A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.
Maria Mahoney, of the National University of Ireland (NUI) Galway Life Society, in a letter to the Irish Independent today, has said everything that needs to be said about the international anti-life political pressures on Ireland right now and about the case against legalizing abortion. Maria writes:
Poll after poll confirms that women who 'chose' abortion felt that they had no choice.
In reaction to this fear and panic, it is vital to respond with love for the gifts of motherhood and human life. Often, this is even more important than the practical, material help that we provide to women in a crisis pregnancy.
Legalising abortion, on the other hand, is a heartless and morally repugnant response that is essentially an act of aggression against women as well as their unborn children.
The abortion industry is a huge and extremely lucrative business with a grisly product to sell. So far, Ireland has resisted its deceptive and manipulative marketing.
If the European Court of Human Rights (backed by ideological scare-mongering from bureaucratic international NGOs) attempts to impose its pro-abortion agenda on Ireland at the conclusion of the ABC case, I hope the Irish will have the courage to resist this attack on human life.
SPUC joined other pro-life international organizations in filing a joint brief in the ABC case - seeking to defend Ireland's historic protection of the unborn. The case was heard on 8th December last year and judgement is awaited.
Robert Colquhoun has kindly made me aware of a wonderful resource for pro-lifers. The document 'A voice for the Voiceless' is a rich collection of quotes and images defending the life of the unborn child.
As a sample, here is one that caught my eye:
we will stand up every time that human life is threatened. When the sacredness of life before birth is attacked, we will stand up and proclaim that no one ever has the authority to destroy unborn life. When a child is described as a burden or is looked upon only as a means to satisfy an emotional need, we will stand up and insist that every child is a unique and unrepeatable gift of God, with the right to a loving and united family
Pope John Paul II's homily at Mass on the Washington Mall, October 7, 1979
The mainstream media has noted a recent large scale study that suggests that babies born through IVF are more likely to have congenital disabilities. In particular the study suggests that children conceived thanks to IVF are more likely to experience heart problems and malformations of the uro-genital system.
This is the latest in a stream of negative reports about IVF. Earlier in the year the Telegraph reported on a study that suggested IVF may lead to infertility problems.
On Monday, Bhateri Devi (pictured above), a 66 year old woman, become the oldest woman in the world to give birth to triplets. On the same day a 72 year old woman, who gave birth thanks to IVF treatment at 70, revealed she is dying and criticised her IVF centre for not explaining the risks to women about having babies later in life.
In the UK this week Amanda Ross, a TV producer, said that she would not recommend IVF to anyone after numerous failed procedures left her stomach purple from injections.
This all comes after last week the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority statistics showed that many women choose to have abortions after having conceived through IVF.
In response to this Wesley Smith has suggested that IVF has led to the objectification of unborn human life.
Amidst all the challenges faced by the pro-life movement, we must continue to work openly and courageously for a ban on all IVF procedures. Opposing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) does not imply denying babies, conceived by IVF, their humanity. However, it's vital to oppose IVF as a way of conceiving children since it turns human beings into commodities to be brought to birth or discarded at will.
IVF amounts to the manufacture of human beings. The practice of IVF assumes that our offspring may be produced in the laboratory, and that the role of the natural mother, in safeguarding with her own body the welfare of the embryo from conception, may legitimately be transferred to other people. IVF thus makes embryos vulnerable, exposing them to the risks of being discarded, frozen or experimented upon. Countless human embryos have perished in the development and practice of IVF. Since the birth to the first IVF child over thirty years ago – well over two million embryos have been discarded, or frozen, or selectively aborted, or miscarried or used in destructive experiments. (2,137,924 human embryos were created by specialists while assisting couples in the UK to have babies between 1991 and 2005, according to BioNews. During this period, the HFEA informs us that the total of live babies born through IVF procedures was 109,469.)
As Dr John Fleming, SPUC's consultant on bioethics, puts it:
"There is no such thing as a form of IVF which respects life. Human life is disrespected in the embryos and in their parents by virtue of the process itself, namely the gestation of a human being outside of his natural environment."
In this connection, the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute has prepared a paper for SPUC regarding the “Creation and Transfer of Single Embryo in Reproductive Technology” which can be found here.
Catholic teaching on the matter, of course, is crystal clear: that it's not possible to practise IVF and to protect human life. The instruction Dignitas Personae, from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (SCDF) at number 14, explains:
"The fact that the process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos was already noted in the Instruction Donum vitae.[26] There were some who maintained that this was due to techniques which were still somewhat imperfect. Subsequent experience has shown, however, that all techniques of in vitro fertilization proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded.
"It is true that approximately a third of women who have recourse to artificial procreation succeed in having a baby. It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high.[27] These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo."
And the SCDF instruction Donum Vitae, on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation says:
"The one conceived must be the fruit of his parents' love. He cannot be desired or conceived as the product of an intervention of medical or biological techniques; that would be equivalent to reducing him to an object of scientific technology. No one may subject the coming of a child into the world to conditions of technical efficiency which are to be evaluated according to standards of control and dominion. The moral relevance of the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and between the goods of marriage, as well as the unity of the human being and the dignity of his origin, demand that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses. The link between procreation and the conjugal act is thus shown to be of great importance on the anthropological and moral planes, and it throws light on the positions of the Magisterium with regard to homologous artificial fertilization." (DV, II, B, 4c)
Pat Buckley, SPUC's chief lobbyist at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva, is appealing to church leaders and pro-life groups worldwide to oppose an extreme, "ideologically driven" pro-abortion report produced by Navanethem Pillay (pictured), the High Commissioner on Human Rights, and "bounced through" the HRC this week. Pat warns:
"This report is being bounced through the United Nations forums, blatantly ignoring any evidence which disputes its conclusions and deliberately avoiding debate. The clear intention of the powers-that be is to use this ideologically-driven report's findings to influence the Millennium Development Goals Review later this year at the UN in New York."
