Category: Catholicism

A modern gibbeting

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.

20121107-220807.jpg

Unnecessary battles

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 power of Catholic bloggers

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.

Spiritual entrustment

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.

Holding the Baby?

20121028-230310.jpg

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!

Mourning into dancing

Joanna, Brian and Colin Perry

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).

Colin Patrick Perry Resquiat in pace.

Baleful Biden

Just reading through a précis of last night’s Vice Presidential debate between Joe Biden, Obama’s number two and Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate, billed as the clash of the Catholics.

On the question of abortion, Biden said the following, which is being lauded by the liberal left:

“My religion defines who I am,” says Biden. “I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life, and it has informed my social doctrine, which is about taking care of those who cant take care of themselves. With regard to abortion, I accept my churches position on abortion. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on others, unlike my friend here. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor.”

Being a practicing Catholic means taking care of those who can’t take of themselves, such as, in this instance, the unborn. Since when was the unborn, with it’s separate DNA and unique genetic fingerprint part of the mother’s body? Controlling one’s body should not extend to destroying another’s.

Accepting the church’s position does not mean that one has a right to force that view on other people, that is, he can’t make other people subscribe to the same ideas.

As a Catholic politician however, he has a duty to work hard for legislation and other methods to reflect his view in society. Working to bring about social change based upon one’s views, ethics and beliefs is the role of any principled politician. It’s not the same as forcing people to hold identical values.

Biden’s personal views on abortion could be applied to any area of policy that affects individuals, such as, for example taxation. Is it fair to impose his view of how much tax everyone should pay on society or more pertinently to impose his view of whether institutions should pay for contraception in their health care and force them to go against their beliefs?

That’s what politics is all about isn’t it, working to mould or change society for the better according to a set of beliefs, be they politically, ethically and/or religiously defined. In a democracy you will always be ‘imposing’ beliefs upon those who disagree with you.

Otherwise his politics are all just crowd-pleasing, insincere and cowardly. Joe Biden is prepared to flaunt his Catholicism card, prepared to let his faith influence his social policy; a social policy that doesn’t extend to the weakest of all and does not reflect his Church’s doctrine in the most important of areas – right to life. Pilate-like he washes his hands of the unborn.

20121012-092340.jpg

Osborne re-toxifies Tory brand for Catholics?

Generally speaking I try to keep this blog apolitical for a multitude of reasons, perhaps because like many Christians I have absolutely no idea where I fall on the political spectrum: biblical Christianity does not fit neatly into the left/right praxis of modern Western democracies and currently like many orthodox Christians and Catholics and it would seem, most of the electorate, I feel politically disenfranchised. If an election were called tomorrow, I couldn’t vote for any mainstream political party in good conscience, and even choosing the candidate most likely to reflect Catholic teaching is a rather tough call in Brighton and Hove.

Any residual sympathy for the Tories, who seem to be more sympathetic to a pro life agenda and who, unlike Labour, allow their MPs a free conscience vote on matters such as same sex marriage and life issues, has dissipated with George Osborne’s announcement that he plans to curb child tax credits. The precise details have not yet been announced but this will be a blow to thousands of families already feeling the squeeze in the most difficult economic climate for generations.

Make no mistake, the welfare system does need an enormous overhaul, we are trapped in a vicious circle where most families need government welfare in order to top up household income to afford the cost of living. Whilst the government continues to subsidise us, the deficit continues to grow and employers have no incentive to raise wages and thus the cycle continues, but if working tax credits are withdrawn thousands of families will fall into poverty, with waves of house repossessions and potentially catastrophic circumstances.

Osborne’s answer to the spiralling welfare bill seems to be very short-sighted, namely to stop families from having too many children in order to reduce the state’s financial burden. Whilst this might appear to be a sensible policy on the surface, anyone in dire financial straits who seriously cannot afford to feed, clothe or house additional children should temporarily delay having children until they are in a better position, it does at the very least, send a very clear message that more than two children should be the preserve of the wealthy. It also dangerously assumes that the state should assume financial responsibility for families, which of course, is one of the difficulties with welfare as a whole.

