Category: Christianity

Kate’s confirmation

According to a press report that has just popped up on my Twitter feed, Kate Middleton was confirmed in a private service conducted by the Bishop of London last month as part of the preparations for her wedding service.

Apparently her decision had nothing to do with her wedding, but was part of a private journey of faith. Whilst it is heartening to learn that the couple have been in receipt of formal marriage preparation, which is a pre-requisite before couples may be allowed to marry in the Catholic Church, I can’t help but be slightly disappointed that this seems to have been kept something of a secret.

I can perhaps understand Kate’s reluctance to admit that the future wife of the Head of the Church of England was not in fact a practicing Christian, but it is a shame that she felt unable to make her news public. Confirmation signifies that one has a proper understanding of what it is to live as a disciple of Christ, part of this entails demonstrating faith in the community and bearing witness to the truth of Christ, thus her decision to keep this private, demonstrates a worrying conformity by those nominally in charge of the Church of England, to conform to the secular agenda of keeping faith behind closed doors, instead of actually living it.

Her confirmation should be a cause of celebration, a public bearing of witness, otherwise it risks being seen as a procedural exercise for the sake of form alone , a devaluation of an important sacrament and is yet another step towards undermining the established Church in this country, ironically by the very people who are sworn to defend it.

 

An ecumenical matter

 

As Royal Wedding fever begins to mount, there seems to be a surprising amount of apathy towards the couple from various Catholics on the blogosphere.

Whilst I admit that I was somewhat under-whelmed by the both wording and the timing of the prayer for the couple that was released last week by the Catholic Church in England and Wales, I struggle to see why many Catholic commentators are expressing indifference towards William and Kate’s nuptials.

Whether one likes or loathes the Royal Family, whether one is a fervent monarchist or committed republican, the monarchy is here to stay for the foreseeable future and thus as Christians we should celebrate that they are choosing to endorse the institution of marriage, which forms an important part of Catholic social teaching.

Though scoffed at by the liberal intelligentsia there are many who do still look to the royals to set an example, and I for one, was both dismayed and concerned that the royal couple seemed to be endorsing the practice of cohabitation, not least because it put Kate Middleton in a seemingly impossible position, unable to lead any sort of normal life, unable to carve out a career for herself and stuck in limbo until such time that William felt able to commit one way or the other. Of course it was desirable that he should not act hastily, but eight years seemed to be more than ample to decide whether or not this was the woman with whom he wished to spend the rest of his life.

William and Kate reflected today’s society in which cohabitation is a fact of life, a try-before-you-buy policy and certainly in their case the balance of power seemed to be one way, with Kate potentially having a lot more to lose had things not worked out. I am able to speak from the fairly unusual position of having cohabited before a marriage, as in the case of my annulled marriage, and also of having remained chaste before marriage and I can testify to the effectiveness of the latter in optimising one’s chances of a successful union. Though the blame for the breakdown of my first marriage cannot be solely attributed to cohabitation, it doubtless did not help us to make the transition from simply living together and sharing a house, to the permanency of marriage. Marriage entailed a lavish and expensive day, but the day after, neither of us felt any different, nothing had really changed, and as we both languished on the sofa the day after the wedding, nursing our hangovers, we even debated whether or not it would be worthwhile to cancel the honeymoon, given neither of us had any energy. Once the excitement of the wedding was over, there was nothing different, nothing new to look forward to.

When I properly entered into the sacrament of marriage, things could not have been more different. Everything was a novelty to the pair of us and highlighted the new status of our relationship. Even doing things like sharing the washing-up together, and sorting out various household tasks, reinforced the new intimacy between us. It was no longer his vicarage, but our family home, and even now, a few years later, having spent a few years dating before marriage, just the act of sharing the same bed to sleep in, still hasn’t quite lost that sparkle. There was a definite demarcation between simply going out and actually being married, there was a positive decision on behalf of the pair of both of us, a saying “yes”, a leap of faith, “this isn’t going to be easy, we won’t always feel as we do now, but I love you, I trust you and I am going to do my best to be the husband/wife that God is calling me to be”. It’s decidedly different from “well I’ve lived with you for x years, we share everything, why not, I think I can risk it and if it doesn’t work out there’s always a get-out clause”. The problem with cohabitation is, as far as I can discern it, is that there is always that get-out clause and its easy to carry that forward into a marriage as well as slide almost unthinkingly into matrimony. This sentiment is borne out by a recent study. Whereas in our case we had to make a positive decision with regards to whether or not to take our relationship to the next stage. It wasn’t without difficulty, chastity did not come without struggle for either of us, logistically had we lived together then we would not have encountered the difficulty with regards to my daughter’s school, she missed out on places at both the excellent C of E school that my husband was the governor of in his capacity of vicar, and indeed the equally good Catholic school, but it was certainly the right thing to do in terms of setting her a living example. Shortly after we got married, she exhibited signs of jealousy given that all of a sudden mummy was sharing a bedroom with dad and she felt excluded from the sleeping arrangements, although this was made up for by letting her choose the décor of her brand new bedroom, the painting of pink walls and the addition of lots of fairies, cupcakes and butterflies!

As Catholics we should not just shrug our shoulders at the forthcoming nuptials but actively wish the couple well, as we would with any other couple, regardless of status or privilege. Though it is tempting to be disdainful of the costs involved and the necessary pomp and pageantry, befitting the representatives of our country and solemnity of the occasion, given the prevailing economic gloom, it seems more than a little churlish to deny Kate Middleton her moment of glory. Though one doesn’t need to buy into the Royal Wedding fever currently being whipped up by the press, the idea of a street party being something of an anachronism from a by-gone age, if the Royal Wedding engenders a sense of community and enables friends and family to spend time reinforcing their bonds whilst celebrating the forging of a new one, then perhaps this isn’t such a bad idea after all. It might well be bread and circuses, but I’m sure most of us are, if nothing else, appreciating the extra day off and extension of the May bank holiday.

To note that as Catholics we should not be concerned by the behaviour of the Anglican monarchy from which we are disallowed, excluded, and which has no spiritual jurisdiction over us is misguided; actually the royal wedding is, in the words of Fr Ted Crilly, an ecumenical matter. In his book The Realm, Fr Aiden Nichols argues that Catholics need to reclaim Englishness and the institutions that stem from Catholic heritage, in order to build for the future. Though we may have doctrinal differences with Anglicanism, we need to recognise that the throne and the Church of England, are to quote Newman “breakwaters against infidelity”. They guard important elements of our Christian past and will slow down the process of secularisation, until such time, that the Catholic Church may genuinely renew its spiritual force.

Instead of defining ourselves by our political leanings, and  our  feelings towards the monarchy as a whole, we need to remember that we are first and foremost Christians, disciples of Christ and not forget the symbolism of marriage and the vital role it has to play within our faith and the building of a stable society.

Christians of all denominations should therefore unite in prayer and thanksgiving that the future King and Head of the Church of England is, albeit belatedly, embracing and endorsing the institution of marriage, before writing off the nuptials as irrelevant.

 

A convenient solution?

Nadine Dorries and Frank Field have launched the Right to Know campaign this week, in a bid to ensure that women facing unplanned or crisis pregnancies are “guaranteed access to independent information and advice from someone who had no vested financial interest in the outcome of their decision.”

On the face of it things, this would seem to be a very worthy goal, I for one would certainly support legislation which entailed that women facing an unplanned pregnancy would be able to discuss all her options in anon-judgmental manner. I agree that women often feel rushed and pressurised into taking the decision to abort without access to adequate medical information and have relevant experience of being in this situation myself. Often women go into the procedure without a knowledge of what this will entail and the potential physical and emotional repercussions. If one subscribes to the notion of choice, then the information as to precisely what that choice entails needs to be presented in order for the choice to be truly free and informed.

