Christmas is shadowed by Prime Minister's attack on marriage: Bishop Davies

"This Christmas we are also conscious of new shadows cast by a Government pledged at its election to support the institution of marriage. This vital foundation of society, the 2011 census indicates, now stands at perhaps is lowest ebb. At such a moment the Prime Minister has decided without mandate, without any serious consultation to redefine the identity of marriage itself, the foundation of the family for all generations to come."

This is what Bishop Mark Davies, the bishop of Shrewsbury, will be saying tonight in his Midnight Mass Christmas homily. (See homily in full below.) Recalling past struggles of the British people against "inhuman ideologies", the bishop will say:

"Past generations have gathered in this Cathedral on Christmas night amid many shadows which seemed to obscure the future for them. We think of the ideologies of the past century, Communism and Nazism, which in living memory threatened to shape and distort the whole future of humanity. These inhuman ideologies would each challenge in the name of progress the received Christian understanding of the sanctity of human life and the family. Britain’s war-time Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, a man without clear, religious belief, saw in this deadly struggle nothing less than the defence of Christian civilization. The alternative he vividly described as a dark age made more protracted by the perversion, the misuse of science. Few of our political leaders today appear to glimpse the deeper issues when the sanctity of human life and the very identity of marriage, the foundation of the family, are threatened."

In a prophetic and powerful call for action to defend marriage, Bishop Davies concludes:

"This, we recognise, is our moment, our, unique time to stand up for what is right and true as previous generations have done before us: to give witness to the value and dignity of every human life, to the truth of marriage as the lasting union of man and woman, the foundation of the family. In this we are assured of 'a light which shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overcome' (John 1:5)."

Let's respond to Bishop Davies's courageous and powerful defence of our families over the Christmas season by following the example of Giles Rowe, one of SPUC's supporters in London, who has asked his parish priest:

"to include a prayer to Save Marriage in the bidding prayers ... [This] would be a good way to focus attention on the Pope's call to defend the family."

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper. Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. )

Bishop Davies’s homily in full:

Homily for Midnight Mass at Shrewsbury Cathedral

Christmas 2012

Across the centuries Christians have gathered amid the winter darkness and the shadows of night to welcome a Saviour who has been born for us (Luke 2:11). No matter how profound the darkness, how disturbing the shadows all the faithful have recognised on this night: “a great light has shone” in the words of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah (9:1); that “God’s grace has been revealed,” in St. Paul’s words, “and has made salvation possible for the whole human race”(Titus 2:11); have heard tonight the timeless message of the angels which first echoed amid the hills of Judea: “I bring you news of great joy, a joy to be shared by the whole people” (Luke 2:10).

Past generations have gathered in this Cathedral on Christmas night amid many shadows which seemed to obscure the future for them. We think of the ideologies of the past century, Communism and Nazism, which in living memory threatened to shape and distort the whole future of humanity. These inhuman ideologies would each challenge in the name of progress the received Christian understanding of the sanctity of human life and the family. Britain’s war-time Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, a man without clear, religious belief, saw in this deadly struggle nothing less than the defence of Christian civilization. The alternative he vividly described as a dark age made more protracted by the perversion, the misuse of science. Few of our political leaders today appear to glimpse the deeper issues when the sanctity of human life and the very identity of marriage, the foundation of the family, are threatened.

Tonight we might happily recall Shrewsbury’s Elizabeth Prout who set out from this town to become England’s Mother Teresa: one woman who went out to confront the darkest impact of the industrial revolution armed only with her newly-found faith. The industrial revolution which saw in its darkest slums the undermining of marriage and the family, of religious practice and of human dignity and life itself on a massive scale. Elizabeth’s faith gave her the unflinching conviction in the face of claims that such degradation of human beings was the inevitable cost of progress, to defend human dignity and especially the dignity of women.

We gather on this Christmas night amid the shadows of early 21st Century Britain. As the eyes of the nation turn to this “child born for us” (Is.9:1) tiny and frail, it is this beautiful revelation of the Son of God which casts a searching light on the darkest shadows of our time. The widespread neglect and ill-treatment of the frailest, elderly people in our society: concerns high-lighted in the Care Quality Commission’s recent report. The growing concerns about end of life care and what is happening to the most vulnerable in our hospitals. This dark side to our society is surely connected to the discarding of human life from the beginning in legalised abortion on an industrial scale, in reproductive technologies, in embryo experimentation which our laws have sanctioned. “Today there exists a great multitude of weak and defenceless human beings, unborn children in particular, whose fundamental right to life is being trampled upon” Blessed John Paul II reflected in his 1995 letter The Gospel of Life, “if at the end of the last century, the Church could not be silent about the injustices of those times, still less can she be silent today” (Evangelium Vitae n.5).

This Christmas we are also conscious of new shadows cast by a Government pledged at its election to support the institution of marriage. This vital foundation of society, the 2011 census indicates, now stands at perhaps is lowest ebb. At such a moment the Prime Minister has decided without mandate, without any serious consultation to redefine the identity of marriage itself, the foundation of the family for all generations to come. This is again done in the name of progress. The great English writer, G.K Chesterton, warned: “progress is a useless word; for progress takes for granted an already defined direction; and it is exactly about the direction that we disagree” (American Notes). The British people have reason to ask on this night where is such progress leading?

In the face of what is presented as this inevitable march of human progress we recognise once more the Saviour born for us: Christ the Lord (Luke 2:11) who meets us all along the path of history. The same Lord who promised those who follow Him would be called to give witness amidst the most testing circumstances (Mt. 10:17). This, we recognise, is our moment, our, unique time to stand up for what is right and true as previous generations have done before us: to give witness to the value and dignity of every human life, to the truth of marriage as the lasting union of man and woman, the foundation of the family. In this we are assured of “a light which shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overcome” (John 1:5). “On Bethlehem night,” Pope Benedict reflected in 2005, “the Redeemer becomes one of us, our companion along the precarious paths of history. Let us take the hand he stretches out to us …” (Urbi et Orbi Message, Christmas 2005). This is the good news once more offered to the whole people (Luke 2:10). The invitation to take the hand of the Redeemer stretched out to us in gentleness, in such humility because He seeks to take nothing from us, Pope Benedict reminds us, but only to give to all the light of life.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Irish prime minister makes false abortion judgement claim

Liam Gibson (R) with Irish pro-life
leaders (L to R) Pat Buckley, European
Life Network, Bernadette Smyth, Precious Life,
Kathy Sinnott, former MEP Cork, Dana (intenational
singing star and former MEP)

I commend my visitors to Liam Gibson's Pro-Life Belfast blog - which today dissects the position of the Irish government on abortion and exposes the falsehoods which lie behind the Irish Prime Minister's decision to cave in to the bullying of the international abortion lobby.

With his permission, I am reproducing here Liam's blogpost in full:

So the Irish government is to legalise abortion. Enda Kenny, the Irish Prime Minister, has turned out to be just another gutless politician who would sooner go back on his promise made to the Irish electorate than stand-up to the bullying of the international abortion lobby. This will not come as a surprise to many but the fact that Kenny has caved-in to the pressure from abortion advocates in the Council of Europe, the office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Health and International Planned Parenthood Federation is still a disappointment.

Ireland has long been a thorn in the side of the international abortion lobby because it proved that it was possible to have an excellent maternal mortality record without legalised abortion. Efforts to introduce abortion in 1992 and in 2002 failed because the Irish people rejected flawed and fraudulent amendments to their Constitution. But the protection for children before birth has been gradually erroded by the anti-life policies of successive governments (such as those of the State-run Crisis Pregnancy Agency) and anti-life rulings of the Irish Courts.

There have been a number of stages in the Republic's descent into the culture of death and each milestone has been marked by lies and falsehoods. The first and most damaging, however, was the 1992 decision of the Supreme Court in the X-case. It has taken 20 years but it seems that, unless the people rise-up in opposition, this decision will finally lead to the legalised killing of children in Ireland.

The X-case

In a politically motivated ruling, Irish judges said a 14 year-old girl, pregnant through rape, could have an abortion because her life was threatened. Not threatened in the way that ectopic pregnancy or pre-eclampsia is life-threatening, she was allegedly suicidal so the threat was one of self-harm. The Court's first mistake was to confuse actual life-threatening conditions which arise during pregnancy with a threat of suicide.

The Court’s second mistake was to pretend that abortion was a treatment for suicidal ideation. Even if there is no doubt that a threat of suicide is genuine, it signifies a psychiatric problem and can only be addressed by psychiatric means. There is no evidence that abortion can alleviate suicidal tendencies. In fact there is a mountain of research showing the negative effect abortion has on mental health. Women who undergo abortion are far more likely to take their on lives than those who carry their babies to term.

The Irish Constitution

The nature of the psychiatric evidence presented to the Supreme Court in 1992 has since been called into question. But there is a more fundamental problem with the X-case which is seldom pointed out. And this is the judges interpretation of Article 40.3.3° itself.

The Irish Constitution cannot confer the right to life, it merely recognises it. The right to life is shared by all members of the human family by virtue of their common humanity. No State, no government, no authority can take this right away.

By the adoption of the Eighth Amendment (Article 40.3.3) the Constitution enshrined the position which was already codified in Irish law in the Offences Against the Person Act (1861). Section 58 of this Act makes it a crime to procure an abortion and section 59 makes it a crime even to help to procure one.

Article 40.3.3° states:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

By equating the right to life of the unborn with the right to life of the mother, the Constitution is in fact saying that the right to life of the child before birth is equal to the right to life of everyone already born. It did not change the right to life of mothers. How could it since every human being shares the same right to life? The right to life of women remained the same after the passage of the Eighth Amendment as it had been before it. It is entirely false to claim, as the Court did, that the adoption of Article 40.3.3° somehow introduced a Constitutional right for mothers to take the lives of their unborn children. Abortion remains a criminal offence in Irish law and there can be no Constitutional right to commit this offence.

There is no more right to kill a child in the womb in order to protect the life of another human being than there is to kill a child already born.

Medical treatments during pregnancy can have life threatening consequences for an unborn child and sometimes result in their death. But it is never justifiable to end the life of any child, even with the sincere intention of protecting the life of another person.

The Irish Supreme Court reached a perverse and unnatural judgement in the X-case. Enda Kenny claims that he must legislate in line with this judgement but this claim is false. Contrary to what the expert group appears suggests, the ruling of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in A, B & C v Ireland (2010) only requires the Republic to provide legal clarity, not the legalisation of abortion. There is no right to abortion in the European Convention of Human Rights and the ECtHR recognised Ireland sovereignty over its own abortion laws.

Kenny intends to repeal the Offences Against the Person Act and designate hospitals which will carry out abortions, two proposals rejected by the people in the 2002 referendum. Kenny’s plan must be resisted - completely. It is important that pro-life groups, the Church and the people themselves are united in this resistance. There can be no negotiation over the right to life. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and there is no acceptable level of evil.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Same-sex marriage attacks family "made up of father, mother, and child" Pope Benedict

The Telegraph reports today that Pope Benedict "has weighed in on the heated debate over gay marriage, criticising new concepts of the traditional family and warning that mankind itself" is at stake.

Read the Pope's full comments yourself in his annual Christmas address to the Roman Curia.

In this address, citing a study by the Chief Rabbi of France, Pope Benedict says:

"Gilles Bernheim ... has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: 'one is not born a woman, one becomes so' (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. [My emphasis] ... The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain ... "

In an earlier post, I link to an article by Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications' manager, in Taki's Magazine, in which he identifies children as the ones whose interests are to be sacrificed on the altar of some adults’ arrogant claim for personal happiness.

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage.)

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

We will legalise abortion: the words no true Irish man or woman wanted to hear

These are the words no true Irish man or woman wanted to hear from an Irish government:

"We will clarify in legislation and regulation what is available by way of treatment to a woman when a pregnancy gives rise to a threat to a woman's life. We will also clarify what is legal for the professionals who must provide that care while at all times taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child. The legislation will be drafted in accordance with the 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling on the X case, which allows for abortion when a woman's life is in danger - including the threat of suicide." James Reilly (pictured right), Ireland's health minister, 18th December 2012

For a full account of the statement from the Ireland's Orwellian-titled department of health and children(!), the response from four Catholic archbishops, the background to the Irish government's announcement - please go to Pat Buckley's blogpost: Another day that will live in infamy: Irish government decision to legislate and regulate for abortion.

Significantly for me, and significantly for Catholics, the Catholic Church, and all men and women worldwide, Pat Buckley concludes his blogpost in this vein:

"It is heartening to note that the Archbishops have encouraged 'all to pray that our public representatives will be given the wisdom and courage to do what is right' ... we would add that the entire Church needs to pray like never before to defeat the evil of abortion.

"Everyone must understand that there is a supernatural dimension to all of this and Catholic legislators need to be reminded that they risk their immortal souls if they support the introduction of abortion either by voting for it or facilitating it."

Thank you Pat. Yours is a salutary reminder for all abortion-justifying Catholics, however prestigious or high in office they may be, lay or in Holy Orders.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

British Cardinal makes scathing attack on Prime Minister

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, the former archbishop of Westminster, has made a scathing attack this morning on David Cameron, the UK prime minister. In a withering analysis in today's Telegraph he pours scorn on David Cameron's election commitment to strengthen marriage as an institution, on his understanding of the nature of marriage, and on the prime minister's honesty in the Conservative Party's manifesto.

Thank God that leading churchmen are standing up for our families, for the child-centred institution of marriage, not least unborn children (see below).

The Cardinal's letter to the Telegraph reads:

SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, December 15) sets out with admirable clarity why marriage is and should remain a unique and binding contract between a man and a woman, open in principle to the possibility of generating children. That in the Christian Church it is also a sacrament gives it a special value for Christian believers; but that in no way detracts from its character as an institution of central importance for the welfare of society as a whole, to believers and unbelievers alike.

Redefining marriage as simply a contract between individuals irrespective of their sex, without regard either to its procreative function or to the complementarity of the relationship between man and woman, would be an abuse of language. More important, it would weaken marriage by diminishing its implications and its significance. That, and not homophobia, is why many people outside what Mr Moore calls the culturally dominant "minority" are opposed to the Government's proposal – and why more than 600,000 people have signed a petition against it. The state has the right to oversee the administration and legal aspects of marriage, but it has never been accepted that the state can dictate to individuals and society itself what marriage should mean to us. It is clear that many problems would arise if the legislation as now tabled were to be implemented.

In the run-up to the last election, David Cameron led us to believe that the strengthening of marriage as an institution was one of his important objectives; and the Conservative Party's manifesto, which made no mention of "gay marriage", included a proposed tax break for married couples. Nothing has been heard of the latter proposal, and instead of action to strengthen marriage we have the proposal to abandon the traditional understanding of marriage on the basis of a "consultation" which explicitly excluded the possibility of a negative result. Protestations that this is all fundamentally "conservative" ring a bit hollow.

It is difficult not to wonder how far the Prime Minister is someone whose steadiness of purpose can be relied on.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster
London W4

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. )

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

ACTION ALERT: Welsh Organ donation consultation must be extended

The Welsh government has announced plans to introduce presumed consent for organ donation. They are calling it "deemed consent", whereby people living in Wales for a period of six months or more will be opted-in automatically as organ donors. This will include prisoners, tourists, and students. SPUC Wales region has run an effective campaign opposing this, including making a significant impact on the first consultation.