In a carefully stage-managed and one-sided debate in Geneva this week, both the Holy See and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the only pro-life NGO present at the Session, were excluded from making an intervention. SPUC's planned intervention can be found here. Pat explains:
"The preparation of the report and the subsequent debate were meticulously stage-managed this week in Geneva, to the exclusion of myself, on behalf of SPUC, and, more significantly, to the exclusion of the Holy See.
"The debate was carefully handled by limiting the time available for it. This resulted in the Holy See being excluded from making an intervention and it eliminated the only pro-life NGO voice present at the session, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Nevertheless two pro-abortion NGO’s, Amnesty International and the Centre for Reproductive Rights, representing a large group of pro abortion organizations such as International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) and IPAS, were given space to be heard.
"In the end, the lone opposition to the anti-life agenda, the Egyptian delegate, was very criticical of the inaccurate statistics and the push for the creation of a 'right' to abortion.
"Events in Geneva this week are the latest in international political manoeuvres to declare a human right to abortion, something which has eluded the pro-abortion lobby since their defeat at the 1994 UN conference on population and development, in Cairo.
"This week's pro-abortion report arose from a resolution approved in 2009, which called for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare 'a thematic study on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights'. Following approval of the resolution the thematic study was then elevated to be a joint report of both the High Commissioner and the UN Secretary General. The subsequent report and Monday’s one-sided debate are a prelude to the review of the Millennium Development Goals due to take place in September in New York - when, I've no doubt, this report will be back on the agenda."
Prior to preparation of her report the High Commissioner invited submissions from interested parties. However, despite the fact that a number of pro-life organizations made detailed submissions setting out the real causes of maternal death (and how high levels of maternal mortality in developing countries can be reduced without recourse to abortion) the High Commissioner's report cites so called “unsafe abortion” as one of the major causes of maternal mortality. It was based on the World Health Organisation statistics, which have been shown to be wildly inaccurate; and, once prepared, the report was carefully handled to sidestep any possibility of the flawed statistics being exposed or criticized in a resolution, thus undermining the report's credibility. See the link above to Pat Buckley's planned intervention which exposes the evidential flaws in Navanethem Pillay's report.
Last week I blogged on the new advertising campaign being launched this year by a coalition of Protestant Churches. The adverts will show an ultrasound image of an unborn baby with a halo around his head, with the accompanying words: “He’s on His way. Christmas starts with Christ.”
I was asked by Ruth Gledhill, religious correspondent for The Times, to provide a comment. I said: “This advertisement sends a powerful message to everyone in Britain where 570 babies are killed every day in the womb, 365 days a year, under the Abortion Act. Whenever we kill an unborn child in an abortion, we are killing Jesus."
Ruth Gledhill's article also included a comment from Terry Sanderson, of the National Secular Society, who criticised the image. Mr Sanderson said: "At first glance it looks like a poster for a horror film — perhaps The Omen VI: He’s Coming to Get You."
Mr Sanderson's comments are particularly puzzling because this is an ultrasound image, much like those shown to the majority of expectant parents. These images are now an ordinary part of our lives and I am reliably informed that they are even sometimes posted on social networking sites such as 'facebook'.
I am inclined to ask Mr Sanderson: what is it about the image of an unborn child that you find so horrifying?
In a little-reported letter, Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, has written to Ed Balls, his predecessor in this role under the previous government, to say he is "scaling back initiatives" on personal social, health and economic (PSHE) education.
I do hope that this sounds the death knell of the legislative attempts made by Ed Balls a few months ago to include sex and relationships education, as part of PSHE education, within the national curriculum.
The previous government's legislation included: sex and relationships education for all state schoolchildren between the ages of 5 and 16; early explicit lessons at primary school; schools being told they must "signpost" or provide access to abortion and other sexual health services as part of sex education; access to abortion - for example through school nurses - must be on a confidential basis with parents having no right to be informed of their young teenage children receiving sexual health procedures such as abortion, long-term birth control implants, STD/HIV tests and treatment; parents being able to withdraw their children from SRE lessons up to the age of 15, after which all pupils would have had to attend all SRE lessons (as a parent I know that withdrawal of children from SRE lessons is supremely difficult to carry through).
Michael Gove says in his letter to Ed Balls: " ... the Department will make savings of £359 million from efficiencies, cutting waste, and stopping or scaling back lower priority spending ... " and he attaches "a full list of how the £359 million savings will be made" in an Annex to his letter.
The £359 million list of savings is entitled "Making efficiencies, reducing waste and making savings to lower priority programmes" and I am encouraged to see that Michael Gove's list includes, under Curriculum, "scaling back initiatives on PSHE".
It's certainly encouraging, as I say, if the previous government's legislative proposals are now dead in the water as a result of Michael Gove's spending decisions.
However, my very experienced colleague of the past 30 years, Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary urges caution. He wants to remind us that sex and relationships education (SRE) is a hydra with many heads:
"Previous governments have been advancing their sex and relationships agenda in State schools, including Catholic schools, for many years through numerous interventions - and there is no guarantee that such interventions will not continue apace under the present government. These interventions are being used to promote links between sex and relationships education and sexual health services, including abortion: So we have:
the healthy schools initiative
Ofsted inspections
school-based drop-in clinics
Local teenage pregnancy co-ordinators in each education authority
school nurses
leaflets posters websites advertising sexual health services
I share Paul's caution entirely. Nevertheless, the legislative machinery to be established by the previous Government's bill, would have greatly increased the pressures on headteachers, including Catholic headteachers. Its effective defeat prior to the general election was a huge victory for the pro-life movement. If Michael Gove's letter to Ed Balls signifies the demise of this legislation that's very good news. We must maintain the pressure.
And whilst I think of it the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales could save the Catholic faithful a lot of money by folding up the Catholic Education Service (CES), an agency of the bishops' conference. We should recall that when the British government announced its intention to make sex and relationships education compulsory throughout both primary and secondary schools, in a simultaneous announcement, the Catholic Education Service shamefully made it clear, that not only would it collaborate with the government’s plans, but that it hoped parents would not choose to opt out by withdrawing their children from sex education. In addition, the CES helped in the drafting of the previous government's draft guidance on sex and relationships education - guidance which is an anti-life/anti-family corncupia, including the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception, homosexuality and a "wide range of [sexual] practices".
