Miserable sinner, aspiring saint, propensity towards melodrama and general bawdiness, probably not the best example of holiness, but trying nonetheless. A woman who wears her heart on her sleeve and talks a great deal of nonsense. You're not going to gain any profound insight from my ramblings and fulminations, but you're welcome to share the journey.
Those calling for the liberalisation of Ireland’s abortion laws are making much capital of the fact that Savita was allegedly denied an abortion. According to the rhetoric, Ireland’s law should have allowed her to have an abortion, the moment she asked for one. Savita was miscarrying a wanted child. She was in agony and experiencing considerable distress, therefore she asked for the treatment for her miscarriage that she believed was most likely to swiftly deliver her from torment, which is more than understandable. Faced with an identical situation, most of us would do the same, I had a suspected ectopic in one of my pregnancies, the pain was excruciating and I would have done almost anything to make it stop.
Though Savita had unquestionable medical knowledge, like most of us, she was not a qualified obstetrician. She was not requesting an abortion, but what she believed was the most appropriate course of treatment for her miscarriage; one that would get the ordeal over for her quickly. Though medics must consider the feelings of their patients when it comes to treatment, they are not obliged to follow patients’ demands, no-one can force a surgeon to operate against their will, particularly not if the surgeon does not believe it to be in the patient’s best interests. Though a patient is able to withhold medical consent, they are not able to determine the precise and exact nature of their treatment. A pregnant woman cannot force a doctor to induce her baby at 36 or 37 weeks or carry out a planned cesarian simply because it is her will. She may think she has a valid medical reason, but ultimately the decision is in the hands of the doctors, as is the case with any medical treatment. Being a pregnant woman does not privilege one when it comes to determining medical treatment.This case is not about the refusal of abortion, but the mismanagement of a miscarriage and medical malpractice. James Reilly, Ireland’s health minister, himself a doctor, noted that allowing a miscarriage to occur naturally can often be the safest option.
For those blaming Ireland’s Catholic culture, this is not the view of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin who believes that Ireland “is now a highly secularised society, and many look to the Church through a secularised lens to the point that, in a sense, one could speak of what I call ‘a climate of undeclared heresy’ that pervades many dimensions of understanding of Faith among Catholics.” We do not know whether the medic who reportedly uttered the phrase ‘this is a Catholic country” said this in support of the law or against it; either way they were theologically, medically and legally uninformed.
All of us who identify as pro-life would like to express our sincere condolences to Savita’s family on the loss of this beautiful young woman and her baby. No-one believes that a woman should be compelled by law to sacrifice her life for that of her unborn child and as everyone has pointed out, treating Savita would neither have contravened Catholic bio-ethics nor Irish law.
None of that is any consolation however, an enquiry needs to take place and if necessary dismissals and re-training need to occur to ensure Ireland manages to maintain its place as one of the safest places in the world to give birth, a country safer for pregnant women than the UK.
It seems that the removal of Jimmy Savile’s gaudy headstone is not sufficient for those intent on wreaking their revenge for his alleged crimes. Savile’s mortal remains are to face our society’s more civilised version of the gibbet – there are calls for him to be disinterred and cremated, or even ignominiously dumped at sea so that no earthly trace of him remains. In a move reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth or the Soviet Union, his appearances are being wiped from any re-runs of Top of The Pops 2.
The latter move is perhaps understandable; to continue to feature him would be an insensitive move on behalf of the BBC, but I am uncomfortable with the proposition of disinterring him. As a vessel of the Holy Spirit, human remains must be accorded the respect and dignity due to all human beings, regardless of their crimes here on earth. The deceased’s last wishes must be taken into account and Savile was explicit with regards to what he wished to happen, even detailing the site and angle of his burial. Even those facing execution on death row for multiple murders are allowed to make requests as to the treatment and burial of their corpse.
Savile’s Catholic faith cannot simply be disregarded because his deeds went unpunished. Though we can all make guesses as to his psychological condition, we cannot presume to know what was in his heart. It is perfectly possible that he may well have made a good confession before he died. We cannot know whether or not he repented for his terrible deeds or whether he was truly sorry. That is between him and The Lord.
Preferred Catholic practice is for burial of remains because of the truth of the resurrection of the body and reunification with the soul when Jesus returns at the Last Judgement. The early church retained the Jewish tradition of burial rejecting the Roman pagan ritual of cremation, because God has created each person in His image and Likeness and therefore the body is good and must be returned to earth after death. Christ himself died and was buried in a tomb and rose at Easter, therefore the early Christians buried their dead out of respect and in anticipation of the Last Judgement. The Church’s stance against cremation and belief in the bodily resurrection was mocked by their persecutors who often burnt Christian martyrs and scattered their ashes as a sign of contempt. If Catholics are cremated, their remains must not be scattered or kept on the mantelpiece but must instead be interred in their entirety in a cemetery. That’s not to say that those loved ones who have had their ashes scattered will not experience the resurrection, we trust in the Lord’s power, mercy and love, but canon law states the following:
“The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching” (No. 1176, 3).
To dig him up and cremate him is profoundly un-Christian and indicative of the post-Christian age in which we now live. Frustrated that he escaped punishment in his lifetime, we now seek to exact revenge upon his body, not trusting that he will already have faced judgement and possibly punishment.
If Savile is to be removed from his high profile resting place out of respect for the bereaved relatives of those who share the cemetery and his victims, then he needs to be reinterred intact and anonymously, preferably in a Catholic cemetery where his grave can be visited by his relatives and regularly blessed and prayed at, in accordance with Catholic custom for all our dead, regardless of earthly sins.
It would be truly horrifying if the authorities felt that they could redefine or override religious practice in terms of how we should treat our dead. To exhume and cremate Savile would be allowing the state to make a judgement on his faith, what constitutes a real Catholic and moreover, his soul. I do hope that he has a decent Catholic advocate.
Catholic Care has predictably lost its battle to change its constitution to explicitly allow only heterosexual couples to adopt. It is a blow to religious freedom and difficult to see how the ruling fits in with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that religious conscience rights should not be trumped, unless it is ‘necessary’.
What is concerning about the ruling is that in focusing purely on the perceived discrimination aspect, it seeks to put the rights of prospective adoptive parents above the needs of the child. The Catholic adoption agencies had particular specialist expertise in terms of placing the most difficult children, taking scores out of the care system and putting them in loving families. The legislation underpinning the decision was drafted in order to avoid discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Since when did the adoption of children become a service? It’s rather alarming if children are now consolidated as goods via the law and this decision paves the way for the inevitable gay marriage in Church test case which will occur if or when gay marriage is enacted into law.
The barrister for the Charity Commission also displayed a woeful lack of understanding of Catholic doctrine, by stating that ‘the Church’s belief that homosexuality is sinful’ must not be protected. The Church does not believe or teach that homosexual inclination is sinful, but that all sexual acts outside marriage constitute a sin. The Church understands that people may not be able to control their innate sexuality, however she asks all of her members to exercise appropriate restraint and chastity.
The irritating thing about this case, is that it could have so easily been won. Neil Addison blogged about it on three separate occasions. It’s worth revisiting his posts here,here, and here. Neil maintains that Catholic Care were pursuing entirely the wrong legal remedy and could never have hoped to succeed.
The change that Catholic Care wished to enact was automatically discriminatory and therefore destined to failure as Neil advised back in 2009. Had they amended their constitution as follows:
“The Charity shall not have power to engage in any activity which it knows, or reasonably believes, is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church; the formal opinion of the Bishop of [ ] shall be final in any question as to what is the teaching of the Catholic Church”
then this would have been indirectly discriminatory, rather than directly discriminatory and thus the Catholic agencies would have been able to continue their good work, as has happened in Scotland, who followed this route as did the Evangelical Protestant Alliance.
Of course one still cannot ignore the disturbing ramifications that the judgement has for religious freedom, the Catholic agencies should not have been put in the position where they were forced to chose between the exemplary work that they did or staying true to their ethos, questions need to be asked about why parental rights are put above the needs of vulnerable children and why could there not be scope for several different kinds of agencies. The type of work that the Catholic agencies carried out was as a supplement to local authority agencies, who are free to follow their own secular agendas. Why did there need to be a one-size fits all policy?
But most importantly, questions need to be asked as to why the advice of the Thomas More Legal Centre was not followed in order to allow the Catholic adoption agencies to continue their work unhindered. Rather than asking why we should not fight battles that we cannot win, the question should be why enter into legal battles that were wholly unnecessary in the first place?
The Catholic theologian Professor Tina Beattie is this morning complaining about the ‘Sovietisation’ of the Catholic Church, following the cancellation of a series of public lectures at a Catholic University in San Diego. This comes hot on the heels of a cancellation of a lecture she was due to give at Clifton Cathedral in August.
The reason for these cancellations is that Professor Beattie openly dissents from Catholic teaching; she was one of the signatories to a letter to the Times stating that Catholics could in good conscience support gay marriage, she has supported abortion and suggested that Catholics ought to baptise their menstrual period every month, called Catholic teaching on contraception perverted and compared the sacrifice of the Holy Mass to homosexual sex. Deacon Nick Donnelly has catalogued the details.
It goes without saying that all of these statements are not only deeply offensive to faithful Catholics, not to mention those who may have suffered the tragedy of miscarriage, but also heretical. Though Professor Beattie has every right to describe herself as a theologian, although when I saw her debate gay marriage she demonstrated a wilful misunderstanding of Scripture even to my untrained theological eyes, what stretches credulity is that she identifies herself as a Catholic, given her wide-ranging dissent from Catholic teaching.
This is not a question of her academic freedom as she claims, but simply a question of whether she should be given a platform by Catholic institutions to promote her views. It does not matter that the content of her forthcoming tour was according to Professor Beattie, orthodox, being based upon Mary and Lumen Gentium, the problem is, that if Professor Beattie is invited to speak by Catholic institutions, it lends her authority, an authority which she then uses to launch dissenting views. If Professor Beattie wishes to discuss and expound her theology, she is free to do so at any public venue or institution, however the Catholic church should not give her credence or do anything which may endorse her kooky views.
As someone who is faithful to magisterium, which for many of us is not always easy, to hear Professor Beattie as an alleged fellow Catholic describe our way of life as ‘peverted’ is distressing and offensive. I should imagine that celibate Catholic homosexuals feel similar. What she has said about abortion and the baptising of menstrual periods is not only sacramentally and biologically incorrect, but also terribly upsetting. To equate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the moment when Christ becomes present in the Eucharist with sodomy is sacrilegious and offensive to all the faithful.
No-one is claiming that because certain views are offensive that they should be suppressed, no-one has the right not to be offended, Tina Beattie has every right to broadcast or publish her thoughts if she can find a willing platform, however the Catholic Church has every right to refuse that platform and withdraw its endorsement from someone who does not represent them and could seriously mislead people and endanger souls. The magisterium is non-negotiable, it is derived from Scripture and tradition, it is the body of teaching passed down to us from Christ himself and cannot simply be changed at a whim. Though theological matters can and should be discussed, as the Pope said to the English Bishops in 2010:
It is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.
It is vital that the Catholic Church is seen to distance itself from views such as these, because as I discovered to my peril in the run-up to the papal visit, critics of Catholicism along with lapsed or struggling lay Catholics, seize on her words and use them as justification for wide-ranging dissent and condemnation of the Church, such as we have seen with this morning’s Guardian article. Those who are faithful to the magisterium are accused of being “ultra orthodox” or “fundamental’ and as a ‘Catholic theologian’ Tina Beattie’s words are used as proof that not only is one in error, but also the Church itself and that Tina Beattie is actually far more representative of the majority of the faithful. I had both Tina Beattie and Catherine Pepinster quoted at me by the self-righteous liberal mummy forum in the run up to the papal visit, in an attempt to prove that I had no idea what I was talking about. One contributor claimed to have been speaking with a “well-known Catholic female journalist on the inside” and came out with ludicrous claims, which were all eagerly seized upon.
With that in mind, I do have some sympathy for Professor Beattie, in that the cancellation of her speaking engagements will affect her reputation and her finances. It cannot be easy to bear public humiliation and for that she should be in our prayers, along with an intention that she may come to see the error of her current position. With regards to whether or not the Catholic blogosphere is to blame for a campaign against her, I think this is a little unfair. Some Catholic bloggers have highlighted their disappointment that she should continue to be feted as a Catholic theologian and thinker and called for a withdrawal of official support, but no-one has engaged in ad hominem or said anything that is untrue. Tina has been hoisted by her own petard and condemned by her own words.
I would however urge Catholic bloggers, not to get carried away with a heady sense of power and influence. As Tina acknowledges, the blogs who have inflicted the damage, the blogs with real influence tend to be those written by the Catholic clergy who have exercised charity and restraint, whilst expressing their disappointment which is perhaps why they have been so effective. Most of us receive hits from the Vatican and I would wager most of us get traffic from those who are ideologically opposed, or our ‘enemies’. I’ve recently discovered that my blog is read on a regular basis by BPAS amongst others. I’ve not always been as temperate as I should have been, particularly during episodes of terrifying cyber-bullying, but actually as part of the New Evangelisation, we need to exercise charity, remember that we are representatives of Christ’s Church here on earth and keep in mind whether or not our writing is doing anything to promote Gospel values. We cannot complain about Stonewall’s smearing, labelling and cheapening of discourse in an attempt to close down debate, if we are prepared to do that to each other and our clergy.
If we are going to criticise and expect to be taken seriously, we need to ensure that any criticism is appropriate, measured, evidenced, charitable and remember that even if we are criticising clergy or bishops, that these are still men of God and we should neither impugn their motives or holiness. Our role should be that of critical friend and where possible we should attempt to avoid public scandal. Otherwise there is a real risk that we come across as embittered individuals prone to public rantings and internecine feuds and cause damage to the body of Christ. One of the most powerful blogs on the block at the moment is Eccles and Bosco, which is not only extremely amusing to read, but manages to incisively get to the heart of Catholic politics and current affairs with devastating satire. The power of comedy should not be underestimated, it underscores the issues, but manages to add light and some much needed laughter.
I don’t feel any sense of satisfaction over Tina Beattie’s current predicament, more relief that she is increasingly seen as a maverick. Bloggers shouldn’t do anything to justify her sense of martyrdom or claim ‘moral victory’. We have to make sure that criticisms made are out of love and based in truth. Actually what has happened should not be seen in any way as punitive, but in the same way as excommunication, a medicinal measure designed to bring someone back into the folds of the church. If this withdrawal of mainstream Catholic support serves to make Professor Beattie do some serious re-thinking and embrace the magisterium in its fullness and then resume her work whilst recanting her previous views and promoting the beauty of Catholic sexual teaching, then I think Catholic bloggers could claim a victory for the Church. Professor Tina Beattie promoting and advancing traditional Catholic teaching. She’s a highly intelligent passionate woman with a wide-ranging media platform. That would be a truly powerful witness to the positive effects of the Catholic blogosphere.
It’s worth reading yesterday’s Parliamentary debate on late term abortions here, * if you have not already done so. Nadine Dorries will undoubtedly and some would say deservedly, get it in the neck from all sides with regards to her point of view.
What is very clear is that Nadine is not what we would traditionally describe as pro-life as she supports quick and easy early abortion. Furthermore she professes to have no issue with Marie Stopes, praising them in fulsome terms for caring about the health of the woman, for being ‘professional’ and ‘non-advocacy driven’, when questioned about their presence in Northern Ireland.
That’s something that I would take issue with, my personal experience of Marie Stopes is not a positive one. I don’t think a friend of mine would agree with that assessment either. She aborted a much-wanted child on the grounds of foetal abnormality. Marie Stopes gave her a very bleak one-sided analysis of the baby’s prognosis which affected her decision. Had she known then, what she knows now about the condition and the huge amount of support available then she would have made an entirely different choice. Furthermore they botched the procedure itself, when she rang them up shortly afterwards bleeding and in agony they told her that what she was experiencing was normal. It was only when she collapsed in agony some months later and was admitted to A&E that she discovered that she had significant cervical scarring that required corrective surgery which could leave her infertile. Fortunately she has gone on to have another beautiful child, but no thanks to Marie Stopes. Significantly, because these complications occurred after leaving their premises, they do not count towards the official statistics that abortion providers compile regarding complications resulting from surgery. Another of her criticisms is that the staff at Marie Stopes were rude, cold, clinical and perfunctory and lacking in all compassion.
In terms of Marie Stopes’ operation in Belfast, what is clear is that they are operating on the very boundaries of the law – the Northern Ireland Committee for Justice are currently investigating and require assurances that the clinic will work within the existing legal framework, which actually prohibits abortion in the vast majority of circumstances.
Professional and non-advocacy driven? Here they are admitting to performing illegal abortions around the world.
Of equal concern is Marie Stopes’ involvement in India, delivering ‘Population Health Services’, where forced abortion and illegal abortion on the grounds of gender is rife. According to the film-makers of itsagirlmovie, the film I saw hosted by Lord Alton in Parliament earlier this week, doctors are never prosecuted for providing illegal ultrasounds to ascertain the gender of a baby, nor for providing the illegal gender-selective abortions. Men are not prosecuted for crimes of violence against their wives, such as beating them because they have failed to provide a son, or for violently coercing them into an abortion. Dr Mutu Khurana is still fighting for justice, 7 years after her husband pushed her down the stairs when she was 7 months pregnant with her twin girls after refusing to abort them. The doctor who surreptiously performed the illegal ultrasound has yet to be prosecuted and Dr Khurana has faced death threats for pursuing her case. She reported how one medic threatened to rape her if she would not agree to keep her silence. This is not a problem restricted to the poorer strata of society either. Reggie LittleJohn, founder of Women without Frontiers, described how even educated and rich families still resort to female foeticide. The reason being that the more money a family has, the more that has to be given away via the dowry system, laws against which are not enforced. One has to wonder, what Marie Stopes is doing, funded by the UK government in terms of the UN development fund and the UK Department for International development, operating in a country where respect for women and their rights is non-existent. Far from being non-agenda driven, they are complicit in furthering gendercide, even if, as they would claim, it is unwitting.
Serious questions also have to be asked as to what on earth Marie Stopes thinks it is doing operating in China, again funded by the UK Department for International Development, partnering Chinese population and family planning commissions. China is one of the countries where the greatest abuse of womens’ rights occurs. We heard from women who had been rounded up by the family planning police and given forced abortions. One woman told of how she hid behind the door, heart thumping as the police, who act upon tip-offs given by paid informants, raided her home. The police did not find her, however due to having committed the crime of having three children, her and her husband were forced to leave their village, splitting up their children amongst relatives and now work in one of China’s notorious factories to send enough money for their keep. They now see their children once a year. Reggie Littlejohn also told of how workers in Chinese factories are routinely forced to have a monthly strip-search by their supervisors in order to prove they are not pregnant. If they refuse they are taken to hospital for a check and if they refuse such a check they are fired. Any women found to be pregnant are forced to abort.
Regardless of one’s views of Nadine Dorries’ campaign to reduce the limit, one has to admire her passion and unyielding determination to end the cruelty of late-term abortion. The problem is, that if we are going to correctly frame abortion in term’s of womens’ rights then we cannot praise an organisation that does so much to blight the lives of women and their babies around the globe. Marie Stopes, like BPAS, are ideological, advocacy-driven, operate on the margins of the law and are complicit in the devaluation and destruction of women worldwide. If they truly cared, they would not operate in these areas where gendercide is such a problem, let alone collude with governments who are driving the agenda.
The only qualification for calling Marie Stopes professional is the way they abort unborn babies with such ruthless efficiency. Their presence in any country is an enormous blow for women’s rights. I’d like to see the next debate discuss why taxpayers should fund such atrocities.
* NB It’s also worth looking at the remarks of Diane Abbot who claims that it is “not right to talk about coerced abortion”, obviously a head in sand approach is best. Fiona Bruce, vice-chair of the all-party Parliamentary pro-life committee has called for an enquiry into foetal pain as well as an examination as to the effects of late-term abortion upon women. That seems to me to be an entirely sensible approach to this issue.
A blessed copy of the icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa of which St Luke the Evangelist is traditionally believed to be the artist, is coming to the UK as part of its pilgrimage at the start of next week. As James Preece said, what is happening here is incredible. For Catholics, pro-life work is never purely about either the political or the practical but must always incorporate the prayer.
We are not worshipping a piece of wood, but committing a spiritual act of entrustment, asking Our Lady, The Mother of God, to defend and protect the human civilisation of life and love. This particular icon is important because it is believed to pre-date back to Constantinople, before the schism of the Eastern Orthodox and Western Church and therefore like the Mother of God, belongs to both traditions, it unifies East and West. The Orthodox name for the icon is invincible victory and the hymn Victorious Queen is often sung in her honour. She is the patron of those who desire a restoration of national and family values. The director of the pilgrimage credits her with the fall of Communism in Poland.
The pilgrimage is supported by the Patriarch of Moscow who hopes that it will contribute to the protection of life and the strengthening of family values in a world where children and families are so often seen as obstacles to happiness and fulfilment. The pilgrimage originated in Vladisvostok Russia and will end in Fatima having travelled over 18,000 miles. There are plans afoot to continue the pilgrimage to the USA next year, another country desperately in need of renewal.
Though wary about attributing life’s misfortunes to the evil one, I have increasingly come to believe that those of us engaged in pro-life work, of whatever nature, do leave ourselves open to spiritual attacks. It is telling that during a year in which I gave birth to my fourth child in incredibly challenging circumstances, a year in which my husband discerned a continuing vocation and began seminary, a year in which I began to obtain a much wider media platform, both in print, online and on the television and radio, particularly in support of pro life and family values, we came under attack as never before. In particular in the periods surrounding every single media appearance or any big pregnancy milestone, various attempts were made to cripple not only me and my work, but also my family. The stated aim was to ensure that I was silenced and at times I thought that I may be close to nervous collapse, so intense and relentless was the pressure. I don’t know whether or not this was because, as suggested, I was ‘rattling the cages of hell’, but I’ll never forget a conversation with an experienced Catholic pro-life campaigner who was convinced that those who fight for the lives of the unborn, will be attacked and always, in her experience, through the family.
This was certainly my experience, many commented how they were surprised that I didn’t break down, but tellingly what healed me, not only mentally and physically but more importantly spiritually, was a pilgrimage to Lourdes when I was 36 weeks pregnant. I entrusted everything to Our Lady and it was though a veil lifted. Not only that but significantly my blood pressure reduced to the extent that I was advised to come off the medication and my blood tests inexplicably showed no trace of previous proteins or liver problems. Upon returning to England, I noted that the usual suspects had been creating their usual noise, significantly the abuse had begun to escalate whilst I was on route to Lourdes, it felt like a deliberate attempt to unsettle and disturb my peace of mind, and yet for the first time in months, I really didn’t care, I could see the agitators as pitiful creatures in need of urgent prayer and their words were like water off a duck’s back.
I digress, but my experience perfectly illustrates how important it is for us all, especially those who may be subject to spiritual attack, to continually entrust ourselves and our work to the Lord, via the intercession of His Mother. I see similar difficulties in the progress of the pilgrimage, which despite suffering several setbacks, is still continuing on its journey. Please support the pilgrimage, not only in prayer, but by attending and perhaps if possible by donating financially or organising a parish collection. At a time when the UK is facing the imposed redefinition of marriage, when children are being routinely fitted with contraceptive implants and groomed for early sexual activity and when the killing of the unborn and elderly are being promoted as a social good, we need to entrust the protection of life and family values to Our Lady more than ever. I am half expecting to see more obstacles and setbacks along the way – this pilgrimage will be the harbinger of much change and renewal, as has happened in Russia. The arrival in England, shortly after the start of the Year of Faith, could not be more providential.
Here is the page with the schedule of events in the UK. Instead of celebrating the death of an infamous Catholic on November 5th, why not participate in an infinitely more family friendly event at Westminster Cathedral and later light your sparklers to commemorate the Light of the World, brought into the world thanks to the openness to life of the Immaculate Conception, who continues to work her miracles today.
Today was Theodora Mary Elizabeth Farrow’s baptism. She is now cleansed of Original Sin and is part of the Christian family. We had quite a low-key affair being less than two weeks away from moving house, but God willing there will be an enormous celebration at some point in the next eighteen months for all extended family and friends.
Just one wee question, to which I’d be grateful to know the answer. Why, in the New Rite of Baptism does the priest not hold the baby during the act of pouring the water over the baby’s head? Depending on the height of the font, potentially the baby can end up at something of a peculiar angle with the parent awkwardly holding squirming infant with their head pointed downwards, aimed in the general direction of the font almost like they are going to have a hairwash with all the blood rushing to their head.
Personally I’d like to see the priest take the baby in his arms whilst baptising. There is something very reassuring and symbolic about the priest, in personae Christi, cradling the baby in his arms and welcoming them into the bosom of Mother Church. Is it a Health and Safety initiative? Does the priest have to undergo risk management and need a certificate in baby cuddling or is there something symbolic I’ve missed? It would be a shame to have a generation of priests fearful of baby handling.
In the meantime Teddy’s missed her evening bath tonight as she still smells so delicious from the chrism oil. I never wash the babies after Baptism until all the oil has totally worn off, which won’t take too long at this rate as I keep sniffing her head!
The Perry family from the US, have not been far from my thoughts and prayers since I stumbled across their Facebook update this morning.
And, it’s GO TIME! Jo is fully dilated and we are going to start pushing in about an hour. Going to read to Colin one last time in the womb… “The Giving Tree”.
We are READY to meet him. Excited does not even come close to what we feel. Thank you all for making us feel so loved and thank you for filling us up with prayer!
All our love,
The Perry’s
What an exciting and beautiful update – one would have to have a heart of stone to fail to feel just a glimmer of happiness at such a joyful announcement. A friend had clicked the like button and so ever curious and always overjoyed to hear about the births of new babies, I decided to have a mosey at their Facebook page and blog, whilst experiencing some vicarious mounting excitement and nervousness on behalf of the family.
Their story does not have the conventional happy ending. Their baby son Colin Patrick Perry, was diagnosed with anencephaly at 11 weeks gestation, part of his brain and skull was missing, the likely prognosis was that he would not survive beyond a few minutes.
Anencephaly is a rare neural tube defect that occurs in 1 out of every 1000 pregnancies. The neural tube at the head fails to close as usually happens between days 23 and 26 gestation, resulting in the major portion of the brain, head and scalp being missing. Babies are born without a forebrain which is responsible for co-ordination and thinking. The outcome is extremely poor – less than 5% of children live beyond 5 days, 7% die in utero, 17% during birth, 26% between 1 and 60 minutes and 27% between 1 and 5 days.
It’s one of those tragic conditions which the Abortion Act had in mind, 90% of anencephalic babies are aborted before birth and it is often quoted by proponents of abortion. I have to confess that the condition is the one that has provided the greatest challenge for me in terms of thinking about the ethics of abortion and balancing the wellbeing of the child against that of a mother. No-one should blame or vilify a mother who decided to go through a termination in those circumstances.
As I read how Jo and Brian had gone shopping to choose an outfit for their son to be buried in, how they had made arrangements for their priest to be present for the birth so Colin could be baptised, how they had prayed that he might not die instantaneously at birth in order that they might have the opportunity to let him feel how loved he was, I could not begin to imagine how it would feel to be in that situation, and I could only weep tears of sadness for them, but also gratitude as I held my beautiful 9 week old baby close. Thank God it was not me who was tested in this way. Would I be able to face the same trial with such good grace, courage and determination? Would I be able to endure 40 tough weeks of pregnancy and the trauma of giving birth, knowing that my baby would die shortly afterwards?
And then I realised that I was actually being terribly self-indulgent. There I was crying tears of sadness over something that was not only not happening to me, but was also very powerful and positive. Instead of bemoaning their situation, this beautiful and devoted young couple were taking every moment that they could to cherish the relationship and time that they had with their son, whilst they still could. Here is what Jo said last week:
So today I woke up and thought, today is my last Wednesday with Colin. It made me so sad to think that it would be the LAST Wednesday Colin would be growing inside me. By this time next week I will have an empty belly. I pray so hard every single day that Colin lives through the birth. I pray that we get time with him alive. What I ultimately pray for is that he is able to live a long life. If everything happens as statistics show none of these things will happen. So, today I tried very hard to be thankful for this last Wednesday with Colin. I am feeling very pregnant now a days, but consciously try not to complain. Today I am grateful to be pregnant, today I am thankful to have Colin alive inside of me. I want to fully appreciate these last few days I have with him. Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe in miracles. I believe Colin is capable of living a longer life than we expect. I believe God answers prayers and heals. I also don’t want to be naive and disregard all the information we have been given. I am as prepared as I can be to meet my son. I am also prepared (if anyone can really be prepared) to say goodbye. The love I have for Colin is beyond explanation. I’m sure any parent understands that. I will be forever thankful for him and how he changed me. Today I have my son! Today he is alive! Today Brian and I went shopping for an outfit to bury our son in. Today was HARD, but at least we had today with him and we tried to make the best out of today. I told Colin over and over again how much I love him. I told him how proud I am of him and how he is changing people. I told him how much I appreciate him and his love. No one knows if this was their last Wednesday with someone they love. Did you live today like it could be your last Wednesday? Did you appreciate the fact that you woke up and took a breath this Wednesday? Do the people you love know you love them today?
Now one can argue that Jo’s decision to carry Colin to term was her choice, one that should not be forced or imposed on others. Maybe so, but look at the joy and the positivity amongst the heartbreaking sadness. Abortion could not have been the right decision, even in this scenario, because Colin’s parents have taken the opportunity to really bond with their unborn son, to get to know him as best as they could, and to love him inside the uterus, no matter how brief his time outside would be. Ultimately they have the comfort of knowing that when he died, it was not a violent brutal death through their bidding at the cold hard steel of an abortionist’s instruments, but enveloped in his parents’ love, surrounded by love and prayer. Allowing Colin to be born and to die naturally, will have eased not only his suffering but theirs too, making the process of grief and healing so much gentler than the dissonance of knowing that one brought about one’s child’s death, even with the best of intentions.
The problem with moral theology in these testing situations, is that whilst it might provide us with the solution as to what should happen, it can seem lacking in compassion. If I had been in this situation and had someone parroting Aquinas at me, I think the Summa would have ended up where the sun don’t shine. Empathy must not lead us down morally dangerous paths, no matter how well intentioned, but it can go a long way to helping people to come to the right conclusions. If I were dealing with a woman in Jo’s situation, I would not be going all Magisterial on her, but helping her to see that carrying the baby to term, would be the best solution for her in the long-run, only dealing with the spiritual blessings and graces as appropriate.
Here are some more extracts from their diary. My usual loquaciousness fails me. I can’t comment beyond tears.
No ultrasound machine can show us how much love we share and we have to be very thankful the amount of time we have had together. We don’t know how much more time we have, but non of it should be wasted on what your head might look like. I know you are exactly how you’re supposed to be. I know you are beyond beautiful because you are a miracle. Your life has already touched so many. You’re only 35 weeks old and have touched more lives than Mommy and I’m 30! I love you so much Colin. Thank you for showing me what is important.
We would have never in a million years thought we would have to meet with a panel of people to talk about what organs we want to donate from our son. Our precious baby Colin. But, this is the hand we have been dealt. We don’t know exactly what God has in store for you but if he does decide to take you faster than we want we have to find a way to turn this crappy situation into something positive, something beyond ourselves. What better way to honor you? Daddy and Mommy are giving you a chance at life and now you will give others a chance at life! What an awesome dude you are! I am so proud to call you my son! I am so lucky to have been given the opportunity to carry you!
Here’s their latest update from Facebook:
October 24th, 2012 at 1:13am, Colin Patrick Perry was born and went to be with God. We are so proud of our son and love him beyond comprehension.
Thank you Joanna and Brian for your brave witness and your courage. This encapsulates the essence of parenthood for me – loving your child so much that you willingly and gratefully put yourself on the line for them, without counting the personal cost. This is what saying “yes” is all about. Mary was told that a sword would pierce her soul, she had to endure the pain of witnessing her son dying an excruciating death, but never lost her faith and trust in God.
One can see that already Joanna and Brian have allowed their suffering to transform them, to bring them closer to God and that untold blessings will emerge out of this tragedy, physically manifested in the new hope and life given to others through Colin’s organs.
Please don’t comment here, go to the Perry’s Facebook page or blog, thank them and tell them how awesome they are. (Unless you are one of the trolls, in which case fill your boots below in the usual fashion).
I am exceptionally grateful to Laurence England for arranging a deputation of Catholic constituents of Caroline Lucas to meet with her and explain our opposition to same-sex marriage, as well as for including me amongst their number.
I don’t really have much to add to Laurence’s account of how the meeting went, though I don’t think we did much to change her views, we certainly appreciated the opportunity to present our case, and Caroline Lucas certainly came across as a very warm, honest and engaging MP, she did not dismiss our case, neither did she pretend to listen politely, but she actively participated and asked questions as appropriate. Of course one might argue that she was only doing her duty as an elected MP and representative of her constituents, but at least she was gracious and actually took the time to make it seem as if she was genuinely interested! It was a very different experience from when I met my former constituency MP, David Cameron, who was at first dismissive, then had a Damascene conversion once I opened my mouth and he discovered that I’d worked for various Investment banks and had a public school background.
One thing that was very positive about the meeting was that Caroline had an opportunity to see that we were not coming at this from a position of bigotry, we didn’t wish any harm upon the LGBT community and it was certainly helpful that we had at least two of our number who openly identified themselves as being gay or having same sex attraction. Caroline hearteningly said that she had been very supportive of Christina Summers, the Green Party councillor who has been expelled from the Green Party for her opposition to same-sex marriage and that she disagreed with the party’s decision to exclude her; though Caroline’s Green Party credentials are immaculate in this area, she finds it disappointing that someone should be ostracised on account of their sincerely held beliefs.
Of particular interest seemed to be the side-effects of this legislation which clearly David Cameron had not thought about in any depth before going full-steam ahead with his proposal. We explained how Christians and indeed people of all faiths who disagreed with the redefinition of marriage could be affected in the workplace and highlighted the comments of the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, who has hinted that profound philosophical difficulties lie ahead for religious workers in the public sector. Everyone will be expected to recognise the new definition of marriage under law, regardless of whether or not they agree with it.
Another factor was how the redefinition of marriage would necessitate a change in the Anglican prayer book, via an Act of Parliament. Though that may seem irrelevant to a group of Catholics, it would also be a significant step to disestablishment of the church and whatever one’s views on that issue might be, surely such a significant change should not come about as a side-effect of legislation, but should be debated on its own merits or lack thereof.
We also pointed out that the government’s guarantees that religious marriage would remain unaffected would be utterly worthless as there is no distinction in law between religious and civil marriage, therefore if the change comes about it will need to be available to everybody in the same way. Some religious organisations will be unable to solemnise same-sex marriages and the realities of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act will mean that these organisations will have to withdraw from providing marriages if they are not able to offer it to all couples, in the same way as happened with the Catholic Adoption agencies.
As Laurence said, the area that Caroline Lucas seemed most interested in, was that of democracy and the public appetite for change. After pointing out that none of the major parties, including her own had this in their election manifesto, it seemed that a major change was being brought forth which nobody had actively voted for. I mentioned the Catholic Voices Com Res poll, of which she was unaware, suggesting that a significant chunk, some 70% of the population are against redefining marriage as well as the fact that the gay community seem to be apathetic to the change. There is also a risk that those gay couples who choose not to marry but to be in civil partnerships will also be thought of as having second-class unions and face discrimination.
Laurence was particularly persuasive and incisive when Caroline quizzed him on the notion of what constituted the common good. She asked whether the Church could still claim its position was in the common good, that if the poll results were reversed, showing that 70% of people were in favour of the change, surely that could be considered the common good? Laurence used the comparison of pedophilia, which most people find abhorrent, other than Harriet Harman’s friends. Even if public opinion were to change regarding pedophilia or polygamy, legislating for it, would most certainly not be in the common good, regardless of people’s personal views. The common good is an entirely distinct concept to public opinion. We also asked why the state felt that it needed to legislate for people’s private relationships, the only reason that marriage is regulated by the state, is for one reason alone and that is because its main function is to provide children. We explained that as a Church we did not hold the rights to marriage – it is an institution outside of both Church and state.
I don’t think we will have changed her underlying views, however my hope is that we did give some food for thought and that in Caroline’s words, she could see that we were not against equality per se or wanting to degrade same sex couples, but had genuine concern as to the impact of any forthcoming changes in the law.
This for me, is what it means to be a Catholic Voice, not simply a talking head in the media who someone may or may not remember, but actually being pro-active and making sure that the case is coherently and articulately presented in the public square. We did not shy away from our faith, nor did we deny that it affects our conscience, but equally we were able to display that our concerns were not those of bigots who wished to do harm. I do hope and pray that Caroline has a conversion of heart and that our meeting did at least have some impact.
In the meantime, here’s the Janet and John version from the Coalition for Marriage.
I incurred quite a bit of derision from the abortion lobby following my post last week, calling into question both the impartiality of Rachel Garrick and the events that she described as taking place outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Whitfield Street.
It turns out I was not quite so far off the mark after all. A brief look at Rachel’s timeline shows that far from being someone who “isn’t particularly drawn to the reproductive rights debate”, she had in fact been tweeting about the issue of abortion, long before the remarks from Maria Miller and Jeremy a few weeks ago. As vice-chair of Rochester and Strood Labour party, Rachel was openly volunteering to “woman” the Abortion Rights stand at the Labour party conference on October 1st and ensuring that a union leaflet in support of abortion was carried by the TUC and all affiliate unions. That’s all well and good, but obviously the claim that she wasn’t interested in the pro-life debate is rather disingenuous.
With regards to what actually happened, Good Counsel Network confirmed that the young woman and her boyfriend were feeling uncomfortable about the decision to abort, but felt that circumstances dictated that they had little other choice. They were just on the verge of going to the Good Counsel Centre for some real and practical support when Wonder Woman flew to the rescue and efficiently browbeat them into the clinic. Upon leaving the clinic the young woman CHOSE to speak to the volunteer outside; she was still very upset and felt under increasing pressure as the clinic told her that she had very little time to make a decision.
Odd that a woman should emerge from a non-directive counselling session feeling more under pressure than ever. Surely, if Wonder Woman was correct in her assessment that the alleged photographs being shown were of a much later gestation than the lady’s baby, then the lady wasn’t anywhere near the 24 week limit. Isn’t that why abortion supporters are advocating a limit far in advance of 12 weeks, in order to give women adequate time to decide? Of course without knowing how pregnant this lady was, one can’t make a judgement call, but it seems fair to assume she was early on, and yet still felt under pressure to make a quick decision. Also note, that the lady says that the specific support that she needs, is NOT on offer from Marie Stopes.
It certainly calls into question the non-directive nature of the counselling offered by the abortion clinics. A pregnant woman emerges distressed and feeling that she has very little time to make her choice, when, even if she was 12 weeks, she still technically has plenty of time under the law. The other thing worth emphasising here, is that Marie Stopes charges £5 for the pregnancy test and £80 for the consultation. If you can only get a weekend appointment that’ll set you back an extra £40. Well they are not a charity, you know. Oh. Wait…
Still, none of this gives me any pleasure. It’s not an “I told you so”. Ultimately there’s a vulnerable pregnant young woman out there and hundreds like her, going into abortion clinics feeling like they have little other choice and being put under pressure to make hasty decisions. And those organisations who are trying to help them, who are reaching out, offering nothing but unconditional non-judgemental support and help are under not only financial pressure (Good Counsel are currently supporting over 30 mothers) but are subjected to hate campaigns and attempted vexatious litigation and complaints in an attempt to get them off the streets and cut women off from sources of help. In the meantime the abortion industry is funded by the government to the tune of millions of pounds every year, whereas Good Counsel and others rely solely on the generosity of individuals and unlike the clinics offer all their services gratis.
It really is time that a public consultation was held surrounding the abortion industry. Let those who say that they support choice, allow women with unplanned pregnancies the choice of accessing pro-life counselling support. Women aren’t stupid, they know that a clinic will be geared towards abortion, BPAS have thrown away all attempts at impartiality by advertising abortion, women know that a pro-life organisation will give them options that will steer them towards keeping the baby, why should they be denied access to this?
And let’s hope that future feministas to the rescue think twice before flying in to save the day and making things a whole lot worse for vulnerable woman in need of information surrounding all available options.
The Catechesis of Caroline 