Briefing. Some sanity in evidence in the preparations for the papal liturgies.
From CFNews: Pope Benedict XVI has declined to wear vestments displaying Australian national symbols during his appearance at World Youth Day in Sydney, The Australian reports.
The Pope has turned down proposed vestments that would display the Southern Cross, the constellation that is visible in the sky of the southern hemisphere and featured on the Australian flag. The chasubles would also have depicted 'Marjorie's Bird,' a design symbolizing the hopes of Australian aboriginal natives. The Pontiff reportedly insisted that liturgical vestments should show only Christian symbols.
Jim Hanna, a spokesman for World Youth Day organizers in Sydney, denied reports that the Pope's insistence on the Church liturgical norms has given rise to tensions among Australian clerics. 'I have seen no evidence of controversy brewing about the liturgy,' he told The Australian.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Pope insists on Christian vestments for World Youth Day
Nottingham diocese severs links with adoption agency
Briefing. A pity they missed the opportunity to fight the law in the courts.
From CFNews: The Bishop of Nottingham has sent a letter to his priests announcing that the Diocese is severing ties with its Catholic Children's Society, which will no longer be called 'Catholic' and will in fact merge with the local Anglican children's society and have a different name. There will be no church fundraising for it. He cited the Sexual Orientation Regulations as his reason. Saint John Fisher and Saint Thomas More, pray for us.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Oratory School, London, and the Terence Higgins Trust
Update: The THT now promotes the most disgusting and dangerous sexual practices imaginable on its website. Claiming to make these marginally less likely to cause AIDs infection, they are in fact endorsing the sub-culture which is spreading them, and the AIDs they carry, more widely. This is one embarassment which the Oratory School has wisely avoided. Full story here.
Original post 12/11/07: Local action as appropriate: anyone connected with the school should register their support for the headmaster, David McFadden. The Terrence Higgins Trust openly supports the immoral lifestyle which increases the risk of AIDs infection, a strange position for an AIDs charity. They actively promote contraception and abortion. The Oratory School apparently offered to support them through a charity concert without giving it much thought; having thought about it, they have made the courageous decision to endure the censure of the liberal media by pulling out. The actor Simon Callow, a patron of both the THT and the Oratory Schola, has threatened to resign from the latter. Good riddance, we say.
The Oratory Schola's website still carries the announcement that they support the Terrence Higgins Trust; they also reveal, without embarrassment, that they sang for the odiously anti-Catholic film 'The Golden Compass'. Let us hope that the new Headmaster's attitude means this kind of thing won't happen again.
From The Guardian, in part: Yesterday, the Terrence Higgins Trust said it was "very disappointed" that the London Oratory School had axed it as the nominated charity for the concert, which is due to take place on December 1. The event will feature the school's internationally acclaimed choir, the Schola, and prominent soloists.
However, in a letter sent to parents and seen by the Guardian, headmaster David McFadden explained there were concerns "regarding the distribution of proceeds to an organisation whose aims and practices conflicted with the teachings and viewpoint of the Catholic church.
Full story here.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Government baby-snatchers
Briefing. The Family Courts, who meet in secret, are a major scandal and allow these appalling practices to continue. The idea that, in non-extreme cases, local authority social workers can do better for children than their natural parents is another attack on the family.
From CFNews: A council has admitted receiving Government money under a controversial 'adoption target' scheme that rewards the removal of children from their parents. Hammersmith and Fulham council, in west London, was paid £500,000 as a reward for placing more than 100 children for adoption in three years. The council is the first to acknowledge publicly a payout under the target scheme. It said that its social workers had 'pulled out all the stops' and 'cut down on the amount of bureaucracy' to boost the numbers. They exceeded their goal of 101 adoptions, securing 106 by this month's deadline. In almost every case, the birth parents fought to keep their children but were defeated in the family courts. advertisement A spokesman for the Tory-controlled council said: 'Nearly all of these children were adopted compulsorily through the courts. In each of these cases the courts decided that adoption was the right thing for the child.'
The councillor in charge of the campaign, Antony Lillis, said that the children had had the 'least promising' start in life, and were more likely to 'go on to achieve economic well-being' with their new adoptive parents. Campaigners said that some babies might have been taken unnecessarily from birth parents of limited means. John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of Justice for Families, said: 'I am concerned that Hammersmith and Fulham may have removed children to hit its target.'
The council announced its success in a press release headed 'Adoption target met'. Its disclosure appeared to contradict the claims of Kevin Brennan, the children's minister, who seemed to deny the existence of adoption targets when he said earlier this year: 'The only national adoption targets, which ended in 2006, were on the number of adoptions of children who were already in care and waiting to be placed for adoption, and on the speeding up of this. There was never a financial incentive for local authorities to meet these national targets.' [Sunday Telegraph]
Another attack on Church Schools
Briefing.
From CFNews: In her column in this week's Catholic Herald, Mary Kenny warns parents that they should beware of Ed Balls, the Minister for Children, Schools and Families, who has chosen to attack faith schools. Mr Balls has claimed that dozens of faith schools ask for cash contributions 'upfront' when 'selecting' pupils: that they research the background of pupils in order to covertly 'select' them: and that they go to all sorts of nefarious lengths to break the admissions code. His claims have been widely discredited, and even he has admitted that his data was 'unverified'. It turns out that a handful of Jewish schools and one Anglican school in the London area told parents that some contributions would be needed for religious classes which were not covered by the school budget. But the inaccuracy of his information is not really the point.
The point is that Mt Balls, and his parliamentarian wife, Yvette Cooper, are of the New Labour genre quite determined to destroy faith schools, under any pretext. This is not because faith schools fail - or turn children into the candidates for Time magazine's indictment - but for quite the contrary reasons: because they so often succeed in educational terms. Because they uphold discipline and moral values. And because parents will go to almost any lengths to get their children into these schools. Every educationalist involved in religious-based education should beware of this man. Every parent should be made aware of what his intentions are. A strong defence against Mr Balls's daft and destructive ideas will certainly be required. After all, he doesn't care if he goes down in history as the Minister who made British youth worse: so long as he achieves his desired object to control and destroy' [Catholic Herald]
'Near-criminal attack
Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, has carried out a 'near criminal' attack on high-performing faith schools, according to a leading Labour MP. Frank Field, the former welfare minister, said Gordon Brown's closest colleague was 'ranting' and using the row to position himself for Labour's 'next leadership contest'. His attack, in an article in today's The Sunday Telegraph, comes as Mr Brown's government faces Labour revolts on the abolition of the 10p tax rate and plans to 'privatise' welfare policy. Mr Field takes Mr Balls to task for his comments after many faith schools were found to be breaking admissions rules, including asking parents for financial donations. Mr Balls said the schools' activities were 'unacceptable'. Mr Field writes: 'Ed Balls's recent attack on faith schools [was] not simply incomprehensible, but near criminal. The PM … must rein him in. A rant against faith schools may be good for positioning a candidate for the next leadership contest but it is deeply damaging to a government that is trying to prevent itself being confined to a political life-support machine.' Mr Balls, widely seen as the Prime Minister's right-hand man, has come under attacks which are viewed by many MPs as coded assaults on Mr Brown. [Sunday Telegraph]
Reality of the Devil reaffirmed
Briefing. The personal reality of Satan is frequently denied. We ignore him at our peril.
From CFNews: The first question Father Amorth addressed in the report is if the devil exists: 'I respond with the words of John Paul II, who was once asked this question: 'Your Holiness, I find many bishop who don't believe in the devil.' And John Paul II responded: 'One who doesn't believe in the devil doesn't believe in the Gospel.' 'The devil is an angel, and therefore, a pure spirit created good by God and who perverted himself because he rebelled against God. Therefore, he maintains all the characteristics proper of a pure spirit, such as a very large intelligence, immensely bigger than ours.'
The devil is pleased by the way he is generally represented -- with wings and a tail, horns, as a bat, etc. -- because these images make him seem ridiculous and help people to believe that he does not exist, the exorcist reported. Father Amorth suggested that diabolic problems be separated from psychiatric ones; and to do so an exorcist is needed in every diocese to help in discernment. 'Normally when a person experiences these conflicts and problems, the first thing he does is see a doctor and psychiatrist,' he said. 'It is very difficult to distinguish the devil's action from a psychological problem. The person goes to a psychiatrist and after years of therapy obtains no result. 'Then he begins to suspect that the problem is not a natural one and goes to a conjurer from whom he obtains even greater harm.
This is what normally happens. At this point, it is possible that someone more experienced in these matters suggests an exorcist.' The exorcist confirmed that Satan's great foe is the Virgin Mary. He explained: 'On one occasion an exorcist friend of mine asked the devil what most hurts him about Our Lady, what most annoys him. He responded, 'That she is the purest of all creatures and that I am the filthiest; that she is the most obedient of all creatures and that I am the most rebellious; that she is the one who committed no sin and thus always conquers me.'' Father Amorth affirmed that on some occasions, God forces the Prince of Lies to tell the truth, however, the devil's main struggle is to make man fall into sin.
'To lead man towards evil is to make him fall into sin; this is the devil's preferred activity and we are all subject to it from our birth until our death.' According to Father Amorth, Mary is a key figure in the fight against the devil's tricks, especially since she herself was tempted: 'Mariology is my field and I have often been asked if Mary was tempted by the devil. Definitely. When? From her birth until her death. But she always triumphed.'
Legal challenges to pre-emptive hybrid-making
Briefing.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: The Christian Legal Centre and Comment on Reproductive Ethics filed papers yesterday at the High Court seeking Judicial Review over the recent decision by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to grant licences to Newcastle University and King’s College London (Jan 9, 2008) to begin research into degenerative diseases using animal-human hybrids. Last week Newcastle University claimed to have created the first animal-human embryo.
The legal challenge has been filed on two grounds: that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 does not allow licensing of animal-human hybrid embryos, and in fact contains a prohibition on the creation of such embryos. Claimants therefore believe no licence can be granted by the HFEA and the HFEA acted beyond its powers. Secondly, even if the HFEA did have the power to grant a licence, the HFE Act 1990 provides that no licence can be granted unless (1) it appears to the HFEA that the licence for research is necessary or desirable for one of a number of specified purposes and (2) that the HFEA is satisfied that any proposed use of embryos is necessary for the purposes of the research.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Barrister and Director of the Christian Legal
Centre which is bringing the action, together with Comment on Reproductive
Ethics said: “We believe the HFEA acted unlawfully in granting licences
permitting the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos. When the 1990 HFE Act
was passed it was quite clear that Parliament envisaged the embryo as human and
not 'animal-human'.
“The decisions to grant the licences were not justified in law in that the
proposed scientific techniques have been rendered ‘unnecessary’ and
‘undesirable’ by new technical advances; the proposed techniques do not work
and raise new scientific problems that will prevent any meaningful research
work. Most importantly, the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos is the
subject matter of a Bill before Parliament and the ethics, utility and limits
of such embryo research is presently the subject of Parliamentary debate. The
HFEA has pre-empted and usurped the will of Parliament.
“We also believe that the HFEA failed to take into account relevant factors,
namely bio-safety issues and/or the impact on the human genome of animal egg
factors.”
The creation of animal-human hybrids is an attack on the innate dignity of what
it means to be human.
The Christian Legal Centre and Comment on Reproductive Ethics hopes that the
Court will revoke the licenses granted by the HFEA to Newcastle University and
King’s College London and order that no further experimentation is carried out.
Parliament will decide on this issue in the near future. Furthermore, the
thrust of science suggests this line of experimentation will not yield
satisfactory results.
Mrs Williams added: “It is also necessary for the Court to comment on the fact
that the 1990 Act said licences can only be granted when deemed necessary or
desirable. This is a legal and proper standard designed to safeguard and
protect the embryo. When other alternatives to such controversial research
already exist, then it cannot be claimed that such new research is either
necessary or desirable.”
Archbishop Devine condemns China
Briefing.
From CFNews: A Catholic bishop in Scotland has compared China to Nazi Germany. Rt Rev Joseph Devine, Bishop of Motherwell, was speaking in the context of pro-Tibet protests during the Beijing Olympic flame's tour of Britain, The Wishaw Press reports. He said that the Chinese régime forced women to have abortions and to be sterilised in Tibet as well as in its own country. Bishop Devine called for worldwide peaceful demonstrations against 'the biggest police state in the world'.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Graglia against Feminism: 7
A continuing series; see here for the introduction, and here for more on feminism in the Catholic Church in the UK.
From Domestic Tranquility p93.
...Painting a picture of the male role's superiority because of the excitement, inherent interest, and intellectual rewards of the workplace, contemporary feminism challenged homemakers to substitute glamorous market production for dull and dreary domesticity. Answering this challenge, however, requires homemakers to articulate what they would leave unsaid, because to state how one feels about one's role as wife and mother may seem to impugn those who have chosen differently. The woman who chooses to exchange the marketplace for the home does so because to her all market work is fungible and can be done equally well by someone else; what she does at home with her child is unique. In fact, if not in theory, during the time that someone else assumes the mother's role, the mother-child relationship ceases to exist. ...The world will be mediated to the child by the surrogate who performs the mother's role...
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Parents banned from fostering because of smacking
Briefing. The attack on physical chastisment is another attack on parents' rigths and the family. Do these social workers really prefer psychological pain to the physical kind as a way of disciplining small children? Or do they think they should not be disciplined at all, until they get sent to prison?
From Christian Concern for our Nation:A TAUNTON couple is being prevented from fostering children because they, along with the vast majority of parents in the UK, believe in occasionally smacking their ‘birth-child’ as a last resort, if judged in the best interest of the child.
David and Heather Bowen who have been married for 11 years, have a nine-year-old daughter. A second child, Jonathan, died with a rare condition called Thanatophoric Dysplasia three years ago, shortly after birth. Despite trying to conceive further children, the couple have been unsuccessful and decided to apply to foster.
Their application initially proceeded very well and they were approved by the social worker and her line manager, it was only when it came before the fostering panel in December 07 that the Council decided that it had a big problem with the use of physical chastisement. To David and Heather’s surprise the social worker’s line manager then changed her mind and issued a further
report to the panel not recommending the Bowens and ultimately the panel rejected their application.
David, a Chartered Surveyor said: “We began an application to become foster carers which lasted 14 months and were recommended by our social worker and her line manager in November 2007 – but the panel deferred making a recommendation and told the social worker to meet with us again. Within six weeks of this recommendation the social worker’s line manager overturned her previous decision.
“I am a parent Governor at a local school, my wife works for the school PTA, has
been a special needs careers advisor and now works in the school and we both
assist with children’s work at our local Church – based upon the evidence
presented to the Council, we cannot understand why we are unsuitable and it
seems that we have been excluded on the basis that we physically chastise our
birth child, in accordance with our beliefs and UK law”
The issue at stake was the Bowen’s view of physical chastisement. David added:
“To put this in perspective, our birth daughter is only chastised physically as
a last resort amongst a whole range of other forms of behaviour management
strategies which include rewards and sanctions. We have been made by the
Council to feel that we are bad parents and yet we do nothing that hundreds of
thousands of parents across the UK do as loving and responsible parents.” On
March 6 the panel met again and refused to accept the Bowens as Foster Carers.
Heather added: “As the outcome sank in we began to grieve again – feeling a
tremendous sense of loss that we would not be allowed to complete our family
and provide a loving to home to a child in need. It was very upsetting for us,
we learnt of the outcome in the reception area at County Hall, given the bad
news by social workers on their way out and we were given no opportunity to
question the panel. As we walked away from the Council offices empty handed, it
reminded us of the loss we experienced some three years ago when we left
hospital without our son, Jonathan.
“We are very grateful that we have a beautiful daughter and our faith gives us
much strength. However, we have to question why we were turned down. We do
understand the sensitivities surrounding Looked after Children and agreed from
the outset that we would not physically chastise a looked after child. If the
Council will not accept applicants that physically chastise their birth
children then it should make this clear from the outset. We cannot understand
how the Council can reach this conclusion when it has no policy to say that
parents will not be accepted if they physically chastise their birth children
and all the evidence in our form F application pointed to us being very good
foster carers.”
The Bowens believe Somerset County Council is out of step with the vast majority
of parents throughout the UK, the electorate within the County, faith groups
and English law.
David added: “We are very concerned that the broader implication for parents
throughout the UK is that if Councils are permitted to reject parents, for
fostering or adoption, on the basis that they physically chastise ‘birth’
children, then tens of thousands of damaged children will be denied access to
perfectly good homes and parents. Surely this is not putting children first.”
The Bowens have lodged an appeal with the Council are consulting the Christian
Legal Centre in connection with filing for a Judicial Review on the issue.
Nirj Deva MEP campaigns against sex-selective abortion
Briefing.
From SPUC: A member of the European Parliament is campaigning against gender-based abortion worldwide. Mr Nirj Deva, Conservative MEP for south-east England, says that such abortions have contributed to the global deficit on 60 million women reported by the United Nations. He wants the parliament to be told the gender of each child whose abortion it funds. [LifeNews, 2 April]
Bishops used as pro-EU cover
Briefing. To say this is cheeky, given the government's relentless attacks on the Church, is the understatement of the year. But it is true that the bishops seem naive about the EU.
From CFNews: David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, has used the Catholic bishops to help push through the controversial EU Lisbon Treaty without a popular vote, it was claimed this week. He told Parliament that a number of charities supported the treaty, including 'the commission of bishops' - by which he meant the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE), to which the bishops of England and Wales belong. Edward Leigh, MP, has accused Mr Miliband of compromising the bishops' impartiality. 'For a Foreign Secretary to drag the bishops into a debate about a contentious treaty is ludicrous, let alone using them to support not having a referendum. This is underhand politics.'
COMECE supports most of the Lisbon Treaty but has no official policy on the referendum. Its members are Catholic bishops who monitor and advise the EU, but are independent of it. However, once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, COMECE will have 'a fixed and official relationship with the EU', its spokeswoman said this week. As a result, say Eurosceptics, Europe's Catholic bishops will have been drawn into the machinery of the European Union. The impartiality of the bishops of England and Wales on the subject of the EU has been called into question in the past, when the bishops were accused by critics of lending their support to the European Constitution.
In 2004, the bishops' conference released a statement which said that Europe 'requires not just democratic and accountable institutions but also a moral vision'. It said: 'A constitutional treaty that helps secure these, and enjoys popular legitimacy, is vital if enlargement is to be a success.' The bishops' adviser on foreign affairs, Fr Frank Turner, said: 'A constitution is better than no constitution'. Fr Turner insisted that the statement was impartial but the bishops were nevertheless criticised by Eurosceptics. Pope Benedict XVI sharply criticised the European Union on its 50th anniversary last year for leaving out any mention of Europe's Christian heritage in its anniversary declaration. He said: 'If on the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome the governments of the union want to get closer to their citizens, how can they exclude an element as essential to the identity of Europe as Christianity, in which the vast majority of its people continue to identify? Does not this unique form of apostasy of itself, even before God, lead it [Europe] to doubt its very identity?'
In an editorial the Catholic Herald says: 'Edward Leigh, the Catholic Conservative MP, is right to suspect that the Bishops of England and Wales have been dragged by the Foreign Secretary into a complex area of policy in which they have no special expertise.. The bishops must be careful . . . We ask merely for scrupulous impartiality from our bishops'. [Catholic Herald]
Muslim parents force rethink on sex-ed books
Briefing. Why are Catholic parents not acting strongly enough, or being taken seriously enough?
From CFNews: Two Bristol schools hurriedly withdrew two books designed to imbue children with tolerance toward same-sex relationships after complaints by Muslim parents, the Daily Mail reported Wednesday. The books, which target audiences as young as four or five years old, are King & King, a fairy tale about a young monarch who marries a prince instead of a princess, and a book entitled And Tango Makes Three about two male penguins who fall in love at the New York zoo.
Easton Primary School and Bannerman Road Community School, both in Bristol, removed the books as well as a DVD designed to teach children about families and includes gay and lesbian 'families.' The move was made following complaints by 90 parents, aided by the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society. Members of the society claimed parents were upset at the lack of parental consultation over the books. 'The main issue was there was a total lack of consultation with parents,' said Farooq Siddique, community development officer for the society and a governor at Bannerman Road school. 'The schools refused to deal with the parents, and were completely authoritarian. The agenda was to reduce homophobic bullying and all the parents said they were not against that side of it, but families were saying to us 'our child is coming home and talking about same-sex relationships, when we haven't even talked about heterosexual relationships with them yet.''
Although the Bristol City Council withdrew the books, it was careful to defend its prerogative to indoctrinate children as a means of preventing 'homophobic harassment'. 'All Bristol schools have a legal duty to report and deal with homophobic harassment as part of the curriculum since April 2007,' said Julia Walton, spokesperson for the education department of the Bristol City Council. 'As part of this, schools can choose to seek specialist advice and training on topics such as homophobia.' The Bristol City Council seems to have been very concerned about maintaining good relations with the Muslim community.
The two schools are 60 to 70 percent Muslim, according to Siddique's estimate. 'In Islam homosexual relationships are not acceptable, as they are not in Christianity and many other religions but the main issue is that they didn't bother to consult with parents,' said Siddique. 'The issue should have been, how do we stop bullying in general, and teaching about homosexuality can be a part of that. This was completely one-sided. Homosexuality is not a priority to parents but academic achievement is. This just makes parents think 'What the heck is my child being taught at school?'' Walton said that the Bristol City Council will be working with clerics, among others, to resolve the situation. 'Bristol City Council has temporarily withdrawn the use of materials that can be used to explain homophobia to children to ensure that both Bannerman Road and Easton primary schools can meet their legal responsibilities and operate safely,' said Walton.
'We are now liasing with community forums in the city, local clerics, teachers' unions, the Institute of Community Cohesion and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that the topic can be addressed in an inclusive manner in the curriculum.' The schools' reaction to complaints has been phenomenal compared to reactions from complaints by Christians over the same books in 2007. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, composed of members of Parliament and the House of Lords, issued a report in February 2007 recommending that religious schools be forced to modify their religious teaching to comply with the sexual orientation regulations.
Ben Summerskill, chief executive for the British homosexual rights group Stonewall, expressed concern over the negative reaction of parents to the pro-homosexual books. 'The small number of parents who make a fuss will cause children to think there is something wrong,' he said. [LifeSiteNews]
Blair supports Stonewall
Briefing. NB Stonewall are really very nasty indeed. The ridiculed Archbishop Nichols of Birmingham as a shortlisted candidate for 'bigot of the year' for his opposition to SORs. If Nichols becomes Cardinal, perhaps Blair will be less welcome in Westminster.
From CFNews: Stonewall's tenth star-studded Equality Dinner saw actors rub shoulders with ministers at the Dorchester Hotel on Thursday night. The event, sponsored by UBS for the third year, raised £320,000 for Stonewall's campaigning work. A sizeable chunk of the funds raised came in thanks to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair - the same Tony Blair who was received into the Catholic Church only a few months ago by top English prelate Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor.
The opportunity to have tea with Tony Blair secured a bid of £20,000 in an auction held at the dinner.
Incidentally Blair was the keynote speaker at last year's Stonewall fundraiser. During his speech Blair thanked the gathered attendees for their help in passing his legislation to permit homosexual civil unions. Blair said that of all the pro-homosexual legislation passed in recent years, the civil partnership law gave him more than just pride, 'it actually brought real joy.' The first same-sex civil union caused him to give 'a little sort of skip,' he said, it was 'just so alive, and I was so struck by it.'
Another piece of legislation passed under Blair, the Sexual Orientation Legislation, affects the Catholic Church directly. In addition to Christian schools being forbidden from teaching against homosexuality, adoption agencies, Catholic included, must permit adoption of children by homosexual couples. Blair ignored warnings from a UK Catholic bishop that Catholic adoption agencies would have to close if such legislation were passed. And guess which agency was most concerned with ensuring that the Catholic Church could not maintain its freedom of conscience on adoptions? You guessed it - Stonewall.
LifeSiteNews.com warned, prior to Blair's reception into the Catholic Church - as did other faithful Catholics - that should Blair be accepted into the Church without repenting of his pro-abortion and pro-homosexual past it would cause scandal. Those warnings were ignored. In a press release issued the day after Blair's December 21st reception into the Church at a private ceremony in the chapel at Cardinal O'Connor's personal residence, the Cardinal said he was 'very glad' to welcome Blair into the Church. John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) commented on the matter saying, 'During his premiership, Tony Blair became one of the world's most significant architects of the culture of death - promoting abortion, experiments on human embryos, including on cloned human embryos, and euthanasia by neglect.' To respectfully contact the Archdiocese of Westminster email : Abhreception@rcdow.org.uk [LifeSiteNews]
Blair's pathetic apologia
Briefing. But look! We're quoted by Life Site News! Their story was picked up by CFNews.
From CFNews: Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of Britain, told an audience at Westminster Cathedral in London this week, 'If you are someone 'of faith' it is the focal point of belief in your life. There is no conceivable way that it wouldn't affect your politics.'
Blair was the first of the high profile lecturers at this year's Cardinal's Lectures at the cathedral, the seat of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Blair's speech at the cathedral is meant to herald the opening of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, the goals of which are to 'promote respect, friendship and understanding between the major religious faiths'. But Blair's efforts to promote religion as a positive force in the world, has met with open derision from Christians in Britain who watched for ten years as he and his government 'plunged Britain into an ethical abyss.'
Blair said that there is a trend in British society, reflected around the world, that religious belief is at best a private matter, or one relegated to extremists. But he intends to argue, he said, that 'religious faith is a good thing in itself, that so far from being a reactionary force, it has a major part to play in shaping the values which guide the modern world, and can and should be a force for progress.' 'But it has to be rescued on the one hand from the extremist and exclusionary tendency within religion today; and on the other from the danger that religious faith is seen as an interesting part of history and tradition but with nothing to say about the contemporary human condition,' he continued. Blair's expressions of respect for religious belief have rung hollow for Christians and pro-life advocates who spent the years of his premiership fighting the steady stream of intensely anti-life and anti-Christian policies from Blair's Labour government. A stream that continues under his successor, Gordon Brown.
When it was rumoured last summer that Blair was seeking to be received into the Catholic Church, the editors of the Catholic news site, Catholic Action UK, were incredulous: 'Is it possible that, having voted for every anti-life and anti-family measure put before Parliament, closed down the Catholic adoption agencies, criminalised the teaching of the Catholic faith in schools, and removed charitable status from large numbers of Catholic charities, he's going to enter the Church?'
John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), wrote in February 2007, at the time Blair said he would be stepping down as Prime Minister, 'In general, there is virtually no area of pro-life or pro-family ethical concern which has not been made worse by the Blair government'. The website of the Cardinal's Lectures, says, 'In office as Prime Minster of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007 he transformed Britain's public services through investment and reform.' There are few Christians or pro-life and pro-family activists in Britain who would disagree. Blair was one of the world's most powerful supporters and collaborators in the work of the homosexualist political movement to abolish the traditional legal protections for natural marriage, work which also had the effect of suppressing freedom of expression for religious people in the UK. He personally voted three times to permit abortion up to birth before becoming Prime Minister.
As PM he promoted the practice of secret abortions for schoolgirls without their parents being informed; he has encouraged use of the abortifacient morning-after pill for young women; he championed destructive research on human embryos in the laboratory. His government was complicit in the population control movement, most notably in its support for China's brutal One-Child policy. When rumours were circulating in June 2007 that Blair was to be received into the Church, Smeaton wrote that although SPUC is not affiliated with any religion, 'We would be very concerned at the impact on Muslims and their commitment to the pro-life cause if Mr Blair became a Muslim. We have similar concern for the impact on Christians if Mr. Blair joins the Catholic church without publicly repudiating his publicly professed pro-abortion and pro-IVF positions.'
Many British Catholics expressed shock and dismay in December last year when the Cardinal of Westminster, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, did in fact receive Blair into the Catholic Church without clarifying whether he had repented any of his very public rejections of Catholic teaching. Since Blair's reception in December, no further comments have been forthcoming from the Cardinal's office in the face of what was described by many Catholics, particularly those who spent years labouring in the pro-life movement against Blair's anti-life projects, as a 'scandal' and a 'slap in the face'. Meanwhile, Cormac Cardinal Murphy O'Connor has told the Guardian that Britain's secularising trend is contrary to the British national identity. 'People are looking for a common good in this country. A very large number of people are saying, 'What is it that binds British people together?'' the cardinal said. 'There is no other heritage than the Judaeo-Christian heritage in this country.' He warned that abandoning that heritage for a 'totally secular view of life' would lead the nation down 'a very dangerous path'. [LifeSiteNews]
Commenting on Blair's speech at Westminster Cathedral, Father Tim Finigan writes in his blog 'Blair is keen that 'faith' in general should be respected as a force for 'progress.' We could ask with Chesterton 'progress towards what?' People of faiths should not be exclusive or 'extremist', they should be 'open' and not 'closed.' He praises Karen Armstrong's 'remarkable' book that talks about the evolution of religious thought from 'earliest times' when it was irrational and unforgiving, to 'modern times' when faiths share common values and purpose.
Therefore he is setting up a Foundation which will pursue the Millennium Development Goals, and publish information about the different faiths in various media. The Foundation will help those of any faith who stand for peaceful co-existence but 'reject the extremist and divisive notion that faiths are in fundamental struggle against each other.' It will promote the idea of faith itself as 'something dynamic, modern and full of present relevance.' Irrelevance is represented by 'stark dogmatism and empty ritualism.' Whether there can be beautiful dogmas or grace-filled rituals is left unsaid.
Reading the lecture, I was struck by how cogently this globalistic pan-religious niceness ignores the real questions over which people of faith disagree with one another and, more, with the humanists whom Blair seems also to want on board the global faith fest. The questions that he raises have been addressed brilliantly by Cardinal Ratzinger in 'Truth and Tolerance' but as far as this lecture is concerned, that book might as well never have been written.
To give an example of how the lecture blithely ignores the practical detail related to the high sounding principles it wafts before us, consider these two passages:
'Faith corrects, in a necessary and vital way, the tendency humankind has to relativism. It says there are absolutes - like the inalienable worth and dignity of every human being - that can never be sacrificed'.
- except in the case of the abortion up to birth of disabled babies?
'Faith is a living and growing belief, not stuck in one time in history, but moving with time, with reason, with knowledge, informed by scientific and technological discovery not in antithesis to it, as well as directing those discoveries toward humane ends'.
- such as destructive research on human embryos?
In the peroration, there is an interesting point which I would like to highlight since I believe that it neatly demonstrates that Blair fails to address a crucial problem for faith in Britain today. He says:
'If people of different faiths can co-exist happily, in mutual respect and solidarity, so can our world'.
The assumption seems to be that it is people of faith who are the problem. If only people of faith could sink their differences and live in peace, it seems, then all would be find and dandy. In the Britain that has emerged from decades of increasingly secularist government, (not particularly impeded in any way by Tony Blair) the far more disturbing spectre is that of the secularists who are militant, extremist, closed, exclusive etc. (put in the other nasty-denoting words of your choice). The vaunted global mutual respect and solidarity will not survive long in the areas where their writ runs. 1437.12
Gay rights to be enforced by Euro court
Briefing.
From CFNews: The highest court in the European Union has ruled that insurance companies may not retain the traditional definition of natural marriage and must recognise same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage in granting spousal pensions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg has ruled in favour of German homosexual, Tadao Maruko, who complained that an insurer had rejected his claim to €6,400 of his dead civil partner's pension.
In Germany, gay and lesbian couples can legally register their partnerings and have health insurance, inheritance and limited adoption rights but not the tax advantages. The ECJ said that refusal to grant a survivor's pension to registered homosexual partners constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Tadao Maruko sued the insurance company Versorgungswerk der deutschen Bühnen and the Bavarian Administrative Court Munich referred the case to the ECJ. The company maintained that such pension survivor benefits were only to be granted to married spouses.
The ruling follows a trend in European legislation and court decisions that uphold the concept that there should be no legal distinction made between homosexual liaisons and natural marriages.
Defenders of the natural family have said that the changes in law throughout countries of the formerly Christian west have come as a series of dominoes that have fallen as a natural logical result of the nearly universal liberalisation of divorce and abortion laws in the west since the 1960's and 70's.
Human Rights Council calls for child sex rights
Briefing.
From CFNews: Over the past few weeks, the Geneva based Human Rights Council debated many issues, including the elimination of violence against women and the rights of the child. This culminated with a decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences for a period of 3 years. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography was also extended.
On March 20th, a resolution on the Rights of the Child was bought to the floor. Many elements of the resolution are concerning to pro-life/ pro-family advocates. For example, the resolution, under the umbrella of the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of Health, includes a call for governments to '(…) pay particular attention to …reproductive and sexual health.' Although many of the other concerns listed are legitimate and should be preoccupations for the international community, the reference to the need for 'sexual and reproductive health' (often used by U.N. agencies to mean family planning and abortion) undermines the promotion of the real health needs of children and adolescents.
Furthermore, the resolution also calls on state parties to provide children affected by HIV/AIDS with 'access to voluntary and confidential testing, reproductive health care and education, access to pharmaceutical products and medical technologies.'
Patrick Buckley, from the Society of Protection for the Unborn Children expressed concerns about the language quoted above saying that 'clearly this language while primarily dealing with the HIV/ AIDS issue could also be interpreted as providing children with access to sex education together with access to contraception and abortion without parental knowledge or consent.'
Such language contributes to the notion that children's rights supersede parental rights. There is an inherent contradiction within the resolution. The document states that 'reaffirming the importance of the family as a basic unit of society and that such should be strengthened; (…) all the institutions of society should respect children's rights and secure their well-being and render appropriate assistance to parents, families, legal guardians and other caregivers.'
Acknowledging the importance of the family is a positive step. However, parental rights are trumped and disrespected in many official U.N. documents which do not serve to ensure children's well- being.
Update: Further to our recent alert urging you to help block the Council of Europe
endorsing abortion Europe-wide, we are happy to be able to provide you
with two in-depth briefings to help you when writing to members of the
Council's Parliamentary Assembly. The first briefing, produced by SPUC, is
entitled Abortion law and the Council of Europe and can be downloaded as a
PDF at http://www.spuc.org.uk/pace1.pdf The second briefing, produced by
the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI), is entitled Response to
draft report on abortion by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe's Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men and can be
downloaded as an PDF at http://www.spuc.org.uk/response.pdf Both of these
briefings plus our original alert can be found on our Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe campaign page
http://www.spuc.org.uk/pace
One-parent families in the UK
Briefing.
From CFNews: Anastasia de Waal, from the think-tank Civitas, said: 'Poverty is really concentrated in single-parent families, where there is only one income. What this Government is not doing is looking at ways of tackling the problem of single-parent families.
'This is critical if they want to address child poverty. It is very significant when there is a growing number of children growing up with one parent.'
Jane Robey, the chief executive of National Family Mediation, added: 'Children need both parents. We have seen a huge rise in the number of single-parent families since we started in 1982. Our case load has gone up from 5,000 in 1999 to 15,000 in 2006.'
The ONS report also discloses that the number of men and women aged between 25 and 44 living alone doubled between 1986 and 2006, while the proportion of men over 75 living alone rose from 24 per cent to 32 per cent.
The study shows that the gap between the rich and poor has remained unchanged since Labour came to power, despite a pledge to break down the divide. [Telegraph] 1436.7
Pro-abortion religious groups funded
Briefing.
From C-Fam: A two-year old report has come to light that encourages foundations to fund religious organizations who agree to push the abortion agenda around the world. The report which was funded by the wealthy MacArthur and Ford Foundations, catalogues hundreds of religiously affiliated non-government organizations that are likely to include “sexual and reproductive health and rights” as part of their work.
“Religion and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights: An Inventory of Organization, Scholars and Foundations,” issued by the Center for Health and Social Policy, argues that the world’s religions play an undeniable role in shaping attitudes toward "reproduction and sexuality" and can “be an important ally in the effort to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights (or, conversely, a key obstacle).”
The report encourages foundations who are “striving to improve women’s
health and rights (including sexual and reproductive health and rights) to
incorporate religion in their grant-making,” as religions “have the power to
influence government policy” both through the political process and through the
religious belief of the policymakers.
The authors propose a three-pronged approach to increase interest in the
intersection of religion and abortion. First, foundations could provide
incentives to American groups already working in the field so that they could
collaborate with developing country organizations. Second, foundations could
engage both religious and secular scholars to study the topic in depth. But the
most promising tactic, according the study’s authors, is to provide incentives
to organizations working on religion and women’s rights or health to move to
address religion and sexuality and reproduction directly.
The 216-page report is mostly a listing of organizations which might be
induced through grant money to work at the intersection of religion and
abortion. Organizations from across the globe affiliated with all the major
world religions are included. Also listed is a long list of influential
pro-abortion groups including the Alan Guttmacher Institute, International
Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the International Women’s Health
Coalition, Population Action International, Catholics For a Free Choice (in
particular its Latin American affiliates), the Pro-Choice Religious Network,
the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and the Women’s Environment and
Development Organization (WEDO). Other big names include Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch and the World YWCA.
Apart from listing organizations that might qualify as grant recipients,
the report also highlights sixteen foundations which have financially supported
sexual and reproductive health and rights programs in the past. Six of the
sixteen foundations specifically mention abortion as a priority area. According
to the report, the capital assets of the foundations listed total more than $35
billion and approximately $500 million is given away in grant money each year.
Hybrid embryos: it's already happening in the UK
Briefing.
From SPUC: Scientists in England have reportedly created embryos by putting human DNA
into egg cells of a cow. The embryos survived for three days. Newcastle University researchers put human skin-cells in bovine eggs. They say spare human eggs are scarce and that the work has been licensed by the government's regulator. Hybrids will be debated by UK MPs, possibly next month, when they consider the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill. [BBC, 1 April, and Financial Times, 2 April] Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, said: "The creation of human-animal hybrid embryos represents a disastrous setback for human dignity in Britain. It creates a category of beings regarded as sub-human who can be
used as raw material to benefit other members of the human family, effectively creating a new class of slaves. Although we cannot be certain of the nature of such embryos, those produced with a preponderance of human DNA would in all probability, according to experts, be human beings with human characteristics and capacities. By using animal eggs, such embryos could be generated in much greater numbers than if human eggs were used, leading to much greater loss of life." [SPUC, 1 April]
