Our families risk being thrown to the wolves

During recent weeks there have been a number of reports of Catholic bishops standing up for life and family in different countries:

• Archbishop Michael Miller of Vancouver, Canada, has told his flock that abortion is a "slaughter of the innocents", and said that pro-lifers“have an irreplaceable role to play: we need – the Church needs, society needs – evangelists, heralds, of life, people willing to confront the weakness of a culture which has trivialized the gift of life.”
• The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has written all 19,000 parishes in America, urging the faithful to take immediate action to stop Congress voting to include abortion in health care reform. The US bishops have also praised the courage of those politicians who defended the traditional definition of marriage in the New Jersey Senate in a recent vote. On behalf of the US bishops, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz said: “Preserving marriage between one man and one woman is...one of the premier social justice issues of our time."
• Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico City has responded to critics of the Church's opposition to same-sex unions saying: "[W]e cannot be silent ... Mexico is a country that loves the family, which is its basic cell and the center of social cohesion. For this reason we are very concerned about the attacks on marriage". 
• The Mexican bishops' conference has pledged its support for Cardinal Rivera's stand, saying about adoption of children by same-sex couples: “The family institution is responsible for procreation and for ensuring children have the guidance of a father and a mother for their education and development as persons". 
• Last month Pope Benedict XVI sent a message of support to pro-life/pro-family groups in Spain battling their government’s attempts to usher in abortion on demand. He made his address on the same day as a host of Church leaders joined a massive rally in Madrid which I blogged about. Pope Benedict said: "[O]ne of the greatest services which we as Christians can offer our fellow men and women is to show them the serene and solid witness of a family founded upon marriage between a man and a woman, defending it and protecting it, because it is of supreme importance for the present and future of humankind." He reiterated that the family unit, and therefore parents, should be a child’s primary educators: "In truth, the family is the best school in which to learn to live the values that dignify individuals and make peoples great."

This respect for the role of parents as the first and foremost educators of their children will be trampled on by the government’s Children, Schools and Families bill, currently being considered by committee in the House of Commons.

Last November the government told parliament that it had accepted all the major recommendations of the fifth annual report by the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG). Among the TPIAG's major recommendations are that the Government's current review of SRE should:

· [s]tate clearly that all schools including faith schools must teach all aspects of SRE within the context of relationships in an anti-discriminatory way; contraception, abortion and homosexuality* are all legal in this country and therefore all children and young people should be able to learn the correct facts
· [m]ake explicit links to young people's advisory services and provision of contraception and sexual health services and demonstrate this by teaching young people how to access services"

In the light of the bold statements on the part of so many church leaders in other parts of the world, including the Pope, it is all the more disappointing that both the Catholic and Anglican authorities in England and Wales are in general supporting the government's proposals to force all state schools to teach sex education throughout the school years (from ages five to 18).

In addition, the Catholic Education Service of England and Wales (CESEW) continues to welcome into Catholic schools Connexions, a British government agency. Connexions’ staff are trained to tell children that they have a right of access to abortion and contraception without parental knowledge or consent, a training manual which I am happy to send to anyone who requests it.

Christian families and non-Christian families, in England and Wales have the right and the duty to demand better protection from their pastors for their families and their unborn children and grandchildren. Christian leaders need to take a leaf out of overseas' prelates books. Currently, our families risk being being thrown to the wolves.

*In Evangelium Vitae paragraph 97, Pope John Paul II taught 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

Euthanasia bill a threat to people with illness and disability

Margo MacDonald, a member of the Scottish parliament (MSP), launched a bill this morning which would allow euthanasia.

SPUC Scotland is urging MSPs to oppose the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill because it attacks the first human right - the right to life - and is a threat to all people with illness or disability.

It's a sad day for the Scottish Parliament that one of its leading politicians, Ms Margo MacDonald, is proposing such a dangerous bill.

SPUC Scotland told the media this morning:

"Among its dangerous proposals is that helping kill someone who is ill or incapacitated will enable ‘dignity in dying’ and that only a procured death is dignified. This is wholly wrong and is a terrible message to impart to our society.

"What hasn’t changed with the bill, however, is that once again it’s the terminally ill and the severely disabled or ‘physically incapacitated’ who are being targeted as qualifying for having their lives deemed ‘not worth living’ or being ‘right to want to die.’

"Not only are the measures in the bill against international human rights legislation but they do not restrict the 'assistance' to doctors. They call for friends and relatives to be permitted to assist, no doubt because most medics oppose assisting suicide.

"Nor are the suggested safeguards any protection for vulnerable in Scotland. We see in those countries where it is legal, such as Holland, that non-voluntary euthanasia always follows. The threat is loud and clear to the ill and disabled: you are the target."

Alison Davis of No Less Human, a division of SPUC, who lives with severe spina bifida and other debilitating conditions that have brought her to the brink of suicide in the past, also told the media:

"The Dutch experience showed that, once euthanasia or assisted suicide is allowed, despite any number of so-called ‘strict safeguards’ such as that the killing must be ‘voluntary’, it is likely to go on to include victims who either did not, or could not, volunteer.

