Action, please: lobby your MP - see the side-bar for contact details.
From CFNews: Colin Hart, Director of the Christian Institute (www.christian.org.uk) writes : 'No sooner have we won a major victory in our judicial review than an entirely separate threat to Gospel freedom has emerged. It seems clear that MPs are about to debate a new 'gay hatred crime' which, if passed, could see Christians imprisoned for saying that homosexual practice is sinful. Gay rights groups are pushing for an amendment to the Government's Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. There is an urgent need for you to contact your MP before the Second Reading debate on Monday 8 October, urging him or her to oppose a 'gay hatred crime'.
Gay rights activists are calling for the Government to extend existing laws against racial hatred to cover inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Breaking this law would mean a maximum 7-year prison sentence. For many years we opposed a religious hatred law because of the dangers to free speech; we oppose a 'homophobic hatred' law for the same reason.
Free speech is under serious threat. Even without a homosexual hate crime there have been a number of recent high profile cases where gay rights activists have sought to get the police to stop Christians speaking up about homosexuality. Joe and Helen Roberts, a Christian couple from Lancashire, were interrogated by police because they complained to their local council over its gay rights policy. The Bishop of Chester was investigated by police for citing evidence that homosexuals can 'reorientate' to heterosexuality. Police telephoned family values campaigner Lynette Burrows after she aired concerns about homosexual adoption on BBC radio. For more information on these and similar cases, and to view a short video featuring Joe and Helen Roberts, visit our website http://www.christian.org.uk
Christians would never support violent or intimidating behaviour against any person. Such behaviour is rightly a criminal offence already. But a 'homophobic hatred' law, especially in today's climate, would have a chilling effect on free speech and could lead to the prosecution of those who state the Christian belief that homosexual practice is sinful. People need to know they are sinners if they are to repent and turn to Christ. How can Christians explain this if we cannot name specific sins?
The first debate in the House of Commons is expected on Monday 8 October. Please will you write a short letter to your MP urging them to oppose the introduction of a 'homosexual hatred crime'? Some tips for what to say are given overleaf. We pray that God will protect Gospel freedom.
‡ Be brief and polite, but firm.
‡ Use your own words.
‡ Ask your MP to oppose the introduction of an incitement to gay hatred crime in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
‡ Say that a homosexual hatred crime would limit your freedom of speech.
‡ Pensioners Joe and Helen Roberts have already faced police interrogation for their orthodox Christian beliefs. We do not want to see more cases like this.
Use two or three of the following points:
‡ Say that the orthodox Christian belief is that the practice of homosexuality is sinful. This ethical belief has been believed by Christians for centuries and is also held by the other major world religions. The proposed law would threaten people's freedom to express this belief with a maximum seven year prison sentence.
‡ Say an 'incitement to homophobic hatred' offence is not necessary. It is already a criminal offence to intimidate or attack anyone. Inciting a crime against another person, for whatever reason, is also outlawed.
‡ Say criminal offences committed against people because of their sexual orientation are already more heavily punished (following the introduction of 'aggravated offences' in 2003).
‡ Say that 'sexual orientation' is not like race. Even pro-gay researchers admit that homosexual orientation can change. However, race is a fixed trait.
‡ Say that activists are willing to use malicious complaints to the police in order to silence their opponents. There have already been several cases of police wrongly investigating Christians without a'gay hatred crime' in existence.
‡ Say that churches are not excluded from this law. A Sunday morning sermon which says that homosexual practice is sinful could see the preacher prosecuted for 'inciting hatred'.
‡ Say that the mere threat of prosecution may cause many to keep quiet. This is a more subtle, but equally dangerous, threat to freedom of speech.
‡ Say that it was wrong to introduce a religious hatred law because of the threat to free speech and for the same reason it would be wrong to bring in a homosexual hatred law.
‡ Say that Christians do not 'hate' homosexuals as people and Christians should not be wrongly portrayed as doing so. All Christians are under a moral duty to love them, and all their neighbours, which rules out any personal hatred or unloving conduct towards them. Nonetheless, Christians are compelled by belief in Scripture to hold that the practice of homosexuality is wrong.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
'Gay Hatred' ammendment
Mental Capacity Act: in force Monday
Briefing.
From CFNews: British doctors who refuse to let incapacitated patients die even though it has been stipulated in their 'living wills' could face assault charges under a law to be introduced on Monday. The Mental Capacity Act will ensure that people's living wills or 'advance decisions' will have the force of law when they become incapacitated. They will be able to insist that they do not want to be resuscitated in the event that they lose the ability to refuse treatment themselves. However, lawyers said that this could set the wishes of patients against doctors who want to prolong life where possible.
James Bogle. a leading barrister in the field (and a good friend of the NACF), said that doctors who decided to override the wishes in a living will could be in trouble with the police. 'They could be prosecuted for assault,' he said. An assault prosecution would mean that a doctor who refuses to kill a patient could go to jail. Conviction for actual bodily harm can carry a punishment of five years mprisonment. However. Mr Bogle thought that it would be more likely for a doctor to be disciplined within the medical profession if he or she failed to follow the wishes of a living will. The weakness of the legislation, Mr Bogle said. was that a person who became incapacitated might not want doctors to abide by a living will which he or she signed many years earlier. He said: 'Doctors and nurses would be compelled to obey the advanced decision rather than what they thought was in the patient's best interests because it overrides clinical best interests.' The 2005 Mental Capacity Act also comes into force on Monday to safeguard the interests of people who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Office of the Public Guardian was launched on Friday to monitor the carers and legal guardians of people with mental illness and to make sure decisions about their finances are made in their best interests.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Community of Divine Innocence condemned
Briefing: this putative Catholic religious community has been condemned by the diocese in which they exist, Southwark, and the CDF. The claim of their foundress, patricia de Menezes, to divine inspiration are not worthy of belief. Archbishop McDonald is to be congratulated for seeing this matter to a properly considered conclusion.
The Archdiocese of Southwark has issued this statement:
Statement by the Most Reverend Kevin McDonald, Archbishop of Southwark,
on the Community of Divine Innocence
The Community of Divine Innocence is a group founded by Mrs Patricia de Menezes, who lives in the diocese of Southwark. The group’s spirituality and beliefs are based on divine revelations that Mrs de Menezes claims to have received. A distinctive feature of the Divine Innocence - and something that Mrs de Menezes claims was revealed to her - is that all children who are aborted should be proclaimed by the Church as martyrs and be seen as companion martyrs of the first Holy Innocents.
There has been widespread interest in the Divine Innocence and people have written to me asking whether the Church recognised it. In 2001 the following statement was made on behalf of the Archdiocese of Southwark:
“The authenticity of the alleged apparitions concerning Divine Innocence has not been accepted by the Archdiocese of Southwark and the Archdiocese has not given its authority to publicly promote it.”
When inquiries were made about the status of the Divine Innocence the answer given was that individuals have no authority to meet publicly as a group known as Divine Innocence because this would indicate public acceptance by the competent authorities of the alleged apparitions and that has not been given. The Archdiocese also made it clear that while it is laudable that individuals should come together for the Mass, exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and the rosary they should not meet as a group known as Divine Innocence.
The Community of the Divine Innocence meanwhile prepared statutes for their community and submitted these and other documentation to the Holy See for approval.
I received a letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated 16th July 2007 in which the Congregation said that, at the request of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, they had conducted an in-depth study of the Divine Innocence. The conclusion of this study was that the Congregation was not convinced by the substantial content of the messages allegedly communicated to Mrs de Menezes. They note four particular areas of concern, namely:
1. The exaggerated claims made for the Community of Divine Innocence.
2. The inappropriate words and phrases attributed to Jesus.
3. The questionable demand made concerning the status of aborted children.
4. The intemperate language used in the “Inspirations” when attacking Church authority.
The concluding sentence of the Observations of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reads
“Given the supposed revelations which ground the spirituality of the Community of Divine Innocence are highly questionable, it follows that the community’s spirituality is flawed at its root. Because this spirituality thoroughly animates the community’s proposed constitution, it cannot be approved.”
In view of the very serious concerns raised by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it must be clearly stated that the Divine Innocence has no recognition or approval whatsoever either from the diocese of Southwark or the Holy See and that there is no ecclesiastical approbation for Catholics to meet as the group known as Divine Innocence. Finally, I am aware that many devout people, deeply committed to the pro-life movement, have become involved with the Divine Innocence. I wish to encourage them in their work and prayer but in view of the Observations of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this must no longer be in the context of the organisation or spirituality of the Divine Innocence.
Observations
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
on the writings of Mrs Patricia De Menezes and
the Community of the Divine Innocence
There are four main areas of concern in the writings of Mrs Patricia De Menezes:
1. The exaggerated claims made for the Community of Divine Innocence.
2. The inappropriate words and phrases attributed to Jesus.
3. The questionable demand made concerning the status of aborted children.
4. The intemperate language used in the "Inspirations" when attacking Church authority.
Exaggerated Claims
· De Menezes makes extravagant claims for the Community of Divine Innocence: "regarding all the different spiritualities and charisms within the Church, Our Lord showed me that they were like facets of a diamond, but the Way of Divine Innocence is the whole diamond' (31.1.01). What is more she clearly believes that she has supernatural sanction for this conviction:
"Jesus: The founders of these great Orders and Communities waited for this hour, and how they wish it was already blazing - blazing for all to see" (12.4.98). At points an almost hysterical note enters the dialogue which is not compatible with a communication from the Word Incarnate: "Jesus: You are the beginnings of the New People of God' (11.1.94); This spirituality is the Perfect Original Spirituality of the Church Herself 12.4.98); This Order, the perfect Order of My Divine Innocence is the First and last Order! The Alpha and the Omega, I AM. This Order is MY ORDER! This Order is Perfection! The Order of MY Divine Innocence precedes all orders, and supersedes all orders, it is the original perfect Christian Universal Order of God!" (12.4.88)
Inappropriate Words and Phrases Attributed to Jesus
· The words and phrases attributed by De Menezes to Jesus in her 'showings' are at times strange and bizarre. They are not consonant with the sane and wise Gospel tradition. The 'voice of Jesus' which we hear in these revelations indulges again and again in a kind of colloquial chit-chat: "Jesus: So you don't believe me? De Menezes: Sorry Lord it was just curiosity. Jesus: Curiosity killed the cat: let's get back to St John. (4.12.93 ) Jesus: Tell them this university offers a Master's Degree, your Lord and Master's Degree, and I expect every student to attain First Class Honours with a P grade. P for perfection. (29.11.95). Menezes: Lord, the Way of Divine Innocence does not seem to be what the young want. Jesus: What do the young want? Menezes: Excitement. Jesus: I can give them enough excitement to give them a heart attack!" (11.1.01).
The Questionable Demand Made Concerning the Status of Aborted Children
· The central message that De Menezes claims to have received since 1984, namely that the Church proclaim the martyrdom of all the innocent children deliberately killed before birth and acknowledge these unborn children as companion martyrs of the first Holy Innocents, is doctrinally problematic. A martyr is someone who bears witness to Christ. If the victims of abortion were to qualify for martyrdom it would then seem that all victims of any moral evil should be likewise deemed martyrs. De Menezes' notion of a 'Baptism of Love' is not, as claimed, a development of doctrine. Rather it is an innovation which is difficult to harmonize with the teaching of the Church.
Violent Language Used in the "Inspirations" when Attacking Church Authority
De Menezes' supposed revelations and writings demonstrate a litigious and dissident spirit. The Church stands accused of impeding Jesus' efforts to save the souls of millions of aborted children and, therefore, 'Jesus' ranks the hierarchy of the Church, who are unwilling to 'claim' the aborted, alongside abortionists and abortion-sponsoring legislators. As such, the 'Jesus' of De Menezes' supposed revelations displays ignorance of the Church's uncompromised stance against the evil of abortion and its compassionate hope for the salvation of children who have died without baptism. It is as if Jesus were inordinately bound by his own Church: Jesus refrains from working any good for the children, it seems, until the desired 'claiming' is declared.
· The unusually violent and threatening language used in the 'inspirations' to attack the authorities of the Church seems incompatible with any genuinely divine revelation: "Jesus: Those who subject the children to trial by neglect, I will subject to trial by fire ... Wicked short-sighted shepherds.. Vengeance is mine! Let those who know of this grace not be complacent! Cardinals, bishops, theologians and people, your duty is clear! Millions of human lives and immortal souls are at stake!" (11.9.97 ) or again "Inform the Archbishop that his hard-heartedness is like that of Pharaoh and it will bring down disaster on the people" (19.8.95).
The Statutes of the Community of Divine Innocence
· The Statutes cannot be judged or assessed on their own merits, but must be read in the light of the questionable 'inspirations' of Patricia De Menezes according to which the members are expected not only to pursue "ongoing study of the faith" but also to undertake a "study of the character and spirituality of the Family of Divine Innocence, which is contained in the inspirational writings of our foundress, Patricia De Menezes" (p.6). The members are "obliged to abide by the teaching and guidance of the Mother Foundress during her lifetime" (p.7). Thereafter the superiors elected "must abide by the founding inspiration" (p.7).
· Given that the supposed revelations which ground the spirituality of the Community of Divine Innocence are highly questionable, it follows that the community's spirituality is flawed at its root. Because this spirituality thoroughly animates the community's proposed constitution, it cannot be approved.
GMC: doctors shouldn't tell parents about under-age abortions
Briefing. Another attack on parental authority.
From SPUC: The General Medical Council, which regulates doctors, has advised doctors
that they need not, and in most cases should not, tell the parents of
girls between 13 and16 if they are given abortions, treatment for sexual
infections, or birth control. Doctors are advised to try to persuade
children between the ages of 13 and 16 to inform their parents, they have
been told not to tell parents unless they are given permission by the
child. Family groups Christian Voice and Family and Youth Concern
condemned the guidance. [Daily Mail, 28 September] SPUC comment: The
guidance seems geared to bring GMC advice into line with the 2003 Sexual
Offences Act and the 2004 Children's Act, which critics regard as seeking
to normalise sexual activity for 13 year-olds.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Catholic hospital to hand out MAP
Briefing. The Conneticut problem illustrates the difficulties faced by the Catholic hospital of St John and St Elizabeth in London. The US bishops here are mistaken: there is no doubt that, unless ovulation has not yet taken place, the morning after pill causes an abortion. Providing it in a Catholic hospital is direct and formal cooperation in grave evil, and cannot be justified.
From Yahoo News: HARTFORD, Conn. - Roman Catholic bishops in Connecticut have agreed to let hospital personnel give emergency contraception to all rape victims, reversing their decision days before a new state law requires it.
The church, which runs four of the state's 30 hospitals, had fought the state law requiring medical personnel to give rape victims emergency contraception, sold as Plan B, even if the women are ovulating.
Church officials had said the treatment was tantamount to abortion and had been considering legal action, but they took a step away from that position Thursday, in a joint statement by the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut and leaders of the Catholic hospitals.
The hospitals will be allowed to provide Plan B without ovulation tests "since the teaching authority of the church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work," the statement reads. "To administer Plan B without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act."
Plan B is a high dose of a drug found in many regular birth-control pills. Its maker, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., got approval last year to sell the drug over-the-counter.
The company says Plan B can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. The drug works by stopping ovulation and has no effect on an existing pregnancy.
The new law requires a pregnancy test, but not an ovulation test, before the drug is given. The Catholic hospitals wanted to first perform ovulation tests, and church officials said Thursday the law still should be changed to allow that.
Roman Catholics believe that life begins at conception, and the fact that Plan B is intended to work after sexual activity but prior to conception complicated their response.
Barry Feldman, a spokesman for the Connecticut Catholic Conference, said the bishops had "an evolution of thinking" about "the state of existing science and the lack of definitive teaching by the church and the fact that there are many who are affiliated with the church that believe the ovulation test isn't necessary."
The bishops consulted with Catholic ethicists and various constitutional lawyers. Some lawyers agreed the state law is unconstitutional, but warned that such a lawsuit could drag on for years, Feldman said.
"If they could find a way morally to do so, they wanted to put the issue to rest, at last, for the moment," he said, adding that the bishops might reconsider if there's more "certainty in the science" about Plan B.
Several states have enacted laws to improve rape survivors' access to the medication in hospital emergency rooms; some states also have laws that protect pharmacy employees who refuse to sell the contraceptive for reasons of conscience.
Connecticut's law takes effect Monday. According to Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services Inc., 40 percent of rape victims were not offered or did not receive the full dose of emergency contraception at the hospitals where they were treated during the first half of 2006.
"It's a welcome change," said Laura Cordes, policy and advocacy director for the assault crisis service. "It's welcome news for women in Connecticut who survive rape and turn to hospitals for treatment and evidence collection."
Gay Police Association: again
Briefing: deja vu. See our old post here.
From CFNews: The Gay Police Association's notorious 'Bloody Bible' advertisement, condemned last year by the Advertising Standards Authority, has been re-run in a homosexual magazine, leading to a renewed complaint to the ASA from the organisation Christian Voice.
The ad, which depicted a Bible and a pool of blood under the headline 'in the name of the father', claimed a 74% increase in 'homophobic incidents' in a year, giving the impression that Christians were subjecting homosexuals to bloody attacks.
Responding to a string of complaints, the Advertising Standards Authority discovered that the Gay Police Association, a recognised police staff association in receipt of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, could not provide any figures to substantiate its preposterous claims. In October 2006 the ASA upheld complaints against the GPA on the grounds of decency, lack of substantiation, and crucially, truthfulness.
But now the advert has re-appeared in full colour on the back page of the Summer 2007 edition of the 'Gay Humanist Quarterly' which is distributed widely within the homosexual network and was on open display earlier this month at the Cardiff 'Mardi Gras'.
In the advertisement, with only the figure changed from last year's version, the GPA claims a '75% increase' in 'homophobic incidents, where the sole or primary motivating factor was the religious belief of the perpetrator'.
Last year, in answer to the demands of the ASA, the homosexual police were unable to say how many of those incidents arose from Christian belief, how many, if any, involved violence, what proportion resulted in a court conviction for violence or at the very least a criminal charge, or indeed, to substantiate the figures at all.
Without any factual backup, the figures alleged became little more than the figment of fevered imaginations, leading the ASA to rule that the Gay Police had failed the tests of substantiation and truthfulness, branding them, in plain terms, a bunch of liars.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, says: 'Without the figures, the Gay Police Association's central claim that Christians are using the Bible to justify an increasing number of bloody attacks on homosexuals was always indefensible. The ASA ruling last year was a welcome vindication for those of us who knew all the time that the Gay Police had been tipped over the edge into what appeared to be collective insanity.
'But now, one year on, we find the same advertisement - curiously with the figure changed from 74% to 75% - in the Gay Humanist Quarterly.
In a letter dated 13th July 2006, sent to the Gay Police Association care of British Monomarks, the National Director of Christian Voice asked the GPA:
(a) To give figures to support the alleged 74% increase in 'homophobic incidents, where the sole or primary motivating factor was the religious belief of the perpetrator' in the months May 2005 to May 2006, and to state the force(s) or jurisdiction(s) in which this increase occurred,
(b) To categorise these alleged incidents by the recorded religious faith of the perpetrator,
(c) To state in how many of these alleged incidents there was violence,
(d) To state in how many of these alleged incidents there was the shedding of blood.
(e) To state how many of these alleged incidents went to court with a conviction secured,
(f) To state how the Gay Police Association complied the figures and whether or not that body is charged with the compilation of crime figures,
(g) To categorise 'homophobic incidents' further and by year since they have been recorded . . .
There was no reply.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Rally against abortion
Action: please attend if you can.
From SPUC: The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship has called for Christians to rally
outside the Houses of Parliament in London, England, on the 27th of October to show opposition to abortion. It will be 40 years since the Abortion Act was passed, leading to some 6.7 million abortions.
Rotary Club condmned for anti-life policies
Update: this defence of the Rotary Club via CFNews:
Edmund Adamus emails in response to CF NEWS item 1389.21 ('Life Decisions International (LDI) exposes what it claims are ties to pro-abortion and population control programs) : ''There is certainly no programme for abortion or birth control endorsed by Rotary International in the same way that the elimination of Polio is. The Rotary Foundation contributes about 13% of the budget that the WHO uses to eliminate Polio but there is nothing similar for abortion or birth control. However each of the 32,000 clubs that make up Rotary are semi-autonomous and there may be clubs that put some effort into that area but that is their concern. Many clubs work with UNICEF but to support children and clinics. I fail to see the connection that the writer is trying to make with the 4-way test? A search of the Rotary International website turned up one result under 'abortion' - a Chernobyl mother who had refused an abortion. It produced two results under 'birth control' both letters from pro abortionists'.
Briefing: 24/09/07.
From CFNews: The Rotary Club is an organization that is most often associated with its drive to end polio. However, in a new report on the group, Life Decisions International (LDI) exposes what it claims are ties to pro-abortion and population control programs. In his recent report titled, 'Rotary's Dance With Death: Population Control Agenda and Ties to Pro-abortion Groups Eclipse Good Works,' the President of LDI, Douglas R. Scott, Jr., stated, 'It would be impossible for any person with an intact conscience to turn a blind eye to Rotary's ungodly associations and population control programs. One may offer up any excuse or justification he or she desires, but there is no way that anyone who truly cares about human life, born and pre-born, could be associated with Rotary International. No way whatsoever.'
The report, which is featured in the Summer 2007 edition of LDI's Special Reports, begins by outlining Rotary's beginnings in 1905. In 1943, Rotary adopted its famous 'Four-Way Test' which consists of four questions that business people should apply to everything they 'think, say or do': Is it the truth?Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build good will and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? While the report praises Rotary Clubs for their goal of eliminating Polio, it strongly opposes their positions on population control and abortion. Scott points out the contradiction posed by he clubs' goals saying, 'with one hand Rotary Clubs are helping save the lives of children by inoculating them against polio.
With the other hand Rotary Clubs are working with population control agencies to advance the Culture of Death.' 'This is no different than a hospital that commits abortions on one floor and has an advanced prenatal unit on another. It's another example of society's schizophrenia when it comes to how we treat pre-born human life,' said Scott. LDI's president also gives round on this by looking at Rotary's ties to pro-abortion and pro-population control agencies such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 'Rotary had an admirable start,' Scott said. 'But one need only apply its own Four-Way Test to see the group has lost its way.' The report may be accessed on LDI's website: www.fightpp.org [CNA]
Poland shames EU into scrapping anti death-penalty day
Update: From CFNews: A German Socialist member of the European parliament, Martin Schulz, has called for the European Union to isolate Poland. Schulz argues that the Polish government is acting in violation of the principles espoused by the EU, because Polish President Lech Kaczynski supports capital punishment. The Polish government recently objected to a day of protest against the death penalty, organized by the EU; Polish officials said that a campaign dedicated to the dignity of human life should be expanded to include opposition to abortion. The head of EU parliamentarians from the European Green parties, Monica Frassoni, described Polandâ?Ts opposition to the proposed European Day Against the Death Penalty as a 'serious problem'. In a separate development involving Polish abortion law, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France has dismissed an appeal by Poland in the Alicja Tysiac case. The European Court had awarded monetary damages to the Polish woman, who claimed that her eyesight worsened during pregnancy because she was unable to find a doctor to abort her unborn child. The court recognized the motherâ?Ts right to abortion and ordered the Polish government to pay her. .
Briefing, 24/09/07: campaigning against the death penalty seems to be a way for anti-life politicians to assuage their consciences. In fact, the state has the right and even the duty in some cases to take the life of the guilty, and the duty in all cases to protect the life of the innocent. Well done to Poland for standing up for the innocent.
From SPUC: The European Union's (EU) plans to hold a day against the death penalty
have been scrapped after objections by Poland on the grounds that such a day should also condemn abortion and euthanasia. Mr Andrzej Duda, deputy justice minister, said that the EU "should approach the subject in a broader way and debate the protection of life." He said: "The death penalty is only one element of the debate; there are more - for example, abortion and euthanasia."
Catholic Communications Network costs £315,000
Briefing: if you wondered where your money goes, here's part of the answer: to the world's worst press office, attached to the Bishops' Conference of England of Wales.
Hat-tip to Damian Thompson: his post here.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Muslim doctors oppose euthanasia
Briefing.
From SPUC: Muslim doctors in Britain are protesting over proposals to cause patients
to die according to so-called living wills. Under the new Mental Capacity
Act, patients with life-threatening diseases will be allowed to refuse
life-saving treatment and give their friends and relatives the power to
stop their food and drink. A spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association
said: "We oppose strongly any court decision or power of attorney used to
justify participation in starving or dehydrating anyone to death. All
Muslim doctors, nurses and patients, expressing our Islamic beliefs,
should oppose this inhumane Act." [Daily Mail, 24 September] British
lawyers are working on the new powers of attorney that would give
relatives of mentally incapacitated patients unprecedented control over
their affairs. [Guardian, 24 September]
Monday, September 24, 2007
Diocece of Portsmouth backs down on Motu Proprio
Briefing.
From CFNews: Further to our CF NEWS item 1388.16 ('Blocking of the Traditional Mass'), the much criticised article by the Diocese of Portsmouth's liturgical director Paul Inwood, telling Catholics that they were not allowed even to ask for the traditional Latin Mass - which was due to appear in the October edition of the diocesan newspaper -- will not now be published. According to reports Bishop Hollis was genuinely unaware of the contents of the article 'until the whole thing blew up in his face'. [http://www.wdtprs.com/blog]
Hospital of SS John & Elizabeth: the saga continues
Briefing.
From CFNews: Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is under growing pressure to impose rules on a hospital in north London, banning doctors from offering contraception or referring patients for abortions. The cardinal is facing calls from a lobby group to use his position as 'arbiter of ethics' at the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth, a private Catholic hospital in St John's Wood, to insist on the implementation of a code of ethics which forbids any medical practices banned by the Vatican. These include IVF for infertile couples and amniocentesis tests to detect Down's syndrome in unborn children.
Campaigners said this week that they intend to ask the Pope to intervene directly in the dispute if Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor does not take the action they want, which includes preventing an NHS-funded general practice due to open at the hospital in November from offering family planning services, including referrals for abortions and prescribing contraceptives. Nicolas Bellord, secretary of the Restituta Group, which is campaigning to preserve the hospital's Catholic identity, said: 'We have not seen effective legal action from the cardinal on this issue. As the matter stands, the hospital is committed to a GP practice on the premises which will have a contractual agreement with the NHS to provide family planning services . . . It has been agreed that where the requirements of the NHS conflict with the Roman Catholic ethics the requirement of the NHS will prevail. The Catholic authorities have been totally ineffective in preventing this happening when they had the legal powers to do so . . .We are looking to the cardinal to uphold the constitution of the hospital and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If that does not happen then we will have no alternative but to seek to refer the matter to the Vatican and his Holiness the Pope'.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor demanded that the hospital revise its existing code of ethics two years ago after it was alleged that some staff were flouting its rules by referring patients for abortions and giving prescriptions for the contraceptive pill. In a letter to the hospital's chairman, Lord Bridgeman, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor wrote: 'There must be clarity that the hospital, being a Catholic hospital with a distinct vision of what is truly in the interests of human persons, cannot offer its patients, non-Catholic or Catholic, the whole range of services routinely accepted by many in modern secular society as being in a patient's best interest.' Attempts to revise the hospital's code of ethics led to a rebellion among staff, who refused to accept the stipulation that they could not refer patients seeking an abortion or contraception, including the morning-after pill, to another hospital or give advice on such issues.
The hospital's medical advisory committee, consisting of its most senior clinicians, wrote to the board in May telling them it expected Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor to resign his post as a patron and stating the hospital should be a 'non-Catholic hospital with a Catholic heritage' . It is understood that a new version of the code of ethics was referred back to the hospital board at the beginning of this month and is due for formal approval in the coming weeks. The key contention for medical staff is that they should be allowed to operate to the guidelines of the General Medical Council, the medical profession's governing body, which require all clinicians to offer objective medical advice and referrals regardless of their personal or religious beliefs. The hospital said this week that the revised code had been referred both to the GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council for approval. The Independent understands that the new version of the code recognises the requirement for medical staff to abide by the GMC guidelines. A source said: 'Without that the hospital risks the withdrawal of its permission to practice.' A spokesman for the archbishop said: 'The cardinal is actively engaged in finding a solution to these important issues. He sincerely hopes the board will make the right decision.' [The Independent / Catholic Herald]
UN agency lies to support forced abortions
Briefing. Note that the Bush administration is acting as almost the only brake on the anti-life tendencies of the UN.
From SPUC: President Bush has withheld funding from the United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA) for the sixth year running because it continues to support
forced abortions and sterilisations. Mr Bush's decision was based on research by the Population Research Institute between 1998 and 2001, which
found that there were violations in UNFPA's work in several countries
including China, Peru and Pakistan. [CNA on EWTN, 13 September] The US
delegation to the United Nations has rebuked the executive director of
UNFPA for claiming that there is a UN global goal related to "sexual and
reproductive health". While presenting UNFPA's strategic plan and its
proposed global and regional programs, Ms Thoraya Obaid referred to "the
target on universal access to reproductive health under Millennium
Development Goal (MDG) 5." The US representative told her that there is no
global target on reproductive health and that only a resolution of the
General Assembly could generate one. Ms Obaid later claimed that UNFPA
held a neutral position on the legalisation and promotion of abortion.
Apostate Muslims betrayed by the Home Office
Briefing.
From Conservative Home, a political blog: In several asylum applications by apostates from the Islamic world, Muslim Home Office translators have been found to have deliberately misrepresented the applicant’s testimony.
'Opt out' organ donation proposed
Briefing: this is commonly proposed to increase organ donation rates. Unfortunately they want to take your organs before you are actually dead: they remove them from patients still breathing, but pronounced 'brain dead', a state from which people have recovered in numerous cases. Death, of course, is by definition something you can't 'recover' from, barring a miracle! Readers should get hold of a 'Catholic ID' card.
From SPUC: Mr Alan Johnson, the British Health Secretary, is promoting proposals for
people have to opt out if they don't want to donate their organs after death, rather than the present system of opting in to become organ donors. A task force has been set up to suggest how to achieve higher organ donation rates. Scotland's chief medical office, Harry Burns, rejected a such a presumed consent scheme for Scotland. According to the BBC, some European countries with presumed consent have more organ donations than the UK but Sweden has fewer.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Consultation on the Family
Action: please complete the form here.
This is a half-witted set of questions even by the Government's standards, but it is an opportunity to make the point that the government have consistently undermined the family:
-by the tax and benefits penalty (see here)
-by undermining parental authority through sex ed, contraception and abortion counselling in schools (see here)
-by using every means to air-brush the normal family out of national life: even nurses can't refer to sick children's parents as 'parents' (see here); 'alternative lifestyle' propaganda is imposed on schools (see here).
Human Tissue and Embryo Bill
Action: this post contains what you need to know about the Bill to lobby MPs and Peers. The most contentious issues, including hybrids, should be put to a 'free vote'. Another post, here, goes into the moral issues surrounding hybrids.
From CFNews: The Government have published their Discrimination Law Review (DLR) which proposes the biggest ever shake-up to UK discrimination law. It proposes to take every single piece of existing legislation relating to discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age, and put them all into a 'Single Equality Act' which will be overseen and enforced by a new body called the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.
The Government are proposing to make it illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their religion or belief. However, the definition of harassment is extremely broad, and substantially depends on the perception of the person who makes an allegation of harassment and not the intention of the person accused of harassment. So, a Christian that went to a largely Muslim area to hand out tracts which said that Islam was a false religion, could be sued if a particular Muslim felt that the tract had either 'violated their dignity' or put them in an 'offensive environment'.
The Government have also brought back one of the most controversial proposals that they previously tried to bring in via the Sexual Orientation Regulations only a few months ago. They are proposing that it should be made illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Again, the problem is the really broad definition of harassment. This proposal would mean that although a Church is free under the SORs to gently refuse membership of the church to an unrepentant practising homosexual, that person, if they felt that they had been put in a 'humiliating environment' could sue the Church. Similarly, a homosexual could sue a church if they heard a sermon about sexual morality that included condemnation of homosexual practices.
The Government are also consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote sexual orientation equality. This will mean that local authorities and other bodies will take active steps to ensure that all sorts of organisations do not discriminate based on homosexual practices. The danger is that this will be taken too far and will mean that Government funding is removed from Christian projects or that support is given to projects promoting homosexuality.
The Government are further consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote religion or belief equality. There is a similar danger here that the sort of politically correct decisions (like local councils banning Christmas cards) that increasingly make the headlines, will be multiplied, with public funding being focused on promoting 'minority' religions like Islam and Hinduism.
Another part of the consultation paper seeks views on whether Churches should be able to treat people differently because they have had gender reassignment. If the Government subsequently decided not to allow churches to do so, then a church would not be able to object to a male member of the congregation, who had a sex change (taking on the appearance of a woman), from attending a women's retreat weekend.
The Government are further proposing that the law should protect transsexual people from practices that require them to disclose the fact that their actual sex differs from their physical appearance. So, for example, the Government would allow a man that has had a sex change operation, to be able to keep it secret that he has had that operation.
These are just some of the main provisions of the DLR that are of concern to Christians. The Discrimination Law Review consultation http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/frameworkforfairnessconsultaation
More anti-discrimination laws on the way
Briefing: not content with the SORs, the Government wants to go further. See the end for the danger that the Church could be legally forbidden from establishing the real sex of people applying to be priests or nuns.
From CFNews: The Government have published their Discrimination Law Review (DLR) which proposes the biggest ever shake-up to UK discrimination law. It proposes to take every single piece of existing legislation relating to discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age, and put them all into a 'Single Equality Act' which will be overseen and enforced by a new body called the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.
The Government are proposing to make it illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their religion or belief. However, the definition of harassment is extremely broad, and substantially depends on the perception of the person who makes an allegation of harassment and not the intention of the person accused of harassment. So, a Christian that went to a largely Muslim area to hand out tracts which said that Islam was a false religion, could be sued if a particular Muslim felt that the tract had either 'violated their dignity' or put them in an 'offensive environment'.
The Government have also brought back one of the most controversial proposals that they previously tried to bring in via the Sexual Orientation Regulations only a few months ago. They are proposing that it should be made illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Again, the problem is the really broad definition of harassment. This proposal would mean that although a Church is free under the SORs to gently refuse membership of the church to an unrepentant practising homosexual, that person, if they felt that they had been put in a 'humiliating environment' could sue the Church. Similarly, a homosexual could sue a church if they heard a sermon about sexual morality that included condemnation of homosexual practices.
The Government are also consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote sexual orientation equality. This will mean that local authorities and other bodies will take active steps to ensure that all sorts of organisations do not discriminate based on homosexual practices. The danger is that this will be taken too far and will mean that Government funding is removed from Christian projects or that support is given to projects promoting homosexuality.
The Government are further consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote religion or belief equality. There is a similar danger here that the sort of politically correct decisions (like local councils banning Christmas cards) that increasingly make the headlines, will be multiplied, with public funding being focused on promoting 'minority' religions like Islam and Hinduism.
Another part of the consultation paper seeks views on whether Churches should be able to treat people differently because they have had gender reassignment. If the Government subsequently decided not to allow churches to do so, then a church would not be able to object to a male member of the congregation, who had a sex change (taking on the appearance of a woman), from attending a women's retreat weekend.
The Government are further proposing that the law should protect transsexual people from practices that require them to disclose the fact that their actual sex differs from their physical appearance. So, for example, the Government would allow a man that has had a sex change operation, to be able to keep it secret that he has had that operation.
These are just some of the main provisions of the DLR that are of concern to Christians. The Discrimination Law Review consultation http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/frameworkforfairnessconsultaation
On the transexual priests and nuns issue: Leaders of the Catholic Church in England and Wales have accused the Government of using new equality laws to force them to ordain transsexuals as priests or allow them to become nuns. The bishops of England and Wales said that proposals to ban 'indirect discrimination' against people who have had gender reassignment operations would take away their right to check baptismal and confirmation certificates which would show if candidates for the priesthood, religious life or marriage had a hidden past. The Government plans to change the law so that such records are altered when a person has such an operation. Requesting an exemption, the Archbishop of Cardiff, the Most Rev Peter Smith, said: 'Many Christians believe, on strongly held religious grounds, that gender is given before birth and cannot be changed.'
Dissenting Dominicans in the Netherlands
Briefing. This act of rejection of Church teaching is breathtaking.
From CFNews: The worldwide leaders of the Dominican order have joined with a prelate in the Netherlands to criticize a pamphlet distributed by Dutch Dominicans, suggesting that lay Catholics should lead Eucharistic celebrations.
The controversial 38-page pamphlet was circulated by Dutch Dominicans in August to the country's 1,300 Catholic parishes. The tract argued that in the absence of a priest, lay ministers could confect the Eucharist. "Whether they are women or men, homosexual or heterosexual, married or single, makes no difference," the pamphlet said. "What is important is the infectious attitude of faith."
Bishop Hubertus Ernst, the retired head of the Breda diocese, saw the pamphlet-- which had been approved by leaders of the Dominican order in the Netherlands-- as "ambiguous" and "erroneous" in its understanding of priestly ministry. From Rome, leaders of the Dominican order said that the pamphlet did not offer a realistic response to the shortage of priests. While applauding the concern for that shortage, the Roman leaders said that "this concern must be responded to in a careful theological and pastoral reflection."
Court victory on SORs in Northern Ireland
Briefing.
From CFNews: A High Court Judge in the Belfast High Court has quashed part of the Northern Ireland SORs relating to harassment. The judgment was handed down on 11th September. The case was brought by the Christian Institute and a number of churches. The Lawyers Christian Fellowship report that 'The harassment laws which were scrapped by the judge in Northern Ireland are not present in the regulations which apply to Great Britain. However, the Government has been floating the idea of introducing these kind of laws for Great Britain in its forthcoming Single Equality Bill. Church groups, including the Church of England, have expressed concerns that such laws could be used to sue Christians who express their religious beliefs on sexual ethics while providing a good, facility or service. Mr Justice Weatherup said that the harassment laws in the Northern Ireland sexual orientation regulations had an extended reach "beyond that of discrimination and statutory harassment" (paragraph 43 of his judgment).
These comments will be very helpful in opposing such laws in Great Britain. In response to the High Court ruling Stonewall, Britain's leading homosexual lobby group, said it is not convinced that harassment laws are needed. The Government had argued that the manifestation of religious belief could never have been affected by the regulations. The judge disagreed. He ruled that Christians can make use of Article 9 rights to religious liberty when defending themselves against actions brought under the regulations. He said the belief that the practice of homosexuality is sinful is a belief worthy of recognition. Moreover this belief is a long established part of orthodox Christian belief and of the world's major religions. Having these statements in English law could be extremely helpful when defending religious liberty in the future. Mr Justice Weatherup also said County Courts should consider a Canadian case which established the principle that Christians should not be required to provide a good, facility or service which contradicts their core religious beliefs. Again, we believe this is directly relevant to the Great Britain regulations. The judge also ruled that the regulations do not apply to the school curriculum. The wording of the Great Britain regulations is identical on this point and we are confident that there is a direct read-across. This means homosexual campaigners cannot claim that the regulations require the promotion of homosexuality in school lessons. Lastly, the judge ruled that the regulations do not apply to every action carried out by a faith group which receives some public funding, only the specific activity for which the group receives the money. Again, the wording on this point is identical in the Great Britain regulations and we are confident that the judge's ruling on this matter will apply to faith groups in England, Wales and Scotland. [LCF] 1388.9a
Amnesty International: Catholics to 'withdraw their support'
New Update (from SPUC): Members are resigning from Amnesty International over their new stance on supporting a right to abortion. According to the Independent newspaper, Amnesty branches in Birmingham, Kent, Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle, England, have been affected by the resignation of long-standing supporters. Mr Neville White, chairman of the Bromley and Orpington, Kent, group, said: "I think the leadership of Amnesty have failed to grasp how divisive this policy has been and instead taken the view that they must not buckle to the views of local campaigners. Much of the strength of Amnesty lies in the work of its local activists who are on the streets weekend after weekend and yet the consultation of the membership was at best too brief and lacking in the necessary depth to tackle such a sensitive subject." [Independent, 1 September]
And from Northern Ireland: Some Catholic schools are disbanding their Amnesty International support groups over its stance on abortion. The church's hierarchy in Northern Ireland said it was inappropriate for schools to support the organisation. Amnesty International confirmed its controversial decision to back abortion in some circumstances, replacing its previous policy of neutrality. The human rights group will campaign for women to have access to abortion in cases including rape and incest. Several senior clergymen have resigned from Amnesty in protest. 'Difficult situation' The auxiliary bishop of Down and Connor, Donal McKeown, said a school in which he served as a governor had asked
him if it should continue to have an Amnesty International support group.
"There was some concern about it already and I approached Bishop Walsh who, in
response to that particular query from that particular school, said he thought
it would be inappropriate, for an Amnesty branch to be continuing in the
school. "If it is a policy regarding one school, it certainly would be a
policy regarding all the Catholic schools in the diocese of Down and Connor.
"Amnesty's espousal in recent months of campaigning for abortion access in
limited circumstances will leave many people in a difficult situation. "All
we are saying here is that it seemed in appropriate in those circumstances for
Catholic schools to be promoting the organisation." Patrick Corrigan,
Amnesty's Northern Ireland programme director, said: "Amnesty International and
the Catholic church have more in common than that which divides us, namely the
issue of sexual and reproductive rights." Amnesty International said its
position on abortion had been informed by its work in areas like Darfur, "where
rape is used systematically as a weapon of war". However, several Catholic
schools in Belfast have stopped work for the organisation, including Rathmore
Grammar and Our Lady and St Patrick's College.
Update 06/08/07: Amnesty International will officially launch its new pro-abortion stance on 11 August in Mexico City. Ms Kate Gilmore, deputy secretary-general, has said: "The Catholic Church, through a misrepresented account of our position on selective aspects of abortion, is placing in peril work on human rights." She went on to say that Amnesty would take action in Nigeria and Latin America which have restrictive abortion laws. She said "We're here to do what's right, whether it's unpopular or otherwise." [EWTN 30 July]
Action 15/06/07: all support of AI must cease. Cardinal Martino, perhaps wishing to avoid the appearance of precluding Catholics' own judgement on the matter, says that 'individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support' 'if ... Amnesty International persists in this course of action'. The persistence of Amnesty International in this course of action - campaigning for abortion in certain circumstances - is, alas, quite certain, since they have already had a long drawn out debate within the organisation and received many pleas from outside it (see here, here, and here). AI has charted its course, and Catholics must regretfully disembark. AI's confused, arrogant and completely unrepentant response to Cardinal Martino can be seen here. For an excellent 'First Things' article on Amnesty and abortion see here.
From CFNews: The president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is encouraging Catholics to withdraw support from Amnesty International since the groups no longer defends the right to life. Cardinal Renato Martino told the National Catholic Register that the recent decision by the human rights group to promote abortion 'rights' is a betrayal of its identity. 'By pushing for the decriminalisation of abortion as part of their platform, Amnesty International has disqualified itself as a defender of human rights,' he said. 'If AI is no longer willing to stand up for the most basic human right -- the right to life -- then the very integrity of the organization is called into question.' Amnesty International was founded in 1961 by Peter Benson as a defender and promoter of the inalienable rights of the human person. Now it has joined other international organizations, such as the United Nations Children's Fund, in promoting a so-called right to abortion, at least in certain cases. Cardinal Martino, who served as the Holy See's permanent observer at the United Nations, says that this change of position is part of the 'pro-death' agenda in the culture. 'The pro-death agenda […] is cloaked in human rights language, but in reality it undermines the very human rights it portends to support,' Cardinal Martino said. 'Its logical conclusion is the destruction of life and all of the life-giving values that we as a human family and as a society should be grateful for. De-sensitizing the culture to the evil of abortion is part and parcel of the pro-abortion lobby.' However, the 74-year-old cardinal recognized that pro-choice organizations have not succeeded in establishing an 'internationally recognized human right' to abortion. 'I was head of the Holy See delegation to the Cairo Conference on Population and Development when that issue was settled definitively,' Cardinal Martino stated. 'Paragraph 8.25 of the Cairo Declaration clearly states, 'In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning … and every attempt should be made to eliminate the need for abortion.'
The cardinal said that Amnesty International's decision means Catholics and Catholic organizations should no longer financially support the group. 'The very promotion of abortion opens the door to the slippery slope of evil and death, where human rights are taken away from the most innocent and vulnerable children of God,' he said. 'I believe that, if in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support.'
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Dissident 'Gay' Conference in London
Briefing.
From CFNews: In a press release the Roman Catholic Caucus Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement announce that a 'We Are Family!' conference will be held on Saturday, October 20th, at St. Anne's Church, Soho, London. 'This is a timely event for all Catholics, not just our members. We hope parents of LGBT people, priests, and pastoral or welfare agency workers will also find this useful. On one hand, we've seen Catholic bishops in disarray over the Sexual Orientation Regulations, Adoption, and Catholic agencies. On the other hand, we've had a highly positive leaflet from the Bishops' Marriage & Family Department, on welcoming LGBT people in parish communities. There's also been the important initiative in Westminster Diocese, mainstreaming in a Catholic parish setting regular Masses, welcoming LGBT Catholics, their parents and families. This conference will show that the LGBT community is not anti-family, but committed to inclusive models of family for the 21st century.'
It is revealing that a spokesperson of an openly dissenting homosexual group is able to praise a leaflet on homosexuality from the Marriage and Family Life Project Office, part of the Bishops' Conference Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship.calling it 'highly positive'. This leaflet lists various resources, some of which contain ambiguities that completely undermine the 1986 CDF document 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons' - a document that is not mentioned at all in the leaflet.
