Tuesday, 3 May 2011

This morning's must-read pro-life news-stories, Tuesday 3 May

Jacob Kowalik and Marshal Davis
Abortion
SPUC holds pro-life chains throughout Britain. Reports from:
Embryology
Euthanasia
Population
General
at

Monday, 2 May 2011

The totalitarian trends of liberal ideology and other matters...

I am very grateful to Monsignor Michel Schooyans (pictured), a leading Vatican scholar, for giving SPUC permission to translate and to publish the major interview he gave to Christophe Geffroy, and published in La Nef last month. I am also grateful to our translator, Mary Latham.
Monsignor Michel Schooyans, Emeritus Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, is the author of a number of significant and seminal works, in particular on life-related matters. His latest book Les idoles de la modernité which presents an overview of his thinking, provides an opportunity to question him. Mgr Michel Schooyans is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and the Pontifical Academy for Life.

1) You entitled one of your previous books The Totalitarian Drift of Liberalism: can you explain what you mean by that?

While we have witnessed the failure of the Soviet system of government, we are now witnessing the emergence of a totalitarian trend arising from liberal ideology. When we examine these two ideologies – Communist on the one hand, liberal on the other – we perceive, at first sight, a significant difference between the two. In reality, the two ideologies have a common characteristic: they glorify the struggle, the survival of the fittest. Hence the following of authors such as Peter Singer. In the Communist system, the class struggle sanctions the victory of the strongest. But when we look at what happens in the liberal ideology, we encounter the same dynamic, that of unrestrained competition and survival. The market remains, but the important instruments designed to regulate it have been undermined. There is no longer a human reality, with its laws and exchanges. There is merely a battlefield where the forces of the weakest confront the forces of the strongest Those who have the right to survive are those who have the capacity to consume and produce.

2) In your next two books (The Gospel Confronting World Disorder and The Hidden Face of the UN), you denounce in particular the new notion of human rights promulgated by the UN: is this still the case and could you briefly explain the issues ?

We have entered a new cultural revolution. The UN is in the process of establishing a new notion of the law. The founding truths of the UN concerning man’s centrality in the world, as set forth in the 1948 Declaration, are being progressively disabled. Under the new UN notion of law, no truth concerning man exists which can be applied to all men. Human rights are no longer acknowledged as truths to be adhered to; they are the subject of procedures, consensual decisions. We negotiate and, as a result of a pragmatic procedure, we decide, for example, that respect for life can be imposed in some cases, but not in others, euthanasia should be liberalised, homosexual unions have the same rights as the monogamous and heterosexual family, etc. This process generates "new human rights", constantly renegotiable in line with the shifting interests of those able to assert their will.

To accommodate these "new rights", and above all the notion of law underpinning them, two strategies are called for. Firstly, it is necessary to weaken the sovereign nations, normally in the front line in protecting the inalienable rights of their citizens. Secondly, at international assemblies, it is necessary to achieve the broadest possible consensus. Once acquired, a consensus can be invoked to achieve the adoption of international conventions, pacts or protocols, which then acquire legal force in States which have ratified them. The result is the progressive formulation of a Kelsen-inspired international law, purely positivist and pyramidal. Under this law, and this law alone, can specific national laws be validated.

3) The myth of overpopulation is enduring : what response can one give today to those who continue to fear overpopulation, sometimes put forward as a facile pretext for the imposition of contraceptive programmes, even abortion?

What is too often overlooked is that the major cause of the population increase is higher life expectancy. All over the world, men and women now live longer than 50 or 100 years ago. Men now living to the age of 80 are alive for twice as long as men who, previously, could expect to live to 40. This is due to a general improvement in living conditions, in particular advances in medicine.

Furthermore, a fact generally glossed over is that there is currently a worldwide trend towards lower fertility. This fact was acknowledged by the UN’s Population Division as early as 1997. Fertility is measured by the average number of children to which a woman will give birth in the fertile period of her life, from 15 to 49 years old. The average number of children per woman has fallen throughout the world. The world’s population is distributed over more than 200 countries. In a good third of these countries, the fertility index is 2.1 or even less children per woman. For a population to be renewed, it is necessary for each woman to have at least 2.1 children. Ultimately, this situation is liable to endanger the future of humanity.

4) The issue of sustainable development crops up these days in all political discussions. There are many alarmist rumours on the subject of the environment. Some have gone as far as to propose permits to procreate.

In the present day, the notion of sustainable development is often invoked in support of the claim that the Earth is overpopulated. To respect the environment, it is necessary to define fixed quotas of human beings permitted to exist. There should be a fixed limit on the number of inhabitants on the earth, which is said to be incapable of supporting a world population reaching saturation point. However, this kind of Malthusian vision is devoid of scientific foundation. No-one is able to determine the limits on human creativity. Man has an inventive capacity which is undefined and indefinable, most palpably in the field of nutrition. In the energy field, we are told oil reserves will run out, which is probable. But when? Our first observation is that man has not always had or lived with oil and our second that man has proved himself capable of discovering and exploiting new energy sources.

In summary, trends in the two major demographic indicators, fertility and life expectancy, confirm that there is no danger of a population explosion. What, conversely, is a cause of deep concern is the increase in the ratio of the old to the young in our societies.

5) In The Idols of Modernity, you write "Modernity is regarded as the golden age of the myth of progress": in spite of the current crisis, this myth continues to take hold! What is the position today and how can we enlighten our contemporaries on the blind alleys to which the utopias of this "myth of progress" lead us?

Boosted by new discoveries in the physical, chemical and biomedical sciences, modern man has developed a belief in the inevitability of progress, understood to mean advances in the knowledge and well-being of man. The idea of mystery is dismissed. Religious truths are prejudices. Grotius excluded God from relations between nations on the grounds that religions are the cause of wars. Henceforth, God is excluded from scientific research. His existence or non-existence is a "metaphysical" question, hence of no interest. All religion can offer is a mixed bag of prejudices.

Supported by certain "philosophers", these discoveries foster the conviction that nothing is beyond the grasp of human reason. The idea of mystery is dismissed. Progress is thus conceived in strictly immanentist terms. The world is a chaos: luckily, man is there to bring order! In short, man will achieve progress relying solely on his own strengths and innate expertise in the various domains of knowledge and various spheres of action. Drawing on his own resources, man – or at least certain men – will even be able to access the Light. Whence the boom in the new scientisms, which promise to resolve issues of meaning which have hitherto evaded religion and metaphysics. The mission of these "Illuminati" will be to guide human society towards happiness and well-being.

Fundamentally, this notion of progress permeates the seats of world Government. It has given rise to an arrogant technocracy, without consideration for citizens or sovereign nations. Today however, most scholars have abandoned the immanentist notion of progress. Conversely, men now believe there is order in the world, an order we are capable of discovering little by little.

6) Finally we come to the great problem of the West. Is this not simply a rejection of God, with all that implies?

Indifference to truth has become one of the hallmarks of western societies. "All truths are equal": this is "pluralism", sometimes called "doctrinal tolerance", which goes hand-in-hand with systematic agnosticism. This indifference is the major flaw in our societies today. To remedy this flaw, recourse is had to the expedient of the rule of the majority. What should be purely a practical guideline has become the ultimate benchmark on which to base legal standards. Full reliance is placed on the will of the majority. A posthumous triumph for Rousseau and the supremacy of the general will, in one sense. The majority is credited with the capacity to imbue laws with a civil "sanctity", in accordance with which, to be a good citizen, one must respect the law unconditionally, at the risk of being accused of insociability and condemned as such. There is no longer room for a higher authority, to be invoked to challenge the law, irrespective of its nature. The relationship between positive law and the quest for justice thus becomes uncertain.

7) Is this rejection of God an inherent feature of modernity? In other words, because modernity is characterised by man’s emancipation from regulation by a higher authority (natural law, divine law), is the rejection of God not a necessity in order that man can be master?

Many of our contemporaries believe God to be an obstacle to their happiness. God is regarded as an impediment to human liberty. These men refuse the idea of dependency; they reject the idea of creation out-of-hand. In their eyes, to be created is to live in dependency, and to live in dependency is to be a slave. The slave must therefore kill the master. From this perspective, to see in creation the first revelation is now devoid of meaning. To see in the human being the image of God is equally devoid of meaning. The only law to be followed is the law of nature, understood in a purely material sense. Yet nature is violent, selecting by eliminating the least fit. It is to this nature, exalted in the Earth Charter and celebrated as Gaïa, that men must now bow because they are the product of a purely material process of evolution and will return to the earth in a death which is final. The culture of death began when men ordained the death of the Father. From this standpoint, this culture can be perceived as a revolt against God and against man, who is the image of God.

8) How can a pluralist and secular democracy "integrate" God?

We will start by dispelling the confusion, skilfully cultivated, surrounding the terms "secularism" and "securality". Secularism is primarily an integrally rationalist doctrine which aims to destroy all religious belief. It is also a set of movements which seek actively to promulgate this religious rationalism. Secularity is understood as the separation of the two spheres, the political and religious. In our western societies, political power has long ceased to encroach on religious power, and vice versa.

It is on the basis of this distinction between secularism and secularity that the question of democracy arises. The great human rights declarations were proclaimed by political authorities. The documents incorporating these declarations, several of which invoke God, are the cornerstone of modern democracy, defined essentially as the recognition by the social fabric as a whole of the right of each man to live, and to live in dignity. The notion of democracy here coincides with the foundations of Christianity: all human beings are children of the same Father, and therefore all equal in dignity. On this basis, a constructive dialogue can be instigated between the different monotheistic religions and some atheists to combat barbarism. Once the recognition of this dignity is undermined, we run the risk of reverting to the discrimination, injustices and cruelties of past ages.

9) One of the consequences of man’s emancipation is the folly of morals which result in attacks against the family, an issue you have frequently touched on: what can we do today to combat this pernicious, seemingly inevitable, trend? What signs of hope can you see?

Many people are becoming weary of legislation which exalts individual interests and passions. If people are as happy as claimed in a permissive society, how can we explain the rise in the suicide rate, in particular among the young? In its desire to please the individual, the State is creating a precarious environment, for which it is incapable of providing a solution. One merely has to look at the misery engendered by the State’s undermining of the family. States legislate, creating the impression that man’s desires coincide with his rights. We must revert to a personalist notion of man, of man as open to others, conscious of his ability to give and receive from others. There is no miracle solution beyond a return to the truth. To build a civilisation of love, we must rediscover that, in God’s plan, man is the shepherd of man.
References to the books cited

La dérive totalitaire du libéralisme,352 pp. long, 2nd edition; a work honoured by a personal Letter from H.H. Pope JEAN-PAUL II, Paris, Mame edition and Emmanuel edition, 1995; ISBN: 2-7289-075-4.

L'Évangile face au désordre mondial, Preface by Cardinal Joseph RATZINGER, 346 pp. long, Paris, Fayard edition; revised in 1998; ISBN: 2-213-59878-9.

The Gospel Confronting World Disorder, Preface by Cardinal Joseph RATZINGER, 236 pp. long, English translation of L'Évangile face au désordre mondial, by John H. Miller, St Louis MO, Central Bureau, Catholic Central Verein of America, 1999; ISBN: 1-887567-09-7.

El Evangelio frente al desorden mundial, Preface by Cardinal Joseph RATZINGER, Spanish translation of L'Évangile face au désordre mondial, by Patricia Straulino, México, published by Diana, 2000; 358 pp.; ISBN: 968-13-3266-0.

Nuovo disordine mondiale, Italian translation of L'Évangile face au désordre mondial [1997], by Alessandra Ruzzon, Preface by Cardinal Joseph RATZINGER, Milan, published by San Paolo, 2000, 318 pp.; ISBN: 88-215-4249-l.

O Evangelho perante a Desordem Mundial, Preface by Cardinal Joseph RATZINGER, Translated from Portuguese by Henrique Barrilaro Ruas, Lisbon, published by Grifo, 2000, 404 pp.; ISBN 972-8178-38-7.

La Face cachée de l'ONU, 283 pp. long, Paris, published by Le Sarment/Fayard, 2000; ISBN: 2-866-79302-l.

The Hidden Face of the United Nations, Translated into US English by John H. Miller, from La Face cachée de l’ONU, St Louis, MO, published by Central Bureau, CCVA, 2001, 188 pp. long; ISBN: 1-887567-18-6.

La cara oculta de la ONU, Spanish translation by Patricia Straulino of La face cachée de l'ONU (Paris, 2000), México DF, published by Diana, 2002; ISBN: 968-13-3411-6.

Ukryte oblièze ONZ, Polish translation of La Face cachée de l'ONU, Torún, Wydawnictwo Wyzszej Szkoly Kultury Spolecznej i Medialnej w Toruniu, ul. św Józefa 23/35, 87-100 Torún, T. 004856.610.72.08; T/F. 004856.610.72.73. ISBN: 83-89124-02-5.

Le terrorisme à visage humain, 225 pp. long. Preface by Cardinal LÓPEZ TRUJILLO, second edition, reviewed and augmented, Paris, published by François-Xavier de Guibert, 2008; ISBN 978 2 7554 0245 2. In collaboration with Anne-Marie LIBERT.

Terrorismo dal volto umano, in collaboration with Anne-Marie LIBERT, translated into Italian by Lorenzo Fazzini, Siena, published by Cantagalli, 2009. ISBN 978-88-8272-473-3.

Les idoles de la modernité. Entretiens, 283 pp. long, Paris, published by Lethielleux, 2010. ISBN : 978-2-24962-203-8.

Conversazioni sugli idoli della modernità, translated into Italian by Maria Luisa Buratti Bologna, published by Edizioni Studio Domenicano, Coll. Le Frecce, 2010, 242 pp. long ; ISBN 978-88-7094-750-2.
Contact : michel.schooyans@uclouvain.be
Website: http://perso.infonie.be/le.feu/
© Michel Schooyans, 2011.
Louvain-la-Neuve, April 2011.
at

Sunday, 1 May 2011

We must all stand outside the killing centres in spirit or in person

I am delighted to learn that Monsignor Philip Reilly, a real giant of the worldwide pro-life movement, is visiting England this month.

Carole Smith,the local co-ordinator of Helpers of God's Precious Infants, tells me:
"Great news!! The founder of the Helpers, Mgr Philip Reilly from New York, is coming into London for a flying visit. He will be exhausted after the long flight but has agreed to lead the vigil at Maidstone on Wednesday 18th May with Fr Sam Medley, of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT). They will both be concelebrating at the 10am mass. Please give a much support as you can, by displaying the poster in a prominent place, encourage as many as possible to attend and to pray for a successful day at Marie Stopes abortion facility, Brewer Street, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1RV, on Wednesday, 18th May, 2011, starting at St Francis Church, Week Street, Maidstone, Kent.

"Mgr Reilly will also be giving a talk at St James Church in Spanish Place, London in the evening to which everyone is invited."
Helpers of God's Precious Infants is an international pro-life group founded by Msgr. Philip Reilly under the direction of Bishop Thomas Daily of New York. Its main apostolate is prayer vigils at abortion facilities. To date, 5 Cardinals and over 100 Bishops worldwide participate including Bishop Thomas McMahon Brentwood, Bishop John Hine, Southwark, Bishop Arthur Roche, Leeds. The spirituality is one of solidarity with Jesus in the person of the forgotten poor: “Whatever you do for the least of these my brethren, you do for me.” Matt.25:40.

Monsignor Reilly is one of the most outstanding and prophetic figures in the pro-life movement. He and his co-workers in Britain and in other parts of the world lead from the front in their uncompromising defence of unborn children and their mothers,spending day after day, year after year, witnessing, praying and reaching out with compassion outside abortion facilities to mothers-to-be and to workers in the abortion clinics.

Whatever our role in the pro-life movement - in politics, in research, as pastors, as educationalists, as family people who support one kind of pro-life work or another - we must all be standing, in spirit or in person, outside the killing centres in our so-called civilised countries. Only that kind of commitment and spirit will defeat the culture of death in which we live.

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
at

Thursday, 28 April 2011

SPUC is determined to hand on political experience to young people

Last week I wrote about twelve courageous national delegations at the United Nations which rejected the use of abortion as an instrument of international policy.

For nearly 20 years, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has been working at the United Nations in New York, Geneva and elsewhere, lobbying national delegations on behalf of the unborn and on behalf of parental rights as the primary educators of their children. SPUC's lobbyists, and our colleagues in other pro-life groups, have been calling for real help for women, children and men in developing countries - rather than the final solution of abortion promoted by Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and the new British coalition Government.

SPUC is determined to hand on its political experience to young people. It's the young who are increasingly carrying the pro-life baton and who will go on to win the race to restore respect for human life and the family for future generations yet unborn.

Anne is a young student supporter of SPUC, who worked for the Society as an intern last summer. Anne joined SPUC's lobby at the UN's meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in New York earlier this year. She sent me the following report:
"Thank you for this wonderful opportunity of going to the UN. I've learnt so much and have met so many remarkable people. I really admire the good work SPUC is doing at the UN. (By the way a group of us from university went to the student conference last month which I believe has inspired more students to be pro active and pro-life.)

"During my internship for SPUC last summer I met Peter Smith, UN representative for SPUC and secretary of SPUC’s Evangelical division. Peter offered me a once in a lifetime opportunity to attend the 55th session on the Commission on the Status of Women, at the UN Headquarters in New York City [28th February- 4th March 2011]. I was thrilled at the prospect of accompanying Peter at the UN and began making travel arrangements without a moment’s delay.

"On my first day at the UN I had the privilege of meeting Jeanne Head, UN representative for National Right to Life, International Right to Life and winner of the prestigious Life Prizes Pro-life award. [Jeanne is pictured at the UN, above, with Pat Buckley, a SPUC lobbyist.] Before becoming the vice president for International Affairs for National Right to Life, Jeanne worked as an obstetric nurse. Jeanne really inspired and encouraged me; she has so much experience, rigour and enthusiasm and is so pro-active in her work. I enjoyed hearing of her triumphs at the UN and I found that even on my first day I was getting a real insight into the inner working of the UN.

"After meeting Jeanne, Peter and I attended a side event on the Yogyakarta Principles. The Yogyakarta Principles apply to sexual orientation and gender identity. Advocators of these principles want them to become part of international human rights law. Before attending this side event, I hadn’t heard of the Yogyakarta Principles. I found the implications of implementing these principles very interesting, especially once I had discovered that there are multiple kinds of gender identity and sexual orientation. The Yogyakarta Principles may even permit the abhorrent acts of bestiality, if this is considered a type of ‘sexual orientation’.

"On Tuesday I attended a negotiation on the working document for this session of the CSW: Access and participation of women and girls to education, science and technology, including for the promotion of women’s equal access to full employment and decent work. It was fascinating to hear delegates from all over the world comment upon, edit and suggest changes to the document that would become UN policy.

"The meticulous attention to detail - language, punctuation and phraseology - shows how thorough and important a document it is. Interestingly, it seemed that the more controversial the paragraph, the faster the chairman urged the discussion to go. By contrast, it seemed as though a disproportionately lengthy amount of time was spent on trivial paragraphs, where delegates would be excessively particular about the usage of commas and other marks of punctuation.

"After negotiations rounded off for lunch, there was a discussion on the prevention of maternal mortality and morbidity. This was of particular interest to me after having learnt about the UN prevention of maternal mortality during my internship for SPUC. The discussion was to primarily address MDG 5 and review the progress from last year. The pro-abortion agenda was quite explicit. The main preventative measure for reducing maternal mortality was to increase sexual reproductive health services [a term which they define as including access to abortion]. It was argued that early childbearing is a key factor of maternal mortality. As a result, they discussed ways to prevent early marriages; the encouragement and retention of girls in school being the main way to deter girls from entering into an early marriage. It was argued that girls who stay in school will make ‘better’ choices about when it is appropriate to marry and how to space their children ... Unfortunately, there didn’t seem to be much discussion about ensuring better pre and post natal care for mothers.

"On Wednesday I accompanied Peter when he went for lunch with Dr Seyed Vahid Karimi, first secretary and delegate for Iran. It was encouraging to meet a high profile figure who was pro-life and positive about the family. Having lunch with Peter and Dr. Karimi made me realise the importance of pro-life NGOs forming alliances with delegates. Being a pro-life presence at the UN encourages and supports pro-life delegates to continue to uphold the pro-life message in a very pressurised environment. Fr. Bene, the delegate from the Holy See was encouraged to see me and other young pro-lifers helping our NGOs and I think our enthusiasm lifted everyone’s spirits. I was glad to meet Fr. Bene and speak to him briefly. He was so committed to his duties as a delegate, attending all of the negotiations up until the small hours of the morning. Despite diligently attending the negotiations, he found the time to greet the Teen Eagles and me. The Teen Eagles were also helping pro-life NGOs and I very much enjoyed their company.

"On Thursday we met with the Ambassador of Namibia; Ambassador Emvula. This added to my ever increasing list of delegates and state figures that I’d met throughout the course of the week. That evening I was to meet the Ambassador of Iran at the Iranian reception.

"In the last two days of my time at the UN, I attended some excellent pro-life side events. We watched the premiere showing of the second Demographic Winter film, which was very insightful and thought provoking. I also attended a side event given by Sharon Slater; president of Family Watch International. This side event was a real eye opener, as the terminology used in UN documents was explained. Sharon highlighted the subtleties in UN language and the way that vague or ambiguous terms can and are used as umbrella terms; so that more can become permissible. I was shocked to learn about the kind of literature that is to be promoted and taught in schools in order for schools to have a “comprehensive sexuality education”. Some of the leaflets were published solely to promote sexual pleasure and rights. These leaflets were very graphic and encouraged sexual exploration, portraying it as some kind of right. Thankfully, Sharon exposes these issues by showing delegates what “comprehensive sexuality education” actually means and how leaflets such as “Healthy, Happy and Hot” are designed for young people, encouraging sexual exploration and activity.

"I am so thankful for having had the opportunity to attend the 55th session on the CSW at the UN. I feel as though my eyes have been opened and I have learnt a lot about how the UN works. I have had the privilege of meeting some very influential people and some truly inspiring pro-life activists who have dedicated their lives to the pro-life cause. I thank Peter Smith and SPUC for giving me this incredible experience and insight and I continue to admire their work."
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
at

This morning's must-read pro-life news-stories, Thursday 28 April

Hu Jintao, Communist China's president
Abortion
Embryology
Euthanasia
Population
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
at

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

The Catholic case against embryo adoption

Fr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant and adjunct professor of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (Australia), has kindly sent me his response (below) to a recent article by Dr Gerard Nadal, an American Catholic scientist and pro-life bioethicist, entitled "The Catholic Case for Embryo Adoption" (May I also encourage readers to order copies of Fr Fleming's book "Dignitas Personae Explained".)

Reply to Gerard Nadal’s “ Catholic case for embryo adoption”

What to with embryonic human beings left over from treatments for infertility? Gerard Nadal proposes that embryo adoption is not only a reasonable response to the question but even “an imperative”.

Dr Nadal, like many other pro-lifers, is motivated by his deep respect for the life of a human being, whether conceived inside or outside of the body of his mother. That I disagree with Dr Nadal’s reasoning should not be read as any personal criticism of a fellow Catholic pro-lifer who has admirably articulated his case based upon the best possible motives.

But, I think, his moral reasoning is not secure.

In the first place he uses the word “conceive” in two different senses.  A child is “conceived” outside of the womb of his mother.  A woman has conceived a child by virtue of being pregnant.

We see this fault in the analogy he draws between embryos created ex corporis in the laboratory, and children conceived by rape and fornication. But these situations are entirely different. In one case a woman is pregnant (ie has conceived a child) through a violent and obviously non-consensual act which we call rape. In the second case a woman is pregnant (ie has conceived a child) through a consensual act of intercourse with a man to whom she is not married, ie fornication. But in the case of an embryo created in the laboratory we something different again. Here there is no intercourse, no established biological connection with the mother – a child in complete isolation.

Second, the teaching of the Church contained in Dignitas personae (DP) is all about the dignity of the human being and human being here means all those who are affected by whatever action is done. The man masturbates to produce sperm – an insult to the dignity of the man. The woman has her entire reproductive system turned upside down to harvest eggs and later to prepare her body for implantation – an insult to the dignity of the woman. The embryonic human being is created in a glass dish – an insult to the dignity of this person too.

So when a woman is made pregnant by artificial means it is an insult to the dignity of the woman who should only become pregnant through acts of sexual intimacy with her husband.

DP is clear that “respect for that dignity is owed to every human being because each one carries in an indelible way his own dignity and value.” (DP, n 6)  Moreover, through DP the Church reminds us all “that the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in reference to both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence, and the defense of the specific character of the personal act which transmits life.

The problem with embryo adoption is that it requires artificial interventions to supplant marital intimacy as the means of making a woman pregnant. That is, we are being invited to violate one foundational ethical principle (“Procreation which is truly responsible vis-à-vis the child to be born must be the fruit of marriage”) to provide further protection for the exposed embryonic human being.  But this violates the first principle of natural law, that one must not do evil to achieve good (and cf Romans 3:8).

To support his contention that it is right to violate one good in order to achieve another, Dr Nadal refers to Christ’s behaviour on the Sabbath:
Jesus admonished the Pharisees when they took exception to His disciples picking grain and eating it on the Sabbath. He also admonished them about the lawfulness of saving life on the Sabbath, even if it meant breaking the law to do so. “Who among you would not pull his sheep out of a hole to save it on the Sabbath?”
But this is to misuse Scripture in two ways. First, it is interpreting one passage of Scripture to contradict another setting Romans 3: 8 against Christ’s teaching on the Sabbath. And second, it misunderstands Christ’s teaching on the Sabbath.

Our Lord says two things about the Sabbath:
  1. He is Lord of the Sabbath. Because his father created the Sabbath, and “the Father continues to work on the Sabbath, the divine Son can only do what his Father does (John 5:18).” [note 1] His contemporaries understood that to mean he was claiming equality with God.
  2. Jesus also claims he is “fulfilling the true intent of the Sabbath (Luke 13:10-17). In other words, by healing and restoring, he is lifting burdens from the lives of the people, giving them rest from years of physical and spiritual bondage. The Sabbath is therefore something that frees rather than something that binds (Luke 13:10-17).” [note 2]
Our Lord is teaching his disciples that “acts of charity and necessity are ... in harmony with the Sabbath’s deepest level of significance (Matt 12:1-6; Luke 6:9).” [note 3]

In no way then can these passages from the Gospels be used to justify embryo adoption, or the doing of an evil to achieve a good.

So it is that DP teaches us that the mess created by wilful human beings is not patient of an easy solution this side of the grave.  We must leave these children in the hands of God their heavenly Father.  Embryo adoption is excluded as a “Catholic” response to so-called unwanted human embryos.

The Rev’d Dr John I Fleming PhD
Adjunct Professor of Bioethics
Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (Adelaide, South Australia)

Notes:

1. Scott Hahn, ed. Catholic Bible Dictionary, New York, Doubleday, 2009, 787
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

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
at

Pro-life campaigners to hold nationwide street witness this Saturday 30 April

Pro-life campaigners will give silent witness to unborn babies killed in the 43 years since the implementation of the Abortion Act, as well as to the hurt caused to women by abortion.

This Saturday 30 April, supporters of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) will form a chain, standing at intervals holding placards which bring home the reality of abortion. The event is known as the Pro-life Chains and will be held from 11am till 1pm.

The 1967 Abortion Act came into effect on 27 April 1968. Since then, over seven million unborn children have been killed through registered abortion in Britain. This figure does not include abortions which may be caused by birth control drugs and devices. Nor does it include the number of embryos destroyed or discarded during and after in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).

The full list of locations for the event is listed below. Media outlets are welcome to send a reporter and/or photographer to cover the event. Media and supporters interested in the event should contact Tony Mullett, the event's national organiser on (01772) 258580 or at tonymullett@spuc.org.uk

Chains will take place at the following towns on Saturday 30 April 2011, 11am to 1pm, unless otherwise stated:

Ashford
Ashton-under-Lyne - Sunday 1 May
Balsall Common
Banff
Bath
Bedford - Saturday 21 May
Bideford
Birmingham, Edgbaston
Birmingham, Erdington
Birmingham, Handsworth - 12pm to 2pm
Brecon - Saturday 7 May
Bristol
Cardiff
Cheltenham
Chester
Chorley
Congleton
Cwmbran
Eccles
Edinburgh
Enniskillen
Farnham
Godalming
Guildford
Huddersfield
Hull
Kensington
Lincoln
Liverpool, Crosby
Liverpool, Wavertree
Llanelli
Milton Keynes
Narborough
Newcastle under Lyme
Newcastle upon Tyne
Paignton
Peterborough - Saturday 7 May
Plymouth
Preston
Sale
Salisbury
Sheffield
Shipley
Stevenage
Swansea
Telford
Uddingston - Saturday 7 May
Uxbridge
Vale of Glamorgan
Worthing

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
at

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

This afternoon's must-read pro-life news-stories, Tuesday 26 April

Jessica and Clint Council with their son
Abortion
Euthanasia
Sexual ethics
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
at

This morning's must-read pro-life news-stories, Tuesday 26 April

Cori Schumacher, surfing champion
Abortion
  • French bishops supporting two pro-abortion groups in Latin America [LifeSiteNews.com, 21 April] http://bit.ly/dWH26e
Euthanasia
Population
  • Women's world surfing champ (pictured) boycotts China over forced abortion [Cypress Times, 18 April] http://bit.ly/igRf14
Sexual ethics
  • British girls worst binge drinkers in western world, leading to rise in teen pregnancies [Telegraph, 22 April] http://bit.ly/e8f1MY
  • Ontario Bishops ask all Catholic high schools to implement gay anti-bullying clubs [LifeSiteNews.com, 19 April] http://bit.ly/fb6kep
  • New contraceptive pills triples blood clot risk, suggests study [Telegraph, 22 April] http://bit.ly/eiGO9H
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
at

Thursday, 21 April 2011

National delegations at UN oppose abortion & Holy See condemns use of condoms

This month SPUC witnessed twelve nations challenging the power of the pro-abortion lobby at the United Nations in New York at the annual meeting of the Commission on Population and Development.

Peter Smith, lobbying on behalf of SPUC, told me that in the Commission's final document there were 35 references to the term "reproductive" in various word combinations such as "sexual and reproductive health" and "universal access to reproductive health".

Tragically, powerful parties such as the UNFPA, Barack Obama, Britain, and the European Union define "reproductive health" as including access to abortion - and the same parties make aid to developing nations dependent on the distribution of the euphemistically-termed "reproductive health commodities".

However, at the end of the meeting the following national delegations put in reservations concerning the reproductive heath wording making it clear that abortion should not be promoted under the guise of "reproductive health":
  • Poland
  • Chile
  • Costa Rica
  • Holy See
  • Pakistan
  • St. Lucia
  • Malta
  • Honduras
  • Benin
  • Guatemala
Peter also tells me:
"The 22 countries in the Arab group stated that comprehensive sex education is not to be promoted without parents". [I note with sadness by way of contrast, as a Catholic father living in the archdiocese of Westminster in England, that our parental rights as the primary educators of our children have been powerfully opposed by our archbishop]
In addition, Peter Smith, SPUC's UN lobbyist, told me that the Holy See made a very good reservation and Fr Bene (of the Holy See delegation) stated that the Catholic Church does not condone the use of condoms either as a family planning measure or as part of HIV/AIDS prevention programmes or classes/programmes of education in sexuality - a position the Holy See also set out clearly the previous month at the UN's Commission on the Status of Women, stating:
"In closing, my delegation takes the opportunity to reaffirm all of the Holy See’s reservations on past occasions with regard to the meaning of the term 'sexual and reproductive health', which should not include abortion or abortion services. Moreover, the Holy See in no way endorses contraception or the use of condoms, either as a family planning measure or as part of HIV/AIDS prevention programmes or classes/programmes of education in sexuality. The Holy See – as well as many women in the world – is convinced that the true advancement of women is strongly linked to the recognition and the effective implementation of their rights, dignity and responsibilities. Women and men are both called to welcome, protect and foster these, for a renewed commitment towards humanity."

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
at

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Thursday 21 April

Vladimir Putin, Russian PM
Abortion
Embryology
Population
Sexual ethics
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
at

Tuesday, 19 April 2011

Young people in London are giving strong pro-life leadership

I am delighted and greatly encouraged to see young pro-lifers in London launching such bold and adventurous campaigns to defend life, as are currently being undertaken by the 40 Days for Life London team. The 40 Days team organised an ongoing prayer vigil outside of the BPAS clinic in Bedford Square (pictured). The vigil began Wednesday 9th March and concluded this past Sunday.

As well as organising a continuous all-day vigil every day for forty days, the team have also organised a number of other pro-life events.

One of these events was to hire the Notting Hill Coronet Cinema on two evenings and to host the UK Premiere of Maafa 21. Maafa 21 analyses the eugenic foundations of the abortion industry and explains that those eugenic principles are still in action today. In particular the movie focuses on the history of Planned Parenthood and it’s founder Margaret Sanger. Maafa 21 effectively reveals that racist attitudes were profoundly influential in the foundation of the abortion movement, and provides compelling evidence that racism remains hugely influential within the abortion industry today. For more information on the film visit the Maafa 21 website, or the webpage of the film’s producers Life Dynamics.

In addition to this the 40 Days team encouraged those supporting the vigil to hand out pro-life magazines all over London, and I understand they hope to keep such ventures going now that this intensive forty day period has come to a close.

I am so pleased to see such positive, effective pro-life leadership being undertaken by young people in our nation's capital and my own home town!

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
at

Today must-read pro-life news-stories, Tuesday 19 April

Patrick Stewart
Abortion
Euthanasia
Population
General
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
at

Monday, 18 April 2011

The government's cover-up of abortion stats is wrong

SPUC has responded to today's hearing in the High Court, at which the Department of Health (pictured) defended its decision not to publish break-downs of statistics on abortions of disabled children. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media earlier today:
"We are very concerned by any attempt at secrecy by the government regarding abortion. It is absolutely vital for the future protection of both unborn children and women that there is complete transparency in official statistics. Secrecy will only serve those doctors authorising or performing abortions outside the terms of the law, which is already a widespread practice.

The fact that the case relates to statistics on the severity of disabilities among aborted unborn children is not strictly relevant to the moral issue. All unborn children, whatever their physical or mental state, have an equal right to life, confirmed by international human rights law.

So we should not be asking whether cleft palate is a more or less severe disability, but why the government wants to cover up the facts about which babies it is aborting and why.

The argument for transparency is all the stronger because nearly all abortions for disability are paid for by the taxpayer, and unlike most NHS procedures, they are not done to achieve any health benefit, but to cut the cost of caring for disabled people."
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
at

The English courts should stop handing down judgments sanctioning the killing of disabled people

SPUC Pro-Life has responded to the first hearing in a case before the High Court in London, in which a woman is seeking to have assisted food and fluids removed from her brain-damaged daughter.

Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life’s general secretary, told the media earlier today:
“Since the 1992 Bland judgment, the English courts have established a trend of judgments which allow the killing of brain-damaged patients by starvation and dehydration. Such rulings are squarely contrary to the equal right to life of all human persons mandated by international human rights conventions. This case is about a human being. Whatever limitations she might have - of consciousness, feelings and so on - she still has a right to live her life, and that right must be protected and supported by the community. The supply of food and fluids, however administered, is not medical treatment but simply basic nursing care.

“We call upon the High Court to stop authorising lethal discrimination against the disabled, and stop repeating the false legal and ethical arguments it has used to justify such killings in the past.”
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
at

This morning's must-read pro-life news-stories, Monday 18 April

Abortion
Embryology
Euthanasia
Population
Sexual ethics
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
at

Friday, 15 April 2011

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Friday 15 April

Abortion
Euthanasia
Sexual ethics
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
at

Thursday, 14 April 2011

This morning's must-read pro-life news-stories, Thursday 14 April

Abortion
Embroyology
Euthanasia
General
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
at

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

People should be wary about David Quinn's writings on pro-life/pro-family issues

David Quinn, the prominent Irish Catholic commentator, has written an article for The Irish Independent on homosexual issues. The article is mainly an argument against gay marriage, but it starts:
"When homosexual acts were decriminalised in 1993, I supported the move and said so publicly. Right from that point, which is basically when I began writing a column, I also supported partnership rights for same-sex couples. I still support decriminalisation and partnership rights."
The article goes on to try to distinguish gay marriage from civil partnerships, and adds:
"In Britain, the last Labour government introduced civil partnerships but not marriage."
However, I'd be very surprised if the very well-informed Mr Quinn didn't know that civil partnerships in English law:
And, as Mr Quinn himself has written elsewhere (The Irish Catholic), Ireland's civil partnerships law:
"is deeply flawed in that it creates a new type of legal relationship for gay and lesbians couples that is almost equivalent to marriage."
So I am unclear as to why Mr Quinn, in his Irish Independent article, now implies that there is a crucial difference of great moral significance between homosexual civil partnerships and homosexual marriage, and leaving throughout the article impressions that he favours the former.

Mr Quinn focuses rightly on the nature of (heterosexual) marriage as an institution ordered towards the procreation and education of the couple's natural children, and argues how homosexual marriage is contrary to that good. So why does Mr Quinn omit to make (at least in his Irish Independent article) the same argument against civil partnerships, which in Britain, Ireland and other places are exclusive to homosexuals? (It should be noted that in the UK, homosexual adoption was legalised before, and separately from, civil partnerships.)  

I would also be very surprised if Mr Quinn did not know that any and all forms of legal recognition or privileges for homosexual couples have been condemned squarely by the highest doctrinal authority in the Catholic Church. In 2003, the late Pope John Paul II approved a document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled "Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons", signed by the current Holy Father and published on the feast-day of the Ugandan martyrs, who died rather than submit to sodomy. Here are some relevant extracts from that document, marked "CDF" and with my emphases in bold, followed by my comments:
CDF: "In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (no.5)
By the use of the word "or", the CDF made clear that the Catholic Church condemns civil partnerships between homosexuals per se and not only "[i]n those situations where homosexual unions...have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage." Mr Quinn's article fails to manifest that "clear and emphatic opposition".

In his Irish Independent article, Mr Quinn refers to "partnership rights". Also, in his earlier Irish Catholic article, he claimed:
"Very few people object to same-sex couples being given just and appropriate rights such as hospital visitation rights, and maintenance and property settlement rights."
However, the CDF's document teaches that:
"Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society." (no.9)
The CDF document also teaches that:
"The homosexual inclination is...'objectively disordered' and homosexual practices are 'sins gravely contrary to chastity'." (no.4)
Yet there is no mention in Mr Quinn's article to homosexuality as a disorder nor to the wrongness of homosexual acts. Such an omission is a failure to fulfil the requirement of the next paragraph of the CDF's document, which reads:
"Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, [for example] stating clearly the immoral nature of [homosexual] unions..." (no.5)
The final paragraph of the CDF's document says:
"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean...the approval of deviant behaviour..." (no.11)
Again, by the use of the word "or", the CDF made clear that the Catholic Church condemns civil partnerships between homosexuals per se and not only where such unions are "plac[ed] on the same level as marriage." One of the bases of this condemnation is "the approval of deviant behaviour", about which Mr Quinn's article is silent.

Mr Quinn has high-profile roles in the Catholic world and therefore his thinking can have considerable influence upon the faithful, including Catholic eduationalists.The stakes are simply too high for people to be exposed to ambiguous messages on sexual ethics. Readers may like to contact Mr Quinn via his Iona Institute to make their concerns known to him.

And why is the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 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
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)