The Knights of Our Lady met in Braga, Portugal on the 4th - 6th June, to discuss the state of family life in the different European countries where the Order is represented. Fiorella Nash (pictured), mother of three young children, was invited to speak. Here is a shortened version of her address. She provides an eloquent, personal, summary of the previous government's sex education proposals and the pro-life's movement response to this.
The boldtext is my emphasis - and I have taken the liberty of linking Fiorella's words to previous posts of mine etc.
I am going to focus on what, to me, is the greatest threat to family life in Britain today.
For many years now, governments have pursued a policy of imposing ever more explicit sex education on school children around Britain, including children at Catholic schools. Just to clarify, in case there is any doubt, sex education in this context does not mean – it has never meant – teaching children the facts of life, though it is sold as merely a way in which to give young people necessary, accurate information.
Sex education in Britain, as in many other countries, means the aggressive promotion of an ideology about human sexuality which is entirely at odds with Catholic teaching. This includes, to quote Ed Balls, our previous Education Minister, teaching that “homosexuality is healthy and normal”[*], teaching children how to access and use contraception on the understanding that contraceptive use is not just morally acceptable, but a positive and responsible step to take, and providing access to abortion for children under the age of sixteen without parental knowledge or consent.
Debates in Parliament about sex education tend to assume that there is a neutral position on sexuality, simply providing information, but there is no such thing. Simply talking about abortion, for example, as though it were morally neutral is in itself to take a pro-abortion position, in the same way that talking about the child porn industry as though producing and purchasing such material were simply a matter of personal choice would involve the inherent assumption there is nothing wrong with child pornography.
The dangerous clauses on sex education in the Children, Schools and Families bill as it was laughably called were finally deleted by the Government. This was a huge victory for families and for the pro-life movement. Tribute should be paid to the thousands of concerned people who lobbied the Government, including the 100 Catholic headteachers and governors, three bishops and over 300 Christian clergy who signed a letter published in the Telegraph opposing the bill.
I should say that during our campaign, we focused on ordinary clergy whom we found to be far more responsive and supportive than the bishops and we remain very grateful to the courageous witness of many priests.
However, we would be naïve if we thought that the threat to children and families will go away easily. A considerable proportion of schools in England, including Catholic schools, provide information on how to access contraception and abortion without parental knowledge or consent. This is happening with the co-operation of the Catholic authorities.
Sadly, more and more Catholic parents are telling us at the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children about terrible experiences in Catholic schools, both at secondary and primary school level. At my own prestigious Catholic school, founded and run by the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we were handed condoms and told to 'get comfortable with them' on the grounds that 'we all know you're not going to stay virgins until you're married.' Protests on the part of Catholic parents and teachers seeking to protect young people do not appear to be heard. I would very much encourage your organisation to join with us in our campaign.
Tragically, when the Children, Schools and Families bill was being debated in Parliament, the Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales not only failed to offer any opposition to a bill that would have promoted access to abortion and contraception in Catholic as well as non-Catholic schools, but Archbishop Vincent Nichols painted the Government's intentions in an entirely positive light. The Catholic Education Service helped in the drafting of the draft guidance on Sex and relationships education (which it welcomed as a positive step forward), which states:
"Information provided by schools should reflect the latest medical evidence available on topics such as: the efficacy of different contraceptive methods in preventing unplanned pregnancies and STIs; and pregnancy choices."
and
“Sex and relationships education should also increase pupils' knowledge and understanding at appropriate stages by
learning how to avoid unplanned pregnancy and STIs including
learning about contraception and infection avoidance
learning about pregnancy and the choices available learning about the range of local and national sexual health advice, contraception and support services available"
The collusion by an agency of the Bishops' Conference with the anti-life policies of the [then] Government was a wicked dereliction of duty that has left many Catholic parents feeling disillusioned and betrayed by the CES which was founded to protect and promote Catholic education. Incidentally, the Catholic Education Service, at the same time as stating that Catholics 'need to pull together' has appointed Greg Pope as its deputy director, a former MP with an appalling anti-life and anti-family voting record.
As a Catholic parent, I feel betrayed by the failure of the Catholic hierarchy to protect my children from this state-sponsored abuse. Parents are the primary educators of their children and any attempt to deny parents that fundamental right, upheld by Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be strenuously opposed. I can say without hesitation that if any of my children comes to harm as a result of these evil policies, I will hold the Catholic Bishops' Conference personally responsible because of its failure to take a strong stand against our government.
I cannot stress enough how fundamental the right of parents as primary educators is to the well-being of the family. As Mary Ann Glendon put it in her authoritative book on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights A World Made New:
“In the article on education [26]…[the drafting committee for the Declaration] made an important change, influenced directly by recollections of the National Socialist regime’s efforts to turn Germany’s renowned educational system into a mechanism for indoctrinating the young with the government’s program…. [A]fter Beaufort of the Netherlands recalled the ways in which German schools had been used to undermine the role of parents, a third paragraph was added: ‘Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.’”
[*] Pope John Paul II taught that it was an illusion to think that we could build a true culture of human life if we did not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection. However, with the bishops of England and Wales lending its support to legislation that obliges Catholic schools to provide information on contraception and abortion, is it not completely unrealistic to expect that Catholic sexual morality will be taught in these schools?
Yesterday in Parliament Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government what representations they have received since 15 May about barring television advertisements for abortion services.
The response of Lord Shutt of Greetland, deputy chief whip in the House of Lords, was:
At 26 May, 603 pieces of electronic correspondence have been received from members of the public about television advertisements for post-conception advice services. Five pieces of correspondence on the same subject have been received from MPs, and none has been received from Members of the House of Lords. Of the total received, 607 representations oppose the showing of television advertisements for post-conception advice services, including abortion services.
Of 608 separate pieces of correspondence 607 people opposed the advertising. The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP (pictured above), the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has the power to insist that Ofcom controls advertising in this area. (See the Communications Act s. 321). We call upon him to intervene immediately. [cf. Communications Act 2003, (section 321, subsections 5 & 6)]
I urge visitors who've not done so to take action on this matter. Abortion ads will trivialise abortion. They are an insult to the hundreds of women hurt by abortion every day. Such ads are offensive and will mislead viewers about the reality of abortion.
This week I received the news that a recent episode of 'Facing Life Head On', the weekly US pro-lifeTV show, has been nominated for a regional Emmy award. The episode, 'Little Miracles', tells the story of Missy Davert, a woman only two feet, eleven inches tall, who successfully gave birth to twins. Missy also has a condition called osteogenesis imperfecta, brittle bone disease.
The episode is very moving. While pregnant Missy knew that as her children grew there was a high possibility that they would put her life at risk by interferring with her heart or lungs. Missy met with several doctors who advised her to abort at least one of her children. This was never an option that she was prepared to consider and she was greatly relieved when she met Dr Daniel Wechter, a specialist in crisis pregnancies, who committed to helping her through her pregancy.
Reflecting on her pregnancy Missy says:
God gave us both of these beuatiful children. I look at them today and think: which one of them wouldn't have been here if we'd made that decision?
Her reflection evokes the beautiful testimony of Andrea Bocelli, the famous classical singer, whose mother was advised to have an abortion.
Missy and her husband Ken will be forever grateful to the incredible care they received from Dr Wechter during the course of their pregnancy. Dr Wechter is a fantastic example to doctors and other medical professionals, who are coming under increasing pressure to practice their profession according to the prevailing anti-life principles of our time.
Missy and Ken's children, Austin and Michaela, are now eleven years old. They share their mother's similar courageous embrace of life. Michaela and Austin are both honour-roll students and Austin uses his spare time to fly aeroplanes!
The UN Human Rights Council yesterday turned its fire on Nicaragua - piling on the pressure to legalize the killing of the unborn in a wide range circumstances. Pat Buckley, leading SPUC's lobby at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, reports:
"No less than eleven countries were pressurising Nicaragua to repeal its pro-life legislation: the Netherlands, Norway, the Czech Republic, Mexico, the UK, Belgium, France, Finland, Sweden and Slovenia.
"This was done during the Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) procedure, a unique process which involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States once every four years."
Pat tells me that the recommendations varied but typical of them was Finland's recommendation that Nicaragua should: “revise legislation regarding the sexual and reproductive rights of women, including the abolition of the total ban on abortion, and ensure their access to services necessary for their enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health” and Mexico's that Nicaragua should “follow through on recommendations of different treaty bodies regarding the possibility of considering exceptions to the general prohibition of abortion, especially in cases of therapeutic abortion and pregnancies resulting from rape and incest”.
I don't know if any of the Mexican delegation were Catholics. If so, I hope they will shortly receive advice from the Archbishop of Guadalajara, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez who says that those who promote and approve laws in favor of abortion are outside the Catholic Church and should not receive Communion. The Mexican action brings shame on a nation where, the evidence suggests, the people and the Catholic Church leadership are strongly pro-life.
Pat Buckley reminds us:
"It's far from the first time that a United Nations body has targeted Nicaragua's pro-life legislation. But, as on previous occasions, Nicaragua fought back resolutely. Carlos Robelo, Nicaragua's representative, strongly rejected the recommendations and told the Human Rights Council council that that Nicaragua would not change back its abortion laws to allow 'therapeutic' abortion.
Carlos Robelo, on behalf of Nicaragua, was in fact representing humanity's consensus on the right to life. Those who oppose abortion and other anti-life practices are seeking to uphold solemn international human rights agreements. They are seeking to uphold, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which celebrated last December its 60th anniversary on which I spoke in Spain last year at the 4th pro-life world congress in Saragossa.
In a speech at Oxford University yesterday, the Prince of Wales said:
"It is surely time to ask if we can come to a view that balances the traditional attitude to the sacred nature of life on the one hand with, on the other, those teachings within each of the sacred traditions that urge humankind to keep within the limits of Nature’s benevolence and bounty."
Elsewhere in his speech, entitled "Islam and the Environment", the Prince spoke about:
"this poor planet of ours, which already struggles to sustain 6.8 billion people, will somehow have to support over 9 billion people within fifty years. In the Arab world, sixty per cent of the population is now under the age of thirty. That will mean, in some way or other, 100 million new jobs will have to be created in that region alone over the next ten to fifteen years."
Firstly, it's disappointing that the Prince of Wales demonstrates his ignorance of "nature's benevolence and bounty" to which his speech makes reference. Dr Nicholas Eberstadt, for example, in his paper "Too many people?" points to the mass of evidence that rapid population growth has actually helped increase the availability of resources. Dr Eberstadt is a leading demographer, who holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute.
Secondly, the Prince of Wales refers to "the traditional way of life within Islam" and its "important principle we must keep in mind is that there are limits to the abundance of Nature".
With great respect, I would inform the prince, based on SPUC's experience of lobbying and working with Muslim nations for nearly two decades at the United Nations, that traditional Muslims will unequivocally defend and uphold the sacred nature of the lives of the Royal Family - and their right to life from conception till natural death. There's nothing in traditional Islam which suggests that the sacredness of the lives of the Prince of Wales and the Royal Family, including their inviolable right to life, should be balanced against other considerations: such as the growing population of the world and poverty in much of the world including in Britain.