“I know from my own experience that what is needed is not to be abandoned or presumed to be ‘better off dead’ or to have one’s fears of being ‘burdensome’ confirmed, but rather to be surrounded by those who care. Friends and family may not be able to take the pain away, but their presence can be a source of enormous comfort.

"Sometimes what desperate people, disabled or not, need is to be given hope. What they definitely don't need is to be told they are right to feel so unhappy and that they would be better off dead. This is simply the moral equivalent of the practical example of seeing a person about to jump off a high bridge and giving them a push."

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

Legal academic pens hard-hitting rejection of assisted suicide guidance

Dr Jacqueline Laing (pictured), a legal academic, has written a hard-hitting article in the Solicitors Journal against the director of public prosecutions (DPP)'s guidance on assisted suicide. Among other things, Dr Laing says in her article:

• "[T]he guidance is unconstitutional, arbitrary and at odds with human rights law"
• "[A]n alteration in the substance of the law is precisely what is envisaged by the guidance"
• "Of the factors outlined against prosecution, many – for example, that the victim had a severe and incurable physical disability – are observably at odds with the demands of non-discrimination (articles 2 and 14 [of the Human Rights Act]) and the equal dignity principle."
• "The inclusion of the factor that the suspect had previously attempted suicide also prompts the suspicion that the most vulnerable and depressed are being discriminated against."
• "Nowhere else in the criminal law does the motive of ‘compassion’ as distinct from involuntariness, a defence which affects human control, operate to exculpate"
• "[E]uthanasia, whether de jure or de facto, erodes respect for the value of human life, undermines the goals of medicine, endangers the vulnerable and imperils those who may indeed be a burden to others"
• "Once this unconstitutional and illegal guidance becomes normalised, financial, scientific and medical interests will incentivise what can only be described as homicidal practice."

It is interesting to note that the criteria in the DPP's guidance is the same as the criteria in the bill proposed by Margo Macdonald before the Scottish parliament. I'm reliably informed that Mrs Macdonald will be launching her bill this morning at a press conference.

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

Jury in Inglis murder trial showed great courage

A jury at the Old Bailey (London's central criminal court) today convicted Frances Inglis of murdering her son Thomas. Mr Inglis claimed she killed her 22-year-old son to end his suffering after he sustained severe head injuries when he fell out of a moving ambulance.

Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, has told the media this afternoon:

“There are no reports that Thomas ever expressed any wish to die. Like Tony Bland, who survived the Hillsborough football stadium tragedy but was later killed by his doctors, Thomas Inglis’ killing was non-voluntary euthanasia.

“Frances Inglis called her son’s life a ‘living hell,’ and claimed he was in ‘constant pain’. These are phrases that we often hear about disabled people, when others want to impose a ‘right to die’ on them. This reflects the fact that voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia are two sides of the same coin. In either case, the key fact is that the person doing the killing regards the victim as better off dead. This is unacceptable.

“It is most regrettable that Miranda Moore QC, the prosecution's lawyer, seems to have accepted, without evidence, that when people like Thomas Inglis were killed it ‘put them out of their misery’. Nevertheless, she secured a conviction, which is some recompense for those who, like Thomas, are unable to communicate their feelings freely.

“Some media reports have evoked great sympathy for Mrs Inglis, but in highlighting her conflicted feelings, they are masking other important facts.

“The jury has shown great courage in bringing a verdict according to the evidence."

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

Act now to defend life and family from Council of Europe reports

Pat Buckley of the European Life Network has alerted me to two anti-life and anti-family measures to be debated by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg next week. Please read the information below fully and please act immediately.

The first measure is the report “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity” by Andreas Gross, a member of the Socialist group. The Gross report will be debated on Wednesday 27 January. According to a memorandum by the European Centre for Law and Justice, the Gross report's promotion of radical homosexual rights threatens to damage:

• the family
• the higher interest of children*
• States’ sovereign interest and right to protect public morality, family and the best interests of the child

The Gross report also attempts to:

• create an artificial concept of the family and of marriage
• require national legislations to recognise same-sex marriage or partnership
• create a right to adopt a child.

The second measure is the report “Fifteen Years Since the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action” by Christine McCafferty, a veteran anti-life member of the British Labour party. The McCafferty report will be debated on Friday 29 January. The McCafferty report involves the promotion of abortion as a means of family planning and population control. A comprehensive memorandum on the critical issues involved in the McCafferty report has also been prepared by the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ).

Please contact the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) from your country and ask them to reject these measures. Please copy any replies you receive to political@spuc.org.uk

*In Evangelium Vitae paragraph 97, Pope John Paul II taught 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

SPUC reports from the March for Life in Paris

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, and his fiancée Magdalena, have just returned from representing SPUC at the March for Life in Paris last Sunday, and Anthony has sent me the report below.

"Sunday's march was preceded on Saturday evening with a prayer vigil (right) for Catholics at L'Église St Francois-Xavier, a particularly beautiful church. Between seven and eight hundred people, mostly in their twenties, attended. We were impressed by the sermon given by Monsigneur Chauvet, the parish priest. He explained very clearly the Catholic Church's teaching on the dignity of the human person, the important place of conscience and the respect due to the human body. The young people were therefore well-versed in the reasons for participating in the next day's march.

"Sunday's march started at the Place de la République (left). The Place soon overflowed with thousands of young people bearing placards, t-shirts and balloons with clear, strong messages. One placard which caught my eye read: "No children, no pensions!" Representatives of pro-life groups from various countries were invited to speak. Magdalena, a talented linguist, translated my speech to the marchers. We explained to them SPUC's history, its international outreach and the importance of solidarity within the European pro-life movement. I was also interviewed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and other reporters.

"The march then started on its route (right, with Magdalena in the foreground). As the march is organised and led by young adults, the spirit is very boisterous, with catchy songs, witty chants and plenty of bonhomie. I was amazed to see one group called "Musicians for Life", another group called "Socialists for Life" and a third group of hunting-horn players! Walking behind the main march was a Catholic prayer procession, featuring parents and their children and led by superiors and representatives of several religious orders.

"The march ended three hours later outside the Paris Opéra, one of the city's finest landmarks (left, with me in the foreground). The organisers estimate there were 20,000 marchers. Although 25 French bishops sent messages of support, it's a pity that only one attended. Nonetheless, such a event is an impressive achievement considering the strong anti-life trend in France. The youthful vigour on display makes one hopeful for the future."

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

Episcopal policy in England and Wales is undermining the culture of life

Caritas in Veritate (Latin for "charity in truth"), the wonderfully-named blog of Fr John Boyle (pictured), carries an important reflection on a worrying report in The Tablet concerning Bishop Malcolm McMahon, the chairman of the Catholic Education Sevice, an agency of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.

Bishop McMahon reportedly told The Tablet that:

" ... the backgrounds of potential school leaders were not the concern of the Church and it should be up to applicants themselves to decide whether they were able to live according to church teaching ... "

The Tablet says:

"[Bishop McMahon] also said that the Church was not opposed to civil partnerships. 'Civil partnerships are precisely what they say they are. They’re not gay marriages or lesbian marriages. They’re simply a legal arrangement between two people so that they can pass on property and other rights in which they were discriminated against before,' he said. 'We have many gay people in education and a large number of gay people in the Church, at least the same as the national average. I think a person who is leading a church school should live according to the Church’s teaching whether they are in a civil partnership or not. A civil partnership is not a marriage, it’s not a conjugal relationship.'

Fr Boyle's commentary is well worth reading. He is a canon lawyer and contributor to the newsletter of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Bishop McMahon's worrying reported statement comes in the wake of considerable concern regarding previously published episcopal policy in England and Wales. I have blogged before about the Diversity and Equality guidelines, a publication of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales. This policy document welcomes, seeks to implement, and says that it will monitor the implementation (in the Catholic Church, including in Catholic schools) of British government and EU law on the equal employment rights of male and female homosexuals, and bisexuals and transsexuals.

I note that the Catholic Bishops' Conference website currently states of these Guidelines:

"Please note that the law in this area has already changed in certain respects since the Guidelines were published and it is likely to change further in the light of new equality legislation due before parliament in 2009. New comprehensive Guidelines will need to be written and published after the Bill has been enacted."

I do hope and pray that the bishops will reverse their policy in any newly-written guidelines and that they will repudiate Bishop McMahon's reported statement. Their guidelines and the bishop's statement have the effect of undermining the culture of life. As I said in my earlier post:

"With the bishops of England and Wales now welcoming and guaranteeing the presence of homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers in Catholic schools in England and Wales, and in the light of Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 97 (above), is it not completely unrealistic to expect that Catholic sexual morality, including the sacredness of human life before birth, will be taught in these schools?

"A pro-abortion document, prepared at the request of the EU Commission on the right to conscientious objection, links rights relating to sexual orientation to other supposed rights, including the “right” to abortion and the “right” to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The document quotes, in part, the Diversity and Equality Guidelines of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales in a generally approving way. The bishops’ guidelines and the EU experts’ document clearly agree that, subject to limited and narrow exceptions, Catholic organisations must ensure that no job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment than another on the grounds of sexual orientation."

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

Let's call on young people to face today's pro-life challenges

On Wednesday, David Burrowes MP presented the 2009 Robin McNair Prize in the Houses of Parliament (pictured). Student-contestants wrote essays on bioethical issues including abortion, human embryos and the rights of the disabled. A full report and photos of the event can be seen on the SPUC website.

Kirsty Jones, 17, of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, won first prize. She answered the question: "Is abortion justified if the unborn baby is disabled?" She pointed out that five babies are aborted every day because of their disability, at a time when medicine and therapy are actually improving and extending the lives of many disabled people. Kirsty cites United Nations documents which defend the rights of the unborn. She concluded:

"As mere individuals we cannot cure disability, but [we] can cure the world of its attitudes towards [disabled people]."

Emily Nightingale, 15, of Holmes Chapel, Cheshire, won second prize. Like Kirsty, she wrote about abortion of disabled children. She pointed out that British law allows abortion of disabled children at any stage in the pregnancy. She wrote:

"There are thousands of disabled people living happy, successful lives and I think that aborting a child because of a disability is very offensive to all of those people."

Emily described how abortion has helped bring about a cult of perfection and a sort of "un-natural selection process".

