The Catholic Church is the most dangerous heretic in the world's new order

I am grateful to Dan Blackman, an SPUC researcher, for studying Archbishop Chaput's address to the Canon Law Society in Slovakia last month. Archbishop Chaput's words should also be studied by everyone concerned about, or struggling under, the appalling policies of the Catholic Bishops' conference of England and Wales - co-operating with the British government in providing our children, in Catholic schools, with access to abortion; and everyone concerned by Archbishop Vincent Nichols's support for the last government's anti-life, anti-family sex and relationship legislation, fortunately defeated by the pro-life lobby, and by his recent statements on gay unions.

The ideologies that produced the dehumanising regimes of Nazism and Communism are still with us today, only this time they are more subtle, kinder, media friendly, and operate under the guise of tolerance. We know that Nazism sought credibility in a warped and manipulated Christianity, which was a stepping stone towards the real goal of Nazism: the destruction of Christianity and the establishment of neo-paganism. Communism was explicitly atheistic. What unites Nazism, Communism and modern day atheistic secularism, is the desire to live automomously from God i.e. man is his own master. This was the point Pope Benedict XVI made in his opening address on his recent papal visit to the United Kingdom.

In trying to construct a society autonomous from God and His truth, we find ourselves in a situation in which the systematic killing of unborn children is the "foundational injustice" upon which this secular atheistic society is being built.

This was the message of Archbishop Charles Chaput in his address to the 15th symposium of the Canon Law Society meeting last month in Slovakia, a country that has known the meaning of suppression under totalitarian regimes that rejected God. Catholicism in Europe has lived under wars, revolutions and totalitarianism.

The first lie

In speaking of Christians under totalitarian regimes, Chaput said:

“They know the real cost of Christian witness from bitter experience—and also, unfortunately, the cost of cowardice, collaboration and self-delusion in the face of evil. Many Catholics in Western Europe today simply don’t understand those costs. Nor do they seem to care. As a result, many are indifferent to the process in our countries that social scientists like to call 'secularization' but which, in practice, involves repudiating the Christian roots and soul of our civilization.’

Chaput calls this the first big lie: that Europe can be understood without Christianity:

"The unique genius and meaning of Western civilization cannot be understood without the 20 centuries of Christian context in which they developed. A people who do not know their history, do not know themselves. They are a people doomed to repeat the mistakes of their past because they cannot see what the present, which always flowers out of the past, requires of them."

Religion is being systematically reduced to a private lifestyle choice that does not have the right to a voice in the public square. Why? Because Christianity, specifically Catholicism, has a voice that speaks of God, of truth, of the sanctity of human life from conception:

"Efforts have been made to discourage or criminalize the expression of certain Catholic beliefs as 'hate speech'. Our courts and legislatures now routinely take actions that undermine marriage and family life, and seek to scrub our public life of Christian symbolism and signs of influence."

In Europe, such hostility is marked by its open contempt for Christianity. Ths state has become an absolute, an idol. Freedom of worship is very important, but still leaves Christianity to be marginalised and privatised. What Chaput is calling for is both freedom to worship and for religious freedom, which ensures Christianity has a voice in public debate.

Chaput notes that this secularism can sometimes be promoted with good intentions. After all, some would say we live in a pluralistic multi-faith, multi-ethnic and culturally diverse continent. English Dominican theologian Aidan Nichols OP has labelled this pluralism “communitarianism by non-religious elites.” This seems to imply a deliberate attempt at social engineering rather than the results of history and circumstance.

However, it is also being promoted to marginalise and to neutralise the voice of Christians in society. The daily lived experience of Christians testifies to this injustice.

“To be European is to be the heir of a profound Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy and art, Roman Law and biblical truth”

Chaput says, echoing Pope Benedict’s own thought. Chaput  goes on to quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

“The unity of the West is not an idea but a historical reality, of which the sole foundation is Christ.”

Chaput tells us that we, as Europeans, cannot dispense with our history. Superficial concern about not offending our fellow non-Christians does not justify the silencing of Europe’s Chrisitan heritage. Despite what the "new atheists" claim, Christianity is not imposed upon anyone. The only confessional states in the world today are those ruled by Islamist or atheistic dictatorships:

“regimes that have rejected the Christian West’s belief in individual rights and the balance of powers.”

The second lie

Chaput tells that there is a second big lie at the heart of this autonomous society:

"the lie that there is no unchanging truth".

This is particularly pertinent in the moral discourse of today. Relativism has now become the civil religion and public religion in modern society. Objective truth is rejected as a dangerous idea. Relativism is proposed as a means of keeping peace, eqaulity and tolerance.

In practice, however, we see that without a belief in fixed moral principles and transcendent truths, our political institutions and language become instruments in the service of a new barbarism. In the name of tolerance we come to tolerate the cruellest intolerance; respect for other cultures comes to dictate disparagement of our own; the teaching of “live and let live” justifies the strong living at the expense of the weak.

To summarise so far: Chaput has traced out the historical epochs of Europe, particularly the totalitarianism of the last 50 years, and the ideologies that fuelled them. Chaput then suggests two lies that society is being constructed on: Europe without its Christian context and content, and relativism. With this analysis Chaput writes:

“This diagnosis helps us understand one of the foundational injustice in the West today—the crime of abortion.”

Chaput calls this the "the crucial issue of our age".

The foundational injustice: abortion

The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. If that right is not inviolate, then no right can be guaranteed. Indeed, the defence of life from conception is an intergral and central part of Catholic indentity since apostolic times. Sacred Scripture testifies to the sanctity of human life. The first century Didache clearly speaks of the sanctity of life and the evil of abortion,

"Homicide is homicide, no matter how small the victim."

In the face of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic research and eugenics in our own day, this aspect of discipleship becomes even more important.

Chaput says:

 "My point in mentioning abortion is this: Its widespread acceptance in the West shows us that without a grounding in God or a higher truth, our democratic institutions can very easily become weapons against our own human dignity.

"If human rights are separated from objective truth and their relationship to God, they devolve to the arbitrary conventions of men and women. The state is there to recognise and protect these fundemental rights, not arbitarily bestow them or take them away. In doing this, the state becomes totalitarian."