Thirdly, it would help enormously if the Prince of Wales could spend some time reflecting on the real face of population control: the nature and consequences of China's coercive abortion/birth control policy. It's a policy funded by regular donations from over 180 countries worldwide, including over 40 million US dollars from the UK in 2007 and it's a population control policy in which the United Nations' participation is very well-documented. On the same day as the Prince of Wales's speech in Oxford, Lord David Alton was speaking in a House of Lords debate on the European Union and China. He said:
“China also has the highest female suicide rate of any country in the world. It is the only nation in which more women than men kill themselves. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 500 women a day end their lives in China. This extraordinary suicide rate may well be related to the campaign of forced sterilisation and compulsory abortion. I was particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who is on the Front Bench today, for the reply that she gave me yesterday to a Written Question, where she said that last year alone £770,000 had been provided by DfID to Marie Stopes International, and that this will be reviewed as part of the process of looking at overseas funding. I would point out to your Lordships that MSI might claim to disapprove of compulsion but recently gave a red-carpet welcome in its London headquarters to Ms Lin Bin, Minister of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission, which is responsible for the one-child policy. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will be able to confirm that the Government will follow the previous Government in upholding the case of Chen Guang Chen, the blind human rights activist who in the Xiandong province exposed the compulsory abortion and sterilisation of more than 130,000 women and is now into his fourth year in prison for having done so.”
It's the population controllers, not those who uphold the sacredness of human life, who are failing to "keep within the limits of nature's benevolence".
You can also read a synopsis of Dr Eberstadt's paper here and the paper itself at the link above.
Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent of The Times, has a good story today headlined "'Scan' of baby Jesus plunges Churches into abortion debate."
She writes: "Protestant Churches are joining forces in an advertising campaign that shows a scan of "baby Jesus in the Virgin Mary's womb", complete with halo.
"The poster campaign ... reads: 'He's on His way. Christmas starts with Christ.'"
Ruth Gledhill is kind enough to quote me in her story saying: "This advertisement sends a powerful message to everyone in Britain where 570 babies are killed every day in the womb, 365 days a year, under the Abortion Act. Whenever we kill an unborn child in an abortion, we are killing Jesus".
Her story is worth reading in the original if only to witness the mental confusion of Terry Sanderson, of the National Secular Society, as he tries to criticize the image.
I just hope and pray that this poster campaign has the effect of saving many lives. Let's promote it in every way we can.
Wesley J. Smith (pictured) reports in Secondhand Smoke that, according to a new study, nearly as many Belgian euthanasia killings are non voluntary as of those that are voluntary.
In September 2002, Belgium became the second country in the world after the Netherlands to legalise euthanasia since the fall of Nazi Germany. Last year, Secondhand Smoke reported that euthanasia deaths were going up in Belgium, accounting for about 2% of all deaths in Flanders.
Wesley J. Smith, a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute Washington DC, explains:
" ... Euthanasia consciousness rests on two intellectual pillars–that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering, and radical individualism in which we all own our bodies and have the absolute right to do what we wish with it, including make it dead. But interestingly, the latter idea–often reduced to that most effective of all soundbites, “choice”–turns out to be far less robust than the acceptance of active killing as a proper method of ending suffering. In other words, once a society accepts killing as the answer to suffering, the request element becomes increasingly less important as doctors assume they are doing what is best for the patient by extinguishing their lives.
"This has been the case in the Netherlands for for decades. Amazingly, the phenomenon of “terminations without request or consent” is even worse in Flanders, Belgium. In the present survey of nurses, not only were nearly as many patients euthanized without no request–120 in this survey–as those who asked to die–128 in this survey–but often doctors have nurses do the dirty work–and they aren’t supposed to engage in euthanasia at all ... "
The Canadian Medical Association Journal (May 17) makes grim reading. In the article entitled The role of nurses in physician assisted deaths in Belgium we learn:
"By administering the life-ending drugs in some of the cases of euthanasia, and in almost half of the cases without an explicit request from the patient, the nurses in our study operated beyond the legal margins of their profession".
Elsewhere the article states:
" ... Finally, although about half of the nurses’ reports indicated that there was no explicit request from the patient, it should be stated that the physicians and nurses probably acted according to the patient’s wishes ... "
"Not if they weren't asked!" Wesley J. Smith says - and he comments:
"This goes beyond terminal non judgmentalism to actively justifying illegal acts, and proves that once the euthanasia monster is let out of its cage, the “guidelines” and “safeguards” become less protective than wet tissue paper, not only in the country where euthanasia occurs, but among professional studies of the practices."
I strongly recommend Secondhand Smoke for all serious students of legalized euthanasia and its consequences.
Last Sunday, Josephine, my wife, and I, were in Walsingham for the annual pilgrimage of the National Association of Catholic Families - where 120 children and 60 parents and grandparents braved bank holiday weekend thunder and showers camping beside the famous shrine. It was a wonderful event.
I was invited during the weekend to speak about St. Joseph. This is what I said:
I am not a biblical scholar nor a theologian. I am a lay Catholic who was taught as a child that I should be obedient to my parents because Jesus, the Son of God, was obedient to Joseph and to Mary, His parents.
"Then he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favour." (Luke, Chapter 2, Verses 51 - 52)
What an interesting conjunction of ideas there is in those two sentences. The evangelist appears to suggest that, partly as a consequence of His obedience to Joseph and Mary, Jesus grew in wisdom and in divine and human favour. Joseph and Mary are depicted as the Son of God's primary educators on earth. The Divine mandate of all parents thoughout history can be seen in the example of the Holy Family.
The more I've reflected on the theme of the talk I was invited to give today, the more I've been impressed by the insight of the NACF in choosing St Joseph as a topic for their family pilgrimage to Walsingham in 2010. St Joseph is a thoroughly relevant, thoroughly modern, saint for the crisis families face today in Britain.
On the one hand, of course, St. Joseph is the great, still, figure of tradition in religious history. He embodies the biblical history of our salvation. Old Testament prophecies about Salvation come to fulfilment through Joseph's being the husband of Mary who gives birth to Jesus. According to St Matthew, the evangelist, St Joseph is a final link in the genealogy of Salvation going back to Abraham.
On the other hand, St Joseph is far from being a still, even passive, figure in our salvation history. When you look at the way he acts in truly massive crises, St Joseph is a radical and instinctive man whose first thought is to act strongly, swiftly, decisively, independent-mindedly, selflessly and with true compassion for those who are closest to him. For example when Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, St Joseph makes up his mind to act decisively to protect her from disgrace and possible death. But St. Joseph's independent-minded judgement of human affairs is always open to the Holy Spirit - Who guides him to take Mary home as his wife and Who later guides him in another massive family crisis as he escapes with Jesus and Mary from King Herod's murderous plans.
But, above all, the significance and relevance of St Joseph for the National Association of Catholic Families this weekend in May, 2010, can be seen in the Gospel passage with which I began:
"Then he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favour." (Luke, Chapter 2, Verses 51 - 52)
What we see here is St Joseph's spousal relationship with Mary. We witness in that spousal relationship the timeless, eternal icon of a married couple who are the primary educators of their child: a married couple who, in Joseph's and Mary's case, are responsible for the education and formation of Jesus, the Son of God Who, under their care, increases in wisdom, years, and in divine and human favour.
Doesn't this short passage say everything the world needs to know about the irreplaceable, inalienable, right and duty of parents to be the primary educators of their children? Doesn't the teaching of Familiaris Consortio, one of the founding documents of the National Association of Catholic Families, that the right and duty of parents in the education and formation of their children is "irreplaceable and inalienable", find its eternal authoritative source in these two simple verses?
If Jesus himself depended on the formation of his parents, his primary educators, to reach full maturity and to increase in wisdom, how much more is the case for the rest of humanity?
The first and the primary focus of my reflection today is St. Joseph's impact on the human person of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Through St. Joseph's spousal relationship with Mary, taking Mary as his wife, they become the primary educators of Jesus Christ. They take command of His education and formation - and this is all the more underlined after the crisis of losing Jesus in Jerusalem - and Jesus increases in wisdom and in Divine and human favour. In the same way, we parents today must take command of the education and formation of our children so that they too can increase in wisdom and in divine and human favour.
Parents do not only find the authoritative source of their right and duty of to be the primary educators of their children in the life of Jesus Christ. We also find an authoritative source in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I would like to quote from an important talk, given in Qatar, by the distinguished US attorney and bioethicist, William L. Saunders Jnr, entitled "Human Rights, the Family and the Education of Children".
Mr Saunders writes: "Article 16 [of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] declares: 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.' Thus, article 16 recognizes the common sense fact, sometimes overlooked by governments and international organizations, that the family exists prior to the state, is the foundation of the state, and that the state is obligated to protect it."
Mr Saunders continues: "Article 16 goes further. It recognizes the right of a man and woman to marry and found a family. In other words, it recognizes that the family is founded ... upon marriage. We can all be thankful the Declaration recognized these fundamental truths."
Listen carefully to William Saunders's explanation of how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds parents as the primary educators of their children. He says: "Echoing the approach of article 16 [of the Declaration], article 26(3) recognizes that parents are the primary educators of their children. 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children' [the article states]. As article 16 recognized the priority to the state of the family founded upon marriage, article 26 recognizes the priority of the wishes of parents regarding the education of their own children over any designs of the state. Remember, per article 16, the State is obligated to protect the family. If the State presumes to usurp the rights of parents to choose the education of their own children, it damages the family, violates its own obligations, and undermines the foundation of a just society and State."
William Saunders underlines the historical significance of the Universal Declaration's insistence on parents as the primary educators of their children by citing Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, former US ambassador to the Holy See, and President of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences. In her authoritative book on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights A World Made New Mary Ann Glendon writes:
"In the article on education [26]...[the drafting committee for the Declaration] made an important change, influenced directly by recollections of the National Socialist regime's efforts to turn Germany's renowned educational system into a mechanism for indoctrinating the young with the government's program.... [A]fter Beaufort of the Netherlands recalled the ways in which German schools had been used to undermine the role of parents, a third paragraph was added: 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children'".
"In other words" William Saunders comments "one of the most important lessons drawn by the framers of the Declaration from the experience of the Second World War was that parental choice in education is a fundamental plank of international peace and security".
The second focus of my reflection is St. Joseph's role in the Holy Family's flight into Egypt, escaping from King Herod's murderous intentions towards Jesus. As Pope John Paul II explains in his Letter to Families (21), another foundational document for the National Association of Catholic Families: "Matthew, for his part, tells of the plot of Herod against Jesus. Informed by the Magi who came from the East to see the new king who was to be born (cf. Mt 2:2), Herod senses a threat to his power, and after their departure he orders the death of all male children aged two years or under in Bethlehem and the surrounding towns. Jesus escapes from the hands of Herod thanks to a special divine intervention and the fatherly care of Joseph, who takes him with his mother into Egypt, where they remain until Herod's death."
Let me turn to St. Matthew's account in the second chapter of his Gospel: "After Jesus had been born at Bethlehem in Judaea during the reign of King Herod, suddently some wise men came to Jerusalem from the east asking, 'Where is the infant king of the Jews? We saw his star as it rose and have come to do him homage. When King Herod heard this he was perturbed, and so was the whole of Jerusalem ... Then Herod summoned the wise men to see him privately. He asked them the exact date on which the star had appeared and sent them on to Bethlehem with the words, 'Go and find out all about the child, and when you have found him, let me know, so that I too may go and do him homage ... But they were given a warning in a dream not to go back to Herod, and returned to their own country by a different way. After they had left, suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother with you, and escape into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, because Herod intends to search for the child and do away with him.' So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, left that night for Egypt, where he stayed until Herod was dead ... After Herod's death, suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother with you and go back to the leand of Israel, for those who wanted to kill the child are dead.' So Joseph got up and, taking child and his mother with him, went back to the land of Israel. But when he learnt that Archelaus had succeeded his father Herod as ruler of Judaea he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the region of Galilee. There he settled in a town called Nazareth ... "
Just think about the various elements in Joseph's "fatherly care" of Jesus and Mary, the Holy Family. Firstly, he acts immediately and with a real sense of urgency. "So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, left that night for Egypt, where he stayed until Herod was dead ... ". This sentence tells us that Joseph is attentive to the signs of the times and open to the Holy Spirit - leaving nothing to chance as he senses his enemy closing in: "he left that night for Egypt". Secondly, there are signs again of St Joseph's independent-mindedness as he works out for himself what's best to do: "But when he learnt that Archelaus hd succeeded his father Herod as ruler of Judaea he was afraid to go there ... ". Constantly studious of the signs of the times, he decides not to go to Judaea. The goodness and conscientiousness of this great man once again, just like the crisis over Mary's mysterious pregnancy, make him open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and we learn "being warned in a dream he withdrew to the region of Galilee".
Joseph is the model for Catholic fathers - and Catholic mothers - today. In fact he's the model for all parents, whatever their religion, whose children's welfare are threatened by governments, like the British government, which have policies to provide children under the age of 16 with access to abortion, without their parents' knowledge or consent. This is happening in schools in England and Wales, including in Catholic schools. Strangely, the Catholic Education Service, on behalf of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, welcomes Connexions, an organization which promotes such access to abortion to under-age children, into Catholic schools. Strangely, too, the Catholic Education Service has appointed as its deputy director Greg Pope who, as a Member of Parliament, signed parliamentary motions praising the Family Planning Association and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the biggest abortion-promoting agency in the world, and who voted against parents being informed about their under-age child having an abortion.
As parents we must, like St Joseph, take command of the education and formation of our children. We must be prepared to take radical, urgent action, to protect them from government authorities and even from Catholic authorities who will co-operate with the killing of our unborn grandchildren - just as St. Joseph used his wits and his heavenly-inspired wisdom to escape the murderous intentions of King Herod.
A huge attack on Poland's restrictive abortion legislation has been launched by United Nations officials at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva this week.
"Polish diplomats in Geneva are furious," Pat Buckley (pictured) tells me. (Pat is in Geneva lobbying in Geneva on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children at the 14th Session of the Human Rights Council.) "Monday's session promises to be lively," he says.
Pat reports:
"The 14th session of the Human Rights Council currently meeting in Geneva considered (on Friday, 4th June) the report submitted by Mr. Anand Grover, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
"Annexe 3 of Mr. Grover’s report consists of a report on his visit to Poland and in the main consists of a radical and comprehensive attack on Poland’s pro-life position on access to abortion, conscientious objection, contraception and sex education."
Mr Grover complained in his report that Poland remains one of the few European countries that significantly restrict women’s access to abortion, citing Malta and Ireland where the law also provides protection for unborn children.
Typically of pro-abortion officials, Mr Grover sought, mendaciously, to advance his attack on Polish legislation by suggesting that expert, specialized, bodies of international opinion were worried about the consequences of Poland's restrictive abortion law - when these bodies are, in reality, the most powerful pro-abortion campaigning groups in the world. Pat reports:
"Mr Grover said that in 2007 the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) voiced concern in relation to Poland’s obligations under article 12 of the Convention (on women’s equal right to access health-care services) and specifically called for 'concrete measures to enhance women’s access to health care, in particular to sexual and reproductive health services, including: research on the scope, causes and consequences of illegal abortion and its impact on women’s health and life; measures to ensure women’s access to legal abortion services and against limitation of such access by the use of the conscientious objection clause'.
"Mr Grover then asserted that in 2009, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its Concluding Observations, called upon Poland to “take all effective measures to ensure that women enjoy their right ... by enforcing the legislation on abortion and implementing a mechanism of timely and systematic referral in cases of conscientious objection”
In reality, The CEDAW convention and the committee which implements it are the vehicles for one of the most radical pro-abortion campaigns ever whilst, only last month, Northern Irish pro-life leaders had occasion to criticise the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for calling for Britain's liberal abortion law to be extended to Northern Ireland.
Pat reports that Mr Grover did not fail to extend his attack to the Catholic Church in Poland, following the growing trend in international politics not to allow freedom of conscience for those who oppose abortion. Pat tells me:
"Mr. Grover in an attack on the Catholic Church noted with regret that women in Poland face numerous obstacles in accessing abortion services, even when according to him they are legally entitled to an abortion. He is concerned that non-State actors, such as priests, interfere with access to legal and safe abortions and sets out instances in which he claims this occurred."
The ugly face of the culture of death was seen yesterday at the Human Rights Council in Geneva in the following section of Mr Grover's chilling report. Freedom of religion, conscience and thought is to be swept aside in favour of the alleged right to kill unborn children. Here is one small sample:
"Health-care providers’ conscientious objection to involvement in certain health-
related procedures is grounded in the right to freedom of religion, conscience and thought. However, the exercise of conscientious objection should not entail interference with sexual and reproductive health rights, which are fundamental. However, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern that these conditions for invoking conscientious objection are not being met in Poland. Numerous reports indicate that some doctors, hospital directors, anaesthesiologists and auxiliary medical personnel such as midwives and nurses invoke the conscientious objection clause in refusing to perform abortions, and do not comply with their legal obligations under the Act of 5 December 1996 on the profession of physician and dentist, to refer women to other providers who will perform the termination of pregnancy."
As Liam Gibson, SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer, pointed out last week when the UN turned its pro-abortion fire on Northern Ireland:
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family, including children before birth. It is disturbing, therefore, to see how far the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has departed from the UN's founding principles.
"Abortion not only denies the fundamental human rights of children but it is deeply damaging to women. It is clear that the committee has no real concern for either women or children and knows nothing about Northern Ireland. If it did, then it would know that there is no evidence of so-called backstreet abortion in Northern Ireland and that in fact we have the best maternal mortality record in the UK.
"UN committees must be told to stop promoting abortion. It is time for pro-life politicians everywhere to call on the UN to return to its founding principles and protect the human rights of all members of the human family from the first moments of life until its natural end."
Finally, I am glad to tell you that Pat Buckley, SPUC's man in Geneva, reports that Poland stoutly defended its laws:
"The Polish delegate Mr. Branislav Lysák told the meeting that in the last 20 years infant mortality had dropped by 71% and maternal mortality in Poland was down by 82% in the same period. These figures according to Mr. Lysák contradict the assumption that liberalization of abortion improves maternal mortality.
"Abortion access according to Mr Lysák was available on social and economic grounds in Poland between 1956 and 1993 and Polish experience proves that there is no simple correlation between liberalization of abortion and improvement of maternal health except that the relationship could be inversely proportionate. Improvement of maternal health he said depends on overallmedical conditions.