Dexter Leung, 16, of Eton College, won third prize for his essay which answered the question: "Is the human embryo a potential human life or a human life with potential?" Dexter pointed out that the start of human life isn't just a religious matter but can also be determined by science. He described how modern genetics is reinforcing the fact that early human life is unique and truly human.

Mr Burrowes explained that it had been his involvement with SPUC at university that had encouraged him to enter politics. He said that there was a need of people who will speak with "passion and depth" about respect for the sanctity of human life.

I opened the event by thanking our host for his staunch defence of the right to life since his election in 2005. I pointed out, however, that all is not well:

"On Monday, the House of Commons gave a second reading to the government's Children, Schools and Families bill. This measure includes provisions to make sex education part of the national curriculum for England. Schools would have to teach it from the age of five. School-based sex lessons have a reputation for worsening, not improving, indicators such as teenage pregnancy ... "

"The bill's proposals for compulsory sex education have been framed by the pro-abortion lobby and will help to keep abortion rates high. Not since the Abortion Act 1967 has there been such a determined effort to promote universal access to abortion. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we call upon MPs to speak out against the bill's proposals."

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

Liberal Democrat leader says faith schools must be forced to teach that homosexuality is "normal and harmless"

Nick Clegg (pictured), the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, has reportedly told a homosexual magazine that faith schools must be forced to teach that homosexuality is "normal and harmless".

This news is important for many reasons, including;

• the negative effect of teaching homosexuality on building a culture of life
  
• the undermining by the state of the role of parents as the primary educators of their children, and parents' legal right to secure an education for their children according to their beliefs
  
• the possible role of Mr Clegg and his party in holding the balance of power should this year's general election beget a hung parliament (i.e. where no one party has a majority)
  

In Evangelium Vitae paragraph 97, Pope John Paul II taught 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. (Ironically, Mr Clegg, an atheist married to a Catholic, has reportedly pledged to raise his children as Catholics.)

Regarding parents, Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust put it well in yesterday's Daily Mail:

"The vast majority of parents do not want their children’s schools to be turned into vehicles to promote positive images of homosexual relationships."

It is also disturbing that David Cameron, the leader of the opposition Conservative party, has also proposed the normalisation of homosexual relationships, putting them on the same par as marriages:

"Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important ... And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that."

The promotion of homosexuality in schools as a result of the government's Children, Schools and Families bill is a distinct possibility. We need courageous people who will stand up against the political establishment for our children and grandchildren, if we want, as Pope John Paul II (that great pro-life leader) put it, to build a "true culture 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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pope Benedict ushers into Catholic Church pro-Humanae Vitae Anglicans

I have mentioned before that I think that Pope Benedict's Apostolic Constitution and the entry into the Catholic Church of members of the Traditional Anglican Communion will greatly strengthen Catholic witness on pro-life matters. A recent post about contraception on The Anglo-Catholic confirms my view. It begins:

"It is an unfortunate — but not altogether infrequent — occurrence to find a 'traditional Anglican' who believes that his faith permits the use of artificial means of contraception despite the difficult moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It is supposed (by the ignorant) that our acceptance of the courageous teaching of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae and reinforced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the doctrinal standard proposed by Anglicanorum Coetibus) would be, at least, a novelty, a rigorous discipline beyond what has been required in the past. But it is important to understand that with respect to this now controversial point of moral teaching, the Church of England, and her daughter Churches throughout the world, followed the tradition of the Church Catholic from the earliest days."

The Anglo-Catholic article is timely, particularly in view of Pope Benedict's recent strong emphasis in Caritas in Veritate that the Catholic teaching on contraception is not just a matter of personal morality. As Archbishop Burke explained last year in the US:

"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)

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.

(*Albeit on the question of the separation of the unitive significance and the procreative significance of the marital act, SPUC itself has no policy. The Society is made up of people of all faiths and none, and SPUC’s remit is solely concerned with defending the right to life from conception till natural death.)

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

Sex ed plans in schools bill would pour petrol on the fire

Tonight the House of Commons voted to give the Children, Schools and Families bill a second reading by 287 votes to 206.

The government's plans for sex education in all state schools would pour petrol on the fire of the sexual health crisis among young teenagers.

The bill includes provisions to make sex education part of the national curriculum for England, requiring schools to teach it from the age of five and up. This gives us serious cause for concern because of the history of British classroom-based sex education. School-based sex lessons have a reputation for worsening, not improving, indicators such as teenage pregnancy.

As sections of the media have become increasingly explicit and lurid over recent decades young teenagers have been increasingly sexualised, and many youngsters suffer the related miseries of early and inappropriate sexual initiation. Yet health and sex education policies have facilitated, and not discouraged, illicit teenage sex. This has meant sustained high levels of sexually transmitted disease, lone-parent families and abortion.

The changes in the CSF bill amount to pouring petrol on the fire.

The most important thing at this point is for the MPs considering the bill during its coming committee stage to scrutinise the evidence carefully. Critically they should not accept false claims that school-based sex education reduces teenage pregnancy and abortion, but should examine the evidence themselves.

