Comment: it is worth noting the great success the British Government has had in reducing the number of suicides, with practical measures such as insisting that dangerous medicines be packaged in 'blister pack' form. This kind of mild inconvenience makes a difference to suicide numbers because they are so often acts of momentary despair or desperation, which the would-be suicide would think better of if given a chance. This policy now seems to be going into reverse: Government action seems designed to make suicide as easy as possible, especially for the elderly.
This book, the work of a private individual, should be stopped because it will give the means of death to people who might think better of it given even a few more minutes to think it over
From SPUC: Australian Right to Life is trying to get a suicide handbook taken off the internet. Dr Philip Nitschke was due to launch his publication in Britain today. Ms Margaret Tighe of Right to Life said he was a dangerous man. The authorities had to stop him. [ABC, 13 October]
Monday, October 13, 2008
Suicide book to go on-line?
Teachers want right to bed pupils
Briefing.
From Lifesitenews: The largest UK teachers' union wants the government to decriminalise sex with students who are over the legal age of consent. Chris Keates, the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), said that teachers who have sex with pupils over the age of consent should not be placed on the sex offenders register. Keates called prosecution for statutory rape 'a real anomaly in the law that we are concerned about.'
NASUWT complained that media reports had misrepresented their position. 'To describe the NASUWT's comments on this as 'teachers want the right to bed pupils' as one report has done, simply for pointing out an anomaly which criminalises a teacher but would leave any other adult free from prosecution for the same type of relationship, is a travesty.'
Gregory Carlin, however, a child protection activist and head of the Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition, said that such ideas were another sign of the erosion of legal protections for young people against exploitation.
'If the NASUWT philosophy has its day,' he said, 'exploiting a 16 year old in a brothel would carry no extra penalty.' Under the same logic, he said, 'Jail guards would be able to take their pick from their charges and foster parents would be spared prosecution for having sex with foster children.'
In an official statement dated October 6th, Keates said, 'From the time the Sexual Offences legislation was first drafted in 2001 the NASUWT consistently raised the significant anomaly within its provisions. A teacher having a consensual relationship with a pupil over the age of 16 on the roll of the school in which they teach is liable under the Act to prosecution and being placed on the sex offenders register.
'However, if the same teacher has a consensual relationship with a young person of the same age who attends another school they would not be prosecuted or classed as sex offenders.'
Carlin told LifeSiteNews.com that Keates 'knows what she was asking for,' which is simply to 'legalise sex crimes.'
List 99 is a secret register of men and women who are barred from working with children by the Department of Education and Skills. Carlin said, 'Thousands of teachers are referred to List 99 each year, most of them from the NASUWT. In fact, the referrals doubled between 2003 and 2005.' [LifeSiteNews]
Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth: more on the new code of ethics
Action: if you haven't written to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, please do so: see here.
From Fr Tim Finnigan: Luke Gormally, Honorary Fellow of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics has kindly sent a comment to my article yesterday. Since this clearly sets out some important and very worrying information, I feel that it should be given prominence in a post rather than being left in the combox.
Professor Gormally writes:
The situation at John&Lizzies is one of grave scandal. The Cardinal has the authority in the constitution of the Hospital to determine the ethical norms that should govern clinical practice there. When objections where referred to the Cardinal in 2004 to admission of the St John's Wood Medical Practice, which is contractually committed to providing the full range of 'family planning services', including referrals for abortion, he in turn referred the matter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) - though in truth the issue was clear cut.
The Hospital Management (which has long been non-Catholic) argued that there was no clear prohibition in the existing Code of referrals for abortion. The case was presented in somewhat unsatisfactory terms to the CDF who asked the Cardinal to establish a Committee to enquire into practice at the Hospital and what might be required to render the existing Ethics Code unambiguous in its directives. The Cardinal after some delay established the Brennan Committee (under Lord Brennan), a Committee which included Professor John Finnis in its membership.
This Committee eventually reported to the Cardinal in early 2006 and on 6 March that year following the advice of the Committee the Cardinal wrote to the then Chairman of the Hospital Board, Lord Bridgeman, requiring specific additions to the Code which made it unambiguously clear that no doctor practising at the Hospital was to refer for procedures, including abortion, which were contrary to moral truth as identified in the teaching of the Church. He asked that the Code be revised along these lines by the end of 2006, and that the following year the Hospital should set up a system of ethical governance to ensure that the Code was being observed. Lord Bridgeman disbanded the previous Ethics Committee, three of whose members, including Dr Helen Watt, had been at the forefront of complaining about unethical practices at the Hospital (it had, among other things, become the major centre in the UK for female to male transgender surgery), and established a new Ethics Committee.
This first met in September 2006 and I was, somewhat to my surprise, recruited to the Committee in October 2006. Lord Bridgeman's chosen Chairman of the Ethics Committee was extremely reluctant to proceed to the revision of the Code as required in the Cardinal's letter to Lord Bridgeman, but some of us managed to produce a revision of the Code in early 2007 precisely along the lines specified in the letter of 6 March 2006. This revised Code was then formally agreed by the Ethics Committee. Before it was presented to the Hospital Board however it was presented at the insistence of Management and Lord Bridgeman to the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) of the Hospital. This is composed of a group of doctors not one of whom is a Catholic. They rejected the Code.
It subsequently emerged at a meeting with this Committee that they regarded the Code as having no authority over them and indeed viewed the Hospital as already a secularised institution. The view of the MAC was then invoked as a reason for non-acceptance of the Code by the majority of those on the Board with a secularising agenda for the Hospital. However, in the later part of 2007 there were a number of resignations from this group and towards the end of the year those members of the Board who had been faithful to the terms of the Hospital's Trust Deed and had sought to retain its catholicity found themselves in a sufficient majority to approve the Code.
I began by saying that the situation is one of grave scandal. It is so because the Cardinal has given his approval to this new Code. The Church's teaching about the grave wrongness of abortion and cooperation in abortion has been sacrificed for essentially financial interests. How can the Church in this country effectively defend the sanctity of life when its Chief Shepherd is prepared to approve a Code which effectively accommodates referrals for abortion? A spokeswoman for the Brook Advisory Centres is reported as welcoming the liberalization of the Hospital's Code. That tells us pretty cleary where the Cardinal has got us to.
Urgent prayers, and action by some, are needed to reverse this situation.
Luke Gormally
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Sex ed to be assessed by Ofsted
Briefing.
From CFNews: Ofsted wants to use the opinions of pupils to assess schools on their provision of sex and relationships education in a scheme which one commentator has described as 'lunacy'.
The information would be used as one of several 'indicators' of how much the school contributes to the well-being of pupils. Others would include advice on drugs, alcohol and healthy eating.
Ofsted insists that inspectors would be given guidance emphasising that these indicators are not to be the basis for definitive judgements about a school, but will 'provide useful evidence'.
However, teachers are concerned that the idea could lead inspectors to unfair conclusions.
Dr Mary Bousted, the General Secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: 'Regrettably, the proposal is bedevilled by the Government's obsession with data.
'We see grave dangers in the proposal for Ofsted inspections to take into account pupil and parent opinion surveys of how successfully a school is promoting pupil well-being, because perceptions are notoriously difficult to interpret.'
Commentator Melanie Phillips writes in her blog on The Spectator website: 'Now we have arrived at a situation where not only are schools subjecting children to propaganda over how to live, arising from the often foolish or destructive fashions of the day, but are to be judged by the opinions of the five year-olds in their care.
'This in turn is part of the wider lunacy in which the British elite has turned fundamental values on their heads.'
Schools are not required to provide sex education beyond a statutory minimum, which includes basic biological facts about reproduction.
The Government's own guidance says that a child's parent is 'the key person' to provide sex education.
However, a vocal sex education lobby is calling for more in-depth information to be made compulsory at both primary and secondary level.
One group, the FPA (formerly known as the Family Planning Association), is responsible for a new sex education 'comic' for six-year-olds called Let's grow with Nisha and Joe.
The FPA is one of the contributors to a Government review of sex and relationships education in schools which is expected to report soon. [Christian Institute]
Friday, October 10, 2008
FFM - Parishes
From Bishop O'Donaghue's 'Fit For Mission? - Church'. The CTS printed version has some extra passages, one of which is this, a discussion of anti-Catholic prejudice and media bias. As he explains, the media appears to be convinced that distortions and vilification which would not be acceptable if directed to any other group can be directed towards the Catholic Church, Catholic teaching, and the Holy Father.
Anti-Catholicism is one expression of a more general Christianophobia which is spreading throughout the world. I agree whole heartedly with Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary of the Secretariat of State, when he states that ‘discrimination against Christians is as equally unacceptable as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and should be resisted with the same force.’ Christianophobia refers to acts of violence, persecution, intolerance and discrimination against Christians.
Archbishop Mamberti observes that, ‘In many countries Christians are victims of prejudice, stereotypes and intolerance, at times of a cultural nature. It’s a paradox not guarantee Christians the same freedoms granted to other religions, or to create a sort of hierarchy' of intolerances’.
What should be our response to this re-emergence of anti-Catholicism as an acceptable prejudice? Archbishop Charles Chaput offers penetrating analysis and recommendations:
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Blair Foundation promotes abortion
Briefing: now we can assess Tony Blair's actions on the subject of abortion after his reception into the Church as well as before. His Foundation is promoting the 'Millennium Goals' which include wider access to abortion. Read about it on John Smeaton's blog.
H-t to Fr Blake also, and for the photo. A picture which speaks a thousand words.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Rosary Crusade of Reparation, London: this Saturday
Action: please come along! This is a unique event in London and should be supported.
From Fr Tim Finnigan:
Annual Rosary Crusade of Reparation
Saturday 11th October
Procession from Westminster Cathedral to Brompton Oratory with the statue of Our Lady of Fatima and the 15 decades of the Rosary. Starting 1.45pm in the Cathedral piazza and ending at the Oratory with the solemn crowning of the statue and solemn Benediction. The preacher this year will be Fr. Marcus Holden. Enrollment in Brown scapular afterwards.
This procession is offered for downfall of the HFE bill, so please come along in large numbers.
SS John & Elizabeth: new code of ethics permits abortion referrals
Action: please protest to Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, who is Chairman of the Trustees. His spokesman told the Telegraph 'it was not his understanding that the code allowed abortion referrals.' Well, here's news for you, your Eminence: if it doesn't prohibit them, it allows them. The code was approved last week.
See our previous posts about abortion referrals.
Hat-tip to Fr Tim Finnigan. See the Telegraph article.
Cormac, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor
Archbishop’s House
Ambrosden Avenue
London SW1P 1QJ
Email Archbishop's House
YouTube: sacrilegious videos back on-line
Action: please sign the petition and protest by email (here's the address: editor@YouTube.com; here's a standard protest letter and a way of sending it). What are they playing at? As we reported a few days ago, after a huge protest from the Catholic community YouTube pulled these videos of consecrated hosts being desecrated - but only for a few hours. They are back on-line and we have to go back to complaining about it. “On September 29, I wrote to YouTube CEO Chad Hurley asking him to take down these offensive videos. I left a phone message for him on October 3, but he refuses to respond. Accordingly, I have posted my own video on YouTube calling attention to this matter. “It was a professor from the University of Minnesota, Morris campus, Paul Z. Myers, who started the war on the Eucharist this past summer by intentionally desecrating a consecrated Host. Because Myers committed this act off-campus, the University did nothing about it. The latest copycat, however, has violated YouTube’s own ‘Community Guidelines.’ YouTube makes it clear that it does not ‘permit hate speech,’ defined as ‘speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion….’ It also says it ‘is not a shock site.’ Now if desecrating what Catholics believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ does not constitute hate speech, as well as expression designed to shock, nothing does. “In August, YouTube took down a video of a teenager who urinated on the Holocaust memorial in Rhodes, Greece. That was not only the right moral choice, it was consistent with its own strictures. Catholics deserve the same sensitivity, and that is why we are asking YouTube to take down these unconscionable videos. It is not only right morally, it is in compliance with its own guidelines.” From 'American Needs Fatima': In only 7 days, 18,201 people have respectfully asked YouTube to pull the offensive videos that show the Holy Eucharist being desecrated, including one being flushed down a toilet. I believe these videos violate YouTube’s hate policies, for they are sacrilegious, offensive to the Blessed Sacrament and demeaning to Catholics and to the Roman Catholic faith. But since YouTube has NOT heard us, although pulling the videos for a few hours, it’s time to turn our petition into a protest! Please go here to send your NEW protest message to YouTube. By YouTube seemingly resolved to give a platform to these host desecration videos, many Catholics will reasonably conclude they agree with these videos’ deep anti-Catholic bias. After all, it seems that YouTube has removed videos with content offensive to Jews and Muslims. For example, a video showing a teenager urinating on the Holocaust memorial was pulled. So was the trailer to a Dutch documentary that claims that Islam inspires intolerance, murder and terror. But videos with the Holy Eucharist being desecrated seem to be OK. In my opinion, this is a double standard. I know you will not accept this. And that is why I ask you to:
The on-off policy seems to be a characteristic: they've been doing it also with their censorship of pro-life videos. Perhaps they think we won't notice that they've undone what they did in response to protests.
A big hat-tip to Catholic Rights: see his discussion.
From the
Catholic League: Under the name fsmdude, a Canadian man, Dominique, has posted over 40 videos on YouTube desecrating the Eucharist. Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds as follows:
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Catholic composer on anti-religious media bias
Briefing.
From CFNews: A minority of 'ignorant' secular liberals in the media is seeking to drive religion from the public sphere, says a leading composer. The Catholic composer James MacMillan, who conducts the BBC Philharmonic orchestra, has urged religious people to resist 'increasingly aggressive attempts to still their voices'.
He said that 'campaigning atheists' were working harder to sideline religion because 'they recognise that they are losing; the project to establish a narrow secular orthodoxy is failing'. Mr MacMillan made his comments in a lecture celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Sandford St Martin Trust, which promotes radio and television programmes about religion. He said that only a fifth of those working in television describe themselves as religious, compared with seven in ten members of the public. 'If this is the case with the TV industry, you can be sure it is the same for the metropolitan arts, cultural and media elites,' he said. 'These are people who speak only to themselves and have convinced each other that the rest of the country thinks just like them. They are wrong.'
Urging religious people not to become silent in the public sphere, Mr MacMillan said: 'A smug ignorance, a gross oversimplification and caricature that serves as an analytical understanding of religion, is the common intellectual currency.
'The bridge has to be built by Christians and others being firm in resisting increasingly aggressive attempts to still their voices.'
Mr MacMillan's comments follow a number of recent exposures of the media's anti-religious bias.
G P Taylor : Last month a Christian best-selling author said he was blacklisted by the BBC. G P Taylor says a BBC producer told him the publicly-funded broadcaster could not be 'seen to be promoting Jesus'.
Stephen Glover : A few weeks earlier, newspaper columnist Stephen Glover accused the BBC of over-the-top coverage of the recent Large Hadron Collider experiment in Geneva. He said: 'The BBC represents a materialist, mechanistic consensus which has rejected God, and deludes itself that science is capable of providing a complete explanation of existence.'
David Blevins : At the beginning of September, Sky News reporter David Blevins revealed the media's bias against Christians, describing the task for groups like The Christian Institute to gain fair coverage as 'an uphill struggle'. It's important to remember, he said, 'that what appears in the newspapers is not an objective summary of the significant things that happened yesterday but an ideological selection based on the prejudices, agendas and assumptions of a relatively small group of people. Their ideology could be loosely defined as 'progress will one day meet our needs.' So as with other forms of thought that deviate from that ideological view, evangelical Christianity is either dismissed out of hand or reported in a manner that serves to reinforce the ideology!' [Christian Institute]
Monday, October 06, 2008
UN committee wants to ban smacking
Briefing.
In its 21-page report on the UK, the Committee recommends that the government 'prohibit as a matter of priority all corporal punishment in the family, including through the repeal of all legal defences'.
Family Education Trust director, Norman Wells, commented: 'The Committee has strayed way beyond the bounds of any natural reading of the Convention in its determination to force all parents to conform to its own unproven philosophy of parenting. It never crossed the minds of the original framers of the Convention to make it a criminal offence for parents to employ a moderate disciplinary smack; and very few governments would have signed up to the Convention had it been put to them that they would subsequently be required to introduce such a draconian measure.'
The truth is that present legislation throughout the UK is entirely compatible with the requirement of the Convention that states protect children 'from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse' (Article 19). All such treatment is already prohibited by law. As far as moderate parental discipline that causes no injury is concerned, the Convention is completely silent.
The Committee is not consistent in its view of children. Norman Wells observed: 'There is a strange anomaly in the report in that at the same time as calling for an absolute ban on all physical correction of children, the UN Committee is also pressing for a considerable rise in the minimum age for criminal responsibility. It seems that in one breath they want children to be treated exactly the same as adults, while in the next breath they want them to be treated differently. They want children to have adult rights but not adult responsibilities.'
The extreme and inconsistent views of the Committee give rise to serious concern about its proposal that the Convention should be incorporated into UK law. Norman Wells remarked: 'The Convention itself is framed in very broad terms. The problem arises when the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child comes along and presumes to give a definitive interpretation of its meaning and then reserves the right to change that interpretation at whim. It needs to be kept in mind that the members of this Committee are unrepresentative and unaccountable and their interpretations are not binding.
'We need to appreciate that family relationships are very personal and individual matters, and each family is shaped and influenced by social, cultural, religious and philosophical factors which are not common to every other family. Values and standards will therefore differ from family to family and this will be reflected in the way children are brought up. To introduce the language of 'rights' into family relationships runs the risk of engendering a spirit of conflict and turning parents against their children and children against their parents which can be very damaging.'
Sunday, October 05, 2008
The harmfulness of sexual content of TV
Briefing.
Robin L. Nabi and Shannon Clark of the University of California conducted two studies to assess whether or not televised depictions of risky sexual behaviours alter viewers' expectations of their own future sexual behaviours, regardless of their consequences
In the first study, researchers examined the contents of TV programming schemas and found that viewers expect main characters to ultimately survive and thrive despite the adversity they face. In the second study, college women were exposed to various portrayals of promiscuous sexual behaviour, such as one night stands, that were edited to display more or less positive or negative outcomes.
Portrayals of the risky behaviour were likely to affect only those without direct experience with the target behaviour. The portrayal of outcomes-good or bad-did not affect attitudes or intentions regarding that behaviour.
Specifically, for those who had not previously had a one night stand, viewing fictional depictions of this behaviour significantly increased expectations of the likelihood of having one in the future, regardless of the positive or negative outcomes portrayed.
'Even when behaviours are negatively portrayed, audiences may be motivated to model them anyways,' the authors conclude. 'We hope this research stimulates greater care in the application and testing of psychological theories to the study of media content and effects.' [LifeSiteNews]
Saturday, October 04, 2008
CWN/WWS latest
Action: please demand that the dissident group 'Word Woman Spirit' / 'Catholic Women's Network', which has been ejected fro the national Catholic Directory by the Bishops for its campaigning for women's ordination, support for abortion, links to other dissident groups etc. should also cease to listed in diocesan ones, and should cease to supply the senior personnel for the Bishops' Conference agency the National Board of Catholic Women' and its publication 'Catholic Omnibus'. See our dossier on this group.
Comment: It's official: Catholic Women's Network/Women Word Spirit has been removed from the Catholic Directory.
After years of complaints from Catholics, objecting to the openly dissident group Catholic Women's Network (which also uses the title Women Word Spirit) being listed in the Catholic Directory, it has now been confirmed that this group is no longer being included. On page 12 of the Autumn issue of its journal Network, the CWN Contact Secretary, Mary Warrener, states:- "Despite lengthy correspondence showing the continuity between CWN and WWS we have not been included in the national directory (in response to complaints about our supposed views on abortion and links with gay/lesbian groups). A paragraph will appear in (at least) four of the Diocesan Directories - Brentwood, Cardiff, East Anglia and Westminster, listed as CWN but referring to WWS, and the wording as on the introductory leaflet. Please let us know of entries in other Directories." Action: If you live in Brentwood, Cardiff, East Anglia or Westminster, please continue to complain about this group being listed in your local Catholic directories. For other dioceses, please check your directories and if the CWN/WWS is listed, please alert us and also write and complain.
Also, complaints need to be made to the General Secretary of the Bishop's Conference, pointing out that if CWN/WWS has been found unsuitable to be listed in the Catholic Directory, it should no longer be allowed to remain as a constituent member of the National Board of Catholic Women. Nor should CWN/WWS members be allowed to hold influential positions within the NBCW, such as being on the Editorial Team of its journal, Catholic Omnibus - which is the case at present. The following three things can be cited as absolute proof of CWN/WWS's dissent, should this be disputed:-
1) Despite its claim not to be pro-abortion, CWN, as an organisation, co-signed a pro-abortion/contraception document by the group "Catholics for a Free Choice, titled "A Faith-Filled Commitment to Development Includes a Commitment to Women's Rights and Reproductive Health", (see here: pdf )
2) CWN, as an organisation, made an open declaration supporting the aims of Women's Ordination Worldwide, which was published in the CWN journal Network in September 2001. This declaration stated:- "Women's Ordination Worldwide, International Conference, Dublin, June 2001. From: Catholic Women's Network. 'Catholic Women's Network believes that the gospel speaks about freedom from oppression and calls women to full participation in all aspects of life and the church as a matter of justice. We strongly endorse the aims of the world-wide movement for the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church, and of the recent conference in Dublin, for a renewal of priesthood within transformed and inclusive structures, where women's gifts are welcomed and accepted. We believe that it is totally wrong to attempt to ban serious debate, reflection and research of this issue. We commend the vision of those who initiated the conference and are grateful that it has re-energised us all to work more vigorously for the above aims. Catholic Women's Network'
3) CWN/WWS's "starter pack", issued in June 2006, states on page 1 that the title WWS is "a more inclusive and descriptive name which also recognises that the membership has always included many women from other denominations or none". It goes on to say that CWN was founded in 1984 and went through a process of "'denouncing' aspects of church which inhibit women's participation and 'announcing' a new vision of how church could be". The group also "identified strategies for bringing about change . . . in our church institutions". On page 2 it states that "WWS feels that the contribution women can make as responsible Christians, gifted in the spirit, to the RC Church is often ignored; in particular women are excluded from the ordained ministry and thereby from the leadership in the church . . ." On page 5 of the pack, WWS proudly shows its networking links with other dissenting groups, even giving website/e-mail addresses so that they can be contacted - in other words, helping to spread and promote dissent. WWS's networking group list contains all the usual pro-abortion/contraception, pro-homosexual and pro-women's ordination groups, which CWN have long promoted and supported:-
. Association for Inclusive Language
. Catholics for a Changing Church (see our dossier)
. Catholic Womens' Ordination / Women's Ordination Worldwide
. Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (see our dossier)
. Living Spirituality Network
. European Network - Church on the Move
. Catholics for a Free Choice (see our dossier)
(see here for this starter pack. This webpage also contains the WWS documents "How to plan women's liturgies/rituals" and "Create your own mandalas" )
YouTube pulls the plug on sacrilegious videos
Briefing: a great victory for Catholics on the web. YouTube has a record of pulling pro-life videos without explanation, including critiques of Planned Parenthood with no gory images or anything like that. They have usually reinstated these after a fuss.
Catholics are thrilled and prayers of thanksgiving are being offered. The video removal petition was circulated by the Catholic group America Needs Fatima and 18,201 people signed it in only seven days. For over a month, an individual from Canada had posted 40 videos showing the Holy Eucharist being stepped on, burned, stapled, smoked and nailed to a stick -- even flushed down the toilet. The videos shocked Catholics and caused America Needs Fatima to launch a petition on September 23 asking YouTube to remove the videos. 'I was never so offended in my life,' said Michael Jordan, who joined the petition from Marysville, California. 'The videos were pure hate.'
The petition spread like wildfire. America Needs Fatima webmaster Joseph Ritchie said: 'I never saw so many people sign a petition so fast. They came in from all over the world, even Russia. We're now sending YouTube a 'thank you' note.' Mr. Ritchie said. 'The 'thank you' message lets Catholics tell YouTube how happy they are with the videos being removed.' 'It's important the staff at YouTube see that Catholics not only have courage to defend the faith, but courtesy to say 'thank you' as well,' he said. [Catholic Newswire]
Friday, October 03, 2008
Ilegitimacy bad for children
Briefing.
But the researchers say that since these unmarried unions are far more likely to break up, an increasing number of children are living in single parent families. They say that children brought up by lone parents do worse at school, are less likely to get good jobs and suffer more health problems.
John Ermisch, Professor of Economics at the University of Essex, said: 'The rise in births outside marriage is a real cause for concern. 'It is primarily attributable to the increase in people's tendency to cohabit in their first partnership and to have children within these unions. 'The instability of these unions means, however, that more British children will spend significant parts of their childhood in families with only one parent - and this appears to have long-term negative consequences.' [Christian Institute]
Euthanasia case in the courts
Briefing.
From SPUC: SPUC is taking part in an English high court hearing of a case whichpresents a threat to vulnerable people and could undermine the law againstassisted suicide. Mrs Debbie Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis (MS), wantsto know whether her husband would be prosecuted if he took her abroad to commit suicide. Mrs Mary Corrigan, an SPUC supporter who has MS, said: "MSis a terrible disease, and major depression and suicide are more commonamong MS people than most other groups. It is important that the courtgets the full picture of what this case could lead to, which is why SPUCis intervening." Mrs Purdy is backed by Dignity in Dying, thepro-euthanasia group, and is considering going to Dignitas in Zurich,Switzerland, to kill herself if her condition worsens. [SPUC and Guardian,2 October] Dignitas claims that more than 100 British people have committedsuicide there since it opened 10 years ago. Our source says that 650British people are registered with the organisation and that its totaldeath toll is 870. Switzerland legalised assisted suicide in 1941. [Times,2 October]
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
St. Thérèse of Lisieux will visit England from 16/9/09
Briefing. There's a page on the visit on the website of the E&W Bishops' Conference.