"Mr Lysák told the meeting that there is no universal right to abortion and regulation of that issue is the exclusive competence of States as set out in various international documents such as the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD)"
All power to Poland's elbow as it strugges to prevent universal human rights being trampled on in the very place designated by world powers to uphold them. They will I'm sure be mindful of that greatest of 20th century Polish figures, Pope John Paul II, who said in Evangelium Vitae(18):
"On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class.
"On the other hand, these noble proclamations are unfortunately contradicted by a tragic repudiation of them in practice. This denial is still more distressing, indeed more scandalous, precisely because it is occurring in a society which makes the affirmation and protection of human rights its primary objective and its boast. How can these repeated affirmations of principle be reconciled with the continual increase and widespread justification of attacks on human life? How can we reconcile these declarations with the refusal to accept those who are weak and needy, or elderly, or those who have just been conceived? These attacks go directly against respect for life and they represent a direct threat to the entire culture of human rights. It is a threat capable, in the end, of jeopardizing the very meaning of democratic coexistence: rather than societies of "people living together", our cities risk becoming societies of people who are rejected, marginalized, uprooted and oppressed."
This weekend's edition of The Tablet has three articles and several letters on the stand taken by the Catholic bishop of Phoenix, Arizona, against a direct abortion performed in a Catholic hospital in his diocese. Sister Margaret McBride (pictured), a hospital administrator, had authorised the killing of an unborn child through direct abortion. Sr Margaret and fellow members of the hospital's ethics board claimed that the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother, who had pulmonary hypertension. Bishop Olmsted confirmed that what Sr Margaret did -co-operate formally in procuring an abortion - was subject to an automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church. LifeSiteNews.com did a full report on the case, including an interview with a neo-natologist who says that pulmonary hypertension isn't a threat to the life of a pregnant mother.
Predictably, yet no less scandalously, The Tablet is - both slyly and not-so-slyly - working to undermine Bishop Olmsted's witness to the sanctity of human life. Two of the articles it carries are written by notorious dissenters from Catholic teaching on pro-life/pro-family, Charles E. Curran and Tina Beattie. Charles Curran's article, "Catholics are not utilitarians", is the more intelligent and sly of the two. Most of his article is a reasonably accurate account of the facts and history of the Church's teaching on abortion. Curran, however, calls upon the Church to re-think previous rulings on whether certain procedures were direct or indirect abortions. This tactic by Curran is sly in that it seeks to confuse an issue where no confusion exists. No one denies that the abortion which took place in Phoenix was a direct abortion. And it is abundantly clear that the Catholic Church has taught definitively that all direct abortions are impermissible:
"[B]y the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."
Tina Beattie's article, "In the balance", is replete with canards invented by the pro-abortion movement:
ensoulment: unborn children only become persons some weeks or months after conception, and the Church's opposition to early abortion is a modern aberration. This canard was well debunked in a joint statement by Christian theologians in 2001.
relationship: an unborn child isn't a person until his/her mother can have a relationship with him/her. On that basis, people whose mothers are deceased or unknown to them aren't persons either!
spontaneous abortions: human embryos can't be persons because too many of them die naturally. On that basis, all children born before the 20th century (when advances in medicine lowered hitherto universally high child mortality rates) aren't persons either!
contraception: "ready access to contraception" keeps abortion rates lower than would otherwise have been the case. So why has the number of legal abortions in Britain (200,000) increased four-fold (1969: c.50,000) since modern contraception techniques became widely available (late 1960s)?
illegal abortions: there are more abortions (mostly illegal) in Latin America than in western Europe (mostly legal): therefore abortion bans are (at best) ineffectual and (at worst) endanger women. This is straight out of the pro-abortion movement's book of lies. Time and time again the pro-abortion movement has been exposed for massively exaggerating and even inventing statistics about illegal abortions.
war: abortion is occasionally OK because war is occasionally OK, and war also entails intentional killing of innocent people. She confuses the question of whether a war is just (e.g. was Britain morally right to have declared war on Nazi Germany?) with the question of whether certain actions in war are just (e.g. aerial bombing of open cities). Her argument also confirms her dismissive misunderstanding of the principle of double effect.
martyrdom: the Church forces the pregnant woman to sacrifice their lives for their children. In fact, the responsibility for the lives of both mother and child in the operating theatre lies with the treating doctor, whose role it is treat illness, not kill children.
The third article, Sister of Mercy, is written by Michael Sean Winters, who does his best to disguise his agenda of pitting what he calls the Catholic Left (which he supports) against what he calls the Catholic Right, meaning Catholics who oppose Barack Obama's presidency because of Obama's support for abortion. Yet labels such as "Left" and "Right" have no place when considering the issue of abortion. All Catholics, regardless of political or ideological leanings, must recognise the wrongness of abortion. Even religious adherence has a limited applicability to the morality of abortion. No religious or political value-set can evade the truth that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is always the greatest wrong. The Catholic Church's teaching that unborn children must always be protected from direct abortion is a gift to a misguided and selfish world.
The Tablet's freedom to publish and distribute its pro-abortion message is a direct result of the failure of key Church authorities to implement fully the Gospel of Life. Another, related example of the same failure is the failure to deal adequately with Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. He remains in post despite refusing to retract an article which undermined the Church's stand against abortion. This situation continues, not least because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not deal thoroughly with the archbishop and his article. The Congregation issued a clarification which read:
“As for the responsibility of medical workers, the words of Pope John Paul II must be recalled: 'Their profession ... which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness.'
At this point the Congregation's clarification stop abruptly, when in fact para.89 of Evangelium Vitae continues:
“Absolute respect for every innocent human life also requires the exercise of conscientious objection in relation to procured abortion and euthanasia. 'Causing death' can never be considered a form of medical treatment, even when the intention is solely to comply with the patient's request. Rather, it runs completely counter to the health-care profession, which is meant to be an impassioned and unflinching affirmation of life."
Had the Congregation's clarification not omitted this sentence, the core error of Fisichella’s article would have been corrected.