Even the passionate campaigner for women’s rights, Laurie Penny, advocates that abortion is not talked about enough, is still taboo, and indicates that women are not given the correct information about what the procedure entails. In an article written last year for Comment is Free in support of the Marie Stopes TV advert, she states:

“women still have little notion of how to arrange a termination or what to expect until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Caitlin, 24, called the Marie Stopes helpline when she had a medical termination last year. “I was in incredible pain after taking the abortion pill at home, and I had no idea whether that pain was normal or if I was in danger,” she said. “I didn’t know what was going on – but the person on the helpline talked me through everything.”

Surely if Caitlin had been given the correct information in the first instance, she wouldn’t have been left alone in that situation and would have had a better idea of what to expect? I suspect that Laurie Penny only wishes for abortion to be discussed upon her terms, namely those of pro-choice, however if we are going to make the subject less of a taboo, then we need to be honest and clear about what it is and what it involves.

I do not subscribe to the coercive and manipulative techniques employed by a few pro-life organisations, mainly those run by evangelical Christians. There is a time and a place for evangelization, whilst not criticising those are motivated by their faith to end the slaughter of innocent children, I would number myself among those, an appeal which makes recourse to the Bible  is meaningless, unhelpful and perhaps counter-productive. For those wishing to hammer home the point that this is indeed an unborn child’s life which is at stake, again to subject a pregnant woman to gruesome images of aborted fetuses is an unpleasant and wholly unnecessary tactic, designed to cause maximum stress and induce feelings of guilt in a vulnerable pregnant woman. This is not counselling, but emotional blackmail.

A choice to continue with a pregnancy needs to be a positive choice, one taken out of faith and love, not simply because one feels too guilty to contemplate the alternative. Early on in this unplanned pregnancy, I was asked by a medic whether or not I “accepted” it, which upon reflection I found to be helpful language. Do I accept my unborn child? Couched in those terms, there could only be one answer. Accepting and acknowledging the presence of an unborn child undoubtedly helped me to come to terms with those difficult few months at the very beginning and again now, when the prospect of birth and the shadow of major blood loss is looming.

The problem with the Dorries and Field campaign is that it is, at its core, fundamentally dishonest in its stated aims. Nadine Dorries has tried and failed on more than one occasion to get the legal abortion limit, currently at 24 weeks reduced. To many on the side of the pro-life lobby, this seems a worthy goal, surely the fewer abortions, the better? Whilst it may seem a pragmatic approach to attempt to work with what we have, to attempt to reduce the amount of abortions that are performed, surely it’s better to perform 50 abortions as opposed to 100, the ends do not justify the means. If you are truly committed to the pro-life cause, then you accept that all abortions are abhorrent, all deaths of unborn children are repugnant, not that some are alright and inevitable.

Dorries and Field are being disingenuous in that they are seeking to reduce the amount of abortions performed via the back-door, claiming it is about the welfare of the women, which indeed it is, whilst their real target is to pragmatically reduce the number of abortions that are performed. If we are going to attempt to do this, we need to be straightforward and honest about it, not hoodwink the general public under the guise of women’s welfare, leaving us open to accusations of dishonesty and a scant regard for women’s best interests.

I agree that independent counselling should be mandatory, however we need to accept, that in a society that condones and encourages abortion, this independent counselling will not change the minds of many women, and will be seen by many to be a pointless obstacle, although to my mind, if it does change the heart and mind of just one woman, if it saves the life of one baby, it will be worth it. If one is determined to go ahead with a particular course of action, counselling should affirm that belief. If however you are unsure, or need clarification, or simply to discuss the barriers to your having a child, then a good counsellor should explore those barriers with you in an impartial way, to help you see whether or not they may be overcome. What a counsellor should not do, is attempt to sway you either way, but explore the decision, what it would entail and what the possible results might be. A counsellor’s role is to help you to reach the decision that is right for you. If we are being honest then we have to accept that for many women, counselling will not change their decision to abort and could be perceived as a punitive measure. I would assert that truly independent counselling is no bad thing, but it changes nothing in terms of the availability of abortion; it may provide validation and affirmation to many, it may perhaps avert the possibility of future abortion-related trauma, no sane, rational or truly compassionate person could actually desire that someone suffers as a result of their decision to abort a baby, but counselling has to be seen purely in terms of helping women understand their options and absorbing the information available, not as a surreptitious way of getting the numbers down. There are really only two ways of reducing the amount of abortions that are performed in this country, one being sensible sex education, by which I mean an abstinence plus based approach and including a physical and ethical discussion as to the realities of abortion and secondly legislation which bans the practice, or severely restricts it.

The criteria of independent counselling by someone with no vested financial interest in the abortion procedure, could be used by any organisation with a vested financial interest in ensuring the child lives, without taking into consideration the needs of the mother and further undermine the pro-life cause. All organisations who carry out such counselling, must be BACP accredited or registered, such as LIFE, for example, who have absolutely no financial interest in the continuation of the pregnancy. A BACP accreditation will not be granted to those organisations who cannot guarantee absolute impartiality. Tactics should not include emotional blackmail or manipulation, which is far more likely to inflict lasting psychological damage in a vulnerable woman, which is what Dorries and Field state they want to avoid. If they are genuine about wishing to help women, then the amendment to the health bill needs to state that counselling should be carried only by an BACP accredited organisation.

The other difficulty with Norries campaign is that whilst rightly identifying the “abortion conveyer belt”, which many woman movingly describe, from the moment the first tentative phone call is made, they feel they have sparked a chain of events which they are powerless to stop, the enquiry about the abortion itself, being taken as implicit rejection of the pregnancy, she then goes on to mention adoption as being a potential solution, stating that last year “only 400 babies were put up for adoption” as most women chose abortion as an alternative. Firstly, we as a society should be rejoicing and celebrating that fewer and fewer women are deemed unable either by themselves or others to cope with a newborn baby. Of course it is preferable that babies are adopted as opposed to aborted, however, there is some nuance missing in this message. There is absolutely no way that a civilised society should be encouraging women with unwanted pregnancies to act in a so-called responsible fashion and give up their babies for adoption. On one level this solves the many difficulties involved with IVF, the discarded fetuses, the cost and the pain of the procedure, but it still treats babies like commodities, it denies their basic rights to a relationship with their birth parents whilst solving another problem in our society, that of  infertility. I’m not knocking adoption per se, it is a wonderful and generous gift on behalf of the adoptive parents and often the birth parents alike, but it is not without its difficulties as many families involved in adoption would testify. To tout it as a solution in the fashion of Nadine Dorries is nothing short of crass.

You don’t want your baby? Well you can’t kill it, so what you should do is give it to someone who really does want it. Simple. Does she have any idea of what it must be like to give away your birth child? Would she ever have contemplated it? I doubt she has been in the position of even needing to consider giving away her children. There is a huge shortage of surrogates in the UK for a reason. Most people do not want to go through 9 months of pregnancy, bond with the unborn child in their womb and then give it away. Most who do, act either out of financial imperative or have some underlying psychological issue as opposed to pure altruism. Women do not need to be told that it is their moral duty to carry a child for 9 months, give birth to it and then instantly give it away. This happened countless times in the 50s and 60s with some tales of absolute horror and heart-break, mothers were forced and coerced  into giving away their children. Yes, adoption is better than abortion, but it should not be the very first solution that comes to mind. When the vast majority of women get to the stage of giving birth they have accepted and acknowledged the existence and presence of a child within them, they have bonded with it, nurtured it, endured physical trials and tribulations for it and most are enthusiastic about meeting their newborn. Even those women suffering from depression are given support and assistance in bonding and coping with their newborn, children are not taken away unless it is in the direst of circumstances. It is a generally accepted truth that mothers are best for their children. I cannot imagine anything worse than being separated from my baby shortly after birth. Any woman who has given birth will testify to the huge rush and surge of hormones which make you instantly bond with your baby, the love often comes later believe it or not following the shell-shock of birth, but there is an innate desire to want to hold, look at, cherish and protect the little being that you have produced. A woman should never feel compelled to give up her newborn baby and even if she feels that this is the route she is going to take, a get-out clause should always be available and open to her.