This explains the paradox of how Western societies can preach tolerance and diversity while aggressively undermining and penalizing the Catholic voice in public discourse:

"The dogma of tolerance cannot tolerate the Church’s belief that some ideas and behaviors should not be tolerated because they dehumanize us. The dogma that all truths are relative cannot allow the thought that some truths might not be."

The rejection of objective truth in favour of relativism also explains the paradox of tolerance and equality, at the same time resulting in the systematic kiling of unborn children. Abortion is the example of intolerance, inequality and disregard for human rights. It is an act of atrocious violence, not a path to peace.

"The Catholic beliefs that most deeply irritate the orthodoxies of the West are those concerning abortion, sexuality and the marriage of man and woman. These truths are subversive in a world that would have us believe that God is not necessary and that human life has no inherent nature or purpose. Thus the Church must be punished because, despite all the sins and weaknesses of her people, she is still the bride of Jesus Christ; still a source of beauty, meaning and hope that refuses to die -- and still the most compelling and dangerous heretic of the world’s new order."

A temptation for the Church

We must put God first, and the obligations of political authroity second. An excellent example of this is seen in the life of St. Thomas More, who was tried and condemned to death in Westminster Hall, where Pope Benedict XVI recently gave his address to civil society on the right relationship between religion and the state. According to Chaput, throughout the ages, it has been a temptation for the Church in its relationship to the civil powers and the state to try and get along with Ceasar, to the point that the Church accommodates ideas and practices that are inimiciable to the Christian faith. The Scriptures remind us that we should pray for our civil leaders, and love our country (1 Timonthy 2:1-7). However,

"We cannot collaborate with evil without gradually becoming evil ourselves. It’s foolish to expect gratitude or even respect from our governing and cultural leadership classes today. Naïve imprudence is not an evangelical virtue."

A Catholicism of resistance

Chaput calls for a "Catholicism of resistance" based on trust in Christ’s words: "The truth will make you free." Chaput called this "believing that the truths of the Creed are worth suffering and dying for".

"We live in a time when the Church is called to be a believing community of resistance. We need to call things by their true names. We need to fight the evils we see. And most importantly, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that by going along with the voices of secularism and de-Christianization we can somehow mitigate or change things. Only the Truth can set men free. We need to be apostles of Jesus Christ and the Truth he incarnates."

Chaput continues:

"Let us preach Jesus Christ with all the energy of our lives. And let us support each other—whatever the cost—so that when we make our accounting to the Lord, we will be numbered among the faithful and courageous, and not the cowardly or the evasive, or those who compromised until there was nothing left of their convictions; or those who were silent when they should have spoken the right word at the right time."

If the Church is the most compelling and dangerous heretic of the world’s new order, the Gospel of Life must be its sacred book, and the dignity of human life one of its key doctrines.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

SPUC reports on European Parliament debate on embryo experimentation

Daniel Blackman, who researches international affairs for SPUC, has sent me the following report about the recent debate in the European Parliament on experimentation on animals, a debate which involved the issue of experimentation of human embryos:

On 8 September 2010, the plenary session of the European Parliament met to debate a draft directive. The directive, proposed by Elizabeth Jeggle MEP, sought to give further legal protection to animals used in scientific experimentation. We at SPUC urged our members to act to oppose this directive, and support prolife amendments.  

During the debate, the united Green parties strongly argued for member states to be obliged to use non-animal testing where alternatives exist; for strengthened rules on primate testing; for ensuring that those member states who want to introduce tougher animal welfare standards would be able to do so. The amendments were all defeated, but more legal protection for animals has been put in place. Disappointingly, no prolife amendments were tabled at second reading. Amongst MEPs, Martin Kastler, Miroslav Mikolasik and Anna Zaborska each called for human embryos not to be considered as alternatives. For this, SPUC commends them. Thank you!

The commissioner John Dalli spoke of the consideration given to human embryos. This was a reference to a prolife amendment introduced at first reading. Article 13 of the directive reads:

Without prejudice to national legislation prohibiting certain types of methods, Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of a live animal, is recognised under the legislation of the Union

This means that member states are not required to use an alternative if the member state has legislation opposed to certain alternatives. What the alternatives could be is not specified, taking into account the differing legislation of member states. However, this does mean that member states have the right to opt-out of using human embryos as an alternative if they have legislation against it. However, the new directive does not offer any new protection to human embryos or older unborn children.

Member states are encouraged to use alternatives to animals in scientific experimentation. This could mean further calls from politicians and scientists for permission and funding for human embryo research. This research is always destructive as it involves the creation of human embryos, the extraction of their cells, and the destruction of the human embryos. Such flagrant disregard for human life is totally unacceptable.

The new EU directive updates the previous EU directive of 1986. ‘86 seems a particular year when human dignity and protection for animals was particularly confused and inverted.

For example, we have Roger Short, Honorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Prof. Short lists his areas of expertise as human reproduction, contraception, HIV, and AIDS prevention.

On Monday, the 26th of May 1986, Prof. Short was representing the Australian Academy of Science. At that time he was the Chairman of the Working Party on Human Embryo Experimentation, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. Prof. Short gave evidence to the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill (1985). During the debate, Prof. Short makes the inaccurate distinction in calling some embryos “human pre-embryos.” Prof. Short then tells the select committee that it is lawful to use “human pre-embryos” because humans are not endangered, unlike gorillas and chimpanzees. 

In an article for Cosmos Magazine entitled ‘A plague of people’ Prof. Short wrote:

We have already invented a pill that will prevent global warming - the oral contraceptive pill...if women the world over were given easy access to the contraceptive pill, every birth could become a wanted birth, and human population growth would almost come to a halt.

SPUC does not have an official line on animal experimentation. However, many of our members belong to the Christian faith, whether Catholic or Evangelical. SPUC also has many members who belong to the Islamic religion. We are in constant dialogue with people from the worlds of science, medicine, politics, philosophy and fellow prolife groups. As such, we would seek to understand animal experimentation in light of our positions on the dignity of human life and our relationship to the created world. 

As such, the views expressed by Prof. Short, and those like him in the EU who may want to push for the use of human embryos in experimentation, is always unacceptable. The call for human embryos to be used in scientific research because humans are not endangered is flagrant utilitarianism. Human life is reduced to a commodity at its most vulnerable stage.

