Pope Benedict calls for worldwide vigil for life on 27th November

Pope Benedict has called on every diocesan bishop in the world to join him in leading a Vigil for All Nascent Human Life on Saturday, 27th November. On that day, the Holy Father will celebrate such a vigil in St Peter's coinciding with first vespers of the First Sunday of Advent.

Catholic News Agency reports:

"A letter from Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and Cardinal Ennio Antonelli of the Pontifical Council for the Family has been sent to the bishops of the world to invite a similar celebration and prayer initiative on a local level throughout the Catholic Church."

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has responded positively to Pope Benedict's request highlighting the Holy Father's request that:

“All Diocesan Bishops (and their equivalent) of every particular church preside in analogous celebrations involving the faithful in their respective parishes, religious communities, associations and movements.”

In a statement, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, Texas, chairman of the episcopal conference's pro-life committee, has highlighted the "unprecedented" nature of this request from the Pontiff and makes the following appeal to US Catholics:

"I heartily encourage all Catholics, whether at home or travelling over the Thanksgiving holidays, to take part in this special prayer ...

" ... Becoming a voice for the child in the womb, and for the embryonic human being at risk of becoming a mere object of research, and for the neglected sick and elderly is one of many ways we can teach our fellow citizens that 'The Measure of Love is to Love Without Measure.'"

I would urge all my visitors to contact their parish priests and their bishops to ask that the Pope's request be publicized and promoted to the greatest possible extent. 

Let's never forget: According to one calculation, 55 million people were killed during the second world war. From the perspective of 2010, these killings in the most deadly war in human history seem like the mere preluded of a tragic drama which was to be played out for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st. Hundreds of millions of innocent human beings have been killed. There have been over 50 million recorded abortions in the US since 1973 and over 7 million recorded abortions in Britain since 1968 bringing us to well over 55 million abortions in the US and Britain alone - not to mention the deaths of human embryos through invitro fertilisations procedures and the countless deaths of human embryos through abortifacient birth control.

Pope Benedict's call for a vigil for all nascent human life could not be more timely or more important. Let all who believe in prayer, pray for a great outpouring of grace on our bishops which impels them to respond generously to his call.

The USCCB has, they say, developed Vigil prayer aids for dioceses and parishes which will soon be available. Given the scale of the worldwide crisis, no-one could possibly argue that the vigil cannot be supported because of other priorities or because of events being held in support of life at other times of the year. A world figure has called for a worldwide response to arguably the greatest crisis ever to befall humanity and it really must be supported.

I would like to give publicity to any events occurring in dioceses throughout Britain - so do keep me posted about what's happening in your diocese or parish.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Don't fall for the euthanasia lobby's campaign of spin and hijacks

Sir Michael Caine, the actor, has claimed in an interview that, following his request, a doctor gave his terminally-ill father a lethal overdose. Sir Michael also expressed support for voluntary euthanasia. (Readers might recall that Sir Michael was one of the lead actors in the pro-abortion film "The Cider House Rules".) Peter Saunders, head of the Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF), has an excellent blog-post on Sir Michael's comments, uncovering the spin that the pro-euthanasia lobby put on such media reports.

The Voluntary Euthanasia Society (which has recently tried to whitewash itself by rebranding itself Dignity in Dying), has not only has sought to trade on Sir Michael's comments, but is also now seeking to hijack the medical profession for its pro-death campaign, starting a new group called Healthcare Professionals for Change. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media earlier this week:

“A doctor is obliged by professional ethics and in law to act in their patients’ best clinical interests. For a doctor to kill their patients instead of treating or caring for them cannot be in their patients’ best clinical interests. 200 years ago, Dr Christoph Hufeland, Johann Goethe's doctor, warned that, once a doctor steps outside their vocation to preserve life, he become the most dangerous man in the state. Legalising assisted suicide would turn a class of private citizens into public killers. It would change doctors and nurses from being healers and carers into poisoners and angels of death. Also, making assisted suicide available to patients would lead to pressure on pro-life doctors and nurses to assist suicide, thereby diminishing their autonomy to practice their profession according to their consciences and Hippocratic 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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

My address on human rights to this week's pro-life congress in Rome

Below is an abridged version of the address I gave on Thursday at the World Prayer Congress for Life in Rome, organised by Human Life International (HLI). The full version can be found on SPUC's website in the original English, plus translations into German, Italian and Spanish.

Human rights: truth and illusion in Europe

Rights which are incompatible with natural law are not only invalid, but their promotion demands the subjugation of some human beings in order to advance the interests of others. Almost on a weekly basis we see such alleged rights invoked to justify public policies which threaten the most vulnerable in society or used to silence those who speak out in defence of Christian values and natural law. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than with the attempts to separate the right to life from the principles of natural law.

Despite attempts to distort them, international agreements like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise the right to life of all members of the human family “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” This also includes the distinction of personhood and non-personhood held by some, including thus far, European courts, to apply to the unborn child.

We must call upon governments and human rights institutions to return to the original meaning of these documents which were drafted in response to the atrocities revealed by the Nuremburg Tribunals. To do this, we must become more familiar with the international agreements which were intended to protect all human beings at every stage of life. We must resist injustice and continue to speak out for those who cannot defend themselves.

Tragically, abortion is legal in the vast majority of the Council of Europe member states. For many years in Britain, our government has been pursuing a policy of providing access to abortion and birth control drugs and devices for children under the age of sixteen without parental knowledge or consent. Similar policies are being pursued by the Spanish government. Tragically, over 60 years on from the Universal Declaration and the Second World War, it seems that the lessons have not been learned, not in Britain by the British government, not in Spain, by the Spanish government, and the same pressures are developing in Ireland and, without doubt, in other countries in Europe.

Europe is under intense attack and the pro-life and pro-family movement and Catholic Church leaders must be in the front line of resistance. This is World War Three and it's primarily a war on the unborn and on parents as the primary educators of their children. There is in fact a worldwide attack on unborn children, on marriage and the family, and on parents as the primary educators of their children. It's being led by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the world's largest abortion-promoting agency, which has its headquarters in London. This attack is also promoted by the pro-abortion lobby in the European institutions, including the European Commission which is the world's largest multilateral donor to International Planned Parenthood Federation.

