An unborn child has a legal personality in English law

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

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

George Baker, the President of the Court, said in his judgement:

"The foetus cannot in English law, in my view, have a right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from its mother."

Mr Wright disagreed. He says in his article:

"However despite this obiter dictum (for such it must be) it is submitted that a claim made on behalf of the unborn child, the "nasciturus" as it is sometimes called, would stand a very much better chance of success than did Mr. Paton's personal claim as husband and father-to-be. The arguments in favour of a claim so framed are outlined [in the full article]"  

Mr Wright's article is characteristically easy-to-read and erudite - much like ALDU's blog which I recommend to all pro-lifers.

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

Archbishop Nichols urges Catholics to contact MPs to defend marriage

I am delighted to draw visitors' attention to the pastoral letter for the Feast of the Holy Family this weekend from Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster.

The Westminster diocese website announces: "Catholics are urged to speak up for marriage as the heart of the family in a Pastoral Letter from the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster to his diocese ... The Pastoral Letter will be read out during Masses at the 214 Catholic churches in the Diocese of Westminster over 29/30 December 2012, the Feast of the Holy Family."

The archbishop says:

My brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ

Today's Feast is a moment in which to rejoice again in the vitality and importance of the family. Indeed this is a time in which to speak up for marriage, between a husband and wife, as the heart of the family.

Of course there are many different circumstances to family life. Events reshape the family lives of many people. We are right to express our admiration for those who work so hard to maintain family stability in difficulty and isolation. Support and loving care for them can make all the difference.

But none of this takes away the importance of having a clear vision of marriage and family, based on human nature itself. This vision of the family is rooted in the faithful love of a man and a woman, publicly expressed and accepted in marriage, responsible for the birth of the next generation and out of love working for the care and upbringing of their children. This is the vocation of marriage and parenthood, rooted in a natural bond, blessed by God and a sure sacrament in the life of the Church.

The first reading of our Mass today, from the Book of Ecclesiasticus, bears witness to the ancient roots of this vision. Written in the second century before Christ, it emphasises the sense of right and wrong that lies at the heart of marriage and family life. It speaks of the honour that is to exist between all the members of a family and across the generations. Along with honour, the author speaks of rights, respect, obedience, support and kindness which are needed if family life is to be stable and fruitful. It values the wisdom of the elderly and recognises the sacrifices necessary to love and care for them as they become frail and live with suffering. Its references to ‘The Lord’ who seeks our obedience shows that these values are not of our choosing. Rather they have an objective character, coming to us from God, or, in other words, written into our very nature and there for us to heed.

The Gospel we have heard recognises that family life will be full of testing times. Indeed for the Holy Family these three days were full of awful anxiety. Only through her thoughtful pondering did Mary come to understand God's purposes which were not at all the same as her initial expectations. Just as the Holy Spirit had brought about the conception of Jesus within her, so too that same Holy Spirit had to lead Mary to understand and follow God's ways. The journey by which we come to understand the purpose of God in our human nature and in our lives is also frequently difficult. There is often a journey to make from what I might think is God’s plan for me, to what God really wants. And on this journey the Church and her teaching is a sure guide, not least in the patterns of our relationships.

As we turn to the lovely reading from the First Letter of St John, we learn again that the love at the heart of family life has its origins in God. As we strive to live a life of love we are indeed ‘already children of God’. And what is more, a great promise is given to us too. As this God-given love comes to its fulfilment, ‘we shall become like him because we shall see him as he really is’. This is the promise of heaven that steadies us on our journey on earth. Of course we have to ‘fear the Lord and walk in his ways’, as the Psalmist said. But when we try to do so as best we can, then ‘we need not be afraid in God's presence’. Rather we can look forward, with a blessed hope, to the coming of our Saviour, both at the hour of our death and at the moment of final judgement.

Today I ask for every family the blessing of God that you may be steadfast in your love and loyalty for each other, overcoming life's difficulties with a firm and trusting faith and great perseverance. I pray too for our country that we will maintain the importance of marriage between a man and a woman as the heart of family life and, while always retaining proper and due respect for all, resist the proposed redefining of marriage with all its likely consequences particularly in schools and in how children are taught about the true nature of marriage.

At this time, we look to our Members of Parliament to defend, not change, the bond of man and woman in marriage as the essential element of the vision of the family. I urge everyone who cares about upholding the meaning of marriage in civil law to make their views known to their Members of Parliament, clearly, calmly and forcefully. Please do so as soon as possible. [My emphasis]

I ask you to keep me in your prayers on this day, that as a diocese we may be a family that is loving and supportive of one another in our life in the Lord. Amen

Yours devotedly

+ Vincent Nichols
Archbishop of Westminster

Thank you, Archbishop. Your leadership in defending marriage and our families at this time is critical and invaluable.

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage.)
 
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

One of the most moving blogposts you will ever visit, the story of baby John Paul

I want to draw my visitors' attention to four important blogposts recently published by my pro-life colleague, Pat Buckley, of European Life Network.

In a blogpost today, Pat cites a formidable editorial from the January edition of The Alive newspaper, a free monthly Catholic newspaper distributed throughout Ireland. The editorial warns Enda Kenny, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister):

There is a higher law ... and he is bound by that law. According to that law to deliberately kill an unborn child is evil. And for any government to legally permit such killing is profoundly evil ... reference (by Mr Kenny) to "abortion on demand" looks like an attempt by Mr Kenny to soften up people to accept "limited" abortion, that is, that the law would allow the killing of a limited number of unborn children. Whether or not such a law would lead to "abortion on demand" is not the point.If it permitted the intentional killing of just one unborn child it would not be a law but the utter corruption of law ...

Likening Mr Kenny's situation to one of the accused Nazi judges being tried for war crimes in Nuremberg, the editorial concludes:

... Mr Kenny now stands at perhaps the most momentous crisis point not only in his political career but in his personal integrity ...