What we have been witnessing for several decades is the utter obfuscation in the correct relationship between people and the planet we live in, and the animals under our care. People are not the enemy or the problem. To construe people as the problem, and procreation as the enemy, is a failure to think through and provide real creative solutions to the questions we are facing. Technocratic and utilitarian thinking can only lead to the dehumanising of individuals, communities, and creation itself. In doing so, human life becomes a commodity. We should also remember the utter failure of research on embryonic human stem cells, and the relative success rate using adult human stem cells for treating multiple sclerosis, breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, and spinal injury, to name a few.

We urge prolifers in EU member states to work in shaping public opinion about the dignity of the human embryo. We call on legislators, politicians, scientists and religious leaders to ensure that the inherent rights of human life at the embryonic stage are recognised and protected in their country. We would also like those in the animal welfare movement to understand that in their goal of greater protection for animals, human life must not be seem as an alternative in experimentation. Being pro-animal does not have to mean being pro-human embryonic experimentation. Being prolife does not mean we advocate cruelty to animals.

If we fail to try, there will be no success. We may end up asking ourselves what the lay of the land will look like in another 24 years time.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pope Benedict's hint to English bishops: stop backsliding on pro-life issues

In yesterday's public address to the English and Welsh bishops, Pope Benedict said:

"As you proclaim the coming of the Kingdom, with its promise of hope for the poor and the needy, the sick and the elderly, the unborn and the neglected, be sure to present in its fullness the life-giving message of the Gospel, including those elements which call into question the widespread assumptions of today’s culture." [my emphasis]

We should be aware that Pope Benedict, in the midst of the frenzy stirred up by a hostile media, crafted much of his words in the language of diplomacy. Observers of the language of diplomacy, however, look out for what may be called the "iron fist in the velvet glove", where a rebuke is veiled in subtle terms. To me it seems clear that Pope Benedict's words are a strong hint to the bishops of England and Wales that he knows that they have failed to preach and teach, fully and unadulterated, the Gospel of Life and the Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (by which I mean both those doctrines and the Vatican documents of the same name).

For example, on the very weekend that Pope Benedict arrived in Britain, a headline in The Catholic Herald read:

"Archbishop: teaching on gay relationships may change"

reporting on Archbishop Vincent Nichols' comments (not once, but twice) that the Catholic Church may accept and recognise homosexual unions.

Thankfully, in the same edition The Catholic Herald published a letter by Mrs Dominie Stemp of East Sussex, which read:

"[It is] disturbing [that Archbishop Nichols is] unsure about whether gay marriages will be accepted by the Catholic Church. Our archbishop seems to have been swept up in the culture we live in and his eyes can no longer see the reality of the situation."

Many faithful pro-life/pro-family Catholics are today riding high on the successes of the papal visit: the unexpectedly large crowds, the absence of large protests, the praise for Pope Benedict from the otherwise usually sceptical commentators. The elation, however, must be properly directed, so that people's critical faculties are not suspended and so that they are not thus led into naivety. The energies loosed by the papal visit must be directed towards revitalising pro-life/pro-family activism, for which Pope Benedict explicitly called during his visit to Britain.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pope calls for support for the pro-life movement

Pope Benedict has issued a clarion call for Christians and all people to be pro-life. Speaking at a residence for the elderly yesterday evening, said:

"Life is a unique gift, at every stage from conception until natural death and it is God’s alone to give and take."

Speaking to pilgrims in Hyde Park, the Pope also said:

"No one who looks realistically at our world today could think that Christians can afford to go on with business as usual ... Each of us has a mission, each of us is called to change the world, to work for a culture of life, a culture forged by love and respect for the dignity of each human person."

As I told the media earlier, the underlying text of the Pope addresses recent moves to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide. His words also imply that there is a lack of support for the pro-life cause among Christians. The Catholic bishops of England and Wales must look long and hard at themselves and ask themselves whether they have really opposed the culture of death.

The bishops' conference was complicit in the passage of the Mental Capacity Act by Tony Blair's government, which enshrined euthanasia by neglect into English statute law. More recently, Peter Smith, archbishop of Southwark, whitewashed the director of public prosecutions' policy on assisted suicide, a policy which effectively decriminalises assisted suicide.

I could give many further examples of how the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales have let down the pro-life cause. They need to reflect deeply on Pope Benedict's words and realise that they

"can[not] afford to go on with business as usual".

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Help stop UN attack on conscientious objection to abortion

At the Human Rights Council in Geneva, top United Nations officials have called for the policing of nations worldwide to “address the refusal of physicians to perform legal abortions”.

Ban Ki Moon (pictured), the UN Secretary General, and Navanethem Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have launched a report “on discrimination against women, in law and practice, and how the issue is addressed throughout the United Nations human rights system”.

The report recommends the creation of a new office to focus on laws and practices that discriminate against women. This means the appointment of a special rapporteur who, in addition to following up on genuine rights, would also follow up on recommendations such as attacking doctors’ conscientious objection to abortion.

Pope Benedict got to the heart of the matter in Westminster Hall yesterday when he highlighted the worldwide attack by governments on conscientious objection. Ban Ki Moon and Navanethem Pillay are exploiting their UN roles to step up this attack and to push for a global right to abortion.

Last June the same pair of UN officials pushed through the Human Rights Council an ideologically-driven pro-abortion report with the aim of attaching legalized abortion to the Millenium Development Goals. Governments and concerned citizens worldwide must heed Pope Benedict’s timely warning and stop this latest report in its tracks.

Please contact the foreign ministry in your country, urging your government to reject the Ban Ki Moon/Navanethem Pillay report, because abortion is not a human right, but conscientious objection is.
Supporters in the UK should contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)

Please copy any replies you receive to political@spuc.org.uk


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pope warns governments are threatening conscientious objection

This evening at the British parliament Pope Benedict warned that governments are threatening conscientious objection:

"What are the requirements that governments may reasonably impose upon citizens, and how far do they extend? ... [T]here are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate...the rights of believers to freedom of conscience ... [R]eligious bodies – including institutions linked to the Catholic Church – need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching of the Church."

As I said to the media earlier this evening, legislatures in Britain and Europe recently have threatened the right not to be complict in abortion and euthanasia. For example, Ed Balls, the previous education secretary, earlier this year threatened to force both Catholic and non-Catholic schools to promote abortion. Tony Blair's government passed the Mental Capacity Act, which in certain circumstances forces doctors to deny life-preserving treatment and care to incapacitated patients. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is due to debate a report which, if implemented, would undermine massively conscientious objection to abortion across Europe.

I call upon all Catholics, other Christians and all those who value human dignity to heed Pope Benedict's words and join the pro-life movement in upholding the right to life via conscientious objection.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Catholic bishops must obey Pope’s words that school teaching must be pro-life

The Catholic bishops of England and Wales must obey Pope Benedict’s words this morning that teaching in Catholic schools “must always be in conformity with Church doctrine”.

Pope Benedict made his statement this morning at St Mary’s University College, Twickenham, London, referring to:

"the much-discussed Catholic ethos that needs to inform every aspect of school life"

including

"the self-evident requirement that the content of the teaching should always be in conformity with Church doctrine."

As I told the media earlier today, the Catholic bishops’ conference of England and Wales has signally failed to ensure that teaching in Catholic schools is in conformity with Catholic Church doctrine, including on the sanctity of human life. The Catholic Education Service (CES) of England and Wales welcomed and helped write government draft guidance on sex education under the previous government, draft guidance which was diametrically opposed to Catholic doctrine on abortion and sexual ethics. Indeed, Bishop Malcolm McMahon, the current CES chairman, told Pope Benedict today at Twickenham that the Catholic Church in England and Wales “value[s] very much” its “unique relationship with our government”.

The CES recently appointed Greg Pope as its deputy director, a former Labour MP with a lengthy anti-life/anti-family record. It also seems that Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster and former CES chairman, goes along with prevailing unCatholic ideas on sex and relationships education.

The papal visit should be the occasion when the bishops start obeying Pope Benedict’s teaching through a root-and-branch reform of the CES. The bishops must also conduct a thorough review of the content of teaching in all the Catholic schools in their dioceses, ensuring that such teaching is in perfect conformity with Vatican documents on sex education.

I totally endorse comments made this morning on Sky TV by Fr Thomas Williams, professor of theology and ethics in Rome, who said:

“It’s not for 50 protestors to tell parents how to educate their children. Parents are the primary educators of their children, and have a right to educate their children according to their values and to ensure that external education corresponds with that upbringing. It’s not for others [than parents] to indoctrinate children with [different] values.”

I also totally endorse Pope Benedict's call, made at an inter-faith meeting later in the morning at Twickenham, for all faiths to unite to "defend human life at every stage".

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pope's warning of "dictatorship of relativism" includes abortion

The Pope, in his homily at Bellahouston Park, Glasgow this evening referred to:

"our times, when a 'dictatorship of relativism' threatens to obscure the unchanging truth about man’s nature".

Last year Pope Benedict explicitly linked abortion, euthanasia and embryo destruction with this "dictatorship of relativism”. In an address on 16 December last year on the thought of the English medieval thinker John of Salisbury, the Pope said:

“[O]nly those laws are equitable that protect the sanctity of human life and reject the legalization of abortion, euthanasia and limitless genetic experimentation ... If not, what John of Salisbury calls the 'tyranny of the sovereign' or, what we would call 'the dictatorship of relativism', ends up taking over...”

The truth about man's nature is that human life begins at conception, and has an equal right to life with all other members of the human family. Britain, as the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death, has often been the first country to obscure that unchanging truth and pass laws allowing abortion, euthanasia and embryo destruction. I earnestly hope and pray that all Catholics, other Christians and those concerned for our common humanity to join the pro-life movement in resisting the 'dictatorship of relativism'.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pope’s message on resistance to tyranny is timely

Pope Benedict’s first address on British soil this morning contained a timely warning about anti-life laws and governments. Addressing Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, he said:

“Your forefathers’ respect for truth and justice, for mercy and charity come to you from a faith that remains a mighty force for good in your kingdom, to the great benefit of Christians and non-Christians alike. We find many examples of this force for good throughout Britain’s long history. Even in comparatively recent times, due to figures like William Wilberforce and David Livingstone, Britain intervened directly to stop the international slave trade ... Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.”

As I told the media earlier today, abortion, destructive embryo research and euthanasia are types of slavery and tyranny in our own age. Britain has rightly been described as the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death. Catholics, other Christians and all those concerned for our common humanity must join Pope Benedict in resisting threats to the lives of the unborn, the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable.

Pope Benedict marked the 60th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights by saying that Catholic:

"principles, faithfully maintained, above all when dealing with human life, from conception to natural death ... are necessary conditions if we are to respond adequately to the decisive and urgent challenges that history presents."

British Church leaders must not undermine Pope Benedict’s message by seeking an easy accommodation with the British government. The new coalition government has already declared the promotion of abortion internationally as one of its priorities. The Catholic Church, in particular in Britain, must not seek an illusory balance between the truth and a nebulous religious freedom, in which the Church avoids resistance to anti-life/anti-family policies in exchange for toleration by a secularist state.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Vatican newspaper helps Tony Blair steal Newman's legacy

L'Osservatore Romano, the semi-official Vatican newspaper, has today published an article by Tony Blair entitled "The Pope and Newman". Here is the key content from the article:

• "For the life of the Church today, Newman’s reflections on the development of ideas evidently have...profound implications."
• " ... Newman also described the consensus of the whole “body of the faithful” on matters of doctrine as the “voice of the Infallible Church”. I doubt if this voice is yet taken seriously enough on moral questions, or if we have yet fully digested the implications of these ideas. The tendency of some religious leaders to bundle a large number of different ideas into a bag marked “secularism”, then treat it as a sinister package, is divisive in pluralist societies. It cuts the Church off from possibilities of new developments in thinking."
• "Newman, like Pope Benedict, was fiercely opposed to relativism. But the interfaith work that my Faith Foundation undertakes rests on, and generates, the opposite of relativism. I have found that it affirms people in their different faiths, while building respect and understanding for the faith of others." [my emphases]

Elsewhere in the article Mr Blair pays lip-service to the role of the Church's Magisterium (teaching authority). In this Mr Blair is clearly attempting to fool Catholics into viewing him as a moderate conservative, one who acknowledges the Church's teaching authority whilst being open to modern developments. Anyone inclined to believe Mr Blair can simply read his newly-published memoirs, in which he says:

"Politicians are obliged from time to time to conceal the full truth, to bend it and even distort it".

The truth is that Mr Blair is cleverly abusing the nuances of Newman's opinions on the primacy of conscience and on the development of doctrine. Mr Blair is trying to steal Newman's clothing in order to leverage a change to Catholic teaching on homosexuality (and no doubt on other pro-life/pro-family issues). In April last year Mr Blair told the gay magazine Attitude that the Catholic Church must change its "entrenched attitudes to homosexuality".

As Monsignor Michel Schooyans, one of the Vatican's leading scholars, has pointed out in a masterly analysis, Mr Blair, with an anti-life, anti-family agenda, is in fact seeking to undermine the Catholic faith and religion generally:

"The fresh 'convert' [Blair] does not hesitate to explain to the pope not only what he must do, but also what he must believe! ... So now we are back in the time of Hobbes, if not of Cromwell: it is civil power that defines what one must believe ... [T]he nanny state [which] has multiplied subjective 'rights' of attribution, for example in the areas of divorce, sexuality, the family, population, etc. ... Religious institutions must also be reformed to adapt them to the changes. Some religious figures must be taken hostage and made to approve the new secularized 'faith', that of the 'civil partnership' ... In the case of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation [JS: see my blog about it], this is also a matter of promoting one and only one religious confession, which a universal, global political power would impose on the entire world".

Cherie with a condom

Mr Blair has been ably assisted in his assault upon Catholic teaching by his wife Cherie (pictured) and her vocal campaigns in favour of contraception and leading pro-abortion organisations.

I am disgusted by L'Osservatore Romano's decision to give such prominence to Mr Blair and his manipulative agenda.This is not the first time that the newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has betrayed the pro-life movement. In September last year it published an effusive double-page spread interview with Mr Blair; and earlier in 2009 it published articles favourable to Barack Obama, with the editor even declaring that "Obama is not a pro-abortion president".

To my mind it is no coincidence that Tony Blair's shameful attempted theft of Newman's legacy follows so soon after Fr Dermot Fenlon, one of the world's leading expert defenders of Newman's authentic legacy, has been sentenced to five years' exile from his home, Newman's Birmingham Oratory. Fr Fenlon, along with the other Birmingham Oratorians, were at the forefront of warning Catholics about the Blairs' agenda. As the Newman Cause blog said in November:

"Newman is indeed the great teacher of the rights and duties of conscience. It is of the greatest importance that his teaching is not used to make him the patron of Catholics, like Cherie Blair and others, who in the name of conscience practice dissent from the Church’s teaching ..."

And as the Newman cause blog said in October:

"Since becoming a Catholic, Mr Blair has refused every invitation [JS: see my blog about this] to disown and repent of [his anti-life/anti-family political record] ... [S]ome commentators, including Catholics, have sought to justify it by saying that Mr Blair’s silence is because his support for abortion, embryo experimentation, civil partnerships and gay adoption has always been for him, and remains now, a matter of conscience. Now this is the danger in The Tablet’s association of Newman and conscience with the case of Tony Blair. If as a Catholic Mr Blair thinks that his conscience directs him to support such positions, to invoke Newman in defence of his stance would be a travesty. For Newman, no Catholic can be in good conscience in supporting the positions Mr Blair espoused. The impossibility of conscience, enlightened by Faith, justifying adherence to evil is one of the most important of Newman’s lessons for our times."

Since the removal of Fr Fenlon and the Birmingham Three from the Oratory, the Newman Cause blog has had no substantial articles (in fact, the blog stopped altogether in July); and the posts on the Oratory website (12 March, 20 March) which so powerfully challenged episcopal policies on abortion and sex education have also stopped. The ending of these articles coincided with the parachuting in of Jack Valero by the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales to be press officer for the Newman Cause and who reports to Archbishop Nichols's press secretary.

Yesterday's edition of Zenit contains an extraordinary interview with Andrea Tornielli, a noted Vatican watcher. Here is a key extract:

Zenit: According to the Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi of Trieste, there exists a parallel magisterium among ecclesiastics, professors of theology in the seminaries, priests and laypeople who "muffle Benedict XVI's teachings, do not read the documents of his magisterium, write and speak arguing exactly the opposite of what he says, launch pastoral and cultural initiatives, on the terrain of bioethics or in ecumenical dialogue, for example, in open divergence with what he teaches." Is this true or is Archbishop Crepaldi mistaken?

Tornielli: I believe that Archbishop Crepaldi is right. It is obvious -- just take a look at many parishes, participate at conferences, cultural gatherings, etc., and you will see how Benedict XVI's magisterium (but this happened before too, with other Popes) is not transmitted to the faithful, but is instead sometimes openly contradicted.

I wrote in June:

"Could it be that external  forces [JS: outside the Birmingham Oratory but inside the Church] who want a Catholic Church which is inclusive of the Blairs' anti-life, anti-family positions are bringing pressures to bear in [the Birmingham Three] situation? How very convenient it would be, especially in the run-up to Pope Benedict's visit, if uncomfortable issues such as the teaching of the Church on contraception, abortion and on homosexuality were also safely hidden away?"

It seems to me that the Blairs, Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops' conference of which he is president are key players in this "parallel magisterium". (Jack Valero, in his bishops' conference role, has even denied the very existence of such a "parallel magisterium"). Ownership of the interpretation of Newman is one of the "parallel magisterium's" key goals. It would suit the purposes of the "parallel magisterium" to move to divide and conquer at the Birmingham Oratory, especially targeting Fr Dermot Fenlon, the champion of the true Magisterium's authentic interpretation of Newman's legacy.

Concerned readers of this blog are therefore heartily urged to join the faithful Newman experts who are standing up for Fr Fenlon: Dr Roman Siebenrock of the German International Newman Society, and Jacob and Stephanie Maria Knab.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Scottish bishop challenges hypocrisy of Pope Benedict's detractors

Philip Tartaglia (pictured), Catholic bishop of Paisley and president of the Scottish Catholic Church's National Communications Commission, has challenged the hypocrisy of Peter Tatchell, the homosexual lobbyist who's trying to destroy Pope Benedict's reputation because of his defence of the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the family.

In a press release, Bishop Tartaglia said that Mr Tatchell’s past statements, that "not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful" cast “huge doubt on [Mr Tatchell's] claim to be an expert on human sexuality or a credible critic of the Pope or of the Catholic Church”.

The bishop added that:

"[Mr Tatchell's Channel Four] programme shows conclusively that Mr Tatchell knows next to nothing about the real nature and mission of the Catholic Church."

Apart from expressing appreciation for the bishop's courageous intervention, I can only reiterate my exasperation that Vincent Nichols, Catholic archbishop of Westminster, is appeasing the homosexual lobby represented by Mr Tatchell.

Archbishop Nichols should listen more closely, not only to the recent statements by Pope Benedict and Bishop Tartaglia, but also to Peter Hitchens, the Anglican writer, who wrote in last weekend's Mail on Sunday:

"I’m rather grateful that Mr Tatchell, unlike most of his allies, is honest enough to discuss openly where the sexual revolution may really be headed.

"As the condom-wavers and value-free sex-educators advance into our primary schools it seems clear to me that shock, by itself, is no defence against this endless, sordid dismantling of moral barriers till there is nothing left at all. Yet when [ Pope Benedict, ] one of the few men on the planet who argues, with force, consistency and reason, for an absolute standard of goodness comes to this country, he is reviled by fashionable opinion."

Archbishop Nichols, through his own statements and his defence of the Catholic Education Service (CES), is playing a key role in assisting the "condom wavers and value-free sex-educators' advance into our primary schools".

* The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in paragraph 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do 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.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

We need authentic Catholic voices on life and family, not dissenting spin doctors

St Peter preaches at Pentecost

Jack Valero of Catholic Voices told BBC1's Sunday Morning Live programme that:

"the Church is not against condoms".

James Preece of Catholic and Loving It! has kindly provided the full transcript of the segment:

Jack Valero: The Church is not against condoms the Church is against promiscuity

Julie Bindel: The Church is against condoms!

Jack Valero: The Church is against promiscuity and sex outside of marriage

Colm O'Gorman: Is the Church now supporting the use of condoms?

Jack Valero: No, the Church is against... er... promiscuity

Colm O'Gorman: In marriage? Does the Church oppose the use of condoms in marriage?

Jack Valero: Well, no, the Church is against contraception of course.

Colm O'Gorman: So it's against condoms?

Jack Valero: But, but, we're talking here about HIV, no the Church is against contraception.

And as James correctly points out, Dr Austen Ivereigh, Mr Valero's co-director of Catholic Voices, is also open about his dissenting interpretation of the Catholic Church's teaching on condoms. Dr Ivereigh has even said that:

"it is right for schools to teach how condoms help to reduce transmission of STDs."

This is the same Dr Ivereigh who in 2005 wrote to The Catholic Herald making the absurd claim that:

"[T]here is no Catholic school in Britain, joint or otherwise, in which Catholic children are being taught less than the Catholic faith in its integrity."

Yet Humanae Vitae is crystal-clear in its prohibition of any action by a couple to close the marital act to the transmission of life:

“[E]ach and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae, 11)

Mr Valero and Dr Ivereigh, wittingly or unwittingly, are providing a bridgehead for other Catholics in representative positions to adopt their own dissenting interpretations, not just of Catholic teaching on the use of condoms, but on other areas of Catholic teaching on life and family. Readers should not forget that Dr Ivereigh was the deputy editor of The Tablet, which is internationally renowned for its dissent from Catholic teaching, especially on sexual ethics. Here are some other worrying recent content from Catholic Voices and/or from Mr Valero and Dr Ivereigh:

• A post [Catholic Voices blog, 10 September] on the Soho Masses for homosexuals* which perpetuates the myth that those Masses are perfectly proper within the context of Catholic teaching and discipline, when in fact there is solid and mounting evidence that the Masses are organised by and for homosexuals who explicitly dissent from the Church's teaching.

• "[Mark] Dowd is a superb producer and close to Catholics [CV blog, 5 September]  ... Dowd concludes the Church is more 'polarised' now between 'traditionalists' and 'progressives' but at the same time 'more Catholic' -- in the sense of 'universal' -- than 28 years ago. Superb." [CV blog, 9 September] Yet Mr Dowd is a homosexual opponent of Catholic teaching on homosexuality. The latter comment by the CV blog-author implies that Catholic Voices supports Mr Dowd's vision of a Catholic Church in which dissent is warmly accommodated.

• “The Guardian ... a paper many Catholics wrongly think is unsympathetic to the Church.” [CV blog, 6 September] Yet The Guardian is in effect the house journal of the British anti-life/anti-family movement and regularly publishes attacks on the Catholic Church for its pro-life/pro-family teachings, such as:

“[T]he [Catholic C]hurch directly aggravates the plight of vulnerable people. It rails against IVF giving children to the childless, against stem-cell research giving hope to the sick, and against the use of condoms – even as a means of preventing the spread of HIV. Its rigid views on homosexuality and the role of women ... [T]he extent of child abuse for which its priests have been responsible has been shocking, as has its tendency to close ranks in response to the scandal. Benedict himself, an arch-conservative, has in the past manoeuvred to preserve the autonomy of the church in such matters, as opposed to having them immediately handed on to the police. He has also indulged the standing of Catholic figures who have turned a blind eye to Nazi atrocities.”

• “Ed[ward] Stourton, a lifelong Catholic...” [CV blog, 5 September] Yet the CV blog-author fails to inform readers that, not only is Mr Stourton is a remarried divorcee, but was also the author of Absolute Truth, yet another BBC hatchet-job on the Catholic Church for its pro-life and pro-family teachings.

• I noted recently Dr Ivereigh's stated desire to "find the balance" between gay people's right in law to adopt children and "freedom of religion". Yet no such "balance" is ethically acceptable. This very day
  Pope Benedict has said:
  

  "[T]he Church cannot approve legislative initiatives that involve a re-evaluation of alternative models of marriage and family life. They contribute to a weakening of the principles of natural law, and thus to the relativisation of all legislation and confusion about values in society."

  In other words, Catholics must not tolerate a right in law for gay people to adopt children in return for concessions towards freedom of religion, such as letting Catholic adoption agencies place children only with heterosexuals. When the state passes laws contrary to the natural moral law, especially when they threaten children (born or unborn), we must be fearlessly uncompromising, like St John of Nicomedia, one of the Roman martyrs, whose feast-day was last Tuesday. He
  

  "seeing the cruel edicts against Christians posted up in the public square, and being inflamed with an ardent faith, stretched forth his hand, took them away and tore them up." [Roman Martyrology]

  Pope Benedict told the English and Welsh bishops, on their most recent ad limina visit, that Catholics must:
  

  "recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate".

  Mr Valero and Dr Ivereigh need to retract some of their public statements, lest the Catholic Voices project becomes a vehicle for "dissent [under the guise of] a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate".
  
  * The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in paragraph 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do 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.
  
  Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
  Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
  Follow SPUC on Twitter
  Join SPUC's Facebook group
  Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pope Benedict contradicts Archbishop Nichols on "gay unions"

Just two days after Archbishop Vincent Nichols said, for the second time in recent weeks, that he did not know if the Catholic Church would "accept the reality of gay partnerships" (11th September) or "sanction gay unions" (2nd July), Pope Benedict has made a statement which, effectively, puts Archbishop Nichols firmly in his place.

Pope Benedict was formally receiving the letters of credence of Germany's new ambassador to the Holy See. According to the Vatican Information Service, His Holiness began by speaking about Fr. Gerhard Hirschfelder, "a martyr priest who died under the Nazi regime and who is due to be beatified in Munster on 19 September. He also referred to the beatifications of four other priests and the commemoration of an Evangelical pastor, scheduled for 2011."

Pope Benedict continued:

"Contemplating these martyrs, it emerges ever more clearly how certain men, on the basis of their Christian convictions, are ready to give their lives for the faith, for the right to exercise their beliefs freely and for freedom of speech, for peace and human dignity.

"[However] many men tend to show an overriding inclination towards more permissive religious convictions. The personal God of Christianity, Who reveals Himself in the Bible, is replaced by a supreme being, mysterious and undefined, who has only a vague relation with the personal life of human beings.

"These ideas are increasingly animating discussion within society, especially as regards the areas of justice and lawmaking ...

"The Church looks with concern at the growing attempts to eliminate the Christian concept of marriage and the family from the conscience of society. Marriage is the lasting union of love between a man and a woman, which is always open to the transmission of human life ... the success of marriages depends upon us all and on the personal culture of each individual citizen. In this sense, the Church cannot approve legislative initiatives that involve a re-evaluation of alternative models of marriage and family life. They contribute to a weakening of the principles of natural law, and thus to the relativisation of all legislation and confusion about values in society".

I said on Saturday that "Archbishop Nichols's, my archbishop's, comments are dangerous to the souls of my children". I thank God that Pope Benedict has spoken out today re-iterating the Catholic Church's unchanging teaching on this matter. The ball is now in Archbishop Nichols's court to make it clear, unequivocally, that he withdraws his comments on gay unions and that he supports papal teaching on this matter.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Archbishop Nichols's comments on gay unions endanger the souls of my children

These are dangerous times for families in Britain - and they are dangerous times too for Catholic families in Britain.

In today's Telegraph, Archbishop Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, described as the "leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales" is interviewed by Neil Tweedie. He asks the archbishop whether the Catholic church should one day accept the reality of gay partnerships, who replies:

"I don't know ... "

Now this is not an off-the-cuff, careless, remark by His Grace. He means what he says. Only two months ago I watched him in an exchange on Catholic teaching and gay unions during an interview on BBC's Hardtalk (Friday, 2nd July). Stephen Sackur, the Hardtalk interviewer, asked the archbishop:

"Some of their vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic church not going to have to do the same eventually?"

To which the archbishop replied:

"I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?"

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Part Three, Section Two, The Ten Commandments, Article 6)

I am in no position to judge where Archbishop Nichols stands in the sight of God when he makes statements so clearly at odds with Catholic teaching. However, as a Catholic parent, I am in a position to say, and on behalf of Catholic parents I meet up and down the country, that Archbishop Nichols's, my archbishop's, comments are dangerous to the souls of my children. And as a pro-life campaigner, I once again recall the late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, who taught in paragraph 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do 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.

Elsewhere in the Telegraph interview, in the context of the sexual abuse of children, Archbishop Nichols says:

"I can assure people that children in the care of the Catholic Church, in schools and parishes, will be safeguarded. They can be confident of that."

Yet children returning this autumn term to Catholic schools up and down the country will be subjected, courtesy of Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, through the agency the Catholic Education Service, to the government policy of giving schoolgirls, under the age of consent, access to secret abortions without parental knowledge or consent. They are delivering Catholic and non-Catholic children to the abortionists - and I can think of no greater abuse of children and parental rights and responsibilities than that.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Innocent Fr Fenlon has been sentenced to five years' exile from the Birmingham Oratory

According to a report in this weekend's Catholic Herald, Fr Dermot Fenlon, one of the Birmingham Three, has been sentenced to five years' exile from the Birmingham Oratory. Here are some key quotes from the report:

• "[Fr Fenlon] has been effectively expelled from his community."
• "Sources close to the Oratory have told The Catholic Herald that Fr Fenlon, 68, is now in the process of being "forcibly exclaustrated" for at least five years, when he will be 74, because he is objecting to the way he is being treated."
• "Yet no figure has publicly given any reason why Fr Fenlon has been subject to such severe canonical penalties in the first place."
• "[A]uthorities then offered to treat the [Birmingham T]hree leniently as long as they accept a period of exile, agree to statements distancing themselves from criticism of the way they have been treated and drop any appeals they had lodged against [Fr Felix Selden's] visitation [of the Birmingham Oratory]."
• "The move to censure him may shock worshippers in Birmingham who know Fr Fenlon for his piety and his loyalty to the teachings of the Church."

In the light of this report, I therefore have a number of questions to put to Jack Valero, spokesman for the Birmingham Oratory, who has also been appointed by the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales as spokesman for the beatification of the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman:

• Why has Fr Fenlon been exclaustrated if, as you wrote in The Catholic Herald of 27 August, he is a "priest in good standing"?
• Why did you say, first that Fr Fenlon and the other Two were "entirely guiltless of any wrongdoing whatsoever", and then later declare them guilty of "pride, anger, disobedience, disunity, nastiness, dissension, the breakdown of charity"?
• Why did you say in June that the Three "can come back soon and continue as normal" when the Three have now been sent away from the Oratory for periods ranging from at least one to up to five years?
• Were the sending of Br Lewis Berry to the South African Oratory and of Fr Philip Cleevely to doctoral studies abroad concessions offered by the "authorities ... as long as they accept a period of exile, agree to statements distancing themselves from criticism of the way they have been treated and drop any appeals they had lodged against [Fr Felix Selden's] visitation [of the Birmingham Oratory]"?
• Why did you claim in The Catholic Herald of 27 August that "the disagreements which concerned the Visitor were not about Church teaching", whereas you are quoted in this weekend's Catholic Herald as saying that the removal of the Three from the Oratory was partly as a result of "doctrinal tensions"?
• Do you accept the Three's stance on government-led sex and relationships education was different from your employer's, the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales?

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Families will not "hold their tongue" about bishop-protected dissent on pro-life/pro-family issues

Mark Dowd this morning presented a programme on BBC Radio Four entitled "The Pope's British Divisions". Among many other people, he interviewed two schoolchildren and a priest from Nottingham diocese. The two schoolchildren, from St Benedict's school, Derby, will meet Pope Benedict next week as part of a special delegation of Catholic youth.

The first schoolchild confirmed she was “a practising Catholic” and was asked what she would like to say if she meets the Pope. She replied:

"I don’t think [the Pope] quite understands that we’re in the 21st century yet, and I think that some of his views are still quite outdated, things that he’s said about abortion and same-sex marriages."

Mr Dowd asked the girl:

“Do you think it’s possible to be a Catholic and to be pro-abortion and in favour of same-sex marriage?”

The schoolgirl replied:

"Yeah, I think it is. I know I certainly am, and I don’t have a problem admitting that and being a Catholic.”

The second schoolchild referred in a negative tone to:

“[s]ome of the stuff [in Catholic teaching] that’s a bit restricting [such as] chastity”

and added that

“the best thing about being a Catholic is the fact that you can pick and choose which bits you’d like to believe in, as long as you worship God.”

The priest interviewed was Fr Joe Wheat, director of youth services in the Nottingham diocese, who said:

“You talk to 50 young people who would refer to themselves as Catholic and you’ll get 50 different versions of Catholicism, which is brilliant. It’s fantastic actually."

Mr Dowd put it to Fr Wheat that:

"A lot of the students we spoke to [at St Benedict's school, Derby] mentioned contraception, abortion, homosexuality. Can they, in your view, maintain views which are contrary to Church teaching but still call themselves a good Catholic?"

Fr Wheat replied:

"Depends what your measure of ‘good’ is when you say ‘good Catholic’."

Mr Dowd then asked:

"What’s your measure?"

Fr Wheat replied:

“I don’t have one. I try not to make value judgments about people’s Catholicism, because I don’t want them to make value judgments about mine.”

Fr Wheat certainly has, let us say, strange ideas. On the Nottingam Diocesan Catholic Youth Service website, he numbers Tony Benn, the anti-life/anti-family retired politician, among the "living person[s] he most admires"; and says he would invite K.D. Lang, the entertainer and homosexualist activist, to his "dream dinner party."

I therefore dread to discover what on earth is being taught to Catholic young people in Nottingham diocese about the sanctity of human life and the meaning of human sexuality - but I will be writing immediately to Malcolm McMahon, the bishop of Nottingham, to find out. I have blogged before about Bishop McMahon's openness to headteachers being in same-sex unions.* He is the current chairman of the Catholic Education Service (CES) which welcomed and helped draft anti-life and anti-family sex and relationships education under the previous Labour government. Under his chairmanship, the CES appointed as its deputy director Greg Pope, a former Labour MP with a lengthy anti-life and anti-family parliamentary record.

Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster - and Bishops McMahon's predecessor as CES chairman - was also interviewed by Mr Dowd. Archbishop Nichols was asked about the regular provision of Masses for a homosexual group in a central London parish, and the equally regular protests by faithful pro-life/pro-family Catholics against that provision. Archbishop Nichols said:

"anybody from the outside who is trying to cast a judgement on the people who come forward for Communion [there], really ought to learn to hold their tongue."

Yet this totally ignores the evidence that the Soho Masses are organised by and for Catholics who dissent from the Church's teaching on homosexuality, as I blogged recently.

As one of the protestors explained:

"According to God's law, sex is to be used within the context of marriage, [but w]e know from speaking to some of [the Soho Mass attendees] in the past that they have a platform whereby they are proposing that there are other areas in which sexuality can be used and that they themselves believe that to be in order."

This testimony was borne out by a lesbian attendee at the Mass, who told Mr Dowd:

"[Here] you don't have to explain yourself, here I just feel a total sense of acceptance about that area of my life."

Mr Dowd asked her:

"Why do you keep church up at all if the Church says that your orientation is a tendency to an intrinsic moral evil?"

She replied:

"A large proportion of the Church don't go along with that .. I feel intrinsically Catholic."

Last Peter Marshall of BBC's Newsnight interviewed some other Soho Mass attendees, in a programme to be broadcast at 10:30 this evening. Here is some of what they told Mr Marshall:

• "My faith is more important to me than what the Pope might think."
• "The simple fact is that Catholics across the world do not believe and do not follow Vatican teachings on any number of sexual ethics matters."
• "[Y]ou don't need too many commandments, really."
• "We all want to feel affirmed and welcomed with people with the same way, the same nature..."

Was Archbishop Nichols listening when Pope Benedict told the English and Welsh bishops, on their most recent ad limina visit, to:

"recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free."?

Pro-life families must demand that the Catholic bishops of England and Wales stop providing cover for individuals and groups who are actively undermining Catholic Church teaching on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. Families seeking to protect their children from such bishop-protected open dissent must not hold their tongue. For as Pope Benedict said yesterday, Catholic

"principles, faithfully maintained, above all when dealing with human life, from conception to natural death, with marriage - rooted in the exclusive and indissoluble gift of self between one man and one woman ... are necessary conditions if we are to respond adequately to the decisive and urgent challenges that history presents".

* The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in paragraph 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do 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.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy