Why the upset with Chinese scientists who "genetically modify human embryos"

Recently, concerns were expressed about Chinese scientists who "genetically modify human embryos". Fr Fleming, a leading bioethicist, puts these concerns into ethical context in an article he sent me today.

Fr Fleming writes:

The scientific community is in uproar over the newly reported experimental use of embryonic human beings to produce genetically modified human beings. (David Cyranoski& Sara Reardon, “Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos: Rumours of germline modification prove true — and look set to reignite an ethical debate”, Nature, 22 April 2015,

It seems to have frightened them. Why?

Well, it seems that Chinese scientists have been trying to produce healthy embryos from embryos which have an identifiable genetic defect. They were trying to end up with an embryo with one altered gene in every cell, but with no unwanted damage to any other DNA.

In these experiments 86 embryonic human beings were injected with the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9, a gene-editing technique. These ‘defective’ embryos, labelled ‘non-viable’ because they could not result in a live birth, were obtained from fertility clinics. It is reported:

“In almost every case, either the embryo died or the gene was not altered. Even the four embryos in which the targeted gene was edited had problems. Some of the embryo cells overrode the editing, resulting in embryos that were genetic mosaics. And speckled over their DNA was a sort of collateral damage — DNA mutations caused by the editing attempt.”

At this stage the researchers did not plan to actually produce a baby (that is to bring one of these embryonic human beings to term). So what’s the problem? Why the angst?

After all, scientists in the area of reproductive technology have used all kinds of fanciful reasons to get legal permission to experiment on human embryos, embryos which they, the scientists, say are not really human beings anyway. And they were going to get embryonic stem cells from them and cure everything from Parkinson’s disease to Alzheimer’s. That has turned out to be fanciful, the use of embryonic stem cells for therapy having got precisely nowhere, while the use of adult stem cells has powered ahead.

The thing is that scientists and law makers have broken fundamental ethical boundaries. Western scientists may legally kill embryonic human beings and justify it by the utilitarian calculation that much good will come from it. And they were moved to do so by the legal approval of killing the unborn child in abortion, again on utilitarian grounds. If you can kill a 12 week old foetus, an embryo is a mere bagatelle by comparison.

So Chinese scientists think they can do the same. Why should other scientists be so upset?

The upset is not remorse for the killings of human beings. Their concern is about what might happen if these experiments in the end give rise to the bringing of these “improved” or “edited” human beings to term. What if we then discover it has all gone wrong, that every cell in the body of these human beings is in some way contaminated or distorted with catastrophic implications for the physical and/or psychological health of these persons who are now lifetime experimental subjects, and made so without their knowledge and consent?

Even worse, what if the problems associated with such procedures are not discovered for a couple of generations, and these people have spread their defective genes to others by being involved in the conception of new human life?

Reputations of scientists will be called into question with some even questioning the scientific project as a whole. And stand by for litigation for alleged failures of duty of care and negligence! That mustn’t be allowed to happen, must it! Reputation and money are of far greater importance than the killings of the weak and defenceless.

Critic and research scientist Edward Lanphier says “we need to pause this research”. He doesn’t say ban, he just wants a “pause”.

George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Harvard, referring to in vitro fertilization, said: “Their study should give pause to any practitioner who thinks the technology is ready for testing to eradicate disease genes during I.V.F.”. “This is an unsafe procedure and should not be practiced at this time, and perhaps never.”

Well, that is what Lanphiere and Daley think. But they are not really against it, are they? No, but should just be a “pause”, and it just shouldn’t happen “at this time”. The “perhaps never” Daley adds as an afterthought is hardly reassuring. Others, and especially the Chinese, may well disagree with him. And since the medical and scientific communities have successfully abandoned their previous commitment never to do harm to human beings, how can they now, with straight faces, condemn others who are equally ethically challenged.

And law makers in the UK and elsewhere were only too willing to be seduced both by the use of spurious and emotionally charged non-scientific arguments and by the promise of spectacularly successful new treatments for all kinds of serious conditions.

But, unless there is a willingness for world communities to retrace their steps, to again be committed to the idea that science and medicine are there not to harm human beings but to benefit them, then we can expect more of what our mass media so uncritically applauds as “world first”, “the latest breakthrough”, the “last taboo overcome”, and the promise of utopia at the hands of our Dr Strangeloves.

While it is time (past time) for us to wake up from our ethical somnolence, there is no evidence yet that we have the political leaders in the UK who are prepared to face up to the mess they themselves have created. Instead we continue to be governed by those who are deaf, dumb and blind where the great challenges to human life are concerned, challenges to human life that they themselves have allowed, funded, and promoted.

Scientific researchers may not, at this stage, be prepared to go where the Chinese have gone, although I seriously doubt that. Nothing much seems to hold them back. And their own ethical logic suggests that they have no sensible ethical boundaries left to prevent developments in this kind of research.

Their hubris seems unlimited. And as research scientist Edward Lanphier concedes: “The ubiquitous access to and simplicity of creating CRISPRs creates opportunities for scientists in any part of the world to do any kind of experiments they want.”

If you are allowed to experiment on human embryos there will be many groups of researchers (four already in China) that will not be able to resist the megalomaniacal desire to recreate human beings in what they imagine is in humanity’s best interests and according to their own utopian prejudices.

Got that?

Lanphier is really conceding that once scientists are allowed to experiment on human embryos there is no way that you can stop the very experiments which they now say alarm them.

When that argument was used by those who objected to legalising experiments on embryonic human beings, it was laughed out of court as “scare mongering”. Well, some scientists are scared now, but not enough to make them rethink the very basis of their own moral position.

The great Renaissance thinker and writer, Michel de Montaigne (1553-92), in his famous classic Raymond Sebond, made this perceptive observation about hubris:

“Can anything be imagined so ridiculous, that this miserable and wretched creature [man], who is not so much as master of himself, but subject to the injuries of all things, should call himself master and emperor of the world, of which he has not power to know the least part, much less to command the whole?”

Dr John I Fleming
4 May 2015

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Cardinal Nichols will celebrate “Soho Mass” on 10th May

Cardinal Nichols meets homosexual group QUEST, March 2015

The Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Cardinal Nichols, is scheduled to celebrate Mass for “LGBT Catholics Westminster” at the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Farm Street on the evening of Sunday 10th May.

The twice-monthly “LGBT Mass” at Farm Street is the continuation of the notorious “Soho Mass” that took place for many years at Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory, Warwick Street.

Many Catholics, including myself, were hopeful that the move of the Mass to Farm Street indicated that the Archdiocese of Westminster might be prepared to take action against the open dissent that they have tolerated, indeed facilitated, for so many years.

It is now clear that the dissent continues.

I received an email last week from a tourist who, while visiting London, attended a Saturday evening vigil Mass at Farm Street. She was extremely distressed by what she experienced. I have her permission to share the email, with some personal details removed.

Dear Sir,

As a regular reader of your website, I would appreciate some guidance regarding my recent experience in a London church... As before when travelling in UK or abroad, I had previously googled the nearest RC church and mass times and I attended the Saturday evening vigil...

The gospel was about Doubting Thomas and in the homily afterwards the priest highlighted the message of mercy and forgiveness, and then talked about the forthcoming synod where there would be discussion of communion for the divorced and marriage in general, and referred to those of the ‘traditionalist view’ who would also be taking part in the discussion.  He went on to link the story of the day’s gospel to being not just about having faith but about having patience too, asking us to pray for the synod with patience so I began to wonder if this meant a prayer in favor of changes to marriage, which I felt uncomfortable with.

...

By the end of the mass I didn’t feel spiritually uplifted as I usually do and on leaving the church I introduced myself to the priest as a visitor from...  He warmly shook my hand to chat about where I was from and I then went on to ask him about the meaning of some of the things he referred to in the homily, asking him if he could please explain why John the Baptist and St Thomas More were killed. He replied they were martyred for defending the faith.  I asked him was it not really for defending marriage and he replied ‘that was only a part of it, not all of it’.  I responded that my understanding was defending marriage as laid down by our faith was the main reason they were martyred and he replied “you may well think that” and moved on ...

I have never felt such emptiness and sadness on leaving a church... The church I attended is The Immaculate Conception, Farm Street Mayfair, and on further checking online I now realise there is an LGBT group very much involved with this parish, with a letter on their website (LGBT Catholics Westminster) from Cardinal Nichols wishing their group a very successful Lent pilgrimage to Rome in the hope of meeting key Vatican officials to discuss the synod agenda.  I was very disappointed to read the newsletter on their website promoting LGBT issues while being linked to the parish in religious matters, and even highlighting several Soho ‘iconic’ LGBT clubs under threat of closure advising how to appeal to the town planning committee. 

I have always thought that everyone in church is already equal as in the hymn One Bread, One Body, without needing to know the individual views and sexual preferences of fellow worshippers. I am now left wondering that in future when travelling, in addition to checking the whereabouts of the local RC church and mass times, perhaps I should also be checking which sexual orientation the mass may be aimed at.  Having seen our government redefine marriage I am now very concerned that the church may follow suit and would appreciate some reassurance in this respect.  I would be very grateful for your advice...

In further correspondence she noted:

I am in no position to judge or criticise anyone and certainly have no objection to any LGBT person attending church and being involved in duties as any other individual parishioner, but I fail to see why special services need to be advertised for a specific group, especially one that contradicts church teaching if still practising.   I was very concerned to read the prayer on their website and also a transcript of a homily (entitled Integration of Sexuality and Spirituality dated 21.12.13) in which I found references to Our Lord and Our Lady quite disturbing.  I don't understand how a cardinal can support and encourage this.

Their April newsletter gives a good sense of what kind of an organisation "LGBT Catholics Westminster" is. For example, they are advertising a "Natural Law and Conscience Symposium" at which the notorious pro-abortion dissenter Tina Beattie will be speaking. They also advertise a meeting of "Soho & Westminster LGBT Community Forum", drawing attention to the fact that the meeting will be dealing with plans for the 2015 Pride march in London which includes a veritable cornucopia of events which flaunt images and thinking which are the enemy of Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

The newsletter is also used to promote other dissenting groups, such as ACTA and Fortunate Families, a group for "Catholic Parents of LGBT Children". Neither group makes any secret of its repudiation of Catholic doctrine. Fortunate Families, for example suggests a reading list full of heretical, harmful and blasphemous works, including a book which "presents seven models of the Queer Christ."

Like many good and faithful Catholics my correspondent is shocked that Cardinal Nichols’ would support a group that openly works against the teaching of the Church.

Unfortunately, having documented Cardinal Nichols’ words and actions relating to the teaching of the Church on homosexuality and homosexual unions over many years, I am not at all surprised to see him supporting "LGBT Catholics Westminster" in such a public way. He has already gone on record as being open to the radical agenda pursued at the Extraordinary Synod.

Troubling statements made by Cardinal Nichols on homosexuality and homosexual unions

On 2nd July 2010 Archbishop Nichols was interviewed by Stephen Sackur on BBC TV programme Hardtalk.

Stephen Sackur: The Church of England for example in this country is taking a rather different view. They believe there has to be some flexibility. The church has to be a reflection of society's values to a certain extent and therefore we see women priests, women vicars, and there's obviously in some parts of the Anglican Communion, women bishops.

Archbishop Nichols: Certainly.

Stephen Sackur: 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?

Archbishop Nichols: I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?

On 11th September 2010 Archbishop Nichols was interviewed by Neil Tweedie of The Telegraph and asked if the Church would “one day accept the reality of gay partnerships”. He replied:

“I don’t know. There is in the Book of Nature an inherent connection between human sexuality and procreation; and those two things cannot ultimately be totally separate. People who are of a homosexual orientation say: 'Well, hang on a minute. How is the Book of Nature written in me?' The most important thing the Christian tradition says is, don't see yourself simply as an isolated individual but as part of a wider family. The moral demands on all of us made by that tradition are difficult. That tradition says human sexuality is for an expression of total self-giving in fidelity in a way that is open to the creation of new life. Now, that's tough, that's a high ideal. I'm not sure many people have ever observed it in its totality, but it doesn't mean to say it has no sense.”

In July 2011 the dissenting “Catholic” homosexual lobby group QUEST held its annual conference at the Archdiocese of Westminster pastoral centre of All Saint’s at London Colney.

At the time the conference took place their website contained the following statements:

"homosexual sex is not an incomplete or less perfect expression of human sexuality..."

"the teaching of the Vatican Congregations....is incompatible with the Gospel"

"Quest, an association for lesbian and gay Catholics, welcomes in general the government's proposals to provide for legal recognition of same-sex partnerships."

On 20th September 2010 Archbishop Nichols was interviewed on the BBC by Huw Edwards for a programme reflecting on Pope Benedict's visit to Britain.

Other interviewees included Diarmaid MacCulloch, a homosexual Anglican and Oxford professor of church history, Tina Beattie, a “Catholic” academic and notorious dissenter and Lord Patten, who helped to organise the papal visit.

At 21 minutes 30 seconds into the programme, Huw Edwards to put it to Professor MacCulloch that Pope Benedict:

“clearly sees Britain...as a country where there is a lot of growing hostility to faith communities. Is that the right reading?"

Professor MacCulloch replied:

“That is a code, and it’s a code for something quite specific. The code is: now Britain treats gay people as equal with heterosexual people, and gay partnerships are on the statute book, and the Catholic hierarchy hates that fact. You see them across the world as gay marriages are introduced in country after country...”

Archbishop Nichols intervened in a firm manner to tell Professor MacCulloch:

“That’s not true, in this country. In this country, we [the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales] were very nuanced. We did NOT oppose gay civil partnerships, we recognised that in English law there might be a case for those. We persistently said that these are not the same as marriage.”

Later (at 24mins50secs into the programme) Archbishop Nichols said:

“The times we [the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales] interfere most in British politics is on poverty and education. Of course the media are obsessed with certain issues [JS: referring to a previous reference by Dr Beattie to homosexuality] but if you want to know what it is we’re really passionate about, it’s about the fight against poverty and [about] the education of young people.”

Later (at 27mins30secs into the programme), Professor MacCulloch said:

“I’m pleased to hear what the archbishop has to say about sexual questions, and it has to be said that the English Catholic Church has rather taken its own line on this, not the Vatican’s line, there is always a certain independence in the English Catholic Church. It’s is good that that should be so.”

The interview did not contain any contradiction by Archbishop Nichols of Professor MacCulloch’s statement that the “English Catholic Church” took a different line to “the Vatican”.

On 26th November 2011 The Tablet attributed the following words to Archbishop Nichols in an article entitled Archbishop Praises Civil Partnerships:

“We would want to emphasize that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,” the archbishop said. “As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life.”

On 2nd December 2011 the Catholic News Agency published the following:

When Archbishop Nichols was asked by CNA if the bishops of England were contradicting the Vatican’s guidelines, he said that the bishops have tried “to recognize the reality of the legal provision in our country of an agreement, a partnership, with many of the same legal safeguards as in marriage.” He further explained that while the bishops recognize the existence of civil partnerships, they also “believe that that is sufficient,” and that they should not be placed on par with marriage.

...

“Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation in England use a civil partnership to bring stability to a relationship,” the archbishop said, qualifying that while “equality is very important and there should be no unjust discrimination,” that “commitment plus equality do not equal marriage.”

Also December 2011, in an interview given to the BBC Today programme, Archbishop Nichols said:

“When it comes to understanding what human sexuality is for, there is a lot that we have to explore. Because I think what is at one level in the broad perspective clear, is that there is an intrinsic link between procreation and human sexuality. Now how do we start from that principle, not lose it, and have an open, ongoing conversation with those who say, well, that’s not my experience?

...

“How do we bring together some principles that if you like are written into the broad book of nature, and individual experiences? That’s the area that we have to be sensitive and open to, and genuinely wanting to explore."

23rd March 2015 - Archbishop Nichols met with leadership of dissenting lobby group QUEST, who then issued the following statement:

Quest Chair Ruby Almeida and Deputy Chair Nick Burchnall met with Cardinal Vincent Nichols at Archbishop’s House on Friday 20th March 2015. This was a planned return visit with His Eminence to discuss, amongst other things, the Icon Of Emmaus which was presented at the Quest Conference in Scarborough in July 2014. The meeting was very cordial and filled with much that was positive and constructive. This we hope, paves the way for Quest to have closer ties with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church of England and Wales, and something that our membership has been wanting for some time now.

"Marriage Care"

Cardinal Nichols is President of Marriage Care, an organisation which provides counselling services to same-sex couples. The Tablet reported, on 15th September 2011, that the Chief Executive of Marriage Care, Terry Prendergast, had said of same-sex couples; "We have offered them focused marriage preparation - private, and not in a group. This is about two people in love and one of our main aims is to support loving partnerships."

In a document on their website Marriage Care explain:

"Today, Marriage Care sees itself as a service provider of relationship education and support to all sections of the community, delivered from within a Christian ethos, developed from the organisation’s Catholic roots. We understand this Christian ethos to mean in practice that we are open to all, acknowledging the value and uniqueness of every human being regardless of gender, age, race, creed or sexual orientation.

...

"So, for Marriage Care, the Christian ethos is not made up of a set of doctrines but rather is an exhortation to the members of the charity to be visible by their inclusive and loving behaviour of the other by providing a rich variety of services across the whole community." 

The document continues:

"Does the Church community understand the real tension for Marriage Care arising from the necessary divergence of message in the delivery of marriage preparation and counselling (arising, as noted above, from different service user identities and priorities)? 

"How does Marriage Care remain in a dialogue with the hierarchy so that our specialist and particular insight and expertise might contribute to our joint learning? 

"In particular, there is a need to explore further:

- What we all think we are trying to achieve through our marriage preparation programmes.

- How we develop a language for our service provision which is understandable for our different service users.

- How we clarify what the “teaching of the church” means in the context of our messy lives." 

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

DUP leader's stance against abortion welcomed by SPUC

Peter Robinson

Campaigners for the right to life of unborn children have welcomed comments by Peter Robinson, the First Minister of Northern Ireland, that his Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) will oppose moves within the Province to legalise abortion for babies diagnosed with serious disabilities.

Liam Gibson, SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer, told the media earlier today:

"Children in the womb are perhaps the most vulnerable group in society and this is particularly true of babies who are disabled or seriously ill. The pro-life people of Northern Ireland, therefore, will be pleased to hear that attempts to introduce abortion on the grounds of foetal disability are now destined to be thrown out by the government in Belfast."

By describing plans to liberalise the law as "doomed to failure", Mr Gibson said that the First Minister was acknowledging that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are firmly opposed to the idea that disabled babies should be denied the same rights as other children.

"When the Justice Department carried out a public consultation on its proposals earlier this year, over 99 percent of responses, tens of thousands of people, were opposed to a change in the law.

The deliberate killing of even one child because he or she is disabled can never be justified. It is clear, however, that this was only the first stage in a plan to introduce widespread abortion into Northern Ireland. The First Minister, and all the politicians across the political divide who have rejected this proposal deserved to be congratulated for defending the lives of disabled babies.

What we need now is more support for mothers and better perinatal care for babies with life-limiting conditions. That support - unlike abortion - will provide a genuinely compassionate response to a tragic situation."

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Vatican endorsement of UN development goals threatens unborn children

The international pro-life pro-family coalition Voice of the Family, which is managed by SPUC, has today published the following important report. 

A statement signed by the heads of both the Pontifical Academy of Science and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences has endorsed the United Nation’s proposed creation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) despite current drafts reflecting a strong pro-abortion agenda.

The endorsement comes after a workshop held at the Vatican yesterday on climate change and sustainable development entitled “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity. The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development.”

In his contribution to the workshop UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, connected the upcoming papal encyclical on the environment with the proposed SDGs. He said:

This year, with the upcoming encyclical, the Sustainable Development Goals Summit in September, and a global climate agreement, we have an unprecedented opportunity to articulate –and create – a more sustainable future and a life of dignity for all.

Tragically, far from ensuring “a life of dignity for all”, the draft SDGs constitute a concerted attack on the right to life of unborn children and the rights of parents as the primary educators and protectors of the their children.

Thre are currently three draft sets of sustainable development goals and it is anticipated that final agreement will be reached at the end of July this year.

In a statement delivered yesterday on behalf of Voice of the Family Patrick Buckley of the Society for the Protection of Unborn outlined some of the grave moral problems associated with the SDGs as currently proposed by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Buckley said:

Goal 4 is to “achieve gender equality, social inclusion, and human rights for all”. The call for an end to preventable deaths of infants and children under the age of 5 excludes unborn children, despite the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child in its preamble recognises that “The child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

Goal 4d, which states “Ensure universal sexual and reproductive health and rights” is completely unacceptable. Such language is routinely used by the international pro-abortion and population control lobby to refer to the legalization of abortion on demand and access for children, without parental knowledge or consent, to abortion and birth control drugs and devices in countries throughout the world.

Goal 5, “Achieve Health and Wellbeing at all ages”, also includes a reference to sexual and reproductive health and family planning.

Today (29th April 2015) saw the publication of a paper entitled “A Statement of the Problem and the Demand for Transformative Solutions”, which strongly endorses the creation of SDGs. The authors of this document include Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the the PAS, Professor Margaret Archer, President of the PASS, and leading abortion and population control advocate Professor Jeremy Sachs. Sachs is one of the architects of the Millennium Development Goals and a member of the Executive Board of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, which drafted the proposed Sustainable Development Goals referred to above.

The document states:

The UN Member States have announced their determination to place Sustainable Development at the center of global cooperation, building a holistic cooperative strategy on the pillars of economic progress, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. This would involve the adoption of new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to help guide global cooperation during the course of future generations. All people of good will should encourage their governments to undertake these commitments to action.

It concluded:

In view of the persistence of poverty, the widening of economic and social inequalities, and the continued destruction of the environment, we support and endorse the call for the adoption by 2015 of new universal goals, to be called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to guide planetary scale actions after 2015

Only through the empowerment and education of women and children throughout the world will we be able to attain a world that is both just and sustainable. We have a clear moral obligation to do this, and will benefit greatly by succeeding in this goal.

This is not the first time that the PAS has co-operated with the United Nations to promote Sustainable Development Goals.

The Pontifical Academy for the Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS) jointly held a workshop last May entitled “Sustainable Nature. Sustainable Humanity. Our Responsibility.”

The final document of the workshop strongly endorsed the development of Sustainable Development Goals. Signatories included Peter Cardinal Turkson, the main drafter of the upcoming papal encyclical, Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Professor Margaret Archer, President of the PASS, and Professor Jeremy Sachs.

The statement said:

In view of the persistence of poverty, the widening of economic and social inequalities, and the continued destruction of the environment, the world’s governments called for the adoption by 2015 of new universal goals, to be called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to guide planetary-scale actions after 2015. To achieve these goals will require global cooperation, technological innovations that are within reach, and supportive economic and social policies at the national and regional levels, such as the taxation and regulation of environmental abuses, limits to the enormous power of transnational corporations and a fair redistribution of wealth. It has become abundantly clear that Humanity’s relationship with Nature needs to be undertaken by cooperative, collective action at all levels – local, regional, and global.

The technological and operational bases for a true sustainable development are available or within reach.  Extreme poverty can be ended through targeted investments in sustainable energy access, education, health, housing, social infrastructure and livelihoods for the poor.

In neither statement do the Pontifical Academies drawn any attention to the plight of the unborn children who are deliberately targeted by the proposed SDGs. While the draft SDGs may also contain laudable goals it is completely unacceptable to sacrifice the rights of unborn children in pursuit of those goals.

If the PAS and the PASS endorse the SDGs as they currently stand they will be endorsing abortion and the violation of parental rights. Voice of the Family calls on both Pontifical Academies to strongly reject the UN’s population control agenda, which is being pursued under the cover of protecting the environment.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Leading global pro-abortion advocates speak at Vatican conference

Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General

Two of the world's leading pro-abortion advocates were addressing a Vatican workshop on the environment today.

At the same time, a press conference at the Palazzo Cesi, in Rome, organised by the Heartland Institute, was addressed by two leading SPUC officials on behalf of Voice of the Family, warning that the population control lobby was advancing its agenda by means of the workshop held today by the Pontifical Academy for Sciences.

The following statement was delivered by Patrick Buckley, UN envoy of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, who was joined in Rome by Maria Madise, SPUC's international manager and manager of Voice of the Family:

Voice of the Family statement on the workshop “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity. The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development” held at the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, 28th April 2015

We wish to express our grave concern at the presence of Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute, at the Vatican workshop Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity. The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development held by the Pontifical Academy for Sciences (PAS), Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and Religions for Peace on April 28th 2015 in anticipation of the new papal encyclical on the environment.

Ban Ki Moon and Professor Jeffrey Sachs are noted advocates of abortion who operate at the highest levels of the United Nations.

The Vatican workshop aims to “raise awareness and build a consensus that the values of sustainable development cohere with values of the leading religious traditions, with a special focus on the most vulnerable.”

Unfortunately, pro-life and pro-family advocates who lobby at the UN have witnessed the environmental issues become an umbrella to cover a wide spectrum of attacks on human life and the family. These attacks pose an immediate threat to the lives of the most vulnerable – the unborn, the disabled and the elderly – as well as grave violations of parental rights.

In light of the attacks on innocent human life witnessed at the UN under the guise of environmental concerns, we are troubled to note the Vatican workshop’s desire “to help build a global movement across all religions for sustainable development and climate change throughout 2015 and beyond”. This timetable exactly coincides with the negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the UN, which include strong attacks on life and family. The SDG agenda will determine the direction and financial aid for the third world countries for the next 15 years.

Understandably the population control, pro-abortion lobby must be feeling very much empowered by the influence being exercised in the Vatican by two of the culture of death’s leading figures, Ban Ki Moon and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, especially just before the publication of an encyclical on the environment.

Ban Ki-Moon, who is one of the main speakers at the workshop at the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences, has on many occasions promoted the so-called “right” to abortion worldwide. (1) He also issued a controversial new report this year on sexual violence in conflict zones, which was critical of the lack of “safe abortion” in many conflict situations. The directive openly defies the consensus at the UN that abortion is an issue that should be left to individual nations.

Dr Jeffrey Sachs, who is also addressing the meeting, is a well-known international proponent of population control and abortion. (2) Sachs is one of the architects of the millennium development goals and a member of the Executive Board of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The Network has proposed draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which contain provisions that are radically antagonistic to the right to life from conception to natural death, to the rights and dignity of the family and to the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children.

Our concerns relate specifically to Goals 4 and 5.

Goal 4 is to “achieve gender equality, social inclusion, and human rights for all”. The call for an end to preventable deaths of infants and children under the age of 5 excludes unborn children, despite the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child in its preamble recognises that “The child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

Goal 4d, which states “Ensure universal sexual and reproductive health and rights” is completely unacceptable. Such language is routinely used by the international pro-abortion and population control lobby to refer to the legalization of abortion on demand and access for children, without parental knowledge or consent, to abortion and birth control drugs and devices in countries throughout the world. (3)

Goal 5, “Achieve Health and Wellbeing at all ages”, also includes a reference to sexual and reproductive health and family planning. (4)

In the light of all that has been said, it will be clear why Catholic families all over the world are greatly concerned that Vatican institutions may embrace the language of the United Nations, which, on the surface, speaks of protecting the environment while in reality providing cover for an anti-life and anti-family agenda. Any discussion on the environment must stem from understanding that the family, defined correctly, is the key to sustainable development, particularly at this time when the Synod on the Family has been called by Pope Francis to consider problems facing the family.

The family according to article 16.3 of the Universal Declaration (1948) is the “natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.

Furthermore, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the post-2015 development agenda must take account of the family; this is, in fact, recognised by the UN Secretary General’s 2011 Family Report. (5)

Accordingly, Voice of the Family proposes that the SDGs should contain a goal to strengthen the family and include realistic targets in that regard.

The holding of this vitally important conference in the Vatican at this crucial time in-between the two family synods and in the lead-up to the publication of the Sustainable Development Goals, and with the participation of these leading international pro-abortion advocates, is all the more worrying in the light of the most recent statement of Hilary Clinton saying, effectively, that opposition to abortion must cease to exist, even in the teaching of the Church.

We wish to place on record our view that, in any international agreement concerning the future of the human family, it is indispensable to assert the obligation for states to provide for the legal protection of the right to life of every human being from the moment of conception until natural death and to uphold the family as the fundamental group unit of society.

Footnotes
(1) In September 2010 at the Human Rights Council in Geneva and Navanethem Pillay, the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, launched a report “on discrimination against women, in law and practice, and how the issue is addressed throughout the United Nations human rights system”. In that report they called for the policing of nations worldwide to “address the refusal of physicians to perform legal abortions”

(2) In his book Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet Paperback – 26 Mar 2009 which deals with “global warming, poverty, war, deforestation and mass extinctions”, Sachs argues for legalised abortion.

(3) For example, in a speech on October 12th 2009, Wellington Webb, appointed by Barack Obama as special adviser to the US mission to the United Nations, confirmed that the Obama administration will be promoting legalised abortion throughout the world, targeting adolescents in a worldwide abortion drive. The ambassador was speaking at the UN's 15th anniversary commemoration of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). His speech expressly committed the US government to promoting "access to reproductive health commodities and services for adolescents". Webb stated: "President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice have all underscored the strong support of the United States for human rights, women's rights and reproductive rights as well as universal access to reproductive health and family planning".
Hillary Clinton, Obama's appointee as US Secretary of State, had already made it clear that when the US government speaks of reproductive health, it's a term which includes access to abortion. In April, 2009, Hilary Clinton told Congressman Chris Smith at a hearing of the US Congress Foreign Affairs Committee "We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion ... ”

(4) http://unsdsn.org/resources/goals-and-targets/

(5) “The majority of the Millennium Development targets, especially those relating to the reduction of poverty, education of children and reduction in maternal mortality, are difficult to attain unless the strategies to achieve them focus on the family.” (SG Family Report 2011 (A/66/62–E/2011/4)
“The stability and cohesiveness of communities and societies largely rest on the strength of the family.” (SG Family Report 2011 (A/66/62–E/2011/4)

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Birmingham's March for Life takes us back to geographical roots of the evil of abortion

On St George's Day last week, March for Life published a short piece explaining why it's most appropriate to hold the event in Birmingham:

"Birmingham has infamous historic roots with the abortion movement. The largest single abortion provider in the UK is BPAS (the British Pregnancy Advisory Service). This organisation was founded in Birmingham in 1968 and was originally known as the Birmingham Pregnancy Advisory Service. On Saturday May 16th we will be going back to the geographical roots of this evil to shower it with our witness of truth."

Check out the March for Life website for details of the event.

March for Life has also published a moving testimony to the power of God working through a person's witness to the unborn child and his or right to life at "evil's sanctuary" (what a powerful phrase!) - that is, outside an abortion clinic in a 40 Days for Life campaign.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Colombian archbishop: The Church will close health centres if you force us to practise euthanasia

It's good to read today in EWTN news the robust rejection of the culture of death by a leading Colombian archbishop:

"A top Colombian archbishop warned that if the country's government persists in forcing Catholic hospitals to start practicing euthanasia on patients, the Church will close all its health centers.

"Bishop Juan Vicente Cordoba Cordoba – head the Colombian Catholic bishops' conference [sic]* – vowed that the bishops would appeal to 'national and international legal institutions and if we don't get answers on euthanasia, we will proceed to close all our hospitals if they insist on forcing us to kill.'"

The full story makes inspiring reading.

May I suggest to visitors to my blog that they draw the attention of their diocesan bishop to this story? This is exactly what our bishops should be saying to the government:

If you force us to teach pupils that a man and a man can get married, we will close our schools

If you force us to give children in our school information on and/or access to contraception and abortion 'services' we will close our schools

... instead in one diocese after another at best (with rare courageous exceptions), failing to resist, and at worst actively going along with government policies.

Once again, the words of Jesus Christ, which I quoted two days ago on my blog, spring to mind regarding such church leaders:

"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew: 18,6)

*Bishop Juan Vicente Cordoba Cordoba is president of the Colombian Catholic Bishops' Committee on Life.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

They are not afraid! The Nigerian pro-life movement awakens

Today, Rhoslyn Thomas, SPUC's youth organiser, has kindly written the following account of the growing Nigerian pro-life movement:

When I was asked by the co-founder of Culture of Life Africa, Obianuju (Uju) Ekeocha, to attend the International Pro-life & Family Conference (hosted by the Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Ibadan, Nigeria), I didn’t know what to expect, but I knew I wanted to be there.

The first day of the conference

Uju is effectively living a double-life: by day, she is a Specialist Bio-Medical Scientist in the UK, by night, she is a pro-life activist, having meetings with pro-life leaders and doing radio and television interviews to defend the traditional culture of life in Africa. In her spare time, she is campaigning and pushing against anti-life giants to keep Nigeria, and the rest of Africa, free from their clutches.

Uju delivers the keynote address at the conference

Uju’s pro-life mission began when she penned an open letter to Melinda Gates, who was hosting a conference in London which focused on spreading contraception to the 69 poorest countries in the world, most of which were in sub-saharan Africa. Since then, she has campaigned all over Africa, in the UK and at the UN to keep African parents and their babies safe from Western plans to limit their families (or even better, to have no families at all)

Nigeria is currently at the centre of a battle where Western organisations are desperate to export abortion, contraception and the full acceptance of homosexuality (and all that entails) to countries where these things are currently illegal and rejected by the population in general. Organisations like the UNFPA are even recruiting Nigerian people to spread this message ‘from the inside’. Brian Clowes of Human Life International, who spoke at the conference in Ibadan, speaks of the “colonisation of the mind”. This is where organisations seek to destroy the traditional pro-life, pro-family mind of the targeted people and make them eager to participate in their own mass absorption into the culture of the coloniser.

This conference was called to educate and inform faithful Nigerian Catholics in how to battle against these organisations, equipping them with knowledge of the dirty tactics that will be used and the techniques and ideologies which are being proposed. The Nigerian Catholic bishops recognise that they must lead the Catholic faithful in this fight (read the conference resolutions).

(left-right) Archbishop Abegunrin, Bishop Badejo, Bishop Ajakeye, Archbishop Emeritus Alaba Job, Bishop Arogundade, Reverend Fr Francis Adesina - Rector of SS Peter & Paul Seminary, Ibadan.

This year was the third pro-life conference to be held in Nigeria, but the first in Ibadan. I was not sure what to expect, but whatever I was expecting, it was not on this level.

Some 1,500 Nigerian Catholics (and some Muslims) had travelled from all over Nigeria to attend the two-day conference. When we arrived at the conference centre, we were greeted by four bishops and the Archbishop of Ibadan: Archbishop Gabriel Abegunrin.

Wendy Wright of C-FAM

The following day, we listened to talks on every aspect of the pro-life fight, from Uju’s keynote address, C-FAM’s Wendy Wright, whose title was ‘Resisting the Rising Tide of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights’, Msgr. Paschal Nwaezaepu’s excellent overview of aggressive reproductive technology to Prof. M.C. Asuzu’s talk on Secular Humanism. I couldn’t believe the standard of speakers (including our very own Antonia Tully, speaking on sex education in schools) and the positive reaction from those listening and taking notes.

Brian Clowes of Human Life International

What struck me more than anything throughout the day was the consistent emphasis on the need for action. This was the message from all the bishops and all the speakers, especially the Nigerian ones: those who attend the conference must not hear the truth, be told of the threats to their country and their culture and then return home and do nothing. This cannot happen because the consequences of inaction at this stage are too serious.

Antonia Tully presents the SPUC foetal model set

We cannot all travel the world or appear on television, but we can all be a witness in our own families and communities, we can all pray for the protection of human life, we can all write letters, vote for politicians who are committed to protecting life, raise our children to be pro-life and ensure they are not being taught evil at school. This is exactly the message which I would give to any pro-lifer in any country, but to hear it from a bishop or a professor is so much more powerful.

Participants from the march return to the university, wearing the conference hats and t-shirts

What I also heard were stories from people such as Jerry Okwuosa, Director General of the Project For Human Development (PHD). They describe themselves as “a not-for-profit NGO which promotes family values, the dignity of the human person, authentic rights of women and children, the dignity of labour and other pristine values which form the substructure for the building of our national values”. These are the kind of people who have been holding the fort since the 1970s, when attempts were first made to legalise abortion in Nigeria. Jerry regaled us with stories of tracking down illegal abortionists who would run away once they saw him coming, of walking into pharmacies and asking as loudly as possible where they kept their contraception because he knew they would be the shame of the village when it was found what they were selling.

It was not all happy stories though. The fact is that abortions happen in Nigeria, and they are not rare (although we do not have figures, since they are all illegal abortions and therefore undocumented). Uju told us that she knows there are illegal abortion centres run by Marie Stopes International in both Lagos and Abuja, but nothing is done to stop them.

Antonia walking on the march with Jerry Okwuosa of PHD (left) and Brian Clowes

On the second day of the conference, we took part in a huge March for Life through the town of Ibadan, around the area surrounding the university.

This lasted about two hours and, as far as I know, there were the same number of people (around 1,500 people) on this march. Everyone was full of energy, holding banners, playing instruments, chanting and singing. I saw in some pictures afterwards that there were even some people carrying small caskets.

Some people were even running up to those standing on the street to challenge them on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. They are not afraid!

Antonia and Uju speaking with the Vice Chancellor of Ibadan University

It was extremely humid but nobody seemed to care as they danced up the street and sang “Yes yes to life, no no to death” with Bishop Badejo and Archbishop Abegunrin leading them. There was an overwhelming feeling of joy on the march.

Rhoslyn helping to carry a banner on the March for Life

In the afternoon, each of the speakers delivered their workshop presentations to at least three groups. I found everyone in the groups who attended my workshop to be very eager to learn but also very knowledgeable and full of zeal. They just wanted to spread this pro-life message to as many people as possible. Antonia had brought SPUC literature to distribute to those attending the workshop and I’m told it was all gone after the first group!

Rhoslyn delivers a presentation later in the week

We could learn a thing or two from the pro-life movement in Nigeria. For one thing, my Dad asked me if the Nigerian bishops could please come and teach our bishops how to hold a pro-life conference! I pointed out that in spite of the joy and zeal at the conference, they have a huge mission in front of them. In many cases, more money is being spent by organisations like DFID on contraception in Africa than on education and sanitation. British Council scholarships are no longer commonplace, as they once were. Nigerians striving to protect the family must fight against all this and more. We cannot all campaign for them at the UN, but we can all speak out in our own way against this new form of colonialism. If you are the praying type, please re-double your efforts on their part.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Sinn Féin declares war on marriage and the family

Any idea enjoyed by Catholics or non-Catholics around the world that Sinn Féin is committed to the Catholic religion or to the common good must be completely dispelled today.

At a press event, reported today by Campaign for Marriage, they have declared war on marriage and the family by announcing a "vigorous" campaign to re-define marriage.

Furthermore, a Sinn Féin motion, below, is to be debated 27 April in Stormont:

That this Assembly welcomes the marriage equality referendum in the south of Ireland; notes that a growing number of parliaments across the world have embraced, and legislated for, marriage equality; respects the rights of the religious institutions to define, observe and practise marriage within their beliefs; and calls on the Executive to legislate for marriage equality for same sex couples so that all citizens will have the same legal entitlement to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations and benefits afforded by the legal institution of marriage.

As I report today, the Nigerian bishops have (accurately) described same-sex marriage as harming the innocence of children - a fact which is confirmed in schools around Britain where Stonewall, a militant homosexual group, has been invited into schools (not excluding Catholic schools) to train teachers on how to educate little children about marriage.

One cannot but recall the words of Christ:

"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew: 18,6)

Of course, everyone knows that Catholic teaching is unequivocally opposed to same-sex unions. What is also overwhelmingly clear to everyone who studies the evidence objectively, however, is that same-sex unions are deeply damaging to the common good.

The experience of legalising marriage for same-sex couples in Europe and North America shows that such legalisation has negative effects for real marriage and for families, shows latest evidence.

The evidence was presented to the House of Commons committee examining the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, in a written submission by Dr Patricia Morgan, the British family policy researcher, on behalf of SPUC. The submission can be read in full at www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/ssmsub20130301

Based on research and data from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada and the US, Dr Morgan concluded that:

• as marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, this reinforces the idea that marriage is irrelevant to parenthood
• same-sex marriage leads to the casualisation of heterosexual unions and separation of marriage and parenthood
• Spain saw a pronounced acceleration in the decline of marriage following the introduction of same-sex marriage (same-sex marriage was introduced at the same time as the ‘express divorce bill’)
• across all countries analysed, no causal link has been established to support the idea that same-sex marriage prevents marital decline
• in the move to same-sex marriage, opposite-sex relationships have to conform to gay norms rather than vice-versa
• a publicly-professed, legal, partnership does not prevent homosexual couples from breaking up more frequently than married heterosexual couples
• experience with same-sex partnerships/marriage legislation tends to suggest that availability is all, and participation more or less irrelevant to sexual minorities
• same-sex marriage may be the end-game of long-running anti-marriage, anti-family policy typified by Sweden
• same-sex marriage may begin the process of severing marriage from family in otherwise family-friendly societies such as Spain and the Netherlands
• same-sex marriage triggers dismemberment of family structures in family-friendly societies.

As a pro-life organisation, SPUC campaigns against same-sex marriage because:

• marriage - the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman - is the basis of the family, the fundamental group unit of society. Upholding marriage is therefore in everyone’s interests.
• marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage.
• same-sex marriage lacks basic elements of true marriage e.g. the complementary sexual difference between spouses necessary for the procreation and healthy upbringing of children.
• same-sex marriage represents an attempt to redefine marriage, thus undermining marriage. This undermining lessens the protection for unborn children which true marriage provides.

Sinn Féin, and indeed any political party which seeks to foist the redefinition of marriage on the good people of Ireland, should be utterly ashamed of themselves and will be judged by history to have proved to be the enemies of marriage, the family and, above all, of children.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Same-sex unions harm the innocence of children, say Nigerian bishops

SPUC's UK team with His Grace,
the Archbishop of Ibadan (full picture details
in story)

Antonia Tully, SPUC's Safe at School co-ordinator, and Rhoslyn Thomas, SPUC's youth organiser, spoke last week at major pro-life conference in Nigeria organised by the bishops of Ibadan Province.

In the picture to the right you can see SPUC's UK team with his Grace the Most Reverend Gabriel Abegunrin, Archbishop of Ibadan: from left to right, Emmi Egbuono, an SPUC member from London who came as a volunteer to support the SPUC team in her native Nigeria, Antonia Tully, leader of SPUC's Safe at School initiative, and, to the right of His Grace, Rhoslyn Thomas, SPUC's youth organiser.

 

Antonia has sent me this truly edifying account of their experience:

The Catholic bishops of the province of Ibadan have shown outstanding pro-life leadership in organising a two-day conference to inspire and inform the lay people and clergy in their care. And it was a truly inspirational event.

Over 1,000 people packed the conference hall - all brimming with enthusiasm and energy, eager to absorb the facts, figures and messages from a range of Nigerian and overseas speakers.

It was an honour for SPUC to be invited for a second year running to send speakers to address a conference organised by Nigerian bishops.

In a press statement prior to the conference the bishops in Ibadan Province headed by His Grace the Most Reverend Gabriel Abegunrin, Archbishop of Ibadan, said: "Witnessing to the dignity of human life should include the defence of marriage between a man and a woman,the promotion of chastity,the campaign against abortion and all forms of artificial birth control, as well as the promotion of natural family planning methods while seeking to empower all Nigerians to live a more dignified life".

A high point of the two day conference was the March For Life along a main road through Ibadan. This was a wonderful public witness to life and gave everyone a strong sense of belonging to a growing and vibrant pro-life movement. Throughout the duration of the march people sang "Yes, yes to life: No, no to death"; a song specially written for the march.

The message, to which Antonia refers,  for the pro-life movement everywhere from the bishops of Ibadan, is so clear and uplifting, I reproduce it in full below. People in every part of the world need to be empowered to live dignified lives and we can learn so much from these leaders of the Catholic faithful in Nigeria. On behalf of SPUC, I thank them for their prophetic words.

For those of us not privileged to be present, Antonia tells me that this ten minute video captures the atmosphere of the conference and the march:



Ibadan Catholic Ecclesiastical Province: 13-15 April Press Conference given at the Catholic Chaplaincy of the University of Ibadan, Oyo State

TOPIC: Protecting Human Life and Family Values in the Rising Tide of the Culture of Death

This Pro Life and Pro Family Conference is a response by the Catholic Bishops and Church of Ibadan Ecclesiastical Province to the dire situation around us of increasing violation of the sanctity of human life at every stage and in every manner. It is also in alignment with the Holy Father, Pope Francis who has convoked a special Synod dedicated to the family which was held in October 2014 and another one to hold in October 2015 to reflect on the means of sustaining and supporting marriage family life. This Conference will bring together Pro-life and Family advocates and resource persons, leaders, stakeholders from Africa, Europe and America and the general public to reflect with our Church in the Province of Ibadan on the family as the foundation of the Culture of Life. It will also help to develop strategies for defending the sanctity and dignity of human life.

The present situation of continual bloodshed due to wanton killing, terrorism, inter ethnic conflicts, ritual killing, armed robbery, murders, traffic accidents and suicide in Nigeria seriously calls to question our identity as Africans and our civility as a nation. As the general elections continue in Nigeria we feel compelled to speak up for respect for human life and dignity and the recovery of family values among our peoples.

Therefore, the following are the insights and contents of our Pro-Life and Pro-Family Conference:

1. God is the giver of all human life and only He has the right to take it. Every conceived child is formed and perfected in the image and likeness of God. Human life therefore begins at the moment of conception, and must be protected until natural death. Nigerians love life, they welcome children as precious gifts, celebrate motherhood and uphold marriage as a union between man and woman. Every child deserves a home and the love and care of a father and a mother.

2. Witnessing to the dignity of human life should include the defense of marriage between a man and a woman, the promotion of chastity, the campaign against abortion and all forms of artificial birth control, as well as the promotion of natural family planning methods while seeking to empower all Nigerians to live a more dignified life.

3. The family is God’s precious gift to humanity which ought to be continually cherished. It is the bedrock and foundation of the development of a better society because it has the primary role of educating children which provides formation of character and ensures ethical living.

4. Only sacramental marriage between a man and a woman forms the foundation for the human family. Such a covenantal union is the true source for procreation offered to man by God. This Conference will attempt to show the lie of same-sex unions as a grossly disordered phenomenon which should never be given legal status in Nigeria. The adoption or promotion of same-sex unions undermines the right to life, right to freedom of conscience, religious liberty, respect for moral and cultural values, etc. It also harms the innocence of children, degrades marriage and family life and destabilizes society, now and in the future.

5. For us, to be Pro-Life is to be Pro-Christ, for Jesus came to give life and life to the full (Cf. John, 10:10). We are however thankful that other religions have a strong sense of the sanctity of human life as a gift of God as well. It is therefore imperative for the Catholic Church and all religious organizations in Nigeria to be more courageous and consistent in Pro-Life activities in favor of human life, marriage and the family as counter-cultural antidotes to contemporary secular humanism and other anti-life ideologies and practices. This call is urgent, as campaigns and lobbies against life, marriage and family in Nigeria have become more intense at both the Federal and State legislative levels.

6. Government must recognize and respect the primordial origin of the family and do its profound moral duty to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable human beings from all threats. Professionals and practitioners of media particularly have a special responsibility before God in this regard. The right to life - the most basic of all human rights - applies to all, regardless of race, colour, creed, sex, religion, state of physical health, age, stage of development or condition of dependency. Government policies and programmes therefore ought to reckon with and protectt this fact of our common humanity.

7. We condemn the relentless promotion by some international organizations of Western style “sexuality and reproductive rights”, a euphemism for abortion, artificial family planning and a culture of contraception, as deceptive and unacceptable. Accordingly, we ask that all legislations for abortion, which is the intentional killing of innocent babies in the womb, be denounced and abrogated. We remain resolved in our efforts to ensure that abortion is never legalized in our country. We also wish to alert our people to the surreptitious infiltration of our school curricula by lobbyists of these corrosive anti-life agenda of pervasive contraception abortion and even homosexuality generally for monetary gains.

8. The entire human person belongs to God. This means that neither the human person nor his body parts can be reduced to commodity for commercial purposes. Therefore, we strongly condemn human trafficking, the sex trade, human egg trafficking, embryo manipulations and organ poaching or harvesting.

Finally in the name of our merciful God we call for an end to all forms of terrorism, ritual and political killing. As Pope Saint John Paul II of blessed memory exhorted us, we urge every person of goodwill to continue courageously to witness to the dignity of every human life at every stage and age and to the indispensability of marriage and family life in Nigeria for the development and sanity of our country and the future of all our children.

Thank you all for listening

Most Reverend Gabriel Abegunrin, Archbishop of Ibadan
Most Reverend Ayomaria Atoyebi, Bishop of Ilorin
Most Reverend Emmanuel Badejo, Bishop of Oyo
Most Reverend Felix Ajakaye, Bishop of Ekiti
Most Reverend Jude Arogundade, Bishop of Ondo
Very Rev. Fr Michael Okodua, Vicar General of Osogbo Diocese

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy