Catholic Action UK

Euthanasia: the pro-life response?

2009-12-14T15:58:00.003Z

Bishops concede 'compassion' as a reason not to prosecute in assisted suicide cases

The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales want you to respond to the consultation by the Director of Public Prosecutions on assisted suicide. The DPP's proposed guidelines include a list of 'factors' for and against prosecuting those who help others commit suicide. The Bishops official response points out that being a close relative, contrary to the DPP, should NOT give you a right to immunity from prosecution if you persuade granny to end it all and help her on her way.

But their response (pdf, p 12) concedes that being motivated by 'compassion' is a factor against prosecution - along with more straightforward factors such as that of making only a small contribution to the death.

Is the fact a murderer genuinly beleives his victim is better off dead really a reason not to prosecute him?

If the murderer thought that the victim was better off dead because he was a member of the wrong religion or race this would be an aggravating factor in the crime under the present law of the UK. Yet if he thinks so because the victim is disabled, this apparently mitigates the offence, and may lead to a decision not to prosecute.

Again, the fact that a person is ill, in pain, or dying, gives those around him a duty to look after him. But according to the DPP, and even according to the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, it gives everyone a ready-made excuse to help him on his way.

Catholic Truth Scotland November Newsletter

2009-11-03T09:49:00.000Z

Click here to read the current newsletter

New Issue of The Flock

2009-10-18T09:16:00.000+01:00

Available here.

More on the 'Gay' Masses in Soho;

Book Reviews,

A Catechetical Summer School in Scotland.

Iveriegh replies

2009-10-17T09:51:00.003+01:00

Austin Ivereigh has emailed a correction which we are happy to carry: he condemns Michael Moore's pro-abortion views. We are glad to hear it. It is after all entirely characteristic of The Guardian to tamper with people's words with a view to creating divisions in the Catholic world.

From Austin Ivereigh

Folks:

This is the email I sent to John Smeaton of SPUC and asked him to publish it under his post. He has ignored me. Let’s see if you have the guts and integrity to publish it.

Austen

In my piece for the Guardian which John Smeaton refers to, I never call Moore a “committed Catholic”. Those words were added by the editor in the standfirst. What I say in the piece is that Moore goes to Mass each Sunday. When I questioned whether this was true in a post for America magazine (read it here ) I received an emphatic message from his office which led me to apologise for questioning the fact (my apology is here ). As for failing to mention that Leo XIII in the same year as Rerum Novarum spoke out against abortion, mea culpa– but I don’t see anything worth apologising for. I have a strong record of speaking out against abortion, and I deplore Moore’s failure to do so.

Austen Ivereigh

Journalist and Commentator

5 Cumberland St, London SW1V 4LS

austen@austeni.org

Homeschooling consultation: last call

2009-10-17T09:02:00.003+01:00

Everything you need is below, courtesy of Christian Concern for our Nation.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families published a consultation on home schooling. Please respond in order to preserve the freedoms of those parents who wish to educate their children at home. The closing date is Monday, 19th October 2009.

Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children receive a “suitable” education. The Government wants to usurp the role of parents and impose more governmental control, thus intruding upon families who choose to educate their children at home. Both the Bible and the law recognise it is a parent’s responsibility to educate their children, not that of the Government. Education is compulsory, but school is not. Parents can choose either to send their children to school, or to educate them at home. The Badman Report reviewed elective home education. In our opinion, the Badman Report makes disproportionate and unreasonable recommendations for compulsory registration and invasive monitoring of those families who choose to educate at home.

The point of most concern to all parents, especially Christian ones, is the proposal that those who choose to educate at home will have Government officials interview a child alone—without even a parent being present.

To read the Badman Report, the Consultation, or to respond on line, click here. Please note that the Government have produced a full response to the Badman Report very recently. To read the press release or the Government’s response, both dated 9th October 2009, clickhere.

To read our response click here.

To watch the YouTube Response by Education Otherwise to the Report on the Review of Elective Home Education, please click here.

Send your response headed “Home Education—Registration and Monitoring Proposals Consultation Response” by e-mail to:homeeducation.consultation@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk

There is no need to answer all of the questions in this Consultation unless you wish to do so; you could instead send two or three points by e-mail.

Please say that you reject all of Graham Badman’s recommendations and ask the Government to abandon them. We would also suggest you make some of the following points, in your own words:

Interviewing Children Alone

It is a violation of parental responsibility and rights to interview a child alone. Even the police do not do so. Under no circumstances should this proposal be allowed.

National Register

Annual registration of children will make no difference to safeguarding them. The current guidelines for local authorities already make it clear that safeguarding applies both to children who attend school and to those who are home-educated.
Compulsory annual registration and inspection visits by the Local Education Authority is not welcome, as in many cases it is precisely because of the education system having failed them, that parents have chosen to educate their children at home.
The suggestion of criminalising parents who educate at home for failure to register their children is totally inappropriate and disproportionate. It is the parent’s choice to send a child to school or to educate at home. It incorrectly implies that it is the Government who has the responsibility for education, not the parents.
No evidence has been provided of the need for a national register. The idea of registering children who are educated at home is akin to the Government imposing a licensing scheme on home education, when it is not the Government’s responsibility to do so.

Freedom of Choice

Christian parents may wish to educate their children according to Christian values and should be free to do so. Undergoing a state education may result in children learning more about other religions than about Christianity. The UK is subject to international legal obligations that require it to respect the right of parents to ensure their children’s education is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
The freedom to educate at home should not be taken from parents. The Government appears wrongly to be set on a course of eroding parents’ rights in this matter by compulsory means.

Misapplying Child Protection Systems to Home Education

The Badman Report and the recent DCSF press release of 9th October 2009, inappropriately apply child protection methodology to home education implying that home education can lead to child abuse. In doing this they have cast an unjustified and unfair shroud of suspicion over home educators.
Home educators have been tarred as "guilty" merely because they are home educators and are feeling the need to prove their "innocence" in relation to safeguarding issues. The DCSF needs to produce a measured response rather than allowing a small number of safeguarding cases to make “bad law”. Home educators have pointed out that the most dangerous and damaging abuse of children often takes place in children too young to go to school, where children have been withdrawn from school, or where they are already known to social services.

Expensive and Unnecessary

The proposals are both expensive and unnecessary, because there are already powers the local authority can use to make a School Attendance Order where it appears that a child is not receiving a “suitable” education.

Government Control

The Government should not seek to control or to intrude on family life.
The Badman Report states that, “Few would argue with the assertion that parents are the prime educator within or outside of a schooling system”. The Report then seeks totally to undermine that assertion in the recommendations made which will erode a parent’s freedom of choice over their own child’s education.
The proposals reverse the correct presumption of family freedom to educate one’s own children as a matter of parental duty rather than governmental duty. Thus, the Badman recommendations should be rejected as they are founded on this incorrect principle.
Children may be withdrawn from school because parents are dissatisfied with the school system for one reason or another and the last thing they would want is more Government intervention.

Unjustified Government Control

It is of real concern that the proposals include asking parents to provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data. This question is indicative of the Government’s attempt to assert control over what the child is taught and is eroding the basic freedom of parents to educate their children at home.
The recent Government proposal to clarify what a “suitable” and “efficient” education means, threatens the freedom of parents to devise a tailored or flexible educational approach for their children in their own homes without one being dictated to them by the Government.

Procedural Concern

The Department for Children, Schools and Families (“DCSF”) published their Response to the Review of Elective Home Education in England on 9th October 2009, which creates uncertainty for respondents to this Consultation. Members of the public are bound to wonder whether their responses to the present Consultation are actually going to be taken into account in the formulation of policy on home education. The correct procedure should have been either to include the Government’s Response to the Badman Report in this Consultation, so that members of the public could comment on it, or to wait until all responses to the Consultation had been considered before producing a Response.

Please also click here to sign the petition to reject the Badman recommendations and retain the freedom for parents to educate at home.

Plenty of food for the World's Population: UN official

2009-10-15T16:50:00.001+01:00

From Lifesitenews: The head of the United Nations' food agency has said that population
control is not necessary to combat food shortages. Dr. Jacques Diouf told a
synod of African bishops meeting in Rome this week that "On the earth,
there is a sufficient number of financial means, effective technologies,
natural and human resources to eliminate hunger in the world once and for
all." [LifeSiteNews.com, 13 October] Dr Diouf's position
is in marked contrast to the calls for population control frequently made
elsewhere in the UN system.

Rosary Crusade Saturday

2009-10-09T11:49:00.002+01:00

The 25th Annual National Rosary Crusade of Reparation

Saturday 10th October 2009

“You have seen Hell where the Souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the World Devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say is done, many Souls will be saved and there will be peace”

Our Lady’s Words to Lucia 13th July 1917

Assemble by 1.45 pm outside Westminster Cathedral (Ambrosden Avenue)

Nearest Underground: Victoria

Procession to Brompton Oratory, Brompton Road, London SW7

Nearest Underground: South Kensington

Patron: His Grace Archbishop Vincent Nichols

Led by: Mgr. Emmanuel-Marie de St Jean, Abbot of Sainte-Marie de Lagrasse, France

Consecration to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary

Procession with the statue of Our Lady of Fatima to Brompton Oratory praying the Rosary en- route Holy Mass is offered for benefactors every month

Scapular Enrolment

Solemn Pontifical Benediction

End about 5.00 pm (Anticipated Mass of Sunday at 6.00 pm)

Spiritual Director: the Revd Ronald Creighton-Jobe

For Information Contact:

Francis Carey (01494) 729223 – Mathias Menezes (020) 8764 0262

or by post 27 First Avenue, Amersham, Bucks., HP7 9BL

Dissident theologians and pro-abortion politicians

2009-08-31T12:24:00.002+01:00

The Kennedy clan is the most prominent Catholic family in the highly dynastic world of US politics, and it is firmly pro-abortion. How did this come about? The promise of money and allies from the abortion lobby was underpinned by a group of dissident Catholic theologians who actually had a formal meeting in 1964 to coach family members in the sophistical distinctions they could make to rationalise their position. What they advocated appears to have been basically the familiar claim that a politician can be 'personally opposed' to abortion but as a matter of policy various considerations, from the need to maintain public order to the 'distress' of a woman who might be refused abortion, can justify voting to make abortion easier in every possible way - as if the state's duty to defend the lives of the innocent could be set aside so easily.

From Fr Z, with his emphases and comments in red (see his post):

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion. [Get that? There was a workshop for them to help them get around the teaching of the Church.]

Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that [AGAIN… pay attention…] "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."

One conclusion to draw from this is that these networks of dissent which this blog has sought to highlight have their importance and can do real damage. Simply by providing 'cover' for dissenting positions they can render inneffective the Church's opposition to some of the greatest evils of the day.

Archbishop Chaput responds to The Tablet

2009-08-26T10:04:00.002+01:00

Business as usual in The Tablet last week - claiming that abortion is just 'Catholic' issue and that therefore Catholics should not let it get in the way when they decide what political policies to support (er, right!). This is a central tenat of the implicitly or explicitly pro-abortion dissident network of 'Catholic' organisations which feed off the Church and neutralise her public teaching. On this occasion The Tablet was addressing not a UK issue but an American one, so Archbishop Chaput pf Denver has posted a reply. (H-t Damian Thompson) In part:

Last week a British Catholic journal, in an editorial titled “US bishops must back Obama,” claimed that America’s bishops “have so far concentrated on a specifically Catholic issue - making sure state-funded health care does not include abortion - rather than the more general principle of the common good.”
It went on to say that if US Catholic leaders would get over their parochial preoccupations, “they could play a central role in salvaging Mr Obama’s health-care programme.”
The editorial has value for several reasons. First, it proves once again that people don’t need to actually live in the United States to have unhelpful and badly informed opinions about our domestic issues. Second, some of the same pious voices that once criticized US Catholics for supporting a previous president now sound very much like acolytes of a new president. Third, abortion is not, and has never been, a “specifically Catholic issue,” and the editors know it. And fourth, the growing misuse of Catholic “common ground” and “common good” language in the current health-care debate can only stem from one of two sources: ignorance or cynicism.

The Muslim question: segregation and secularisation

2009-08-22T12:28:00.004+01:00

Those who strive to be Politically Correct have been tearing each other apart over the demands of Muslims to adhere to their own customs. Special sex-segregated sessions at public swimming pools with vastly stricter dress codes have been established by many left-wing local authorities, and have attracted criticism from other lefties. A Labour minister walked out of a Muslim wedding when he discovered men and women had separate rooms, and has been practically accused of racism by a Labour peer. Sharia courts have been recognised as legitimate forums for arbitration by the Government, to the dismay of those who think they are sexist.

The strategy of the Left in Britain has been to encourage massive immigration, without any effort at integration, for two reasons. First, immigrants tend to vote for the left, partly out of gratitude for the policy on immigration (which they naturally wish to see continued) and partly because of the economic circumstances in which they find themselves when they have settled in. Second, the whole process undermines the British and Christian values which the left hates. Even if the immigrants are Christians themselves, the social disruption large-scale immigration causes undermines the sense of solidarity around shared values and understandings which are appealed to by popular socially conservative politicians. Socialism, for example, has historically been opposed by appeals to family values, historic local loyalties, religious values, patriotism and the like, appeals which are most fruitful when made to a cohesive electorate with shared values and traditions. Such appeals are becoming harder and harder to make.

However, immigration from Muslim countries is beginning to create sizable subcultures with a degree of coherence of their own. The values and shared traditions of these groups are powerful and are even more radically opposed to the left's agenda than those of traditional British society. In some respects they are similar to Christian values, and in some respects they differ, and even oppose, Christian values. The big picture, however, is that they oppose the left's agenda of secularisation: of pushing religious values out of public view.

So Muslims have been allies with Christians in opposing the secularisation even of Christian festivals like Christmas: they know if secularism rules the day, their own aspirations will be crushed. But a traditional Christian state would not tolerate unlimited Muslim self-assertion - exemplified by the 'mega mosque' plan - any more than a secular one. So should Christians ally with secularists to oppose Muslim demands, or ally with Muslims to oppose secularist ones?

At this point Christians, and Catholics in particular, should be made to realise how they have been backed into a corner. Secularism and Islam are both self-confident creeds. 'Live and let live' is only a short-term compromise where they are concerned. Christians have allowed the process of secularisation to take place under the wholly mistaken impression that it creates a 'level playing field' for 'reasonable' religious views to co-exist. This is totally false: it cannot be true that Christianity should not have a leading role in public life, as the secularists argue, unless Christianity is false. To deal with the current situation Christians should take a leaf out of the book of both secularists and Muslims, and act as if they believe what they profess to believe is actually true: if it is true it has implications for how society should be run.

70% of the UK population professes some kind of Christian belief. Christian leaders should stop kidding them that their values can be preserved in a 'private sphere'. If they campaigned for Christian values to inform public policy at every level, there would be many practical compromises to make along the way, but at least they would be meeting their opponents in debate, and not simply hiding under the bedcovers.

A Catholic political party?

2009-08-20T14:00:00.004+01:00

It seems that following the demise of the Pro-Life Party as a political party, a new party was formed which would be specifically Catholic. The Pro-Life Party never won any seats but it got some good publicity for life issues at election times, and won a battle with the BBC over an election broadcast. To have the BBC accused of exercising 'censorship' in a court ruling was an important acheivment.

This new party, 'Resurgence', has been going since 2004; the fact that it's only now that a couple of blogs have put a notice about it is surprising. Their documents are a strange mixture of the sensible, the slightly obsessive and the plain barmy. In the last category is the suggestion that they will ban party whips in the House of Commons. First, how? Second, why? In the places where party discipline is weak the efforts of politicians to endear themselves to their voters lead not to high principles, but to pandering to special interests. Just look at the USA. And a party which does not aspire to exercise control over what its MPs do doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

Small parties can serve a useful purpose. They can draw attention to neglected issues; they can educate the public and build networks; they can act as think tanks and lobby groups. Resurgance needs to think about what it can acheive, in the short and medium term, and what it shouldn't be bothering about. Detailed and unimaginative plans for vehicle tax reform are beside the point. Giving substance to Catholic social teaching and the pro-life agenda, setting them in the context of the current legislative situation, and preparing good publicity materials on them would actually be useful. The people currently in this field are nearly all either Catholics pretending not to be (the pro-life groups, some conservative thinktanks) or non-Catholics pretending to be Catholics (groups like the dissident 'justice and peace' brigade listed on this blog). How about some real Catholics who admit they are Catholics?

And how about some public events, guys?

Their list of links exposes the narrowness of their network. They clearly haven't thought at all about the Catholic organisations who might be sympathetic to their cause. Instead they link to the non-Catholic extremist pro-life group UK Life League with its homepage covered in grisly pictures of dead babies (for a critique, see here). What does that say about Resurgence?

Thanks, Paul Kennedy, General Secretary, but you'll have to try again.

Marriage Care caught out again

2009-08-17T15:59:00.006+01:00

Archbishop Nichols is the President of Marriage Care. When is he going to do something about it?

Shortly after Marriage Care's Director, Terry Prendergast, gave a talk to a dissident Catholic gay group about how homosexual unions should be recognised by the Church and allowed to adopt children, it has been revealed that Marriage Care's sex education materials are completely amoral.

No surprise there: we pointed this out long ago. But the Catholic Herald had run a story on it, which is good news.

Here it is, in part: The manual, called Foundations for a Good Life, is designed to help to teach pupils at Key Stage 3 and 4 - the last two years of secondary school - and college students about relationships, marriage, the family and sexuality.

The final two modules are aimed at young people over the age of 16 and deals with methods of contraception.

There is no discussion of the morality of the methods with the focus on function and effectiveness. The manual hails condoms as 98 per cent effective in avoiding pregnancy, and the Pill, the coil and hormonal injections as 99 per cent effective, but says that NFP methods are far less reliable.

"If you have a regular menstrual cycle, it [NFP] is 80 to 98 per cent effective, but can be lower if your cycle is irregular," the manual says. "NFP is not often suggested for teenagers who might not be considering committed relationships as yet." The manual was criticised by NFP teachers who insisted that their methods were nearly 100 per cent effective.

The point about the effectiveness of NFT is a side-issue, if a predictable one. The real issue here is that the Marriage Care course, just like the 'All That I Am' course from Birmingham and all the other sex education courses being pushed at children, makes a virtue of the fact that it gives information totally inappropriate to the teaching of children in a whole-class context, and does so without any ethical context. The decision about when and how to have sex is a matter of preserving sexual health - the Church's teaching doesn't come into it.

It is also interesting to note that the claims in these materials for the effectiveness of condoms derive from fantasy - or (in the technical jargon) from 'perfect use'. Use of condoms by teenagers is obviously far from perfect, and effectiveness rates are vastly lower.

...a major study on contraceptive failure reported that in single woman under 18 years of age, using the birth control pill to prevent pregnancy, the first year failure rate was 11%!³ The failure rate of condoms is also seriously higher in the adolescent age group. For example, an article in the journal, Family Planning Perspectives, quotes an annual Practical failure rate of 18.4 percent in teenage girls under 18 years of age who are using condoms to prevent pregnancy. According to these figures, over half of the teenage users will be pregnant within three years. The authors further qualify this failure rate by stating that "these rates are understated because of the substantial under-reporting of abortion among single women; if abortion reporting was complete, failure rates would be 1.4 times as high as they appear here..."⁴

Sex Ed video from the Archdiocese of Birmingham

2009-08-11T18:51:00.005+01:00

Warning: contains nudity.

See Catholic and Loving It for more commentary. If you don't want your 9-year old to see material like this, don't send him or her to a Catholic school where Archbishop Nichols' ideas on sex education have influence.

Don't say you haven't been warned. Wake up!

Now the Government are promoting masturbation for teenagers - yes you read that right. How long before the Catholic Education Service either catches up with that one or realises that the attempt to produce a 'Catholic' sex education is a hopeless one? Here's an image from a leaflet produced by the NHS in Sheffield.

Overpopulation myth

2009-07-30T18:47:00.002+01:00

The myth of overpopulation has been exploded so many times it is astonishing that you find people still banging on about it. Here's a nice video.

Bishops respond to Marriage Care on homosexual 'marriage'

2009-07-27T18:10:00.006+01:00

The most complete report on the bishops' reaction to the speech of Terry Prendergast, the Chairman of Marriage Care, rubbishing Catholic teaching on marriage, appeared in The Tablet. It reveals that Archbishop Nichols is actually the President of Marriage Care, and that Prendergast is an adviser to the Marriage and Family Life Committee (chaired by Bishop Hine) of the Bishops' Conference. In short, he and his organisation are intimately connected with the ecclesiastical bureaucracy, making it particularly difficult for the bishops to distance themselves from even his more outrageous views.

The Tablet (25/7/09) “The Church’s vision is that the crucially important quality of stability in family life needs gender complementarity and role modelling too,” said the bishops. They recognised that circumstances may mean that some of these dimensions were unavailable, creating the need for additional support, but added that “it is inconsistent with Catholic teaching to plan or promote a notion of family from which they are deliberately excluded”.

Mr Prendergast is an adviser on the Bishops’ Marriage and Family Life Committee, chaired by Bishop John Hine, who acknowledged this week that there were difficulties over Mr Prendergast’s observations. The concerns of both Archbishop Nichols and Bishop Hine were raised with the board of directors of Marriage Care at a meeting on Tuesday.

Mr Prendergast said that he felt he had been able to explain his position to the bishops. “My impression was that they were making every effort to understand the position of Marriage Care,” he said.

Liturgical abuses: Pottery Chalices

2009-07-18T15:00:00.002+01:00

Taking a (sadly) rare break from engaging in pointless arguments with Catholic Traditionalists, James Preece has put a very interesting post about the attitude of Bishop Terrence Drainey of Middlesbrough to pottery chalices (and ciboria, pattens etc.). As he points out, they are forbidden - illicit, ruled out, contrary to the laws of the Church, you get it? - by Redemptoris Sacramentum.

Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.

[Redemptionis Sacramentum 117]

But here they are, being used by the Bishop himself. Note the clingfilm over them. A nice touch that. Presumably it is felt to be necessary because these ghastly objects are liable to fall over.

James points out that Bishop Drainey has actually criticised a parish for using them, but continues to use them himself. As Our Lord said,"The teachers of the law (the scribes) and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So, you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matt. 23:2-3)

Marriage Care head on homosexual unions

2009-07-17T01:10:00.003+01:00

There follows a press release about a conference organised by Quest, a homosexual 'Catholic' group which was ejected from the Catholic Directory many years ago for rejecting the Church's teaching on sexuality (see our dossier). Terry Prendergast is the Chief Executive of Marriage Care, an formerly Catholic organisation listed at great length in the Catholic Directory (under its former name, 'Catholic Marriage Care': see our dossier).

On Prendergast's jaw-dropping claim that there is 'no evidence' that children do better with both a mother and a father see here for details of a study and here for Ed West.

Pendergast has spoken and written several times of his support for homosexual marriage and the like, but this speech is particularly clear. It remains to be seen if Archbishop Nichols will take the opportunity either to bring Marriage Care to heal or cut the Church's links with it. Listing in the Directory is a formal endorsement, at least in general terms, by the Bishops of England and Wales, as their own guidelines make clear. 'Criteria for entry into the Catholic Directory' is available from this page of their website, as a pdf (here). It tells us that 'ecclesiastical recognition is given to organisations so that they may be publicly known as both Catholic and of national significance'. It goes on to specify as the first criterion for entry:

'A fundamental commitment to the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, particularly as expressed by the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.'

This is explained in more detail: 'The word 'fundamental' relates to the key objectives of the organisation as formally written and as corporately pursued. It is tolerant of some variety of emphasis in expression and in operation, but not of deviation from ultimate loyalty to the Church, nationally or internationally.'

Head of Marriage Care exhorts Church to re-think the family.

Gay couples can lay equal claim to their married heterosexual counterparts when
bringing up children in stable relationships. That is one of the many
challenges laid down by Terry Prendergast, Chief Executive of Marriage Care, in
a speech to members of QUEST, the community of lesbian and gay Catholics at
their annual conference this weekend. His remarks come as a timely contribution
after many Catholic adoption agencies have, in recent months, had to agonise
about whether to fall into line with new legal arrangements which oblige such
bodies to make adoption available equally to same-sex as well as heterosexual
couples.

Mr Prendergast will address the gathering in Leicester with his wife, Kate, a
lecturer in social policy at Brunel University. The conference theme is:" We
Are Family: New Thinking for the Twenty First Century."

"Statistically, children do best in a family where the adult relationship is
steady, stable and loving, " he says. "Note that I stress adult, not married,
since there is no evidence that suggests that children do best with
heterosexual couples, " he adds.

A dominant theme of his address centres on how the Church has often built up a
romantic image of a golden age of the nuclear family which, in truth, has not
really found expression in reality, often with unwelcome consequences for those
that "do not fit." These include single parent families, and also co-habiting
and same -sex families. He says that often "those individuals.want to live good
lives according to the precepts of the Gospels. They are an advert for the
Church, an advert that the Church often ignores, or consigns to the waste bin."

He says that in all relationships, the institutional aspects are less important
than the sacramental qualities, "the presence of God mediated through
commitment, consent and covenant. The move from the institutional to
companionship, choosing for love, has been marked, possibly more deeply, in
co-habiting and same-sex couples."

Inspired by Professor Margaret Farley's book, Just Love: A Framework for
Christian Ethics, Mr Prendergast lays out seven norms or criteria for
evaluating the richness of relationships and family:

Do no unjust harm,

Free consent,

Mutuality,

Equality,

Commitment,

Fruitfulness

Social justice.

Terry Prendergast is Chief Executive of Marriage Care, formerly CMAC, and has
been in that role since 2000. He was born in West Yorkshire and joined the
Montfort Fathers in 1967. He left the Montfortians in 1970, marrying Kate. He
trained as a social worker in 1975 and as a Psychotherapist in 1980, but has
been involved in management in the charitable sector since 1989. He has an MA
in Managing Change in Community, from Bradford University. He is concerned
about long-term relationships, their management and support, as well as the
development of their spiritual and sacramental aspects

For further comment, Terry Prendergast can be contacted on the following mobile
number: 07771 768631.

Kate Prendergast's address is entitled: "Chance, Choice and Caritas," and will
also feature as part of the conference proceedings . It is hoped a full
transcript of the paper will be available soon after the conference on the
Quest website at www.questgaycatholic.org.

Sit Stephen Wall, a former adviser to both Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor and
Tony Blair, will be the after dinner speaker on the evening of Saturday July
18th. Sir Stephen has been a member of Quest since January 2008.

The 2009 Quest Conference will be the 27th in the organisation's history and
will take place between 6pm on Friday July 17th and 4pm Sunday 19th July at
John Foster Hall at the University of Leicester.

Government sexualisation initiative condemned

2009-07-16T14:52:00.003+01:00

Fr Tim Finnigan has posted on the latest Government initiate: to promote masturbation by children. Yes, things have really got that bad. 'An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away', says the leaflet. This has now been roundly condemned by Peter Bradley, Deputy Director of Kidscape, a charity concerned with bullying, including the sexual bullying which, unsurprisingly, is on the rise in schools. His message:

In summary - parts of the leaflet provide young people with ridiculous, irresponsible advice that may lead young people on a potential sexual path of misery and harm. This is a frequent message adults tell us about on reflection in later, more mature years.

Here's part Fr Finnigan's post.

In January, Panorama ran a programme called "Kids behaving badly" on the subject of sexual assaults at school. In a Daily Mail report on the programme, Michelle Elliott of the charity Kidscape is quoted as saying:

Sexual bullying has become much more prevalent. On the Kidscape helpline we used to get maybe one or two calls a year. Now we are getting two or three a week. It’s probably the tip of the iceberg.

I wonder what Kidscape think of the latest initiative from NHS Sheffield which has prepared a leaflet for young people telling them that it is good to have an orgasm a day, and encouraging them to masturbate. (See the promotional article in "Children and Young People Now".) The booklet is, of course, strongly endorsed by the Family Planning Association and the Brook, whose spokesman extols the value of sex education before adolescence. (See also the report from the Christian Institute: Pupils told: regular sex is good for you.)

How long will it be before feminists, child safeguarding agencies and ordinary parents begin to cotton on to the clear and present danger that this kind of explicit sex education presents to their children?

Pope Benedict XVI, the Reformer

2009-06-19T14:38:00.004+01:00

Comment: Luke Coppen makes a good case for Benedict XVI being what commentators said before his election, a man who cracks down on abuses. The Holy Father is doing it in different places and on different subject with seriousness, but no fanfare - sometimes even with a degree of necessary secrecy. As Coppen points out, this means that his reforming zeal has gone largely unnoticed; it also fails to fit the stereotype of a liberal reformer which many commentators assume is the only kind.

We should qualify what we said about the foccacia episode in the diocese of Linz. It is not that the Pope is doing nothing about Linz - as noted below he's just had an emergency meeting with the Austrian bishops to talk about it, and other matters. Nevertheless he doesn't feel able to do what many frustrated faithful Catholics assume he should do, which is simply remove the bishop, because of the nebulous concept of 'collegiality' which descended like a miasma onto the Church after Vatican II. However, even that needs to be qualified, since he has removed an African archbishop who tolerated concibinage among his clergy. Since this is one of the problems in Linz, is sauce for the African goose going to be sauce for the Austrian gander?

Coppen's article is worth reading in full but here's the key passage:

The Maciel affair: In May 2006 Pope Benedict took the highly unusual step of ordering one of the world's best-known priests to retire to a life of prayer and penance. His decision followed a Vatican investigation into allegations that Fr Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ and the Regnum Christi movement, was a sexual abuser who had fathered at least one child.

Investigating America's seminaries: Not long after his election Benedict XVI oversaw an apostolic visitation of seminaries in the United States. The investigation was inspired by the clerical sexual abuse crisis of 2002 and covered all schools of theology as well as college-level seminaries, houses of formation, and academic institutions that form future priests.

Scrutinising American female religious orders: The Pope has also ordered a wide-ranging investigation of American women religious. The apostolic visitation of institutes of women religious in the United States, which is currently underway, covers approximately 400 apostolic religious institutes of women and approximately 59,000 women religious. It is likely to lead to a shake-up of American female religious life.

Deposing the leader of an African Church: Earlier this month Pope Benedict accepted the resignation of Archbishop Paulin Pomodimo of Bangui, the most senior Catholic cleric in the Central African Republic (CAR). The resignation followed a visit to the CAR by a papal emissary, Archbishop Robert Sarah, secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, in March. It is widely thought that the Pope requested the archbishop's resignation because he tolerated priests keeping mistresses.

Calling for a thorough accounting of abuse in Ireland: Also this month Pope Benedict called for a profound examination of the state of the Irish Church following a damning report into "endemic" abuse in schools run by religious orders.

Crisis talks with the Austrian bishops: And this week Pope Benedict held an emergency meeting with the leaders of the Austrian Church. The gathering followed the appointment and subsequent resignation of Gerhard Wagner as auxiliary Bishop of Linz and reports that priests in senior positions in the diocese live with mistresses. The Pope reminded the bishops of "the urgency of going deeper in the faith and the integral fidelity to the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Church" - a coded message that the Austrian Church is in serious need of reform.

These events together show the determination with which Pope Benedict is confronting the gravest scandals in the Church today. They have all had considerable publicity, but nevertheless have not created the perception that Benedict XVI is a bold reformist pope.

Focaccia

2009-06-16T15:30:00.004+01:00

This has rendered Damian Thompson speechless and it has had the same effect on us. But focaccia was used as the host at a Mass in Linz, Austria, and under the appearance of focaccia the Blessed Sacrament was paraded around in this 'monstrance'. That's assuming focaccia is valid matter, which it probably is; it is certainly illicit.

Hat-tip to Cathcon.

As the little film indicates, this is a scandal with global implications. The Pope has done nothing. There is no reason to imagine, things being as they are, that the Pope will do anything. This fact is the backdrop to the problems of the clerical abuse of power faithful Catholics face all over the world.

Clerical abuse and clericalism

2009-06-15T11:01:00.003+01:00

Read James Preece's brilliant analysis of the clerical abuse scandals and Catholic culture. Here's the money quote:

As far as I can see, the position of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales including our own Bishop Terrence Drainey is currently "let us have a culture that tolerates and even encourages clerical abuse, in which priests and bishops are free to abuse their power and authority and laypeople are expected to be co-conspirators or else face accusations of disrespect and disloyalty but let us make an exception for the sort of abuse that the civil authorities take seriously, that is, the sort of abuse that costs money and looks bad in the papers".

This is like saying "stealing is okay, as long as you don't steal anything somebody will notice" or "lying is okay, as long as nobody finds out". Essentially, the Bishops are saying "it's okay with us if priests abuse their power, as long as they don't do anything illegal".

What concerns me most of all is this: As long as the culture remains in place, the potential for harm continues. As long as the culture remains in place, the potential for "[hiding] behind a clericalism which is prepared to protect vicious behaviour at the expense of defenceless innocents" remains in place.

This is simply unacceptable.

This is partly why this blog has never been shy about reporting clerical abuse stories - something which the aggressive liberals in the comments boxes have never been able to understand, and which has got us in trouble with conservative Catholics as well.

Clericalism and ultramontanism is not the answer to the problems of today. Yes, we have problems of disobedience of legitimate authority justly exercised, and in those cases the authority should be supported. But this is not the opposite problem as the sex abuse being covered up by bishops: it is another example of the same problem.

How so? The sex abusers were disobedient. Their bishops didn't approve of the abuse; they asked them to stop. The abusers were breaking canon law as well as the natural law. The abuse persisted because of a failure of legitimate authority. But it also persisted because of the false deference towards that failing authority.

Because no-one wanted to confront and denounce the bishops and religious superiors who were failing to exercise their authority, out of deference to that authority, they were enabled to go on not exercising their authority.

The clerical club which protected the abusers, without necessarily approving of them, is also tolerating priests who commit liturgical abuses, refuse to give the faithful communion kneeling, refuse to teach the whole gospel, and turn their parishes into centres for left-wing activism.

Home Schooling in the spotlight

2009-06-11T18:38:00.007+01:00

Comment: notice how the NSPCC is gunning for homeschoolers. There is in fact less chance of a child being abused if he is being taught at home, than at school, but the NSPCC and its allies in the government don't want to be confused with facts. They like to see all the boys and girls in neat row so they can indoctrinate them as they like.

The actual proposals here don't threaten serious damage to homeschooling, but the threat is always there.

From CFNews: A review of home education in England is expected to recommend a national registration scheme for home educators. It is also expected to say local authorities should have the right to visit any child taught at home.

The government commissioned a review to find out whether local councils were monitoring home educated children, or offering parents enough support.

But the government has also been concerned that home education could be a cover for abuse. The review, conducted by former director of education for Kent, Graham Badman, will say that parents who home educate should have to register annually on a scheme administered by local councils. But a parent's right to home educate will not be challenged, ministers have said.

Support
Local authorities currently have no statutory duty to monitor children educated at home. But they must ensure that all children are receiving a suitable education, either in school or otherwise.

Children's Secretary Ed Balls said: 'We will ask local authorities to provide easier access to extra support for those home-educated children who need it - particularly the relatively high proportion of home-educated children who have special educational needs and others who need or want to access services that would otherwise be provided through their school.' He said asking home educators to register would bring England into line with other European countries.

Scotland differs slightly from the rest of the UK in that local authorities are encouraged to inspect home educating families at least once a year.

'Outdated'
But home educators say authorities should stop treating them with suspicion and concentrate on giving them support.

Ann Newstead, spokeswoman for home education group Education Otherwise, said: 'If one thing could come out of this review which would mean it was not a complete waste of public money, it would be that the decision to home educate is treated with respect and as a positive choice.'

The review is not expected to propose any minimum standards or set subjects. It is understood the review has not found any evidence that home education was being used specifically to conceal trafficked children, or forced marriages.

Children's charities have urged the government to tighten up rules regarding home education. NSPCC head of policy and public affairs, Diana Sutton, said current legislation was 'outdated' and a system was needed to deal with cases where local authorities had concerns.

Estimates of how many children are home educated vary from between 20,000 and 80,000 children. [BBC]

CAFOD to use a pagan guru on pilgrimage

2009-06-10T14:23:00.001+01:00

This really beggars belief, so let's hear it direct from the website of the Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle. If you didn't have sufficient reason to stop supporting CAFOD before, you do now: they have arranged for a Catholic pilgrimage to be led, in part, by a pagan leader with a view to him imparting his spiritual wisdom to pilgrims. For the other reasons, see our dossier on CAFOD.

From the Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle: A Brazilian of the Yanomami tribe will be the special guest at CAFOD's annual pilgrimage to Holy Island this year.

Davi Kopenawa Yanomami is a member of the Yanomami índios in Brazil, and a spokesman on tribal issues and Amazon Rainforest conservation. CAFOD supports Hutukara, an indigenous grassroots organisation of which Davi is president. He will be joining pilgrims for the day on June 13 to walk across the Pilgrims' Way from the main land to the island. Davi will also lead the reflection at key points along the way with reflections from his own tradition, focussing on how we live in harmony with God's creation.

CAFOD Hexham & Newcastle Diocesan Manager Anne-Marie Hanlon said: "This is a real honour for us, and we are thrilled to have Davi coming to Holy Island this year. He is an inspirational speaker and comes from a tradition where people are still fundamentally linked to their environment. It will be very interesting to hear what he has to say about climate change, and also to hear how his customs value the stories of his ancestors just as he will hear how we revere our Northern saints.”

The Recife Affair

2009-06-09T13:59:00.009+01:00

From CFNews gives a long commentary on the affair from Mgr Schoonans., here. He discusses the multiple inaccuracies of the article by Archbishop Rino Fisichella in the Osservatore Romano of the 15th of March, which it shares with other attacks on the local ordinary who reminded the abortionists that, under canon law, they were excommunicated latae sententiae (ie without him having to do anything). Mgr Schoonans also reports that Mgr Lombardi, the Vatican press officer, appeared to try to re-interpret remarks of the Holy Father to make them compatible with support for the Recife abortion (which he falsely suggested was an example of 'indirect' abortion: medical treatment such as chemotherapy not aiming at the death of the unborn child, which brings it about).

The most worrying thing here is the impression of divisionsn and open dissent at the highest reaches of the Vatican.

Here is an extract.

3. Divisions in the Church

1. According to RF, the attitude of Archbishop Cardoso undermines the credibility of the Church. But the Church and its pastors do not deserve to be credible unless they proclaim the truth. The Gospel does not recommend that we please men, it calls us to be faithful to the message which it is our mission to announce. As regards abortion, the Church's doctrine is expounded with clarity in major documents such as Gaudium et spes (1965), para. 51 § 3 ; cf. para. 27 § 3 ; Code of Canon Law (1983), para. 1398 ; 1314; 1323 s. ; Donum vitae (1987), para. 3 ; Evangelium vitae (1995), para. 62 ; Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997), para. 2271, 2322.

RF's article was published in the French edition of the Osservatore Romano on 17 March. It is astonishing that it fails to echo the statements of His Eminence, Cardinal Re, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops, published in La Stampa on 7 March. Could RF have been unaware of this statement when he signed his article? In this statement, Cardinal Re declares, with regard to the double abortion performed at Recife: " it is a crime in the eyes of God. The excommunication of the person performing the abortion is just". On 14 March, Dom Cardoso, Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, received a letter of praise from that same Cardinal. The Church's position is also reaffirmed by Father Gianfranco Grieco, Head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, in La Stampa of 7 March.

2. The Osservatore Romano is the unofficial mouthpiece of the Vatican. It publishes pontifical texts. It also publishes articles at the request of certain dicasteries. It also publishes texts proposed by authors considered to be knowledgeable about and respecting of the Church's doctrine. This prestigious publication is particularly necessary at a time when the media pronounce with assurance on any issue. As Molière wrote, " People of quality know everything without ever having learned anything. " (Les précieuses ridicules, scene 10). With some notable exceptions, adherence to an elementary code of ethics, for example, checking the sources on which relies, does not appear to be a priority. In the case under examination, those in charge of the Osservatore Romano let through a text containing serious inaccuracies and omissions and biased in every sense of the word. To cap it all, instead of putting a stop to the circulation of this article in foreign languages, the publication's Director arranged for the text to be circulated in different languages. The Vatican's mouthpiece is therefore seriously adding to a muddying of the waters in as far as it is failing to comply with its mandate as a faithful mouthpiece, palming off on its readers products which are doctrinally dubious.

3. On 20 March, a few days after the appearance of RF's article, while meeting the authorities in Luanda, Benedict XVI made reference to the abortion. The Pope regrets that the abortion is being presented as a matter of maternal health. Let us quote the strong words pronounced by the Pope:

"How bitter the irony of those who promote abortion as a form of maternal healthcare! How disconcerting the claim that the termination of life is a matter of reproductive health!" (Osservatore Romano, French edition, 31 March 2009, pages 4 and 15).

Whence immediate protests from certain journalists, whose reasoning can be summarised as follows: " Abortion is a matter of reproductive health. Yet the Pope is against abortion. Therefore he is opposed to reproductive health, which must include therapeutic abortion." According to this sophistic argument, the premature twins constitute a serious danger to the young Carmen and are themselves in danger, and so it is necessary to go ahead with the abortion.

The next day, in Luanda, Father Federico Lombardi S.J., Head of the Vatican's Press Office, felt obliged, even authorised, to blunt the authority of the Pope's statement, quoted above. The statement did not relate to therapeutic abortion, as understood by the ideologists of reproductive health and safe motherhood. In a context in which he is commenting on the Pope's words, Fr Lombardi goes so far as to affirm, incautiously, that the Catholic Church has " always allowed indirect abortion ", when treatment given to a pregnant woman in order to save her life "results in the death of the foetus " (Cathobel, 23 March). The double abortion performed on Carmen would be therapeutic and would thus, in the twisted logic of the Reverend Father, escape the sanction of Canon Law. It would not be condemned by the Pope who moreover - it is added- said nothing, in Africa, on the events in Recife. It is therefore difficult for Father Lombardi to have avoided compromising the Holy Father by creating the impression that the Pope did not condemn the double abortion in Recife, on the grounds that this double abortion was therapeutic! It follows that the Pope would have implicitly disagreed with Archbishop Cardoso!

Admittedly, Father Lombardi asserted, in Luanda, that he did not have all the necessary information regarding the Recife case. However, his statement poses a fundamental problem. Is it normal for a journalist, even a highflyer, to set himself up as an authorised interpreter of what the Pope has just said, especially if his interpretation has the effect of blunting the edge of the Holy Father's statements? It would doubtless be necessary to clarify the levels of expertise and authority. Should the Pope's words be so obscure as to need deciphering by an unofficial media magisteriium?

4. Serious grounds for concern have emerged in circles close to the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Pontifical Council for the Family:

a. Incomprehension and sadness on the part of a considerable number of Christians, engaged for several years in multiple pro-life programmes encouraged by the Church. A feeling, often well-founded, of having been " abandoned " by their pastor.

b. Perplexity and shame on the part of many members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who are wondering how such a faux pas could have occurred, and what action will be taken.

c. Discredit affecting the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who has undermined his own moral, theological and scientific authority. Loss of confidence in the President and disillusionment. Many members of the Pontifical Academy for Life fear that RF's statements will compromise them at rank and file level. There will be a down-sizing in aid of all kinds earmarked for the activities of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

d. Fears of a weakening of the Pontifical Academy for Life: its members will be less motivated and will become divided among themselves. There is already talk of only convening members of the Academy every two years. But where is this decision coming from, if confirmed? Is it, as rumoured in certain circles, the prelude to the burial of the Pontifical Academy for Life, at a time when the attacks on life are incessantly multiplying ?

5. In his Letter to the Archbishops of the World, dated 10 March 2009, the Holy Father, quoting the letter to the Galatians (5, 13-15), wrote: "If you bite and devour one another, be warned: you will destroy one another " Referring to the question of Archbishops following the lead of Archbishop Lefebvre, this quotation also deserves to be repeated in relation to the scandal of Notre Dame University and the harrowing story of Carmen and her twins.

Say no to clapping at Mass

2009-06-08T20:33:00.001+01:00

A note on a form of liturgical abuse from Fr Z.

"Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. " (Spirit of the Liturgy p. 198)

This message has been brought to you by Sober Inebriation Weblog.

If you should encounter applause during Mass in your parish do not panic. Immediately after Mass go out and get a copy of Pope Benedict’s book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" by Ignatius Press and give it to your pastor as a gift. Be sure to highlight the above passage on page 198. Yellow highlighter works really, really well.

Archbishop MacDonald imposes 'All that I Am'

2009-06-05T12:09:00.001+01:00

From CFNews: Although the explicit visual material in the 'All That I Am' sex-education programme triggers off alarms on pornography-filtering computer programmes, Archbishop McDonald is permitting the resource for primary and secondary schools to be used in mixed classes the Diocese of Southwark. 'All That I Am' is sponsored, and partly financed, by the government's Teenage Pregnancy Unit. Parents are objecting to the scheme which they call 'institutionalised sex abuse'. The Catholic Church teaches that parents' rights on sex education are 'inalienable'.

See also Catholic Mom of 10

Cardinal Murph-O'Connor not to join Blair Foundation

2009-06-05T12:07:00.002+01:00

Comment: this is a relief. Tony Blair is at least suffering some fallout from his outrageous outburst attacking the Pope over condoms. The story was reported in the Tablet last weekend.

From CFNews: According to an item in the Guardian, a spokesman for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that the former Archbishop of Westminster "does not envisage joining the board the Tony Blair Faith Foundation at this stage". Yet on Friday afternoon the Faith Foundation website was still announcing: "HE Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, will join the Advisory Council once he has retired as Archbishop."

This item was shortly followed by a statement issued by a TBF spokesman. "We can totally understand Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor wanting to review his commitments now he has retired as Archbishop of Westminster. The Foundation has always valued the private advice he has offered and welcome him continuing to do so in his retirement.

"While they support the broad aims of the Foundation, we do not expect the Advisory Council members to agree with Tony Blair on every aspect of policy past or present. Their role is to provide advice and guidance, alongside many other senior religious'.

Final defeat of Catholic adoption agencies

2009-06-05T12:02:00.001+01:00

Briefing.

From CFNews: Catholic adoption societies which refuse to offer children to homosexual couples face closure following a tribunal ruling.
Judges ruled in a test case that the charities, which find homes for hundreds of children each year, will be breaking the law if they refuse to accept same-sex couples as adoptive parents.

The ruling means some Catholic agencies face a choice between abandoning their adoption services or their religious principles.

The ruling means some Catholic agencies face a choice between abandoning their adoption services or their religious principles.

One diocese has already said it is likely to close its adoption charities.
Some of the long-standing charities have not opposed adoption by same-sex couples since Labour's 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations stated that no organisation or company may discriminate against gays.

But yesterday's appeal ruling by the Charity Tribunal confirmed that those which have stuck to Catholic teaching must now do the same or give up trying to get children adopted.
In its appeal, the Catholic Care charity, run by the diocese of Leeds, said that the right to discriminate against homosexual couples was 'a principle of a Catholic organisation'.
But following the ruling a spokesman for the diocese said: 'As the charities cannot provide unrestricted services without being in breach of their obligations to act in accordance with the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, it seems likely that the charities will need to close their adoption services and a flagship service of the charities will be lost.
'We are concerned about the possible impact this will have on potential adoptive parents and children.'
Tribunal president Alison McKenna ruled that the Catholic Care charity was 'a well-respected voluntary adoption agency which has made a significant contribution to the provision of adoption services in this country and facilitated many successful adoption placements'.
But she and two colleagues said the charity's activities would be unlawful if it went on refusing to accept gay adoptive parents.
Other Catholic adoption agencies declined to comment. [MailOnline]
The news that the Catholic Adoption Agencies had lost their case before the Charity Tribunal 'is sad but was certainly not unexpected, at least as far as I was concerned, writes barrister Neil Addison in his 'Religion Law Blog'.
'What the agencies were trying to do was to change their objects so as to add the following
"The Charity shall only provide adoption services to heterosexuals and such services to heterosexuals shall only be provided in accordance with the tenets of the Church. For the avoidance of doubt the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds from time to time shall be the arbiter of whether such services and the manner of their provision fall within the tenets of the Church"
They argued that this would enable them to operate because of the exemption for Charities under Reg 18 of the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007which say
"18.-(1) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for a person to provide benefits only to persons of a particular sexual orientation, if-(a) he acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and (b) the restriction of benefits to persons of that sexual orientation is imposed by reason of or on the grounds of the provisions of the charitable instrument"
From a legal point of view the Tribunals decision seems to me to be very questionable, the Tribunal said (para 21)
"regulation 18 could not be relied upon by the Appellant to permit activity which was no longer permitted, or which was made unlawful, by another regulation. As the Preliminary Ruling made clear, this was because the Tribunal understood regulation 18 to permit discrimination by charities only when their activities did not stray into the areas covered by the other regulations"
Frankly that is a legally fatuous remark and completely circular reasoning since if reg 18 only applies to activities which are not covered by the SOR's anyway then why would any Charity need to rely on reg 18 at all ? Before the comments section of this Blog gets overload I should add at this point that reg 18 is not some sinister " legal loophole" in the SOR's designed by cunning homophobes, it is the standard type of exemption given to Charities in every other area of Discrimination legislation so as to permit Charities(and we are only talking about Charities) to offer specific services to Women/Specific Races/Specific Nationalities/People with specific disabilities etc. If the Charity Tribunal decision stands unchallenged then every other Charity is now subject to every other type of Anti-Discrimination legislation and, incidentally, the commission decision makes it more difficult for there to be specific Charities providing services for Gay and Lesbian people.
However the irony is that even had the Catholic Charities won their case before the Tribunal it would have been a pyrrhic victory. As the Tribunal pointed out local authorities would refuse to deal with an Adoption Agency which was clearly and directly discriminatory in its objects and the Agency in that situation would have had no way to challenge such a refusal by a local authority.
Leaving aside the fact that the potential views of local authorities should have been irrelevant to the decision the Tribunal was supposed to be making which was whether the proposed change in objects was legal or not; the Tribunal was undoubtedly correct in their analysis. That is why I, as Director of the Thomas More Legal Centre have been advising Adoption Agencies for a year that they should amend their objects to read as follows
"The Charity shall not have power to engage in any activity which it knows, or reasonably believes, is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church; the formal opinion of the Bishop of [ ] shall be final in any question as to what is the teaching of the Catholic Church"
Such a provision in the objects of the Charity would, of course, have prevented them choosing either same sex, or unmarried heterosexual couples, as adoptive parents and they would have had to concentrate on married couples who according to the teachings of the Church (and millenia of human experience) are the appropriate unit to raise and nurture children. Had a local authority then refused to deal with one of the Catholic Agencies then the local authority would itself have been acting illegally by engaging in Religious Discrimination. Why none of the Catholic Agencies even tried this route I do not know. It certainly could not have been any more unsuccessful than the route they did choose. [http://religionlaw.blogspot.com/2009/06/catholic-adoption-agencies-lose-case.html ]

Catholic Charismatic Renewal: Dossier

2009-06-02T17:42:00.003+01:00

Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which originated in a charismatic event in the USA in 1967, has branches all over the world, including England, Wales and Scotland. Recently the English branch announced that, due to financial difficulties, they would be closing their office at the All Saints Pastoral Centre at London Colney (a facility owned by the Archdiocese of Westminster), and probably ceasing to publish their magazine 'GoodNews' and teaching resources. The Tablet reported (16th May 09)

In the 1980s and early 1990s the popularity of the Charismatic Renewal – the spirituality of which is centred on an encounter with the Holy Spirit – was at its peak, with conferences attracting up to 5,000 people. In recent years numbers have decreased...

A recent conference attracted 1,500.

A picture is worth a thousand words. The picture above tells us a lot about their spirituality and liturgical preferences, and the kind of people who front the organisation: in a phrase, aging trendies. This is clearly an organisation undergoing accelerating decline, but its power to harm the Church has not left it yet.

What it is

CCR is a somewhat nebulous phenomenon. It promotes prayer groups and liturgies of a particular style, and in general a theological attitude of a particular type, through a magazine, education packs, and national and local events. It promotes many good things, but mixes them in with bad or at least dubious or unproven ones. The English website includes Medjugorje among its links to officially approved Marian shrines (Medjugorje is not officially approved); it links to many pro-life groups but also to Amnesty International, which campaigns openly for the legalisation of abortion; it includes official agencies of the Catholic Bishops and non-Catholic 'healing ministries', Christian Zionists, and all sorts of weird and wonderful groups, as well as the usual aging trendy stuff, such as CAFOD and livesimply.

The fundamental problem with CCR is one of style or attitude rather than one of substance. That is not because the substance is good - it is because, like the liberal charismatic Protestantism on which it models itself, there is no substance. While not explicitly denying any doctrines, it inculcates an attitude and a spirituality which is at odds with Catholic tradition and, ultimately, at odds with Catholic doctrine.

How can we pin down the problems?

Identification with Protestantism

It is obvious that CCR is inspired by a certain kind of Protestantism. The inspiration is not simply a matter of learning from non-Catholics in matters of technique - the CCR actually sees itself as part of a 'Pentecostal/Charismatic' phenomenon.

One author in the latest magazine puts it this way:

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Azusa Street, Los Angeles, in 1906, saw the beginning of Pentecostalism. This was followed in the 1960s by the Charismatic Renewal in the mainline Christian denominations, alongside the birth of the Independent Charismatic House Churches. This Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement has grown from a handful of individuals in 1906 to a global force of more than 600 million people today. Such a remarkable number means that Christians who have been baptised in the Holy Spirit today represent about one third of global Christianity, and are the fastest growing part of the world-wide church. Whilst there are signs of a slow-down in Western Europe and North America, the rate of growth continues unabated in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. History tells us that renewal movements usually rise and fall, but are we experiencing something different? The time seems to be right for a new look at this amazing Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement.

It would seem useless to say to the author, Charles Whitehead (Chairman of CCR), that Pentecostalism is a group of truly appalling sects, which use the most unscrupulous means to proselytise the least educated Catholic populations they can find, to give them a religion evacuated of even the limited understanding of the Sacraments you would find in Anglicanism. In this article Whitehead identifies more with the second 'C' in CCR than with the first.

The Key Doctrinal Problem:

'Baptism in the Spirit' vs. Sacramental Baptism and Confirmation

Whitehead also suggests, in the above passage - as his Pentecostal friends would insist - that sacramntal Baptism and Confirmation do not constitute true 'baptism in the Spirit'. This is a foundational belief for charismatics, and it betrays the seriousness of the problem. Our Lord explained that 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (John 3.5-6) and he instituted the sacraments to bring this rebith about. Baptism and Confirmation - note Our Lord's reference to water - objectively give the Holy Spirit to the baptised. It is not a matter of emotion, but metaphysical fact. To say that this is not baptism of the Spirit Our Lord intended is an attack on the Church's whole sacramental system, and a replacement of the sacraments' objective signs with nothing but feelings.

The Charismatic-Pentecostal claim is that what they do in 'baptising in the spirit' is renewing what happened to the Apostles at Pentecost, and to certain others in the Acts of the Apostles - hence the importance of 'speaking in tongues', which is supposed to show that they possess the gifts the early Christians had, but which are not given by the Sacraments.

This position is flawed both in its Scriptural basis and in terms of the Church's teaching. In Acts, the Apostles did indeed receive the gift of tongues at Pentecost, but this is clearly not what is given by 'baptism in the spirit' as practiced by CCR. The Apostles spoke in such a way as to be understood by everyone; charismatics speak in such a way as to be understood by no-one, or possibly just one or two people. Furthermore, the Apostles immediately baptised a vast number of converts, and there is no indication that these converts were immediately given the gift of tongues. Nor is the gift of tongues, or any other special charism, by any means an invariable accompaniment of baptism and or confirmation elsewhere in Acts or in the Early Church.

The teaching of the Church is clearly expressed in the decree of the Council of Florence on Confirmation (Session 8):

The effect of this sacrament is that a Christian should boldly confess the name of Christ, since the holy Spirit is given in this sacrament for strengthening just as he was given to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Confirmation is our Pentecost.

The charisms or gifts of the spirit which are mentioned in Acts and in the Letters of St Paul - speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing - are real enough, and have been found from time to time in the history of the Church. But it is a fundamental principle of these gifts, by contrast with the Sacraments, that they cannot be organised: they cannot be called up or passed on at will. You can't advertise a study day and give all attendees gifts of the spirit - 'the Spirit breaths where He wills' (John 3.8). The saints who had these gifts would have been astonished by such a procedure. What is being passed on on these accasions is either a fraud or a natural technique - or a bit of both.

The general emphasis on the experience of the Spirit creates the problem that if Church authorities - parish priests or bishops - impose any limits on what charismatic groups get up to (especially in the liturgy), Catholic charismatics have a tendency simply to leave the Church and join up with charismatics of other denominations. Protestant charismatic and Pentecostal churches in the United States have huge numbers of Catholic converts in them, and this phenomenon has, in a more limited way, been seen in the UK as well.

Liturgical abuses

It hardly needs to be said that typical 'charismatic' Masses and devotions depart from the norms laid down by the Church. The invasion of the sanctuary by lay people, musicians, people being slain in the spirit, people giving personal testimonies etc. is one obvious example; another would be the constant interuption or replacement of the liturgical texts by spontaneous or scripted additions. Charismatics would find it hard to see what the problem is here, but what they are doing contravenes the law of the Church, and their attitude is completely at odds with the Church's attitude towards the liturgy. If it were meant to be a free-for-all we wouldn't have the liturgical laws we have.

For a lengthy treatment of Catholic charismatic liturgies at a conference in the USA, see John Vennari here.

A preference for style over substance

Pentecostalism can be seen as the taking of certain Protestant themes to a logical extreme: a rejection of ritual and formalism (including vestments, the sacraments, even the baptismal formula), and a rejection of intellectualism (including any properly articulated theology). Instead Pentecostal groups rely entirely on a personal connection with the Holy Spirit. Followers think they can tell that the Spirit is with a particular leader because he says so, and tries to demonstrate it in various ways. Preaching is one; others include making odd noises when praying ('speaking in tongues'), claiming miraculous healing powers, and having the ability to mesmerise an audience. Confidence tricksters and stage hypnotists can, of course, do similar things.

The resulting sect is made up of an inner core of people who may feel important because of their role or may be benefitting financially from the sect, and an outer group which often has a high turn-over as people become discouraged, when the extravagant claims of the preacher fail to solve their personal problems, or see through the sham, or hear an even more mesmerising preacher working down the road. These kinds of groups often attract many young people, especially the intellectually unsophisticated, but these young people tend not to become older devotees - as they age they drift away.

CCR is not, of course, guilty of the worst excesses of the Pentecostal movement, and working within the Church the Church's sacramental and intellectual resources remain, at least theoretically, available. But insofar as they claim to be inspired by the Pentecostal/Charismatic tendency in Protestantism, they are travelling down that same road. This places a personal feeling of being 'touched by the Spirit' above any objective sacramental event, and shunts difficult theological questions aside. While claiming that God will solve your problems, and that God can be found where His Spirit can be seen visibly working, they set people up for an exaggerated enthusiasm to be followed by disappointment. This is a road out of the Church for many people.

Style can get you noticed, but substance gives staying power. When Catholics formed by CCR are confronted with real personal difficulties, or real theological objections to Catholicism or belief in God, they are extremely vulnerable.

Presumption

The fundamental claim of the charismatic movement is that they 'have' the Spirit, and people should take notice of them for that reason. It follows that they can't afford to be shy about claiming to be inspired, either personally - having messages from God and so forth - or as a group - experiencing group phenomena such as being 'slain in the spirit', 'speaking in tongues' and so on. After all, if they didn't, no one would have any reason to pay attention to them.

So we find a way of talking which completely lacks the caution and discretion which characterises the Catholic tradition, and in particular Catholic spiritual masters. We read, for example,

The Burning Bush Initiative, grew out of a prophetic inspiration given to Kim Kollins, a leader in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, when she was attending a gathering over a decade ago in Rome. Her experience brought an unplanned extended stay during the next months where she was led by God to remain in Rome and intercede for the Renewal and for the world. Over this time, she felt God tell her to encourage those in the Charismatic Renewal to return to intercessory prayer for a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing wrong in having an idea, after prayer and reflection, and feeling that perhaps this is providential. This is clearly what happened to Kim Kollins. But by expressing it as it is in this passage, it leaves no room for the thing to be a mistake. Not only are they setting people up for a huge disappointment, when (as is overwhelmingly likely) nothing much comes of it, but in the meantime anyone who has a different idea is implicitly condemned as opposing God's revealed will.

But it gets worse. Fr Pat Collins writes in an earlier edition of GoodNews of a particular prophecy made by a one charismatic leader as though it were a fifth gospel. He explains his approach in deciding which of the spontaneous and mutually contradictory babblings to believe:
Over the years I have heard many prophecies. It is notoriously hard to know whether they come from God or not. However, there are some which have considerable authority because of the circumstances in which they were spoken, the acknowledged giftedness of the people who spoke them, and the way in which they evoked an answering amen of approval in the Christian community. On Pentecost Monday 1975 such a prophecy was given by Ralph Martin in St Peter’s Basilica, Rome, in the presence of Pope Paul VI.

The Church has a very long experience in dealing with alleged prophecies. Are these the criteria used by the Church? No. Has this been assessed and approved by the proper authorities? No. But never mind - Fr Collins believes it because he thinks Ralph Martin has the Spirit, and they supply a theme for the entire issue of Goodnews.

The tradition calls this 'presumption'. The Church has always exercised great caution with regard to private revelations; even the most carefully investigated are said merely to be 'worthy of belief'; Catholics are never required to accept them. We like to think the founders of religious orders were prompted by God act as they did, but it would be absurd to try to argue that an order should be fostered because it is God's will - rather, we see evidence of God's will in the fruits the order brings forth. CCR, by contrast, constantly tells its followers that this initiative or that has been willed by God, and should be supported for that reason. Unfortunatly, we only have their word for it.

A dismissal of tradition

Rather by silence than by objections, CCR dismisses the Church's traditions: liturgical, spiritual, intellectual, cultural. They have no importance for CCR - what is important is what the Holy Spirit has told them since breakfast.

CCR has become adept at selecting quotations from Popes and the tradition which appear to support their case. This is not difficult because all the fathers and doctors of the Church were deeply concerned with spirituality and the Spirit. What is evident, however, is that all of them would be absolutely horrified if they saw and heard what goes on in charismatic services. It is totally alien to their entire conception of the role of the Spirit in the Christian life.

The Catholic Church was not invented yesterday. When we say she was founded by Our Lord we mean really founded, as a historical fact, by the man Jesus, and not simply 'inspired' by Him. That is why the Church's tradition is so important: it is a continuous and living link to Our Lord. The Church's traditions convey to the present day the will of God and the understanding of that will by the Apostles and subsequent generations. It is through her traditions and enormous historical resources that the Church can be truly renewed: this is the course set for the Church by all her great leaders, and particularly by Pope Benedict XVI.

This means nothing the the CCR. As Our Lord said, 'Who does not gather with me, scatters.' (Mat 12.30)

The verdict of recent Popes

Charismatics love to claim that Paul VI and John-Paul II gave them a complete endorsement. The Wikipedia article on the (international) Catholic Charismatic Renewal is one-sided and very favourable to them, and makes this point at length. The truth is rather different. Here is the summary of Papal teaching given in a superb analysis of the movement published in Christian Order in 2000:

Pope Paul VI on Sept. 3rd 1969 at Castelgandolfo referred to phenomena which "not only offend canon law but also the very heart of Catholic worship, since we find them, dispensing with the institutional structures of the authentic, real and human Church, in the false hope of setting up a free and purely Charismatic Christianity, but which is -really amorphous, evanescent and blown about by any passing wind of passion or fashion. " On Sept. 24th 1969: "Many who talk about the Church today say they are inspired by a prophetic spirit. They make risky and sometimes inadmissible assertions, and appeal to the Holy Spirit as if the Divine Paraclete were at their service at all times; they sometimes do this, unfortunately, with an unspoken intention of freeing themselves from the Church's Magisterium, which enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit. May God grant that this Presumption of elevating a personal judgement or personal experience into a rule or criterion of religious doctrine may notcause havoc. May God never allow that treating these private opinions as charismatic gifts and prophetic inspirations should lead astray so many good and well-meaning people." On Oct. 25th 1972: "a pretentious charismatic sufficiency will not preserve an authentic vivifying presence of the Holy Spirit in these spiritualistic trends, in which, sadly enough, it is often easy to see dissent or profane mentalities infiltrated. The needs of theChurch are very different."

Pope John Paul I had a lot to say, and said it before his election. His very short life as Vicar of Christ on earth, only thirty-three days, providentially brought to the notice of the world what he had written. Addressing St. Theresa of Avila in his book Illustrissimi he says:

Charismatic experiences are not anyone's private reserve. They may be given to anyone: priests and laymen, men and women. It is one thing though, to beable to have visions, and quite another to actually have them. In your Libro de las fundaciones I find written: "a woman penitent told her confessor that the Madonna often came to see her and stayed talking for over an hour, revealing the future and many other things to her. And as something true occasionally emerged from all the nonsense, it all seemed to be true. I realised at once what it was all about ... but merely told the confessor to wait for the result of the prophesies, to find our for himself about the penitent's way of life and to look for further signs of sanctity in her. In the end ... it was seen that her visions were all fantasies." Dear St. Theresa, if only you could come back today! The word "charisma" is squandered. All kinds of people are known as prophets, even the students who confront the-police in the streets, or the guerrillas of Latin America. People try to set up the Charismatics in opposition to the pastors. What would you say? You who obeyed your confessors, even when their advice turned out to be the opposite of that given to you by God in prayer?"

Our present Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, when he addresses Charismatic groups follows the usual format. There is a kindly greeting. There is a word of pleasure and approval that they have gathered in Rome because their choice of Rome shows that they understand the importance of being rooted in that Catholic unity of Faith and charity which finds its visible centre in the See of Peter. Then he teaches, and the teaching, if analysed, is a series of warnings. In general these are:-

Fidelity to the authentic teaching of the Faith. Whatever contradicts this doctrine does not come from the spirit.
Value the gifts which are given in service of the common good.
Pursue that charity alone which brings the Christian to perfection.

Time and again the Holy Father stresses the need for good leaders and good priests with the requisite theology. But in practice, if these leaders and priests become part of the Charismatic Renewal and do not remain outside it, they become moulded by it, gradually moulded by emotional experiences which overthrow in them that which constituted them a possible safeguard for others. If they remain outside, they carry no weight because these Charismatics are not charismatics in the sense that St. Theresa of Avila was.

Conclusion

A priest writer in GoodNews notes sadly
In many places, and not only in the more developed nations, the charismatic renewal is limping badly, diminishing in numbers and in the power of the Holy Spirit, and even dying.

There is hope, he adds. Yes, there is indeed hope that CCR is dying. The great experiment, which it was 'prophesied' would revitalise the Church, has clearly failed - and not for want of enthusiasm or resources. The Popes have warned us against it and the theological problems it raises are manifest. But it is still active in parishes and dioceses up and down the country, and should be exposed for what it is and opposed. Do not let them lead another generation of impressionable, and increasingly badly-formed, young Catholics down the path of Pentecostalism.

For more on the Charismatic movement within the Church, see John Vennari's description a Catholic Charismatic conference, and some theological implications of the movement, here. There is an excellent Christian Order article here, written by someone who was heavily involved in movement in the UK in the 1990s. This article exposes the techniques and realities of charismatic phenomena and how attractive it can be; it deserves a wider audience.

Anti-Life Groups and RC Politicians

2009-05-30T18:33:00.005+01:00

Pro-abortionists often say the Church is too concerned over life issues. What is truly amazing, however, is how little concerned the Church is, in terms of its institutions. Pro-Life groups don't find it easy to give presentations in Catholic schools and parishes; many bishops and priests would rather talk about something else in their sermons; little time and money is allocated to life issues in the clerical bureaucracy. Even more amazing, however, and scandalous, is that organisations and individuals can present themselves as Catholic while rejecting the Church's teaching on these important issues. There is obviously a close connection with the 'Justice and Peace' groups which ignore the issue of abortion or even quietly support the promotion of abortion.

The Anti-Life brigade
Click on the names to see our full dossier on each group

Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) This group was set up by and continues to be funded and promoted by pro-abortion campaigners to undermine the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion. Its leading members are not practicing Catholics, and it has few links even with dissident Catholic groups or theologians (though feminist-influenced groups tend to be committed to abortion, and link their websites to CFFC). The rhetoric of 'choice' is badly chosen, as they oppose the right of doctors to refuse to carry out abortions, and they oppose giving women with crisis pregnancies information or counselling which includes anything about alternatives to abortion.

All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG)/ Passion for Life: The APPPLG is the officially recognised Parliamentary 'Group' campaigning, supposedly, against abortion, euthanasia and so on. Unsurprisingly, it is dominated by Catholic Members of Parliament. It has come as a shock to discover, on closer examination, that the individual views of officers of the APPPLG are not consistently pro-life, and that this ambivalence has found its way into their policy in Parliament, and in the campaign materials produced by a lobbying group, Passion for Life, which the APPPLG set up. Typically, officers of the APPPLG do not oppose legal abortion in principle: they tend to the view that there is simply 'too much abortion'. The Passion for Life campaign postcards, which were distributed in Catholic churches, included the slogan 'Abortion should be rare', an astonishing claim for a 'pro-life' group to make.

The APPPLG and Passion for life can be criticised on pro-life grounds; its members can also be criticised as Catholic politicians, who appear as such in the Catholic Directory, who are clearly dissenting from the teaching of the Church: see below.

Dissenting 'Catholic' Politicians
Only the most prominent are listed here.

John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life. (Paragraph 4 of the CDF document on The participation of Catholics in political life)

Jim Dobbin accepts abortion when the mother's life is in danger

Lord Alton accepts abortion for the severely disabled.

Claire Curtis-Thomas is 'not against abortion'.

Ann Widdecombe accepts IVF.

John Gummer supported the Civil Partnerships Act

Tony Blair is anti-Catholic in almost every possible way

Ruth Kelly refused to vote against the bill to allow human-animal hybrids

Clare Short supported the hybrids bill

Aging Trendies

2009-05-30T18:26:00.005+01:00

It is hard to know how to characterise these groups, who dissent on practically every aspect of Church teaching. What they have in common is that they are part of a phenomenon left over from the 1970s, the golden era of dissent, when it seemed possible that the Church would simply abolish clerical celibacy, ordain women, have lay-led Eucharists and in general 'get with it'.

Those who marry the spirit of the age are condemned to become widows. And this is what has happened to these sad people. What is astonishing, and scandalous, is that in certain ways they are still able to use Catholic resources and influence Catholics. For this reason they need to be exposed for what they are.

Click on the names to see our full dossier on each group.

Catholics for a Changing Church formerly 'Catholic Renewal Movement'. A collection of aging 'trendies' who dissent from the Church's teaching on an enormous range of issues: not only sexual morality but sacramental theology, the liturgy, authority in the Church, the ordination of women, etc. etc.. Many of their views on these other issues are present in the background of the single-issue groups, with many of which they have close links. An important part of a network of dissent.

Advent Group This is composed of former Catholic priests and religious, who, having abandoned their vows, now campaign to end celibacy for the clergy, and for their members to be reinstated in pastoral ministry, partly on the basis of views of the priesthood completely incompatible with Catholic teaching. Another part of the network of dissent.

Catholic Charismatic Renewal Big in the 1980s and early 1990s, their bizarre mixture of Catholicism with what they openly describe as Pentecostalism is now firmly on the wane. In continues to do damage, however, by exposing young Catholics to exaggerated and entirely untested claims of healing and spiritual experiences, and fostering a focus on feelings rather than the sacraments and the Church's teaching.

Feminism and Homosexuality

2009-05-30T18:16:00.003+01:00

Feminism, as an ideology, is clearly completely contrary to the Catholic view of human nature and to Catholic practice. The fact that serious feminists regard an all-male clergy as inherently unjust gives the game away. Amazingly feminists have nevertheless been able not only to enter official Church structures but even exercise an ideological domination of them, through 'Women Word Spirit' and its historic stranglehold on the National Board of Catholic Women.

Just as Catholic women are the special targets of prosletising militant feminists, homosexual Catholics are targetted by militant gay groups which reject the teaching of the Church on sexuality and embrace the gay sub-culture. What is amazing, again, is that they have been able to do this for decades with some measure of official approval.

Click on the names to see our full dossier on each group.

Marriage Care, formerly the 'Catholic Marriage Advisory Service', then 'Catholic Marriage Care'. It is no longer 'Catholic' in its self-description but it is still in the Catholic Directory. Once a worthy organisation dedicated to marriage counseling, now they want to help people in all 'relationships', and undermine the Church's teaching on the nature of marriage and homosexuality. They also promote sex education, of a kind completely at variance with the Church's guidelines. The Chairman of Marriage Care has repeatedly spoken in favour of homosexual unions.

Women Word Spirit (WWS), formerly Catholic Women's Network (CWN). Recently ejected from the Catholic Directory, it still has a stranglehold on the National Board of Catholic Women, an official consultative body of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales, and its quarterly newspaper 'Catholic Omnibus' (which is now to be published only as a download). As Feminists they ceaselessly campaign for women's ordination, and also support abortion. They are part of a network of dissenting groups on the issues of contraception, the liturgy, clerical celibacy, homosexuality, and the role of women in the Church.

Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (RCCLGCM)/ Soho Masses Pastoral Council (SMPC)
&
Quest
Two very similar organisations seeking to undermine the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Although neither is listed in the national Catholic Directory (Quest was ejected in 1998 for refusing to 'clarify' its position on homosexual sex) they have considerable success at local level organising Masses and other events with the agreement of bishops and priests. At their events, and in their literature, there is a pervasive assumption that a homosexual couple's sexual relationship is perfectly ok, and that the Church's teaching to the contrary is 'fallible' and wrong. They are supported by a handful of dissident theologians. They campaign to guide or even be put in charge of the pastoral care of homosexual Catholics, a remarkable attempt by the wolf to apply for the shepherd's job.

Catholics for AIDS Prevention and Support (CAPS)/Positive Catholic (successor to 'Catholic AIDS Link'): another organisation promoting dissent about homosexuality. It has close links to RCCLGCM, and is listed in the Catholic Directory. As Positive Catholics it organises an annual retreat in Douai Abbey.

The arguments used by apologists for these groups are examined here.

The Archbishop Romero Trust: an interesting over-lap between 'Justice and Peace' dissent (CAFOD, Progressio etal.) and the homosexual dissent. The Chair is Julian Filochowski, a former director of CAFOD, whose civil partner is Martin Pendergast, the leading figure in the RCCLGCM, SMPC and CAPS. So we find CAPS Masses promoting Romero (or Romero Masses promoting CAPS?) and both being promoted by the Justice and Peace establishment.

'Justice and Peace': dissident 'Catholic' groups

2009-05-30T17:51:00.005+01:00

Catholics are naturally concerned with Justice and Peace. What characterises these groups is their complete unconcern about the issues of justice and peace about which Catholics have an important contribution to make to the contemporary debate as Catholics, and their fixation on issues - some genuine, some laregely imaginary - which are popular with the spectrum of opinion represented in the pages of the Guardian. So instead of talking about abortion, the lethal exploitation of the embryo, and the destruction of the family, they talk about third-world debt and climate change.

That, however, is not enough for us to include them in this list. For them to be there there must be pretty solid indications that they do not simply ignore Church teaching, but actually reject it. The joining in with the left-liberal establishment's agenda places the leaders of these organisations in a social context in which support for condoms to fight AIDS, contraception, abortion, and 'non-traditional family structures and lifestyles' is simply taken for granted. So with or without some attempts to veil the fact, these organisations reject the Church's teaching on these issues, to a greater or lesser extent.

What these groups are promoting is the same tired old rubbish as the government, the BBC, and secular quangos and NGOs. But they are doing it with Catholic volunteers and Catholic donations, with the approval of the Bishops (they all appear in the Catholic Directory for England and Wales) and therefore with special access to Catholic schools and parishes. This is a scandal and it must stop.

Click on the names of the groups to see our full dossier on each one.

The 'Justice and Peace' brigade.

Catholic Agency For Overseas Development (CAFOD) An official agency of the Bishops' Conference, contrary to its protestations, and to the repeated teaching of the Church, it promotes the use of condoms to combat AIDS. It also has a bizarre habit of employing people who reject the Church's teaching on sexuality in their private lives, or line their pockets at the taxpayer's expense: see a separate dossier here.

Progressio formerly Catholic Institute of International Relations (CIIR) It no longer calls itself 'Catholic' but still wants to milk its Catholic history to undermine Church teaching. It attacks the Church's position on the use of condoms against AIDS, and is also linked to groups which promote abortion.

livesimply, a joint project of CAFOD and Progressio, presents itself as applying Catholic teaching on justice, compassion for the poor and concern for the environment, but instead of doing anything - even mentioning - abortion, practical almsgiving, or anything else distinctively Catholic it wants Catholic parishes to promote low-energy lightbulbs and turning down the heating to 'save the planet'. Their 'ecumenical partner' is 'Christian Ecology Link', which supports not only contraception, but abortion, and even the forced abortions of the Chinese 'one child policy': this is so appalling we have done a dossier on them as well.

Pax Christi, a political campaigning group opposing nuclear weapons, the war in Iraq etc., consistently misrepresenting the Church's teaching on war. Without claiming to be a Catholic organisation in its self-description, it is not only listed in the Catholic Directory but collects money on 'Peace Sunday' in parish churches. It is part of the 'Justice and Peace' establishment which produces much hot air on global poverty while ignoring abortion, euthanasia and the attack on the family.

National Justice and Peace Network, an umbrella group and campaigning organisation working from diocesan offices around the country and promoting the ideas of all the above organisations.

The Archbishop Romero Trust, ostensibly promoting knowledge of the Servant of God Archbishop Romero, it has extremely close links to the militant homosexual groups noted here.

Thank you James!

2009-05-28T18:58:00.001+01:00

Both for the note of thanks on your blog for what we have been doing on this one, and for this brilliant picture:
James's Rule of Thumb:

If it seems inappropriate to put something in a thought bubble above an Archbishop's head, then it's probably inapropriate to show it to little girls without their parents' consent. Got it? Good.

Like James I find it hard to be charitable and optimistic about this situation.

Oh and by the way, this is the famous mis-labelled diagramme which is in the 'All That I Am' book approved by the Archdioces of Birmingham (under Vincent Nichols) and also by the Government's notorious Teenage Pregancy Unity. What sort of sex education did they get, to think that is a urethra?

And perhaps that is the worst thing about modern life - not just tyranny, but the tyranny of half-wits.

CAFOD people

2009-05-25T13:09:00.006+01:00

Catholic Aid for Oversease Development (CAFOD) is well known for its dissent from the teaching of the Church on the use of condoms to combat AIDS; we have covered that in a dossier here. But as is invariably the case, this is not a case of faithful Catholics struggling with their consciences, but a bunch of very self-confident and well-paid liberals with no more than cultural and institutional links to the Church hi-jacking a once-Catholic organisation.

A former Director of CAFOD, Julian Filochowski, has caused a series of scandals by his public rejection of the Church's teaching. First, he entered a civil partnership with his long-term boyfriend, Martin Pendergast, who happens to be a militant homosexual activist who spoke at a conference which condemned the Pope as a homophobe. Then the happy couple celebrated their anniversary with a Mass, which until the news broke was to have been celebrated Bishop Crowley, then of Middlesbrough. Finally the same anniversary was the occasion of a book attacking the Pope and the teaching of the Church. See our post here.

CAFOD recruited Dermot O'Leary to head a fund-raising drive, despite the fact that this 'celebrity' is living openly in sin and publicly rejects the Church's teaching on contraception.

It seems that the current Director, Chris Bain (picture), shares a house with a Labour minister, Paul Goggins, and the pair have been caught out helping themselves a little generously to the House of Commons allowances, which are coming under increased scrutiny. It would be hard to think of a neater summary of the problems of the gang running so many Catholic instutions: a little too cosy with Labour, rejecting the Church's teachings, and with their snouts in the trough.

From The Daily Telegraph: Mr Goggins shares the house in south-east London with Chris Bain, who is the director of the Catholic aid charity Cafod and a friend since university.

They have lived together for the past 11 years. For the past three years, Mr Goggins, the MP for Wythenshawe and Sale East, has designated the property as his “second home” and claimed almost £45,000 in expenses for it. He did not tell the Commons fees office that he shared it.

...Mr Goggins sat on the board of Cafod until June 2003 and was Charities Minister in 2005-06, when the size of Cafod’s government grant rose by nearly a third to £5.7 million. It dropped by a fifth the following year when Mr Goggins moved to the Northern Ireland Office but he said yesterday that he had no role in the funding of Cafod, which dealt primarily with the Department for International Development.

See the full story. Hat-tip to the Muniment Room.

Nichols: the sex ed scandal that won't go away

2009-05-25T12:30:00.004+01:00

The Times and the left-wing press are trying to tar our newly installed Archbishop of Westminster with the Irish sex abuse scandal. This is a pretty low trick: he obviously isn't responsible for those crimes, and has condemned them. But there is something he is fully and completely responsible for, and that is the deliberate sexualisation of children in Catholic schools. I'm glad to say that, as a result of the Government's increasingly totalitarian drive on sex ed, the issue is being raised more and more urgently: see an excellent long post on the Sensible Bond, a letter from Eric Hester in the Catholic Times, and Jackie Parkes (and here).

What the sex education programme Archbishop has endorsed as Chairman of the Catholic Education Service and as Archbishop of Birmingham does can only be described as grooming children for illegal, underage sexual activity - just as the Government wants it to. The Catholic Education Service's defiance of Church teaching on sex education places it completely outside the Catholic debate. What is going on? Do they think that Catholics could volunteer to be death-camp guards if they were a little less brutal to the inmates than the other candidates for the job?

We have no inside information but we can say this. Bishops bear a responsibility for all the souls in their dioceses. Parents bear a responsibility for the souls of their children. Nothing the CES or the Government can say or do can change that. There is plenty of room in hell.

Matthew 18, ⁶whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

⁷Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

⁸Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. ⁹And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

¹⁰Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Immodest 'Theology of the Body' condemned

2009-05-25T10:18:00.000+01:00

Update: another very good critique of Christopher West has been published here.by David L. Schindler, Provost/Dean and Gagnon Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. This again points out that West uses the most revolting and immodest language and clearly fails to grasp the doctrine of Original Sin.

Comment, 17/05/09: this is a real problem - some Catholics who promote the 'Theology of the Body' are so keen to show they are not 'prudes' or 'Puritans' that they end up speaking immodestly and encouraging an attitude to sexuality which undermines purity. Hefner, mentioned below, was a depraved advocate of pornography. Alice von Hildebrand's words here are extremely wise: sex should be treated with sensitivity. The 'intimate sphere' is 'not a topic of public discussion'. It should horrify Catholics that theologians, catechists and Catholic teachers should consider talking about sexual desire and sexual experience with a view to desensitizing their hearers - that is exactly the aim of the radical sexual agenda.

From CFNews: Renowned Catholic thinker Dr. Alice von Hildebrand has criticized Theology of the Body speaker Christopher West, saying his approach has become too self-assured. She criticized his presentations as irreverent and insensitive to the 'tremendous dangers' of concupiscence.

Also cautious of West's remarks on his recent interview with ABC television were Mary Shivanandan and Fr. José Granados, both Catholic authors and theologians.

The news segment showed him calling for Catholics to complete 'what the sexual revolution began.' He also described 'very profound' historical connections between Hugh Hefner and Pope John Paul II.

West spoke to CNA on Friday, claiming the report somewhat sensationalized his views. He also denied several characterizations conveyed by the news story, explaining that he believed Hefner to be right in rejecting 'the disease of Puritanism' but radically wrong in beginning the 'pornographic revolution.'

He had told ABC that Hefner had a 'yearning,' an 'ache' and a 'longing' for love, union and intimacy.

In a Monday interview CNA spoke about West with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, a Catholic philosopher and theologian who is professor emerita of Hunter College of the City University of New York.

Dr. von Hildebrand said she knew the 'gist' of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body and believed it was 'very indebted' to her husband Dietrich von Hildebrand's 1927 book 'In Defense of Purity.' She said there is obviously an 'abysmal difference' between the views shared by her husband and John Paul II and those presented by Christopher West.

Reporting that she had seen CNA's follow-up interview with West, Dr. Von Hildebrand was very critical of the speaker.

'My feeling is that Christopher West has become famous because he started discussing the Theology of the Body, which is extremely appealing topic. The difficulty is that, in the meantime, he became so famous that I do believe he has become much too self-assured and has lost sight of the extreme sensitivity of the topic.'

This is 'very troubling' because what she calls the 'intimate sphere' is something 'very mysterious, very profound, something that has a direct relationship with God.'

'My feeling is that his vocabulary and his way of approaching it totally lacks reverence.'

'Reverence is the key to purity,' she told CNA.' The intimate sphere 'is not a topic of public discussion' but is 'extremely serious.'

'It seems to me that his presentation, his vocabulary, the vulgarity of things that he uses are things that simply indicate that even though he might have good intentions he has derailed and is doing a lot of harm.'

She said people should not forget that we have been 'profoundly affected' by original sin.

'In paradise there was perfect harmony between Adam and Eve. There was no concupiscence.'

'After original sin, not only were we separated from God and condemned to losing eternity. On top of it, every single human faculty was affected. Our intelligence was darkened. Our will was weakened. And all of a sudden, we had the dreadful experience of something called concupiscence.

Before the Fall, there was no inner temptation to impurity between Adam and Eve even though they were naked, she explained. After they sinned, the two started to look at one another with concupiscence.

The Fall had consequences that are 'so serious' that it was only the Redemption and the grace of God could remedy.

The fight against concupiscence is 'not an easy process,' Dr. von Hildebrand continued. 'It is something that calls for holiness, which very few of us achieve. It is a sheer illusion to believe that by some sort of new technique we can find the solution to the problem.'

While one can lead a holy life in marriage, she said to become a saint is 'a long and difficult process that calls for a spirit of penance, a readiness to sacrifice.'

'The tragedy of original sin is that all the beautiful male qualities of strength, courage, objectivity, nobility, a chivalrous attitude towards women, degenerated. The danger created by original sin is that many men use their strength and become brutal and abuse women or look at women as mere objects of pleasure.

'Eve was also profoundly affected by original sin,' she added.

'To my mind the conflict between man and woman can only be healed by striving for holiness,' she said. 'There are many things Christopher West does not mention.'

Additionally, she charged that West does not mention the Old Testament figures who fell to sexual sin: David, King of Israel, who was blessed in 'an extraordinary way' but ordered the murder of the husband of a woman with whom David committed adultery.

'Adulteries lead to murder. It is one of the most abominable stories you can imagine,' she said, explaining the Prophet Nathan's rebuke of David led to the composition of Psalm 50.

She said it was upsetting to her as a youth to learn that a young man who prayed for 'the straight and honest heart so that I may serve my people' went on to have 750 concubines.

'How can you be so good when you're twenty, and lead such an abominable life when you're seventy?' she asked. 'As far as I can tell, this is something that Christopher West forgets, in this sphere which is extremely dangerous.'

She reported that a priest friend of hers had told her 90 percent of the sins that men accuse themselves of involve the Sixth Commandment against adultery.

Christopher West's approach makes him forget that sex is 'an extreme danger.' Though sex can be sanctified, that sanctification implies 'a humility, a spirit of reverence, and totally avoiding the vulgarity that he uses in his language.'

'I'm shocked and horrified by the words that he uses. His mere mention of Hugh Hefner is to my mind an abomination.'

Mary Shivanandan, a theologian who authored the book 'Crossing the Threshold of Love: A New Vision of Marriage in the Light of John Paul II's Anthropology,' was also critical of West's remarks.

'The sublime teaching of John Paul II's theology of sexuality is not well served by West's comparison to Hugh Hefner and his playboy bunnies,' she told CNA in a Monday e-mail. 'The late pope had a profound reverence for God's plan for human love, which such a comparison, no matter how well intentioned, can only diminish and degrade.'

Also providing comment for CNA was Fr. José Granados, a theologian who co-authored with Supreme Knight of Columbus Carl Andersen a book on John Paul II's Theology of the Body titled 'Called to Love.'

Fr. Granados said West's suggestion that John Paul II took the sexual revolution a step further was 'highly inadequate and open to serious misunderstanding.' He explained that Puritanism shares with pornography a negative vision of the body, viewing it without reference to the dignity of the person and to God's plan for man.

'It is deprived of its symbolism and its language,' he said. While Puritanism attempts to silence the body and its urges, the sexual revolution exalts them 'as an absolute.'

'Pornography is in no sense an attempt to recover the beauty of the body and sexuality, but a sign of despair regarding this beauty and the possibility of finding meaning in human love,' he said.

John Paul II's Theology of the Body recovers 'the meaning of the body' with reference to love and to man and God, Fr. Granados told CNA.

'The Pope's proposal is not just about sexuality, but about the truth of love as the foundation of the person's dignity and the meaning of reality; and about the family as the place where the person finds himself and his way towards happiness.

'Moreover, one of the results of the sexual revolution is precisely the pansexualism that surrounds our society. We cannot respond with a different kind of pansexualism, with a sort of 'Catholic sexual revolution,' which in the end promotes a similar obsession with sex, even if 'holy'.' [CNA]

CAUK news service to be suspended

2009-05-23T19:59:00.003+01:00

Keeping up with the flow of news requires more time than the contributors to CAUK are able to devote to the task, and we have decided to stop.

We aim to keep the 'dossiers' on dissident Catholic groups up to date; we think that this is the most important service offered by this blog.

The news appearing on the blog is usually available on the news services provided by SPUC, the Christian Institute, and CFNews (from the National Association of Catholic Families); C-Fam is an excellent source on developments at the United Nations and the EU. If you want to stay informed about the growing intolerance of Catholic belief and practice in the UK today we recommend these sources - they will send you email bulletins if you sign up for them.

For CFNews, email the editor: editor@nacfnews.demon.co.uk

For SPUC, see here.

For the Christian Institute, see here.

For C-Fam's 'Friday Fax, see here.

Marriage Care head praises civil partnerships

2009-05-19T15:53:00.004+01:00

Briefing. This will not surprise readers who have seen our dossier on Marriage Care. This organisation is still listed the Catholic Directory.

From CFNews: Terry Prendergast, chief executive of Marriage Care says that the graces of the sacrament might also be found in other forms of relationships than heterosexual marriage.

In a speech to the Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement Mr Prendergast said: 'I have been thinking more and more of the sacrament of relationships, rather than the sacrament of marriage, if we are to believe that God's presence is expressed through all committed and loving relationships.

'It is my belief that the sacrament is present where you have love, commitment, consent, and covenant,' he said. 'On this basis I wonder how it is possible for anyone to make an adverse judgment about such relationships'.

But Victoria Gillick, the Catholic family campaigner, called for his resignation. 'He should go.' she said. 'Children do best within marriage and marriage is good for men and women but for the last 20 years it has not been at the forefront of Government policies and fewer people are getting married and more children are suffering. It really has to be explained, defended and supported by the 'best hearts and minds in the Catholic Church. ' [Catholic Herald]

Gay partnership used for tax dodge

2009-05-18T15:51:00.000+01:00

Briefing. The law was and remains a complete nonsense.

From CFNews: The homosexual lover of the late comedy actor, Frankie Howerd, has entered into a civil partnership with the couple's 'son' to avoid paying inheritance tax.

The news will confirm the warnings of one financial advisor who criticised the Civil Partnership legislation when it was being proposed in 2003, calling it 'a tax dodgers' charter'.

A pair of elderly sisters who have shared a home for many years, caring for each other, cannot make use of the law because they are related.

According to the Daily Mail, 82-year-old Dennis Heymer has entered a homosexual civil partnership with Chris Byrne, 42.

Mr Heymer was manager and boyfriend for nearly four decades to Frankie Howerd, famed for his roles in Carry On films.

The pair met Mr Byrne as a 17-year-old when they lived in London. Mr Byrne then followed them to their Somerset home, after they took the teenager under their wing.

He has lived on the estate since Mr Howerd's death in 1992 where he now cares for the elderly Mr Heymer.

He says that he decided to marry the man who called him his 'adopted son' (although they are not officially related) so he could legally inherit the £800,000 four-bedroom cottage.

'The civil ceremony protects us legally with the property that Frank left Dennis and with my inheritance,' Mr Byrne is quoted as saying.

'It's not a romantic relationship, but it's a caring one. I look after Dennis because he's very frail now.'

In April 2008 two elderly sisters lost their legal battle to enjoy the same tax benefits as same-sex couples who register for civil partnerships.

The result meant that either Joyce Burden or her sister Sybil could be hit with a crippling inheritance tax bill if one of them dies, forcing their home to be sold to pay the bill.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 allows same-sex couples to register as civil partners, exempting them from inheritance tax. However, the Act prevents partnerships from being registered between close relatives.

Before the law was passed it was argued by The Christian Institute and others that it ought to be extended to allow long-term cohabiting family members to register as civil partners, in the same way as same-sex couples. This would have made civil partnerships fairer and less like 'gay marriage'.

The plan was supported by 84 per cent of the public, and an amendment to include it in the new law was accepted by the House of Lords, but defeated in the Commons.

When the Civil Partnership legislation was being proposed in 2003 financial advisor Mike Warburton said: 'It would not make sense to allow any couple living together - whether gay or heterosexual - the same rights as married couples unless they also accept the obligations that go with that; otherwise, it will turn into a tax dodgers' charter.' [Christian Institute]

WHO's fantasy statistics to promote abortion

2009-05-18T15:45:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

From C-Fam: 2 Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. writes : A newly released research paper identifies structural flaws in United Nations (UN) data collection and analysis of global maternal health, finding that UN maternal heath policies based on the bad data are jeopardizing women's health in the developing world.

The paper, 'Removing the Roadblocks from Achieving MDG 5 by Improving the Data on Maternal Mortality,' by Donna Harrison, M.D., was published by the International Organizations Research Group (IORG) [IORG is a division of C-FAM, publisher of the Friday Fax]. The paper shows how the World Health Organization's (WHO) guidelines to UN member states require nations to collect faulty data while at the same time pressuring them to enact UN policies such as liberalizing abortion laws based on that data.

Harrison finds that the WHO's Reproductive Health Indicators are flawed because of 'quasi-legal, rather than scientifically-based definitions used to define maternal health.' Specifically, she examines WHO documents that equate 'safe abortion' to legal abortion, and 'unsafe abortion' to illegal abortion. Harrison said that even pro-abortion groups have taken WHO to task for its faulty definitions. She gives the example of Marie Stopes International, which claims that the abortions it performs in countries where it is illegal are safe.

WHO definitions also create confusion about the true number of deaths attributable to abortion, Harrison argues. This is because WHO guidelines require hospitals to count deaths from miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) in calculating maternal mortality, but not deaths from planned abortions. Maternal deaths due to planned, induced abortion are therefore not required to be recorded in government statistics, and the extent to which such abortions harm women is impossible to measure.

Despite this fact, WHO is promoting planned abortion as a way to improve maternal health. Citing WHO's 2006 report 'Sexual and Reproductive Health: Laying the Foundation for a More Just World through Research and Action,' Harrison says that 'the report details its extensive research and promotion of chemical or medical abortions in developing countries using mifepristone and misoprostol and manual vacuum aspirators, a technique used by some to perform abortions in countries where the practice is illegal under the auspices of 'fertility regulation.'…Without accurate data collection and analysis, the effects of such changes are often not perceived until years after damage has been done and may not be reversible at that late point.'

Harrison quotes WHO researchers who admit to 'adjusting the data' up to 50 percent based upon what they 'expect to find' in order 'to make the numbers turn out right.' To improve WHO statistics and policies Harrison offers several policy recommendations, including the collection of data 'for all pregnancy outcomes,' separating the data on miscarriages and induced termination, and refining the definition of 'induced abortion' to distinguish among terminations medically necessary to save the life of the mother, voluntary terminations performed in the hospital, and voluntary terminations performed in an outpatient setting.

If WHO does not improve what one World Bank researcher calls 'tortuous statistical techniques and educated guessing,' Harrison concludes, 'Policy decisions will be founded on political assumptions, rather than scientific fact.' [C-FAM]

Home abortion drug: high failure rate

2009-05-16T10:03:00.000+01:00

Briefing: something you should know as abortionists push for the wider availability of over-the-counter or GP Surgury abortions.

from Lifesitenews: Abortion advocates have promoted the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 (mifepristone) in part by saying it can cause an abortion without women having to have a surgical abortion. However, a new study shows the abortion drug fails anywhere from 16-23 percent of the time. When the mifepristone abortion drug fails, a follow-up surgical abortion is necessary because an incomplete abortion can result in major medical problems, including death. Melissa Strafford of the Boston Medical Center presented the results of her study at the recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists annual meeting. The abortion drug failed to complete the abortion in 23 percent of the women getting the two drugs simultaneously and failed to finish the abortion process for 16 percent of the women getting the drugs 48 hours apart. For Dr. Randy O'Bannon, the director of research and education for National Right to Life, there failure rates and need for surgical abortions present bigger problems for women. 'Those who have developed and promoted RU 486 have told women that the abortifacient offers them a way to have an abortion without the risk of surgery,' he told LifeNews.com. 'Attempts to make the process more convenient for women, for the clinics, may help the industry attract more customers, but as this latest study shows, it exposes women to additional risks.' [LifeNews]

Thanks for the link, Damian!

2009-05-16T09:28:00.002+01:00

Damian Thompson does us the favour of linking to our story 'Bread Worship in Cumbria' about the bizarre letter in The Tablet purporting to describe a spontaneous lay eucharistic celebration in a Catholic parish church. The Tablet has issued another 'clarificatioin' in its letters page:

"A letter from Michelle Street entitled 'Act of memory' was published in the Tablet on 11 April. It described a moment in a church where parishioners took over the celebration of the Eucharist when the priest was unable to attend to celebrate Mass. This letter caused great interest, as well as consternation, among some readers. We published the letter in good faith, but it has since emerged after lengthy enquiries that the address in Grasmere, Cumbria, given on the letter does not exist, which causes us to be concerned that the letter might not have been genuine. We therefore apologise to readers and assure them that there will be even greater vigilance in future to establish that correspondence is authentic."

We were just about to post on this when Damian T. beat us to it, linking to us too - which is particularly gentlemanly since, he says, we are 'not fans of mine or this blog, I should add'. It is of course worth linking to CAUK for the 'full story' because we are the only publicly accessible place on the internet which has the full text of the original letter: you have to be a Tablet subscriber to see it on their website.

It's true that we've criticised Damian Thompson on occasion, but we've also given him credit where it is due. Perhaps Damian, like many people who post comments on this blog, can't understand how anyone in the blogosphere should have a good word for someone when they do something good, and criticism when the same person does something bad. Our approach seems obvious to us but it seems that almost no provocation would get Catholic Truth to say something nice about the bishops, or the Hermeneutic of Continuity to recognise when Joanna Bogle had made a mistake. That's the Punch and Judy nature of the medium, perhaps.

Children adopted by homosexual couples more likely to be bullied

2009-05-16T07:34:00.003+01:00

Comment: this is pretty obvious, but the important point here is that the Scottish Executive has tried to suppress this report about the effects on children of homosexual children, and appear determined to ignore children's needs.

From the Christian Institute: Children adopted by same-sex parents are likely to face bullying, according to a report that the Scottish Government tried to keep secret.

However, same-sex parents are likely to turn a blind eye for fear of being blamed, according to the review of eight studies into gay adoption which ministers have now released under a freedom of information request.

Critics of gay adoption say the Government should have conducted more research into its effect on children before deciding to allow it in Scotland in 2006.

See the full story.

Critique of the 'new Catechetics'

2009-05-15T09:53:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

An extract from an article on the Christendom Awake! website. Hat-tip to CFNews.

Citing a few of the developments in catechetical thinking that took place in the 1950s and the 1960s, she [Jane E. Regan] then goes on to conclude that "not even primarily" does catechesis take place "within an instructional setting . . . . It is not primarily instruction, but the very life of the faith community that shapes and forms our faith . . . . catechesis involves engaging with the ways in which faith comes to expression within our community—communal living, proclamation, teaching, liturgy, and service."

These are conclusions drawn by the modern catechetical movement, and therefore, in Regan's view, they must take precedence over whatever a Catechism or the GCD might say to the contrary. Also in the view of this particular author, the whole catechetical question has now been changed from "How are we to cover all of the topics in our time of instruction?" to "How are we to live within these dimensions of Christian life and learn to reflect on that living?" Once we recognize the community as the agent of catechesis, it becomes clear that the content of catechesis is not something we give or present to the learners, but rather a reality that we attempt to live out and incarnate with the life of the community.

But once we have accepted that "the content of catechesis is not something we give or present to the learners", we are reluctantly obliged to add: then the way has surely been opened up, and the justification handily provided, for henceforth giving little or nothing in the way of formal instruction at all—and for including no substance or truth content at all in catechesis. This, of course, is exactly the unhappy contemporary situation in catechesis, which so many Catholics have noticed and have been complaining about for a long time. This author's formulation of the question,
it would seem, is just one more variant of the widely noted tendency in modern religiou education simply to provide the students with "experiences" rather than trying to "teach" them anything, that is, the truths of the faith as they have been developed and handed down to us in the Church since apostolic times with the help of the Holy Spirit.

It is no accident, by the way, that this sort of new catechetical theory, which eschews content, gets itself adopted by professional Catholic religious educators at the very same time as their colleagues in secular education are also engaged in "dumbing down" intellectual content in modern education generally. Thus, in more ways than one, do Catholic religious educators today seem to be looking to the world for their inspiration and models far more than to the Church.

In the true Catholic context, of course, the antidoctrinal viewpoint of the new catechesis fundamentally misunderstands and misrepresents Christian faith. This faith is based first of all on the truths about God and about God's plan for us, revealed first in the Scriptures concerned with the history of God's chosen people and finally revealed in the life and words of Jesus Christ, who intended these things to be perpetuated in his Church. The new catechists make a crucial and fundamental mistake When they try to belittle or drop truth (again, "doctrine") and then perhaps imagine that they can still go on exhorting their students to be "good" and "loving", to serve justice, or to help the poor, and so on.

But what they have abandoned is the possibility of being able to give their students any reasons why they should serve justice or help the poor. Why should the students bother, when the whole secular culture urges them so insistently in the direction of self-will and self-satisfaction instead? The results of the attempt of the new catechesis to "catechize", while downgrading or dropping revealed truth were always bound to be disappointing in the nature of the case, and that is exactly the way things have turned out. The Catechism of the Catholic Church had to come, and
not a moment too soon.

Opponents of gay adopted 'retarded'

2009-05-14T18:52:00.002+01:00

Briefing. This has caused a storm. The Mail points out that the BAAF, which made the remark, are so concerned to avoid sending black children to white homes, or working class children to middle class homes, that they are placing fewer and fewer children with anyone. But the interests of the child are cast to the winds when it comes to homosexuals: as far as gay couples are concerned adoption is a service to which they have a right.

From the Daily Mail, in part: The British Association for Adoption and Fostering sets rules and organises training for social workers across the country. Every local council with a children's services department is a paying member of the organisation, and the bulk of its £6million-a-year budget comes from the taxpayer. It runs the national adoption register for the Department of Children, Schools and Families.

The 'retarded homophobe' attack was published in a BAAF guide to adoption for homosexual couples.

It was repeated in its newspaper Be My Parent, which advertises children who need homes. Would-be gay adopters were told: 'Most importantly, don't worry about society. Children need good parents much more than retarded homophobes need an excuse to whinge, so don't let your worries about society's reaction hinder your desire and ability to give a child a loving caring home.'

See the full story.

Daphne MacLeod's catechetical DVDs on sale

2009-05-14T18:30:00.006+01:00

Comment: the chaps at PEEP and CFNews still have a little learn about links. See Daphne MacLeod's DVD series on sale here and follow the instructions, or follow the mad series of steps described below!

This is highly recommended.

From CFnews: Daphne Mcleod's recent EWTN series on 'Discovering Our Glorious Faith ' is now available on DVD. On four discs Daphne discusses basic truths about: Almighty God - The Blessed Trinity - Sanctifying Grace - Ourselves in God's Image - Our Lady - The Church - the Bible Promise of a Redeemer - Jesus' Life on Earth - The Blessed Sacrament - The Moral Law - The Sacramental System - Our Life of Prayer - the Four Last Things.

This series is designed to help parents, teachers and catechists present the truths of the Faith to their charges. It is also being used in parishes as an Adult Education Course and by priests instructing converts. To purchase the set of four discs containing thirteen 30 minute talks, visit the EWTN web-site ( http://www.ewtn.com) click on to 'Religious Catalogue' and then on the 'Quick Shop ' option at the foot of the page and enter order Number HDDOGF The cost is $40 plus p+p. 1543.36

Evangelium conference

2009-05-14T18:26:00.000+01:00

Event

Frm CFNews: Evangelium Conference 7th-9th August 2009, 'Explaining the Catholic Faith in the Modern World'. Speakers include David Quinn, journalist, former editor of The Irish Catholic' and founder of the Iona Institute; Fr Brian Harrison, theologian, writer and associate editor of 'Living Tradition'; Dr Helen Watt, director of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics, London; oFr Timothy Finigan, blogger and founder of Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life; Fr Nicholas Schofield, historian, author and Westminster diocesan archivist ; Joanna Bogle, broadcaster and writer; Dr Thomas Pink, philosopher, King s College, London; Fiorella Nash, writer and pro-life campaigner; Fr Jerome Bertram, author and historian; Fr Jeremy Davies, author and exorcist for Westminster; Fr Thomas Crean OP, author of 'A Catholic Replies to Professor Dawkins'; Dr James Bogle, barrister, vice-chairman of the Catholic Union; Fr Andreew Pinsent, philosopher and former particle physicist at CERN.

For more information or to reserve a place, visit http://www.evangelium.co.uk. Tel 07526 908741. Email : evanngeliumproject@gmail.com, or write to Evangelium, PO Box 28, Tenby SA69 9ZB. Price: Standard Accommodation (full board): just £95. Spaces are limited to 180 guests, so please book now.

Euro Parliament refuses to condemn Pope over condoms

2009-05-14T10:04:00.000+01:00

Briefing. A rare victory of common sense in the EU talking shop.

From Lifesitenews: The European Parliament has rejected a measure to condemn Pope Benedict XVI's anti-condom remarks, which he made during a trip to Africa in March.

The vote was 253-199 with 61 abstentions. The measure was intended to 'energetically condemn the recent declarations of the Pope, who has prohibited the use of condoms and has warned that condoms can even bring about a greater risk of illness.'

On March 17, the Pope told a reporter who asked about AIDS prevention that 'one cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they risk increasing the problem.'

The Pope's statements, which have provoked a firestorm of criticism from UN officials and anti-family politicians such as Tony Blair, are supported by an increasing number of scientists who have observed an increase in the rate of HIV transmission in countries that emphasize the use of condoms as a protective measure.

European countries spend millions of Euros annually on AIDS programs for Africa that include the promotion and distribution of condoms, despite moral objections from the native population and the United Nation's admission that condoms have a 10% failure rate.

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial birth control is a grave sin. It has repeatedly denounced the use of contraceptives and called on nations to prohibit their sale and distribution.

The Belgian Parliament has already denounced Benedict's comments, and the Spanish Congress is considering a measure to do so. The authors of the Spanish measure have expressed hope that the Belgian legislation will create momentum in their favor; however, the defeat in the European Parliament is likely to undermine their case. [LSN]

AI campainging for abortion in Dominican Republic

2009-05-13T10:01:00.000+01:00

Briefing. This is how low Amnesty International has sunk. Once they accepted abortion as a 'human right', it was never going to be a marginal issue.

From C-Fam: Piero A. Tozzi, J.D. writes : ' The politicized human rights organization Amnesty International has again taken a pro-abortion position in a nation's internal debate over abortion, coming out against the Dominican Republic's proposed protections for unborn life in its draft constitution and in the country's penal law. In so doing, Amnesty pits the rights of the mother against those of the unborn child while misrepresenting what international law says - or doesn't say - about abortion.

In a statement issued a few weeks ago, Amnesty International claims that the country's constitutional and legal reforms 'could lead to violations of women's human rights' and further claims that laws penalizing abortion would lead to increased maternal mortality. It also argued that the proposed protections of the unborn were inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's 'obligations under international human rights law.'

According to Amnesty, the penal law revisions 'would increase penalties for persons involved in carrying out an abortion.' Amnesty criticized the proposed revisions for allowing criminal prosecution of abortionists 'for providing abortion services that are safe.'

Critics point out, however, that in addition to being fatal to the child in utero, maternal health risks from abortion outweigh those associated with childbirth, particularly where the level of obstetric care is low.

Moreover, such claims about 'international human rights law,' which Amnesty also made in an informal 'friend-of-the-court' memorandum circulated last year among the justices of the Mexican Supreme Court, are contradicted by prior statements by the group. As recently as 2005, Amnesty acknowledged that 'There is no generally accepted right to abortion in international human rights law.'

Two years later, however, Amnesty International formally abandoned its previous objectivity and embraced abortion advocacy. According to Dr. Rachel MacNair, a former Amnesty member and Vice President of the group 'Consistent Life,' Amnesty's board 'railroaded' the new policy through, never announcing the results of a member vote on the issue.

Since Amnesty International abandoned neutrality on abortion, it has become an increasingly aggressive abortion advocate. Earlier this year it demanded that Mexican physicians be forced to perform abortions in cases of rape, even where doctors had conscientious objections to abortion. Noting the irony of a group founded to defend prisoners of conscience seeking to override conscience rights, MacNair called Amnesty's Mexican position 'too bizarre for words.'

Amnesty International's Dominican statement closed by praising the judicial activism of the Colombian constitutional tribunal that in 2006 struck down certain penal laws in that country protecting unborn life, implicitly calling on Dominican courts to do the same.

Amnesty's revisionist approach to global human rights is unsupported by traditional understandings of international law based principally on the consent of state parties to precisely-drafted and duly-ratified treaties. Activists have been pressing national courts to modify abortion laws to conform to their notions of evolving obligations and non-binding 'interpretations' by United Nations treaty compliance committees, which are often staffed with radical advocates.

Among major human rights organizations, Human Rights First still maintains neutrality on the abortion issue, in contrast with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. [C-FAM]

Status of religious charities clarified

2009-05-12T09:58:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

From CFNews: Dame Suzi Leather, chairman of the Charity Commission told the bishops of England and Wales at their Low Week meeting that new Charity Commission rules, which require charities to report annually on their public benefit, do not pose a threat to Catholic charities. She said that 'advancing religion' in itself is still recognised as a public benefit.

'Providing opportunity to worship, conducting religious services and providing religious instruction are all perfectly capable in themselves of demonstrating public benefit . . . Put crudely, you don't have to run a soup kitchen as well as offer Mass'. She said she aimed to try and steer a balance between the demands of religious organisations and those of secularist lobby groups such as the British Humanist Society.

Catholic schools and dioceses and most religious orders are governed by charity law and are therefore regulated by the Charity Commission. Eighty-two Catholic charities, including all 19 dioceses of England and Wales, complained to the commission in 2007 over guidelines drafted to explain the new legislation. In their joint submission they said: 'We are concerned that the language used in connection with religious charities in the draft guidance is negative in contrast to that used for other sectors. The only comments about religious charities refer to 'risk', 'public concern' or benefit which are 'too vague or intangible';' they added. They also said that guidance about 'intangible' benefits, such as those of a spiritual or religious nature, was not sufficiently clear.

New Holy Days & Abortion ads petitions

2009-05-11T11:54:00.003+01:00

Comment: while the Church removes the sacred still more from our daily lives, the Government inserts evil into our daily lives. These are two sides of the same coin. Please spend a couple of moments to register a protest.

To the new Archbishop of Westminster,' to reinstate the celebration of Ascension, Corpus Christi and Epiphany to their correct days.'

Please sign.

To the Prime Minister, to stop abortion advertising on television. (deadline 14 October 2009)

Please sign.

New abuse claim against the Jesuits

2009-05-11T10:18:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

From The Tablet, in part: THE JESUITS could face a multi-millionpound damages bill after the High Court in London accepted claims of sexual abuse made by a former City lawyer.

Patrick Raggett, who is seeking up to £5 million, the biggest individual claim against the Church in Britain to date, said that the abuse by Fr Michael Spencer at the Jesuit-run Preston Catholic College in the 1970s had ruined his life.

Mrs Justice Swift ruled that even though the abuse took place more than 30 years ago, which the Jesuits argued made it “statute barred”, it was not too late for Mr Raggett to seek damages.

...

Meanwhile, a case involving three men who claim they were abused in homes in the 1970s

run by Nugent Care Society, a Catholic organisation, was heard in the High Court this

week. The men, who cannot be named for legal reasons, are spearheading a claim for damages

involving dozens of residents of institutions for troubled children, St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s, in the Liverpool area.

The coming priest crunch

2009-05-10T12:03:00.000+01:00

Comment: The Tablet is right: the bishops need to wake up to the problem. Their remedy: keep imbibing the liberal poison which has caused the problem - abolish clerical celibacy. But as the Pope has said, such solutions undermine the priesthood and make the problem worse.

From The Tablet, in part (2/5/09): There are expected to be 16 priests ordained for the dioceses of England and Wales this year. To sustain present numbers, there would need to be of the order of 70 priestly ordinations a year. Taking 19 as a recent annual average, and assuming

that they all move into parish ministry, the number of diocesan priests could drop from around 2,700 in 2005 to something like 650 35 years hence, a fall of more than 2,000 in the lifespan of an average priestly career. A Catholic Church in England and Wales with an average of 30 priests per diocese, which is what these figures would mean, is just not conceivable – unless of course the wholesale closure of parishes leads to a catastrophic drop in total Catholic numbers.

Another anti-Catholic conference from the bishops' favourite gay activists

2009-05-09T20:21:00.003+01:00

Comment: Damian Thompson reports on this year's Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement conference, which is using this as a banner in their advertising, placing the Holy Father in the middle of a group including all the best known anti-gay bigots of American fundamentalism, Islam and so on. The implication is the Pope is a homophobic bigot.

It is being advertised by the 'Soho Masses Pastoral Council' on their website, which is not surprising since the SMPC is simply another name for the Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (see our dossier). Martin Pendergast is the leading figure of both, and it was he who emailed Damian Thompson about it.

What is astonishing, as Thompson points out, is that the SMPC is a group officially allowed to organise the 'gay Masses' in the church of Our Lady of the Assumption in Warwick Street by the Archdiocese of Westminster.

But we've been here before. The image above is the same as the one they used last year, which makes the accusation against the Holy Father even more explicit.

Thompson is hoping that Archbishop Nichols will make the connection and put an end to the crazy promotion by the Church of organisations which hate the Church and attack it in this ferocious way. We shall see. In the meantime it is extremely heartening that Thompson is publicing it: the present situation depends on people being able to pretend they don't see anti-Catholic nature of the SMPC. Let's see some more Catholic bloggers, and the Catholic press, shining a light into this dark corner.

Cardinal of Bologna restricts communion in the hand

2009-05-09T13:19:00.003+01:00

Briefing. In response to the abuse of the Blessed Sacrament, both deliberate and through carelessness, the Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna has banned communion in the hand from those churches where the abuses are most common - the largest, where the congregation is less well known to the priests and include tourists and the like.

Let us pray that other bishops around the world take this elementary step to protect the Blessed Sacrament, as the law of the Church indicates that they should.

In the meantime, there have been reports of the cessation of giving communion under both kinds, or on the tongue, in response to Swine Flu. The sharing of the chalice is clearly a hygine issue; the giving of communion on the tongue is not so clear, at least if it is done properly. See the end of this post.

Hat-tip to New Liturgical Movement and Fr Z. Below is an extract fro Fr Z's post, which is the original story with his comments in bold.

In recent weeks, parish priests and rectors of churches in our diocese received a communique of the provisions issued by the Cardinal Archbishop, in the face of grave abuses that have been confirmed in this regard. In particular, the Cardinal has ordered that in the Cathedral of St. Peter, in the Basilica of San Petronio and in the Shrine of the Madonna di San Luca, Communion must be distributed to the faithful only on the tongue.

The possibility to receive the consecrated Host in the hand that was granted may, in fact, give rise to "grave abuses", because there are those "who take away the Sacred Species to keep them as souvenirs", "who sell them", or even worse "who take them way to desecrate them in Satanic rituals." [This is a real situation in Italy! Some areas of Italy have high occurances of activity by manifestly Satanic groups. They break into churches and desecrate cemetaries and other holy places.] Thus writes Provicar General, Msgr. Gabriele Cavina in the letter to the priests which accompanies the provisions of the Cardinal, citing a text of [Archbishop] Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

"We must take cognizance", Caffarra Cardinal writes,"that unfortunately there have been repeated cases of profanation of the Eucharist, taking advantage of the possibility to receive the consecrated Bread on the palm of the hand, above all, but not exclusively, on the occasion of large celebrations or in large churches subject to the passage of numerous faithful.

From the Swindon Advertiser: Holy Rood Church in Groundwell Road has stopped offering communion wine and has asked worshippers to take communion by hand.

The move has been taken in a bid to improve hygiene standards at the church following recent Government guidelines following the swine flu outbreak.

Although there have been no confirmed cases of the virus in Swindon or Wiltshire, Monsignor Richard Twomey, pictured, is taking no chances.

See the full story.

Leeds adoption agency pursues appeal against SORs

2009-05-09T12:22:00.001+01:00

Briefing. The Leeds agency is now the only English one pursuing this route.

From The Tablet: A CATHOLIC adoption agency in Leeds has decided to pursue its case with the Charity Tribunal next week. Catholic Care says it has been forced by the Charity Commission to

return to the tribunal, despite an initial hearing that found in its favour.

“We are doing this as a matter of principle, in spite of the high cost,” said Mark Wiggin, director of Catholic Care. The charity is resisting legislation obliging it to consider homosexual couples as adoptive parents.

Fr Corapi on the Notre Dame scandal

2009-05-09T09:48:00.000+01:00

Fr Corapi speaks for the Cardinal Newman Society, an important conservative Catholic organisatiion in the US.

Patients starving in British hospitals

2009-05-08T10:34:00.001+01:00

Briefing. This has been reported so many times it is becoming tedious. But it is also extremely worrying.

From SPUC: Patients are dying of malnutrition in British hospitals. A survey for the Health Service journal found that insufficient important and attention was given to feeding patients and to the quality of hospital food. Figures reveal that 242 died of malnutrition in NHS hospitals in 2007. [Daily Mail, 6 May] SPUC has warned that patients are at risk of euthanasia by omission under the Mental Capacity Act [SPUC director]

Homophobic hate crimes: in the Lords

2009-05-07T17:40:00.002+01:00

Action: please lobby the Lords who voted in favour of the clarification of the hate-crimes clause last time around. All they need to do is vote the same way again. To see the list of Peers’ votes, please click here.

From Christian Concern for our Nation: The ‘Chilling Effect’ on Free Speech of the Coroners and Justice Bill and How You can Help to Stop It

The offence of ‘inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ is part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (‘CJI Act’). Lord Waddington successfully inserted a free speech clause into that Act, which clause 61 (formerly clause 58) of the Coroners and Justice Bill now seeks to remove. Clause 61 has been passed by the Commons. It reads as follows:

61 Hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation
In Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation etc), omit section 29JA (protection for discussion or criticism of sexual conduct etc).

Section 29JA (which clause 61 seeks to omit) reads as follows:

29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

The provisions of the Bill are likely to be considered in the House of Lords shortly after its Second Reading on 18th May.

‘Stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ carries a sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment. Without highlighting the legal distinction between ‘discussion’ on one hand and the ‘stirring up’ of ‘hatred’ on the other, ordinary people will be frightened into silence, unsure whether they can challenge the new morality that seeks to normalise and promote homosexual practice.

Nobody supports the stirring up of hatred, but equally no reasonable person should object to peaceful criticism and discussion of sexual behaviour. Repealing this clause would remove the clear legal protection for such criticism and discussion from the face of the statute. Issuing Guidelines to police and prosecutors cannot hope to undo the damage this will cause. If clause 61 is passed, the consequences would include a climate of fear surrounding the mere discussion of sexual ethics and potentially the silencing of the Christian view.

Let us stand as Christians for our freedom to make a peaceful and reasonable case for biblical sexual ethics.

Attempts to amend this same Bill to allow assisted suicide, including a
high-profile bid by former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, have so far
failed. However, we can expect further attempts by the pro-euthanasia lobby to
decriminalise assistance with suicide abroad during its Committee Stage, which
follows Second Reading. This would render the existing law inconsistent. People
would ask why it is acceptable to assist with a suicide abroad, but not at
home. The consequences are plain for all to see.

A concerted campaign is growing in the media to normalise the idea of legalising
assistance with suicide: Dr Philip Nitschke is in the UK once again promoting
different methods for committing suicide and this month Chris Woodhead, former
chief of OFSTED, has made known his desire to commit suicide in the Daily Mail.
Pray that the Lord would hold the line and that the sanctity of life would be
preserved in our law. For further information, read the latest newsletter from
Care Not Killing by clicking here and visit the website by clicking here.

Please use the list of Peers’ votes at the link below to find out which Peers
voted for the free speech clause in May 2008. Please write to as many as you
can, asking them to attend Parliament to vote for any amendment that would
remove clause 61. If you have any personal contact with a Peer, please seek to
persuade them of the necessity of voting for the free speech clause.

Please join our campaign to protect free speech and to prevent assisted suicide
by writing to Peers. Our updated Information and Action pack provides the
resources you need to do this quickly and effectively. Please click on the icon
on the right and take action as soon as you can. Remember, the date for the
Second Reading is Monday, 18th May, after which the Bill will be discussed in
Committee, when clauses are debated and amendments tabled.

HFEA 'not fit for purpose'

2009-05-06T10:03:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

From SPUC: The head of an official inquiry has said that Britain's embryo regulator is "not fit for purpose". Professor Brian Toft, who chaired an inquiry into
gamete mix-ups at a London hospital, wrote to Sir Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer, saying: "The HFEA [Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority] should be reformed if it is ever to be fit for purpose". [Sunday Times, 3 May] Pro-life campaigners have frequently highlighted the HFEA's low ethical standards.

£100 'smash and grab' from Catholic schools

2009-05-05T10:27:00.000+01:00

Briefing. Like many really important things, this has not been picked up by the official Church organisation responsible for the matter - in this case the Catholic Education Service - but by an independant group, the new Las Casas Institute.

From the Catholic Herald: The government has said that Catholics in England and Wales must pay £100 million to help rebuild and refurbish Catholic primary schools.

The size of the bill could force some dioceses to sell struggling schools or transfer them out of Church control so the Government will pick up the tab.

The figure is contained in a report published this week by the Las Casas Institute at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford, which called the move 'a smash-and-grab raid on the Catholic community'.

Diocesan officials across England and Wales are deeply worried about the cost and are trying urgently to work out a national strategy to deal with it.

The report, entitled Ed Balls, Michael Gove and the Challenge to Faith Schools, said: 'While professing public support for faith education in public... deep below the surface of public conversation and beyond the debates of Westminster, the Secretary of State has been introducing detailed rules that represent a smash-and-grab raid on the Catholic community and the wide range of stakeholders who benefit from its schools and their community service.'

The £100 million represents 10 per cent of the total cost of renewing Catholic primary school buildings under Government plans over the next 12 years. The plans, known as the Primary Capital Programme (PCP), were introduced after it was reported that the run-down state of buildings was harming children's education.

The previous school rebuilding programme, called Building Schools for the Future, was funded entirely by the Government.

In contrast the PCP requires a total of £350 million from the whole faith school sector. Each diocese is expected to negotiate the bill separately with all the local authorities in its area. Sympathetic local authorities may offer to pay some of the money if - as is likely in some cases - the diocese cannot afford it.

However, it is thought that the Conservative Party would pay in full for faith school rebuilding programmes - which would mean that the cost to the Catholic community would be nothing.

Stephen Morgan, chairman of the conference of diocesan financial secretaries and financial secretary of Portsmouth diocese, said: 'It's a really big problem, and a problem we don't have a way of solving at the moment.

'The Catholic community is growing and the new arrivals are not wealthy. It's all very well to ask Catholics in the leafy suburbs to pay extra money but it's more difficult if they are from Ghana or eastern Europe and living in the East End of London.'

Gerald Curran, financial secretary of Brentwood diocese, agreed that it would be very difficult for dioceses to raise the funds. He said: 'Basically the dioceses would not have that sort of money - it's a huge amount of money. Those primary schools that needed work would be immediately dealt with but others would have to be put on the long finger.'

Noel Loughrey, financial secretary of Salford diocese, said: 'It's clearly going to be difficult to raise the 10 per cent because of the sheer size of the sums involved.'

Martin Lockery, schools commissioner at Salford diocese, said it would be 'difficult, probably impossible' to raise the money - but that good relationships with local authorities meant the diocese would not have to pay the full 10 per cent.

He said one £6 million project to merge two schools into one - as part of the PCP - was funded entirely by Manchester City Council.

'We have ongoing conversations about what we can afford. The [Manchester] authority was well aware that suddenly having £600,000 thrown our way would be a non-starter. It was an acceptance of the reality of the situation,' Mr Lockery said.

No help from the CES

One financial secretary said dioceses had received no help at all from the Catholic Education Service. 'It was not even on the CES's radar - or if it was, they didn't let us know about it,' he said. The Catholic Education Service was not available for comment.

According to the Las Casas Institute report the £100 million bill is just one of a series of 'raids' by the Government on Catholic schools.

The report discloses that the Government has withdrawn its insurance cover for school buildings, transferring it to local authorities which are then not obliged to provide it.

In Hull, for instance, the local authority has demanded that Catholic schools pay for their own insurance. If this move were repeated across the country, the report says, the cost to the Catholic community would be £30 million a year.

The report also points out that under current Government regulations the Church cannot keep the proceeds from a sale of a school unless they are reinvested in another school in the same area. This means that if the Church tries to adapt to changing Catholic demography - to respond to an increasing need elsewhere in the diocese - it could lose tens of millions of pounds of assets.

Some claim the report is likely to reinforce a sense among Catholics that the Labour Government is hostile to Catholic education.

Last year Schools Secretary Ed Balls accused faith schools of breaking the admissions code in an 'unacceptable' way. Months later, a report by the schools' chief adjudicator said the vast majority of admissions arrangements at Catholic schools were 'fair, transparent and fully compliant'.

In 2006 the Government sought to impose a 25 per cent quota of non-Catholics on Catholic schools but was forced into a U-turn after pressure from the Church.

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: 'The £1.9 billion Primary Capital Programme will rebuild or improve at least half of all primary schools in England, so that they reach 21st-century standards and help provide wider services for children and families in their communities.

'Since an Act of Parliament was introduced in 1944, it has been a requirement that voluntary aided schools contribute to the cost of any building work that takes place. Local authorities can, of course, assist voluntary aided schools with this contribution if they are able.' [Catholic Herald]

Damian Thompson on 'Gay Masses'

2009-05-04T18:36:00.001+01:00

Comment. Damian Thompson writes coyly that 'I know I should steer clear of this subject': it is characteristic of him to provoke and simultaneously dread (or claim to dread) the comments on his blog about his own orientation, domestic arrangements, etc..

Here's the locus classicus of this: 'Calling all lesbian and gay Roman Catholics! ... Having lit the fuse, I look forward to your responses. Hint to people who don't like me, or fancy a spot of outing: this is your opportunity to get in a few digs'. In that post he was actually promoting the Warwick Street contribution to the London Gay Pride march - or ironically pretending to.

However we've never criticised him for what is a matter for the internal forum (despite his hints); as far as we care to know he's not a public sinner; the rest we leave to his conscience and the Good Lord. We have other criticisms of his journalistic standards: see 'How not to blog'.

What he says about the 'Gay Masses' in the church or Our Lady of the Assumption, Warwick Street, however, is spot on:

The Warwick Street formula is deliberately ambiguous, however. The community "enables all who take part in the Masses various ways to grow in their faith and integrate this with their sexual orientation". Meaning what? Sounds like don't ask, don't tell on the part of the diocese. Critics would say it amounts to having your rainbow-coloured cake and eating it.

Speaking of which, doesn't that rainbow rhetoric make you cringe? It's as outdated as, well, Bungle and Zippy. I don't know if the Warwick Street LGBT caucus has noticed, but young gay people tend not to be into that Castro stuff. Some of them haven't even read Tales of the City.

And as for young homosexual Catholics, well, some of them are Lefty activists but many are traddies who wouldn't be seen dead in Warwick Street unless Mass was celebrated in the Extraordinary Form. And this is just a guess, but I reckon most of them are pretty impressively celibate. I don't judge them, or gay couple friends of mine whose intimate life is none of my bloody business.

This is exactly right. The Warwick Street Masses, as we have always pointed out, don't cater for Catholics of a homosexual orientation, but for people who dissent from Catholic teaching in a way characteristic of the 'ageing lefty' type. The whole idea of Masses for specific groups like homosexuals is just embarassing to anyone who takes the Mass seriously. The way they do it, rainbow cakes and all, makes it even worse.

But Thompson is being optimistic when he suggests, at the end of his post, that Archhbishop Nichols may bring these Masses to an end. If he'd been reading CAUK, he's know that Nichols has beeen tolerating his very own 'Gay Masses', in Birmingham, for years. If they are ok in St Catherine of Siena, Bristol Street, Birmingham, why should he move against them in Our Lady of the Assumption, Warwick Street, Soho?

Pro Abortion L'Osservatore Romano article uncorrected

2009-05-04T10:26:00.001+01:00

Briefing. We commented on the article here.

From LifeSiteNews: In recent weeks, pro-life Catholics from around the world have flooded Vatican offices with protests, petitions and letters asking for a retraction or clarification on an article published by L'Osservatore Romano implying that direct abortion could be morally justified or its evil mitigated in some 'extreme circumstances'.

However, since the March 15th publication of the article, provocatively titled, 'On the side of the Brazilian girl,' by Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), nothing has been heard from the Vatican or Fisichella himself.

Archbishop Fisichella prompted widespread outrage when he attacked as 'hasty' the decision by Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife to announce that those who had procured the abortion of twins for a nine year-old rape victim had incurred an automatic penalty of excommunication. Fisichella wrote that the decision to 'help stop the pregnancy,' was a 'difficult' one 'for doctors and for the moral law.'

On Thursday, April 30, LSN was informed that Monsignor José Geraldo Caiuby Crescenti, a noted canonist, former judicial vicar of the archdiocese of Anapolis in Brazil and close friend of Archbishop Sobrinho, had confirmed that to date, no response has come to the archdiocese from Archbishop Fisichella or any official of the Vatican.

LSN has been shown dozens of letters and petitions sent to Rome by prominent academics, physicians, and pro-life advocates from sixteen countries asking Archbishop Fisichella and various Vatican congregations for a correction or clarification.

The article, and the silence following it from Pope Benedict's curia, has raised fears among some in the worldwide pro-life community that key members of the Vatican hierarchy are silently moving away from the Church's historically robust condemnation of abortion and defence of the absolute sacredness of human life.

In an open letter published by LifeSiteNews.com, highly respected philosopher Professor Joseph Seifert, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that the article has led to a 'deep crisis' in the PAV, and 'more importantly, of the public perception of Church teaching on abortion.' (See letter: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050107.html )

Professor Seifert, rector and professor of philosophy at the International Academy of Philosophy of Liechtenstein, writes that because of this article, and its support by the pope's official media spokesman, Fr. Frederico Lombardi SJ, 'countless persons' throughout the world now attribute to the PAV and by extension to the Pope himself, 'a propagation of a new moral doctrine diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Church'.

Although Msgr. Fisichella wrote in his article that 'procured abortion has always been condemned by the moral law as an intrinsically evil act, and this teaching remains unchanged to our day,' at its end, he praised those who had 'allowed [the girl] to live' by killing her two children. He concluded by stating that those who were involved in the abortion did not 'deserve' excommunication.

In a statement of clarification, the archdiocese responded to Fisichella's accusations, saying that the local Church had come to the child's aid in many ways, both spiritual and material, and that Fisichella had perpetrated a serious injustice against his 'brother in the episcopate' by failing to contact Archbishop Sobrinho or find out what had happened directly from anyone involved.

Calling Fisichella's article 'a direct affront to the defense of the life of three children carried out energetically by Dom Jose Cardoso Sobrinho' the authors of the Recife diocese's statement said Fisichella had spoken 'about something he did not know, and what is worse, without even doing the work of speaking previously with his brother in the episcopate...'

The secular press and the pro-abortion lobby responded promptly to the article, with headlines and hundreds of articles and editorials claiming that Fisichella is hinting at a softening of the Church's position on abortion. The Associated Press announced, 'Vatican prelate defends abortion for 9-year-old.' The Washington Post said, 'Vatican Official Defends Child's Abortion.'

Significantly, Fisichella's article was highly praised by France Kissling, the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, an abortion lobby group that presents itself as Catholic and attempts to pressure the Catholic Church to abandon its teachings on life and family.

In a widely published essay, Kissling called Fisichella's article 'an amazing shift in the Vatican's strategy of no dissent from its position that direct abortion is never permitted.' She said it was a 'modest deviation' that 'opens the door for Catholics who follow church teachings on reproduction to discuss the possibility that there are some cases officially acknowledged where individuals can choose abortion and have a calm conscience.'

Taking a similar interpretation to that of Ms. Kissling, pro-life leaders reacted with shock. Letters of protest are known to have been received by Archbishop Fisichella, and circulated to several Vatican dicasteries, from Italy, Spain, England, Canada, the US, Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador, Venzuela, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Panama, Argentina and Belgium.

Adding to the unease is the fear that the article has recieved the highest possible sanction from the hierarchy of the Church. It is common knowledge that articles intended for L'Osservatore Romano are vetted first by the Vatican's Secretariat of State, the highest office under the papacy. Vatican watcher and respected journalist Sandro Magister said that given the prominence of the article's author and its content, it 'was certainly among the most carefully scrutinized and authorized by the Vatican Secretariat of State.'

Moreover, rumours have circulated in Rome that the article had also been approved by an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church's doctrinal watchdog.

During the 26-year papacy of John Paul II, pro-life people had relied heavily on the unswerving defence and frequent expositions on the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life both from the pope himself and from various high-level Vatican officials. Key Vatican posts, such as the congregations on doctrine and the family, were held by well-known and outspoken defenders of Catholic teaching.

Prominent among these was the Pontifical Academy of Life which, under the guidance of the now-retired Bishop Elio Sgreccia, was described as a 'bastion and guiding light' to the pro-life movement around the world.

One prominent pro-life advocate, who asked not to be named, told LifeSiteNews.com that the shock of this incident, compounded and intensified by the Vatican's complete silence, is a sign of a significant shift against the pro-life movement at the highest levels of the Catholic Church.

He said that pro-life people around the world are asking why this undermining of Catholic teaching has gone uncorrected and why this attack on a 'brother bishop' has been un-answered?

'At this stage,' he said, 'we need a clarification or a retraction by Archbishop Fisichella, a press release from the Holy See Press Office or even a clear re-statement of the Church's unchanging teaching from the [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] CDF.'

Bishop Tartaglia of Paisley: desire for the Traditional Mass 'an affectation'

2009-05-03T17:37:00.003+01:00

Comment: this is another story from the latest Catholic Truth newsletter. A Catholic asking for the Traditional Mass in Paisley diocese received an email from Bishop Tartaglia which attempts to misrepresent the Pope's intentions and the law of the Church.

Bishop Tartaglia claims: If there is to be Mass in the Extraordinary Form in this diocese, it will be according to the regulations of Summorum Pontificum. These regulations will have to be met before I agree to make provision for this kind of Mass. I think that Summorum Pontificum is more demanding than you imagine.

But there is no need for a bishop to 'agree to make provision'. Any priest can say the Mass; any Catholic can ask for it. There are no 'regulations' in the Motu Proprio; it simply notes that priests saying the Mass should know how to do so.

Referring to reports of the Pope's words on his flight to France, Bishop Tartaglia suggests that the Motu Proprio envisaged only the older generation, who had known the Mass before 1970, and those with an education in Latin, as the beneficiaries of the new legal provisions. Even if this report is true, it makes no difference to the law of the Church: the Motu Proprio makes no distinctions about who can ask for the Traditiional Mass, or attend it.

Bishop Tartaglia adds: Are you sure your request is not just an affectation? Think about it.

What a patronising suggestion. It would be as well for the Bishop to ask himself if his opposition to the Traditional Mass is not born of fear, the chilling idea that all the destruction he and his generation were a party to since 1970 was for no good purpose, and that a new generation of faithful Catholics wants to go back to the Traditional Mass they have been told has been consigned to history. Think about it, my lord.

Read the Motu Proprio; know your rights!

Bishop Drainey rejects kneeling for communion

2009-05-03T17:04:00.004+01:00

Local complaints, please. You can quote Redemptionis Sacramentum, Section 91: it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

Curial Office, 50a The Avenue, Linthorpe, Middlesbrough TS5 6QT

Tel: 01642 850505 Fax: 01642 851404

E-mail: financialsecretary@dioceseofmiddlesbrough.co.uk

After ticking off a communicant for kneeling to receive Holy Communion, Bishop Drainey of Middlesbrough had the Chair of the Bishop's Council for Liturgy, Fr Gerard Robinson, write as follows: 'Approaching the altar, if one opts to kneel on receiving Holy Communion, rather than showing reverence by means of the communion procession, one is drawing attention to oneself rather than allowing all the attention and reverence be focused on the presence of our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist.'

He refers to the 'definite guidlines for receiving Holy Communion', about the 'Communion Procession' (see it here), from the Bishops of England and Wales website. But this says nothing about kneeling or standing for the reception of communion. Even if it mandated standing, it has been definitively established by Rome, such guidlines CANNOT take away the right of the faithful to receive kneeling. The bishops simply do not have the right to do that.

The individual involved has written to the Papal Nuncio.

Hat-tip to Catholic Truth; see their latest Newsletter. See Fr Z on this issue.

The Catholic Times' Alternative Reality

2009-05-02T14:49:00.004+01:00

Comment: the Catholic Times leads with the headline 'Victor for schools on sex-ed in the curriculum'. This is presumably how the Bishops want to spin it: that contrary to the demands of the more demented secularists, sex eductation in Catholic schools, which will deliver everything the Government wants it to deliver, can be taught in the context of a Catholic 'ethos'.

The real story, as we have been reporting, is that the Government is extending the sex ed programme down to the age of four, is demanding that gay marriage be included from the age of eleven, has made sex ed a compulsory part of the National Curriculum, and will be keeping the right of parents to withdraw their children from it 'under review'. (That means you can have the right to withdraw, but if you use it then the Government will take it away.)

And the Catholic response? Oona Stanard is quoted in the Catholic Times as saying 'PHSE is a very important part of a child's education and it should be in the curriculum'. Thanks, Oona.

The only institution in the UK - perhaps in Europe - capable of making a serious stand against sex ed is the Catholic Church. By its teaching on the subject, and by its role in education, it could be a serious obstacle to the Government's agenda. But no: Oona Standard, Archbishop Nichols and the other bishops are happy to give in completely on the issue, in return for this concession: that they be allowed to give the subject some Catholic window dressing, and claim 'victory'.

The Church has taught us, in conformity with common sense, that it is totally wrong to deliver the 'facts' about sex in a classroom setting, it is totally wrong to deliver them before puberty, and in fact it is wrong to 'deliver' them at all: the child must take the lead in asking questions of an adult the child trusts, at the time of his or her own choosing, and in a safe setting. If this is so, adding to the facts about sex some optional flannel about committed relationships makes not the slightest difference.

If this is a victory, I don't want to be around when the Church is defeated.

That MAP advert here

2009-05-01T21:35:00.002+01:00

Here it is, folks, if you missed it on TV.

Now you can complain to the Advertising Standard Authority. The MAP is an extremely serious medical intervention: to portray it in a cartoon as a routine 'easy way out' is grossly irresponsible. It is also grossly misleading to suggest - though this is not made explicit - that it prevents conception. In many cases conception will already have taken place, and the MAP will be causing an abortion. Abortion is tightly controlled by law in the UK, in theory: and yet here it is available over the counter.

Here's more from Christian Concern for our Nation: The advertisement encourages women to think that having sex without adequate contraception is a worry that can easily be eliminated by a trip to the local pharmacy.

No mention is made of the STDs that a woman might catch through casual sex; no mention is made of the fact that emergency contraception may terminate a young life and no mention is made of the pain, bleeding or other side effects that may be experienced by using the medication.

OFCOM's "standards objectives" relevant to advertising should prevent the broadcasting of advertisements that may be misleading, harmful or offensive by television and radio services and should protect persons under the age of 18.

Please see section 319(2) Communications Act 2003; and a CCFON article

Please write to the Advertising Standards Authority, by using their online complaints form.

David Cameron to be at Gay Pride event

2009-05-01T11:55:00.001+01:00

Briefing. No surprise here. A Tory Government is NOT going to reverse the Sexual Orientation Regulations - Cameron voted for them himself.

From the Telegraph: David Cameron is going back to his touchy-feely agenda by becoming the first Tory leader to appear on an openly gay platform.

I can reveal he has accepted an invitation to join a celebration at this year's Gay Pride event in London.

Coming just days after being accused of returning to traditional Tory themes with his promise to make thrift a priority in a Conservative government, Cameron is nailing his colours to the pink mast.

The move is bound to upset some figures in the party who have never felt comfortable with his approach to gay issues. For his fellow speakers will include figures who want the Tories to embrace gay adoptions and extend the equality programme to outlaw the discrimination of gays by hoteliers.

Compulsory sex ed from four years old

2009-05-01T11:46:00.003+01:00

Parents must be alert! Note this from the LSN article:
Earlier this week, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Lessons will include those on "different types of relationships including same sex and civil partnerships" starting at age eleven. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.
Even if you can opt out of PSHE classes your children will be getting sex education under the guise of science lessons.

There will be a 'consultation' period, but the policy has already been determined.

From the Telegraph (full article here): Pupils as young as 11 will be taught about homosexuality and civil partnerships in compulsory sex education classes.

All secondary schools - including faith schools - will have to teach children about same-sex relationships as well as traditional families.

Previously, heads could decide to opt out of teaching the controversial subject. Personal, social and health education classes are due to become part of the compulsory national curriculum in primary and secondary schools from September 2011. Family and faith groups yesterday condemned the proposals.

From the first year in primary school, four and five-year-old children will learn about different body parts, with lessons about sex from the age of nine. At Key Stage Three (ages 11 to 14), pupils will learn about contraception, pregnancy, sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. Schools will also have to teach about ' different types of relationships, including those within families and between older and young people, boys and girls and people of the same sex, including civil partnerships'.

At Key Stage Four (ages 14-16), they will continue to learn about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases and same-sex relationships.

From Life Site News (full article here): LONDON, April 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British government announced this week that it will adopt the recommendations of homosexualist activists and pro-abortion groups to make explicit sex education a compulsory part of the national curriculum for all schools from primary school onward. The plan, however, has angered some of these same groups by allowing "faith schools" to teach traditional Christian sexual morality and allowing parents to remove their children from morally offensive classes.

Earlier this week, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Lessons will include those on "different types of relationships including same sex and civil partnerships" starting at age eleven. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.

But some groups are outraged that the regulations will include an option for Christian schools to apply the "context, values and ethos" of their religion to the lessons and for parents to withdraw their children on religious grounds. Currently, about 0.04 per cent of children are withdrawn from sex education classes by parents and the government said that while the opt-out will remain in place, it will be kept under "constant review."

Obama billboards

2009-04-30T09:58:00.001+01:00

This is pretty cool, as they say over there.

H-T Catholic Fire.

Embryos for body parts

2009-04-29T09:57:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

From the Daily Mail (in part): Couples could be allowed to store embryos in order to use them to create new body parts or cure diseases.

Government legal and ethical experts are to discuss whether families can ‘bank’ embryos not just for procreation but also for use by doctors to create personalised treatments for parents and their children.

Now, embryos – the first stage of life after an egg has been successfully fertilised – can be stored for up to five years but only for procreation.

But a huge ethical debate is set to erupt as the Government’s fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), moves closer to endorsing new developments in medical science.

It will debate whether embryos could be stored to harvest important stem cells that have the ability to turn into any tissue type in the body.

See the full story

Wynne-Jones on media portrayal of Christianity

2009-04-28T10:47:00.001+01:00

Breifing. Mark Thompson, who famously said that Christianity should be treated with less respect than other religions, is a practicing Catholic. Much good may it do him.

From CFNews: Frequent television portrayals of Christians as absurd make it more difficult for believers to defend themselves, a national journalist has said.

Recent storylines in a number of soaps have sent the clear message that 'Christians are nutters', the Daily Telegraph's religion correspondent, Jonathan Wynne-Jones, wrote last week on his blog.

Christians should expect robust criticism, Mr Wynne-Jones said, but as faith is made to look more ridiculous 'the line between ridicule and persecution becomes even thinner'.

Mr Wynne-Jones wrote on his blog: 'Some would argue that Christianity has been undermined for some time on television.'

He continues: 'Even some of the BBC's religious documentaries have tended to challenge traditional beliefs, from claiming Mary was raped by a Roman soldier to arguing that Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus was caused by an epileptic fit.'

Earlier this week it emerged that dozens of viewers complained to the television regulator after an Easter Sunday episode of Coronation Street featured a string of outbursts against Christianity.

The character Ken Barlow described the Christian faith as a 'superstition', accusing churches of targeting 'vulnerable people' and 'indoctrinating' his grandson.

Mr Wynne-Jones also referred to Hollyoaks, a soap hugely popular with teenagers, where the 'Christian' in the show claims to have found an image of Jesus in a potato.

'Outspoken criticism of Christian beliefs should be expected, but the stealthy attempts to make believers look absurd is much more damaging,' Mr Wynne-Jones said.

'Once faith has been made to look ridiculous, the attempts of believers to rebut the criticism will be met with deaf ears. And then the line between ridicule and persecution becomes even thinner.'

It emerged earlier this month that the producers of Coronation Street are planning to portray a 'born-again Christian' character embarking on a lesbian affair in a bid to make the soap more reflective of modern Britain.

The BBC received 150 complaints about an episode of Eastenders shown in October last year, in which 'Christian' character Dot Cotton was made to look old fashioned and ridiculous in her beliefs on homosexuality.

She was shown getting to grips with an mp3 player before coming across two men kissing on a park bench and asking them to stop. The two male characters sniggered at her efforts to engage with modern technology.

Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC, admitted last year that he believes Christianity should be treated with less sensitivity in television programmes than other religions. [Christian Institute]

Atheists evangelise children

2009-04-27T18:40:00.001+01:00

Weirder and weirder.

From CFNews: The National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS) plans to launch a recruitment drive this summer. Backed by professors Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling, the initiative aims to establish a network of atheist societies in schools to counter the role of Christianity.

It will coincide with the first atheist summer camp for children that will teach that religious belief and doctrines can prevent ethical and moral behaviour.

The federation aims to encourage students to lobby their schools and local authorities over what is taught in RE lessons and to call for daily acts of collective worship to be scrapped. It wants the societies to hold talks and educational events to persuade students not to believe in God.

Chloë Clifford-Frith, AHS co-founder, said that the societies would act as a direct challenge to the Christian message being taught in schools. She expressed concern that Christian Unions could influence vulnerable teenagers looking for a club to belong to with fundamentalist doctrine. In particular, she claimed that some students were being told that homosexuality is a sin and to believe the Biblical account of creation.

'We want to point out how silly some of these beliefs are and hope that these groups will help to do that,' she said.

The federation's bid to improve co-ordination among atheists in schools follows a successful campaign at universities.

The number of groups reported by the AHS to be active on campuses has risen from seven in 2007/2008 academic year to 25 in 2008/2009, including societies at the universities of Oxford and Durham.

Leeds Atheist Society claims to have experienced discrimination, vandalism, theft and death threats from religious groups on campus, who oppose the open expression of an atheist viewpoint and blasphemy.

AC Grayling, the philosopher and writer, said: 'As well as making the case for reason and science, it is great to know that the AHS will be standing up against religious privilege and discrimination. The AHS shows that increasing numbers of young people are unwilling to put up with it.'

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: 'Atheists are becoming increasingly militant in their desperate attempts to stamp out faith. It is deeply worrying that they now want to use children to attack the Christian ethos of their schools. Many parents will also be anxious at the thought of militant atheists targeting their children.'

In a further development to strengthen the role of atheism among the younger generation, the first summer camp for irreligious children or the children of nontheistic parents is being held this summer. Organisers say that Camp Quest, which originated in America, offers 'a godless alternative to traditional religious summer camps, such as vacation Bible schools'. [Telegraph]

Teacher suspended for resisting homosexual indocrination

2009-04-26T18:38:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

From CFNews: In the UK, a Christian teacher has been suspended from a senior post for complaining that a staff training day was used to promote homosexual rights.

Kwabena Peat, 54, left a compulsory training session with several other Christian colleagues at the north London school after the speaker, Sue Sanders, invited by the School headteacher, openly questioned why people thought heterosexuality was natural.

Mr Peat says that Ms Sanders, who openly describes herself as a lesbian, told him and his colleagues that those who did not accept that being homosexual was 'normal' had 'issues' they must deal with.

He said: 'I expected the training session to help us by providing good information on how to handle bullying but she had another agenda. She started promoting homosexual lifestyles and suggesting those who had objections should sort out their prejudices. She clearly asked us 'what makes you all think that to be heterosexual is natural?''.

Mr Peat, who is a year-head on a £50,000 salary, and other staff were deeply upset that teaching staff, and others, who disagreed out of Christian conviction were given no opportunity to respond. It would seem that at the school only one position was acceptable, denying free speech and respecting staff's human rights, in a training establishment which is intended to encourage students to think for themselves and claims to respect every individual's moral convictions.

Following the training day Mr Peat wrote privately to three staff members involved in organising the session, including a deputy head, complaining about Ms Sanders aggressive' presentation. Sue Sanders is the co-founder of the Schools Out organisation which campaigns for homosexual equality in education and last month attended a Downing Street reception hosted by Gordon Brown to mark Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender History Month. She was paid £850 for conducting training in the school.

The three staff complained to the school's principal, claiming, although they were senior to Mr Peat, they felt 'harassed and intimidated' by the letter. Following an investigation, Mr Peat was suspended and placed on paid leave pending outcome of disciplinary investigations hearings. He is now being supported by the Christian Legal Centre who have instructed the leading Human Right's Barrister, Paul Diamond, to represent him.

Mr Peat, who has spent most of his teaching life working in inner city London Schools and is a father of three children said: 'I'm not surprised by all this, but I am disappointed. I'm the one being harassed and intimidated - for expressing my religious views. As an experienced professional I am very supportive of 'equality and diversity' programmes and have always got on well with colleagues who are well aware of my Christian beliefs.'

Mr Peat has been suspended since January after the training day and has not been allowed to return to work.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, barrister and director of the Christian Legal Centre said: 'Mr Peat is being discriminated against for expressing his Christian faith. A legitimate orthodox Christian view as expressed by Mr Peat, however disagreeable others may find it, should not be construed as harassment or discrimination. If this is allowed to continue it will be state censorship leading to the infringement of a person's right to freedom of religion and speech.' [CLC]

Newman: the Telegraph jumps the gun

2009-04-25T20:57:00.002+01:00

Briefing.

From an email: Fr Paul Chavasse, Provost of the Birmingham Oratory, said in a statement today, Friday 24 April 2009: "We have received no official notification from the Congregation of the Causes of Saints in Rome concerning Cardinal Newman's Cause. As far as we are aware, the investigations into the presumed miraculous cure are still underway."

Fr Chavasse added: "With respect to the article 'Cardinal John Newman poised for beatification after ruling', by Simon Caldwell, (Telegraph.co.uk, website of the Telegraph Media Group), it seriously misrepresents the procedures followed by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints."

Catholic school to be piloted for MAP by text

2009-04-25T10:11:00.000+01:00

Local messages of support would be welcome. Nb Bishop Kenny is NOT the 'bishop of Birmingham': as everyone except the Telegraph subeditors know, Vincent Nichols is the Archbishop if Birmingham. Bishop Kenney in an auxiliary. His contact details are below.

From the Daily Telegraph (see here for the full story): Under the scheme pupils at six schools in Oxfordshire – including one Catholic secondary – would be able to access contraceptive advice and contraception, including the controversial 'emergency' pill.

William Kenney, the Bishop of Birmingham, who performs mass at St Gregory the Great Catholic School in Oxford once a year, has criticised the scheme, which is likely to be piloted in July.

The bishop said: "It goes against the very central idea the Catholic church has on human life. It is sending out the message that it was better to deal with the aftermath of what people do, rather than the causes. I don't think this will help solve the teenage pregnancy rate and is taking away responsibility from parents."

Leaders of St Gregory's and the five other schools are to been denied any say in stopping their pupils from being offered the service by Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust and the Oxfordshire County Council. The two authorities have said that, because the service will be offered outside school hours, it will "fall outside the governance of schools".

Right Reverend William Kenney CP, Titular Bishop of Midica
Born: 7 May 1946
Ordained Priest: 29 June 1969
Ordained Bishop: 24 August 1987 (Auxiliary Bishop of Stockholm)
Transferred to Birmingham: 17 October 2006

Residence:
St Hugh's House
27 Hensington Road
Woodstock
Oxfordshire
Tel & Fax: 01993 812234
Email: wk@sthughs.plus.com

Bread-worship in Cumbria

2009-04-24T13:11:00.000+01:00

Update: The Tablet has issued a 'clarification': 'We wish to make it clear that the events described in the letter "An Act of Memory" (11 April) did not occur in the parish of Our lady of the Wayside, Grasmere, Cumbria.'

Well, did they happen anywhere else? And why was the letter published?

Update (13/04/09): see comments: the letter may be a hoax. That would indeed be bizarre.

Local action, please (12/04/09). No doubt this will come to the attention of Bishop Patrick O'Donaghue of Lancaster, which includes Cumbria, but Catholics of his diocese should express their concern. Email him: bishop@lancasterrcdiocese.org.uk

St Jean Viannay said that if a parish lacked a priest for 20 years, people would start worshiping animals. In Cumbria, they have done better. Lacking a priest, they have started worshiping bread.

It is not entirely clear what sacramental theology the writer of this letter has; no doubt it is very confused. At one point she seems to have a magical attitude: if you copy the priest's actions, or some of them, the trick will be done. But the underlying attitude is that you can have 'Holy Communion' without an ordained priest, by the exercise, no doubt, of the 'priesthood of the laity'. Why stop there? If you don't need a priest, why do you need a valid Eucharistic Prayer, valid matter (the hosts), or indeed any reference to Jesus Christ? At the moment all these things evoke certain 'feelings' in this congregation, but these will wear off in time.

This is an excellent illustration of the Holy Father's warning that the steps taken to deal with the shortage of priests are undermining the priesthood and leading to further falls in vocations. Leaving aside the appalling sacrilege and idolatry being committed in this Catholic church in Cumbria, this kind of thing is an attack on the very nature of the priesthood. It follows naturally from the institution of lay-led eucharistic services, and these really must stop.

Letter in The Tablet, 11/04/09: Just before our 10 a.m. Sunday Mass, John, one of our eucharistic ministers, explained that our priest had phoned to say that he had trouble with his car and would not be able to get to us. The priest had asked that John lead us in a Liturgy of the Word and then distribute Holy Communion from the tabernacle. Veronica, our other eucharistic minister, then came forward to say that she had taken Holy Communion to the housebound parishioners on Saturday and she thought that there was only one small consecrated host left in the tabernacle.

We had a brief discussion about what we could do. One gentleman said we should just listen to the readings and then go home. A lady suggested we place the one consecrated host on the altar and have a short period of exposition. Another gentleman suggested that we say the rosary. And then a lady spoke up and said “Jesus said, ‘Do this in memory of me’.” We asked her what she had in mind and she explained. And so we listened to the Sunday readings. The eucharistic ministers placed sufficient altar breads, the chalice with wine and a little water on the altar as we have so often seen done by the priest. Then, in unison, we read the second Eucharistic Prayer. We said the Lord’s Prayer, exchanged the sign of peace and shared in Holy Communion. The ministers cleaned the sacred vessels and we all prayed for God’s blessing on each other before leaving.

We have a midweek Mass on Wednesday – when we look forward to explaining to our priest what we felt able to do.

Michelle Street
Lower Grasmere, Cumbria

So who really does take sex ed seriously?

2009-04-24T08:42:00.006+01:00

When I pointed out that 'most' Catholic bloggers, like the Catholic press and the hierarchy, seem to be largely ignoring the sex ed issue, I was rebuked by Mulier Fortis: 'don't antagonise your friends' she tells me.

I recognise the work Mulier Fortis has put into this issue, her courage and persistence; my remark wasn't directed at her. As for the others, I suggest the Catholic bloggers who do care about this needle them until they start taking notice.

Here's Google's top 25 Catholic websites. The ranking seems a little questionable to me but it is mostly blogs and it's a place to start. Looking at the blogs alone:

The Curt Jester: a search for "sex ed" throws up a number of references. There are numerous references as a side-issue and several posts devoted to the subject: on Bishop O'Donaghue, 'Screw Abstinence', Homosexual Progaganda, for example.

The Hermeneutic of Continuity is brilliant on the issue, so is Creative Minority Report.

Jimmy Akin: a search reveals a lot of references, but they seem to be mostly in the comments on his posts. The same seems to be true of 'Inside Catholic' and What Does the Prayer Really Say?. It is interesting that their readers are more concerned about it that the authors.

The Conversation Diary has fewer references, again many of them are in comments, despite acknowledging its importance in a post on 'How I became pro-life'. There are a handful of references on Pro Ecclesia.

Whispers in the Loggia, Holy Smoke, CathCon, Per Christum, The Black Cordelias, Rorate Caeli, Custos Fidei, Steve Skojec, Hanc Aquam: no references to speak of.

So what's my point? The most read Catholic blogs are, I should say, completely orthodox on the issue, but most of them just don't talk about it very much.

Abortion is a big issue for Catholics because children are being killed under our very noses. Sex education should be a big issue too: not only are children being abused under our noses, but unlike abortion (at least until recently), it is happening to Catholic children in Catholic schools.

This last point makes it a hot potato. That makes it all the more important that we don't drop it.

Congratulations to the Catholic blogs who talk about it persistently - we link to a lot of them on the side-bar, including Mulier Fortis; see also Catholic and Loving It. But few of them are among the most widely read blogs.

Who is taking Sex Education seriously?

2009-04-22T20:52:00.005+01:00

Comment.

Sex education is systematically depriving an entire generation of children of their sexual 'boundaries': the instinctive sense of what is private, what is appropriate, what is wrong. Read up on the ideology of sex education, and you will find that this is entirely intentional. But if you think that sexual immodesty and impurity, an incapacity for committed relationships, and the destruction of the only environment capable of bringing up healthy and happy children - a stable family - is getting bad now, just wait another twenty years. In twenty years time the brutalised adolescants of today will be in their mid and late 30s: and many of them will still be incapable of forming stable relationships, understanding sexual fidelity, and so on.

The seriousness of the situation could hardly be exagerated. But where is the outrage? Where is the organised response?

Parents find opposing sex education frightening, for two reasons.

1. They have been told that if it is not to be done at school, 'sex education' must happen at home. They find the prospect distasteful. They are right to find it distasteful: sex education, of the kind done in schools, the destruction of privacy and sexual boundaries, should not be done at home either: it is totally wrong. What children need from their parents is the answering of spontaneous questions in a way which respects the degree of maturity the child has attained. Parents should not be frightened of that.

2. They are worried that if they withdraw their children from sex ed classes, they and their children will be seen as prudish, eccentric, irresponsible, and worse. This is, unfortunately, true.

In fact, it understates the problem. Sex ed is not only delivered in 'sex ed' (PHSE/PSE) classes; it is delivered right accross the range of subjects. It is usually impossible, in practice, to withdraw your children from it entirely. Furthermore, the brutalisation of children in the school creates an environment which is not conduceive to children receiving any kind of education, or developing normal relationships and emotional maturity. This problem points, in the end, to homeschooling as the way to protect one's children, and this is something which frightens parents even more.

Home schooling is not, however, as bad as it sounds, as there are groups and resources out there to help those who go down this path. For those who are reluctant, however, we must ask this: if you don't want to home-school, you had better be prepared to fight your corner in your school.

The Catholic bishops of England and Wales have decided, in the main, on a policy of appeasement. For the most negligible of concessions they have simply handed the children entrusted to their care over to the sex educators. The man in charge of this policy is Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Chairman of the Catholic Education Service. Now that he has been appointed Archbishop of Westminster, the policy does not seem likely to change any time soon. Even his opposition to the provision of contraception and abortion in Catholic schools has been muted and ineffectual: indeed, the CES officially 'welcomed' the Government's 'Connexions' clinics in Catholic schools.

See Eric Hester on the subject (and here).

The Catholic press, even most Catholic bloggers, are extremely unwilling to tackle the issue. It is the elephant in the room. They don't want to annoy the bishops; they don't want to upset their readers.

So who is taking the problem of sex ed seriously? Well, if you are worried about it you are not alone. But we need to build a network of mutual support.

There is a petition open calling for a consultation on compulsory sex ed.

There is a newsletter for Catholic homeschoolers, 'Faith in the Home'. Email us and we'll out you in touch. HerculesCAUK@gmail.com

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC): they have a 'Safe at School' campaign on the subject.

John Smeaton, SPUC's National Director, has an excellent blog.

Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice

National Association of Catholic Families: they have issued an 'open letter' against sex ed.

Catholic Truth Scotland

Catholicmomof10journey: the blogger Jackie Parkes.

Mulier Fortis: the blogger Mac McLernon

Here are two newish websites with an interest in the subject:

Catholic Parenting

The Faith, The Family, The Future

We'd be very interested to add to this list.

CFNews draws our attention to this American site: Veil of Innocence

The Times hoaxed twice

2009-04-21T12:23:00.004+01:00

Comment: a bizarre story. First Ruth Gledhill was suckered into reporting that the Papal Nuncio had been rushed to hospital, leading to the cancellation of his annual reception at Archbishop's House to celebrate the Pope's birthday, last evening.

Now the Times Rome correspondent, Richard Owen, has been taken for a ride over a story saying, completely untruly, that the Pope is planning to give the Prince of Wales a copy of a historical document relating to the divorce between Henry VIII and Katharine of Aragon.

The Times has very little credibility left as a reporter of Catholic affairs. One might hope that basic story checking might be resumed after this fiasco. Perhaps that is the hoaxer's point. It will be interesting to see if the Times apologises.

Ruth Gledhill's ferocious attacks on the Pope following the Williamson affair undermine her role as a reporter on a respectable paper as effectively as her sensationalist misreading of an Anglican document about prospects for unity with Rome a couple of years ago. She really ought to get a job more suited to her talents.

H-T to Holy Smoke.

'All that I Am' condemned

2009-04-21T09:51:00.002+01:00

Action: Parents must FIND OUT what is being done in their schools in the name of sex ed/PHSE and PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN. This will mean protests, quite possibly withdrawing children from the school. Yes, that might not be pleasant but we have a responsibility for the children God has entrusted to us and nothing can take that responsibility away. Their souls are at stake; so are their parents'.

Here is a critique of 'All that I Am', a programme of sex education developed for CATHOLIC schools for the diocese of the man who is Chairman of the Catholic Education Service, who has now been named the next Archbishop of Westminster: Vincent Nichols.

For heaven's sake, Catholic 'conservatives', stop rhapsodising about Archbishop Nichols and take a look at what he is imposing on our children. Here's the 'All That I Am' website with more information about the course. We've blogged before on this course, here; this includes the relevant documents from the Vatican.

From 'The Faith, The Family, The Future' (see it in full here): This critique mainly relates to the junior school material, though the KS3&4 material has been reviewed and is referred to below although the principles used in this critique can be applied to any sex-ed programme. It was written by several parents who, faced with the introduction of the programme into their schools, studied all the material (rather than just the promotional DVD) with some doctors and a priest.;-

Introduction
1 It is extremely clear in the teaching of the Catholic Church that the prime educators of children on these matters are parents. There is a lot of evidence that shows that this position is valid and is by far the best way to provide effective values education for children. (BMJ research 19/1/07). Programmes which talk about sex and condoms have either no effect or (according to the literature) make things worse. Children almost always express a preference for their parents to explain these things to them. Outcomes are much more favourable among those for whom their parents are the main sources of information about sexual matters.
2 The proposed school program, as well as the diocesan policy usurps the role of parents by failing to involve them in the process of education. The process merely informs them and does not promote or support the role of parents in delivering this. The proposed school programme is therefore against Catholic teaching.
3 Where parents are not involved in the delivery of the programme, teachers may depart from the material approved and add inappropriate material. We know of a child in year 5 who was told by a school nurse “you don’t need a daddy to have children. For a few hundred pounds you can get a baby by a visit to a laboratory.” (Details of artificial insemination followed.)
With regard to the currently proposed program, “All That I Am”
4 While this program is less visually pornographic than alternatives, we still cannot condone something which is less corrupting.
5 Parts of the program which equate the bits on washing to being rejected because of smell etc to year 5 children are not necessary but also encourages feelings of inadequacy to those who are less than perfect. See DVD.
6 Discussion of periods is appropriate for girls, with their mothers but not in mixed sex classes. Boys should not be troubled with this in Y5. See Teaching Strategies p13
7 Boys and girls should not feel it is appropriate to have open disclosure of these issues and the programme clearly promotes this; this is culturally out of step and is inappropriate behaviour in our society, even for adults. CCC2522
8 “God does not want to hold us back from full self expression” (teachers manual year 6, p38) is an incorrect sentiment. He most certainly does want us to hold back from many ways in which we can express ourselves, primarily those ways which are sinful and which harm others and ourselves.
9 Y5 video and 09.30 has an inappropriate discussion of periods and presentation of female reproductive system in graphic form (needs justifying that this is necessary, or helpfully formative given lack of similar detail to anatomy of other systems at this Key Stage) and naked female form. The showing of naked adult forms and reproductive tracts in class falsely legitimises the sort of pornographic viewing on the Internet to which boys are particularly at risk.
10 In the Yr 5 "handbook" it says that "The onset of physical and emotional changes, such that is experienced in pre-adolescence and puberty, now require children to get information from sources, other than their parents.’’ This anecdotal comment is also often made by government teenage sexual health units with no scientific reference to back it up.
11 Y6;- specific questions as to whom can the child trust can introduce doubts and division into a parental relationship;- a study has shown that if the school introduces sex ed before the parents the children will go to the person who introduced them to the subject. (Who will be there in the future?)
12 Y6 key vocabulary = testicles! Also Ejaculate. We do not agree that this is key vocabulary for understanding human relationships in year 6.
13 We think this is the wrong program for the promotion of values;- How do I take care of myself (Y6 resource sheet 7) in these sheets we find no mention of sin, or values or keeping safe from moral danger etc, respect for others only cleanliness etc. The discussion of positive values like self-control, generosity, purity, good friendships, modesty are lacking.
14 Discussion of “wet dreams” should not be done in groups. Many parents at our schools feel it should be done individually, privately, probably not at year six (and definitely not with girls). (See CCC;2522 Modesty is decency. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.)
15 There is almost nothing in the Y5 and Y6 curricula about marriage, self-control, chastity and stable relationships.
16 This is not a programme that builds on a child’s understanding or natural interest in procreation, the approach recommended by the Vatican's document "Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality" (TMHS). Adults can interpret a child’s interest with their own adult understanding and thus impose on the child information the child had not sought.
17 This programme should be seen as a whole (we have viewed the material up to year 11 with a group of parents and a priest); it is highly sexual, introduces all areas of sex and related matters, to children at different stages of maturity. Discussion in pairs and as groups is a key part of the teaching strategy. The subject matter presented is often beyond the maturity, intellectual and moral formation of the pupils it is aimed at. It is disingenuous to publicly open up sexual behaviour, before the children are ready for it, and before it is approved, even in our society. Contrast this with the way smoking and alcohol are presented.
19 The KS1&2 material must be seen along with the KS3&4 to allow one to be fully concerned about the whole programme. The producers quote an otherwise largely obscure psychologist whose quoted piece was published after the pilot visual material of the programme was made. He states ‘Can we envisage 9 and 10 year old girls mature enough to start their sexual careers?’ J Coleman. Like other such material in the teachers’ notes, this appears twice in the teachers’ notes for KS3 and KS4.
20 There are scientific errors in the KS1&2 materials and also in KS3&4.

Therefore we maintain the God given right of parents to be the prime educators of their children in this matter, and insist that the school withdraw this education from our children, allowing us to take responsibility for this aspect of their education.

Notre Shame

2009-04-20T10:31:00.003+01:00

Please sign the petition if you haven't yet. This is a really huge campaign now: they have well over 300,000 signatures, and the support of more than 30 American bishops, including the local bishop.

Notre Dame, the flagship of the US's system of Catholic universities, has invited President Obama to received a honorary law degree and address them at their 'commencement' ceremony. To invite the most pro-abortion President in the history of the country is not a monor faux-pas. Notre Dame is saying that it no longer wants to be associated with Catholic teaching and values.

If so they must cease to call themselves a Catholic university!

The Tablet attacks Catholic blogs

2009-04-19T16:43:00.003+01:00

Comment: it takes a stunning lack of self-knowledge for The Tablet to accuse others of 'straight poison-pen character assassination without reference to any requirements of accuracy or balance.' (leader, 1/4/09) Wasn't The Tablet being accused of something along these lines, and with good reason, just a few weeks ago?

Only the hauteur of the liberal establishment makes possible the lambasting of a conspiracy among its opponents, one of whose principle characteristics is supposed to be 'paranoia' and conspiracy theories.

It may be news to Catherine Pepinster, whose mixture of denial and paranoia is revealing itself in her leading articles, but most Catholic blogs pay little attention to The Tablet. It comes onto the radar screen only when it takes to poison-pen character assassination.

Naturally, Catholic blogs take up the contrary position to The Tablet much of the time. When The Tablet attacks the Holy Father, we defend him. When it attacks Archbishop Nichols, or Bishop O'Donaghue, or Catholic teachings, we defend them. But don't make yourself feel too important: it's not a conspiracy against The Tablet: we'd be defending these people and things anyway.

But since you raise the question in the week the Bishops are having their annual meeting, who is doing damage to the Catholic cause? And who gets the implicit approval of bishops and parish priests? The Tablet is stocked in churches throughout the land, yet never ceases to undermine the Church, its institutions and its teachings alike.The Bishops would do well to end this anomaly.

The death of the taditional family

2009-04-17T10:44:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

From CFNews: Women are more likely to give birth before they turn 25 than get married, according to official statistics that illustrate how British family life has been transformed in a generation. More people are living alone, more children are being raised by single parents and more grown-up children are living with their parents than ever before, according to the Office for National Statistics. One expert said that the in-depth annual study was final confirmation that the nuclear family had become 'a museum piece'.

The wide-ranging report also showed that Britain had become a nation of people who travel longer distances to work, take more foreign holidays and fill their homes with electrical gadgets.

The Social Trends report made clear, however, that the most radical changes had been to child-rearing and marriage.

Its figures showed that 30 per cent of women under 30 had given birth by the age of 25, while 24 per cent had married: the first time that having children had become the first major milestone of adult life, ahead of marriage. This was in sharp contrast to their parents' generation. In 1971 three-quarters of women were married by 25, and half had given birth. The statistics also showed that:

* the number of adults living alone doubled in a generation, from 6 per cent to 12 per cent, because of a combination of death, divorce and marrying at a later age;

* single-parent households nearly tripled from 4 per cent of the total to 11 per cent between 1971 and 2008;

* the percentage of households comprising the traditional nuclear family - a couple with children - fell from 52 per cent to 36 per cent over the same period;

* the number of married couples hit the lowest level, in real terms, since 1895, with 237,000 marriages in England and Wales in 2006, down from a peak of 471,000 during the Second World War;

* some 1.66 million children were being brought up by an unmarried couple, up from one million 10 years ago. The number brought up by married parents dropped from 9.57 million to 8.32 million.

The figures were published two months after official statistics showed that the annual rate of teenage pregnancy in England had risen to 42 in every 1,000, despite a £286 million government campaign to tackle the problem. The figures reinforced Britain's position as the teenage pregnancy capital of Europe.

Dr Richard Woolfson, a leading family expert and child psychologist, said: 'The nature of family life has changed significantly in the last 30 years. The traditional nuclear family of two parents and 2.4 children has become a museum piece.

'The single-parent family carried all sorts of social and moral judgments back then [in 1971]. That is just not the case any more.

'The couple who do not get married is now socially acceptable in a way that it never was before.'

Dr Woolfson said it was impossible to say if children raised outside the traditional family were unhappier, but he added: 'You have to ask what sort of families will today's children create. Where will they go?'

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader and chairman of the Centre for Social Justice, said the figures 'mattered hugely'. He added: 'One in 12 children will experience their parents breaking up by the age of five if those parents are married. But that figure is one in two if the parents are cohabiting. Marriage is not just a piece of paper.'

Mr Duncan Smith called for the tax system to favour those who choose marriage over living together. 'It is not our job, as politicians, to lecture, but the problem has been caused by successive UK governments centring on the child, and forgetting the parent,' he said.

'We now know that children suffer hugely if they don't get the balance of two parents in their upbringing. Those with two parents are less likely to take drugs, more likely to do well at school, more likely to get jobs.'

The ONS figures also showed that a rise in the number of people going to university and a decade-long house price bubble had meant that 300,000 more people under the age of 34 lived at home than in 2001. In 2008, 29 per cent of men under the age of 34 lived at home with their parents, up from 27 per cent seven years earlier.

The ONS said the Divorce Reform Act of 1969, which made it easier to dissolve a marriage, was one of the main causes for the radical change in families.

Critics of the Government point out that the tax system has also been altered to the advantage of unmarried couples.

The last tax break for married couples, the married couples' allowance, was abolished in 2000. State benefits, and especially Gordon Brown's flagship tax credit system, pay more to single mothers than to two-parent families.

Patricia Morgan, the author of The War between the State and the Family, said: 'There is discrimination on the one hand, but on the other there are major benefit incentives for a single woman to have children. It's a mug's game, getting married.'

However, the ONS figures suggested that those who got married were staying together for longer. An average marriage lasted 11.6 years in 2005, up from less than 10 years in the mid-1990s.

Sue Palmer, a child expert and author of Toxic Childhood, said many of the statistics relating to the breakdown in the traditional family were linked indirectly to separate figures showing that 30 per cent of girls and 31 per cent of boys were overweight or obese. She said: 'The more parents work, the more the children stay at home and are not playing outside with their friends.'

A spokesperson for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: 'We know that the make-up of the family unit is changing but that doesn't mean the family is breaking down. It is Government's role to support families in all shapes and sizes, which is why our policies are aimed at empowering and advising parents to make the best choices for their children. We are investing £250 million in local services for parents, particularly those in challenging circumstances and last December the first ever Government relationship summit looked at what more we can do to support children and families and give extra help to families experiencing relationship breakdown.'

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: 'We support all struggling families, giving them the real help they need. Modern families come in all shapes and sizes but every family with one child, where one adult is working full-time at minimum wage took home £292 a week in 2008 compared to £182 in 1999 - a real terms increase of 24 per cent.

'Child benefit, Tax credits and other benefits help all working familiies and through the welfare reform bill we are putting new expectations on workless parents to ensure they take up the support we offer.' [Daily Telegraph]

What happened to the University of Notre Dame?

2009-04-16T10:01:00.000+01:00

Briefing, This is a very interesting and informative article about how America's top 'Catholic' university same to be so detached from the Church as to invite President Obama to address it. There are two, linked tendencies, which go back 40 years: federal funding was available if it played down its Catholic identiy, and academic prestige is increased on the same basis.

Mutatis mutandis this is the mechanism driving all sorts of Catholic institutions out of the Church: Government funding and the desire for the respect of secularist colleagues in whatever field the institution happens to be working.

From the Wanderer: Christopher Manion comments in his 'From Under The Rubble...' column in The Wanderer: 'In 1974, 1 attended a meeting designed to probe the possibilities of rescuing Catholic education from the nebulous but ubiquitous 'spirit of Vatican II.' At lunch. I joined Fr. Christopher O'Toole, CSC, and my own bishop, Leo Pursley, DD. who had confirmed me years before. Why were these two luminaries interested in supporting efforts to preserve orthodox education for the next generation of college students? Their answer was blunt. 'I'm doing penance,' said Fr. O'Toole, somberly. And Bishop Pursley nodded in agreement.

Penance for what? Well, Fr. O'Toole explained, as the superior general of the Congregation of the Holy Cross throughout the 1960s, he had not done enough to prevent the secularization of the University of Notre Dame during that fateful decade. Bishop Pursley, who had presided over the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend for almost 20 years, also admitted that he had not been forceful enough with the university. That afternoon, both men agreed that, as far as Notre Dame was concerned, they had failed.

That conversation came to mind during the uproar that followed the recent announcement by Fr. John Jenkins. CSC, president of Notre Dame, that Barack Obama would address the class of 2009 at commencement in May. This decision was shocking, yes - but it was based on a fundamental error that goes back 40 years.

In 1967, a group of Catholic educators, led by Notre Dame President Theodore M. Hesburgh, met at Land O'Lakes, Wis., and formally declared their independence from the Catholic Church. Alas, their motives were less than noble. Just two years before, LBJ's Omnibus Education Act had opened the floodgates to federal funding of higher education, and Catholic colleges wanted a place at the trough. Notre Dame quickly adopted a lay board of trustees so it could receive federal money, and only a year later the other shoe fell when numerous Notre Dame faculty and religious roundly denounced Humanae Vitae.

In a 2007 Wanderer interview, Archbishop Raymond Burke zeroed in on Land O'Lakes as a central catalyst of decline in Catholic education. 'So much was undone,' he said, 'and there's a mentality [that] entered into the universities by which those people who dedicated their lives to Catholic education believe that they could not be an excellent university and at the same time be faithful to the Church's teaching and discipline. That is a fundamental error, and it takes a lot to undo it.'

Shaking Down The Thunder

Since announcing Obama's acceptance. Fr. Jenkins has been deluged with phone calls, e-mails, and letters denouncing his decision and requesting that he rescind the invitation. Within days, 160.000 people signed an online petition at notredamescandal.com and Notre Dame students began planning a series of events addressing Obama's policies that have already proven him to be the most pro-death president in U.S. history.

Not that any of this will bother Fr. Jenkins. Notre Dame's administration these days is thoroughly intimidated by the increasingly left-wing and non- Catholic faculty, which apparently expects to be running the school within a generation.

The reasons are simple. Consider the CSCs: The Catholic News Service incorrectly reports that Notre Dame is 'run by the Congregation of Holy Cross.' Sorry, that ended 40 years ago, when federal money required that the congregation not run the school. Moreover, vocations to the CSCs are dwindling to the point that, in 40 more years' priests on the faculty will be a rare anachronism.

But won't outraged alumni stop donating? No problem! NBC Sports has an exclusive multiyear contract to broadcast Notre Dame's home football games. University spokesman Dennis Brown cannot reveal the amount the school receives from NBC, but a source in NBC's New York headquarters says that Notre Dame receives more from NBC than it receives from all alumni giving. And what about that federal money? Brown tells The Wanderer that, in a typical year, Notre Dame receives about eighty million dollars in federal grants.

In brief, Notre Dame's institutional priorities have moved since the 1960s from the principles of the faith to money and power. And what has been the engine of that change? Ralph Mclnerny, who retires this year after teaching philosophy at Notre Dame for 54 years, blames it on the university's 'truly vulgar lust to be welcomed into secular society.'

In short, from the point of view of Notre Dame's first priority since 1967 - money - the Obama invitation is a win-win situation. The uproar delights the faculty: Their status rises in the eyes of their secular counterparts who sit on the 'peer review' committees that approve federal grants. So does their prestige, since being a Catholic who actually embraces Church teaching is a ticket to nowhere among any university's faculty nowadays.

The Silver Lining

Two opportunities emerge here. First, in brushing off the avalanche of criticism. Fr. Jenkins, at the end of some blather celebrating Obama's appearance, said that 'we see his visit as a basis for further positive engagement.' Well, a number of Notre Dame students have taken him seriously. Already, several organizations have banded together - first, to repudiate the invitation, and second, to organize a series of events that will reveal whether Fr. Jenkins is as good as his word. Does Obama really want engagement? Does he really want to discuss embryonic stem-cell research beyond the blithe pleasantries he offered at his press conference on March 24? How about the ten billion condoms that the U.S. has sent to poor countries around the world?

Would Obama care to compare his views on African AIDS with those of Pope Benedict? And, if the president is 'personally opposed' to abortion, will students have a chance to ask him why he is personally opposed? What is it about abortion that is so gruesome that he would personally oppose it, when so many of his ardent supporters are pro-abortion zealots?

The second opportunity lies with the real authority here - diocesan Bishop John D'Arcy. Canon law gives the ordinary, not the university, the right and the duty to bestow and to remove the name 'Catholic' from any institution or endeavor in his diocese (c. 216). There is recent precedent. Last fall, Arlington Bishop Paul Loverde announced 'that Notre Dame Academy can no longer identify itself as a Catholic school.' The academy. founded in Middleburg. Va., by the Sisters of Notre Dame 45 years ago, is now governed by a lay board of trustees who no longer want to uphold the teachings of the Church. Bishop Loverde thus announced that 'the school will no longer have the Blessed Sacrament reserved in its chapel and the diocese will not be able to guarantee the quality or authenticity of religious or other instruction.'

Bishop Loverde saves the best till last: 'I have strongly suggested to [the chairman] that the Board of Trustees consider changing the name of the school. The title 'Notre Dame' (Our Lady) is so closely associated with our Catholic faith that continued use of the name would undoubtedly be a cause of confusion to potential students and their families.'

Bishop D'Arcy wrote that 'President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred,' the bishop wrote, announcing that he would not attend the ceremony.

But he can do more. Let us pray that Bishop D'Arcy doesn't someday lament that, when it came to Notre Dame, he was not forceful enough. [http://www.thewandererpress.com]

GCSE in soft port

2009-04-15T10:52:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

From CFNews:GCSE pupils could be analysing sexually explicit lads' mags as part of a Media Studies course, it has emerged. Teens could compare the 'style and tone' of magazines such as Nuts, FHM and Zoo, notorious for displaying semi-naked women on their covers.

The latest edition of Zoo features 'Britain's sexiest blondes - 14 topless pages proving they really do have more fun!' Family campaigners are outraged at the move by assessment body AQA.

The news follows a survey last week which showed nearly nine in ten 14 to 17-year-olds had viewed pornography. And alarmingly almost one in five confessed to accessing pornography more than once a week - mostly online or via mobile phone.

The updated syllabus is currently being taught to children aged 14 to 16, with the first examinations due to take place next June.

The examination requires students to 'identify/describe targeting of specific markets by magazines and comics eg 'lads' mags''.

They should 'analyse/interpret the relationship of content to target audience in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, social and educational background'.

Margaret Morrissey, Chairman of campaign group Parents Outloud, said: 'If we want to bring back some vestige of normality for our teenagers then we have got to stop exposing them intentionally to such things.'

An AQA spokesman insisted the magazines were not a compulsory part of the syllabus.

Last year MP Claire Curtis-Thomas warned that notorious lads' mags such as 'Zoo', and 'Nuts' were little more than pornography and should be given age-appropriate 16 and 18 certificates.

Mrs Curtis-Thomas voiced her concerns after commissioning The Top Shelf Report which recommended introducing 'statutory guidelines that are comparable to the existing standards for video, film and television.'

In the report a sample of sixth-form students were surveyed and it found that 100 per cent of girls who looked at 'The Daily Sport', 'Zoo' and 'Nuts' expressed being angry, offended or upset by the images they contained.

One fifth of male students sampled admitted that looking at this material encouraged them to see women as sex-objects. [Christian Institute]

Another homosexual adoption scandal

2009-04-14T10:32:00.000+01:00

Briefing.

From CHNews: The mother and family of two little boys have launched a bid to keep them from being adopted by a homosexual couple. The boys' grandfather says the adoption would go against the 'family's Christian values'.

The boys, aged nine and six, were taken away from their mother after she allowed them to have contact with their father, her estranged husband, who had physically abused her. Despite the mother's parents and married brother each offering a home to the boys, social workers advertised them in an internet adoption magazine and decided that a homosexual couple should adopt them.

Their mother has told a family court in Somerset that a homosexual household is not a suitable environment for her sons.

She told one newspaper: 'I would love to look after the boys myself and think I am quite capable, especially with the support of my family.

'I was dismayed to find they are going to a single-sex couple. Social workers just dumped the truth on me. I was called to their office about the adoption procedures, and they said the boys' new parents would be a single-sex couple.'

The mother's brother says he has discussed the matter with homosexual friends, who have also raised concerns.

'They asked about the long-term future of the couple who want to adopt my nephews. Will they stay together? Are they in a civil partnership? What happens to the children if they split up?'

Critics of gay adoption have questioned the stability of same-sex relationships, particularly given the fact that many children placed for adoption have already experienced significant family disruption.

Government figures show that none of the 20 male couples in England who adopted children in the year up to March 2008 had registered their relationship as a civil partnership.

The boys' grandfather, a sports coach in his sixties, said: 'The boys thought they were getting a new mummy and daddy, not a daddy and daddy. We are not homophobic, but we feel strongly this adoption is against our family's Christian values.'

Their grandmother added: 'Our grandsons are being forcibly taken from a family who want them dearly. We are worried they will be indoctrinated into a different lifestyle. This is social engineering by the state.'

Somerset County Council say they cannot comment on individual cases.

The case is similar to one which emerged earlier this year of an Edinburgh couple who were told they would never see their grandchildren again unless they dropped their opposition to the children being adopted by a gay couple.

The grandparents had been turned down as adoptive parents themselves because, at 46 and 59, they were told they were too old. [Christian Institute}

Martin Pendergast on homosexulity in the Church

2009-04-13T19:02:00.004+01:00

Briefing: an interesting statement of his position, which no doubt goes for his groups, the Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement/ Soho Masses Pastoral Council, and Catholic AIDS Support/ Positive Catholics. He makes it quite clear that he completely rejects Church teaching, including the prohibition on homosexual sexual acts, which he coyly calls 'choosing to exercise rights of conscience'. He is simply laughing at the hierarchy, who would prefer to turn a blind eye to his views when granting him permission for 'gay' Masses.

The fundamental issue here, which we never tire of pointing out, is that in allowing them to organise Masses, run the choir, distribute their literature at the door etc. etc. bishops are allowing these groups to exercise a pastoral role viz-a-viz some of the most vulnerable Catholics in their dioceses. Since these organisations reject the Church teaching relevant to the issues at hand, this is a gross dereliction of duty.

Pendergast writes: Successive Roman documents have embroidered this offensive and confusing vocabulary [that homosexuality is 'instrinsically disordered'] to the present day. The Vatican becomes more and more isolated from other parts of the church in theological reflection and pastoral practise. It has ratcheted up its rhetoric, forcing Bishops to defend the indefensible, whether with regard to admission of candidates to seminaries or religious communities, same-sex marriage and civil unions, or same-sex couples ability to foster or adopt children.

Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality highlights some of Catholicism's best kept secrets: the primacy of a fully informed personal conscience, the hierarchy of truths, and the development of doctrine. The Catholic Bishops of England & Wales rose to these challenges when they authorised the publication of "An Introduction to the Pastoral Care of Homosexual People" in 1979.

These guidelines stayed faithful to Catholic teaching that sexual activity is only admissible within marriage, but stated that both homosexual orientation and heterosexual orientations are morally neutral. This underscores the Vatican position that the orientation in itself is not sinful, but moral decisions relate to how that orientation is expressed sexually. Whereas the Vatican would go no further in the discussion, the local Pastoral Care guidelines encouraged clergy to adopt a more nuanced approach when faced with two people in a permanent, faithful relationship who choose to exercise their rights of conscience. The Vatican was not pleased with this liberal interpretation.

See the full article, in the Guardian, here.

Card. Murphy-O'Connor to join Blair foundation

2009-04-13T10:34:00.000+01:00

Action: complaints, please, to the congregation for bishops. Blair himself is deeply committed to an anti-Catholic and pro-abortion agenda, and this is reflected in by his foundation. It is a scandal that a Cardinal should join it.

Congregation for Bishops
10 Piazza Pio XII
00193 Vatican
Italy

In office, Blair's voting and speaking record is uniformly pro-abortion, pro-sex education, pro-contraception and so on.

He supported Stonewall, the militant gay group, in its campaign against the Church's adoption agencies.

After leaving office, he has refused to clarify his views on those issues.

The Blair foundation supports 'millenium goals', including abortion.

From Life SiteNews: The Tony Blair Faith Foundation has announced that after his retirement as Archbishop of Westminster in May this year, Cormac Cardinal Murphy O'Connor will become the first Catholic member of the Foundation's International Religious Advisory Council.

The move comes two years after the cardinal received his friend Tony Blair into the Catholic Church without requiring the former Prime Minister to publicly apologize or recant his anti-Catholic positions on abortion and human embryonic experimentation or for his championing the cause of the homosexualist movement during his political career.

Tony Blair made headlines this week when he was quoted in a homosexualist magazine saying that the Catholic Church needs to 'rethink' its 'position' on homosexuality. He said that Pope Benedict's 'entrenched' views are a result of 'generational issues' and 'fear' of change.

He described the work of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation as encouraging 'faiths' to come together, overcoming differences in 'doctrine.' A large part of his work, he said, is to urge religious leaders to reinterpret 'religious texts' metaphorically rather than literally. He said religious leaders need 'to treat religious thought and even religious texts as themselves capable of evolution over time.'

He said, 'I think that for all religions, the challenge is how do you extract the essential values of the faith from a vast accumulation of doctrine and practice? For many people, the reason for their religious faith is less to do with the doctrine and practice, and more to do with the values like love of God and love of your neighbour.' [LSN]

Card. O'Brien on social collapse

2009-04-13T10:15:00.000+01:00

Briefing: is it just me or are bishops saying more interesting things these days?

Cardinal O'Brien tells the Scottish executive that if you wreck society - undermine the family, forbid schools to exercise discipline, encourage under-age sex etc. - you should not be surprised when things even liberals don't like start happening: vandalism, yobbery, drunkeness, public health problems etc.. And having destroyed self-restraint you can't solve the problem with headline-catching initiatives like making booze marginally more expensive.

From CFNews: The leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics today hit out at the way politicians are trying to tackle society's problems, saying Scotland is now "staring into the abyss of social collapse".

Writing in a newspaper on Easter Sunday, Cardinal Keith O'Brien accused politicians of being "paralysed by a chronic fear of moralising" as he called on them to stop passing "frenzied regulation" and do more to look at the underlying causes of social problems, such as drug and alcohol abuse.

He also described the government's crackdown on cheap alcohol as stemming from a "deeply flawed" and "utterly discredited" approach.

He said: "Scotland is staring into the abyss of social collapse. Too many of our young people are caught up in a maelstrom of drug-and-alcohol-fuelled promiscuity, hedonism, vandalism and outright nihilism.

"It is a whirlwind which we will reap for a long time to come. We are paying the price for denying too many of our young people security, stability and morality, a price paid in shattered lives and broken children."

And the Cardinal, in his Easter Sunday Homily, said that too often public policy deals with the symptoms of social breakdown rather than the causes.

He said: "When our fellow citizens err and lapse we seldom focus on them or ask why they behaved as they did. Rather we rush to impose legal restraints on such action forgetting dangerously that no external restrictions can ever match the effectiveness of self-restraint.

"When a toddler is shot with an airgun we regulate the sale of such weapons, alcohol abuse by our young people is met with legislation to restrict sales and sexual promiscuity with regulations aimed at ensuring contraception and abortion are widely available.

"In every instance we seek to mitigate the effects of bad behaviour and perhaps place barriers in the paths of such acts. We do not as a society take action to tackle the underlying motivation; instead we limit our action to blunting the impact of our excesses."

The Scottish Government last month announced plans to set a minimum price for alcohol and ban money saving promotions such as "three for two" deals.

Ministers say alcohol misuse costs Scotland £2.25billion a year.

Cardinal O'Brien added: "In recent weeks much coverage has been given to the decision by the Scottish Government to limit sales of alcohol to young people by increasing the selling price through restrictions on a variety of retail offers and by asking local authorities to consider raising the age for alcohol purchases.

"This policy mirrors the approach taken by this and previous administrations to drug use, vandalism, anti social behaviour, obesity even promiscuity and might usefully be called the 'command and control' model of public governance.

"Advocates of such a model take the view that 'bad behaviour' whether it be public drunkenness, health-threatening over eating or teenage promiscuity are all immutable and unchangeable.

"The urge and desire to commit acts of this type cannot be curbed far less removed therefore public, social and health policy must all be orientated towards mitigating the effects.

"It is an approach, which is deeply flawed and utterly discredited."

Cardinal O'Brien called for action to address what he believes are the underlying causes of social problems, such as marriage breakdown the fracturing of family life.

He said: "Scotland has one of the highest divorce rates in the Western world we also have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates and STI statistics, which are both alarming and growing.

"In the face of all this evidence our Parliament has enacted legislation making divorce easier and quicker and giving greater legal recognition to cohabitation, while our taxation system ruthlessly penalises long-term legal commitment." [STV]