Dorries’ suggestion that more babies need to be adopted is crass, inhumane and cruel. I am tempted to note that it is indicative of a total lack of compassion and understanding of the issues involved, utilitarian, not Christian in principle. The number of adoptions in the UK should have no bearing on whether or not independent counselling is a good idea and reveals the true motives beneath this campaign. Admittedly there are problems with the adoptions process in the UK meaning that many children languish in state care homes as opposed to go to loving families, but adoption should not be the only alternative to abortion and should not be touted as the solution to the 200,000 abortions that are performed in the UK every year. Besides many infertile couples are choosing firstly to go down the route of IVF, adoption being the last resort, not least because they would prefer the experience of pregnancy and a child who is biologically theirs. Adoption seems to be a red herring if the issue of women’s welfare when considering abortion is at stake.

Actually what mothers need is time to accept and adjust to the reality of pregnancy, I always think that there is reason why pregnancy lasts what seems to be an unending age. Not only so that the baby may be adequately prepared but also so that you may adjust as well. In these last few weeks it is difficult to think of anything other than the, in my case, not-so-little baby inside you, and wonder what it’s going to look like, whilst wishing profusely that it wouldn’t kick you so hard and would hurry up and be born.

Being pro-life does not have to stem from an inherent Catholic or Christian belief. It is a perfectly natural, logical, philosophical belief, but with that in mind, Catholics need to remember that at all times, the Catholic approach to matters of health is always holistic, it is always body and soul. It is not the utilitarian approach of too many abortions, well lets see if we can kill two birds with one stone, get the abortion rate down, whilst increasing the number of adoptions. Guilt tripping women into  adoption is not the holistic solution in a society that accepts, endorses and encourages abortion and will cause an individual untold mental anguish and distress.

Pro-lifers need to ask themselves what they need to do help mothers facing crises pregnancies. This needs to go beyond acts of mere charity, it’s all very well giving money for a pram, new equipment, a temporary place to stay etc, the moses basket is going to be of negligible use in six months time. Two years after giving birth following an unplanned pregnancy, the cot is redundant, as are the baby bottles, trousseau and the buggy is on its way out. Its at that point that the interest in the baby wanes and that the woman requires the most support in terms of job options, childcare, housing, and so on. She needs to be able to have her life in some sort of order, not be resigned to a life on hand-outs or charity. She needs to be empowered and enabled to help herself, not given piecemeal bits of money and equipment.

Women with crises pregnancies are above all human as are their unborn children and both need to be treated as such, not as pity cases who need to give up their babies for the good of society and not as pariahs either. What can we do to help mothers in these situations? Some organisations do go a long way to providing training and life skills to those in need of them, admittedly, but they do not go far enough.

Trying to reduce the number of abortions performed circumvents the issue. If we want a society that rejects abortion, that recognises it for what it is, the vast majority of the Irish population do not want abortion on demand and they have the lowest maternal death rates in the EU, then we do at least need to be honest about that, rather than attempting to manipulate the numbers down. We also need to be clear, concise and truthful about the science and our sources as opposed to making spurious claims, which any decent statistician will expose. There IS compelling evidence that abortion is linked to psychological trauma, but the truth is more nuanced than sane woman has an abortion, 6 months later she is admitted to a psychiatric unit. Very often women who find themselves in the situation of facing an unplanned pregnancy, have other issues going on, which may have contributed to the unplanned pregnancy and compound the trauma experienced. If we are going to use stats we need to make sure we understand them or they have been independently verified, that they hold up to scrutiny and substantiate the story, not undermine it.

I am an idealist, I want to protect the most innocent and vulnerable in our society, including the unborn disabled child. However I want to be upfront, honest and truthful about that. I support anything that might save the life of an unborn child, but I do wish this campaign had been better thought out in the first place. That said, if I were a pro-life MP then I would support it, something is better than nothing, and credit needs to be given to Nadine Dorries in that she does feel passionately about this issue and at least she has actually made an attempt to change things, but she does need to be more transparent in her use of data and cut back on the spin, which does not help the cause.

We should all take an honest look at the factors in society which might constitute  barriers to pregnancy, then work to overcome them. Speaking from experience, a woman with an unplanned pregnancy does not want to be told what to do, pity or charity. What she wants is hope for the future with her child, a light at the end of the tunnel, the prospect that she will be able to manage and build a life for her and her baby. No contraceptive is 100% effective, nor is it possible to stop people from having sex and accidents occurring.

What we need to think about is not risk management, not the killing of humanity, or working towards a set quota of abortions or the re-distribution of babies from poor single women, to rich married ones, but how to build a society whereby a woman is not driven to feel that there is no other option other than to kill her child and that this is an acceptable choice.

It’s the end of the world as we know it

There I was working myself up into a state of emotional angst over all this internet aggro and then suddenly, bang, perspective hits home with the news of today’s utterly devastating earthquake in Japan. I had been planning to do a brief update blog about the pregnancy and what seems like apocalypse begins to unfold on the other side of the earth.

The problem with 24/7 global media coverage is that it tends to overly-dramatise what is happening. Not that I am in any way suggesting that what has happened is anything less than dramatic: this is the largest ever earthquake to hit Japan since records began, one can’t begin to imagine the carnage and devastation, it is like something out of a disaster movie. The tweets were coming thick and fast, earthquakes, tsunamis the west coast of America on alert, New Zealand on alert, it was truly terrifying.

For pidge of little scientific brain, all kinds of doomsday scenarios were going off in my head. What if the whole of America was destroyed, then a massive wave made its way over the UK. I live in Brighton on the coast, heavens to betsy, we’d have no chance against an enormous wave 3 stories high, travelling at 500 miles an hour, erm, no hang on we live on a hill, would it be able to travel up a steep hill, what about the sails on the windmill down the road, perhaps we could all take refuge and climb up the windmill, yeah that would be a great plan, or should I just hide under the bed, quake and pray. Readers of a certain age will remember the Mr Men, narrated by Arthur Lowe. I was Mr Jelly “aaargh, it’s an earthquake” quiver, quiver shake, best hide under the bed, err no actually it was a falling leaf.

Disaster movies with their spectacular special effects and dramatisation of cataclysmic disasters bring what could happen vividly to life, they make fake media broadcasts using real-life news organisations to render events as realistic and plausible as possible. So when we see the global coverage unfolding, events happening very very quickly, it seems that we are caught up in the surge of a dreadful natural disaster over which we have no control. Obviously for the people of Japan that became a terrible reality today and it must have been equally scary to be living in one of those areas at risk. For a few hours it did seem like Armageddon was unfolding, if the earthquake and tsnumi didn’t kill everyone, then the nuclear explosion would finish everyone off.

In the midst of all these tweets, almost instantaneously the jokes started flying. At first I was affronted. All I’d been able to think of was the genuine fear, panic and terror faced by those poor people affected, vividly imagining attempting to escape an enormous wall of water travelling at 500 miles an hour, or my home being reduced to rubble in an instant. Worst of all being separated from my children and not knowing whether or not they were safe. Right at this moment people were scared and dying, preparations were being made on the Pacific Rim and the West Coast of America was on full alert. How dare people laugh at others’ pain!