The government defended tonight its plans to abolish parents' right to withdraw older teenagers from sex education classes. The government says that it's nonsensical that older teenagers can be told by their parents they can't have such classes. The government's defence shows that it doesn't trust parents to deliver the pro-abortion propaganda it wants teenagers to hear in such classes. It is important that all parents, who have legal responsibility for their children until they leave school, retain the right to withdraw them from sex education classes. Retaining this right may help to have a positive effect on the content of school SRE lessons, forcing them to pay attention to the values and moral standards of parents. This may put a break on some of the worst excesses of school-based sex education.

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

Pope Benedict tells diplomats to place man at the heart of environmental concerns

In an address today to the diplomatic corps, Pope Benedict XVI urged representatives that:

“[a] concern and commitment for the environment should be situated within the larger framework of the great challenges now facing mankind.”

This larger framework refers to man’s attitude to man. Pope Benedict highlights the contradiction between a promotion of environmental concerns and a disregard for the protection of human life, itself the crown of creation.

“If we wish to build true peace, how can we separate, or even set at odds, the protection of the environment and the protection of human life, including the life of the unborn? It is in man’s respect for himself that his sense of responsibility for creation is shown. As Saint Thomas Aquinas has taught, man represents all that is most noble in the universe (cf. Summa Theologiae, I, q. 29, a. 3).”

Benedict also took the opportunity to reject the myth that the world is suffering from a shortage of food. (Too often this myth is used as a smokescreen for the agenda of pro-abortionists to destroy human life through brutal family planning policies and the promotion of abortion.)

“Furthermore, as I noted during the recent FAO World Summit on Food Security, ‘the world has enough food for all its inhabitants’ (Address of 16 November 2009, No. 2) provided that selfishness does not lead some to hoard the goods which are intended for all.”

The multi-faceted nature of governmental policies effecting a culture of death were highlighted by Pope Benedict and he reflected on the difficulty which those with religious beliefs face in being an active part of the moral reform needed to help improve the environment and society. This difficulty arises due to the often aggressively anti-religious legislation in West:

“The community of believers can and wants to take part in this, but, for it to do so, its public role must be recognized. Sadly, in certain countries, mainly in the West, one increasingly encounters in political and cultural circles, as well in the media, scarce respect and at times hostility, if not scorn, directed towards religion and towards Christianity in particular. It is clear that if relativism is considered an essential element of democracy, one risks viewing secularity solely in the sense of excluding or, more precisely, denying the social importance of religion. But such an approach creates confrontation and division, disturbs peace, harms human ecology and, by rejecting in principle approaches other than its own, finishes in a dead end.”

Such relativism, culminating in the ‘dead end’ of increased abortions, will be foisted upon the next generation of English schoolchildren via the government’s plans to impose universal sex education through the Children, Schools and Families bill being debated today in the House of Commons. Through this legislation, the government wants to use all state secondary schools, including Catholic ones, as centres for promoting access to contraception and abortion services. Sadly the government's plans are being supported by both the Catholic authorities and the Anglican authorities in England and Wales

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

House of Commons to debate compulsory sex ed bill today

The House of Commons will this afternoon debate the government's plans for sex education in all state primary and secondary schools. The second reading of the Children, Schools and Families bill will start at 2.30pm. SPUC will be commenting after the debate's conclusion this evening and will be available for interviews.

The bill seeks to force schools to prime children for adolescent sex. This is a clear example of pursuing ideology despite the evidence. The teenage pregnancy policies pursued over the past 10 years have encouraged escalating rates of sexual diseases, the further sexualisation of culture, and continuing high abortion rates among teenagers, especially younger teenagers. The bill's proposals for compulsory sex education have been framed by the pro-abortion lobby and will help to keep abortion rates high. Not since the Abortion Act 1967 has there been such a determined effort to promote universal access to abortion. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we call upon MPs to speak out against the bill's proposals today.

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

Good Counsel Network shows great pro-life leadership

As a Catholic, I am impressed and inspired by the great, consistent, pro-life leadership shown by the Good Counsel Network, a pro-life group founded on devoutly Catholic spirituality. As Fr Tim Finigan, the well-known Catholic blogger, has pointed out, their work is "solidly based on a life of prayer".

This Tuesday, 12th January, they commemorate the 13th anniversary of their foundation - a truly historic date for the ever-growing number of mothers and babies they've saved from abortion. The Good Counsel Network is marking this anniversary with a day of prayer and fasting. I am delighted to commend this initiative to Catholic and to non-Catholic readers alike.

Such Catholic pro-life leadership is sorely needed particularly in a country in which the Catholic authorities shamefully co-operate with a government which provides schoolchildren in Catholic schools with confidential access to abortion and contraception. This is a result of the Catholic Education Service's ambiguous policies.

Instead of such co-operation with the pro-"choice" culture of death, " ... what is urgently called for is a general mobilization of consciences and a united ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of life ... ", as Pope John Paul II put it in Evangelium Vitae (95).

Personally, I believe strongly in fasting - but I believe (like the Good Counsel Network) that this can be from giving up a favourite food or drink, to more serious fasting. Please read their appeal below. I will be joining them - in reparation for the government's policy in promoting abortion amongst schoolchildren and for the actions of those who co-operate with that policy.

The Good Counsel Network writes:

On Tuesday 12th January, the eve of the 13th anniversary of the founding of The Good Counsel Network in the UK, please pray and fast for the end of abortion and euthanasia. Your prayer and fasting is urgently needed.

A great prayer for life is urgently needed. Pope John Paul II

Join us each month in prayer and fasting:

• fasting: Fast from all food except bread and water for the day or fast from a particular food or luxury, e.g. chocolate, alcohol, cigarettes, TV. Fast from whatever you can given your state of health etc, but make sure it is something that involves a sacrifice to yourself.
• prayer: We are asking people to say a Rosary (or an extra Rosary if you say it daily already). You could also offer an extra effort such as going to Mass (or an extra Mass) on the day, or going to Adoration. You can even pray before a closed tabernacle if Adoration is not available near you.

And He said to them; This kind (of demon) can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Gospel of Mark 9:29)

For information on the day of prayer and fasting contact The Good Counsel Network on 020 7723 1740.

And the people of Ninevah believed in God; they proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least…God saw their efforts to renounce their evil ways. And God relented about the disaster which He had threatened to bring on them, and He did not bring it. (Jonah 3:5,10)

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

New abortion drama looks interesting

A new film on abortion exploring the abortion issue looks likely to spark controversy.

Entitled “South Dakota: A woman's right to choose”, the film-makers say it represents "both sides" - although at least one of those attending advance screenings in the US says it leans towards the pro-life side.

According to a CNA report, this "is a movie that dramatizes the stories of two teenage girls who become pregnant unexpectedly. Interspersed with the action are interviews and sound clips of various pro-abortion and pro-life advocates ... The movie was produced by Howard Kazanjian, (Star Wars Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark.) It will be marketed by Motive Entertainment (The Passion of the Christ, The Polar Express, The Chronicles of Narnia, Expelled)."

Sounds interesting. I look forward to seeing the film and reviewing it in a future post.

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

Obama-Clinton administration renews commitment to bankroll abortion worldwide

Yesterday Hillary Clinton, the pro-abortion US secretary of state, gave a speech marking the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo. In her speech, Mrs Clinton notably failed to remind the audience that the programme of action agreed by governments at Cairo says: "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning". Mrs Clinton nonetheless confirmed the Obama administration's commitment to support and bankroll organisations which promote abortion as a method of family planning, notably the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Mrs Clinton frequently used the terms 'reproductive health' and 'family planning', making only one passsing reference to abortion. In April, following direct questioning by pro-life Congressman Chris Smith, Mrs Clinton was forced to admit that the Obama administration's definition of reproductive health includes abortion.

Here are some extracts from Mrs Clinton's speech yesterday, and my comments [JS] on them:

• "What is it we will do between now and 2015? Remember what was expected of us [at Cairo]. All governments will make access to reproductive healthcare and family planning services a basic right." [JS: This means the Obama administration believes Cairo requires all governments to provide abortion and contraception.]
• "We have made measurable progress since 1994 in improving the health and the lives of women and children, especially girls. For example, the use of modern contraceptives worldwide has increased from under 10 percent in the 1960s to 43 percent in 2008." [JS: As I blogged yesterday, contraception paves the way for abortion, and the physical and psychological damage abortion does to women.]
• "And 15 years after the Cairo conference, far too many women still have little or no access to reproductive health services, including family planning and maternal healthcare." [JS: This shows just how extreme the Obama-Clinton administration regime is. Even though almost every country in the world allows abortion and contraception, resulting in tens of millions of abortions annually and a growing under-population crisis, the administration wants more.]
• "More than 215 million women worldwide lack access to the modern forms of contraception, and this contributes to the nearly 20 million unsafe abortions that take place very year." [JS: I have blogged before about the pro-abortion lobby's outrageous manipulation of shaky statistics.]
• "[W]e are working with religious leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan to increase access to information about family planning" [JS: Obama-Clinton know that the anti-life juggernaut can be stopped by religious leaders.]
• "Uganda, where USAID works with the International Planned Parenthood Federation to provide reproductive health services" [JS: The pro-abortion lobby is determined to reverse the Ugandan government's emphasis on abstinence and fidelity, which has been successful in reducing HIV rates.]
• "So we are rededicating ourselves to the global efforts to improve reproductive health for women and girls ... One of President Obama’s first actions in office was to overturn the Mexico City policy, which greatly limited our ability to fund family planning programs" [JS: In fact, the Mexico City policy denied millions of US federal dollars to organisations which promote abortion, not just 'family planning'.]
• "We have pledged new funding, new programs, and a renewed commitment to achieve Millennium Development Goal Five, namely a [three-fourths] reduction in global maternal mortality, and universal access to reproductive healthcare." [JS: which means seeking to force governments to allow abortion on demand.]
• "This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add." [JS: which is why it's essential that more pro-lifers win seats in this year's mid-term elections, and that a pro-life candidate replaces Obama in 2012.]
• "[T]oday, the United States is proud once again to support the work of the UN Population Fund." [JS: despite that body's shameless complicity in the China's one-child policy of forced abortions.]
• "[E]very single child in this country – boy or girl – deserves a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential." [JS: There's a good Jewish-American word for such a statement: 'chutzpah'. Under Obama-Clinton, countless more children's lives will be extinguished.]

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

History teaches us we must not give an inch to the culture of death

Anne Barbeau Gardiner, an emeritus professor of English in New York, has written a stunning review of an important book entitled "Cultures of Abortion in Weimar Germany". Here are some extracts from her review, which I recommend you to read in full:

• "In her research for Cultures of Abortion, Cornelie Usborne examined literary works, movies, trial documents, medical records, social workers' notes, police interviews, and newspapers from the years of the Weimar Republic, 1918-1933 ... Although [Usborne] is pro-abortion...her research is valuable because it shows how the groundwork for Adolf Hitler's eugenic-abortion policies was laid."
• "[C]ontraception was 'big business' in Germany prior to World War I ... [I]n 1927 the law was changed to allow contraceptives to be advertised, though some of these, like the uterine coil, were also abortifacient."
• "[T]he Weimar Republic was distinguished by 'the lowest birth rate in the Western world'"
• "German law on abortion became 'one of the most liberal in the world' because doctors could easily convince officials that any abortion was necessary for 'health' reasons."
• "Deceptive language about abortion was also used in the Weimar Republic by communist and socialist novelists, poets, dramatists, and filmmakers, all of whom advocated 'medical, social and/or eugenic abortion'"
• "The 1929 play Cyankali §218, written by the socialist Fried­rich Wolf, was supposedly a docu­drama about abortion intended to rouse the audience for mass protests. Yet it was based on a lie ... [T]here [is no] evidence for the allegation in the play that 10,000 women died annually from 'back-street abortions' ... Filmed in 1930, Cyankali §218 was used by socialists and communists in their election campaigns."
• "[W]here contraception is rife there will also be the widespread practice of abortion and a growing pressure for its full legalization ... It is crucial, then, to oppose the contraceptive mentality that makes abortion inevitable"*
• "[T]he road to Hitler was paved with abortions. The Weimar Republic was a society committing suicide in slow motion. It could neither stop the killing of its unborn children nor control the degrading hedonism that accompanied this practice ... It was so weak it easily caved in when confronted with a fiercer form of that same culture."

This book and Professor Gardiner's review of it are very relevant to the current British government's plans for children's education. The governments which preceded and followed the Weimar Republic (the Second Reich under Bismarck and Hitler's Third Reich respectively) used laws to control and thereby undermine Catholic parent's education of their children. Under the Third Reich, a law against home-schooling - which is still being enforced today - was passed in order to ensure that children received Nazi indoctrination, including Nazi anti-life and anti-family ideas. Pope Pius XI protested against these laws, writing:

"Catholic parents'...rights and duties as educators, conferred on them by God, are at present the stake of a campaign pregnant with consequences ... [I]it will be every one's duty to sever his responsibility from the opposite camp, and free his conscience from guilty cooperation with such corruption. The more the enemies attempt to disguise their designs, the more a distrustful vigilance will be needed, in the light of bitter experience."

After the defeat of Nazism, parents' right to choose the type of education for their children was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in order to prevent such indoctrination by future governments. Many parents in Germany and Britain today wish to home-school their children because of anti-life and anti-family indoctrination in state-regulated schools. The British government's Children, Schools and Families bill seeks to weaken parents' control over their children's education by:

• imposing sex education in all primary and secondary schools following the national curriculum, including Catholic schools, which entails anti-life and anti-family indoctrination
• abolishing the parents' right to remove school-children of 15 years and older from sex education classes
• establishing strict and intrusive regulation of home-schooling, including direct access by regulatory officials to home-schooling children, bypassing parents.

We must not give an inch to the culture of death. The second reading (the first main debate) on the Children, Schools and Families bill will take place in the House of Commons on Monday (11 January). Please email your MP immediately to urge them to speak out against the government's plans.

*which reminds me of the admission by Dr Judy Bury, former Director of Edinburgh Brook Advisory Centre, that: "There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate." (The Scotsman, 29 June 1981)

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

The Catholic Church does not support the government's sex ed plans

The Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG), a government-established pro-abortion quango, has claimed in its latest report that:

"TPIAG commends the Government for its decision to make PSHE education, including SRE, statutory at all key stages .... We are very pleased that Church of England and Catholic Church are also supporting this move." [my emphasis]

The TPIAG is undoubtedly referring to the general  - and disgraceful - support given by the Catholic Education Service (CES) of England and Wales to the government's proposals, contained in the Children, Schools and Families (CSF) bill. The CES, however, does not comprise the Catholic Church: it is an organ of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW). Whilst it is understandable that a bishops' conference and its organs seek to speak for and on behalf of the Catholic Church, it may be illuminating to read what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said whilst Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"We must not forget that the 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."

Among the government's proposals is, as the TPIAG report explains, the teaching of sex and relationships education (SRE) from the start of primary school (key stage one, ages five to seven) onwards. In contrast, the Catholic Church's key teaching document on sex education, The truth and meaning of human sexuality: guidelines for education within the family (Pontifical Council for the Family, 1995), teaches that:

• "[P]rudent formation in chaste love during this period [before puberty] should be indirect..."
• "In some societies today, there are planned and determined attempts to impose premature sex information on children. But, at this stage of development, children are still not capable of fully understanding the value of the affective dimension of sexuality. They cannot understand and control sexual imagery within the proper context of moral principles and, for this reason, they cannot integrate premature sexual information with moral responsibility. Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life. Parents should politely but firmly exclude any attempts to violate children's innocence because such attempts compromise the spiritual, moral and emotional development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence."
  
• "Homosexuality should not be discussed before adolescence unless a specific serious problem has arisen in a particular situation."
• "As regards sterilization and contraception, these should not be discussed before adolescence..."

On this point (of pre-pubescent sex education) and on other points which I have blogged about recently, it is clear that the government's proposals, and the CES's general support for them, are contrary to Catholic teaching.

There can be no doubt the government will use the bill, if passed, to promote abortion in schools. The bill's principles will be used to ensure that pro-abortion propaganda dominates the content of sex education. Schoolgirls will be told that they have a right to abortion, that abortion is virtually harmless and that pro-abortion agencies provide good sexual health services. 'Equality' and 'diversity' will be used to suppress opposition to abortion. The abolition of parents' right to withdraw older children from sex education classes will ensure that no child leaves state schooling without having been brainwashed with an pro-abortion mentality.

It is therefore imperative that Catholics put the record straight by speaking out against the government's plans so disgracefully supported by the CES.

(Image source: http://malpighi.altervista.org/appelloeducazione )

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

Humans, not dolphins, have rights needing to be upheld

Some scientists are calling for dolphins to be given the same respect as humans, on account of their supposedly relatively high intelligence. The scientists claim that dolphins are more intelligent than chimpanzees, based on brain size and behavioural observations. There is a push by anti-life academics such as Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins to accord human-style rights to chimpanzees and other apes.

Let us look, however, at the differences between humans and animals. Dr Armand Leroi, an evolutionary biologist at Imperial College London, has said that, although the genes of humans and chimpanzees are

"pretty much the same"

humans are

"so much better at imitation, language and culture ... [P]rimates simply don't have the social skills we humans take for granted."

Dr Leroi cited behavioural observation experiments at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, which found that chimpanzees

"can't understand the intentions of [human] adults. Human children, by contrast, are naturally very good at understanding the intentions of others."

Dr Leroi interviewed a psychologist who has used Shakespeare's Othello as a key to understanding human interaction. The psychologist said that

"chimpanzee[s] could never understand a play by Shakespeare, even if they could understand language. Their minds are limited to second-order intentionality at best, which means they simply couldn't even follow the plot."

Dr Leroi concludes that:

"We alone among the animals can step beyond our biology. Perhaps it is this that truly makes us human."

The proposal to accord personhood status to dolphins and apes takes animal welfare into the realms of rights. This runs contrary to the widely-held beliefs that animals are not persons and that only persons are capable of possessing rights. Indeed, permission for abortion, embryo experimentation and (in certain cases) euthanasia is often predicated on the erroneous belief that unborn children and the severely mentally incapacitated are not persons.

The proper treatment of animals is a legitimate concern. We need to treat all aspects of our world responsibly, and it's wrong to abuse any creature even if it's not human. It would be a tragic irony if society affords extra dignity to dolphins and apes while continuing to deprive some of its most vulnerable human inhabitants of every possible dignity by killing them in abortion, embryo experimentation and euthanasia.

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

Filipino bishops' conference leads the way with pro-life election catechism

The Episcopal Commission on Family and Life of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines have issued a particularly solid "Catechism on Family and Life" for this year's elections in the Philippines. Here are some key points from the catechism:

• "The Church has the duty to teach Catholics about the importance of taking their Faith with them in all their endeavors, including voting."
• "[T]he dignity of the human person and the sacredness of human life...are at the very core of the Catholic moral and social teaching. Because we are people of both faith and reason, it is appropriate and necessary for us to bring this essential truth about human life and dignity to the public square. Church authorities exercise their teaching function also by reminding Catholic civil leaders of their moral obligations, especially in matters related to family and life."
• "Our manner of active involvement in the democratic process means that we will use the power of the vote, as citizens of the Republic, to elect political leaders who will uphold and promote the dignity of human life and the sanctity of family and marriage."
• "[A]bortion is always a most violent, unjust and inhumane act committed against the most harmless, defenseless, and weakest member of our society –the baby– and committed by those who have the greatest duty to care for, love and defend him or her most –the mother, father, doctors and other health care professionals."
• "[R]esponsible parenthood has nothing to do with encouraging individuals to use contraceptives as what reproductive health programs do."
• "[C]ontraception makes the conjugal act a lie. It expresses not a total love, but rather a merely conditional or partial love."
• "[R]eproductive health necessarily presupposes access to contraception and abortion."
• "[T]he Reproductive Health bill (House Bill 5043), which carries the same definition of reproductive health, will penalize with one to six months imprisonment, and/or 10-50 thousand pesos fine, parents who for example prevent their grade school and high school children from using contraceptives, and having satisfying and safe sex."

I blogged in August about the Reproductive Health bill. I also blogged in September on the speech of Kit & Fenny Tatad, senior Filipino pro-life figures, to SPUC's annual national conference.

I give thanks to the good Lord that the Philippines has such strong voices in defence of life and family, especially in the lead-up to elections. I hope that the bishops of England and Wales will speak out with equal strength and clarity before this year's UK general election.

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