From CFNews: The Catholic Community of England and Wales has begun to make preparations for the arrival of the relics of St. Thérèse of Lisieux next year. Venues are being announced today and it is anticipated that thousands of pilgrims will flock to the twenty two different locations across England and Wales to venerate 'The Little Flower's Relics'.
At the request of His Eminence, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, on behalf of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, St. Thérèse's relics will visit both countries from 16th September 2009 until 16th October 2009. Portsmouth Cathedral will be the first to host the casket containing the earthly remains of the saint, and subsequent venues, amongst others are Aylesford Priory in Kent, , the National Shrine of Our Lady in Walsingham, York Minster, concluding at Westminster Cathedral in London. Some Carmelite convents will also briefly welcome the relics as the casket makes its way to the larger venues which can more easily accommodate the anticipated crowds.
Mgr Keith Barltrop, the National Coordinator of the visit said: 'We've been overwhelmed by the enthusiasm for this initiative and since the initial announcement in February, we have had to extend the dates to try to accommodate the sheer number of people and parishes who want to support it. We've worked hard to ensure that the visit includes a good geographical spread so that as many people as possible can participate.'
St. Thérèse is 'Patroness of the Missions' of the Catholic Church and a 'Doctor of the Church'. Born in Alençon, Normandy in 1873, she entered the Carmelite convent of Lisieux at an early age. Known to many as 'The Little Flower', partly because she famously said before her death that she would '…spend my heaven doing good on earth. I will let fall a shower of roses,' she was declared a saint in 1925 and is most famed for the spirituality that she lived by, which is called the 'Little Way'. Over the last 15 years her relics have visited 40 countries in all five continents, and millions of people have prayed beside them and experienced many graces of healing, conversion and vocation.
Bishop Malcolm McMahon (Nottingham) is a bishop patron of the visit, together with Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds; Bishop McMahon said: 'As 'Patroness of the Missions' St. Thérèse of Lisieux reminds us that it is up to all of us to go and teach the Gospel as Our Lord commanded us to. Her life and writings emphasise that whatever our state in life, even if we're unable to make big gestures, we can be bearers of God's love and mercy if we surrender all that we are to Jesus Christ. I encourage the baptised to use this evangelistic opportunity to proclaim in their daily lives the reality of God's love and mercy. If you are not a Catholic, come and see. A warm welcome awaits you.'
Every parish in England and Wales has been sent an introductory letter about the visit to invite and encourage them to support the initiative. It's hoped that local groups will organise transport to the venues so as to enable Catholics, those of other Christian denominations and faiths, and those of no faith, to share in this unique experience, which has as its focus Christ-centred prayer.
Archbishop Nichols on Sex Education
Action: parents must demand to see the materials being used in their schools and act firmly to protect their children.
Comment: Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, who is also the Chairman of the Catholic Education Service for the whole of England and Wales, made this comment recently in a speech to school governors (pdf):
While acknowledging the need for sex and relationship education, including the need for clear information, we have been welcoming the fact that part of the purpose of this review is to make sure that more emphasis is given to the relationship aspect of this education and to the emotional content of our sexuality.
But more importantly, and with absolute insistence, we have been making clear, as you must too, that in a Catholic school sex and relationship education will always be designed and delivered according to the teaching of the Church. This, and this alone, gives critical stability to what we do and to the coherence of the arguments we make.
This summarizes neatly the confusion and dissent which lies at the heart of the Catholic Bishops' policy on sex education. The government's demand for 'clear information', notably to pre-pubescent children, is something which Catholics cannot 'acknowledge' the 'need' for, and it makes no difference how much 'emphasis' is given to 'relationships': if you tell children all about sexual organs, sexual practices, and how they must 'respect' immoral, exploitative, and unnatural lifestyles, and furthermore force them to tell their class-mates about their own sexuality, it isn't going to help much when you add that sex has its place in God's plan, according to that odd institution the Catholic Church, only within marriage. They are going to be sexualised. Entitling his talk ''Catholic Schools Must Oppose Sexualisation of Children' is simply - and I'm sorry to say it - hypocrisy.
The teaching of the Church has been applied to this subject by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. They say
NO to class-room sex education: it must be one-to-one with a person the child trusts, in the child's own time: parents, unless they are incapable of doing this.
NO to explicit information about sex to pre-pubescent children: the period of sexual latency must be respected.
NO to 'respecting' immorality: the Church's teaching must be presented as the TRUTH.
See their document here.
Exactly how Nichols' approach works is shown by the sex ed. programme used in his own Archdiocese of Birmingham, and by many other dioceses, 'All That I Am'. It's conformity to the Government's insane and immoral policy of combating teenage pregnancy by sexually explicit teaching at ever younger ages is guaranteed by the support it has from the Government's notorious 'Teenage Pregnancy Unit'.
At 'Key Stage 2' (ages 7-11) they are to 'to celebrate the difference between boys and girls', 'to identify a wide range of feelings in themselves and others', 'to take responsibility and manage their feelings appropriately', 'Respect other people's viewpoints', 'Recognise their own self-worth and identify positive things about themselves'.
At 'Key Stage 3' (ages 11-14): 'to identify their own opinions based on their experience of relationships and marriage and explore the media portrayal of relationships and marriage', 'to appreciate that sexual intercourse is the deepest and most intimate sign of human love'
At 'Key Stage 4' (ages 14-16): 'to examine the characteristics, nature and intent of disposable and permanent lifestyles and behaviour, and to understand why people opt for certain life choices', 'to be able to understand homosexuality, examine why prejudice and discrimination is harmful and learn to respect all people'.
This is the classic values-free free-sex claptrap. The Catholic Education Service, remember, 'welcomes' the contraception and abortion providing 'Connexions' clinics in Catholic schools. Another sex ed. programme used in Catholic schools is 'Lifetracks', which is closely analysed by a teacher here and here.
Hat-tip to Catholic Mom of 10 (here, here and here), and to John Smeaton (here and here).
Bishops call for lobbying of MPs over abortion amendments to HFEA bill
Action: please write to your MP, and sign this petition against extending the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.
From Lifesitenews: Archbishop Smith told his flock, "It is important that as many people as possible write urgently to their MP."
"If you have time," he added, "you might also write to the Prime Minister."
Archbishop Smith chairs the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales - the department of the Conference responsible for legislation, policy, healthcare and bioethics.
"Time is of the essence, as approaches to MPs would need to be made over the next few weeks," he added.
In his letter to clergy, he said it would be "very helpful" if clergy could "in a suitable way" guide the attention of the parishioners by giving them the leaflet on the issue that accompanied the letter.
MPs are confused, he said, and they require a free vote in Parliament. The Labour party, ailing in the polls, is reported to be planning a whipped vote when the bill comes back to the House.
Archbishop Smith told BBC Radio 4, "Those MPs who have approached me over recent weeks have said: 'Look, I don't think this is right. I accept the teachings of the Church, yet I am a Government minister, or I am a Labour MP. Can I discuss with you the moral dilemma I have got?'"
"I have written to the prime minister myself asking him that, in view of these very important issues which touch on the sacredness of human life, its meaning and purpose, would he please grant a free vote, because that is what is really required," Archbishop Smith continued.
Giving practical advice on how to approach Members of Parliament, the archbishop's leaflet said, "Letters are most effective when they are written in your own words and express what you are most concerned about.
"For example, if you are a nurse, say so, and say if and why you would not want nurses to do abortions. Most of these amendments would make abortion more widespread, would lead to women having less time to think before abortion, and leave women facing abortion at home and alone without medical supervision. They would also remove the last vestige of protection for the unborn child. How do you feel about this?"
The leaflet lists the moral objections to the bill that directly sanctions the creation of human/animal hybrid cloned embryos to be used and killed in experimentation.
Proposed amendments would remove the "mental health" abortion requirement, changing the law to simply allow abortion on demand, and remove the need for two doctors to sign for abortion. Also, nurses and midwives may be allowed to commit abortions, even late term surgical abortions. This would mean that nurse and midwife education would necessarily include abortion as part of the training regimen.
The bill also seeks to abolish the requirement of in vitro fertilisation facilities to take into account the child's "need for a father" in assessing patients. It would also allow the creation of "saviour sibling" embryos to be used as tissue donors. Amendments also propose to use the bill to force full legalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland.
The archbishop's position mirrors that of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children who have said that the bill, particularly with the attempts to use it to amend the 1967 Abortion Act, is unsalvageable and must be defeated.
Pressure is increasing on the Labour Party over the bill. Last week, a senior Catholic Labour MP, Ruth Kelley, resigned her cabinet post ostensibly to spend more time with her family. However, in the past she had publicly expressed strong reservations over the bill. Labour insiders at the party's conference in Manchester last week said that Kelley had been informed she would be forced to vote for the legislation with the party, despite the tradition in British politics of allowing free votes on such contentious issues.
The bill was set to be put to a vote this session, but the party postponed the vote until the autumn.