A comment that really riled me was one made by Toby Young, almost instantaneously as the news of the tsunami hit “How come George Monbiot hasn’t popped up to blame this earthquake on global warming? Come on, George.Wake up”. It seemed unnecessarily opportunistic, taking advantage of a tragedy  to have a personal dig at someone else. Then Godzilla began to trend, much to the outrage of some. And the jokes came pouring in thick and fast. Was I being unduly po-faced I pondered, should we perhaps see a glimmer of fun in what was going on? Absolutely not is the answer, however when we imagine ourselves in the midst of a full-scale natural disaster, an Armagheddon which makes us realise our significance on this planet, what tiny minute ants we all are and how we are powerless against the forces of nature, one of the natural responses is that of laughter. The idea of gallows humour is well-known, funeral directors are known for having a black sense of humour. They have to develop it, to put on an outward face of pragmatism as a coping mechanism for coping with the often unpleasant business of death on an everyday basis. When you’ve been called out at 3am to deal with a suicide, road traffic accident or other accidental death by the coroner, sometimes humour is necessary to diffuse the horror.

Years ago, I was told that my father had been diagnosed with cancer. The circumstances were utterly surreal. I was at boarding school, my mother pitched up, I knew that my father had been very unwell, it had all been kept very hush hush from me in order that I didn’t flunk my GCSEs, and there I was, sat in the housemistresses office with my mother informing me in front of her that my father had cancer and would be embarking on chemotherapy. Actually given my record at school, I thought I was going to get a telling off for a packet of cigarettes having been found, so before she started speaking I spied the tray of doughnuts for house tea placed in the office and asked if I could have one, to diffuse the obvious tension. When I was told, what was my instinctive reaction? I laughed!! It just all seemed so surreal, me sat in Miss M’s office eating a doughnut with my mother using baby-language to describe the fact that my father had testicular cancer, necessitating an operation, which had then spread to the liver. It does not need to be stated that I found the situation anything but funny once it had sunk in.

Some of the jokes flying about today were very witty puns even if they were sorely lacking in taste. My husband put things into perspective as I was sat there fretting about the people of Japan in the antenatal clinic. My thoughts were “here I am, worrying about how and when this baby is going to emerge, in a nice clean safe hospital, with top-line medical care, highly trained professionals, and people right now are facing unimaginable terror and death. There’s probably a woman giving birth amid the quake right now. I’ve been getting so upset about this internet malarky when it’s meaningless in the big scale of things.”

When I conveyed my anxiety as to events, husband’s response was “look, don’t think I don’t care, I do very much and we must pray for them, but right now they are not my direct responsibility. You and my children and this baby are. That’s what we need to focus on for the next half hour. My job right now is to worry about you”. Of course we have prayed as a family later, but we all cope with these things in different ways, and the inevitable outrage about a said tweeter’s jokes ended up being rather faux and more than a little hypocritical. OK, so he made some tasteless jokes some of which were skillful puns, others a bit lame. Isn’t it rather hypocritical to be focusing on how other people are reacting, how they are not visibly displaying their grief, angst and trauma in the same way as you and thus they must be heartless and uncaring? Hit unfollow and move on.

I realised the fragility of my faith, when I began to ponder whether or not doomsday might really be rapidly approaching, given the sheer scale of natural disasters over the past few years. My mind started wandering into the realms of total paranoia, Mayan prophesies, analysing the date of the disaster 11.03.11. Was it something about the number 11? Could we find some patterns here? Ben Goldacre indulged in his forthright brand of de-bunking a Daily Mail report. He couldn’t work out what had possessed the Daily Mail to print such a report. I think the answer is clear, mankind is searching for answers in a world beset by chaos and disaster. To impose order upon the disorder. Which is where an understanding of the nature  of God is vital.

I caught myself in check and reminded myself of what Matthew tells us of the return of Christ, when this world will cease to exist. “But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.” Matthew 24:36.

It could be today, it could be tomorrow it could be centuries or millennia from now. There is no point speculating. All we can do is watch, pray, be vigilant and be ready to meet the Lord if he comes to us this very night.

For a Christian, it really will be a case of “the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine”. Joy will be an entirely appropriate emotion.

Shhh…don’t mention the s-word

One of the recurrent themes of my online presence recently has been that of judgement. Not in the eschatological sense, but more of an earthly sense. “Ooooh, you’re so judgemental” goes the cry. A quick scan through some of the comments on this blog will certainly bear this out.

Taking a black and white position on various issues renders one “judgemental”. The phrase amuses and irks me in equal measure. It is undoubtedly meant as a criticism, as it is applied to mean that one is negatively judging a person, not an act, however as I have repeatedly stated, there is a world of difference between abhorrence or distaste for an act and the extension of that abhorrence to the person. It is entirely possible to condemn an act without implicitly condemning the person. An example might be the mother or father with a child who is addicted to drugs. They would abhor the habit, despise the effect of dependency upon the child, whilst their love for their child would remain unaffected.

To call someone “judgemental” is highly ironic, because that is in itself a judgement. Is it so bad to be “judgemental”? Every single one of us is judgemental, whether we like it or not. Our whole lives are centered around a series of judgements concerning what is right and what is wrong. For some, like myself, this is extremely black and white. I hold fast to the principle of the sanctity of human life and thus I would never intentionally kill anyone, which is why amongst other reasons, I could never participate in abortion, IVF or euthanasia. It has been argued that this stance leaves me lacking in compassion, because my morality is not fluid –  I would not change my mind regardless of circumstance. This is apparently a bad thing, because, if you look at my comments, it means that allegedly I am raising myself up above other people, implying that I am somehow better. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, by stating one’s opinions, one will incur the wrath of others who take an opposite viewpoint and see an implicit criticism of their stance, however this is a different proposition to criticism of the person or individuals. Very often people use the lesser of two evils to justify a position, however that does not render the act a desirable one, in the same way that it does not judge the person who has participated in that act. In the vast majority of cases involving life issues, there are mitigating factors, these are not cold-hearted decisions, however that does not detract from the gravity of the act themselves.

I challenge anyone who claims that they are not judgemental. All of us are, whether we admit to it or not. We make judgements throughout our lives and on a daily basis. Some of these are trivial, others more far-reaching. We make judgements on politicians, on ideologies and dare I say it on people themselves. We make judgements on the moral characters of our leaders and public figures. Though I have not watched it, it seems that the popular Channel 4 programme, Big Fat Gipsy Weddings, has incurred a huge amount of judgement upon the lifestyles and personalities of the travelling community. If we see a pregnant mother smoking a cigarette most of us make a moral judgement, regardless of whether or not we have caught her having an uncharacteristic quick one-off puff, or as happened to my husband tonight, who was sat in front of a couple who chattered non-stop throughout a silent Mass discussing whether or not they wanted burger and chips later on, he certainly made a judgement, i.e. that they clearly weren’t regular church-goers, as indeed did the lady who glared at him, thinking that he was the culprit. All of us live our lives by judgements in terms of our actions and behaviour and we invariably raise an eyebrow if we see others acting in a manner contrary to our innate codes.

This is not the same prospect as judging the state of other’s souls however, or as has been suggested, looking down on others. One of the most misquoted passages of Christian scripture is “Judge not lest ye be judged”, which is used as stick to beat Christians who take absolute positions. As in all passages from scripture it needs to be contextualised. This is not a passage that is saying “never ever have an opinion on anything or anyone”, far from it. Indeed to state that Jesus was not judgemental is to misunderstand huge swathes of the gospels. Most of Matthew’s gospel is in fact concerned with judgements and how we should make them. It is the statement immediately following “judge not lest ye be judged” that holds the interpretative key:  “or with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” What we as Christians need to refrain from, is judgement concerning the final fate of anyone. We must leave intentions, motives, and final worth to God. We are not to confuse the judgment of the actions of people, with sitting in judgment over them as to their eternal fate, and furthermore we are exhorted to remove the log in our own eyes first, to make sure that we are not hypocrites, before we may make sound and righteous judgements.

