Ice cream and ego

Maybe I've been a bit slow latching on to this, but it seems that Ben & Jerry's ice cream are weighing in to support the gay marriage cause in the UK.  The company have decided that their "Oh! My! Apple Pie!" flavour will be known as "Apple-y Ever After" in the UK and that the tub will display a pic of a wedding cake adorned with rainbow stripes and topped with two groom figures.

This is just part of a whole lobbying campaign in support of the redefinition of marriage, which includes placing contact information and a pro forma letter for contacting your MP on the Ben & Jerry website.  They have even launched a facebook app in partnership with Stonewall which enables you to "marry" someone of the same sex.  You can find out more over at Sisters of the Gospel of Life (thank you Sisters), who also point out that Ben & Jerry's have previously been involved in a gay marriage campaign in Vermont and are supporters of Planned Parenthood.

Oh well, another thing off the treat list.  I just hope Haagen-Daaz don't follow suit!

* * * * * * *

On another note, I came across the following in my current spiritual reading and it struck me as a pretty good description of how we human beings see ourselves these days when it comes to deciding on the value and meaning of human life...

"ON THE HUMAN 'I'.

"God alone has the right properly to say 'I', and to look at everything as it regards Himself, to be Himself the rule, the measure, and the centre of all things; because God alone exists of Himself, and everything else exists only by His will, and for Him, has no value whatever but the value He gives it, and considered by itself, is nothing, is worth nothing, and deserves nothing."

Except, we're not God...

The author is Fr Jean Nicolas Grou and he is writing in the 18th century, the period of the so-called "Enlightenment" when we began to focus on the "real/true" as being the empirically or logically provable.  We started to see ourselves as self-determining; biological entities with rational minds, the rational part having supremacy over the biological and the latter being seen as mere "matter" with no inherent moral status or meaning, to be "used" as best fits our purposes.  Fr Grou could not have foreseen exactly how far we would take that attitude using 21st century technology, but he does write,

"If we could once annihilate the human 'I', all crimes would disappear from the face of the earth, all men would live with each other like brothers, sharing their possessions without envy, helping each other in all their necessities, and each one of them looking upon his neighbour as a second self."

Amen! 

Our right, their wrong

Never the twain shall meet?

'Twas not my intention to blog just now - sat down at the computer to do something completely different! - but I came across an exchange between the Guardian newspaper and SPUC which I thought threw up some good points about the whole debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, so decided to post it up.

You can read the exchange for yourself at Revealed: what children are being told about abortion (no hint of melodrama there) and here on John Smeaton's blogsite (where he reports that the Guardian has published SPUC's response to its article).  Essentially it centres around a presentation given by a SPUC speaker at a secondary school in Comberton, which I assume we can take to be fairly typical of the school talks generally given by SPUC.  This particular talk was disclosed to the Guardian by a group of ladies known as Feminist Action Cambridge who were so shocked by its contents that they nearly had to resort to their smelling salts, with Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, galloping up on his charger to proclaim that "It is deeply disturbing that anti-choice groups are so easily able to enter schools and present these damaging fictions... the government should be more pro-active in preventing groups that persistently make false claims of this nature from having access to vulnerable children, especially in schools."

Let those of us who are not regular Guardian readers, with due fear and trembling, find out what those nasty black-cloaked people at SPUC have been peddling to our innocent youngsters.

Now to be fair, a major concern of the Guardian seems to be that SPUC's talk made a clear link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.  Whilst carrying a first pregnancy to full term does seem to confer a protective effect against breast cancer, the link between abortion and an increased risk is much debated with various studies reaching different conclusions (although the Guardian only quotes one study, which reaches the conclusion that suits it, i.e. a study co-ordinated by Cancer Research UK and published in the Lancet which concludes that abortion does not increase the risk).  In this I think there is a lesson to be learned by pro-lifers.  We must be careful about the statistics we use and the claims we make.  The link between abortion and breast cancer may or may not have been made as clearly in SPUC's talk as the Guardian claims, but at the least the topic seems to have been presented in a way that begs a particular interpretation, whether or not this was the speaker's intention.

Whilst pro-lifers will have a passion for truth and love of life that they long to put across, it is important not to get carried away but to do so with calm rationality.  Being sure of the strict accuracy of one's facts is vital so that, in all justice, we can give a fair hearing to the opposition's point of view without distortion. I can remember myself being put off pro-life work at one stage because it seemed to be gushing with "rivers of blood", riddled with "anti-life conspiracies" and the like... Thankfully the language used seems to have moderated these days.

Of course we may not ourselves be treated with the same justice.  Emma-Rose Cornwall from Feminist Action Cambridge retorts in the Guardian's article, "SPUC's supposed concern for zygotes is a poorly concealed desire to see women forced back into their 'god-given' roles as mothers and housewives, and simultaneously to punish what they perceive as promiscuous sexuality."  Eh??!!  Oh well, maybe Emma-Rose had taken too big a whiff of those smelling-salts.

The fact is that between those who are "pro-choice" and "pro-life" there lies such a huge gulf that the former see statements as appalling which the latter would regard as true and self-evident.  The Guardian quotes a few shockers from SPUC's talk as the denouement of its article:

The 1967 Abortion Act
"What the [abortion] act did was effectively make unborn children a class of non-person. In other words, they didn't have a right to life."
Abortion and disability
"This was an act that gave greater rights to protect people with disabilities... and this is a good thing. But we have a strange situation where on the one hand we do everything we can to help people with disabilities after they're born but it is legal within the Abortion Act to do abortion for disability right up until the birth of the baby."
Women's reproductive rights
"There are certain things as a society we decide are unacceptable, we don't have a right to do. So for example, if somebody were to beat up an old lady, we wouldn't say that's their right to do that. I would say... I would say without the right to life all the other rights become irrelevant."

And the Guardian's problem is...?

OK, again, to be fair, the allusion to beating up old ladies was I think a misjudgment, because it leaves the speaker open to the accusation that he/she is comparing women who have abortions to muggers of old ladies. But other than that, these are statements with which I would wholeheartedly agree.