This attack on the unborn and on families is also supported by leading international pro-abortion figures such as Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, who is clearly exploiting his entry into the Catholic Church in order to undermine Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, on marriage and on human sexuality, together with his wife Cherie Blair, who is also a Catholic; and by US President Barack Obama's administration. In Britain, this attack on unborn children, marriage and the family is also being supported by the Catholic bishops’ conference of England and Wales.

Sadly, the situation is made even worse by church leaders who appear to have imbibed the spirit of the age. Sadly, more and more Catholic parents are telling us at the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children about terrible experiences in Catholic schools, both at secondary and primary school level.

Disunity continues to grow in the Church throughout Europe because its leaders persist in failing to teach the doctrine and prophetic message of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI's encyclical on the transmission of human life. The use of contraceptive drugs and devices by so many Catholics, which may, according to the manufacturers, cause an early abortion, is draining the pro-life movement of the support of the community most likely to support the battle against abortion. Couples who may be turning a blind eye to the practice of abortifacient birth control in the intimacy of their married lives may well find it difficult to support our unequivocal campaigns against abortion, IVF, human embryo research and euthanasia.

I believe that the values of Nobel Prize Winner Mother Teresa who said in her acceptance speech: ""[T]he greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion" will prevail over the values of Nobel Prize Winner, Barack Obama who has called for abortion on demand to be legalized throughout the world. Through our work in the years ahead, the dignity and inviolability of every human life will once again be reflected in people's consciences and national law, just as it's deeply entrenched in universally-binding human rights agreements. On the other hand, the values of the pro-abortion, pro-human embryo research lobby, reflected in the callous rhetoric of choice which tramples on human lives, born and unborn, will be consigned in the not so very distant future to a tragic chapter of human history.

The acceptance and implementation of the prophetic teaching of Humanae Vitae will only be possible if there is a radical change in the nomination policy of Bishops throughout Europe. The nominations of bishops who do not have a sustained and genuine track record of fidelity to the teachings of the Magisterium on the transmission of human life (Humanae Vitae) must stop. Such nominations must stop because the cost in babies' lives is simply too great.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

BREAKING NEWS: Pro-abortion lobby routed at Council of Europe in debate on conscientious objection

An attack on the right of conscientious objection to abortion was defeated this evening in the Council of Europe.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) voted on a report, the original text of which recommended a crack-down on medical personnel who refuse to be complicit in the provision of abortion and other unethical procedures.

Ronan Mullen (pictured), the Irish senator, and Luca Volonte of Italy, led the assembly in passing amendments which totally reversed the report, from a pro-abortion attack on conscientious objection to a defence of conscientious objection. Christine McCafferty, the report's British author and her fellow pro-abortion assembly-members were therefore forced to vote against their own report.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media earlier this evening:

"This evening witnessed an incredible victory for the right of staff in medical institutions to refuse to be complicit in the killing of unborn children and other unethical practices.

"SPUC is immensely grateful to the large number of our supporters who lobbied the assembly in recent months, as well as to Senator Mullen, Mr Volonte and the assembly-members who supported them."

In the debate Senator Mullen pointed out that:

• the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises the rights of unborn children;
• there is no human right to abortion, whereas conscientious objection is a basic principle of human rights;
• the report's original text was in reality a furtherance of pro-abortion agenda.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Help us protect children against TV condom adverts

SPUC is taking up the fight against TV condom adverts targeted at children, to protect all children and promote a culture of life.

Your children or grandchildren are being targeted. These are the dangers they face:

• Showing condom advertisements at times when most children watch TV is priming them for teenage sex. This is wrong and harmful.
• Condom campaigns don’t protect teenagers. Promoting condoms over the past 20 years has proved to be ineffective in reducing abortion, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV among teens.
• We have shamefully high rates of teenage STIs and abortions, leaving our children with long-term physical and mental health problems. For example, the rate of chlamydia, which can cause infertility in girls, doubled among 16–19 year olds between 2000 and 2008.
• Condoms create a false sense of security among teenagers. Studies show that greater access to contraceptives and abortion leads to increased risk-taking behaviour among some teenagers.
• Children watch TV. They talk about TV. They copy behaviour on TV. They want what’s on TV. Please support our campaign to stop TV condom adverts.

Please:

• order copies of SPUC's new flyer "Protect children against condom TV adverts" (sample image) The flyer's reverse side contains a mini-petition, as well as suggestions for other ways to support SPUC's campaign.
• order copies of our full-length petition to Ofcom, the official regulator for broadcast advertising (sample image)
• read (and order copies of) SPUC's briefing on condom TV adverts. Among other things, this will help you write to your MP about the issue.

You can order this material by contacting SPUC:

• by email to orders@spuc.org.uk
• by telephone to (020) 7091 7091
• by post to SPUC HQ, 3 Whitacre Mews, Stannary Street, London, SE11 4AB.

Can you promote the petition in local churches, or on the high street, or door to door? If you would like the help of other SPUC supporters in your area to do this, please let us know where you live, and we will put you in touch with others.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Health minister should end public funding of abortion advocates

SPUC in Northern Ireland is urging the health minister to end the public funding of the Northern Ireland Family Planning Association (NI FPA). The call comes on the eve of a conference organised by the FPA and which is aimed at training doctors in the medical and surgical techniques of abortion.

Speaking about the conference in the Slieve Donard Resort and Spa in Co. Down, later this week, Liam Gibson, SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer, told the media earlier today:

“This conference is not merely part of the FPA’s campaign to overturn legal restrictions on abortion in Northern Ireland, it is principally intended to instruct doctors here in the actual procedures used to kill children before they are born. Many of the speakers are themselves experienced abortionists working for Marie Stopes International or the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

“While this conference presents abortion as a medical procedure it is, in fact, an elective procedure and presumptively illegal in Northern Ireland. It is also illegal to help procure an abortion here. In Britain, it is almost always carried out for social reasons and actually endangers the health of women. Abortion is identified with numerous risks but has no documented health benefits. Research shows that a high percentage of women are likely to have some symptoms of post-traumatic stress after abortion, with at least a six times higher risk of death from suicide compared to women who carried their children to term.

“It is not the job of the FPA to tell doctors in Northern Ireland how to perform abortions. The Northern Ireland health department is presently drawing-up guidance for doctors on abortion law and clinical practice here. It is outrageous that abortion providers, such as the FPA, should disregard the consultation process by promoting abortion practices which are incompatible with the law in Northern Ireland,” said Mr Gibson.

“The FPA receives a substantial amount of funding from the Northern Ireland health budget. It is therefore, reasonable to ask if public money should be used to support a group that organises an event of this kind. In light of the difficult financial climate we face in Northern Ireland, it is time the funding of the FPA was re-examined. We are calling on Minister of Health to end the funding of a group that has shown nothing but contempt for the law.”

The First All-Ireland Conference on Abortion and Clinical Practice organised by FPA will take place Friday 8 October 2010 at the Slieve Donard Resort and Spa, Newcastle, County Down BT33 0AH.

Notes:

1) For figures relating to suicide after abortion, see Gissler M, Hemminki E, Lonnqvist J. Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: 1987-1994: register linkage study. British Medical Journal 1996; 313: 1431-4.

2) Numerous studies have linked abortion with preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks) in subsequent pregnancies. The largest European study of this subject showed an even greater risk of early preterm birth (less than 32 weeks). Martius JA, Steck T, Oehler MK, Wulf K-H. Risk factors associated with preterm (<37+0 weeks) and early preterm (<32+0 weeks): univariate and multi-variate analysis of 106,345 singleton births from 1994 statewide perinatal survey of Bavaria. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998;80:183-189

3) Early preterm infants constitute the majority of those children born with serious physical and mental disabilities, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, lung infections, and cerebral palsy. Escobar GJ, Littenberg B, Petitti DB. Outcome among surviving very low birthweight infants; a meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child 1991;66:204-211.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

SPUC's bioethical consultant publishes important new book on reproductive ethics

Fr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has published a new book entitled: "Dignitas Personae Explained: The Church's teaching on reproductive and related technologies". In December Fr Fleming had provided me with a brief review of Dignitas Personae, an Instruction issued by the Congregration for the Doctrine of the Faith. Here is the blurb of Fr Fleming's book courtesy of the publishers:

"Infertility and the suffering associated with it has always been a tragic part of the human experience. This is especially true today. Various medical remedies have been developed to deal with human infertility, with artificial reproductive technologies being widely used. There are many treatments for infertility which are approved by the Catholic Church. But the use of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and related technologies have been condemned as contrary to the natural moral law. This book provides both an account of Church teaching and why the Church teaches what she does in a way that is accessible to the interested layperson.

'Dr John Fleming reflects on, and amplifies, this new teaching document of the Church to make it all the more accessible to those who ought to benefit from it: not only those in the pew but also those in the laboratory who are not even religious.' Dr John Hass, from the Foreword.

Dr John Fleming is an internationally renowned expert in bioethics with a past career in the mainstream media. He is Adjunct Professor of Bioethics at Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (Adelaide, South Australia), and a Corresponding Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life (Vatican). Dr Fleming was a foundation member of UNESCO’s International Bioethics Committee which worked on producing international law in relation to human rights and the human genome."

The book is available via Connor Court Publishing and priced at Aus$18.95. Do please buy a copy and recommend it widely.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Norman Wisdom, my boyhood hero, dies

I was saddened to hear today that Norman Wisdom, my boyhood hero, has died. Some of my happiest memories are laughing till I cried with my dad, Jack Smeaton, watching Norman Wisdom's latest film at the cinema. (My late mum and dad are my lifetime heros. Their example, lobbying against the Abortion Act 1967, led me into the pro-life movement.)

I don't know what youtube video gives me more pleasure - the first, below, from Trouble in Store, made in 1953, or the second, below, showing him still entertaining audiences in 2007 in the care home where he lived.




Thanks Norman for all the pleasure you gave to so many during your life. Rest in peace!

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Nobel prize for IVF is wrong

The awarding of the Nobel Prize for Medicine to Professor Robert Edwards (pictured) for co-inventing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) is wrong.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media earlier today:

"IVF is possible because of one simple fact: human life begins at fertilisation/conception. But IVF is an abuse of this knowledge. IVF puts human embryos at a vast disadvantage - they are subject to testing and discrimination, freezing and storage, disability and death. Countless human embryos have perished in the development and practice of IVF. Since the birth of the first IVF child over thirty years ago, well over two million embryos have been discarded, or frozen, or selectively aborted, or miscarried or used in destructive experiments.*

"While opposing the IVF process, we insist that IVF embryos and babies must be accorded all the rights and dignity that any human person deserves.

“IVF has made it possible to search out and destroy disabled embryonic children. Our society should not be applauding legal and scientific advancements in the targeting and killing of disabled human beings.

“IVF doesn't actually treat infertility problems, it merely bypasses them. IVF is in reality a large-scale experiment abusing and destroying early human life. Recent studies suggests that babies born through IVF are more likely to have genetic and congenital disabilities.**

"Giving Professor Edwards a prize for promoting the abuse of human embryos by IVF is an effront to mankind, and especially to disabled people."

The Billings Ovulation Method and NaProTech (Natural Procreative Technology) are ethical, healthy and far more successful alternatives to IVF. Unlike IVF, in Billings and NaProTech no embryonic children are killed or exposed to harm in the laboratory, and couples' relationships are strengthened.

* 2,137,924 human embryos were created by specialists while assisting couples in the UK to have babies between 1991 and 2005. During this period, the HFEA informs us that the total of live babies born through IVF procedures was 109,469. BioNews, 9 January 2008

** Independent, 14 June 2010 ; Telegraph, 8 February 2010 ; Independent, 22 March 2009

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

See the UK release of the pro-life film "Bella"

This weekend sees the UK release of the award-winning pro-life film "Bella". This is a powerful and deeply moving story which affirms the intrinsic value and beauty of human life, born and unborn. Book your ticket, take your friends and family, and spread the word!

The film will open in the UK on 1st October 2010 in the following cities:

• London - Apollo Cinema [Piccadilly Circus] daily 9.35pm [except Thursday 8.50pm]
• Manchester - AMC: 1:10pm, 6.55pm
• Birmingham - AMC : 11:40am 6:35pm
• Bristol - Showcase : 12:00pm, 2:30pm, 5:00pm, 7:40pm, 10:10pm, 12:20am
• Hull - Reel: 6:40pm , 8:50pm
• Reading - Showcase: 12:00pm, 2:30pm, 5:00pm, 7:40pm, 10:10pm, 12:20am.

In due course the film will play in many other cities throughout the UK and Ireland.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Austen Ivereigh clarifies his comments on Tony Blair and I respond

I'm glad to publish the following clarification from Dr Austen Ivereigh following my blog-post commenting on his Guardian article "Churches can help Labour's renewal":

"John,

You rightly point out that the SORs came in under Blair, not Brown. But you fail to say that Blair (and Ruth Kelly) sought an exemption for the Catholic adoption agencies but were outvoted by the secularists in the cabinet. This was a key turning-point.

You try to make out that my Guardian article seeks to justify Blair's record in relation to church teaching. But it doesn't. It says (first paragraph) that Blair 'did God' "not in the sense of agreeing with what the churches said, or enacting policy on that basis, but in granting exemptions and opt-outs from equality laws for faith-based organisations in order to preserve their integrity and independence." The first sentence makes your whole list of the Blair Government's offences against Catholic teaching, which you try to claim my article justifies, wholly redundant - in fact, it makes your whole post redundant. I haven't attempted any whitewash.

Best wishes

Austen"

My responses to Dr Ivereigh's clarification:

Dr Ivereigh:

"you fail to say that Blair (and Ruth Kelly) sought an exemption for the Catholic adoption agencies but were outvoted by the secularists in the cabinet."

My response:

• I am unaware of any actual proof that this is what really happened in the Blair cabinet. Also, there is no evidence (at least that I am aware of) that either Mr Blair or Mrs Kelly were prepared to take any further principled action on the matter. Mr Blair could have removed the regulations from the government's legislative programme, or challenged the cabinet to back him or sack him, or simply resigned. Mrs Kelly could have resigned (I and SPUC have commented on other evasions of moral responsibility by Mrs Kelly as a Catholic politician.) Such principled action is the minimum required of a Christian politician when faced with the evil of homosexual* adoption. In any case, homosexual adoption is evil per se, not just for Catholic adoption agencies. SPUC is fighting for the culture of life and of authentic love on behalf of both Catholics and non-Catholics. What was ethically required of Mr Blair and Mrs Kelly was not so much "exemptions and opt-outs" but moves to stop homosexual adoption altogether.

Dr Ivereigh:

"This was a key turning-point."

My response:

• I really didn't detect any notable difference between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown regarding the ethics of pro-life/pro-family issues.
• Dr Ivereigh doesn't actually detail what "exemptions and opt-outs" were in fact granted under Mr Blair, whilst neglecting to detail the numerous examples (see list below) of how Mr Blair and his government violated the integrity, independence, conscience and beliefs of people of faith and their organisations.

Dr Ivereigh:

"[M]y Guardian article...says (first paragraph) that Blair 'did God' "not in the sense of agreeing with what the churches said, or enacting policy on that basis, but in granting exemptions and opt-outs from equality laws for faith-based organisations in order to preserve their integrity and independence."

My response:

• "Granting exemptions and opt-outs" is hardly evidence that New Labour under Tony Blair did God "a lot".
• In the second and third sentences of his Guardian article, Dr Ivereigh wrote that under New Labour under Tony Blair: "There was respect for conscience and belief. Blair's ears were tuned to faith." If New Labour under Tony Blair really had done "God a lot" in any sense, really had had "respect for conscience and belief", and Mr Blair's ears really had been "tuned to faith", then Mr Blair and his government would have "agree[d] with what the churches said" and "enact[ed] policy on that basis". Instead, the New Labour government marked itself out as the most anti-life and anti-family government in British history, even before Mr Blair was replaced by Mr Brown.
• Dr Ivereigh doesn't actually detail what "exemptions and opt-outs" were in fact granted under Mr Blair, whilst neglecting to detail the numerous examples (see list below) of how Mr Blair and his government violated the integrity, independence, conscience and beliefs of people of faith and their organisations.

So I stand by my original post in its entirety. As prime minister Tony Blair

• did not "d[o] God a lot", in any sense
• did not manifest "respect for conscience and belief"
• did not have "ears...tuned to faith"

not least for the reasons I listed in my original post, which I list again below.

It seems to me that Dr Ivereigh has a defective perception of Christian politicians and their moral responsibilities on ethico-legal matters.

Some key facts about Mr Blair's time as prime minister which every British Christian needs to know:

• the Labour government passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 through parliament, because of which the Catholic Church was effectively stopped from providing adoption services.
• Mr Blair personally championed destructive experiments on human embryos (2000, 2004, August and September 2006)
• Mr Blair personally endorsed his government’s policy of supplying abortion and birth control drugs and devices to schoolgirls as young as 11 without parental knowledge or consent (Foreword, Teenage Pregnancy Report, Social Exclusion Unit, 1999)
• Mr Blair's government introduced legislation which led to a law which allows, and in certain circumstances requires, doctors to starve and dehydrate to death vulnerable patients (The Mental Capacity Act 2005). There is no conscience clause in the Mental Capacity Act. Mr Blair personally defended the legislation.
• Mr Blair's government in 2005 endorsed Recommended Standards for Sexual Health Services, drawn up by a coalition of pro-abortion advocates and abortion providers. The policy includes arm-twisting doctors who are reluctant to refer for abortion. Many GPs wish to refuse to refer women for abortions on medical grounds, or for religious or conscientious reasons. The Department of Health brooked none of these objections, but insisted that every woman who enquires about abortion is immediately referred for abortion.
• Mr Blair's government was committed to the promotion of abortion on demand as a universal fundamental human right (Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights, A position paper, Department for International Development, 2004)
• Mr Blair's government passed through parliament the Civil Partnerships Act, which contains no conscience clause e.g. for registrars. In his memoirs published earlier this month Mr Blair made repeated references to his support for the homosexual agenda, such as: "Just before Christmas [2005] the Civil Partnership Act came into force ... I was really proud of that."

* 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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Catholic Voices' blog creates smokescreen for bishop-protected dissent

The Catholic Voices Media Monitor (hereafter Monitor) blog yesterday published a post criticising me. Here is my rebuttal of that post.

Monitor :

"Smeaton attacks Catholic Voices"

My response:

• I have never attacked Catholic Voices. I have, rather, criticised its coordinators Dr Austen Ivereigh and Jack Valero, and some of the content of its blog, which one assumes was (at the very least) published with their approval.

Monitor:

"According to John Smeaton (photo) of the hardline lobby SPUC, Catholic Voices seeks 'to redefine the common perception of what constitutes mainstream Catholicism in England'. Behind this conspiracy, he asserts, lies The Tablet. And his reason for believing that CV coordinators Ivereigh and Valero share this aim? Why, 'Dr Ivereigh's loyalty to The Tablet' -- on the basis that he refused to accept a blogger's invitation to describe the weekly as a 'vehicle for dissent'.

My response:

• I did not say that it is "Catholic Voices", but rather "Catholic Voices' leaders" Dr Ivereigh and Mr Valero who seek to redefine, etc. 
• Dr Ivereigh, a former Tablet deputy editor, did not merely "refuse to accept a blogger's invitation to describe [The Tablet] as a 'vehicle for dissent' but actually rejected the claim that The Tablet is a vehicle for dissent. On his blog Laurence England asked Dr Ivereigh: "[A]t what point in your career did you decide that The Tablet had lost sight of the Catholic Faith and had become a vehicle for dissent of Catholic Teaching? ... [W]hat you make of it nowadays?" Dr Ivereigh replied: "I've never decided that about the Tablet ... I write for it still. And subscribe. That should answer your question."
• It is a cheap debating trick to rubbish as conspiracy theories the highlighting of possible threats to Catholic pro-life/pro-family witness. Also, it goes against the teaching of St Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, who wrote: "It is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock." No truly charitable Catholic familiar with The Tablet can deny that it is a vehicle for dissent, a wolf among the flock.
  

Monitor:

"Indeed, Smeaton's attempt at an auto-da-fe on this question -- because Ivereigh reads the Tablet (as he does other Catholic papers)..."

My response:

• I made no mention of Dr Ivereigh "read[ing] the Tablet".
• My objection to Dr Ivereigh's role representing Catholicism includes Dr Ivereigh's loyalty to The Tablet, his defence and promotion of some of the errors of The Tablet on pro-life/pro-family issues, and his Tablet-esque whitewashing of (among things) Tony Blair's record, condom use in relation to the Catholic Church's perennial prohibition on contraception, and Catholic schooling in England and Wales.

Monitor:

"...is typical of the 'Taliban' mentality of many in the blogosphere who call for the banning, destruction or burning of literature and people they regard as "heretical", even when there has been no such call or declaration by whom the Church's own law entrusts with the authority to do so."

My response:

• In England and Wales it is precisely those "whom the Church's own law entrusts with the authority" (i.e. the Catholic bishops) who are producing the very literature and promoting the very people undermining the Church's teaching on pro-life/pro-family issues.

Monitor:

"Smeaton has long considered himself a guardian of the limits of Catholic orthodoxy, preferring his own Magisterium to that of the bishops and of Rome"

My response:

• Canon 212 #3 of the Code of Canon Law 1983 which says: "According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, [Christ's faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons." [my emphases]. I challenge Monitor to find even one single statement or action of mine at variance with the Church's Magisterium. (Hint: you won't find one).

Monitor:

"scouring the statements of bishops in search of 'heterodoxy', frequently misquoting them or distorting their words in a conscious attempt to undermine the authority of the Church's pastors."

My response:

• Dr Ivereigh made a similar claim on Laurence England's blog, yet provides not one single piece of evidence of how I have misquoted or distorted any bishop's words - because he has no evidence, because there is no evidence.

Monitor:

"He has consistently undermined the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, in ways that in the view of Catholic Voices is quite inconsistent with the Catholic commitment to communion."

My response:

• St Thomas Aquinas, the common Doctor of the Church, teaches on the matter: "There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects." (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4). Archbishop Nichols' approach to homosexulity and to sex and relationships education are "imminent danger[s] for the Faith".

Monitor:

"And while his organisation, SPUC, does some useful research, its policies of refusing to engage with attempts by Parliament to reduce the numbers of abortions are at odds with the very clear and stated policy of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales 'to work and vote for achievable and incremental improvements to an unjust law'."

My response:

• SPUC is the world's oldest pro-life lobbying and educational organisation, founded in 1967, and the largest in Europe, comprised of tens of thousands of faithful Catholics and people of other beliefs. SPUC has wons the plaudits of countless Catholic bishops, pro-life leaders, politicians and academics throughout the world for defending human life with love from conception to natural death, not only for our work in the UK but at the UN and within the European institutions. By contrast, Catholic Voices is a brand new, tiny organisation, by its own admission mostly comprised of fairly inexperienced volunteers.
• SPUC opposed recent so-called "attempts by Parliament to reduce the numbers of abortions" precisely because those attempts not only would have failed to reduce the numbers of abortions, but may even have led to increasing those numbers. Those attempts therefore did not represent "improvements" and were not even "achievable", being defeated by comfortable margins in parliament, as SPUC long predicted.
• SPUC is not a Catholic organisation and is therefore in no way bound to follow the policies of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales or their national conference. Also, a national bishops' conference is no more the Catholic Church than are Catholic Voices or Catholics in SPUC: "[T]he episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated ... No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Ratzinger Report", 1992)

Monitor's post is in reality a smokescreen by Dr Ivereigh and Mr Valero to protect dissent within the Catholic Church and the bishops who also protect that dissent.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Labour leader Ed Miliband continues Tony Blair's homosexual agenda

Ed Miliband, the newly-elected leader of the British Labour party, has confirmed in his first speech as leader that he will continue the homosexual* rights agenda of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Mr Miliband said:

"The old way of thinking [before Blair-Brown's New Labour] said that you couldn't change attitudes towards gay men and lesbians. Let me tell you that last month I was privileged to be in this great city [Manchester], at [the homosexual] Pride [march], to see not just thousands of people marching but thousands of people lining the street in support. We should be proud that our commitment to equality means we have couples forming civil partnerships across the country and celebrating with their family and friends."

Mr Miliband's comments mirror very closely the repeated references made by Tony Blair, in his recently-published memoirs and elsewhere, to his own "pride" in promoting the homosexual rights agenda as prime minister.

Also, the Christian Institute reports that Mr Miliband told homosexual news website PinkNews:

“I want to see heterosexual and same-sex partnerships put on an equal basis and a Labour Party that I lead will campaign to make gay marriage happen.”

Mr Miliband's voting record also shows that he supports Mr Blair's legacy of destructive and abusive research on embryonic children. As far as SPUC is aware, Mr Miliband has never once voted pro-life or pro-family. (It should be noted that both the other two main party leaders, prime minister David Cameron and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, also support abortion, destructive embryo research and the homosexual rights agenda.)

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

• voted for the Second and Third Readings of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
• voted against an unsuccessful amendment to create a ban on creating, keeping or using the new types of animal-human embryos permitted by the Bill (‘human admixed embryos’)
• voted against an (unsuccessful) amendment to create a ban on licensing the creation of full hybrid embryos which are 50% human and 50% animal, but allows all other ‘human admixed embryos’
• voted against an (unsuccessful) amendment to prevented human embryos with added animal DNA from being classified as ‘human admixed embryos’
• voted against an amendment to remove the ability to licence the creation of ‘saviour siblings’ to provide cells or tissue for a sick brother or sister
• voted against an (unsuccessful) amendment to narrow the term "other tissue" to other ‘regenerative’ tissue, in the context of saviour siblings
• voted against an (unsuccessful) amendment to reinstate the requirement for doctors to consider the child’s need for a father before a woman is given fertility treatment. The amendment also added the requirement to consider the need of a child for a mother
• voted against an (unsuccessful) amendment to require doctors to consider the need of a child for ‘supportive parenting and a father or male role model’ before a woman is given fertility treatment
• voted against several (unsuccessful) amendments to lower the 24-week upper time-limit on abortions done for social reasons
• voted against an (unsuccessful) amendment which sought to improve support and informed consent for mothers who may be pregnant a disabled child
• voted against (unsuccessful) amendments which sought to address a loopholes which could potentially allow so-called reproductive cloning
• voted against an (unsuccessful) amendment to close an animal-human hybrids loophole

Sexual ethics (information courtesy of The Christian Institute)

• voted for the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which (among other things) effectively stopped the Catholic Church from providing adoption services.
• voted against a free speech amendment to a proposed offence of 'homophobic hatred'

* 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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Austen Ivereigh of Catholic Voices tries to whitewash Tony Blair's anti-life/anti-family record

Dr Austen Ivereigh, co-ordinator of Catholic Voices, former director of public affairs to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and former deputy editor of The Tablet, has tried to whitewash Tony Blair's anti-life/anti-family record in an article for The Guardian entitled "Churches can help Labour renewal". He writes:

"Although Alastair Campbell famously said otherwise, New Labour under Tony Blair did God a lot: not agreeing with what the churches said, or enacting policy on that basis, but in granting exemptions and opt-outs from equality laws for faith-based organisations in order to preserve their integrity and independence. There was respect for conscience and belief. Blair's ears were tuned to faith.

Then came Gordon Brown, and Labour tuned out. No more opt-outs from anti-discrimination laws, which under Blair had allowed religious organisations to retain their distinctive ethos; 13 Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close because they refused to allow same-sex couples to adopt (even though there were 400 others the couples could go to)."

Here are some key facts about Mr Blair's time as prime minister which every British Catholic needs to know:

• Contrary to Dr Ivereigh's claim above, it was under Tony Blair, not Gordon Brown, that the Labour government passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 through parliament, because of which the Catholic Church was effectively stopped from providing adoption services.
• Mr Blair personally championed destructive experiments on human embryos (2000, 2004, August and September 2006)
• Mr Blair personally endorsed his government’s policy of supplying abortion and birth control drugs and devices to schoolgirls as young as 11 without parental knowledge or consent (Foreword, Teenage Pregnancy Report, Social Exclusion Unit, 1999)
• Mr Blair's government introduced legislation which led to a law which allows, and in certain circumstances requires, doctors to starve and dehydrate to death vulnerable patients (The Mental Capacity Act 2005). There is no conscience clause in the Mental Capacity Act. Mr Blair personally defended the legislation.
• Mr Blair's government in 2005 endorsed Recommended Standards for Sexual Health Services, drawn up by a coalition of pro-abortion advocates and abortion providers. The policy includes arm-twisting doctors who are reluctant to refer for abortion. Many GPs wish to refuse to refer women for abortions on medical grounds, or for religious or conscientious reasons. The Department of Health brooked none of these objections, but insisted that every woman who enquires about abortion is immediately referred for abortion.
• Mr Blair's government was committed to the promotion of abortion on demand as a universal fundamental human right (Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights, A position paper, Department for International Development, 2004)
• Mr Blair's government passed through parliament the Civil Partnerships Act, which contains no conscience clause e.g. for registrars. In his memoirs published earlier this month Mr Blair made repeated references to his support for the homosexual* agenda, such as: "Just before Christmas [2005] the Civil Partnership Act came into force ... I was really proud of that.

Were Tony "Blair's ears" really "tuned to faith" when he personally endorsed introducing the culture of death into schools, the killing of embryonic children and starvation of helpless patients? Is forcing professionals to cooperate formally in abortion, euthanasia and homosexual lifestyles, or keeping parents in the dark about their daughters' sexual health, "respect for conscience and belief"?

Dr Ivereigh clearly has a strange (to say the least) idea about what constitutes "doing God a lot". As well as seeking to whitewash Tony Blair, Dr Ivereigh and/or his Catholic Voices project has also sought to whitewash (among other things):

• the Soho Masses organised by and for homosexuals who dissent from the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality
• condom use in relation to the Catholic Church's perennial prohibition on contraception
• Catholic schooling in England and Wales: ""[T]here is no Catholic school in Britain, joint or otherwise, in which Catholic children are being taught less than the Catholic faith in its integrity." (Catholic Herald, 2005)
• The Tablet, which is internationally renowned for its dissent from Catholic teaching, especially on sexual ethics.
• The Guardian which is in effect the house journal of the British anti-life/anti-life movement and which regularly publishes attacks on the Catholic Church for its pro-life/pro-family teachings
• the British media generally
• British society generally, despite it being "the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death".

Dr Ivereigh's latest comments simply reinforce my opinion that he is seeking to redefine the common perception of what constitutes mainstream Catholicism in England, and that he should not be appointed to any representative position in any official or unofficial Catholic or pro-life/pro-family organisation.

* 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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Catholic Voices' leaders seek to redefine Catholicism on life and family issues

Dr Austen Ivereigh, co-ordinator of Catholic Voices, former director of public affairs to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and former deputy editor of The Tablet, refers to me and to others as Taliban Catholics. Here is an extract from an interview with John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter:

Mr Allen: You put this in the plural, “Catholic Voices.” How do you define a Catholic voice?

Dr Ivereigh answered:

"... [One] criterion was Catholicity, which is where the controversy arises ... [One] thing was that they have to be comfortable with all aspects of church teaching, comfortable enough to put the church’s view across in a way that doesn’t make them squirm. Interestingly, that did automatically exclude people who are critical of the bishops from either side ... We did get a few [applications] from what you would call the “Taliban Catholics,” who of course have become very vociferous on the blogosphere in the last few years. They’re very critical of the bishops for compromising too much with modernity and not promoting Catholic truth as they see it."

This is interesting language from someone who recently took it upon himself to teach the pro-life movement (including me) "lessons in civility"! (These lessons include "civil" descriptions and comparisons of other Catholics and their work, such as "mob", "puritans", "loopiness", "craziness" and "the tactics of Soviet Communism".)

Dr Ivereigh's position on "Taliban Catholics" would be more impressive if he could explain how Archbishop Nichols's notorious comments on gay "unions"* promote Catholic truth, or how the Catholic Education Service (CES), an agency of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales, promotes Catholic truth by appointing an anti-life, anti-family former MP as its deputy director.

Elsewhere, in the comments-box of Laurence England's blog, Mr England put the following question to Dr Ivereigh:

"[A]t what point in your career did you decide that The Tablet had lost sight of the Catholic Faith and had become a vehicle for dissent of Catholic Teaching? ... [W]hat you make of it nowadays?"

Dr Ivereigh replied:

"I've never decided that about the Tablet ... I write for it still. And subscribe. That should answer your question."

But as Fr Timothy Finigan has rightly put it in another context:

"This paper [The Tablet] has no place in any Catholic home, parish Church, or Cathedral. Tabula delenda est."

Dr Ivereigh's loyalty to The Tablet should be sufficient evidence for any faithful pro-life/pro-family Catholic to conclude that he should not be appointed to any representative position in any official or unofficial Catholic or pro-life/pro-family organisation.

Dr Ivereigh appears to be using the profile and position afforded him by the Catholic Voices project to redefine the common perception of what constitutes mainstream Catholicism in England, an agenda pursued by The Tablet for decades.

Sadly, not only is Dr Ivereigh apparently indifferent to the errors of The Tablet on pro-life/pro-family issues, he and his fellow Catholic Voices leader, Jack Valero, defend and promote at least some of those errors.

* 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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Great news from Western Australia on euthanasia

The Christian Institute reports:

"A euthanasia bill in Western Australia which would have 'turned doctors from being healers and carers into killers' has been defeated.

The private members bill would have allowed Western Australians over the age of 21, with a terminal illness and who were deemed to have a sound mind, to ask a doctor to end their life.

But after MPs in the state parliament debated the bill, brought forward by Greens MP Robin Chapple, it was defeated by 24 votes to eleven."

The Christian Institute's report also contains more good news:

"Last week it emerged that a television and billboard advertising campaign for the pro-euthanasia group Exit International, which is headed by Dr Philip Nitschke, had been banned in Australia."

So congratulations are in order to Australian pro-lifers, for reminding us that we can win battles defending life even in the era of the culture of death. This grea news encourages us to hope that we in Britain can defeat legislative proposals for assisted suicide and euthanasia should they be moved in the current Westminster parliament or elsewhere.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

A reflection on Archbishop Nichols' earlier comments on gay unions

The reflection below refers to Archbishop Nichols' comments on gay partnerships made on 2 July and 11 September. The reflection was written before the archbishop's further comments on gay partnerships in an interview shown on BBC Two on Monday (20 September) which I blogged about yesterday.

It has been suggested to me that I have been too hard on Vincent Nichols, the Catholic archbishop of Westminster, in my criticism of him; and that in fact the Archbishop is rather conservative and orthodox in his views on homosexuality, but at the same time he seems to be one of those who - using the words of Pope Benedict - have an "inclination towards more permissive religious convictions" in the area of moral conduct.

In my opinion it is not possible to separate the roles of teacher and pastor so completely. It is true that Archbishop Nichols stated his opposition to homosexual acts because they cannot be fecund, but he balked at the use of the word “unnatural” which, used of such acts, is both biblical and Magisterial. The objection to homosexual acts is not limited to the physicalist observation of their non-fecundity, but takes in as well the fact that such acts contravene the natural law and are therefore unnatural in the moral sense.

Archbishop Nichols said that he would be worried if the Catholic Church were “to try and refashion a message simply to suit a time”. So far so good. But all of this is undermined by his further statement that he did not know if the Catholic Church would "accept the reality of gay partnerships" (11 September) or "sanction gay unions" (2 July).

It is not just the case that there is something “missing” in what Archbishop Nichols says. In the context of that interview, and in common parlance, to “accept the reality” of something is to accept it as a fact and then move on. That that is what he meant can be found in his statement of 2 July, some two months earlier, that he did not know if the Catholic Church would “sanction gay unions”. That is to say that the Catholic Church’s moral teaching in this matter is in fact open to change, is fallible, and may ultimately be set aside.

Putting it all together, it seems obvious to me that Archbishop Nichols gives lip-service to the Catholic Church’s teaching, while fatally undermining (as distinct from denying) the security and even the legitimacy of that teaching.

It is pointed out, correctly, that Archbishop Nichols has also said this about the Catholic Church’s moral teaching:

“The moral demands on all of us made by that tradition are difficult.(...) Now, that's tough, that's a high ideal. I'm not sure many people have ever observed it in its totality, but it doesn't mean to say it has no sense".

In this statement the archbishop states the obvious, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The same is true of lying and stealing. What point is he making?

Well, he says that from the fact that we fail it doesn’t follow that the moral teaching “has no sense”. But this is a very equivocal statement. He is not saying the teaching makes complete sense, he simply observes that, as a matter of logic (as compared to truth) that it does not follow there is no sense in the teaching. Well, as a matter of logic, neither does it follow from the fact that people fail that there is any sense in the teaching.

What Archbishop Nichols should have said, quite unambiguously, is that the Catholic Church’s moral teaching on this matter is true and for a whole raft of good reasons. The way the archbishop has presented in a popular public forum is more than suggestive that:
a) he doesn’t really believe that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is true for all time
b) that homosexuality is not such a big deal, and
c) we should really just accept the fact that people are sexually active in all sorts of ways.

Archbishop Nichols says that there is:

“a critical distance to be held between how the church struggles to understand a revealed truth and how a society is moving. If they're too close there's no light. If they're too far apart there's no light.”

Two comments here. The Catholic Church is not “struggling to understand a revealed truth” here. The objection to homosexuality is that it is contrary to the natural law, a law which is accessible to non-believers as well as believers. It may suit secularists to think that objection to homosexual acts is just something for believers to worry about. But the Catholic Church clearly teaches that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural moral law. Second, what on earth does such a sentence really mean?

I expect from my archbishop clear, unequivocal, and pastorally sensitive teaching which is completely faithful to the teaching of the Magisterium. Moreover, being “pastorally sensitive” applies not just to those struggling with homosexual temptations, but to parents who have the primary responsibility in passing on the moral teaching of the Catholic Church to their children. This pastoral sensitivity also applies to parents who are non-Catholics, and who recognise that homosexual acts are, in fact, unnatural in the moral sense.

* 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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Archbishop Nichols undermines Pope Benedict on gay unions the day after his return to Rome

Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster, was interviewed on BBC Two on Monday evening for a programme reflecting on Pope Benedict's visit to Britain. The archbishop was interviewed by Huw Edwards, along with Diarmaid MacCulloch, a homosexual Anglican and Oxford professor of church history, Tina Beattie, a Catholic academic and notorious dissenter from Catholic pro-life/pro-family teaching, and Lord (Chris) Patten, a Catholic diplomat who helped organise the papal visit.

At 21 minutes 30 seconds into the programme, Huw Edwards to put it to Professor MacCulloch that Pope Benedict:

“clearly sees Britain...as a country where there is a lot of growing hostility to faith communities. Is that the right reading?"

Professor MacCulloch replied:

“That is a code, and it’s a code for something quite specific. The code is: now Britain treats gay people as equal with heterosexual people, and gay partnerships are on the statute book, and the Catholic hierarchy hates that fact. You seem them across the world as gay marriages are introduced in country after country...”

Archbishop Nichols intervened in a firm manner to tell Professor MacCulloch:

“That’s not true, in this country. In this country, we [JS: the Catholic hierarchy, i.e. the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales] were very nuanced. We did NOT oppose gay civil partnerships, we recognised that in English law there might be a case for those. We persistently said that these are not the same as marriage.”

Later (at 24mins50secs into the programme) Archbishop Nichols said:

“The times we [the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales] interfere most in British politics is on poverty and education. Of course the media are obsessed with certain issues [JS: referring to a previous reference by Dr Beattie to homosexuality] but if you want to know what it is we’re really passionate about, it’s about the fight against poverty and [about] the education of young people.”

Later (at 27mins30secs into the programme), Professor MacCulloch said:

“I’m pleased to hear what the archbishop has to say about sexual questions, and it has to be said that the English Catholic Church has rather taken its own line on this, not the Vatican’s line, there is always a certain independence in the English Catholic Church. It’s is good that that should be so.”

No response to Dr MacCulloch’s claim appeared from Archbishop Nichols (though I cannot say whether the filming was edited prior to broadcast and Archbishop Nichols’ response was edited out).

Archbishop Nichols' comments constitute the third set of comments he has made undermining Pope Benedict's teaching on the issue of gay* unions (see my blog-posts of 4 July and  11 September for the first two sets. His comments on the Soho Masses for dissenting homosexuals complement these other comments). Here is what Pope Benedict taught on 13 September:

"The Church looks with concern at the growing attempts to eliminate the Christian concept of marriage and the family from the conscience of society. Marriage is the lasting union of love between a man and a woman, which is always open to the transmission of human life ... the success of marriages depends upon us all and on the personal culture of each individual citizen. In this sense, the Church cannot approve legislative initiatives that involve a re-evaluation of alternative models of marriage and family life. They contribute to a weakening of the principles of natural law, and thus to the relativisation of all legislation and confusion about values in society". [my emphasis]

Archbishop Nichols has clearly failed, not only to listen to Pope Benedict, but also to listen to some of his own brother-bishops in Britain. In July Philip Tartaglia, bishop of Paisley, said that the Catholic Church will never celebrate same-sex unions:

"not now, not in the future, not ever".

And even Archbishop Peter Smith said at the time of the Civil Partnerships Bill:

"The government has effectively established same-sex marriage in all but name."

In his regular Wednesday address yesterday, Pope Benedict said:

"Dear brothers and sisters, in this visit of mine to the United Kingdom, as always I wanted in the first place to support the Catholic community, encouraging it to work tirelessly to defend the immutable moral truths that, taken up again, illumined and confirmed by the Gospel, are at the base of a truly human, just and free society." [my emphasis]

Yet within 24 hours of the Holy Father's return to Rome Vincent Nichols, as the head of the Catholic community in England and Wales, was publicly undermining that work.

As I blogged on Monday, faithful pro-life/pro-family Catholics must not get carried away by the papal visit and close their eyes to the tragic fact that their official leader is, to say the least, not on their side.

* 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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy