Action: please support this if you can.
From CFNews: Join the united forces are British pro-life groups in defending our unborn brothers and sisters, for an end to the killing of 547 children daily in our country, and to uphold the sanctity of life. Saturday the 18th October, starting at 13:00 from Westminster Cathedral, walking across Lambeth bridge and re-crossing the river at Westminster bridge where there will be a short mourning ceremony, we will then proceed to say a short prayer outside the Houses of Parliament, and end at Westminster Abbey. 1000 Crosses for Life is a joint initiative of European Voice for the Unborn. An event in communion with all the British pro-life groups: Euro will Pro-Life, Family Life International UK, SPUC, Good Counsel Network, Helpers of God's Precious Infants, Christian Concern for Our Nation, Catholic Medical Association, Choose Life, Christian Medical Fellowship, Catholic Bishops Conference, the Linacre entre, Doctors Who Respect Human Life, Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life, Maranatha. Tel 0208 857 9950. Email support@europrolifeuk.org and europrolifeuk@flioneline.org 1490.42
Friday, October 17, 2008
Crosses for Life march in London
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Illicit Masses promoted by...the Bishops of England and Wales
Action: complaints, please, to your local bishop, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor (Email Archbishop's House) and Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. (postal address here). • A "litany of penance" that asks God's forgiveness "For over-filling our kettles" and "For wasting paper" • A prayer "that the tyranny of profit be quelled" • The distribution at Mass of Fairtrade chocolates wrapped in paper carrying an exhortation to switch to energy-saving lightbulbs • Persuading the priest to wear a chasuble stitched together from recycled material • Energy saving lightbulbs will be presented with the gifts at the Offertory. (H-T to Damian Thompson) And liturgical dancing: on the Reading from Ezekial Again,
Comment: The Church has laws governing the liturgy. The purpose of these laws is to ensure that God is worshipped with the reverence which is His due, and to protect Catholics from being scandalised. Many of the bishops in England and Wales seem not to care about either of these things, and a Mass is being organised in their name which drives a coach and horses through the Church's laws, in order to produce the kind of embarrassing 'relevant' and 'youthful' liturgy which has emptied churches up and down the land, especially of young people who, unlike the bishops, know what being youthful is really like.
The proposed programme is beyond parody. The theme is 'green' issues, a highly controversial and political set of questions on which the bishops want to take sides. The Church's teaching is that we should take care of the envioronment, not that any practical measures to do so proposed by the liberal elite should be so beyond the scope of reasoned debate that they should be incorporated into liturgical prayer. Nevertheless, among the 'ideas' proposed for this Mass we find:
This passage works well as a simple mimed drama or dance. One person can play the role of the shepherd Lord, who stands amongst his sheep. As the passage is read – slowly and strongly – different lines can be dramatised. For example, in the line, ‘I will rescue them from wherever they have been scattered’, ‘sheep’ can wander round in a confused way, using raised hands to symbolise searching in the darkness, with the Lord collecting each one and returning them together. Movements should be simple but obvious enough to be able to be seen clearly.
You may wish to play some gentle, reflective music in the background.
Or:
After the proclamation of the Gospel, consider presenting the following sketch, which interprets the Last Judgement from the perspective of a television news broadcast.
This is the Good News – Sheep and Goats You will need five people to play the different roles: Angus McCoatUp (news presenter); Sue Stainable (reporter); Larry Lamb (sheep); Theresa Green (special correspondent); Billy Gruff (goat)
Angus This is the Good News. The headlines at six o’clock. Bong! Feeling sheepish? It’s eternal life for the nation’s favourite animal. Bong! Get your goat up! Gruff news for selfish beasts. Bong! It’s the end of the world as we know it. Which side will you end up on?
Yes, this goes on and on. See the whole thing on their website.
The fact is that dancing is simply not allowed in Mass. The tinkering with the words of the prayers, which is also present throughout, is also forbidden. Quite apart from the bad taste of the every aspect of this liturgy, it is illicit.
Does your bishop even know about this? Tell him. Will Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor defend this? Will Cardinal Arinze ignore it? Here's a video of Cardinal Arinze on the subject of dancing at Mass.
Here's something else to think about. This parody of the Mass, on what they are calling 'Youth Sunday', is actually on the Feast of Christ the King. This feast was instituted to reaffirm the fact that Jesus Christ should reign over every society: the laws and customs of every nation should conform to His will, since He is the source of all authority. Today the laws and customs of the UK are very far from being in conformity to God's will. The killing of the unborn is a constant reminder of the state's abdication of its divine mandate to protect the weak against the strong. At this very moment the most monstrous legislation is before Parliament to allow the creation of half-human and half-animal hybrids. The customs of ordinary people take for granted sexual immorality on a scale unimaginable in former times, and this is being imposed on children in schools. The bishops have made various protests about these things: they condemn them. But when it comes to thinking up a theme for a Mass on the Feast of Christ the King for young people they want to emphasis an issue on which they can agree with the government, the editors of liberal newspapers, TV journalists and so forth.
What does this tell us? It tells us the bishops have no fight left in them.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
National Conference of Priests
Simulation of Extreme Unction condemned
Third, group anointing like that both reduce respect for the sacrament and nearly always insure that the sacrament is improperly administrated.
So, people who are sick with a cold probably shouldn’t be given this sacrament. The Second Vatican Council said that "’Extreme Unction," which may also and more properly be called ‘anointing of the sick,’ is not a sacrament for those only who are at at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for that person to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived." [SC 73]
Hercules
In the 16th Century, Hercules was used as an image of the Catholic Church, his battle with the Hydra being reminiscent of the Church's fight with heresy. In Claire Asquith's 'Shadowplay' on Shakespeare's Catholicism, she applies this identification to understand some of Shakespeare's lines, such as
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Quote of the Week
BBC ridicule Christian characters
From CFNews: The BBC has again exposed itself to criticism for its treatment of Christian characters after EastEnders' Dot Cotton was ridiculed for objecting to a gay kiss. The publicly financed broadcaster reportedly received 150 complaints about the episode shown on 7 October, in which Dot Cotton comes across two men kissing on a park bench and asks them to stop.
She is shown getting to grips with an mp3 player, while the two male characters snigger at her efforts to engage with modern technology. After seeing the men kiss she says: 'please remember, the Lord ain't the only one with eyes.'
Dot Cotton has been used as an example of the way in which Christian characters and their views are often presented as old fashioned and ridiculous by the media.
The scene was shown just weeks after revelations that the BBC and other broadcasters are lobbied by 'gay rights' groups to include more homosexual storylines.
Defending the episode, the BBC said: 'EastEnders aims to reflect real life, and this means including and telling stories about characters from many different backgrounds, faiths, religions and sexualities.
'We approach our portrayal of homosexual relationships in the same way as we do heterosexual relationships.
'In this instance, Christian [the name of one of the homosexual characters] is enjoying the first flush of romance and we've shown him being affectionate with his new boyfriend in the same way any couple would.
'We also aim to ensure that depictions of affection or sexuality between couples are suitable for pre-watershed viewing.
'We believe that the general tone and content of EastEnders is now widely recognised meaning that parents can make an informed decision as to whether they want their children to watch.'
Several other examples of media bias have emerged in recent weeks.
Stonewall's Gary Nunn recently revealed to The Guardian: 'One of our key priorities is to promote fair coverage of lesbian and gay people in the media and we work with programme makers to reflect this.'
In September, Sky News journalist David Blevins told a Christian blog that evangelical Christianity is often 'dismissed out of hand' by journalists serving a secular liberal ideology. He said groups like The Christian Institute face an 'uphill struggle' for fair coverage.
James MacMillan, conducter of the BBC Philharmonic orchestra, criticised the liberal bias of the media last month. 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.'
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'.
Attacking the BBC's over-the-top coverage of the recent Collider experiment in Geneva, the Daily Mail's Steven Glover wrote: '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.' [Christian Institute].
Monday, October 13, 2008
Suicide book to go on-line?
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]
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" )
