Sue Sarsfield, chairman of Bedford SPUC, which co-organized the event with the Keepers of the missionary image of Our Lady of Guadelupe. Our Lady of Guadalupe is known worldwide as the Protectress of the unborn.

Dr Sarsfield is pictured above introducing the event with Our Lady of Guadalupe's missionary image to the right and welcoming the many pro-life groups invited and present at this lovely event so beautifully supported by the parish, including a fine youth choir. After Mass Bishop Sherrington joined the congregation for a cup of tea and a bite to eat and I took the opportunity of thanking him for coming to celebrate the Mass and for his inspiring homily. Thanks are due also to Canon Seamas Keenan, the parish priest, for hosting the Mass, and who provides in his church the national shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

I was joined by Christopher Langley, a well-known pro-life leader in Luton, in saying the bidding prayers, and Ed Smith, of the Alliance of Pro-Life Students said the first reading. Other pro-life groups represented included leaders of the Helpers of God's Precious Infants and the Catholic Medical Association. The Knights of St Columba, of which I am proud to be a member, were also there in force.

The missionary image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is now going on mission to Leeds where it will be welcomed by the Helpers of God's Precious Infants. Let me know if you would like the missionary image to come to your area and I will pass on the message to the Bedford organizers.

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 27 May 2014

Government abortion guidance weak and fails to uphold law

The Department of Health last week issued guidance on various aspects of abortion law and practice, such as sex-selective abortion, pre-signing of abortion authorisation forms and doctors’ assessment of abortion cases.

Paul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary, told the media:
"The government’s new abortion guidance is weak and fails to uphold the law – it endorses weak restrictions on some practices but promotes an underlying agenda of abortion-on-demand.

We welcome the government’s messages that abortion on the grounds of sex alone is wrong; that doctors must not pre-sign abortion authorisation forms; and that doctors cannot form a proper opinion of a woman’s condition without ever seeing her. These messages, however, are neither ground-breaking nor robust.

The Department of Health and the abortion industry have a close and ugly relationship. The Department contracts out millions of pounds’ worth of abortions to the private sector, which is keen to provide abortions (NHS-funded) to all comers. The Department also acts in Parliament as the defender of the pro-abortion lobby, briefing ministers and promoting policies that undermine the law."
 See below an in-depth commentary by Paul Tully:
In-depth commentary on government abortion guidance and the Sexual Health Team (SHT) of the Department of Health
The guidance published today shows the grip that the pro-abortion Sexual Health Team (SHT) has on abortion policy.  It arrogantly presumes to assert that abortion on grounds of the baby's sex is illegal while allowing the abortion industry to carry on aborting other 'unwanted' babies – despite the evidence of harm to women resulting from such abortions.

Aborting babies because they are girls is the only bad reason according to the feminist thinking which dominates the SHT's agenda.  Aborting so-called unwanted babies in general – in particular those of the poor, racial minorities, and un-wed mothers – should carry on uninterrupted according to the SHT.  Those with financial or other ulterior interests in promoting abortion industry – including medical bodies like the RCOG and the wealthy private abortion clinics - will not have their activities significantly curtailed.

The SHT shows contempt for the wishes of Parliament, which clearly requires that mental or physical health risks of continuing a pregnancy outweigh the risks entailed in abortion.  We have always maintained that abortion is bad medicine and is neither necessary to avoid risks to physical health nor helpful in reducing harm to mental health.  Abortion on physical health grounds is now hardly ever proposed.  Nearly all abortions, apart from those on disabled babies, are performed because two doctors claim (supposedly independently) that there is a risk to mental health.

The SHT guidance is wrong in law where it states (paragraph 13) that the threshhold of risk to mental health for legal abortion is simply a matter of the doctor's opinion.  The law states that the threshhold of risk is the comparison between continuing the pregnancy and aborting the baby.  The doctor must form an opinion as to which risk is greater.  He is not free to decide that a minor or minimal risk to mental health justifies an abortion if he knows the damage to mental health of undergoing an abortion would be the same or greater.

Yet every week, hundreds of doctors sign statutory forms certifying medical grounds for abortion which the department of health's own evidence review has shown to be false.  Today's documents indicate that the Secretary of State will continue to use his discretion to grant licences to abortion clinics where doctors do not bother even to see or talk to mothers - often in desperate straits - before signing away the lives of unborn children."
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 22 May 2014

Archbishop Smith/CBCEW defends homosexual civil partnerships, despite Catholic teaching to the contrary

Archbishop Peter Smith
Archbishop Peter Smith, in a statement on behalf of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW), has defended homosexual civil partnerships. In a response to the government's review of civil partnerships following legal approval of same-sex marriages, Archbishop Smith/CBCEW say (inter alia):
  • "Some lesbian and gay Catholics do not wish to enter into civil same sex marriage because of their deeply held belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, but still wish to have the legal rights that are contained in a civil partnership. The removal of the option for same sex couples to enter into civil partnerships could cause great harm to those Catholics and others."
  • "In terms of the Equality Act framework, it is important that those who share the protected characteristics of sexuality and religion continue to be able to manifest their religious beliefs whilst not being denied the legal protections that are offered by a civil partnership."
  • "We are opposed to any automatic conversion of civil partnerships into same sex marriages. The two realities were established differently in law with distinct meanings. Same sex couples who entered into civil partnerships may not wish to have their relationship labelled in this way."
  •  "[T]he continued legal right of lesbian and gay couples to enter into civil partnerships is important to them. Preventing new civil partnerships from being entered would deny them those rights and provide little or no benefit elsewhere."
My comments:

In the above response, Archbishop Smith/CBCEW defends homosexual civil partnerships despite Catholic teaching to the contrary. In 2003, Pope John Paul II* approved a document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled "Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons", signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and published on the feast-day of the Ugandan martyrs, who died rather than submit to homosexual acts. Here are some relevant extracts from that document, marked "CDF" and with my emphases in bold, followed by my comments:
CDF: "In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (no.5)
As civil partnerships in English law are legally exclusive to same-sex couples and in practice are used only by homosexual couples, they therefore fall squarely under the document's condemnation of homosexual unions. By the use of the word "or", the CDF made clear that the Catholic Church condemns civil partnerships between homosexuals per se and not only "[i]n those situations where homosexual unions...have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage." (And in any case, civil partnerships in English law have already been given many of the "rights belonging to marriage" in English law, so they are doubly condemned.) Archbishop Smith/CBCEW has not only failed in their "duty" to manifest "clear and emphatic opposition" to homosexual civil partnerships, they have endorsed and defended them.
CDF: "The homosexual inclination is...'objectively disordered' and homosexual practices are 'sins gravely contrary to chastity'." (no.4)
There is no mention in the Archbishop Smith/CBCEW response to homosexuality as a disorder nor to the wrongness of homosexual acts. This omission is squarely contrary to the next paragraph of the CDF's document which says:
"Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, [for example] stating clearly the immoral nature of [homosexual] unions..." (no.5)
The Archbishop Smith/CBCEW response refers to:
“lesbian and gay Catholics who have entered into civil partnerships in order to secure important and necessary legal rights”.
Yet the CDF explicitly rejected that argument:
CDF: "Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens." (no.9)
The final paragraph of the CDF's document said:
"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean...the approval of deviant behaviour..." (no.11)
Again, by the use of the word "or", the CDF made clear that the Catholic Church condemns civil partnerships between homosexuals per se and not only where such unions are "plac[ed] on the same level as marriage." One of the bases of this condemnation is "the approval of deviant behaviour", about which Archbishop Smith/CBCEW is silent.

When the Civil Partnerships Bill was passed in 2004, Archbishop Smith, again on behalf of the CBCEW, said the opposite of this latest CBCEW response, arguing that:
"The government has effectively established same-sex marriage in all but name"
and warning of the damage that would cause.

Background: Legal nature of civil partnerships

Jacqueline Humphreys, an Anglican barrister, has said:
"[T]here can be no ambiguity that [UK civil partnerships] are intended to be sexual ... [T]he fact that some people do not engage in genital sexual activity within their marriage does not prevent marriage from being the legal regulation of an essentially sexual relationship. The same applies to civil partnerships ... [C]ivil partnerships are in all important respects the same as marriage in terms of practical legal effect. Civil partnerships also share the overwhelming majority of the conceptual understandings of marriage that exist within English law"
Ms Humphreys has explained in detail how the Civil Partnerships Act has numerous aspects which mirror UK marriage law. There are so many of these aspects, so I won't list them all here, but here are some of the main ones [my emphases in bold]:
  • "Like marriage, a civil partnership ends only on death, dissolution or annulment"
  • "[C]ivil partners are to be treated by law in the same way as married couples in respect to property disputes" etc.
  • "Civil partnerships are also designed to be monogamous ...  This mutual exclusivity of marriage and civil partnership has the effect of putting civil partnerships firmly in a position equivalent to marriage."
  • "[T]he range of persons within prohibited degrees of relationship with whom it is not possible to enter a civil partnership...is the equivalent to that for marriage ... If civil partnerships are not assumed to be sexual, there can be no reason to restrict close family members from entering them. But because they are presumed to be sexual, it would not be appropriate for the law to legitimise 'incestuous' relationships."
  • "[T]he term 'in-law' where it appears in legislation also includes relationship by reason of civil partnership in addition to relationship by marriage and that `step-parent' and 'step­child' relationships are also recognised for civil partners as they would be for spouses."
  • "A civil partnership is voidable on the ground that at the time of its formation the respondent was pregnant by some person other than the applicant."
  • "[M]any of the details of the 2004 Act anticipate that children will be a feature of the family life of some civil partnerships"
  • [T]he Act recognises same-sex marriages in other countries as civil partnerships.
Ms Humphreys explained that it is for technical legal reasons that adultery is absent as a ground for dissolution, and not because civil partnerships are not intended to be sexual.

Civil partnerships are in practice celebrated like civil marriages:
  • conducted at registry offices, witnessed and registered by the same government officials who witness and register marriages
  • celebrated with much of the traditional panoply of weddings (rings, kisses, formal attire, receptions etc)
  • referred to in common parlance as "weddings" and the partners referred to as "husbands" or "wives".
* Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught (Evangelium Vitae, 1995, para.97) 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 19 May 2014

Josephine and I celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary

Josephine and I celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary by going to Mass at St Joseph's, Wealdstone, where we are pictured here today. The second picture taken after our wedding in the same spot features my late mum and dad, Margot and Jack, to my right, and Josephine's sister, May, and Josephine's late dad, Mick Clarke. Sadly, Josephine's mum, Josie, had died seven years earlier. God rest all our parents this happy, sun-filled, day.

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 16 May 2014

Thank God for Northern Ireland Protestant politicians for defending marriage

Caitriona Ruane (centre in white)
On 29 April, the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont debated a motion by Sinn Féin which called for the recognition of same-sex marriage. Thankfully the motion was defeated by 51 votes to 43. The votes in favour of same-sex marriage came from Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) of Sinn Féin, Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), the Alliance Party and the Green Party, plus two members of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and two members of NI21, a liberal Unionist party . The votes against same-sex marriage came from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the UUP, plus two Protestant MLAs of the Alliance Party who thus voted against their party's policy. Six SDLP MLAs abstained or were absent. Thus, no Catholic MLA actually voted against same-sex marriage.

Thank God for the leadership of members of the Protestant community in safeguarding families and safeguarding marriage as the permanent exclusive union of a man and a woman. I say that as chief executive of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), which passed a resolution opposing same-sex marriage legislation on the basis that real marriage between a man and woman has been proved to be protective of unborn children. And I say this too as a Catholic father who is deeply worried about the lack of anything approaching powerful Catholic witness, except on the part of exceptional bishops in Britain and elsewhere, in defence of marriage and the family.

Northern Ireland has now rejected calls for the legalisation of same-sex marriage three times, thanks entirely to its Protestant politicians. The Social Democratic and Labour Party, the principal nationalist party in Northern Ireland, traditionally seen as representing the Catholic community, supports the redefinition of marriage, as does Sinn Féin. The stark Protestant-Catholic divide on this issue clearly reflects a deeper problem within the Catholic world.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC communications manager, has prepared this most helpful analysis of the Stormont debate last month:
The day before the debate, the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland published an open letter to the Assembly. They said (inter alia) that the motion :
"misuses the principle of equality. It is a fact of nature that same-sex unions are fundamentally and objectively different from the complementary sexual union of a woman and a man which is of itself naturally open to life."
Caitriona Ruane, the Sinn Féin MLA who moved the motion, attacked
"wild nonsense peddled about incest and polygamy".
However, polygamous unions have already occurred in Massachusetts and Brazil. And some advocates of same-sex marriage also advocate abolishing laws against incest.

Ruane also derided the argument that same-sex marriage threatens family values, claiming that this argument was used to justify the Magdalene laundries and anti-miscegenation laws under the apartheid regime. Ruane is clearly unfamiliar with the concept that that two wrongs don't make a right. Towards the end of the debate, Megan Fearon, another Sinn Féin MLA, confirmed Sinn Féin's contempt for the family, saying:
"The old narrative that a child needs a man and a woman to be raised properly is totally incorrect."
Ruane went on to deride conscience also, saying:
"We are not here to legislate according to our consciences; we are here to legislate on the basis of equality."
I suggest that Ruane familiarise herself with the life of St Thomas More and the importance of the role of conscience for a legislator.

Mervyn Storey, DUP, opposing the motion, said:
"Marriage has only one definition. It is the lifelong commitment between one man and one woman. That has been the accepted position since the dawn of creation. It is a creation institution."
Mr Storey also pointed out that:
"The European Court and other legislators have ruled that same-sex marriage is not a human rights issue."
Importantly, he said:
"During the campaign for civil partnerships, we were told that those partnerships would ensure equal rights in law for same-sex couples and that there would never be any campaign for full marriage. Here we are today"
Danny Kennedy (UUP) said:
"Redefining marriage would have far-reaching consequences for our entire society. Furthermore, I do not believe that there is widespread public support in Northern Ireland for such a proposal."
Chris Lyttle (Alliance Party) implied that retaining legal marriage as a heterosexual institution would be to impose religious belief on the civil law. He said:
"I take very seriously my responsibility as a democratically elected representative to uphold not only the principle of freedom of religion but freedom from religion, and equality before the law for all citizens ... The proposal before us is that state-provided civil marriage be extended to same-sex couples..."
This argument was echoed later by Daithí McKay of Sinn Féin:
"People, of course, have the freedom to disagree with same-sex marriage on the basis of their individual religious views. However, as legislators, we have to legislate for everybody. The legislation we are proposing will not cover religious groups; it is civil marriage ... They say that marriage is sanctity, but marriage is what you make of it. Marriage is unique to each and every one of us. "
Paul Givan (DUP) said:
"The Assembly has voted conclusively on two previous occasions — I trust that it will do so again today — to uphold the institution of marriage as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That definition of marriage has been the foundation of our society, predating Governments. However, over time, Governments have recognised that union, because of its undeniable benefits, as opposed to creating the institution ... Marriage being between a man and a woman is not discriminatory; it is the recognition of the natural truths that men and women are different and complementary, and the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman."
Lord Morrow (DUP) argued that same-sex marriage is about:
"redefining marriage, thereby bringing about a societal change in the understanding of what marriage is. This would be a radical redefinition of society's most fundamental institution and a radical deconstruction of the institution of marriage. The terms "husband" and "wife", and, indeed, "father" and "mother", would become meaningless ... Marriage would be redefined for everyone... That new definition of marriage would become the norm and would be taught in our schools as being the norm, even to young children, thereby interfering with parents' rights to pass on their own values to their children ... Redefining marriage as a genderless institution would mean merging two things that are radically dissimilar under the single word 'marriage'."
Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin) confirmed that her party supports an elastic redefinition of the family:
"All family forms should be given equal respect and value in law. The traditional family form based on marriage should not be given higher status in law or practice than any other family form. Law and social policy should recognise the diversity of family life in Ireland. All families, including unmarried families, have the same rights to respect, care, support, protection and recognition."
Like Caitriona Ruane, Colum Eastwood (SDLP) tried to enlist past controversies in a fight against today's upholding of natural marriage in law:
"Marriage is an institution that has evolved over time. One hundred and fifty years ago, Catholics and Protestants in Ireland could not be married at all; now they can. Marriage used to be a property transaction rather than an institution in which two people loved each other and wanted to commit to each other. It used to be the case that, if a man was accused of rape, it would be all right if the victim was his wife. That is how far we have come in society. Adultery used to be a criminal offence. Divorce in Ireland was not legal."
Basil McCrea (NI21) echoed Caitriona Ruane's attack on conscience:
"I think that it is really wrong that we allow personal morals to influence what should be a legislative assembly. I do not think that this should be a free vote. I think that it should be a proper whipped vote..."
Simon Hamilton (DUP), the Minister of Finance and Personnel, pointed out that protections for clergy against same-sex marriage:
"do not protect the religious beliefs of others, such as teachers or registrars, and it is entirely possible that faith organisations in Great Britain will be precluded from accessing public funding, services or public buildings because they object to same-sex marriage."
Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin) attacked:
"hetero-normativity...and distinct gender roles"
and made the flamboyant claim that:
"The battle for LGBT rights is the equivalent of the civil rights movement for my generation".
Thankfully the majority of Unionist MLAs were not fooled by such false rhetoric coming from the Marxist revolutionaries of Sinn Féin, and the motion was defeated.
Thanks Anthony. As a footnote, I would just add this: At one point in the debate Michael Copeland, one of the two Ulster Unionists who supported the motion said:
"I do not consider myself to be a worthy person to sit in judgement, moral or otherwise, on the emotions of other human beings."
This is a mantra being increasingly echoed, in all kinds of inappropriate contexts, around the world.

Judging is what legislators do for a living. They judge what is for the common good of humanity – beginning with the common good of the family. As article 16 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
Michael Copeland is judging. He is judging that same-sex marriage serves the good of society – despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

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 13 May 2014

My open letter to top Italian bishop on pro-life prayerful witness outside abortion clinics

I am deeply troubled by the reported intervention of Bishop Galantino (pictured), the secretary-general of the Italian bishops' conference, who, according to "The Tablet" has said:

“My wish for the Italian Church is that it is able to listen without any taboo to the arguments in favour of married priests, the Eucharist for the divorced, and homosexuality ... In the past we have concentrated too much on abortion and euthanasia. It mustn’t be this way because in the middle there’s real life which is constantly changing ... I don’t identify with the expressionless person who stands outside the abortion clinic reciting their rosary, but with young people, who are still against this practice, but are instead fighting for quality of life, their health, their right to work.”

I am writing to Bishop Galantino today as follows:
Your Excellency,

I have read your reported comments, quoted today by The Tablet, saying, amongst other things, that you "don't identify with the expressionless person who stands outside the abortion clinic reciting their rosary".

I do hope you have been misreported. Please let me know if that's the case.

I thought I would let you know that I do identify with the person outside the abortion clinic praying their rosary, whether or not the person is expressionless.

Just 30 minutes ago I received the following message from a wonderful group in England which organizes, at great personal sacrifice, people to stand outside an abortion clinic in Twickenham, west London. The message said: "Pray hard for "Lucia", 20 weeks pregnant. Her abortion is booked for next week in Twickenham."

I have prayed for Lucia. I did so before writing to you. Whilst writing, may I ask that you pray for her too and ask others to do so?

In my experience, these prayers work. I am constantly getting messages from the same source, the wonderful group in England,which tell me about young women who, seeing the people outside the abortion clinics praying, change their minds and keep their baby.

If I may, I will send you a full report on the work of this group.

Also, may I ask you a question in relation to what you reportedly say: "In the past we have concentrated too much on abortion and euthanasia"? (Again, I hope you have been misreported. Please let me know if that is the case.)

It's probably fair to say that tens of thousands of unborn children, each one made in the image and likeness of God, are killed every day throughout the world. For example, there are 500 killed daily in Britain, thousands in the US, thousands upon thousands in China, to name just three of the world's 193 countries.

Your Excellency, if it were Catholic priests or Jews who were being killed, or threatened with being killed, by national laws in Britain or in other parts of the world – would we expect, any day of the week, ever to enter a Catholic Church for Mass without the matter being mentioned, or being prayed about at that Mass? Would we not be denouncing, and rightly denouncing, the killing of Catholic priests or Jews, in every pulpit in the world – notwithstanding the past sins and scandals associated with members of the Catholic Church? The Jew, the priest, the unborn child are all created in the image and likeness of God.

I really don't think you would be saying, if national laws had allowed the killing of Catholic priests or Jews over the past few decades: "In the past we have concentrated too much on the killing of Catholic priests or Jews...". Indeed, you would probably be saying: "We can never do enough to denounce this grotesque evil".

Your Excellency, please reconsider your reported position.

May I come to meet you, in the company of one of my colleagues who has had an abortion, and discuss the whole matter with you?

Assuring you of my prayers.

God bless

John Smeaton
Chief Executive
You may wish to write a letter to the bishop yourself. My understanding is that one must write to him through his diocese, the diocese of Cassano all’Jonio.

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 12 May 2014

TV presenter couple have suicide pact

Richard and Judy have suicide pact
Top stories:
TV presenter couple have suicide pact [Telegraph, 12 May]


Respond to inquiry into compulsory sex ed

The Education Select Committee of the House of Commons has launched an inquiry into personal, social and health education (PSHE) in schools. Sex and relationship education (SRE) is also covered in this topic. It is absolutely vital that there is an overwhelming response from parents, grandparents, teachers, clergy and all concerned citizens saying "no" to compulsory sex education. Please download SPUC's briefing to help you respond to this inquiry.

Brainwashing children about gay marriage condemned by SPUC Safe at School
SPUC Safe at School has condemned calls from Scottish health boards for parents to hand over their children's moral education to the state. See Telegraph 9 May: "NHS chiefs tell ministers: Change sex education lessons to make all pupils learn about gay marriage". Antonia Tully, national coordinator of Safe at School, said: "The NHS is demanding that parents hand over their children to state indoctrination. I believe that Scottish parents will be quick to see that this is about using innocent children as pawns to promote same-sex marriage. We will be organising meetings in Scotland to empower parents to protect their own children." [SPUC, 9 May]
Welcome for decision not to fund abortion of Northern Ireland babies
Pro-life campaigners in Northern Ireland have welcomed the decision by the High Court in  London to reject claims that women from the Province should be entitled to "free" NHS abortions in Britain.  Liam Gibson, the development officer for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in Northern Ireland said: "While this result is what we  would have expected had it gone the other way it would not only have led to more children being killed but it would had serious implications for the rule of law and the value of Northern Ireland's devolved institutions. [SPUC, 8 May]

Other stories:

Abortion
  • Doctors escaping abortion charges on ‘utterly preposterous’ pretext, says MP [Telegraph, 12 May]
  • TV star who committed suicide had said her abortion was destructive force [Mail, 11 May]
  • Leona Lewis: Abortion of Down Syndrome babies "hurts my heart" [CNSnews.com, 9 May]
Euthanasia
  • Widow sues NHS hospital after alleging husband was starved to death [Mail, 12 May]
  • Euthanasia proposals invariably discriminate against chronically ill people like me [Age, 9 May]
  • Papal nuncio to Britain warns of "horrible consequences" of Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill [Telegraph, 8 May]
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

Saturday 10 May 2014

Scottish Catholic leaders and others defend parents' rights

Yesterday I reported that the leaders of Scotland's largest NHS boards want every Scottish child to be brainwashed into accepting same-sex marriage, and to be given the power overrule their parents' objection to such "sex education".

I am in Scotland and was greeted by this news when I picked up my morning newspaper yesterday morning.

How encouraging, then, to pick up my morning paper this morning and to read another story. The Telegraph reports that Catholic Church leaders in Scotland and leaders of the Kirk are fighting back, accusing NHS boards of making an "inappropriate" and "highly political" intervention and of actively undermining "the rights and consciences of parents".

Whilst I've been in Scotland these past few days I have met a number of church leaders and I am not surprised to note the strength of their immediate defence of parental rights.

I am not surprised, but I'm also mightily relieved that Catholic Church leaders and others in Scotland and others have spoken out. Let's just reflect again on what The Telegraph reported yesterday: in a letter from Scotland's largest health boards to Scottish government ministers, NHS leaders have protested against new draft sex education guidance. The Telegraph report states:
"Allowing children to withdraw from sex education lessons on the grounds of conscience risks them coming under pressure from parents opposed to gay marriage, the health boards warned.

"Instead they argued that the guidance should include greater protections against parents mounting campaigns against the content of the lessons. Children should be given the power to overrule their mothers and fathers, it was suggested."
As I said in my speech at the Legatus Convention in Orlando:
" ... we cannot defeat the culture of death which threatens constantly to overwhelm us on our own. Pro-life organizations and the wider community must be fortified by unequivocal, unyielding voices of Catholic Church officials and bishops throughout the world"
... as well as other church leaders.

As the threat in England grows (as I reported yesterday), I pray that we will see similar robust leadership from church leaders in our country too.

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 9 May 2014

Respond to inquiry into compulsory sex ed

The Education Select Committee of the House of Commons has launched an inquiry into personal, social and health education (PSHE) in schools. PSHE covers a number of topics such as drug education, healthy eating and so on. Sex and relationship education (SRE) is also covered in this topic.

We are very concerned that this inquiry will be used to make sex education a compulsory schools subject. This would mean that children as young as five years old would have to learn about sexual matters. Parents would be unable to protect their children from inappropriate teaching.

It is absolutely vital that there is an overwhelming response from parents, grandparents, teachers, clergy and all concerned citizens saying "no" to compulsory sex education. Compulsory sex education will sever parents from the moral upbringing of their children. And the innocence of children will be wiped out by ever more sexual content in the classroom.

Every school will be affected by this. Every child deserves to be protected.

Please download SPUC's briefing to help you respond to this inquiry. Please circulate the briefing as widely as possible asking others to respond to the inquiry. The deadline for responses is the first week of June (see the briefing for further details).

P.S. You may have seen this frightening report today by The Telegraph:
"NHS chiefs tell ministers: Change sex education lessons to make all pupils learn about gay marriage"

The NHS in Scotland wants:
  • all children to learn about gay marriage in sex education lessons
  • children to be given the power to overrule their parents
  • a stop to parents campaigning against the content of sex education lessons
  • training for teachers to help them overcome their objections to gay marriage.
Read SPUC Safe at School's reaction "Brainwashing children about gay marriage condemned by parents' rights group"

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

Brainwashing children about gay marriage condemned by parents' rights group

SPUC Safe at School has condemned calls from Scottish health boards for parents to hand over their children's moral education to the state.

See today's Telegraph story, "NHS chiefs tell ministers: Change sex education lessons to make all pupils learn about gay marriage"

Safe at School said that Scotland's largest NHS boards want nothing less than to brainwash every Scottish child into accepting same-sex marriage, by setting up children to overrule their parents.

Antonia Tully, national coordinator of Safe at School, told the media earlier today:
"The NHS is demanding that parents hand over their children to state indoctrination. I believe that Scottish parents will be quick to see that this is about using innocent children as pawns to promote same-sex marriage. We will be organising meetings in Scotland to empower parents to protect their own children."
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 8 May 2014

Welcome for decision not to fund abortion of Northern Ireland babies

Pro-life campaigners in Northern Ireland have welcomed the decision by the High Court in  London to reject claims that women from the Province should be  entitled to "free" NHS abortions in Britain. The Court ruled that there is no legal obligation on health services in England and Wales  to provide publicly funded abortions which would be unlawful within  Northern Ireland.

Liam Gibson, the development officer for SPUC in Northern Ireland told the media earlier today:
"While this result is what we  would have expected had it gone the other way it would not only have led to more children being killed but it would had serious implications for the rule of law and the value of Northern Ireland's devolved institutions. This case is merely the latest effort of abortion advocates in Britain to undermine our law. We have every right to defend our unborn children by law and the High Court recognised that.”
Liam said he believed that the real motivation behind the case was the potential increase in revenue for English abortion providers:
"Over the years it has been the strategy of abortion providers to  make money from the tax-payer by billing the NHS for abortions. This case was about organisations like Marie Stopes International angling for more money from the NHS. Despite enormous pressure from the pro-abortion lobby the number of women  seeking abortions in Britain has continued to decline. The figure for 2012 was down by about one third of what it was 10 years earlier.

More and more people, and not just in Northern Ireland, are appalled by the culture of abortion which has taken root in Britain where around 98 percent of abortions performed fail even to meet the legal criteria. Under the Abortion Act disabled children in Britain can be legally aborted right up to birth but the British Government has even been ambivalent about ending the scandal of sex-selective abortions where babies are targeted simply because they're girls. Nor has the health department taken action against doctors who break the law by pre-signing abortion forms. To see what liberal abortion laws can do to a society the people of Northern Ireland only need to look across the water to Britain. We are determined that that's not going to happen to our country," said Mr Gibson. “Women in crisis pregnancies don’t need free abortions, they need  help and support so that they don’t feel they have no choice but to kill their babies.”
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 6 May 2014

15-year-old supporter's heartfelt abortion plea

Allow me to share with you the feelings of Estelle Dawson, a 15-year-old supporter of SPUC, about abortion. Here's the message she sent to SPUC recently:

"Hello,

"I am writing to share with you a poem which I wrote in a campaign against abortion. I'm a 15 year old girl who wasn't able to attend your most recent conference [SPUC's youth and student conference] fortunately my eldest brother did and was able to share his experience with me.

"There was no great intention in my poem other than turning the way I felt into words in the hope of making people think about the legal murder that we accept as a 'normal' part of modern life.

"Thank you.

"Yours

"Estelle Dawson"
Mass Slaughter of Mankind.

If you were to find,
A new child of mankind,

Would you end its life?

I'm sure you wouldn't,
Or better yet, that you couldn't,

You would not end its life.

This living child,
Oh so gentle, oh so mild,

You would not end its life.

Its small feeble hands,
The way it can't stand,

You would not end its life.

It's beauty in existence,
Gods creation and consistence,

Could you end its life?

If you agree,
Then why be an adoptee,

To malicious inhumanity,
For reasons such as vanity,

When you could be antiabortion,
And stop this human distortion,

To not think it's okay,
To murder and betray,

Someone so delicate and frail,
Just because you're a female.

So, would you still end their life?

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 5 May 2014

Stolen Childhood conference tackles child sexualisation



An important conference on child sexualisation held in London last week was organized by the Combined Working Party of the Lords and Commons Child Protection Group. It covered sex education, the grooming and abuse of children through social media, and how to combat bullying and same-sex parenting. It featured Antonia Tully, of SPUC's Safe at School, amongst other leaders.

It's important that parents in particular thoroughly immerse themselves in these dangers to our children. There are already moves in this Parliament which are paving the way for the introduction of compulsory sex education in the next Parliament. Watch this space.

Parents cannot expect the overwhelming majority of church leaders of all denominations to help them in combatting these dangers. On the contrary. This is the tragic reality of the plight of children and of parents in the Church and in the society of the early 21st century.

Prepare for battle!

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 2 May 2014

Walk in reparation for abortion in York

On this coming Sunday, 4th May, there's a walk for life in York.

It's a walk in reparation for the legalizing of abortion and praying for the healing of wounds caused by abortion.

The timetable is as follows:
  • 1 - 1.25: Prayers in St. Wilfrid's Church, Petersgate, YO1 7EF
  • 1.30: Procession starts from the West front precinct of York Minster
  • Process to Margaret Clitheroe Monument, Ousebridge, where 80 red and white flowers will be thrown into river, representing 8,000,000 aborted babies.
  • Process to Bar Convent grounds. Veneration of relic of St Margaret Clitheroe
  • Process to Knavesmire for prayers
  • Process to Church of English Martyrs, Dalton Terrace YO24 4DA for Holy Mass at approximately 5 p.m.
Further details regarding transport etc can be obtained from Pat Sammon on 0113 2582745 or 07747 698553.

The total distance of the walk is approximately 2 miles. Both St Wilfred’s Church, Petersgate, and English Martyrs Church,Dalton Terrace, are open for prayer all day.

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