The Guardian also objected to the fact that children were told abortion can be harmful to women, either physically or mentally.  We cannot brush under the carpet the fact that it can - more often the latter than the former perhaps.  There are countless testimonies given by women who have had abortions which support the claim that after abortion many women do indeed experience trauma, and ongoing, even lifelong regret.  Whether this can be accurately described in psychiatric terms as "a form of post-traumatic stress disorder" (which SPUC's speaker did) I don't know; but there is no justification to complain when children are warned that yes, regret and depression do happen.  The Guardian also seemed to find it shocking that it was suggested to the young people that giving birth to a baby after rape might be allowing "something positive" to come out of the experience.

Enough.  As Anthony McCarthy of SPUC said in his reply to the Guardian, "Supporters of abortion may not like to hear such things, but do they have a right to stop schoolchildren hearing them?"  This incident is indicative of the huge gulf between the pro-life and pro-choice perspectives: we each call the other's right, wrong; and the other's black, white.  It will take calm, dignity, integrity and much prayer to bridge that gulf.

(SPUC have a briefing note about "Abortion and Women's health" which you can download here.)

Mixed reactions to MPs' decision about assisted suicide prosecutions

The House of Commons last night welcomed the Department of Public Prosecution (DPP) policy on prosecuting those who have encouraged or assisted in suicide.  This policy was published in 2010 and sets out a list of factors to consider when deciding whether or not to bring a prosecution against someone who has helped another person to kill him/herself.  You can read these factors, which provide guidance when deciding whether a prosecution would be in the public interest, here.  It should be noted that these do not seek to set out circumstances in which assisting suicide could be made legal in itself.

The original motion, brought by Richard Ottoway MP, "invited the Government to consult as to whether to put (the DPP’s guidance on prosecutions for assisted suicide) on a statutory basis", the aim being to secure immunity from prosecution for some cases of assisted suicide ahead of the event.  Whilst the House of Commons passed unopposed a motion to "welcome" the DPP's guidance, together with an amendment encouraging the development of palliative care services, they wanted to retain the blanket ban on assisted suicide.  That is, the DPP is to be allowed to continue making prosection decisions on a case-by-case basis but a call by pro-euthanasia MPs for a parliamentary consultation aimed at placing the DPP's guidance on a statutory footing was withdrawn without a vote.  Assisting a suicide remains illegal and potentially punishable by force of law.

Two anti-euthanasia organisations have reacted to the outcome of the debate very differently.  Dr Peter Saunders, Director of Care Not Killing, welcomed it - you can read his response over at his blog, Christian Medical Comment.  Dr Saunders commented,  "MPs have today given a ringing endorsement to the need for the further development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision in which Britain is already a world leader. We welcome this move to strengthen existing services and to make the highest quality care more accessible and available.

"They have also today, as expected, given endorsement to the DPP policy on assisted suicide, which enables the DPP to exercise discretion in bringing prosecutions on a case by case basis, whilst upholding a blanket prohibition on all assistance or encouragement with suicide.
 
"The law in Britain thereby is seen to have both a stern face to deter exploitation and abuse, and a kind heart to temper justice with mercy in hard cases. This is the right balance. The clear evidence that it is working well is seen in the very small number of cases occurring (20 per year) and the low number of prosecutions."

John Smeaton, Director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), shares with Dr Saunders pro-life, anti-euthanasia convictions, but took a somewhat different view on this debate.  He wrote on his blog that the DPP's prosecution policy should not even have been welcomed by the Commons but, rather, "rescinded or revised" because it "undermines society's protection of the most vulnerable".  SPUC's view is that "the DPP’s guidance effectively decriminalises assisted suicide by removing any realistic chance of prosecutions for assisting suicide", with SPUC's Paul Tully remarking, "The DPP's prosecuting policy has emptied the Suicide Act, which sets out the crime of assisting suicide, of its meaning and much of its force."  You can read SPUC's press release about the motion here.

Where do you stand?  I cannot speak for St John's Pro Life Group, with whom I have not discussed this particular motion, but speaking for myself I think I am with Peter Saunders.  Whilst it is true that it is not always easy to be certain that someone has acted out of compassion in helping a loved one to die, I would venture that this is usually the case.  Giving such a person immunity from prosecution before the event would indeed be giving the wrong signal and "emptying the Suicide Act of its meaning and force" - but I cannot feel that traumatised, grieving people who believed they were doing the right thing for someone they love should be used as "deterrents" after the event by being given jail sentences.  Yes, their compassion is misguided, but not punishable. Subjective culpability cannot always be equated with the objective moral status of the act committed, as I have remarked before. 

I admire greatly the work of SPUC but note with some disappointment that they have not remarked on the MPs' endorsement of strengthening palliative care, which in itself is surely one of the best deterrents of assisted suicide.

It remains the case, of course, that the Catholic Church prohibits the deliberate taking of human life even if it is one's own.  As pro-lifers we continue to believe that true compassion will always seek to offer reasons to live, not ways to die.  We will seek all the avenues we can to passionately promote the value and beauty of life to and on behalf of every human person.

Hail, full of simplicity

It's time to put our roughly-quarterly parish pro-life newsletter together and in preparation for doing so I pulled up our last one, which was published during Advent.  The Gospel reading for that particular Sunday was the Annunciation and so the intro to the newsletter was based around it.

This being the Solemnity of the Annunication of Our Lord, it seems appropriate to share this brief editorial again, and so I have reproduced it below (in italics).  It certainly isn't theologically profound - in fact it's very simple.  However I think Our Lady herself, in all her closeness to the Lord and her spiritual insight, was also very simple.  Devoted to God, all she wanted was to do His will in all things - and having heard what His will for her was, she paused only to check she fully understood before saying, quite simply, "yes".

Perhaps today is a good chance to ponder on all the complications, justifications, hesitations and specious arguments we each put up against what - through the teaching of the Church and our own conscience - we know full well to be the will of God.  Sometimes discernment of God's will does take time; but so often we cloud the issue with countless apparent difficulties that have their roots in our own self (our selfishness, our weakness, our fear) rather than in the rights and wrongs of the situation, and then justify these difficulties to ourselves and others using all sorts of clever arguments.  Our Lady did not do this, although she must have been at least a little apprehensive about her mission!  It takes holiness to be truly simple...