Pat's second post, published yesterday, draws attention, in full, to an opinion piece in the Irish Independent by Patricia Casey, Professor of Psychiatry at University College Dublin. Her opinion piece is written in the context of Ireland's health minister's statement that

"The legislation will be drafted in accordance with the 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling on the X case, which allows for abortion when a woman's life is in danger - including the threat of suicide."

Professor Casey writes:

" ... I have examined the major textbooks of psychiatry and of perinatal psychiatry and nowhere can I find a list of any psychiatric grounds for abortion. Furthermore, the medical royal colleges, headed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, carried out a review of the impact of abortion on mental health in 2011 and found that women with a prior psychiatric history were at an increased risk of mental health problems if they did have an abortion ... "

The third blogpost from Pat Buckley to which I draw your attention features "a beautiful yet simple message for Christmas" which speaks for itself:

And the fourth blogpost, in my view one of the most moving you will ever visit, features Cliona Johnson and her family (Cliona is Pat's daughter) and her baby John Paul who suffered from the congenital condition known as anencephaly.

You can watch their incredible story on this short youtube video.

Pat says:

" ... Cliona Johnson describes the devastation she felt in getting the diagnosis and her determination to let her baby, whom she and her husband JP (John Paul) decided to name John Paul, develop and live every minute of the short life he was capable of living ... "

Baby John Paul's story is particularly poignant since, earlier this year, the Irish Times published an article which clearly sought to use the short lives of anecephalic babies and babies with other conditions to justify introducing an abortion law designed to kill them.

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

On Holy Innocents Day, remember the work of Good Counsel Network

It's Holy Innocents Day in the Catholic calendar - a day when Catholics and others turn their minds to the deaths recorded by St. Matthew (2:16 - 18) in the following Gospel passage:

Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

It's a day when our minds naturally turn to the countless millions of unborn children, more children than have ever been killed in the whole of human history, as a result of the policies of our modern King Herods - President Obama, the US president, Tony Blair, the former UK prime minister, David Cameron, the UK's current prime minister, and so many others.

It's also a day when my mind turns to the countless courageous mothers - and fathers - who, sometimes enduring great hardship, withstand social and "moral" pressures to abort their children and, in spite of difficulties and sacrifices, look after them after they are born. I think especially of single parents who might be on their own this Christmas season. I also think of mothers and fathers who have been hurt by an abortion for which they may, or may not, have been partly responsible. I believe that their sufferings, both those who keep their babies and those who don't, can be a kind of bloodless martyrdom - a martyrdom which is providing the foundation of a new culture of life.

Also providing the foundation of a new culture of life are pro-life groups like Good Counsel Network "a life-affirming women’s organisation which offers a free pregnancy test, free advice, medical information, practical help and moral support to women seeking abortion". Good Counsel Network in London often provides help and support to mothers who get in touch with us at SPUC and we know we can always turn to them.

Here's what Stuart McCullough of the Good Counsel Network told me last week:

2012 has been an extremely busy year for the Good Counsel Network.

• We are running a new Intern Programme,
• We ran a “40 Days for Life” 24 hour a day prayer vigil outside one of the London abortuaries (see picture above)
• We continue to have a vigil 5 days a week at that abortuary.
• We’ve seen hundreds of abortion bound-women and many of them have changed their minds and continued their pregnancies, resulting in 95 babies born already this year and more due.

We have not however been able to raise sufficient funds to cover our current outgoings. At the moment we have outstanding bills of approximately £10,000. It can be difficult at times to estimate our costs as the support offered to some mothers will be very small, while others will need a lot of help. Earlier this year we met a young woman who was going into an abortion clinic to abort her twins. After a number of long counselling sessions with us it was clear that the reason for the abortion was her family’s reaction to her unmarried situation. As the girl herself said, “If I could actually marry my boyfriend in the next couple of months, I could keep the baby”. At this point we offered to help with some of the finance for her wedding. We kept everything as cheap as we could, her cake was ready-made and purchased at a local supermarket, but all in all we spent in the region of £1,000. This was not an expense that we could easily budget for as until we spoke to her we had no idea what help she would need.

Other problems we assist with include helping with rent for a short time, hiding women who are at risk from families and boyfriends, feeding and housing those without benefits, getting medical advice and care to those who cannot access it, ongoing counselling for those in distress, and for those suffering after abortion – just to name a few things. I would ask you to consider making a regular monthly donation via a standing order if you do not have one already. Be it for £5, £10, 50, or £100 per month it really does make a huge difference to our Life-Saving work. Or you can of course send us a donation however large or small. If someone were to donate £1000 at this time it would be fair to say that the twins mentioned above and other babies like them will live through God’s Grace and their generous donation. I would like to thank you for your continued support of The Good Counsel Network over the last 16 years.
God Bless,
Stuart McCullough

I warmly commend the work of Stuart and Clare McCullough and their team to the visitors to my blog. Write to them at  The Good Counsel Network, PO BOX 46679 LONDON NW9 8ZT or email: info@goodcounselnetwork.freeserve.co.uk

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

Obama's hypocrisy on caring for children defies belief

I am most grateful to the wonderful blogger known to many of his readers as "Bones" for drawing my attention to LifeSite's video: Imagine if Obama were pro-life.

Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in US history,  made a speech which moved people throughout the world following the shocking massacre of twenty little schoolchildren and six staff members in Newtown, Connecticut. That incomprehensible tragedy was rightly marked by powerful presidential oratory and expressions of a political determination to stop such tragedies from recurring.

In his speech, Obama says: 

"This is our first task ... caring for our children ... If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right ... "

At this point it really must be said - in view of the countless children being killed right now by Obama's policies, his hypocrisy defies belief.

Few politicians anywhere espouse policies as extreme as Mr Obama’s (although Tony Blair, former UK prime minister, provides tough competition in this respect). In 2001, when as a member of the Illinois State senate, he repeatedly voted against a law requiring medical personnel to give treatment to babies who survived abortion.