The problem is that in an ideal world, welfare should be a safety net only, society has a duty and obligation to look after those who are unable to provide for themselves, however we have got ourselves into a situation where most families rely on assistance from the state, for better or worse. The ideal would be for the state to help families wean themselves off support, however this is not going to happen when wages are not keeping pace with rising inflation, not to mention the catastrophic property boom which has made buying and even renting a family home, out of the reach of many.

If George Osborne curbs child tax credit, the effect will be felt hardest amongst families at the lower end of the earnings scale. Apparently the thinking behind it is to prevent the caricature families with 15 children, parents who have never worked, possess large flat screen TVs, coupled with smoking and drinking habits that the mainstream media like to demonise. No doubt there are families like this who do abuse the system, but welfare is a very blunt instrument with which to cut down on abuses, and as the ESA reforms show, it is largely innocent people who get caught in the crossfire.

From a pro-life point of view these reforms could well exacerbate the soaring abortion rate as well as encourage euthanasia twenty years down the line, when our ever-aging population finds that it has a real shortage of young people to boost the economy. Who is going to work to pay taxes to help fund the costs of care for us when we are elderly and sick? Will there be enough people to actually physically look after us or will care homes and hospitals find themselves with labour shortages? Is it fair to put the burden of looking after elderly parents on one child?

The abortion statistics show year after year, that the majority of abortions occur in the 25+ age category. Around 30% of women who terminate their pregnancies are aged 30 and over. These are very often women who already have a family, who are well aware of foetal development, who know the realties of pregnancy and child-rearing and yet feel that they have no other realistic choice. It’s a situation with which I have much personal empathy. I know only too well what it is like to be pregnant and worried about the future holds, to be seriously scared about whether or not you will be able to provide for another child, financially, practically and emotionally. Even if your child tax credits are not topped up substantially, the extra £13 per week in child benefit provides reassurance that at least the nappies will be affordable. For those thinking that an extra baby need not be a huge expense – simply the nappies, without any other expenditure put an extra burden on the grocery bill, and that’s before one’s thought about formula milk, then later shoes, which can’t always be passed down, and the extra food required – break, milk, cereals, fruit and veg, which have all seen substantial price rises over the past few years. I still shudder when I realise that it’s impossible to buy a loaf of bread for under £1 in most supermarkets.

Women who abort, don’t tend to do it for just one reason alone, there are a plethora of inter-related anxieties, of which money and finances often feature highest on the agenda, particularly for those who already have children. For many it is not simply a case of having to forgo luxuries but very real pressing concerns about making ends meet. George Osborne might think he is preventing dependence on the state, but the grave side effect of this policy is that it will encourage abortion. What happens to a woman who loses her job or whose partner loses their job or perhaps walks out on her when she’s pregnant and already has children to look after? She either aborts, adopts or struggles to fend for her children, but it’s hard to give hope and encouragement when the government are saying that unless you have a steady permanent well-paid job, your children are not welcome. It’s certainly at odds with a government whose leading members are wanting to reduce the abortion time limits.

It makes no sense that Ian Duncan-Smith’s eminently more sensible idea of means testing payments such as the winter fuel allowance for the elderly, many of whom are the baby boomers who have profited from the property bubble and are enjoying a lavish retirement, has been rejected, in favour of targeting so-called feckless families and only drives these families further into poverty, regardless of whether or not they are in work. Perhaps the Government needs to do more in terms of job creation?

It is fear of stigmatisation, fear of people’s perceptions, fear of being written off as being either a feckless teenage mum or a scrounger on welfare that is a very real deterrent for women with unplanned pregnancies, along with concerns about how they are going to manage. These proposed welfare cuts are a real blow to creating a more life accepting society.

I am not sure whether or not a Catholic in good conscience could endorse such a government which not only seeks to use its powers to limit the number of children the average family has (given the previously mooted cuts to child benefit) but also creates an environment more likely to drive women to abortion. What if these so-called feckless families out of work continue to have children, undeterred by the cuts? Even if they save money on the welfare bill, they are still likely to cost more in terms of needing support from other services such as health or education providers.

The words of Paul VI seem ever more prophetic.

Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

Co-operation with evil?

This quote taken from the Seido Foundation sums up the position on a limit cut neatly.

Provided Catholics don’t campaign for a limit cut on its own merits, as to do so acknowledges and accepts abortion, as long as we make it very clear we are opposed to all killing of the unborn, then we can, in good conscience support an amendment to the abortion law, provided it was correctly worded, because it seeks to make the law ‘less harmful’. So not so reckless after all. 🙂

Of course this is all conjecture because much would depend on the proposed wording of any bill. Any fresh perspective also needs to address why politicians are so keen to sanction the destruction of less than perfect humans.

“Nevertheless a citizen who takes part in a legislative body and who has not been able to block an immoral law can take part in the determination of particular sections of the law. He can vote or abstain from voting for particular sections of the law which are not immoral and for amendments which would make the law less harmful. Even so, all scandal must be avoided and disagreement with the general content of the law must be expressed.”

Now then…

The torrent of indignation flying from high profile Catholics at the Telegraph,in the direction of the BBC following the revelations about Sir Jimmy Savile is unfortunate and insensitive. Motes and beams comes to mind. We are still trying to heal and come to terms with what went on in our own beloved Church, accusing other organisations so pointedly, may not be the most prudent of moves.

The BBC undoubtedly does have a case to answer, in terms of whether it did cover up or ignore any allegations regarding the former star and it also needs to make public the relevant documentation and emails surrounding the suppression of the Newsnight report, which would have brought the allegations to light.

The inevitable parallels have been drawn with the abuse scandal that the Catholic Church has had to deal with, but there are some differences, such as the Catholic Church does not rely on a compulsory tax levied by the government for its existence and we are only dealing with the alleged abuse surrounding one particular star.

Of more interest is the similarities between the two organisations. Everyone likes to think of the Catholic Church in terms of “The Vatican”, believing it to operate in a similar fashion to the Labour Party under the expert hands of Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell, but the reality could not be more different. The Vatican consists of a myriad of different departments, consisting of hundreds of staff, both lay and clerical. Anyone who has had any dealings with the Curia will know that administration tends to be interminably slow, simply due to the complex number of channels various documents and procedures have to go through, although they are thankfully in the process of modernisation. Only yesterday Fr Alexander Lucie Smith complained how the Vatican museums need to catch up with the rest of the world. It took the Catholic Church far too long to get to grips with the abuse scandal that shamed us all.

Whilst the same claims could not be made of the BBC in terms of technological advancement or ease of communications, in fact one could argue that its much easier for the BBC to keep tabs of its employees, especially when one compares the size of the corporation to the sheer numbers of members of the Catholic Church spread throughout the globe; they are both similar in terms of trying to keep track of each individual diverse employee or associate. So for example, allegations have spread that Saville’s abuse was an “open secret”, i.e. various chauffeurs, make-up artists and production assistants knew of his propensity for wandering hands and his eye for the young girls, in the same way that perhaps members of the congregation may well have had suspicions about members of the clergy.

But that is not the same as the BBC having definite evidence of Savile’s crimes. Now the allegations have surfaced, various other pieces of the jigsaw are coming to light, such as his involvement with the Jersey children’s home which was investigated for abuse or his associate with Duncroft Approed School in Surrey, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Various employees having their suspicions about Savile’s proclivities does not equate to an enormous conspiracy at the BBC. A chauffeur or production assistant may well have noticed something untoward, a surreptitious fumble or grope, but that does not mean that they would have reported it either to their superiors or more importantly the police, especially if the subject of his attention did not seem to be uncomfortable.

By Savile’s activities being an open secret, I suspect what is meant is that he had a reputation. Which is why the BBC never held any investigation or enquiry into his actions, simply because without any formal or even informal complaint or specific allegations it is very difficult to take action. It is probably quite likely that this did go to the top, in as much as producers and directors would have been aware of his reputation, but if one remembers the era and social climate surrounding Savile’s rise to fame in the sixties, then it is hardly surprising that a blind eye was turned to any underage philandering in a time that was all about the breaking down of sexual taboos. So long as the jangling jewellery pulled in the millions of viewers and listeners, then who really cared?

As we now know, sexual abuse was allowed to run unchecked in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s in a number of institutions, schools, children’s homes, Scouts, the Church of England, the Catholic Church and now, we learn, the BBC. That does not make the abuse acceptable nor should it colour our response to it, but historical context is important. Even as the recent report on the child abuse that occurred in the Anglican diocese of Chichester makes clear, organisations are still struggling to ensure that appropriate child protection measures are in place, something that the Catholic Church in the UK pioneered, following the publication of the Nolan Report, which is now widely accepted as the gold standard.

The BBC, like the Catholic Church did not deliberately oversee or enable deliberate and systematic child abuse. The truth of what went on will be more nuanced, involving failures of reporting and communication, alongside the wilful misbehaviour of any individuals. What investigation into the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church has demonstrated is that incidents of abuse steadily increased throughout the sixties and seventies, and declining rapidly by the noughties. In common with what seems to have happened at the BBC, there was a substantial delay of the reporting of the sexual abuse, with many incidents still being reported as of today, but they continue to fit into the distribution of abuse incidents concentrated in the mid 1960s-1980s. Savile’s alleged behaviour seems to fit in with this.

Fortunately society has moved on, there has been a substantial increase in knowledge and understanding about the methods, psyche and treatment of sexual offenders and the harm that sexual abuse causes, changes have been made to all institutions or employers who are responsible for children, safeguarding measures have been implemented, legislation has been passed and most importantly attitudes have changed and we are all now far more vigilant and aware of these issues, in a way that we were not when Jim was fixing it for millions. The fact that an authority figure might have a penchant for young boys or girls is no longer seen as a harmless or worse still, amusing, foible.

What the BBC is experiencing, is similar to what the Catholic Church had to go through and perhaps there could be some lessons to be learnt, these things must not be brushed under the carpet and the y shame us all. The BBC, like the Catholic Church needs to thoroughly examine its history, procedures and culture and where necessary make amends and reparation to the victims. All of its dirty dank recesses, need to be held up to the purifying light and it must get its house in order.

What isn’t helpful is to indulge in the hysterical accusatory language that the BBC was somehow involved in a giant conspiracy to enable widescale rape and cover-up, particularly when the facts are not yet known. We as a Church did not like the factually incorrect hyperbole surrounding the Papal visit in 2010, we need to shy away from calumny and detraction and above all offer our sympathy and prayers to the victims. We also need to remember that though our memories of Jim’ll Fix will now forever be tainted, in my case I never forgave the show after they ignored my letter, actually Sir Jimmy Savile was by all accounts, not a pedophile abusing the children on his show, but a hebephile, a necessary but important distinction. That’s not to apologise for or lessen his behaviour in any way, but to state that it’s unlikely he would have targeted those on the show, who tended to be of a much younger age. We were not sending our children off to be abused by him on live TV, despite what some of the more emotive tabloids would have one believe.

Finally, we should remember, that heinous though Sir Jimmy Saville’s alleged offences were, he did also raise over £40 million for good causes and dedicated a substantial amount of his time and energy to helping the less needy and fortunate. That’s not to excuse him in any way, but to point out, that the pathologising of sexual offenders that makes for good copy is rarely nuanced or helpful. As the life of Sir Jimmy Savile indicates, there is capacity for enormous good and enormous evil in all of us, it is rare to score so highly on both sides of the spectrum, but it seems that he was a troubled and conflicted man. capable of altruism and evil in equal measure.

As a wiser, infinitely more saved person than me pointed out yesterday, Sir Jimmy Savile was a Catholic, we should all pray for his immortal soul.