Likewise, as a society we present all sorts of arguments and justifications concerning pro-life issues, when actually the truths underlying them are very simple.  Human life is a gift that we do not own, that we cannot take from others or from ourselves, and that we must never use as a means to an end.  Those three phrases cut through most of the arguments for abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation.  Can we, using them, work in our society for a return to the sheer simplicity of the truth?

The Angel’s words to Our Lady heralded the conception of our Lord and Saviour in her womb.  He was no less a divine Person then, even as an embryo, than at His birth, during His childhood in Nazareth and His hidden years of working as a humble carpenter, His public ministry, His death on the Cross and His glorious, bodily Resurrection.  If the Annunciation had happened in our age, would Mary - as a teenage "unmarried" mother -  been pressured to attend an abortion clinic?  Imagine if she had done so...!

This makes the Solemnity of the Annunication the ideal occasion on which to meditate upon the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death.  We can also meditate upon the Angel’s words in this context.  You could say that Mary was “full of grace” in more than one way.  She was, of course, without sin and therefore fully imbued with God’s love and grace, to which she put up no barrier.  She was full of Grace Himself when God came to dwell within her body.  But she was also full of grace by the very fact of being a human being, made in the image of God - so full of grace and dignity, in fact, that she had to give her permission, her “fiat”, before Christ was conceived within her.

In this last sense of being full of grace, she is a sister to all of us.  We too, as human people, possess that same grace and dignity and God will not work in our lives without our own “fiat”, our Yes to His purposes.  Can we deny our unborn brothers and sisters their chance to say “yes” to God and live the life He has given them? We certainly cannot deny their dignity.  Made by God, they are full of grace from their earliest beginnings.

A picture really does paint a thousand words

A soldier holds his first-born child, a baby daughter,
 for the first time

I saw this over at Reflections of a Paralytic and had to post it.  Like the blog author, Chelsea, I am lost for words.  Sometimes an image just says it better!  Whenever I feel low and need encouragement to persevere in proclaiming the pro-life message (see previous post!), I'll look at this...

Stop the world?

It's a beautiful warm, sunny day, I've had a lovely time on my regular Saturday morning date with hubby (attending Mass and then having coffee and cake in our favourite coffee place, the Little Black Olive)  and am looking forward to a pleasant evening of pizza and DVD with friends.  Yet despite all this I've suddenly been hit by a "stop the world I want to get off" feeling...!

No one reason - just that browsing through some blogs at lunchtime, I began to feel that I was surrounded by madness (please don't anyone point out that mad people always think it's everyone else that's mad...).  Firstly I found out that John Bercow's peculiar kaleidoscope remark to the Queen had a specific meaning which, in my naivety, I was unaware of; I realised that he was referring to the "inclusivity" of the modern world including towards LGBT people, but hadn't known that he was being cheeky enough to use a very inappropriate context to plug a specific organisation.  Fr Tim Finnigan enlightened me on his blog.  I was not at all cheered to read in the same post that our Prime Minister has endorsed the organisation in question (The Kaleidoscope Trust, official charity partner of World Pride 2012) with the words, "Our country has made real progress on LGBT equality and, without forgetting how far we've still got to go domestically, it is right that we should now increasingly turn our attention towards bringing about change abroad."

Perhaps at this point I should pause and say that of course discrimination against and any form of cruelty towards gay people is quite wrong, as it is towards anybody.  Being gay is not a sin.  It is the active promotion of gay sexual relationships and "marriage" that I am talking about here.

Further proof of the institutionalisation of "gay rights" attitudes came to light on Fr Ray Blake's blog; he mentions two or three issues in connection with what he calls "That Issue, again", but what most interested me was a link he provided to a story in the Telegraph which details various changes that are going to be made to official forms such as those for immigration and benefits, replacing "husband and wife" with "spouses and partners".  The Telegraph claims, "It emerged yesterday that the overhaul could cost up to 4.5 million, including 2 million to adapt IT systems at the Home Office, which oversees the General Register Office.The Department of Work and Pensions is also expected to spend 1 million changing IT systems to accommodate same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, existing stocks of divorce petitions will have to be pulped and reprinted to allow for the change."  No, not a waste of staff time, money or resources at all - what better things do we have to spend them on?

Finally, Joanna Bogle writes about "Hate Mail on the Internet", remarking that "a campaigning group for the homosexual lobby" has posted "vicious anti-Catholic comments" which included an announcement that "the Catholic Emancipation Act should not have been allowed". She says that "one of the more mild comments describes the Church as 'an international criminal organisation committed to the grossest of immoralities, bigotries and nastiness. It should be closed down and prosecuted.' "

Is this madness really what the majority of people think, feel and want?  Or is there a vocal minority who have managed to make so much noise that they have got their own way?  In either case - whether this is the view of the majority or a very motivated minority - why is vitriol and abuse necessary to make their case?  Why do we have to respect the rights of LGBT people to redefine marriage and at the same time allow the Catholic Church to be unfairly defamed?  I say, and I believe, "unfairly" - because corruption exists wherever there is a human institution (that is NOT to defend the actions of some clergy and religious in the past, which were indeed appalling) and the good the Church has done over centuries is rarely alluded to.  Only those facts about the Church which can be used against its credibility are cherry-picked to be broadcast.

It's odd that many of those who shout most loudly about discrimination are those who are most prepared to engage in the slander of their ideological opponents.  What we have in reality is a new system of intolerance, injustice and discrimination to replace any that were there before.  It's just that the parties concerned are now different and the whole thing masquerades under labels like "liberalism", "tolerance" and "inclusivity".  Only too often the victims of the new system are, apart of course from anyone who is stupid enough to suggest there might be a God, the human family and the unborn child, and increasingly anyone who is not physically perfect or economically productive.

I didn't quite intend to go on so long about all these negatives!... because, of course, my instinct to stop the world and get off is quite wrong.  Christ did exactly the opposite; he got on to the world and loved it, loved it to the bitter end.  As Christians, this is our calling too.  If God could cope with being bitterly rejected and injured by His own children, we can cope with hanging on in there and continuing to make our voices heard, in the hope that perhaps some people will stop and think again about these issues. Stopping and thinking can be a challenging thing to do, when all the loudest voices around you - including that of the institutional government - are urging you to accept a certain view of equality and justice that has little or nothing to do with the truth about human nature and happiness. If we do not offer an alternative view, what hope is there?

"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14)

The bad news and the good news

Mr Lansley discovers some appalling facts

Today in the news we read that abortion clinics have undergone unannounced spot checks by order of Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary; out of a sample of 250 clinics, about 20% were found to be "non-compliant" with legal regulations.  Following the Telegraph's revelations earlier this month about clinics which agree to perform gender-selective abortions, it now emerges that some clinics are allowing doctors to pre-sign abortion certificates without knowing anything about the women concerned.  Whilst there is no obligation for the doctors to have personally seen a particular patient, it is illegal for them to sign forms authorising abortion without having read and assessed the patient's clinical case notes taken by a medical colleague.  You can read the story here and here.

We should not be surprised that this sort of practice is taking place.  It is merely confirmation that abortion on demand is, in reality, the situation we now have in the UK, arising from the pro-abortion lobby's largely successful attempts to convince women that they have a "right" to abortion.  Mr Lansley himself sums the situation up pretty well.  To quote from the Telegraph article:

"[Mr Lansley] said yesterday that the regulator had found that a number of clinics may be acting beyond the 'spirit and letter of the law'. 

" 'I was appalled,' he said. 'Because if it happens, it is pretty much people engaging in a culture of both ignoring the law and trying to give themselves the right to say that although Parliament may have said this, we believe in abortion on demand.'

"He said it was not just a matter of enforcing the law. 'There is the risk that women don’t get the appropriate level of pre-abortion support and counselling because, if your attitude is that, "You’ve arrived for an abortion and you should have one," well actually many women don’t get the degree of support they should,' said Mr Lansley."

And yet this type of clinic may shortly be advertising itself on TV with no obligation to mention that it has a financial interest in offering abortions...?  With reference to our earlier post on the topic, is this really "safe" for women and their babies?

This is all a prime example of our society's muddled thinking when it comes to life issues.  Whether through misguided compassion or just not wanting to see a truth that is hard or inconvenient, we have allowed ourselves to fall into all sorts of illogicalities with regard to the issue of abortion.  The BBC news website quotes the Health Secretary as saying, "Abortion shouldn't be undertaken lightly and the right checks and balances should be in place."  Does he ask himself why it shouldn’t be undertaken lightly?  Because either the foetus is not a human being/is part of the woman’s body and therefore she has a right to choose whether it stays there/abortion has no negative psychological effects, or the opposite things are true... there isn’t really some sort of indeterminate middle ground.

And yet... we can find hope in these revelations, because at least the truth of what is happening in many abortion clinics is finally surfacing and perhaps prompting some to think the issues through again.  Grumpy old woman that I am, I would never have thought of looking at it that way, and therefore am very grateful to a wise priest of our diocese who remarked earlier today, "It would be easy to despair as we read more and more about the issues but I believe that the Holy Spirit is fighting back by making these abhorrent practices more public. By bringing them into the 'daylight' the beginning of a cleansing is happening. No more is it being performed 'in the dark,' where the devil lives, but, increasingly, in the light where Christ's redemptive power is seen to be at work so visibly."

He added, "I am sure the devil will want to stop these articles 'asap' so it is up to us to keep them in the public forum."  It may not be New Year but I think that would be a pretty good resolution to make anyway, right here and now.  So help us God.

World Water Day

As pro-lifers, we believe that the answer to the suffering and poverty experienced by many in our world is not to prevent individuals being born, but to work for a fairer distribution of our world's resources and better living standards for all.  The provision of sanitation and clean drinking water is central to a healthy and dignified human existence, so please do support Cafod's campaign to bring these basics of life to everyone, everywhere.

Today, Cafod tells us, is "World Water Day" - what better time to take action?  They say, "Based on current progress, Africa won't have universal access to clean water and safe sanitation for another 350 years. We believe that's too long to wait.  Do you?"  If you agree, click here to email David Cameron and (in Cafod's words) "call on him to lead the world in providing clean water and safe sanitation for all".

On the same page you can also find out about the various ways in which you can support Cafod's "Thirst for Change" campaign.  What is more "pro life" than water?!

A disappointing response... to say the least

Last week Edek and I received a response from Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture Sport & Media, to the letter we and several pro life group members sent to our MP Francis Maude about the "abortion ads" issue (see Katherine's earlier post).  Our thanks to Mr Maude for forwarding on our letter to the Secretary of State but, to be frank, I can only describe Mr Hunt's letter in reply as an ecological sin.  Why?  Because some correspondence is not worth the paper and other natural resources it uses up in being written.

Mr Hunt didn't comment on any of our concerns but merely gave an overview of the new situation vis-a-vis TV ads on behalf of commercial "post conception advice services" (known as PCAS), which we knew anyway.  He reiterated that direct advertising of abortion services is still banned, completely ignoring our point that allowing PCAS who financially benefit from providing abortions as one of their services to advertise is effectively promoting abortion "by the back door".

Mr Hunt did provide a link to the statement made by the British Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) as to why it had decided to allow commercial PCAS to advertise.  You can read it here.  I suppose you could say that in doing so he did achieve a partial "result" from using up those ecological resources - he positively made my blood boil (not good news for the hard-pressed NHS though if it contributes to high blood pressure on my part!).  I quote from BCAP:

In line with BCAP’s objective to ensure that advertising is legal, decent, honest and truthful and does not contain material which might cause harm, offence or mislead audiences, BCAP also considered the case for introducing new rule for PCAS requiring those that cannot directly refer women for a termination to make that fact clear in the advertisement.

BCAP noted that a number of respondents were concerned that the proposed rule would affect only those services that do not refer women for a termination, which they considered to be most likely those that take an ethical stance against abortion, but did not similarly require other PCAS to state that they could refer women or had a financial interest in the provision of termination services...

In determining the merit of introducing an equivalent rule requiring disclosure by PCAS that can refer women for termination in the advertisement and requiring PCAS to indicate their ethical stance on abortion, BCAP carefully considered the vulnerability of women seeking advice on unplanned pregnancy and what information should be made available to them in an advertisement to afford adequate protection from harm...
 

In light of the above, BCAP considered there to be a strong case on public health grounds to introduce a rule requiring PCAS that cannot directly refer women for a termination to make that fact clear in advertisements. However, BCAP considered that it would be disproportionate to extend to all PCAS the requirement to make clear that they could refer women for a termination or had a financial interest in women opting for termination. BCAP understood the concerns of organisations, both supportive and opposed to abortion, but considered that irrespective of the ethical stance of the organisation, it was only imperative on public health grounds that advertisements make clear to women whether the PCAS could refer them for a termination should they wish to have that choice available to them because any delay could increase the risk of health complications. There were not equally compelling health grounds to require PCAS that could refer women for termination to state that in advertisements because women seeking advice on unplanned pregnancy were likely to presume that, unless stated otherwise, organisations would be able to offer them a range of options for their unplanned pregnancy which might include termination.

So it seems it is "safer" for a woman to go to a clinic which has a financial interest in offering her an abortion (hmm, not really safer for her baby though).  As Katherine pointed out when she read this response, BCAP feels it is somehow healthier for this to happen than for the woman to go to an organisation which would help her, should she decide to keep the baby rather than offer him/her for adoption, with support, baby clothes and advocacy...

Presumably BCAP are thinking that an earlier abortion is medically safer than a later one, but no counselling service would exert pressure to prevent a woman in the first trimester from going to her GP and asking to be referred for an abortion should that be her decision.  As for the number of pregnancies which give rise to medical complications at an early stage, these are very few and a woman concerned about her health is more likely to visit her doctor than a clinic in any case.

Another thing that I found seriously annoying (to say the least) was the final sentence of BCAP quoted above. "Women seeking advice on unplanned pregnancy were likely to presume that, unless stated otherwise, organisations would be able to offer them a range of options for their unplanned pregnancy which might include termination."  Is this not a tacit admission that allowing commercial PCAS to advertise is implicitly abortion advertising, if BCAP believe that women will be choosing their clinic with this in mind anyway?

The final paragraph of the letter we received from Mr Hunt reassures us that although clinics which profit financially from performing abortions may put their names out there in the ether for all to pick up, a variety of other services may not, including pyramid promotional schemes.  Well thank goodness for that.  Killing unborn human life is one thing but those pyramid sales schemes really are a step too far...

Enough - sarcasm is the lowest form of humour.  We would urge anyone concerned about TV advertising by commercial PCAS to keep plugging away and perhaps contact Mr Hunt directly.  Should you see such an ad, you can contact the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) to register your concern, as many did after Marie Stopes aired their TV ad last year.  And please, do give all the support you can to those crisis pregnancy counselling services in your area who have no financial or ideological interest in abortion (in Horsham, this is OASIS).

I'm supporting Aila's Fund!

Just out!  Our new "I'm supporting Aila's Fund" silicone wristbands... the latest must-have accessory.  Available in blue, teal, purple, red and bright pink and in two sizes (the smaller size is most suitable for children and young teenagers).  Only £1 each, plus 58p postage for up to 5 bands.  You can purchase them via the "Donate" button on this blogsite.

For more details of this and also our "Buy A Brick" scheme, please visit the "Aila's Fund" page via the tab above.  Every bracelet or brick purchased will help to make a big difference to this young woman's quality of life... thank you so very much.

Speaking up

Can't believe I haven't got round to watching this before.  It's an American priest talking in an American context, but applicable to the pro-life cause in every modern society.  A real rallying cry for all on the side of Truth, charity and justice.

Stella's story

Several of the people who have got involved with St John's Pro Life Group as either members or supporters have done so because of experiences that have touched them in some way personally, whether in their own lives or those of relatives or friends.  (This is a not uncommon reason for people, women especially, to get involved in the pro-life movement: those who say abortion leaves women unscathed should perhaps take note...)  They have responded to their own pain by trying to save others from going through the same sort of experience; a hugely generous, not to mention brave, thing to do.

One such is Stella, who supports us in many ways, not least by putting in long hours  - together with her daughter Becca - gardening and tending the site of Horsham's Memorial to the Unborn Child.  The following post has been written by Stella.

"For every woman who has undergone the termination of a pregnancy by abortion there is a personal tragic story.  Many made the decision on their own, they had no one to talk to, to help, to advise or even have a shoulder to cry on.  Others were forced by violent or aggressive partners or husbands and others or by families who were ashamed of them.  There are many reasons.

"I know.

"Whether girls in their teens, young adults or mature women, the terrifying knowledge that you are carrying an unwanted baby; maybe even at the time, in the magnitude of the moment, also unwanted by you.  Panic sets in.  What do you do next?

"Unfortunately the medical profession only offers the 'easy' answer; they do not and are not allowed to counsel and advise.

"After the event is when the real trauma sets in and the realisation that you have killed a new little person lives in your head and stays there forever.  This is when the majority of suicides take place; not at the beginning but at what would be, to the emotionally uninvolved, the end.  Chapter closed,  you can get on with your life now.  Start again, no-one knew: it's your secret.

"But it is not.  There are no secrets from God.

"Here, as a Christian, and especially as a Roman Catholic, your real problems begin.  You have committed a cardinal sin and should be excommunicated.  You are too frightened to confess to your priest in case this happens.  You stop taking Communion because you have sinned and then you stop going to church.  Praying doesn't help, self-loathing sets in, then depression and the never-ending cycle of not being able to forgive yourself stays with you day and night.

"All this heartache and agony need not happen today.  There are now special groups in place all over the country to help women think things through and find support.  They are nearly all voluntary groups and can be accessed through pro-life groups like our own St John's Group and also on the internet and some Citizens' Advice centres.  I personally did not have anyone to turn to but I did have my faith and I am not going to relate my story except to say GOD ALWAYS FORGIVES; the hardest part is forgiving yourself.  After nearly 50 years I am still trying to do that.

"I would like to recommend a very good book which I bought in the Diocese of Arundel & Brighton Christian Education Centre (DABCEC) bookshop quite recently.  The title is Catholic Women and Abortion: Stories of Healing, edited by Pat King (also available from Amazon for those who do not live in our diocese).  These individual true stories are both inspirational and moving.  I found them personally helpful; but my real inspirational help after all these years came from the Sisters at the Holy Family Convent in Horsham, now sadly gone, my prayer group friends and Fr Terry Martin.  I cannot thank them enough."

Don't throw it all away...

Just found this on Reflections of a Paralytic and couldn't resist posting it!  Chelsea links to a great post too.

Funny how, these days, we understand "no pain no gain" in some areas of life - dieting or body-building for example - and not others... It's such a tragic shame, because I'm sure every couple who has been married for a good while will say that sticking with it through any bumpier times pays dividends (and there are bound to be bumpier times): in a stronger, deeper, more committed relationship when you've come through the difficulties; in a more powerful love (powerful in a different way from the erotic breathless feelings of the "falling in love" stage); and in a quiet but fathoms deep appreciation of this person you're married to and now know so well, warts and all, and who continues to accept you with all your wrinkles and blemishes. That's my experience, anyhow.  Thanks for hanging on in there Edek - I love you!

Charity and conscience

I have recently had two interesting phone calls with a charity I used to support; one a week or two ago and one just this evening. They were, as you might have guessed having probably received such calls yourselves, wanting me to support them again in one of their new outreach programmes. My answer to both has been, "no, thank you." the first time I said this my reasons for not being able to fund them in any way was met with shock and the young lady hung up on me in total disbelief. Today the lady was more balanced, listened and the conversation ended politely.

So why did I say "no" then? It wasn't for financial reasons or anything like that. No, I refused to support their work in any way because it presents too great a conflict of conscience. For some this would be intriguing; how could supporting a charity, an organisation set up to help others, be a conflict of conscience? Surely charity (as in love for neighbour not just donating money) is a Christian virtue? Whilst I wholeheartedly support charitable bodies in general my problem lies in where my money would go, what my money would fund with this particular one.

So, you may now ask, what is this charity and what is it that I can't allow my money to fund? Well over a year ago (more like fifteen months) I watched an appeal on television for people to sponsor a child in a poor or developing country through Plan UK. They in particular mentioned their work to protect girls from forced marriages, rape and other maltreatment and to provide them with an education which they might otherwise be denied. Moved by the conditions children in so many countries were living in I quickly signed up without properly looking into who I was supporting. After a couple of months I discovered that as a part of their educational work with children, and in particular girls, they teach them about contraception, provide contraception and offer access to "safe" abortions. Although the girl I was sponsoring was under ten and unlikely to come across this herself at that age I truthfully could not bear the thought of money I had donated being used to end the life of an unborn child or provide education on contraception. I couldn't stomach supporting someone who openly encouraged this even in areas where the population have moral, religious and cultural beliefs that tell them this is wrong. So I promptly ended the direct debit. Plan UK made no secret about offering these things to the children they work with, in fact it's made clear on their website, I evidently did not check them thoroughly enough (or at all) before disclosing my bank details.

This raises a big question, doesn't it? Should we support an organisation who, for the most part, do wonderful things but, at the same time, encourage abortion and the use of contraception. One thing many would ask is, "doesn't the good they do outweigh the bad?" The very clear answer to this is a firm and definite no. As the Catechism clearly states in paragraph 1755 "A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself." (Also see paragraphs 1756, 1758, 1759 and 1789.) No matter how much good they may do the act of killing one innocent child distorts and destroys all of this as it is a total violation of God's gift of life an His love for us. We cannot say we love our neighbour in one way yet allow the destruction of our unborn neighbour at the same time. This evil action literally corrupts the whole act.

What is sad is that it is very difficult to support an effort such as sponsoring a child without running into this, without discovering what our money might have paid for. It is the kind of thing that we need to be sure of before supporting anyone (I have learned my lesson from this) and ensure we keep on top of a particular charity's change in policy. I'm not saying don't donate to charities, far from it, what I am saying is that we have a responsibility as Christians to ensure that our money, all of our money, goes to help our neighbour, is used to nourish and support them, to help them grow but never to attack life, whether through contraception or abortion. We need to be able to place our hand in our heart and say our conscience is clear. Otherwise we have been party to it.

Although this happened before I was even baptised this still bothers me today, not least because Plan UK keep ringing me. So I have decided to spiritually adopt a child in danger of abortion as a type of penance, as a way of trying to help someone else, a way to love my neighbour. Perhaps if you too have discovered this about an organisation you used to support you would like to join me. All it takes is saying one prayer (maybe the Hail Holy Queen or Memorare) for this intention each day and it will make a huge difference.

A pro-life perspective on letting go

Last night I watched Letting Go on BBC1, a documentary by disability campaigner Rosa Monckton telling the stories of several young people with learning difficulties as they make their first steps towards independent living.  If you didn't see it, it's well worth catching on iPlayer.

Rosa's 16 year old daughter Domenica has Down's Syndrome, as did some of the other young people featured.  As far as Domenica is concerned the sky's the limit when it comes to planning for her future - she loves dancing and at the end of the programme was thrilled to secure a place at a stage school which teaches special needs students together with their mainstream peers - but Rosa is only too painfully aware of the harsh realities her daughter is going to come up against as she tries to find her niche in the world.

This theme was repeated amongst the other young people and parents that Rosa talked to.  Like all parents, those we met in this programme wanted to encourage their children to live their dreams and achieve their full potential; like all parents, they knew that the normal course of things required them to let their chicks fly the nest and live their own lives, for their own good.  Unlike the majority of  parents, however, they were painfully aware that theirs wasn't quite the normal course of things and that there would be special challenges to address. One of the young people, a young man with Down's Syndrome, had already come up against some of those challenges. His attempt to live an independent life in his own flat had gone very wrong, despite a lot of support from his parents and carers, because his neighbours insisted on being so cruel to him that they made his life in the flat miserable and ultimately untenable.

As the mother of a disabled teenager, so many of the concerns of Rosa and the other parents struck me to the heart.  The dilemma of encouraging your child to have high goals and hopes for the future yet be realistic about the very real physical limitations that have to be addressed; the fear that others will not understand them, will mock them for being "different" and leave them lonely... and above all, always there, a spectral shadow subtly darkening even the sunniest day, the fear of how they will manage when you are no longer around - as one day you won't be.  The ghost of that fear is a terrible one, always with you, sometimes in the background and sometimes right there in your face gripping you by the throat.

All but one of the young people featured were still living in the parental home.  The one that did have her own home - a 28 year old - was still very dependent on her parents who came round daily to give her care, because as she lacked a formal diagnosis (although she very obviously suffered from a syndrome of learning and physical disabilities) she was not eligible for state funded care of the sort she needed.

It seems that so many people who are carers for relations with mental or physical disabilities end up struggling at some point to get necessary assistance or facilities for them.  It is an extra worry and burden that no-one needs when they are already expending (however willingly and lovingly) a demanding amount of emotional and physical energy on supporting their child.  A particularly demanding aspect of that support lies in encouraging your child to be happy and positive and see their future as worth looking forward to.  The parents of these young people were happy to sacrifice themselves to give their children all the backup they needed, but at the same time were worried sick about the future care and wellbeing of those children once they were no longer in a position to help, and the combined strain showed.

Isn't this - the provision of care and support for the most vulnerable in our society - where we should be concentrating our resources?  These parents were role models of how to convince a disabled person of their worth, but the sad fact is that the wider world out there isn't necessarily like that.  Aborting babies with Down's Syndrome (an absolute travesty: like most Down's sufferers, the youngsters featured in this programme were happy and adorable) and promoting euthanasia as the answer to life's difficulties are neither good uses of time and money, or the right ways to encourage the inclusivity and equality that we like to pride ourselves on these days.  In fact inclusivity and equality are going to become progressively emptier terms the more we deny life to those who aren't "normal" or "perfect", because our actions simply encourage the attitudes which the young man tormented by his neighbours came across.  If we really celebrate diversity, if we really believe that no-one should be shunned or teased for being "different", then let's embrace all life and every person and concentrate on giving them reasons to live, not die.

I'm afraid I can't remember the exact words she used, but at the end of the programme Rosa commented that if a society is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable members then our society is sorely lacking.  We need to take a long, hard and deep look at why that is - starting from the very beginning.

The Catholic Church on infertility

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church considers children to be “the supreme gift of marriage” – in fact the Church says “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1652).  What then of married couples who struggle with infertility?  Many Catholics are not clear as to what the Church permits in this case.  If children are such a good thing, then surely medical practices to help couples conceive must be good?  If not, why not?  What are Catholics “allowed” to do about infertility?  Is this a grey area?

In fact the Church’s teachings are clear even in the face of all the scientific progress that has been made in this area and the various medical techniques available.  Any medical procedure must be evaluated in the light of the fundamental teachings of the Church’s gospel of life: 

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.  From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life (CCC 2270).  This is specifically extended to embryos created in a laboratory:  “Human embryos obtained ‘in vitro’ are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence” (Donum Vitae I). 

Every human being is to be respected for himself, and cannot be reduced in worth to a pure and simple instrument for the advantage of others (DV I). 

Sexual intercourse has both a unitive and a procreative significance which “man on his own initiative may not break” (see CCC 2366).  This means that procreation cannot be separated out as an independent process; see point below.

Every human being is always to be accepted as a gift and blessing of God. However, from the moral point of view a truly responsible procreation vis-à-vis the unborn child must be the fruit of marriage (DV II).  Thus “the only acceptable way of conceiving a child is through sexual intercourse between a husband and wife” (Pope Benedict XVI, Pontifical Academy for Life General Assembly February 2012). 

A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift... In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights. (CCC 2378). 

Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. (CCC 2374)

Looked at in the light of these basics, most fertility treatments are easily enough understood in terms of their moral status.  The gravest difficulty with IVF is that it involves the destruction of human beings.  The woman is given a hormone to stimulate her ovaries to produce several eggs because, as the HFEA website puts it, “with more fertilised eggs, the clinic has a greater choice of embryos to use in your treatment”.  From the eggs that are successfully fertilised in the laboratory with sperm (from the woman’s partner or a donor), “the best one or two embryos” are chosen for transfer into the womb.  Remaining embryos can be frozen for the future use of this or another couple and destroyed at a later date if not used, or destroyed straight away.

As well as the destruction of human life, of course, IVF also involves conception outside of the context of sexual intercourse, and often use of sperm from a third party outside the marriage.  It should also be remembered that it has a relatively low success rate, can be catastrophically expensive and is not without medical risk.

Some Catholics, realising that IVF treatment involves the creation and destruction of “spare” embryos, ask what the problem is with techniques like GIFT (Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer) where the healthiest eggs and sperm harvested as above are placed together into a woman’s fallopian tubes for fertilisation to happen “naturally”, or artificial insemination using eggs and sperm from the couple only and no third party.  Especially in the case of artificial insemination where no surplus embryos are produced, they ask what the problem is.  Surely all that is happening is that a certain mechanical act is being bypassed?

This is a harder one to understand and explain, especially to non-Catholics who do not share a conviction that the two aspects of sex – procreation and intimacy – should not be artificially separated.  It is here that we need to explore the idea of the meaning of sex as the context in which a child is conceived.  Sex is an expression of the total self-giving of a man and a woman to each other, holding nothing back, with the inclusion of their fertility.  A baby is the fruit of this self-giving and thus natural conception speaks of the nature of the human being, created in, through, because of and for love.

Natural conception also speaks of the nature of the human being as an end in him/herself, a gift arising out of  the couple’s mutual love but not “something” they have a right to claim. The human person has a greater dignity than that.  For the same reason that we do not have a right to manipulate our fertility through artificial contraception, we do not have a right to “play God” through the use of artificial reproductive means to ensure a child.  We are, as Humanae Vitae prophetically claimed, “ministers not masters” of a plan bigger than us.  Once we start to regard ourselves as masters, to consider even our own biology as raw material for the use of our intellect – however worthy we feel our motives to be – and having no value or meaning inherent in itself, we are on that notorious "slippery slope".  This is why Pope Benedict XVI recently spoke (addressing the Pontifical Academy for Life General Assembly) of  “temptations leading scientists to offer unacceptable infertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization [which] include ‘easy money or, even worse, the arrogance of replacing the Creator.’  He noted that such pride endangers humanity itself.” (LifeSiteNews.com, 27 Feb).

So is that it?  Does the Church say something about the “great suffering” of infertile couples and then, feeling she has done the sympathy bit, get on with her scientist-bashing?  Not at all.  The human person’s rational intellect and creativity are gifts from God and reflections in us of God’s image.  The Pope also said, when making the remarks above, that medical research and treatment is “scientifically the correct approach to the issue of infertility,” but that it must respect the natural moral context for the creation of children.  He expressed fears that concentrating resources on the development of methods of assisted reproduction had led to a situation where “scientism and the logic of profit seem to dominate the field of infertility and human procreation, to the point of limiting many other areas of research”.

This view was echoed, on the same occasion, by Dr Thomas Hilgers (who opened the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction in 1985 to develop infertility treatments which respect the dignity of human life).  Hilgers remarked, “Were it not for the race to create children artificially, we probably would have had a cure for infertility by now.”

So what of ethical fertility research?  It exists and its fruits can be found in NaPro Technology which, in the words of Chelsea Zimmerman, “can and has helped women successfully achieve and maintain pregnancy without having to resort to manufacturing their children in petri dishes or inject themselves with a stranger’s sperm. Using this technology, couples respect and cooperate with [God’s] divine plan for the creation of human life rather than taking the matters of life in their own hands and forcing God to cooperate with them.” It works with the woman’s natural cycle to identify and treat various causes of infertility and recurrent miscarriage and is available in the UK; see http://lifefertilitycare.co.uk/

For those needing persuasion, Chelsea links to a page which lists peer-reviewed academic papers supporting NaPro’s efficacy: http://www.naprotechnology.com/references.htm

I close with some more words from Chelsea, because I can’t put the case better than she does.  “To those who struggle with infertility, the Catholic Church is not your enemy. She wants what is best for both you and the children you so desire...  Never forget that no prayers go unanswered and all suffering, given over to the Lord bears fruit in some form... Whether you seek to welcome a new member to your family through (ethical) fertility treatment or even the always loving option of adoption,  remember that children are a gift, not a right. Keep the focus of your marriage on you and your spouse giving and receiving the total gift of self while loving God and trusting Him for the timing of children – if they should ever come.”  

"The Myth of Sex"

I came across this today at Reflections of a Paralytic.  It is by Tim Muldoon and can be found at Pantheos, where Tim is described as "a Catholic theologian, author, speaker, and retreat leader specializing in the ways that Church traditions speak to contemporary life. He has written extensively on the themes of young adult spirituality, Ignatian spirituality, theology in postmodernity, sexuality and marriage, and adoption issues".

This is the myth of all myths: that people could use each other and still remember what compassion and tenderness looked and felt like.
 
In the beginning, the LORD created man and woman in his image.

He blessed them and made them fruitful. Among his many gifts he gave man the gift of physical strength to work, and he gave woman the gift of compassion to cultivate relationships.

Together, man and woman learned each other's gifts. Woman developed strength and offered her work as an act of compassion. Man learned compassion with his wife and child.

And they and their offspring numbered like the stars in the heavens, and they were happy. And the LORD saw that it was good.

But the serpent, the most cunning of creatures, was jealous of their happiness, and he resolved to put enmity between the men and the women.

So he whispered in the ear of the men as they lay asleep: "You are a man. Use your power to control the woman."

And he whispered in the ear of the women as they lay asleep: "You are a woman. Use your body to control the man."

So the men began to use their power to control the women. They kept the women away from their work. And the women stayed at home.

And the women began to use their bodies to control the men. They seduced the men and made them do their bidding.

And the men became rivals with one another over the women.

And the women became rivals with one another over the men.

The men sought more and more power over their rivals so they could have the best women.

The women sought more and more beauty than their rivals so they could have the best men.

So the men began to fight and kill. The strongest men lay with many women, but did not know them, and did not learn compassion for them or their children. Over time, they forgot what compassion was like and wanted only to lay with the best women. But the poorest men remembered.

And the women began to seduce men and subdue them. The most beautiful lay with many men, and they too forgot what compassion was like and wanted only to control the men. But the poorest women remembered.

And the children of the strongest men and the most beautiful women did not learn compassion. They learned only competition, and they were fierce.

These children grew into men and women who believed that the world was a battleground.

The men learned the arts of war to defeat their rivals. Their descendants learned the newer arts of war in the stock market, the boardroom, the athletic field.

The women learned the arts of seduction to defeat their rivals. They painted their faces; they bound their feet; they wore corsets. Their descendants learned the newer arts of seduction with plastic surgery and fashion.

For both the men and the women, fertility became the enemy of their lust for power. Instead of learning compassion, they learned more and more how to subdue their fertility. And when their fertility was fruitful, they killed the children they conceived.

But the poor men and women remembered the original gifts.

The men did not learn the arts of war. They worked with the women and became more compassionate. They gave thanks for their shared work, their shared fertility, and their shared compassion.

The women did not learn the arts of seduction. They worked with the men and became strong. They too gave thanks for their shared work, their shared fertility, and their shared compassion.

And the LORD said of them: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."