In no sense could the survival of a child after an abortion be considered a threat to his or her mother yet Mr Obama believed helping such a baby to live would undermine the legal right to abortion. Explaining his opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act he said:

"...whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

"I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute...".

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

Papal teaching on artificial birth control is infallible: Fr Thomas Crean O.P.

Dr Pravin Thavasathan has written a fascinating editorial on artificial birth control in the most recent edition of Catholic Medical Quarterly, the journal of the Catholic Medical Association.

Dr Thavasathan provides a brief and helpful historical account of the false teaching and of the plain bad teaching which followed the publication of Pope Paul VI's encylical Humanae Vitae on the regulation of birth which, Dr Thavasathan says ...

" ... ought to be seen as prophetic bcause the Holy Father warned that the widespread use of artificial birth control would lead to a breakdwon in the moral order, the exploitation of women and state mandated population control. All these things have happened. And soon, logically enough, there will be same sex marriage."

Dr Thavasathan also convincingly disposes of the argument that the teaching of Humanae Vitae grew out of the undue influence of an over-emphasis on the procreative good of the marriage act above other goods.

The current issue of the Catholic Medical Quarterly is also graced by an invaluable article by Fr Thomas Crean O.P. entitled "The infallible teaching of Humanae Vitae". In this article he expands on the four conditions that Vatican I laid down for a papal teaching to be infallible:

• The Pope must be exercising his office of ‘shepherd and teacher of all Christians’
• He must be ‘defining a doctrine with his supreme apostolic authority’
• The Pope must be speaking about a matter of faith or morals, and not, for example, giving his opinion about literature or secular history
• He must intend that his teaching be accepted as true by the whole Church

Fr Crean's thesis is credible because, in clear language which can be understood by ordinary lay men and women, he sets out the facts and he provides credible, authoritative sources for those facts.

Finally, on the matter of Humanae Vitae's specific teaching on artificial birth control, the current edition of the Catholic Medical Quarterly publishes a letter from St Padre Pio to Pope Paul VI. The edition also has articles on natural family planning by Dr Adrian Treloar, Dr Helen Davies and, on NaProTechnology, by Dr Anne Carus.

For reasons I have frequently presented on this blog, to my own mind it’s quite clear that countless human lives have been destroyed as a result of the rejection of Humanae vitae and its teaching on the wrongfulness of the separation of the unitive significance and procreative significance of the conjugal act, not least through birth control and IVF practices, including amongst Catholics.

According to Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the "supreme court" of the Catholic Church), Pope Benedict has emphasised in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate that the message of Humanae vitae is fundamental to achieving authentic human development:

"It is instructive to note that Pope Benedict XVI, in his most recent encyclical letter on the Church's social doctrine, makes special reference to Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, underscoring its importance "for delineating the fully human meaning of the development that the Church proposes" (Caritas in veritate, no. 15). Pope Benedict XVI makes clear that the teaching in Humanae vitae was not simply a matter of "individual morality," declaring: 'Humanae vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II's Encyclical Evangelium vitae' (Caritas in veritate, no. 15).

" ... The respect for the integrity of the conjugal act is essential to the context for the advancement of the culture of life", said Archbishop Burke.

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

My abortion plea to Mary Kenny, outgoing Master of the Catholic Writers' Guild

How very disappointing to read Mary Kenny (right), outgoing Master of the Catholic Writers' Guild, commenting on the Irish government's decision to legalize abortion earlier this week as follows:

"In truth, we do not know whether a termination of her pregnancy would have saved Mrs Halappanavar’s life, but there certainly has been pressure – rightly – to clarify the situation legally so that should it arise again, doctors may perform an abortion. And the national conversation about introducing an abortion law in Ireland has been, in my view, thoughtful, compassionate, serious and knowledgeable."

Mary ... especially when I recall past occasions when you've given such good support to the pro-life struggle ... you shock me.

Won't you re-consider your position in the light of the following?

• Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae(57):

" ... by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity."

• James Reilly, Ireland's health minister, has said:

"The legislation will be drafted in accordance with the 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling on the X case, which allows for abortion when a woman's life is in danger - including the threat of suicide."[My emphasis]

• However, there is no evidence that abortion can alleviate suicidal tendencies. In fact there is a mountain of research showing the negative effect abortion has on mental health. Women who undergo abortion are far more likely to take their on lives than those who carry their babies to term.
• Bishop of Kilmore Leo O'Reilly told RTÉ Morning Ireland this week:

"For the very first time in Ireland [the Government's plan] would inevitably lead to the most liberal kind of abortion ... This would be a radical change in the culture of life that we have had here in this country - and let's not make any mistake about it - it would be an irrevocable change, there would not be any going back."

• Enda Kenny, the Irish prime minister, claims that he must legislate in line with the Irish Supreme Court's X-case abortion judgement, but this claim is false. Contrary to what the expert group appears suggests, the ruling of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in A, B & C v Ireland (2010) only requires the Republic to provide legal clarity, not the legalisation of abortion. There is no right to abortion in the European Convention of Human Rights and the ECtHR recognised Ireland sovereignty over its own abortion laws.
• Enda Kenny, the Irish Prime Minister, has refused Fina Gael TDs a free vote on the government's abortion legislation. 

How, Mary, does the government's position reflect a "national conversation" as you put it which is "thoughtful, compassionate, serious and knowledgeable"? Isn't it rather the case that the Irish government is caving in to the bullying of the international pro-abortion lobby - by, in their turn, bullying Irish parliamentarians into overturning through legislation "the clear pro-life intention of the people of Ireland as expressed in Article 40.3.3 of Ireland's constitution" as Ireland's four archbishops described the outcome of the Irish 1983 abortion referendum?

