Briefing.
From CFNews: Dame Suzi Leather, chairman of the Charity Commission told the bishops of England and Wales at their Low Week meeting that new Charity Commission rules, which require charities to report annually on their public benefit, do not pose a threat to Catholic charities. She said that 'advancing religion' in itself is still recognised as a public benefit.
'Providing opportunity to worship, conducting religious services and providing religious instruction are all perfectly capable in themselves of demonstrating public benefit . . . Put crudely, you don't have to run a soup kitchen as well as offer Mass'. She said she aimed to try and steer a balance between the demands of religious organisations and those of secularist lobby groups such as the British Humanist Society.
Catholic schools and dioceses and most religious orders are governed by charity law and are therefore regulated by the Charity Commission. Eighty-two Catholic charities, including all 19 dioceses of England and Wales, complained to the commission in 2007 over guidelines drafted to explain the new legislation. In their joint submission they said: 'We are concerned that the language used in connection with religious charities in the draft guidance is negative in contrast to that used for other sectors. The only comments about religious charities refer to 'risk', 'public concern' or benefit which are 'too vague or intangible';' they added. They also said that guidance about 'intangible' benefits, such as those of a spiritual or religious nature, was not sufficiently clear.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Status of religious charities clarified
Thursday, April 16, 2009
What happened to the University of Notre Dame?
Briefing, This is a very interesting and informative article about how America's top 'Catholic' university same to be so detached from the Church as to invite President Obama to address it. There are two, linked tendencies, which go back 40 years: federal funding was available if it played down its Catholic identiy, and academic prestige is increased on the same basis.
Penance for what? Well, Fr. O'Toole explained, as the superior general of the Congregation of the Holy Cross throughout the 1960s, he had not done enough to prevent the secularization of the University of Notre Dame during that fateful decade. Bishop Pursley, who had presided over the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend for almost 20 years, also admitted that he had not been forceful enough with the university. That afternoon, both men agreed that, as far as Notre Dame was concerned, they had failed.
That conversation came to mind during the uproar that followed the recent announcement by Fr. John Jenkins. CSC, president of Notre Dame, that Barack Obama would address the class of 2009 at commencement in May. This decision was shocking, yes - but it was based on a fundamental error that goes back 40 years.
In 1967, a group of Catholic educators, led by Notre Dame President Theodore M. Hesburgh, met at Land O'Lakes, Wis., and formally declared their independence from the Catholic Church. Alas, their motives were less than noble. Just two years before, LBJ's Omnibus Education Act had opened the floodgates to federal funding of higher education, and Catholic colleges wanted a place at the trough. Notre Dame quickly adopted a lay board of trustees so it could receive federal money, and only a year later the other shoe fell when numerous Notre Dame faculty and religious roundly denounced Humanae Vitae.
In a 2007 Wanderer interview, Archbishop Raymond Burke zeroed in on Land O'Lakes as a central catalyst of decline in Catholic education. 'So much was undone,' he said, 'and there's a mentality [that] entered into the universities by which those people who dedicated their lives to Catholic education believe that they could not be an excellent university and at the same time be faithful to the Church's teaching and discipline. That is a fundamental error, and it takes a lot to undo it.'
Shaking Down The Thunder
Since announcing Obama's acceptance. Fr. Jenkins has been deluged with phone calls, e-mails, and letters denouncing his decision and requesting that he rescind the invitation. Within days, 160.000 people signed an online petition at notredamescandal.com and Notre Dame students began planning a series of events addressing Obama's policies that have already proven him to be the most pro-death president in U.S. history.
Not that any of this will bother Fr. Jenkins. Notre Dame's administration these days is thoroughly intimidated by the increasingly left-wing and non- Catholic faculty, which apparently expects to be running the school within a generation.
The reasons are simple. Consider the CSCs: The Catholic News Service incorrectly reports that Notre Dame is 'run by the Congregation of Holy Cross.' Sorry, that ended 40 years ago, when federal money required that the congregation not run the school. Moreover, vocations to the CSCs are dwindling to the point that, in 40 more years' priests on the faculty will be a rare anachronism.
But won't outraged alumni stop donating? No problem! NBC Sports has an exclusive multiyear contract to broadcast Notre Dame's home football games. University spokesman Dennis Brown cannot reveal the amount the school receives from NBC, but a source in NBC's New York headquarters says that Notre Dame receives more from NBC than it receives from all alumni giving. And what about that federal money? Brown tells The Wanderer that, in a typical year, Notre Dame receives about eighty million dollars in federal grants.
In brief, Notre Dame's institutional priorities have moved since the 1960s from the principles of the faith to money and power. And what has been the engine of that change? Ralph Mclnerny, who retires this year after teaching philosophy at Notre Dame for 54 years, blames it on the university's 'truly vulgar lust to be welcomed into secular society.'
In short, from the point of view of Notre Dame's first priority since 1967 - money - the Obama invitation is a win-win situation. The uproar delights the faculty: Their status rises in the eyes of their secular counterparts who sit on the 'peer review' committees that approve federal grants. So does their prestige, since being a Catholic who actually embraces Church teaching is a ticket to nowhere among any university's faculty nowadays.
The Silver Lining
Two opportunities emerge here. First, in brushing off the avalanche of criticism. Fr. Jenkins, at the end of some blather celebrating Obama's appearance, said that 'we see his visit as a basis for further positive engagement.' Well, a number of Notre Dame students have taken him seriously. Already, several organizations have banded together - first, to repudiate the invitation, and second, to organize a series of events that will reveal whether Fr. Jenkins is as good as his word. Does Obama really want engagement? Does he really want to discuss embryonic stem-cell research beyond the blithe pleasantries he offered at his press conference on March 24? How about the ten billion condoms that the U.S. has sent to poor countries around the world?
Would Obama care to compare his views on African AIDS with those of Pope Benedict? And, if the president is 'personally opposed' to abortion, will students have a chance to ask him why he is personally opposed? What is it about abortion that is so gruesome that he would personally oppose it, when so many of his ardent supporters are pro-abortion zealots?
The second opportunity lies with the real authority here - diocesan Bishop John D'Arcy. Canon law gives the ordinary, not the university, the right and the duty to bestow and to remove the name 'Catholic' from any institution or endeavor in his diocese (c. 216). There is recent precedent. Last fall, Arlington Bishop Paul Loverde announced 'that Notre Dame Academy can no longer identify itself as a Catholic school.' The academy. founded in Middleburg. Va., by the Sisters of Notre Dame 45 years ago, is now governed by a lay board of trustees who no longer want to uphold the teachings of the Church. Bishop Loverde thus announced that 'the school will no longer have the Blessed Sacrament reserved in its chapel and the diocese will not be able to guarantee the quality or authenticity of religious or other instruction.'
Bishop Loverde saves the best till last: 'I have strongly suggested to [the chairman] that the Board of Trustees consider changing the name of the school. The title 'Notre Dame' (Our Lady) is so closely associated with our Catholic faith that continued use of the name would undoubtedly be a cause of confusion to potential students and their families.'
Bishop D'Arcy wrote that 'President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred,' the bishop wrote, announcing that he would not attend the ceremony.
But he can do more. Let us pray that Bishop D'Arcy doesn't someday lament that, when it came to Notre Dame, he was not forceful enough. [http://www.thewandererpress.com]
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Talking about your faith can cost your job - in a 'Christian' charity
Briefing. This is one of the things which happen to charities founded by Christians.
An employee at a Christian ‘homeless’ charity, whose Patron is the Archbishop of Canterbury, has been suspended for answering questions about his faith to a colleague at work.
David Booker, aged 44, a Christian from Southampton, has worked for the English Churches Housing Group for almost four years .On 26 March, whilst working an evening shift, he had a 35 minute conversation with female colleague Fiona Vardy. Ms Vardy asked him about his faith and beliefs. During the conversation he was asked the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and same-sex marriages, which Mr Booker explained. The conversation was free-flowing and Mr Booker clearly explained that he had homosexual friends and that he was not homophobic.
The following day he was summoned by his employers and told that he was
suspended for “events that happened last night”. On March 30, he was given a
formal suspension notice alleging that: “ On 26 March 09, whilst on shift with
Fiona Vardy, you seriously breached ECHG’s (English churches House group) Code
of conduct by promoting your religious views which contained discriminatory
comments regarding a person’s sexual orientation.”
Threatened with the sack for ‘gross misconduct’ under the charity’s Culture and
Diversity Code of Conduct, Mr Booker has sought the advice of the Christian
Legal Centre (CLC), who in turn have instructed Paul Diamond, the leading
human rights lawyer to represent him.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, barrister and director of CLC said: “Mr Booker has
been suspended since 27 March for two weeks pending investigation. No date has
been set for the investigation and disciplinary hearing. This case shows that
in today’s politically correct, increasingly secularized society, even
consenting reasonable discussion on religion between two employees is being
twisted by employers to discriminate and silence the Christian voice and
freedom of expression.
“To date, the English Churches Housing Group is funded largely by churches
throughout Hampshire, who we are sure will be shocked at the attitude and
action taken by a Christian organisation towards a Christian employee. The
Archbishop of Canterbury, as Patron, has confirmed the Church’s teaching on
marriage, same-sex relationships and homosexuality and that is in the public
domain. We are interested to know whether his Patronage is now under threat
under the charity’s Culture and Diversity Code of Conduct?”.
ECHG (English Churches House Group) has recently been taken over by Society of
St James ( a charity providing homes for the homeless).
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
EU 'anti-discrimination' threat
Briefing.
From the Christian Institute. New Proposed European Anti –Discrimination Directive –A Threat to Religious Liberty in the UK and Across Europe.
There is a new proposed European Directive which is rapidly in the process of going through the various stages of the European Parliament. This proposed Anti-Discrimination Directive prohibits discrimination and harassment on the grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief for:
social protection (including social security and healthcare); social advantages; education (but not the content of teaching) ; access to and the supply of goods and other services which are available to the public, including housing (applying to individuals only insofar as they are performing a professional or commercial activity).
Seeking to prohibit discrimination on grounds of disability and age is not contentious. However, it is of concern that the proposed directive includes sexual orientation and religion or belief.
Lessons from the EU’s Employment Discrimination Directive It might be thought that the Directive would enhance religious liberty. However, the implementation of the 2000 Employment Discrimination Directive has given cause for concern. As a result of the Directive, a Bishop of the Anglican Church was successfully sued by a homosexual after not being given a position as a youth minister. A British Christian charity was successfully sued for refusing to promote an atheist support worker.
Removal of Rights of Conscience The new Directive could remove rights of
conscience for those whose religious beliefs prevent them endorsing certain
homosexual and religious practices. A Christian architect should not be
required to design a mosque. A Christian publication should not be required to
advertise material promoting homosexual activity.
We are concerned that the Directive could remove Christianity from public
services. An atheist patient should not be able to sue a hospital because there
is a Bible in the bedside locker. Local councils and schools should not be
intimidated into cancelling Christmas carol services.
Promotion of Homosexuality In the UK similar legislation has been widely
interpreted as requiring the homosexual lifestyle to be promoted by public
services. Adoption agencies, with public funding, which do not believe in
placing children with same sex couples, have had to close. Foster parents have
been removed from council registers because they are not willing to promote
homosexuality to their children. Only the threat of legal action has led to
their reinstatement.
It is of concern that the Directive could remove Christianity from public
services. An atheist patient should not be able to sue a hospital because there
is a Bible in the bedside locker. Local councils and schools should not be
intimidated into cancelling Christmas carol services.
Harassment It is of deep concern what the harassment laws could do to free
speech. Unlike criminal harassment the EU law will have a very low threshold
and therefore be easy to prove. The mere explanation of the relevant religious
belief to a homosexual or a Christian communication on your religious beliefs
to those of another faith may be interpreted as amounting to harassment.
Harassment is from the subjective perspective of the person alleging the
harassment.
The loose wording of the new EU harassment law leaves huge scope for bogus and
trivial complaints which will limit freedom of speech and religious liberty.
The sexual orientation regulations in England and Wales did not include
harassment. The High Court in Northern Ireland struck out the harassment
provisions for parallel sexual orientation regulations.
As a result of a UK Government consultation response to a forthcoming Equality
Bill, with around 4,000 responses from a wide range of stake-holders, the
Government decided not to extend protection against harassment outside work, on
the grounds of sexual orientation or religion or belief, because they did not
see evidence of a real problem.
Exemptions Article 3 of the draft Directive contains exemptions for religious
schools and churches and other organisations based on religion or belief.
However, it is not clear whether the exemption for religious organisations is
aimed only at protecting existing laws that guarantee religious freedom, or
whether it allows Member States to introduce new protections when implementing
the Directive. The definition of religious organisations protected by the
exemptions is also unclear.
Where church-based groups hire facilities to enable them to run social
activities, the religious exemptions will not protect them.
Where religious organisations provide welfare and care, a potential claim for
discrimination could be made against the organisation for refusing to condone
same sex activities e.g. refusing a double room in a Christian care home to a
same-sex couple.
Balance of Rights The proposed Directive has profound implications for the
fundamental rights of European citizens to freedom of religion. The Directive
and the accompanying documents do not appear to have properly considered the
need to have mechanisms to balance conflicting fundamental rights with each
other and without doing so, it may create at the very least indirect
discrimination against religious believers. In our opinion, the absence of the
word “morals”, found in Articles 8(2), 9(2), 10(2) and 11(2) of the European
Convention on Human Convention of Human Rights, from the balancing recital in
the Directive is symbolic of the changes being made.
It is essential that religious beliefs and the rights of the homosexual
community are properly balanced otherwise well-meaning Directives such as the
proposed Directive will themselves become instruments of discrimination or
oppression. There are many unanswered questions as to the compatibility of the
proposed Directive for religious organisations and individuals with the ECHR,
the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and the Declaration on Elimination
of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,
UN Resolution 36/55. The religious freedom of its citizens is the hallmark of a
democratic society and a core value for modern human rights law.
Including Fundamental Rights within Article 3 An explanation of the Directive
has stated that the prohibition of discrimination should go hand in hand with
other fundamental rights and freedoms such as freedom of religion. Yet these
fundamental rights are only in a Recital not in the Articles, which are the
main part of the Directive. A recent European case ruling on the principle of
equality overruled Recital 22 of the Employment Directive and it is of concern
that this may create a future precedent for overruling Recitals in other
directives. [See Case C-267/06 Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen
Bühnen at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006J0267:EN:HTML]
There are many different European Parliamentary Committees considering this
proposed Directive, but the main one is the Libe Committee. The current
proposed Directive can be found at the following link (from page 13):
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/com(2008)
426_/com(2008)426_en.pdf
Amendments and Approximate Timetable There have been many proposed amendments
put forward by the various Committees and individual MEPs to this proposed
Directive. These many amendments will be considered by the Libe Committee on
the 17th February 2009 and voted upon. European Parliamentary parties may then
put down further amendments but not individual MEPs. MEPs are expected to vote
on the Directive in the European Parliament plenary session on the 23 March
2009 (indicative date). After that time the Directive will then be considered
by the Council of Ministers (possibly in April 2009 but there is no indicative
date yet) and unless there is a nation veto, the Directive will then become an
official European Directive by being entered into the official journal.
We do not know what the final Directive will say. However there are a number of
amendments already proposed from a Committee which may make the Directive even
worse. This includes an amendment to even remove the fundamental rights and
freedoms from a Recital, where this shows the importance of respecting such
rights while prohibiting discrimination. There are also proposed amendments to
destroy any special status nations may accord to marriage. Stating that where
types of relationship, other than marriage are recognised as equivalent to
marriage under national law, the principle of equal treatment should apply.
Discrimination is about the need to protect fundamental rights not to promote
or create a hierarchy of rights and religious freedom is a core human right
which should not be trampled upon.
Multiple Discrimination It is of concern that there are amendments which seek to
extend the prohibition of discrimination to multiple discrimination. Seeking to
introduce multiple discrimination on the grounds of age and disability is not
contentious. The easiest non-contentious example of a multiple discrimination
case is of a black woman with the potential of alleging multiple discrimination
on the combination of race and sex. But what about the comparison between a
young white male Christian (religion only) and a black disabled elderly lesbian
of a different religion or belief (religion or belief, race, disability, age,
sex and sexual orientation equals 6 unbalancing multiple discrimination
potential equality factors).
This illustrates how the introduction of multiple discrimination between
religions and between religion and sexual orientation is so complex, highly
unadvisable and requires careful consideration. Multiple Discrimination is a
concept which lacks legal clarity and instead of a positive approach to life
may serve simply to generate an aggressive, unhealthy, detrimental multiple
victim mentality. It upsets the delicate balance of rights which are already
complex enough when there are only two conflicting fundamental rights being
considered. It could very easily result in the application of unreasonable and
circumstantially irrelevant weightings which result in both a hierarchy and
unfair balancing of fundamental rights, which instead of protecting rights
becomes of itself oppressive.
There have already been numerous examples of how existing equality and diversity
laws in the UK have led to the infringement of religious liberty. For example,
see the cases described on the Christian Legal Centre Website.
Let us pray to God for a miracle as Christian European Citizens of all European
nations contact their MEPs and Nations overwhelmingly reject this new Proposed
Anti-Discrimination European Directive and restore the original proposal to
remove both sexual orientation and religion or belief from the Directive.
What happens in Europe is important as Directives are European legal obligations
for all European countries. Please prayerfully consider writing to your MEP in
your own words, using the material in this paper to help you.
MEP link for UK
Monday, March 02, 2009
Boycott Red Nose Day
Action: do NOT give money to Red Nose Day / Comic Relief. They give millions to charities such as Oxfam which promote abortion. Their claim in 2000 to the Bishops' Conference that they do not is simply not true. Do they think we are stupid?
The African Women's Development fund (AWDF), according to Comic Relief, received £1,560,000. The AWDF charter of feminist principles proclaims its commitment to "Freedom of choice and autonomy regarding bodily integrity issues, including reproductive rights, abortion, sexual identity and sexual orientation".
See his full post.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
New charities guidlines
Briefing.
The Christian Institute write : 'We do not believe that churches will face any difficulties complying with the law. The guidance is not legally binding but trustees of religious charities are required to have regard to' the Commission's analysis. The Commission says this means trustees should be able to show that they are aware of the guidance, have taken it into account where relevant and have good reasons if they choose not to follow it.
As a result of a consultation on draft guidance held last year, the Charity Commission has addressed several concerns raised by Christian groups. For example, the draft guidance suggested that the Commission was intending to regulate membership criteria of religious groups, including churches. This suggestion is absent from the final guidance. The final guidance also contains assurances that vexatious and unsubstantiated complaints to
the Commission about religious charities will be dismissed.
Despite the improvements, there are still some worrying parts of the guidance. We still have concerns about the Commission's approach to charities which have the sole purpose of seeking to convert people from one religion to another, though there is an encouraging recognition that evangelism is
regarded as a central part of the Christian religion.
The guidance also implies that the Commission can adjudicate on what is correct religious doctrine and practice. But these are matters the Commission is neither able nor supposed to determine.
Fundamentally, we believe that the Charity Commission is wrong in law to apply an 'activities test' assessing the benefits versus the detriments of a charity's activities. According to some leading experts in charity law the
Commission has misinterpreted the new Charities Act. These experts say that under the Act 'public benefit' should have the meaning developed by English case law, which does not include an activities test'.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Christian charities to be gagged
Briefing. Blears is at it again. Here's the previous post. Charities who take the government's money are striking a Faustian bargain. But the government's position is incoherent: all charities, and government agencies, display the values which motivate them in what they do. Why should Christian charities be an exception?
From CFNews: Christian groups should only be able to access funding for social work if they promise not to evangelise, says communities secretary Hazel Blears. Speaking at an Evangelical Alliance (EA) conference on Christian debt-counselling services Mrs Blears spoke of a new charter for faith groups involved in social work.
Under the charter, developed with the help of the Faithworks group, religious organisations will be offered public funding for projects serving the community.
But this money will, Mrs Blears said, only be available to groups 'promising not to use public money to proselytise'.
During a Commons debate on the charter last year Mrs Blears said 'many people are motivated by faith of all kinds to do great acts of social good'.
'However,' she continued, 'I am concerned to ensure that if faith groups become involved, they do so on a proper footing - not by evangelising or proselytising, but by providing services in a non-discriminatory way to the whole community'.
Her speech to the EA has been compared to a church sermon in some press reports, as Mrs Blears 'preached' to church leaders about how Jesus would have understood the pressures of the economic crisis.
She spoke of the 'hope' which characterises the Christian life, adding that such hope could help society get through the 'difficult path ahead'.
But Christian groups are concerned that the Government wants to use the services provided by Christian groups while preventing them from articulating their faith.
The speech comes in the wake of a spate of stories where Christians - often in caring professions - are facing opposition from local authorities over their beliefs.
These include a Christian nurse who was suspended for offering to pray for a patient, a Christian carer struck off after a Muslim girl in her care became a Christian, and a Christian care home which lost council funding over its beliefs about homosexuality.
A spokesman for the Evangelical Alliance, Dr R David Muir, said: 'The Government wants the social action and welfare that faith groups provide, but there is a danger that they also want faith groups to leave their beliefs at the door.'
Mrs Blears said: 'It's not about trying to stop the people manning the soup kitchens, or making home visits, talking about their faith if people ask, or being open about what motivates them.'
She told the conference: 'I don't want to get to the place where the very thing that motivates you is stripped away. That's self defeating.'
But Dr Muir said: 'Our faith is what equips us as Christians to provide support and compassion to those who are spiritually and emotionally damaged by debt.'
The Bishop of Rochester recently wrote of the way the Christian foundations of much social care are being forgotten as Christianity is sidelined in many public services.
This is done under cover of concerns about offending people, he said, but was really driven by 'secularist agendas which marginalise all faith but seem especially hostile to Christianity'.
Secularists have welcomed Mrs Blears' plan to stop religious groups from evangelising if they are commissioned to carry out social work for the Government.
The National Secular Society commented that 'hidden beneath the flattering and emollient words was a clear message: we need your help to run welfare services on the cheap.
'This message was also tempered by the announcement that public money would come with firm conditions attached'.
The Faithworks charter, which has influenced the Government's plans, requires Christian groups who sign up to it to provide services to the community without 'imposing our Christian faith or belief on others'. [Christian Institute]
Friday, January 09, 2009
'Street Pastors' in Maidstone
Briefing. An interesting development. It seems probable that nothing like this would be possible from the Catholic Church because of the attitude of the Bishops: it would be seen as too risky.
"They help in an amazing array of ways. Not only do they pray for people, but they offer practical solutions to problems."
See the full story.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth: Charity Commission ruling
Briefing: this is a vindication of those who resisted the attempts to secularise the hospital under Lord Bridgeman. It doesn't deal clearly with the continuing problems, upon which we have blogged here.
From The Tablet (30/12/08), in part: THE CHARITY Commission has sharply reprimanded
the previous leadership of a private Catholic hospital over its handling of a dispute
about its code of ethics, writes Isabel de Bertodano.
Following a nine-month inquiry, the commission this week issued a report that criticised the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth in north London for its failure to implement a new code approved by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor last year to clarify the charity’s opposition to abortion. The report also questioned the decision of the previous leadership to allow a group of NHS GPs to move on to the hospital’s premises, because of the potential conflict of ethical interest between public-sector doctors and the private Catholic charity. Furthermore, the report said that the hospital’s then board of trustees had “misled” the commission and ignored requests for information.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Westminster adoption agency not allowed to clarify its objects
Briefing.
From CFNews: A Catholic adoption agency has suffered a severe blow in its battle to stay within the control of the Church. The Catholic Children's Society of the Archdiocese of Westminster, whose president is Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, wanted to change its charitable objects so it could be exempt from new gay rights laws.
It applied to the Charity Commission in the hope that it would not have to assess gay and lesbian couples as adopters and foster parents, a practice described by Pope Benedict XVI as 'gravely immoral'. But commissioners have informed the trustees of the agency that their application has been unsuccessful. Jim Richards, the agency director, said: 'We have got an answer and the answer is 'no'. They have turned down the request. We will now have to consider our next step based on that decision. It is quite a lengthy letter and we want our solicitors to look at it before we decide what to do. It is a decision for our trustees.
'We don't want to rush things, we have to proceed with due deliberation. There are still avenues to explore and objective decisions to be made. We will have to look at all this in the clear light of day.' He added: 'Underlining all this, of course, is our wish to continue as a Catholic agency within the diocese carrying out the teaching of the Church. That is the wish of the trustees.'
Mr Richards said the letter was with Church solicitors and would not discuss its contents further.
He said that agency trustees will meet this week to consider lodging an appeal.
The agency has just under three months to decide whether to either close, comply with the law and leave the control of the Church, or to defy the Government and test the law in the courts.
Five of the 11 Catholic adoption agencies, which together find new homes for 250 children a year, have broken ties with the bishops after trustees caved in to pressure to comply with the regulations ahead of the New Year's Day deadline set by Tony Blair last year.
Another agency has pulled out of adoption altogether while two others have yet to announce their intentions.
Like Westminster, the adoption agencies of Birmingham and Leeds also wanted to continue their policies of placing children only with married heterosexuals and single people and they too have applied to the Charity Commission to change their objects. Trustees of the three agencies knew that their positions could be challenged in the courts but were willing to test the law. The agencies were advised by lawyers that they first needed to amend their constitution so that they could comply with the legislation brought in under the 2006 Equality Act.
They hoped to satisfy Regulation 18 of the SORs which allows limited discrimination in 'pursuance of a charitable instrument' or if 'the restrictions of benefits to persons of that sexual orientation is imposed by reason of, or on the grounds of, the provisions of a charitable instrument'.
At present, the constitution simply refers to helping couples who wish to adopt, and the society sought to protect itself by amending its constitution to refer directly to married heterosexual couples.
Neil Addison, a barrister and author of Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law, said that the agencies could still get their way if they tried to change their objects to state explicitly that they were Catholic institutions instead of vaguely asserting that they would only deal with married couples.
He said they needed to 'take a different route and state in their objects that they must act in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church and that would provide them with the legal protection they need and protection under religious discrimination law also'.
The decision by the charity commissioners, however, will represent a huge blow to London's Catholics, who raise thousands of pounds each year for the society. In 2001 the comedian Frank Skinner donated £125,000 he won on ITV's Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
The Westminster CCS is the oldest Catholic adoption agency in the country and was founded by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1764 when penal laws made it technically illegal to be a Catholic in Britain.
Today it supports some 3,000 children, young people and their families each year through a network of family centres and nurseries, and its fostering, adoption, counselling and child protection services, as well as working with travellers and families on low incomes.
Each year the society finds new families for about 15 'hard-to-place' children with severe emotional or behavioural problems, or who are disabled - and it is this service that is at risk from the regulations.
The agencies act by finding couples and individuals willing to adopt and preparing them to meet legal and local authority criteria for adoption. They are then matched with children put up for adoption by social workers.
As Prime Minister, Mr Blair pushed through laws designed to encourage greater use of adoption in 2002, and as part of the reforms gay couples were allowed to adopt for the first time.
The SORs have created civil laws that give homosexuals the power to sue individuals or institutions for alleged discrimination.
Dr Thomas Ward, President of the National Association of Catholic Families, comments: 'Irrespective of this wicked law these hundreds of vulnerable Catholic children remain the moral responsibility of the Catholic Bishops. Are they now going submit to the law or protect our children? [Catholic Herald, CF News]
Monday, September 22, 2008
FFM Parishes: O'Donaghue on being Catholic, 14
Another of our extracts from 'Fit for Mission? - Parishes' by Bishop O'Donaghue of Lancaster. Click on the 'label' FFM Parishes to see others. See the 'Fit for Mission?' website and download the full document. The previous title in the series, 'Fit for Mission? - Schools' is downloadable here (pdf). This generated a Facebook support group.
From section 10.8.3, p76f:
Pope Benedict XVI makes it clear that the Church’s action for justice and love is quite distinctive. Our work for charity and social justice is done in the name and power of Jesus Christ. This is not the same as saying this work is done in the spirit of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, no matter how praiseworthy. When Christians work in the spirit of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, we do it ‘in Christ’, so that He is present and active in ways beyond our comprehension.
Practical activity will always be insufficient, unless it visibly expresses a love for man, a love nourished by an encounter with Christ. My deep personal sharing in the needs and sufferings of others becomes a sharing of my very self with them: if my gift is not to prove a source of humiliation, I must give to others not only something that is my own, but my very self; I must be personally present in my gift. (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, 34).
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Christian Charities: don't do social work if you spread the gospel
Department for Communities and Local Government
Eland House
Bressenden Place
LONDON
SW1E 5DU
From LifeSite, via CFNews: Last year, the Charities Commission instituted a new criterion under which religious charities must prove that what they do is of 'public benefit', or face the loss of their tax status. Now a secretary of the Labour government has said that those Christian charities that engage in religious evangelisation will not also be allowed to conduct social service work. Hazel Blears, the Labour government's Communities Secretary is the author of a White Paper entitled 'Communities in control: real people, real power', that lays out the criteria for participation by Christian organisations in social services. But Blears indicated in the House of Commons that in the name of 'inclusiveness' Christian religious charities that are interested in promoting Christianity will be excluded from engaging in charitable social works. Although 'many people are motivated by faith of all kinds to do great acts of social good,' she said, 'I am concerned to ensure that if faith groups become involved, they do so on a proper footing - not by evangelising or proselytising, but by providing services in a non-discriminatory way to the whole community.'
Blears said she will draft a 'charter' for churches and Christian agencies providing community services. The charter will require groups to pledge to provide 'an inclusive service to our community' in a number of ways. One of these is, 'Never imposing our Christian faith or belief on others.' The Christian Institute, a non-denominational organisation that promotes traditional Christianity in public life, said that there have already been cases of Christian groups being denied funding because they refuse to compromise on their specifically Christian ethos.
In 2005, one Christian-run homeless shelter was threatened with the loss of £150,000 of funding unless it stopped saying grace at mealtimes and putting Bibles out for use by guests. Teen Challenge UK, an organisation in Wales that helps drug addicts, had £700,000 of funding withdrawn. Although the Welsh Assembly denies this was the reason, MP Bob Spink said in the House of Commons, 'The organisation's grant was removed essentially because it has Christian roots and is run by Christians.'
Last month Blears said that the 'sidelining' of Christianity in public life is 'common sense' and said that in the place of Britain's 1500 year Christian heritage, Islam should be promoted. Blears told BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme that the government's interest in Islam is 'just common sense. If we've got an issue where we have to build resilience of young Muslim men and women to withstand an extremist message.' Her comments came in the wake of a scathing Church of England report that accused the Labour government of being 'tone-deaf' to religious matters, especially in its lack of a fundamental grasp of the principles of Christianity, the country's officially established religion.
Blears immediately cemented the Church's point when she told BBC Radio that she found it a source of joy that 'we live in a secular democracy.' The Church of England bishop responsible for the report, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, said afterwards, 'That comes as news to me - we have an Established Church, but the Government can't deal with Christianity.' The Church of England's report effectively threw the weight of the Established Church behind the resurgent Conservative party that has been making significant overtures to Britain's disaffected Christian majority. The report, entitled 'Moral, But No Compass,' accused Labour of 'religious illiteracy', refusing to acknowledge the breakdown of civil order in society and of having excluded religious voices. The government, it says, 'consciously decided to focus...almost exclusively on minority religions.' [LifeSiteNews]
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth: Defeat snatched from jaws of victory
Briefing.
Fromn CFNews: The Restituta Group comment : ''The Hospital Trustee's Annual General Meeting confirms our worst fears. The Cardinal has insisted upon a new Board for the Hospital Trustee Company and the question that arose was whether this new Board would follow the teachings of the Church or, as reported in an article in 'The Tablet', adapt the ethics of the Hospital to suit doctors, clinicians and others who wish to carry out procedures such as referrals for abortions which are totally unacceptable in a Catholic Hospital. It would now appear that the report in The Tablet was correct.
The Hospital's Annual General Meeting
This was held on 2nd June 2008 much earlier than usual. No accounts for 2007 were presented to the meeting and no auditors were appointed. It would seem that the purpose of the meeting was to consolidate the appointment of Directors sympathetic to the Cardinal's agenda. Under the articles a third of the directors have to retire at the AGM and can be presented for re-election. As most of the elected Directors had already resigned the agenda required Charles Fitzherbert, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Aida Hersham to retire.
Charles Fitzherbert is a Trustee of the Brampton Trust as well as being on the Hospital board. We have always understood him to be fully supportive of the Brampton House Development Plan whereby the St John's Wood Medical Centre entered the Hospital to provide unacceptable services. In December 2007 on the resignation of Lord Bridgeman he was appointed temporary chairman of the Hospital to guide the prospective Chairman, Lord Guthrie. At the AGM on 2nd June he stood for reappointment but was voted out with three appointees of Lord Guthrie voting against him: Nicholas Coulson, Jonathan Scherer and Julian Schild. This was a strange development. Had the unlawfulness of the actions of the Brampton Trustees dawned on him as a result of the Charity Commission's institution of an enquiry into those actions? Had he begun to see the light and therefore became unacceptable to the Cardinal's party?
Jacob Rees-Mogg was a member of the Ethics Committee and all along has supported the teachings of the Church. For his loyalty to the Church the Cardinal asked him to resign in February of this year. The Guardian newspaper reported on 22nd February 2008: 'The cardinal's primary objective has always been for St John & St Elizabeth to remain a Catholic hospital and several issues were jeopardising that aim, including GPs prescribing the morning-after pill and referring patients for abortions'.
Earlier in the article it said: 'Scalps from Tuesday evening's decision include Aida Hersham, a Persian heiress and socialite, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, son of former Times editor William Rees-Mogg'. .
This could only suggest to the reader that Jacob Rees-Mogg and Aida Hersham were in opposition to Catholic teaching and were asked for their resignation. They both knew this to be untrue and therefore refused to resign.
Mrs Aida Hersham although not a Roman Catholic but Jewish has always supported Catholic teaching and has been a very generous benefactor of the Hospital. It is understood that such was her concern over the proposed entry of the St John's Wood Medical Practice that she approached the Cardinal to make an offer to put up the necessary funds for them to be persuaded to relocate elsewhere. This might have involved over a million pounds. The Cardinal's response was to ask for her resignation in February.
As neither of them had resigned Lord Guthrie informed them that he was arranging for them to resign automatically and to be put up for re-election. He further said they would not get his support. Mrs Hersham having seen Charles Fitzherbert, with whom she had done gallant work in fund-raising, forced out, decided to resign at the meeting before a vote could be taken as did Jacob Rees-Mogg.
One of the incoming directors has been heard to say that the Cardinal has done an excellent job in rescuing the Hospital from the hands of Catholic fundamentalists. The Archdiocese has certainly learnt a great deal about spin from Mr Blair's former office.
The Cardinal's Agenda
After several years of watching developments at the Hospital we can only conclude that the Cardinal has no intention that the vision of Cardinal Basil Hume for a Centre of Catholic Medical Excellence should be followed. Instead his agenda would appear to be one of compromise with the current secular ethic or lack of one. The intervention of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provided a set-back to this agenda when he was obliged to set out the teachings of the Church in March 2006. However we have never had any explanation of what he said privately to Lord Bridgeman, the then Chairman of the Hospital, the previous month in February 2006. A smokescreen was set up in the form of appointments to a new Ethics Committee whose deliberations would have taken years if left to the Committee's Chairman. Again it was a set back for the Cardinal's agenda when it delivered after a year an updated Code of Ethics - the 2007 Code. The Cardinal did nothing to persuade the Board to act within this 2007 Code or to prevent the entry of the St John's Wood Medical Practice in January 2008. Instead he found the new code an embarrassment and insisted on a new Board which has now been finally elected in June 2008 to carry out his agenda.
The Cardinal's New Board & New Ethics
We have always said that for the Hospital to become, once again, a truly Catholic work it must have a management which is imbued with a Catholic vision. Since the departure of the Sisters of Mercy in the 1980s this has been sorely lacking. Neither the present Director, Christopher Board, nor his assistant Claire Hornick have this vision and have clearly not been supportive of orthodox Catholic teaching. This has been pointed out on numerous occasions and yet the new Chairman Lord Guthrie expressed full confidence in the probity and competence of Chris Board and Claire Hornick at the AGM.
In their issue of 8th March 2008 The Tablet had reported that: 'The Cardinal is understood to have recognised that a strict, Vatican-sanctioned code of ethics he had wanted to impose at the hospital needs to be reassessed if the hospital is to survive'.
However, a spokesman disputed that this week: 'The cardinal expects the board to move forward according to the agreed code'. The new appointees will be expected to hammer out a code of ethics acceptable to all.
Although we have asked for clarification of this issue from the Archdiocese none has been forthcoming. At the AGM Lord Guthrie announced that there would be a new Ethics Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Allen, a former department head at MI6. A licence to kill perhaps? Will Bishop Stack, Canon Brockie or Father John Wilson be members of this committee as of the previous one? We will be surprised if they are. Lord Guthrie said the previous committee had been too large. He further said that there was no time-frame for setting it up; it would be a leaner committee and its remit would be wide-ranging and everyone in the Hospital would be consulted. Its principles are to be applied more 'broadly'. Lord Guthrie was not prepared to say whether the new Code would allow the St John's Wood Practice or anyone else in the Hospital to practice contrary to Catholic teaching. We got the impression that we were unlikely to hear anything from the Committee before the next AGM. Furthermore the new Ethics Committee is to be a sub-committee of the board and not be in charge of ethical governance in the Hospital. Does this mean that governance on ethical matters will be removed from Catholic control and left entirely to the Medical Advisory Committee which has no Catholics on it and is under the chairmanship of Nicholas Goddard who, with the management, has organised the opposition to the 2007 Code of Ethics? The system of governance asked for by the Cardinal in March 2006 would appear to be a dead letter. The result of the Cardinal's actions would appear to be that no attempt will be made to implement any Catholic ethics.
The Legal Perspective
What needs to be clearly understood is that the defining law on the ethical practices at the Hospital is set out in the constitution:
4A. Ethics. The Hospital shall be conducted in accordance with the ethics of the Roman Catholic Church in communion with the see of Rome. The Trustee shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all persons working in the Hospital shall comply with this requirement and be fully informed on the subject. In the event of any difference of opinion arising as to these ethics or the application thereof then such difference will be submitted to the person for the time being exercising Archiepiscopal jurisdiction over the Roman Catholic Province of Westminster whose decision shall be final and conclusive.
That is the defining statement. In the past the Code of Ethics was merely a guide to what the ethics of the Roman Catholic Church are. If there is now to be a Code of Ethics which is NOT in compliance with those Catholic ethics then its implementation at the Hospital will be unlawful and the Board of the Hospital will be in complete breach of trust. We hope everyone understands what is meant by a breach of trust. The Board like the Brampton Trust have been entrusted with money and assets on a solemn trust that they be used for Roman Catholic purposes. If they use that money and assets for some other purpose they are purloining those assets. Morally this is little different from robbing a bank; those responsible would be acting dishonestly and are not to be trusted. There are penalties financial, civil and criminal. If the Board follow this course they can expect to be pursued through the available legal channels whether the Charity Commission or the Courts.
The problem though is that the Cardinal could deny the teachings of the Church and inform the Board and the Charity Commission that secular ethics that allow abortion are acceptable in a Catholic hospital. The question that we now ask is whether the Cardinal will proceed in such a manner.
A second problem is that the Cardinal, through his Board, may attempt to get the constitution changed by deletion or severe modification of clause 4A. Lawyers unsympathetic to the Catholic cause have already suggested this is possible. If the Cardinal consents to this course of action he will be allowing the destruction of part of our Catholic heritage in a manner little different from those bishops who cowardly accepted the Henrician reforms.
A Sorry Story
So matters are now looking pretty bleak. Questions were put to the AGM about the current state of ethics. It was apparent that the whole subject of ethics was being put off until some future unknown date and in the meantime no regard will be had to Catholic ethics. Questions about Gender Reassignment Operations were again dismissed. The evidence for these is in the hands of the Board and it is utterly dishonest to say that there is no proof one way or another.
How have we come to such a pass? The Sisters of Mercy and other Roman Catholic nuns who nursed the soldiers in the Crimea under Florence Nightingale were acting out their vocation as part of the Church whose mission is to train men's souls for heaven. They sought to carry out that spiritual mission by corporal works of mercy. When they returned to England Cardinal Wiseman and the future Cardinal Manning encouraged them in a similar spiritual mission in founding the Hospital. As Monsignor Ronald Knox has written there is a risk that a 'spiritual message will lose itself in philanthropic endeavour … Her [the Church's] message is of the world beyond; on it her eyes are set; she tends, feeds, teaches her children distractedly, only that she may point them to heaven; she will not lose her soul in what the world calls charity'. [ 'Pastoral Sermons' Ronald Knox. Burns & Oates 1960. p.36].
Over the years the spiritual message seems to have been lost. The founders: Cardinal Wiseman, Cardinal Manning, Cardinal Bourne (who set up the Brampton Trust), the Sisters of Mercy and the many Catholic laymen amongst whom many of us can recognise our ancestors would never have contemplated that abortions would be facilitated or phalloplasties carried out for deluded and exploited women. What trace is there now of any spiritual message? The absence of the Church's spiritual message means the loss of souls. Does anybody care? Do not Bishops other than the Cardinal have concerns? It was remarked the other day that the English Channel seems to put off a miasma which rots brains in the littoral Dioceses; the further North one goes the situation does improve; contrast the actions of Cardinals Winning and O'Brien over the abortion issue with those of their southern brethren. If there are Bishops, theologians or any Catholics who disagree with us let them speak out. One of the most remarkable aspects of this whole affair is that not one Catholic has put to us a reasoned argument that we have got it wrong either factually, theologically, pastorally or morally. We hope we have the humility to acknowledge and accept any sound correction.
But how much bleaker the outlook must have seemed for those martyrs who kept coming to England's shores in penal times; we must therefore not lose hope and we must have faith. There is after all the possibility that we may have a new Archbishop of Westminster with different ideas in the not too distant future; we would suggest that the parable of the dishonest steward is not irrelevant and some should be hedging their bets: 'for indeed, the children of this world are more prudent after their own fashion than the children of the light' Luke ch 16: v.8. The next few verses are worth reading as well!
Secretary to the Group
Nicolas J Bellord.
Email: njbellord@aol.com
Thursday, May 22, 2008
£10m stolen from Catholic charity
Briefing: in renaming the 'Catholic Children's Society' the 'Cabrini Children's Society' the trustees want to perform the usual trick: change the name to exclude the word 'Catholic' but include a really obscure Catholic reference (how many English Catholics know about St Frances Xavier Cabrini?); keep assets (£10m) entrusted to them for Catholic charitable purposes and use them for something else; and to add insult to injury, continue to tap the Catholic community for donations by talking about the organisation's Catholic past. It's the Catholic future we're interested in, actually! Donations and official connections from the Church should cease. Perhaps readers could say a prayer to St Frances for the conversion of the people in this organisation. Hat-tip to Carpe Canum.
From Fr Finigan: Philip at Carpe Canem has reported on the change of name for the Catholic Children's Society which operates in the south of England:
In response to the Sexual Orientation Regulations, and hoping to continue to benefit from the generosity of the Catholic faithful, the Society is now to change its name to the "Cabrini Children's Society" (same initials, geddit!) As Philip comments:
The Catholic Faithful need to know that they’ve just lost £10 million (the society's assets), and been sold down the river of political expediency as it is now technically outside Church jurisdiction. Is there not something in canon law about alienating property?
Maggie Clitherow has some good comment on this issue from her own experience (Don't Know What I'm Doing: So-Called Catholic Adoption Agencies.
I am very pleased to hear that one of the Auxiliary Bishops in Southwark, Bishop John Hine has resigned from the board of the society. This action is very much to be commended.
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.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Religious charities: new consultation
Action: please respond to the consultation: Charities commission information here; consultation proper here. To cut to the chase, you can simply email them to say that religious charities are ultimately concerned with the worship of God, not the mere propagation of a set of principles: otherwise they would be think-tanks or political parties. They are worthy of charitable status because the worship of God is a good, and the furthering of a good is a benefit to the public. If they deny this, they are taking up a theological position contrary to the great majority of the population of the country, and for which they have given no arguments.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: The Charities Act 2006 is an attempt by the Government to create a level playing field regarding the need for charities to prove public benefit. All charities, including those charities whose purposes concern advancing religion or education or the relief of poverty, are now required explicitly to show that their aims promote public benefit. Failing this, new and existing religious charities will no longer be considered to be charitable and will lose the tax and other benefits associated with being a charity. Previously these 3 types of charities were presumed to be of public benefit.