I never fail to be bemused by those who claim Jesus didn’t judge because he was happy to consort with sinners. Whilst the second part is undoubtedly true, Jesus did not come to call the righteous and was often admonished for the company he kept, prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers to name but a few of the so-called undesirables, what is clear, is that whilst retaining compassion for the individual, he always forgave the sin. So to the woman brought before him for adultery he said “neither do I condemn thee, go, and sin no more”. He was making a judgement that her previous life had been sinful, however he urged her to sin no more. This is not the same as “neither do I condemn thee, what you did was alright really and understandable in the circumstances…”

I love the tale of Zacchaeus, the tax-collector. Not only is this an example of Jesus consorting and embracing the outcast, of the casting aside the social conventions of his day, a modern day analogy would be going for tea with Nick Griffin, but also it’s a classic example of meeting the sinner where they are. Christ didn’t wait for Zacchaeus to come to him, he spied (or perhaps he knew) Zacchaeus was in the tree and came to meet him. This is one of the key elements of evangelisation. It’s meeting people where they are, acknowledging them in their journey and quest for grace, not waving about banners or statements of condemnation. But in all that, there is an acceptance by Zacchaeus that he is wrong, he is the sinner, Christ has already forgiven him before he makes his offer of reparation. Christ does not justify Zacchaeus’ actions, indeed he has already judged, however the important thing is that Zacchaeus is aware and prepared to concede that he has done wrong, without ever once seeking to make excuses for his conduct. Zacchaeus is not exempt from judgement.

The fear of imposing judgement can be inhibiting and paralyzing. One of the things of which I am frequently accused is of lacking compassion. I pray that the opposite is true. Compassion does not mean accepting all actions, lifestyles, beliefs or choices are equally valid. It’s understandable, after all this sentiment sounds kind, sympathetic, convincing and even loving. Jesus did after all, welcome everyone with open arms; when he stretched his arms open wide and died for the for the salvation of mankind, absolutely no-one was excluded from that sacrifice. No-one. If we accept the sacrifice, we have therefore accepted the reason why it was necessary, namely that big old s-word again, sin.

This is why we have to use our judgement as to what is right and what is wrong, whilst at the same time, accepting that we cannot stand in judgement upon the souls of others. We have to go and “sin no more” and without identifying what constitutes sin, how may we do this? God deals with sin, not by making allowances for it, excuses for it or lowering his expectations. He didn’t water it down, but in His perfect justice He showed us compassion, and He met His own demands on our behalf. Christ died to free us all from sin but we can’t be free from sin if we make allowances for it, or attempt to justify it. We have to repent, not make excuses for ourselves.

If we go back to Zacchaeus we see Jesus’ showing a perfect example of tolerance. Christ allowed Zacchaeus turn upside down the gossip and presumption that his townspeople had spread about him.  Then by Jesus going to his home, Jesus was welcoming Zacchaeus back into the community.  He was being inclusive. In our time, tolerance has a unique meaning.  It means being welcoming and accepting and inclusive, and, here’s the catch for our time: pretending that evil does not exist.  Contemporary society mistakenly defines inclusive to mean the sin as well as the sinner. Jesus is the pattern for how we are to be tolerant.  He did not whitewash the sins of Zacchaeus.  Zacchaeus had already come to terms already with sin in his life, and Jesus confirms him in his reformed life, and leads the townspeople to see him differently. Jesus did not affirm the sin itself and therefore conversion, a recognition of sin, was a key part of Christ’s tolerance. Somewhere along the line Zacchaeus had changed his ways.

God tells us specifically that certain things are sinful, the problem is that a lot of people don’t like it, but we are not doing anyone any favours if we deny the reality of sin. St Paul tells us “Judge everything, hang on to what is good”.

One of my favourite on-line adversaries, is always screaming at me “you can have what ever batshit, bead-rattling beliefs you like, you just have no right to impose those beliefs on other people” *puts on Rolf Harris voice – can you guess who that might be”? 😉 * I vehemently disagree with not only the wording (obviously) but also the premise. The Church has every right, and more importantly, every obligation, to tell mankind of the danger of sin and the deadly consequences of indulging in it. That’s not “imposing morality.” It is the greatest demonstration of compassion.

In being given free will, we have been given a terrible and deadly choice. We can either choose God, or choose a path that will lead us away from him. I am not motivated by hatred. I am not intolerant in that I seek to stigmatise or criminalise no-one. I would not turn away a perceived sinner as I know that I am every bit as guilty. But, by the same token, I am not afraid to call sin for what it is, and that does not render me extreme or intolerant.

I am learning that by vocalising my beliefs, I am being scorned, reprimanded and amusingly enough called un-Christian, for stating that some things are wrong and sinful. I am labelled hateful, judgemental and self-righteous. None of this deters me from the identification of sin and though upset, I am not afraid to state the truth. Sin comes to kill and destroy us, to detach us from God. I don’t understand how it is compassionate to welcome and tolerate sin which threatens eternal death.

Compassion is deep awareness and sympathy for another’s suffering. Compassion does not comprise of condoning a particular action and neither is the identification and  rejection of sin akin putting oneself on a pedestal above others. As a sinner I cannot sit in judgement upon another,  but neither must I “call evil good, and good evil, [or] change darkness into light, and light into darkness, [or] change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!” It’s a very difficult tightrope we must all walk.

If the identification of sin and a refusal to consciously commit a mortal sin, renders me “judgemental”, well I guess I’m happy to live with that. Whether or not that makes me “a nasty titsponge who hides behind a sickeningly pious exterior”, “batshit”, “clinically insane” and “a religious extremist” to name but a few of the choice insults, I shall leave for God to judge. I will not respond, other than to note that the  name-calling, public defamation and bullying that I have been subjected to recently from other Christians, are not the tactics of Jesus.

EMA, Marriage and “Emancipation”

I had a slight online altercation with Johann Hari on Twitter earlier this week. Altercation is probably too strong a word, more like I insinuated that his stance was slightly foolish, he attempted to justify it and then he ignored me. Quite right too. I have to confess to a shred of disappointment that I didn’t join that elite band of Tweeps who he has blocked – “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers”…

Mr Hari had, in his infinite wisdom, exhorted his followers to join a Facebook group entitled, “I would happily sacrifice my married couples’ tax allowance to save the EMA”.

The logic behind it being that EMA currently costs the treasury £500 million per annum with the proposed married couples’ tax allowance estimated at £550 million per annum. I don’t feel particularly inclined to discuss the EMA issue, other than to note that it seemed like a charming piece of naivety to assume that the coalition who are ideologically opposed to EMA, faced with an electorate who were declining a potential tax benefit, would say, “you know what, not many of our voters are that interested in receiving their £150 per annum, so let’s just keep the EMA after all”. They’d still cut EMA regardless.

The other point that this group failed to grasp was that the £150 a year, which they quantify in terms of buying married couples a Big Mac a week between them, compared to the resources needed to attend FE, is not about providing a financial incentive to marriage. What David Cameron appears to be wishing to do, is to provide married couples with a reward, for society to grant some recognition, no matter how small, to the contribution that marriage makes to society. Whether or not this is some sort of misguided sop to attempt to appease his core voters as well as an attempt to give a nod to the religious communities who all strongly advocate marriage, particularly in terms of being the most stable environment in which to bring up children, is a matter of conjecture. Whether or not it is a worthwhile use of resources is an entirely different matter and one on which people may draw their own conclusions.

The opposition would do well to avoid claims that it’s an attempt to bribe people to get married or stay in abusive relationships; £150 will probably buy you a wedding cake and marriage licence, but that’s about it, certainly not enough to make couples commit to marriage in their droves. Equally no woman suffering from domestic abuse is likely to be swayed to stay in that relationship by the offer of £150. Many women in those situations (and I am loath to employ generalisations on this topic) are not likely to be in control of their finances and thus £150 will make no odds. I should imagine that when fleeing one’s home to a refuge with your children, taking the bare essentials, that lost £150 or Big Mac per week is going to be the last thing on one’s mind. What many detractors to the Married Couples’ Tax Allowance are against, is the idea that society might reward or recognise marriage as being the ideal, which conflicts with their personal ideology and situation and allegedly “judges” those who are not married. If the Opposition are going to fight this, they need to make a serious economic case, instead of anti-marriage rhetoric and talk of forcing women to stay in dangerous relationships. There needs to be dialogue about whether or not this would amount to unfair penalisation of single mothers and whether or not the government should legislate for private morality; not reduce the argument to a banal statement about whether or not married couples need an extra burger a week, side-stepping the entire issue.

The group itself is disingenuous in its objectives, and Johann Hari short-sighted in promoting it. When I probed him on it, he unsurprisingly patronised me by informing me that it was in the Tory party manifesto and that I needed to do some research on it. Rightyho then Johann, let’s just assume that most folk on Twitter expressing some sort of political opinion didn’t bother to acquaint themselves with party manifestos. Given that there currently is no Married Couples’ Tax Allowance for the under 75s, it is simply being discussed as a possibility in the next budget, it seems rather daft to be renouncing something that you don’t actually have. Makes you look, dare I suggest, a touch stupid.

My other niggle was that given Johann Hari is neither married or in a civil partnership, I take umbrage at him strongly suggesting that people should volunteer to relinquish a tax benefit that he himself would not be party to. “I want you to give up your extra £150 for students in FE, but I’m not going to because I don’t get it anyway”. Although, if I’m honest, I’d probably bristle at any well-paid commentator for a national newspaper telling me to give up money, given that I’m in less of a position to be able to afford it. The statement lacked integrity. His response to this was “but my taxes are going to be used to pay the new subsidy”. Sorry to let you in on a teensy wee secret Johann but death and taxes are a fact of life and there will always be disagreement as to how taxes will be spent. I’m also a taxpayer and there are plenty of things that I cannot abide my taxes going on. A democracy elects a government whom they hope will best represent their wishes on how to spend taxes and manage the economy, amongst other things.

The aspect that riled me the most however, was the attempt to rally political activism by means of a Facebook group. Don’t get me wrong, the internet and social media are extraordinarily useful tools in building online communities, gathering together support and fellowship and hopefully building coherent groups, but they are only a part of the story, only part of the armory in achieving real social and political change, no matter what one’s cause or ideology. To rely too heavily on the internet, be it blogs, social media, or both in combination is to waste opportunity. Though I find Twitter immensely useful in terms of keeping abreast of developments and in forming useful relationships and finding Catholic fellowship; one major drawback, is that too much time reading a liturgical blog can, if one is not careful, detract one from reading the source material itself. One picks up bite size chunks of this and that, without ever reading the text in its entirety, meaning that one is unable to form critical judgements, only gleaning from the opinions of others.

Reliance solely upon social media, risks, as the Pope said this week in his message for the 45th World Communications Day, enclosing ourselves in a parallel universe, and must not replace authentic human encounters. In terms of political or social activism, it can encourage laziness. In terms of spirituality it must not replace prayer or meditation, instead providing aids, such as the Universalis application, for example.

If we examine how social change has come about throughout history, it has been through cogent protest, demonstration and activism. What has had more impact, the student demonstrations and occupations, or an online protest group with say 1,000 members? It’s one thing to spout polemic on the internet, another thing to actually get up and do something, whether that be to protest, or to practically help those in need, instead of simply talking about them. Same applies for Christian spirituality. It’s not enough to go to Church every week, you need to actually live your faith by word and deed, proclaim and live the Gospel, not just tick the weekly Mass obligation box.

It is not enough to simply click “like” or “join” on a social media group and feel like you’ve done your job, if change is what you desire. The internet is not “the means of human emancipation”.

Which is why, Johann Hari, I found your exhortations more than a little lame.

 

Christian courtesy

The intellectual power-house and thinking woman’s crumpet known as David Allen Green has written an interesting post in today’s New Statesman.

Whilst I do not wish to re-hash the entire case with regards to the case of the B&B owners, I note that Ed West of the Telegraph echoes the point made on this blog last week, namely that the owners were not refusing the couple outright hospitality but were offering a restricted hospitality, in line with the type of hospitality on offer to all unmarried couples.

Mr Green says “The duties which one owes to strangers are central to any developed system of law, as they are to any sensible system of ethics”.

Whilst I wouldn’t dare to contradict Mr Green’s extensive professional knowledge, I would like to point out that while systems of law do incorporate duties, it is equally true that law does not exist to justify behaviour. Indeed the law prescribes both duties and limits to our behaviour. The duty of care to one’s neighbour is not automatically approving.

Mr Green continues “In both legal and ethical contexts, there is long tradition of valuing the hospitality to be given to travellers and guests.”

Again this is correct, however what Mr Green omits is that hospitality cuts both ways. Hospitality is generosity to another, opening one’s doors to another, however this does not mean that the guest is able to behave exactly how they wish. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the responsibility of the recipient of hospitality is as important as the hospitality offered by the host. It is a two-edged sword. If we examine those cultures and traditions whereby hospitality is of vital importance, the encounter pivots upon the graciousness of the guest in the way they accept the hospitality on offer. One would not offend the host by refusing to eat the food provided – refusing to observe traditional customs, insisting on following one’s own habits and certainly one wouldn’t call the police if one felt that the hospitality on offer was different to what one had been accustomed. Hospitality is a mutual exchange.

My mother-in-law has just returned from attending her brother’s funeral in China where the rules of hospitality meant that she had to accept the hospitality that was on offer from her brother’s wife, a Chinese national. This included some funeral customs that were a complete anathema to a practicing Christian,however as a guest of her sister-in-law it was not for her to dictate the terms of the funeral, nor indeed the wake, which consisted of a Chinese karaoke party. She was welcomed as a guest into the house as a family member and thus had to accept the generous hospitality that was on offer, despite the fact  that it was contrary to her preferences.

Mr Green concludes: “So it is saddening that some followers of the very religion which gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan appear now to be completely unaware of this.”

With the greatest of respect, the parable of the Good Samaritan is not purely concerned with hospitality, but also with that greatest of Christian virtues, namely Caritas –  love for one’s neighbour, a love that enables one to put one’s fellow-man above one’s self. That does not simply mean their neighbour’s own perception of their desires first. As I have discussed in previous posts, love often entails an element of discipline.

This is where the clash of ideologies takes place. The liberal does not wish to have their physical freedoms restricted or dictated by another.

Furthermore, I do believe that it IS possible for so-called “mainstream Christians” to object to Mr Green’s statement which attempts to explain the principles of their  Christian faith to them, assuming that they have misunderstood it – something of a slightly patronising attitude. Mr Green falls into that classic trap of defining his version of what he believes Christianity to be all about, and assuming that those who disagree with this definition are by very nature extremist or ill-educated.

The commandment “Love thy neighbour as thyself” is often, understandably, thought to be the cornerstone of Christianity. To some extent it is, but as discussed above, love is not to be confused with giving free rein or licence. It also needs to be understood in the context of the commandment immediately preceding it, namely “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12: 30-32)

The second commandment cannot be taken in isolation to mean simply be nice to other people, which is how it is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. One has to be able to love God with all one’s heart and soul in order to be able to contextualize how to love one’s neighbour. Loving God includes following his commands on how we should live. To love our neighbour as ourselves is to desire for them the good that we desire for ourselves which is to follow God and to follow his commandments. God’s commandments are not those of a dictatorial, authoritarian God as the likes of Stephen Fry might have one believe. God is love and therefore his commandments are given out of love, because he desires the best for us. The things that are prohibited are ultimately the things that cause self-destruction.

This is not quite the same as be nice to each other folks version of Christianity that many liberals and perhaps poorly catechised Christians subscribe to, not being able to deal with the idea of a God who might prohibit our freedoms and our basest desires. People often perceive that their actions or desires do no harm to others and thus cannot accept the idea of a God who will not condone a deed, which as far as they are concerned, does absolutely no physical or discernable harm to anyone else.

The idea that the Christian B&B owners might have been acting out of love is unfathomable to many. As I mentioned here, the idea that a homosexual act is a sin, i.e. something that separates us from God, seems to many unpleasant. It smacks of dislike and hatred, when the reverse is true. The merest mention of sin, sends many reaching for their copy of the Guardian to fan down their waves of indignation, but in fact sin is just that – sin. An American Jesuit priest friend of mine involved in enticing me back to the fold many years ago, once recounted a story about a time he committed a mortal sin. Utterly repentant on his knees in the confessional the next day, eaten up by remorse, his kindly superior said to him “Hey son, it’s sin, that’s all it is”. Sin is obviously not desirable in that it separates us from God, but ultimately God is love and mercy: He always forgives.

Without wishing to go too far  into the realms of basic apologetics there are 2 types of sin, mortal and venial. Venial sin is accidental, like when the internet troll pushes you too far and you swear at her in the heat of the moment. It is certainly not honouring God, but neither is it pre-meditated. Mortal sin is when you deliberately and with full knowledge of what you are doing, commit serious sin. That’s it. Sexual sin is no worse than any other type, whether it be mortal or venial.

This seems to me to be the root of the issue. To a self-professed liberal like David Allen Green, the idea of saying that something is bad, seems unkind, unpleasant and not in kilter with his definition of Christianity. He is a highly principled, ferociously intelligent man of integrity and scruples who wishes to fight for the underdog. To deny a couple their double room seems deeply unkind, rooted in contempt and thus un-Christian. The reverse is true. It was an act of pure Christian love.

A polite request

To quote the lovely Rosamundi, who when I get around to updating my blogroll, I will definitely add, I am not a Catholic blogger, but a Catholic who blogs. As one of these  pesky people, I have quite fixed views on things. That doesn’t mean that I don’t empathise with people, nothing could be further from the truth, but at the end of the day, my morality means that I do hold certain viewpoints which, along with everyone else, I have the right to articulate.

Yesterday I made a comment about Elton John’s adoption of a baby, which I believe to be morally very questionable for a variety of factors, mainly his age, his lifestyle, meaning in this case his extravagencies and penchant for faddish collections, his well-documented battles with drink and drug addiction and the fact that the child will be brought up excluded from any sort of normal upbringing and probably with minimal privacy or chance to develop his own identity. More on this in a later post.

Many people took my comments of what constitutes an ideal family situation as a direct slur upon their own situation. That was not the intention, but in common with stating any preference it stirs up strong emotions because if someone else’s choice is not the same as yours that implies indirect criticism. To use a trite example, even a statement such as “eating fish and chips out of newspaper is the only way to eat them” has potential to offend. “I only eat them on a plate, newspaper is unhygenic, are you questioning my palate, how dare you?!”

Questioning whether or not and indeed stating that I didn’t feel at all comfortable with the media and celebrity cooing over Elton’s new arrival, whether or not it was a good idea for an old man to effectively buy a baby, that ideally children should have the opportunity to develop loving relationships with both biological parents, was taken as an insult or slur upon those who are in difficult circumstances. Having previously publicly expressed disquiet about same-sex couple adoption as well as the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, meant that my misgivings in Elton’s case were automatically fuelled by that favoured and overused insult of so-called liberals, “homophobia”. I’ve previously posted on this topic, however I was subject to a barrage of tweets stating “I don’t agree with Elton John’s adoption. Oh wait I do. My brain hasn’t been taken over by Catholic homophobia”, which degenerated into insults calling me “thick” and stating that resorting to a dictionary definition of homophobia (see former post) was “weak”. Ultimately I am a homophobe, a hypocrite and a bigot, because I don’t agree that a 63 year old man should be able to buy his own child and circumvent UK adoption law. Incidentally I don’t believe that Elton would have been approved for adoption in the UK, for a variety of factors amongst which gender and sexuality wouldn’t figure. But again stating that recreational drug use isn’t an ideal attribute for a parent, is an unacceptable thing to say. So is questioning whether or not two people have the right to procure a baby, take it away from its birth mother, in order to satisfy their belated longing for a child. More on that in another post.

What has saddened me hugely, is that one of my oldest and most beloved friends has taken the decision to block me from Facebook, although she did the courtesy of emailing me first, because she finds my views too difficult to take. I completely understand the decision and think its a sensible one, after all, I deliberately don’t read things that I am going to find distressing or that will rile me. Whilst I remain open-minded and read material from both the Marxist end of the spectrum to very pro-Capitalism polemics, at times I try to avoid those such as Peter Tatchell, Keith Porteous-Wood, Polly Toynbee, Dawkins and their ilk, who have as much theological literacy as my dog and simply end up infuriating me. So though I am extremely upset and saddened, I respect the decision and think it is probably the right one, and I hope I will not lose an important friendship over it.

It should be fairly obvious that I have defined views on topics such as abortion. This is my blog, it’s my rules and I dictate the topics that I wish to discuss. I would suggest to anyone who finds my views so “disgusting, vile and abhorrent” to use words flung at me yesterday, who thinks that I am “full of bile and vitriol” to go and read blogs more suited to their tastes. However when I am implored to ” back off and STOP”, and told “you are embarrassing and humiliating yourself” either when blogging or on twitter, this is something of a counterproductive approach and gives the impression of bullying. I am neither embarrassed or humiliated, but I am certainly intimidated by the insults and sheer hatred.

I have thought long and hard whether or not to shut down this blog or move away from social media, it is horrible to lose friendships and worse to face an inbox chock full of hate mail. At present I have 364 emails containing nothing but hate, expressing sentiments such as “I hope you die a horrible death at the hands of a backstreet abortionists rusty scissors”. My husband is certainly concerned to see his wife visibly upset, distressed and shaken. By highlighting this, no doubt I will invariably be accused of playing the victim status or that perhaps my views warrant such abuse, it serves me right for publicly stating such strong views, it is par for the course.

I am currently experiencing a spot of the old cognitive dissonance. When I was a child my father used to say “if you want to be liked, you’ve got to be likable”, whilst at the same time stating “it doesn’t matter what other people think, you shouldn’t care what other people have to say”. It seems to me, that in order to be acceptable, to engage in effective evangelism and apologetics, one has to win hearts and minds. The only way this seems possible is by watering down beliefs to make them more palatable. The problem is, that on certain issues, this is something of an impossibility. I cannot say “well abortion is alright, I don’t agree with it as a choice for myself but it’s fine for others”. That is totally illogical. Nor can I say “well it’s acceptable in this circumstance and that circumstance but not in this one”.  It’s an issue of moral absolutes for me.

There is a whole welter of issues that I do take an absolutist approach over. That is not to be confused with a “judgemental” approach. Stating that I grieve for the lives of the lost unborn, is not the same as condemnation of women who have taken those decisions. Wishing that we lived in a society that generally placed a higher value upon a life is not a personal slur. Believing that acts of homosexual sex constitute a sin, an act that separates us from God, is not the same as hatred, fear or contempt of a personal with homosexual inclination. In terms of “judgement” I am in no position to sit on judgement upon anyone’s soul at all and nor can I or should I speculate as to the contents of people’s hearts. I can however comment upon questionable moral actions, particularly the ones carried out by people in the public domain and which reflect upon our society. I have a right, along with everyone else, to enter into a discourse about the type of society that I would like to live in.

There is currently a debate as to whether or not Christians are subject to a degree of persecution in the UK. Though I am no Christian martyr, when expressing a commonly held Christian view, one not exclusive to Catholics, I am implored to “stop”. When I receive emails calling for my horrific and painful death or stating that I should be subject to acts of deplorable sexual violence, because of an imagined hatred of gay people and women, enough to make me want to cease blogging and cease any public Christian witness, this does nothing for the causes of tolerance and diversity. To be honest I am writing this with a huge degree of trepidation, terrified of inciting yet more scorn, hatred and contempt.

I may well take a break, for a while but the stubborn side of me is rebelling. Why should I be cowed into silence and submission by bullies whose logic and rhetoric has totally failed? Besides I want to talk about Elton John!

For those who do want to see me die at the hands of a backstreet abortionist, I am sorry that my words have incited such hatred and violence in you. I am sure that this is simply rhetoric and not a genuine emotion. All I can suggest is that you cease to read and I will endeavour to hold you in prayer.

 

It wouldn’t happen to a homeopath

I know I have touched on this previously, but it seems that the UK is edging closer and closer to a state whereby freedom of religious expression, outside of the home and in places of worship, will be illegal.

I am referring to the case of Duke Amachree, who was dismissed for mentioning God in the workplace. An employment tribunal has ruled that it was reasonable for Wandsworth Council to dismiss Mr Amachree, after he was sacked for gross misconduct for suggesting to a client with an incurable illness not to give up hope and to try putting her faith in God.

It is admittedly quite difficult to get to the truth of the matter, Wandsworth Council claiming that the lady concerned was subject to a “half an hour barrage”,  Mr Amachree denying this, however it seems that the lady who made the initial complaint, did not want Mr Amachree to lose his job. I can understand, that particularly for us Brits, we find the prospect of those evangelising, embarrassing, uncomfortable, challenging, irritating and intrusive. I can understand that if it was deemed that Mr Amahcree had gone somewhat OTT in his attempts, then surely a verbal or written warning would have sufficed, particularly given that he had 18 years of unblemished service? Gross misconduct should not be applied to a misguided attempt at evangelisation. Gross misconduct, in my experience, is exactly that – conduct that is offensive, outrageous and unacceptable,  often incurring criminal charges, such as insider trading, downloading internet pornography at work, theft, engaging in bullying behaviour and discrimination. Attempting to help a client, albeit misguided help, is not a heinous offence, deserving of loss of job and income and does not fall into the same category.

What if, during this conversation Mr Amachree had become very passionate and animated about, homeopathy, a “remedy” of dubious value? What if he had suggested, in his capacity as housing officer, that perhaps his client should employ some Feng Shui to get all her energy correctly channeled? What about had he suggested reflexology, or reiki or some other new age mystical practice? I bet there is no way that he would have been sacked for gross misconduct, or indeed any action would have been taken, other than perhaps he was told to tone down his enthusiasm.

Dawkins would no doubt put Christianity and homeopathy in the same category when it comes to the curing of diseases, but actually it seems that what was being suggested was something of a spiritual remedy, something that might actually bring comfort to the client, as opposed to any sort of cure. Besides, this doesn’t seem to be the issue, what seems to be at stake is the fact that Mr Amachree was preaching religion which has proved such an anathema to the authorities.

Let’s face it, who of us, have not been enthusiastic about something in our lives.? How many of us have not, at some point in our working lives, extolled the virtues of a particular lifestyle, something that we are passionate about to our colleagues. I’ve had to sit there at times and turn a deaf ear to colleagues telling me about Feng Shui-ing my office or weekends about tantric sex “you really should go and and learn how to align your chakras”. People tend to be passionate about positive influences in their live and wish to share them, whether that be the latest app for the Ipad, or the Cambridge Diet. Indeed I even had one colleague try to enrol me on an Alpha Course. It was precisely Mr Amachree’s passion for his faith or religion that caused the problem here and for which he has been most unfairly penalised.

What is it with this country, why can’t we tolerate any display of religion? Or we can, after all most people do not seem to support a ban of the burka, it being an expression of religious faith, freedom, but so long as that expression does not extend to any verbal contact, or is not mainstream Christianity.

You can believe what you like, but don’t seek to “impose” it on others say the so-called liberals. Well that’s fine, but my belief involves an element of evanglisation, attempting to share and pass on the good news, not treating it as some cosy club or party to which only the select few are invited. The imposition cuts both ways. Those with a Christian faith are having a silence imposed on them and are placed under fear of losing their jobs. This man thought he could see a way of helping someone, and spoke up, in the same way that someone might attempt to offer a different piece of constructive advice. Christians are effectively being gagged because others don’t like or wish to hear what they have to say.

I’m sorely tempted to make a case against the next employee of any organisation who might wish to make any helpful suggestions about homeopathy, Feng Shui or any other such dubious practices which they think might help me. Or would that be a restriction on free speech?

AMDG

For those unfamiliar with the acronym, AMDG stands for Ad maiorem Dei gloriam, meaning for the Greater Glory of God and is the motto of the Jesuit order. Everything must be done in order to reflect the glory of God.

Having given the matter some thought, I am aware that perhaps I have come across as intolerant and overly-aggressive which certainly is not my aim. What I am engaging to attempt, albeit in quite a ham-fisted fashion is some good old-fashioned Christian apologetics. Apologetics doesn’t mean apologising for faith, but derives from the Greek, apologia meaning a speaking in defence.

Part of my faith calls me to evagalise. However I am unable to do this effectively, help others to understand my faith if I don’t understand it myself. Unless I can discuss my faith rationally, I am unable to share it with anyone be they fellow Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus. agnostics or atheists.

I am unlike  the traditional “cradle Catholics” who are prone to accept dogma, doctrines and Tradition not because they understand them but out of habit ingrained in them as children. I had actually quite a loosely Catholic upbringing, with many of the outward trappings, but none of the catechism. Often cradle catholics simply accept the Church’s teaching at face value, which is entirely natural, it is how children learn.But at some point we must appropriate our faith intellectually, if we don’t understand our faith, how can we live it, let alone share it with those in need?

I have reacted very strongly to criticism that my faith makes me some sort of raving bigot, wishing to impose my morality on others and do them real damage. I understand people’s difficulty with the Church and with Catholicism in general, particularly in the light of the appalling and indefensible child abuse scandals. What I am seeking to do, is to demonstrate that my faith is well-thought out, rational and not the product of a mind that has been subject to pressure. Chances are that if you’re not questioning some aspect of your faith, you aren’t thinking about it.

What I did realise however is that I need to temper this and attempt apologetics and evangelism with love and sensitivity. Whilst the Bible does contain a call towards apologetics “Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Ptr. 3:15),  St Peter also adds the following “Yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame” (3:15–16).

I do not wish to perpetuate the myth of intolerance. I recognise that an aggressive approach is counterproductive, so for any who have found my thoughts unpalatable due to having been addressed in something of a hectoring tone. I apologise.  My aim is to attempt to reflect the great Jesuit principle wherever possible.