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

Christmas is shadowed by Prime Minister's attack on marriage: Bishop Davies

"This Christmas we are also conscious of new shadows cast by a Government pledged at its election to support the institution of marriage. This vital foundation of society, the 2011 census indicates, now stands at perhaps is lowest ebb. At such a moment the Prime Minister has decided without mandate, without any serious consultation to redefine the identity of marriage itself, the foundation of the family for all generations to come."

This is what Bishop Mark Davies, the bishop of Shrewsbury, will be saying tonight in his Midnight Mass Christmas homily. (See homily in full below.) Recalling past struggles of the British people against "inhuman ideologies", the bishop will say:

"Past generations have gathered in this Cathedral on Christmas night amid many shadows which seemed to obscure the future for them. We think of the ideologies of the past century, Communism and Nazism, which in living memory threatened to shape and distort the whole future of humanity. These inhuman ideologies would each challenge in the name of progress the received Christian understanding of the sanctity of human life and the family. Britain’s war-time Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, a man without clear, religious belief, saw in this deadly struggle nothing less than the defence of Christian civilization. The alternative he vividly described as a dark age made more protracted by the perversion, the misuse of science. Few of our political leaders today appear to glimpse the deeper issues when the sanctity of human life and the very identity of marriage, the foundation of the family, are threatened."

In a prophetic and powerful call for action to defend marriage, Bishop Davies concludes:

"This, we recognise, is our moment, our, unique time to stand up for what is right and true as previous generations have done before us: to give witness to the value and dignity of every human life, to the truth of marriage as the lasting union of man and woman, the foundation of the family. In this we are assured of 'a light which shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overcome' (John 1:5)."

Let's respond to Bishop Davies's courageous and powerful defence of our families over the Christmas season by following the example of Giles Rowe, one of SPUC's supporters in London, who has asked his parish priest:

"to include a prayer to Save Marriage in the bidding prayers ... [This] would be a good way to focus attention on the Pope's call to defend the family."

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper. Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. )

Bishop Davies’s homily in full:

Homily for Midnight Mass at Shrewsbury Cathedral

Christmas 2012

Across the centuries Christians have gathered amid the winter darkness and the shadows of night to welcome a Saviour who has been born for us (Luke 2:11). No matter how profound the darkness, how disturbing the shadows all the faithful have recognised on this night: “a great light has shone” in the words of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah (9:1); that “God’s grace has been revealed,” in St. Paul’s words, “and has made salvation possible for the whole human race”(Titus 2:11); have heard tonight the timeless message of the angels which first echoed amid the hills of Judea: “I bring you news of great joy, a joy to be shared by the whole people” (Luke 2:10).

Past generations have gathered in this Cathedral on Christmas night amid many shadows which seemed to obscure the future for them. We think of the ideologies of the past century, Communism and Nazism, which in living memory threatened to shape and distort the whole future of humanity. These inhuman ideologies would each challenge in the name of progress the received Christian understanding of the sanctity of human life and the family. Britain’s war-time Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, a man without clear, religious belief, saw in this deadly struggle nothing less than the defence of Christian civilization. The alternative he vividly described as a dark age made more protracted by the perversion, the misuse of science. Few of our political leaders today appear to glimpse the deeper issues when the sanctity of human life and the very identity of marriage, the foundation of the family, are threatened.

Tonight we might happily recall Shrewsbury’s Elizabeth Prout who set out from this town to become England’s Mother Teresa: one woman who went out to confront the darkest impact of the industrial revolution armed only with her newly-found faith. The industrial revolution which saw in its darkest slums the undermining of marriage and the family, of religious practice and of human dignity and life itself on a massive scale. Elizabeth’s faith gave her the unflinching conviction in the face of claims that such degradation of human beings was the inevitable cost of progress, to defend human dignity and especially the dignity of women.

We gather on this Christmas night amid the shadows of early 21st Century Britain. As the eyes of the nation turn to this “child born for us” (Is.9:1) tiny and frail, it is this beautiful revelation of the Son of God which casts a searching light on the darkest shadows of our time. The widespread neglect and ill-treatment of the frailest, elderly people in our society: concerns high-lighted in the Care Quality Commission’s recent report. The growing concerns about end of life care and what is happening to the most vulnerable in our hospitals. This dark side to our society is surely connected to the discarding of human life from the beginning in legalised abortion on an industrial scale, in reproductive technologies, in embryo experimentation which our laws have sanctioned. “Today there exists a great multitude of weak and defenceless human beings, unborn children in particular, whose fundamental right to life is being trampled upon” Blessed John Paul II reflected in his 1995 letter The Gospel of Life, “if at the end of the last century, the Church could not be silent about the injustices of those times, still less can she be silent today” (Evangelium Vitae n.5).

This Christmas we are also conscious of new shadows cast by a Government pledged at its election to support the institution of marriage. This vital foundation of society, the 2011 census indicates, now stands at perhaps is lowest ebb. At such a moment the Prime Minister has decided without mandate, without any serious consultation to redefine the identity of marriage itself, the foundation of the family for all generations to come. This is again done in the name of progress. The great English writer, G.K Chesterton, warned: “progress is a useless word; for progress takes for granted an already defined direction; and it is exactly about the direction that we disagree” (American Notes). The British people have reason to ask on this night where is such progress leading?

In the face of what is presented as this inevitable march of human progress we recognise once more the Saviour born for us: Christ the Lord (Luke 2:11) who meets us all along the path of history. The same Lord who promised those who follow Him would be called to give witness amidst the most testing circumstances (Mt. 10:17). This, we recognise, is our moment, our, unique time to stand up for what is right and true as previous generations have done before us: to give witness to the value and dignity of every human life, to the truth of marriage as the lasting union of man and woman, the foundation of the family. In this we are assured of “a light which shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overcome” (John 1:5). “On Bethlehem night,” Pope Benedict reflected in 2005, “the Redeemer becomes one of us, our companion along the precarious paths of history. Let us take the hand he stretches out to us …” (Urbi et Orbi Message, Christmas 2005). This is the good news once more offered to the whole people (Luke 2:10). The invitation to take the hand of the Redeemer stretched out to us in gentleness, in such humility because He seeks to take nothing from us, Pope Benedict reminds us, but only to give to all the light of 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

Irish prime minister makes false abortion judgement claim

Liam Gibson (R) with Irish pro-life
leaders (L to R) Pat Buckley, European
Life Network, Bernadette Smyth, Precious Life,
Kathy Sinnott, former MEP Cork, Dana (intenational
singing star and former MEP)

I commend my visitors to Liam Gibson's Pro-Life Belfast blog - which today dissects the position of the Irish government on abortion and exposes the falsehoods which lie behind the Irish Prime Minister's decision to cave in to the bullying of the international abortion lobby.

With his permission, I am reproducing here Liam's blogpost in full:

So the Irish government is to legalise abortion. Enda Kenny, the Irish Prime Minister, has turned out to be just another gutless politician who would sooner go back on his promise made to the Irish electorate than stand-up to the bullying of the international abortion lobby. This will not come as a surprise to many but the fact that Kenny has caved-in to the pressure from abortion advocates in the Council of Europe, the office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Health and International Planned Parenthood Federation is still a disappointment.

Ireland has long been a thorn in the side of the international abortion lobby because it proved that it was possible to have an excellent maternal mortality record without legalised abortion. Efforts to introduce abortion in 1992 and in 2002 failed because the Irish people rejected flawed and fraudulent amendments to their Constitution. But the protection for children before birth has been gradually erroded by the anti-life policies of successive governments (such as those of the State-run Crisis Pregnancy Agency) and anti-life rulings of the Irish Courts.

There have been a number of stages in the Republic's descent into the culture of death and each milestone has been marked by lies and falsehoods. The first and most damaging, however, was the 1992 decision of the Supreme Court in the X-case. It has taken 20 years but it seems that, unless the people rise-up in opposition, this decision will finally lead to the legalised killing of children in Ireland.

The X-case

In a politically motivated ruling, Irish judges said a 14 year-old girl, pregnant through rape, could have an abortion because her life was threatened. Not threatened in the way that ectopic pregnancy or pre-eclampsia is life-threatening, she was allegedly suicidal so the threat was one of self-harm. The Court's first mistake was to confuse actual life-threatening conditions which arise during pregnancy with a threat of suicide.

The Court’s second mistake was to pretend that abortion was a treatment for suicidal ideation. Even if there is no doubt that a threat of suicide is genuine, it signifies a psychiatric problem and can only be addressed by psychiatric means. There is no evidence that abortion can alleviate suicidal tendencies. In fact there is a mountain of research showing the negative effect abortion has on mental health. Women who undergo abortion are far more likely to take their on lives than those who carry their babies to term.

The Irish Constitution

The nature of the psychiatric evidence presented to the Supreme Court in 1992 has since been called into question. But there is a more fundamental problem with the X-case which is seldom pointed out. And this is the judges interpretation of Article 40.3.3° itself.

The Irish Constitution cannot confer the right to life, it merely recognises it. The right to life is shared by all members of the human family by virtue of their common humanity. No State, no government, no authority can take this right away.

By the adoption of the Eighth Amendment (Article 40.3.3) the Constitution enshrined the position which was already codified in Irish law in the Offences Against the Person Act (1861). Section 58 of this Act makes it a crime to procure an abortion and section 59 makes it a crime even to help to procure one.

Article 40.3.3° states:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

By equating the right to life of the unborn with the right to life of the mother, the Constitution is in fact saying that the right to life of the child before birth is equal to the right to life of everyone already born. It did not change the right to life of mothers. How could it since every human being shares the same right to life? The right to life of women remained the same after the passage of the Eighth Amendment as it had been before it. It is entirely false to claim, as the Court did, that the adoption of Article 40.3.3° somehow introduced a Constitutional right for mothers to take the lives of their unborn children. Abortion remains a criminal offence in Irish law and there can be no Constitutional right to commit this offence.

There is no more right to kill a child in the womb in order to protect the life of another human being than there is to kill a child already born.

Medical treatments during pregnancy can have life threatening consequences for an unborn child and sometimes result in their death. But it is never justifiable to end the life of any child, even with the sincere intention of protecting the life of another person.

The Irish Supreme Court reached a perverse and unnatural judgement in the X-case. Enda Kenny claims that he must legislate in line with this judgement but this claim is false. Contrary to what the expert group appears suggests, the ruling of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in A, B & C v Ireland (2010) only requires the Republic to provide legal clarity, not the legalisation of abortion. There is no right to abortion in the European Convention of Human Rights and the ECtHR recognised Ireland sovereignty over its own abortion laws.

Kenny intends to repeal the Offences Against the Person Act and designate hospitals which will carry out abortions, two proposals rejected by the people in the 2002 referendum. Kenny’s plan must be resisted - completely. It is important that pro-life groups, the Church and the people themselves are united in this resistance. There can be no negotiation over the right to life. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and there is no acceptable level of evil.

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

Same-sex marriage attacks family "made up of father, mother, and child" Pope Benedict

The Telegraph reports today that Pope Benedict "has weighed in on the heated debate over gay marriage, criticising new concepts of the traditional family and warning that mankind itself" is at stake.

Read the Pope's full comments yourself in his annual Christmas address to the Roman Curia.

In this address, citing a study by the Chief Rabbi of France, Pope Benedict says:

"Gilles Bernheim ... has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: 'one is not born a woman, one becomes so' (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. [My emphasis] ... The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain ... "

In an earlier post, I link to an article by Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications' manager, in Taki's Magazine, in which he identifies children as the ones whose interests are to be sacrificed on the altar of some adults’ arrogant claim for personal happiness.

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage.)

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

We will legalise abortion: the words no true Irish man or woman wanted to hear

These are the words no true Irish man or woman wanted to hear from an Irish government:

"We will clarify in legislation and regulation what is available by way of treatment to a woman when a pregnancy gives rise to a threat to a woman's life. We will also clarify what is legal for the professionals who must provide that care while at all times taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child. The legislation will be drafted in accordance with the 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling on the X case, which allows for abortion when a woman's life is in danger - including the threat of suicide." James Reilly (pictured right), Ireland's health minister, 18th December 2012

For a full account of the statement from the Ireland's Orwellian-titled department of health and children(!), the response from four Catholic archbishops, the background to the Irish government's announcement - please go to Pat Buckley's blogpost: Another day that will live in infamy: Irish government decision to legislate and regulate for abortion.

Significantly for me, and significantly for Catholics, the Catholic Church, and all men and women worldwide, Pat Buckley concludes his blogpost in this vein:

"It is heartening to note that the Archbishops have encouraged 'all to pray that our public representatives will be given the wisdom and courage to do what is right' ... we would add that the entire Church needs to pray like never before to defeat the evil of abortion.

"Everyone must understand that there is a supernatural dimension to all of this and Catholic legislators need to be reminded that they risk their immortal souls if they support the introduction of abortion either by voting for it or facilitating it."

Thank you Pat. Yours is a salutary reminder for all abortion-justifying Catholics, however prestigious or high in office they may be, lay or in Holy Orders.

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

British Cardinal makes scathing attack on Prime Minister

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, the former archbishop of Westminster, has made a scathing attack this morning on David Cameron, the UK prime minister. In a withering analysis in today's Telegraph he pours scorn on David Cameron's election commitment to strengthen marriage as an institution, on his understanding of the nature of marriage, and on the prime minister's honesty in the Conservative Party's manifesto.

Thank God that leading churchmen are standing up for our families, for the child-centred institution of marriage, not least unborn children (see below).

The Cardinal's letter to the Telegraph reads:

SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, December 15) sets out with admirable clarity why marriage is and should remain a unique and binding contract between a man and a woman, open in principle to the possibility of generating children. That in the Christian Church it is also a sacrament gives it a special value for Christian believers; but that in no way detracts from its character as an institution of central importance for the welfare of society as a whole, to believers and unbelievers alike.

Redefining marriage as simply a contract between individuals irrespective of their sex, without regard either to its procreative function or to the complementarity of the relationship between man and woman, would be an abuse of language. More important, it would weaken marriage by diminishing its implications and its significance. That, and not homophobia, is why many people outside what Mr Moore calls the culturally dominant "minority" are opposed to the Government's proposal – and why more than 600,000 people have signed a petition against it. The state has the right to oversee the administration and legal aspects of marriage, but it has never been accepted that the state can dictate to individuals and society itself what marriage should mean to us. It is clear that many problems would arise if the legislation as now tabled were to be implemented.

In the run-up to the last election, David Cameron led us to believe that the strengthening of marriage as an institution was one of his important objectives; and the Conservative Party's manifesto, which made no mention of "gay marriage", included a proposed tax break for married couples. Nothing has been heard of the latter proposal, and instead of action to strengthen marriage we have the proposal to abandon the traditional understanding of marriage on the basis of a "consultation" which explicitly excluded the possibility of a negative result. Protestations that this is all fundamentally "conservative" ring a bit hollow.

It is difficult not to wonder how far the Prime Minister is someone whose steadiness of purpose can be relied on.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster
London W4

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. )

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

ACTION ALERT: Welsh Organ donation consultation must be extended

The Welsh government has announced plans to introduce presumed consent for organ donation. They are calling it "deemed consent", whereby people living in Wales for a period of six months or more will be opted-in automatically as organ donors. This will include prisoners, tourists, and students. SPUC Wales region has run an effective campaign opposing this, including making a significant impact on the first consultation.

The consultation process has now entered the next stage – a six week public consultation on the draft Bill and review by the Welsh Assembly Health and Social Committee. The public gets 6 weeks to make comments and submit evidence. Invited organizations are asked to do the same. This consultation period currently closes on 18th January.

However, SPUC is urging all pro-life supporters to write to the review committee chairman:

Mark Drakeford
Health and Social Committee
National Assembly
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA
Email: HSCCommittee@wales.gov.uk 

to complain about the shortage of time and the unsuitable seasonal period over Christmas for the public to submit evidence. We are asking for the consultation to be extended until March 2013.

This public stage concerns everyone, not just those living in Wales. Please write to Mark Drakeford, even if you are not Welsh or living in Wales. This Bill could affect you if you, or your loved ones, ever visit Wales. This will affect you, because legislation in Wales will be used to blaze a trail in other parts of Britain and elsewhere. This involves you because anyone anywhere is permitted to make submissions to the consultation.

Mark Drakeford has been widely reported in the press as saying that this is the last time that people will be able to contribute on this issue and that it is a chance “to look at it again with fresh eyes”
(South Wales Argus, Caerphilly Observer). To do this, a proper amount of time after Christmas is needed as a minimum.

The Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation principle 2.2 states:

“If a consultation exercise is to take place over a period when consultees are less able to respond, e.g. over the summer or Christmas break, or if the policy under consideration is a particularly complex, consideration should be given to the feasibility of allowing a longer period for the consultation.”

The current consultation runs during the Christmas period, which includes three bank holidays and is a time when people go away on holiday and take time off from work and correspondence. There is no way any meaningful consultation can be concluded in anything less than 3 months which is the standard time length anyway.

Please write today to chairman Mark Drakeford, citing the points above, asking that the consultation period be extended to March 2013.


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

Bishop tells Prime Minister: You are undermining the very nature, meaning & purpose of marriage

Congratulations to Bishop Egan, the Catholic bishop of Portsmouth!

Visitors to my blog may wish to visit Bishop Egan's website to read and to print out and to pass on to others his excellent letter to David Cameron, the Prime Minister, which is reproduced in full below.

Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP
Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA

15th December 2012

Dear Mr Cameron

From Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth
I am writing to you to send you best wishes from the priests and people of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, and the promise of our prayers for you, as you carry the heavy responsibility of leading our great nation. However, I am also writing to ask you, indeed to urge you, to change course on your intention to introduce same-sex marriage.

You have said you are an enthusiastic supporter of marriage and that you do not want "gay people to be excluded from a great institution." Yet I wish respectfully to point out that behind what you say lurks a basic philosophical misconception about the nature of 'equality.' Equality can never be an absolute value, only a derivative and relative value. After all, a man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father, and so men and women can never be absolutely equal, only relatively equal, since they are biologically different. So too with marriage. Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman. It is a complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex, the man and the woman not being the same, but different. They are not, in other words, absolutely equal but relatively equal. This is why gay couples, two men or two women, are not being ‘excluded’ from marriage; they simply cannot enter marriage.

By enabling gays to 'marry' and by equating the union of gay people with marriage, however well-intentioned, you are not only redefining what we mean by marriage but actually undermining the very nature, meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society. If you proceed with your plans, you will gravely damage the value of the family, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations. The 2011 Census shows the parlous state of the institution of marriage which you claim to believe in so strongly, and of family life in general, with one in two teenagers no longer living with their birth parents and over 50% of adults living outside of marriage.

Can you imagine the confusion and the challenge for teenagers as they grow up and seek to reach a fully mature and integrated sexuality? This is why I fail to see how your intentions can possibly strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. Rather they will dilute it.

More, you are ignoring the huge opposition of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, as well as that of a huge number of ordinary people. You are imposing the aspirations of a tiny minority on the vast majority. Make no mistake, the change you are proposing is of immense significance. By it, you will be luring the people of England away from their common Christian values and Christian patrimony, and forcing upon us all a brave new world, artificially engineered. What you are proposing will smother the traditional Christian ethos of our society and in time strangle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church in Britain to conduct its mission. There is no sanction whatsoever in the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian tradition for gay marriage. I cannot see how anyone who claims to be a Christian can possibly justify what you are intending to do.

I know you have spoken of the 'quadruple lock' and other legal safeguards. Yet for me many grave concerns remain about the brave new world you are fashioning in the name of the false gods of equality and diversity. For example, will I as a Christian have to support your ideology when preaching? Will you exempt the Church, its resources and premises, from charges of discrimination if it declines to host same-sex social activities? Will Catholic schools, Catholic societies, Catholic charities and Catholic institutions be free (and legally protected) to teach the full truth of Christ and the real meaning of life and love?

I appreciate how politically difficult it can be to undertake a U-turn and to sustain the attendant criticism such would bring. But when it is a matter of the truth, and the reasons are cast-iron clear, a U-turn would be hailed by history only as brave and courageous. This is why, like a Thomas a Becket appealing to Henry II, I do not hesitate to ask you to consider doing what is the right and just thing to do. Otherwise, will we ever be able to forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party (sic) who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?

I assure you of my respect, best wishes and prayers.

Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan
Bishop of Portsmouth
CC: Priests and People of Diocese of Portsmouth

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. )

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

Cross-party parliamentary alliance launches campaign against same-sex marriage

An interesting letter opposing British Government plans to legalize same-sex marriage, signed by Conservative, Labour, Democratic Unionist, and independent MPs and Peers, is published this morning in The Daily Telegraph.

• It begins by emphasising the nature of marriage in the complementarity of a man and a woman in a child-centred loving and committed union
• It points out the democratic deficit in the government's proposals and, indeed, that none of the three main parties included the legalization of same-sex marriage in their manifesto
• And the letter points out that half a million British residents have been completely ignored in the government consultation whilst anonymous submissions "from anyone anywhere in the world" have been taken on board

The letter reads:

SIR – As parliamentarians from different political parties and none, we are united in supporting the institution of marriage defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. We recognise the value of a loving and committed relationship and we respect civil partnership, but affirm the distinctive value of marriage reflecting the complementarity of a man and woman often evidenced in parenthood.

At the last election, none of the three main parties stood on a platform to redefine marriage. It was not contained in any of their manifestos, nor did it feature in the Coalition’s Programme for Government. These facts alone should have led to extreme caution on the part of those calling for this change to be made.

Instead the Government is ignoring the overwhelming public response against the plans. The consultation has ignored the views of 500,000 British residents in favour of anonymous submissions from anyone anywhere in the world. We believe that the Government does not have a mandate to redefine marriage.

We recognise these are issues of conscience which will be given free votes in Parliament. We will be seeking legal guarantees of the same freedom of conscience for our constituents and religious organisations to teach, preach and express a traditional view of marriage.

We are sceptical that the proposed protections will prevent the erosion of liberties of religion and conscience. The proposed redefinition of marriage is unnecessary, given the legal rights established through civil partnerships. We understand some parliamentarians support freedom for same sex couples to marry, but we support a freedom from the state being able to redefine the meaning of marriage.

David Burrowes MP (Conservative)
Joe Benton MP (Labour)
David Davis MP (Conservative)
Mary Glindon MP (Labour)
Lord Hylton (Crossbench)
Nigel Dodds MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)
Fiona Bruce MP (Conservative)
Jim Dobbin MP (Labour)
Lord Carey of Clifton (Crossbench)
Rehman Chishti MP (Conservative)
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Conservative)
Sir Gerald Howarth MP (Conservative)
Tim Loughton MP (Conservative)
Peter Bone MP (Conservative)
Jeffrey Donaldson (Democratic Unionist Party)
Andrew Selous MP (Conservative)
John Glen MP (Conservative)
Sir Jim Paice MP (Conservative)
Stewart Jackson MP (Conservative)
Lord Edmiston (Conservative)
Jim Shannon MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Lord Palmer (Crossbench)
Andrew Bingham MP (Conservative)
Lord Shrewsbury and Waterford (Conservative)
Julian Brazier MP (Conservative)
David Simpson MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Pauline Latham MP (Conservative)
Nick de Bois MP (Conservative)
Richard Drax MP (Conservative)
Lord Tombs (Crossbench)
Jonathan Evans MP (Conservative)
Sir Roger Gale MP (Conservative)
Ian Paisley (Democratic Unionist Party)
Gordon Henderson MP (Conservative)
Philip Hollobone MP (Conservative)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)
Marcus Jones MP (Conservative)
Lord Swinfen (Conservative)
Baroness Fookes (Conservative)
Jeremy LeFroy MP (Conservative)
Lord Vinson (Conservative)
Karl McCartney MP (Conservative)
Dr William McCrea MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Anne McIntosh MP (Conservative)
Stephen Metcalfe MP (Conservative)
Anne-Marie Morris MP (Conservative)
David Nuttall MP (Conservative)
Matthew Offord MP (Conservative)
David Davies MP (Conservative)
Mark Pawsey MP (Conservative)
David Ruffley MP (Conservative)
Lord Marlesford (Conservative)
Henry Smith MP (Conservative)
Baroness O'Cathain (Conservative)
Bob Stewart MP (Conservative)
Ben Wallace MP (Conservative)
Craig Whittaker MP (Conservative)

Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. Like Cardinal O'Brien, let's not be intimidated by charges of 'homophobia' as we seek to uphold the institution of marriage, which is the faithful lifelong union between one man and one woman, which is the foundation of the family and the fundamental group-unit of society.

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

Abortion and same-sex marriage seriously damage peace: Pope Benedict

Pope Benedict's message, published on 8th December by the Vatican, for "the celebration of the world day of peace, 1st January 2013" could not have been more appropriately timed in view of  current developments in both Ireland and Britain.

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, said:

"Those who insufficiently value human life and, in consequence, support among other things the liberalization of abortion, perhaps do not realize that in this way they are proposing the pursuit of a false peace. The flight from responsibility, which degrades human persons, and even more so the killing of a defenceless and innocent being, will never be able to produce happiness or peace. Indeed how could one claim to bring about peace, the integral development of peoples or even the protection of the environment without defending the life of those who are weakest, beginning with the unborn. Every offence against life, especially at its beginning, inevitably causes irreparable damage to development, peace and the environment. Neither is it just to introduce surreptitiously into legislation false rights or freedoms which, on the basis of a reductive and relativistic view of human beings and the clever use of ambiguous expressions aimed at promoting a supposed right to abortion and euthanasia, pose a threat to the fundamental right to life. 

"There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union; such attempts actually harm and help to destabilize marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society. 

"These principles are not truths of faith, nor are they simply a corollary of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity. The Church’s efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation. Efforts of this kind are all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, since this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and 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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tablet story about Swiss bishops on abortion challenged

A few hours ago I published a blogpost, citing a story in The Tablet, a weekly magazine marketed amongst Catholics, which alleged: "Ahead of a coming referendum on abortion financing in Switzerland, the Swiss bishops have declared that individuals should vote according to their conscience on whether its universal health-care system should cover the costs of abortions, writes Christa Pongratz-Lippitt".

I also wrote:

"I hope and I pray that The Tablet story is not correct, does not tell the full story in some way or another. If this proves to be the case, and I hear about it, I will, of course, let visitors to this blog know immediately."

I am grateful to Nicolas Bellord, a visitor to my blog, who has just written to me as follows:

"The document by the Swiss Bishops can be found at:

"http://www.eveques.ch/documents/communiques/priorite-a-la-protection-de-la-vie

"Nowhere does it say that voting in the referendum is a matter of conscience. What they do say is that accepting public financing of abortion leads to a normalisation of abortion. They are saying that it is not enough just to vote against this particular aspect but society needs to fight against abortion generally.

"They are a sorry lot at The Tablet."

I will return to this important matter as soon as I have a good translation of the Swiss bishops' communication.

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

Gay marriage: Children sacrificed on altar of adults' happiness

In an article in Taki's Magazine, Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications' manager, has provided a new and penetrating critique of the pro-gay marriage proposal being championed by members of the Conservative Party and in the Government’s response to the Equal Marriage Consultation published this month.   In this article Anthony McCarthy makes the following important points:

• Absent from the Tory proposal is any reference to a child or to children. Children have been airbrushed from the revised notion of marriage being promoted by these Tories.
• The Tory proposal reduces ‘marriage’ to a contract between two parties. Since these parties may be persons of the same sex there can be no place in the marriage contract for children. Marriage is just something that affects adults. It has nothing to do with raising the next generation, or with providing a stable environment in which children are raised.
• The new definition of marriage being proposed by these Tories would, if adopted, be the abolition of marriage as it has always been understood as far as the civil law would be concerned.
• In seeking to do this, these Tories are invoking a power which belongs to neither Church nor State. Marriage and family existed before the Church and the State. In fact the State is a coalition of natural married couples and their children. The family is the fundamental group unit of society, not “couples” of any kind.

Anthony McCarthy develops these ideas and more besides. He accurately identifies children as the ones whose interests are to be sacrificed on the altar of some adults’ arrogant claim for personal happiness. In this sense does Anthony use the term ‘child sacrifice’ to devastating effect. “This revolutionary move will”, he says, “harm the most vulnerable members of our society ... by making more likely ... the breakdown or avoidance of marriage, the contracting of marriage to involve only the couple, the refusal to see in the nature of man and woman a special complementarity inviting a binding relationship - one which can turn a person into a parent as opposed to a mere sperm or egg donor.”

Read SPUC's comments on the government's statement earlier this week - and our briefing notes for lobbying - and write and urge others to write today to MPs.

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