The Charity Commission's general guidance, ‘Charities and Public Benefit’ and ‘Summary Guidance for Charity Trustees’, published in January 2008, explains in general terms what the public benefit requirement means. But the Commission has now produced a specific Consultation for religious charities in their draft supplementary ‘Public Benefit and the Advancement of Religion’ guidance. The Consultation for this religious sub-sector guidance will close on 30th June 2008.
One of the issues that this Consultation will cover will be how to define
‘religion’. This dilemma has arisen as a result of the changes in the Charities
Act. The Charities Act states that ‘religion’ now includes a belief in more
than one god, and a religion which does not involve belief in a god. ‘God’ does
not start with a capital letter in any sentence of the Charities Act. This may
be seen as symbolic of the changes being made.
A previous decision by the Commission in a Church of Scientology case, having
considered the characteristics of a religion, concluded that the definition of
‘religion’ in English charity law was characterised by three aspects: firstly,
a belief in a supreme being, secondly, an expression of that belief through
worship and thirdly, that there must be an advancement of religion. Because of
this decision and the changes to include more than one god or no god, the
Consultation asks questions on the definition of ‘religion’. In our opinion, it
is vital that any redefinition of ‘religion’ maintains the three aspects
discussed in the Church of Scientology decision.
The Consultation explains that an alternative to ‘supreme being’ that has been
suggested is “a divine or transcendental being, entity or principle”. The
Consultation then poses the question as to the most appropriate terminology for
the Commission to use to describe the object or focus of religion.
Originally, charity law was founded on a traditional Christian belief in one
God. That requirement has been gradually eroded by the exceptions that have
been allowed. As Christians, we need to act now to ensure that the concept of
religion is not further secularised or diluted.
The LCF/CCFON is encouraging church leaders and trustees of Christian
organisations to respond to the Consultation on the religious sub-sector draft
supplementary ‘Public Benefit and the Advancement of Religion’ guidance to
demonstrate the depth of concern amongst Christian charities. It is crucial
that this Consultation receives a huge response, as amongst other important
issues, the very concept of ‘religion’ in charity law will be defined. This
definition will then be used to consider which charities are ‘charities’
according to the criterion of the ‘advancement of religion’.
It is of concern to note that the Commission has suggested that this particular
Consultation may also be of interest to trustees advancing non-religious belief
systems. In our opinion, this is neither necessary nor appropriate, as the
Commission intends to have separate sub-sector guidance for such charities. If
responses from those charities with non-religious beliefs are used to determine
the definition of religion this may result in even further secularisation or
dilution of the concept.
The LCF will be organising a Conference day on the Bill, looking at how to
respond to the Bill, examining the Consultation and will in due course provide
a link to our response which we hope will inform and assist you.
The link to the Consultation on draft supplementary guidance on Public Benefit
and the Advancement of Religion can be found at:
Thursday, March 13, 2008
UNICEF and Save the Children anti life
Briefing: Catholics cannot support UNICEF (the Vatican has refused to fund it through its UN dues) or Save the Children.
From CFNews: 'For years UNICEF spokesmen denied promoting contraception or abortion,' wrote Winifride Prestwich in UNICEF: Guilty As Charged. She said records prove that 'step by step over a 30-year period UNICEF has tied itself to the population controllers and to the anti-life, anti-family attitudes of such organizations as the International Planned Parenthood Federation.'
A study released by the International Organizations Research Group (IORG) documented UNICEF's ties to abortion and radical feminism. UNICEF: Women or Children First? showed that UNICEF has helped write many documents that call for increased access to abortion and the legalization of the deadly act worldwide.
IORG discovered that UNICEF has funded a program run by the militantly pro-abortion Population Council, which holds the U.S. patent for the abortion pill, RU-486. UNICEF has also supported a South African group that targets adolescents with a pro-abortion message.
It is now official UNICEF policy to 'Promote and expand access to sexual and reproductive health services, including access to condoms,' the IORG report stated. A high-ranking UNICEF official even called for his group to 'make condoms available and accessible for everybody, everywhere and at all times. Abstinence is simply not a realistic option for most young people in the world today.'
The evidence that UNICEF has actively promoted the Culture of Death is overwhelming and indisputable:
* In 1987, UNICEF officially endorsed 'good quality abortion services' at the International Conference on Better Health for Women and Children in Nairobi, Kenya.
* In 1993, UNICEF raised its contribution to the United Nations Population Fund's (UNFPA) open support for Communist China's 'one-child family' policy from $2 million to $5 million.
* In 1997, the Vatican cut funding to UNICEF after the group co-sponsored a manual that endorsed emergency birth control. (Emergency birth control can cause an early abortion.) UNICEF also refused to provide a detailed accounting of its population control and pro-abortion programs.
* On October 26, 2002, the Calgary Herald reported that UNICEF has been straying from its mission for many years. The article, titled 'UNICEF's Other Agendas,' included an interview with Mary Kassian, author of The Feminist Gospel. 'Hundreds of thousands of children are still dying of TB or malaria, or because they don't have clean water. And the UN is giving them IUDs...I chose long ago not to support UNICEF and to support those good causes through other agencies that aren't tainted.'
Save the Children has a working relationship with what it calls 'prominent international organizations.' Several of these groups are actively pro-abortion, including Better World Fund, Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Population Action International, and the U.S. Committee for UNICEF.
In 2001, Save the Children worked with Planned Parenthood, the Population Action Council, and the pro-abortion Audubon Society on its five-year 'Planet Campaign.' Funded by the rabidly pro-abortion/population control David and Lucile Packard and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations, the purpose of the campaign was to 'raise awareness of the connections between international family planning and the health of children, women and the environment.' The Planet Campaign used television and print advertising, community outreach, special events, and other activities to spread its message. Save the Children said the campaign's website provided 'an international forum for discussion of, and action on, women's reproductive health - including family planning - in various countries and diverse cultures around the world.'
Save the Children has stated that 'family planning' has been a 'critical component' of its work for nearly 20 years. The group quoted a UNICEF document which stated that 'family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race.' Save the Children noted that the report identified 'access to family planning' as a 'key factor contributing to maternal and child survival and well-being.'
'It is laudable that the people involved with 'American Idol' want to help the poor,' said LDI President Douglas R. Scott, Jr. 'But it is tragic that they would choose to do so through groups like UNICEF and Save the Children. These groups have far too much deadly baggage.' Of course, what many people do not know, because 'American Idol' has not chosen to mention it, is that Simon Cowell is the chief executive officer of International Save the Children. This is surely why Save the Children was selected as a recipient charity.
''American Idol' should stop using the contestants to raise money for groups when they are keeping the activities of these charities a secret,' Scott said. ''American Idol' should practice full disclosure and give those contestants who may wish to decline participation in 'Idol Gives Back' the opportunity to do so without repercussions.'
'If you believe the plight of preborn children is as important as the plight of the poor, do not participate in 'Idol Gives Back'' Scott urged. 'We are caring people who want to do our part to help those less fortunate, but we will do so through organizations that do not view the killing of human beings as a 'solution' to poverty and other adult-created problems.'
Friday, March 07, 2008
Poland and Malta defy EU pro-abortion policy at UN
Update: the stand against the putative 'EU position' taken by Poland and Malta has been joined by Ireland; the current (Slovenian) leader of the EU delegation has had to say that the EU has no common position. The attempts to insert the right to 'sexual and reproductive rights' into a document has also been resisted by El Salvador, Syria, the Holy See and Iran, as well as the United States. See the full story from CFam here.
Briefing 29/02/08. This is especially good news as many were expecting the new Polish government to be less pro-life than the last.
From C-Fam: The governments of Poland and Malta broke ranks with the European Union on the question of abortion this week. The dissention occurred at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which convened it's annual two-week meeting at UN headquarters in New York on Monday. The reaction of Poland and Malta happened after the EU tried to shift the meeting's agenda to include the right to abortion.
On Tuesday Radoslaw Mleczko, the Polish Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, told the gathering of UN Member States that Poland generally aligned itself with the EU but that any EU reference to sexual and reproductive health could not include abortion. On Thursday afternoon, the head of Malta's mission to the UN, Ambassador Saviour F. Borg said, "Malta would like to clarify its position with respect to the language relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights in the [EU] statement. Malta firmly continues to maintain that any position taken or recommendations made regarding women's empowerment and gender equality should not in any way create an obligation on any party to consider abortion as a legitimate form of reproductive health rights, services or commodities."
The split in the European Union is significant because the EU hardly ever splits on questions of social policy at the UN. Even countries that are generally anti-abortion go along with the more radical approach taken by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. They do this as an agreement that the EU will always work out their differences behind closed doors and present a united front at UN negotiations. This works to the advantage of the pro-abortion states since they outnumber the anti-abortion states. Moreover, an EU that is divided is one that can be defeated on social policy questions. In fact, the last time the EU split in any significant way was in the UN cloning debate which resulted in the UN calling for the ban of all forms of human cloning, an effort opposed by the UK, France, Germany and other left-wing European governments. It is unclear how meaningful this current split will be in the negotiations which will begin in earnest tomorrow.
Pro-life and pro-family issues were also woven into UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's opening remarks to the commission on Monday when he criticized the now widespread practice of choosing abortions based on the sex of the baby, an issue that was all but taken off the agenda at last year's CSW despite solid support from both civil society and numerous governmental delegations. In his speech to launch the new UN multi-year campaign to end violence against women, the Secretary-General stressed, "Through the practice of prenatal sex selection, countless others are denied the right even to exist. No country, no culture, no woman young or old is immune to this scourge."
The Secretary-General also highlighted the importance of families and children stating, "We know that violence against women compounds the enormous social and economic toll on families, communities, even whole nations. And we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women, we empower our greatest resource for development: mothers raising children."
Among the many pro-life and pro-family lobbyists attending the CSW is a large contingent of high school girls from Overbrook Academy in Rhode Island. Fourteen year old Elsa Corripio told the Friday Fax, "We want these delegates to know that there are many young people who believe in respecting life." Ana Paola Rangel, 15, added, "Maybe we can't change the world, but we know we can make a difference."
The CSW meeting continues through next week.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth: update
From CFNews: After three years of investigations and disputes, Cardinal Cormac Cardinal Murphy O'Connor has asked the entire board of directors of the Hospital of SS John & Elizabeth to resign in order to facilitate the implementation of a Catholic ethics code that would preclude abortion referrals, IVF and contraception. A spokesman for the Cardinal, who is patron of the hospital, is quoted by the Guardian saying, 'In light of recent difficulties and challenges the cardinal asked the board to resign their office.'
An investigation into the practices of the hospital in St John's Wood was launched in 2006, after complaints came from the Vatican that the hospital was dispensing chemical contraceptives and referring for abortions. Later it was also revealed that the hospital had allowed phalloplasties, a woman-to-man 'sex-change operation'. After nearly two years of disputes with the hospital's board, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, the hospital's arbiter on ethics, imposed a new ethics code and appointed an auxiliary bishop of Westminster archdiocese to oversee implementation. At this, a number of the Catholic hospital's board members resigned, accusing the cardinal of promoting Catholic 'values', which they held to be in conflict with patient care.
The hospital is also under investigation by the government's Charity Commission for failing to disclose vital information surrounding an £11 million loan to open an NHS primary care centre on its premises. Money to refurbish the property, a former convent, was approved by the government's Charity Commission, but the agency was not informed that a clause in the lease allowed doctors to opt out of the hospital's own ethics code. The cardinal's office said the removal of the previous board was 'to enable a new chairman to begin his office with the freedom to go about ensuring the future well-being of this Catholic hospital'.
Charles Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank has been appointed in that position. Lord Guthrie is a former Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Army, and is Vice President and Knight of Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the ancient Catholic military order that focuses on medical charity work around the world. The Order has its London headquarters, including an ornate and historic chapel, at the hospital. As a member of the House of Lords, Baron Guthrie has spoken against the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill in 2005, saying that it is the failure of the medical community to improve pain relief and appropriate care of the dying that has generated a demand for euthanasia.
But the Restituta Group, an organisation that has been working to restore the Catholic ethos to the hospital, told LifeSiteNews.com that the move by the Cardinal to remove the board is 'baffling'. Nicolas J. Bellord, secretary to the group, said the problems in the board and the hospital's Catholicity were being resolved and that the situation was improving.
'I'm totally baffled,' Mr. Bellord said, 'The board seemed to be getting on top of the problem. They seemed to have achieved a great deal. They were getting back towards Catholicity, they started on that way and now they've being asked to resign.' Bellord pointed out that technically, the Cardinal has no legal power to remove the board. The hospital said it would not be commenting further on the resignations. Deputy chief executive, Claire Hornick, said 'Lord Guthrie, supported by Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, has stated that under his chairmanship there is no desire that the hospital be sold and that the committed plan remains to continue the objects of the charity, which, guided by its Catholic ethos, is to serve the local community.'
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Charity Commission in Wonderland
Briefing: following the recent change in the law removing religion as a charitable object, the Charity Commission has been holding consultative meetings with representatives from religious charities. All well and good. But in the strange world where the Commission exists, the only religions which count are non-Chritian ones. Readers of the Catholic Herald may remember the letter from the Dame Suzi Leather, Chair of the Charity Commission (22nd June) responding to reports that the new law will be bad for Catholic charities: she clearly believed that the best response was ridicule and sarcasm, while reiterating the policies which created the problem without apology or explanation. 'The Act wasn't created as a cunning ploy to cull religious charities from the Register.' Oh, so that's ok then.
From Christian Concern for Our Nation: The Charity Commission have announced the launch of a dedicated new ‘Faith and Social Cohesion Unit’ to provide support and expert advice to faith-based charities. The unit’s stated aims are to strengthen the governance of faith-based charities, identify and support organisations that could be but are not currently registered as charities and improve the regulator's and society's understanding of faith-based charities and the contribution they make.
The Commission announced that they will be “building on the findings of a two year programme of workshops with representatives from over 800 faith-based organisations across 11 different faiths. Events were held with Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu and Buddhist communities as well as special meetings with the UK's smaller faiths such as Baha'i and Zoroastrianism, and a special multi-faith event for women only.” It is of great concern to note that over the last 2 years no specific mention at all is made of any consultations with Christian
organisations or faith groups apart from in the development of a model governing document for independent evangelical churches in 2004. It is hoped that in all future events and in the composition of the Faith Advisory group the Commission will seek to re-address this balance and correctly represent Christians, bearing in mind that in the last national census about 72% of the population stated their religion as Christian.
Details about the Unit on the Commission website show events with feedback from
Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist and Hindu Charities with no mention of
Christianity. It is stated that “The Unit will initially work primarily with
Muslim charities and communities. A Project Board including representatives of
the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) has been established to
direct the Unit’s work and to provide specialist advice”.
The focus on primarily Muslim charities ignores the faith based Christian
charities and this is an important omission which needs re-addressing,
particularly as the new Faith Advisory group will play an important role in
advising the Commission on policy and issues affecting all faith based
charities, including Christianity.