The consultation process has now entered the next stage – a six week public consultation on the draft Bill and review by the Welsh Assembly Health and Social Committee. The public gets 6 weeks to make comments and submit evidence. Invited organizations are asked to do the same. This consultation period currently closes on 18th January.

However, SPUC is urging all pro-life supporters to write to the review committee chairman:

Mark Drakeford
Health and Social Committee
National Assembly
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA
Email: HSCCommittee@wales.gov.uk 

to complain about the shortage of time and the unsuitable seasonal period over Christmas for the public to submit evidence. We are asking for the consultation to be extended until March 2013.

This public stage concerns everyone, not just those living in Wales. Please write to Mark Drakeford, even if you are not Welsh or living in Wales. This Bill could affect you if you, or your loved ones, ever visit Wales. This will affect you, because legislation in Wales will be used to blaze a trail in other parts of Britain and elsewhere. This involves you because anyone anywhere is permitted to make submissions to the consultation.

Mark Drakeford has been widely reported in the press as saying that this is the last time that people will be able to contribute on this issue and that it is a chance “to look at it again with fresh eyes”
(South Wales Argus, Caerphilly Observer). To do this, a proper amount of time after Christmas is needed as a minimum.

The Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation principle 2.2 states:

“If a consultation exercise is to take place over a period when consultees are less able to respond, e.g. over the summer or Christmas break, or if the policy under consideration is a particularly complex, consideration should be given to the feasibility of allowing a longer period for the consultation.”

The current consultation runs during the Christmas period, which includes three bank holidays and is a time when people go away on holiday and take time off from work and correspondence. There is no way any meaningful consultation can be concluded in anything less than 3 months which is the standard time length anyway.

Please write today to chairman Mark Drakeford, citing the points above, asking that the consultation period be extended to March 2013.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Bishop tells Prime Minister: You are undermining the very nature, meaning & purpose of marriage

Congratulations to Bishop Egan, the Catholic bishop of Portsmouth!

Visitors to my blog may wish to visit Bishop Egan's website to read and to print out and to pass on to others his excellent letter to David Cameron, the Prime Minister, which is reproduced in full below.

Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP
Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA

15th December 2012

Dear Mr Cameron

From Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth
I am writing to you to send you best wishes from the priests and people of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, and the promise of our prayers for you, as you carry the heavy responsibility of leading our great nation. However, I am also writing to ask you, indeed to urge you, to change course on your intention to introduce same-sex marriage.

You have said you are an enthusiastic supporter of marriage and that you do not want "gay people to be excluded from a great institution." Yet I wish respectfully to point out that behind what you say lurks a basic philosophical misconception about the nature of 'equality.' Equality can never be an absolute value, only a derivative and relative value. After all, a man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father, and so men and women can never be absolutely equal, only relatively equal, since they are biologically different. So too with marriage. Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman. It is a complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex, the man and the woman not being the same, but different. They are not, in other words, absolutely equal but relatively equal. This is why gay couples, two men or two women, are not being ‘excluded’ from marriage; they simply cannot enter marriage.

By enabling gays to 'marry' and by equating the union of gay people with marriage, however well-intentioned, you are not only redefining what we mean by marriage but actually undermining the very nature, meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society. If you proceed with your plans, you will gravely damage the value of the family, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations. The 2011 Census shows the parlous state of the institution of marriage which you claim to believe in so strongly, and of family life in general, with one in two teenagers no longer living with their birth parents and over 50% of adults living outside of marriage.

Can you imagine the confusion and the challenge for teenagers as they grow up and seek to reach a fully mature and integrated sexuality? This is why I fail to see how your intentions can possibly strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. Rather they will dilute it.

More, you are ignoring the huge opposition of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, as well as that of a huge number of ordinary people. You are imposing the aspirations of a tiny minority on the vast majority. Make no mistake, the change you are proposing is of immense significance. By it, you will be luring the people of England away from their common Christian values and Christian patrimony, and forcing upon us all a brave new world, artificially engineered. What you are proposing will smother the traditional Christian ethos of our society and in time strangle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church in Britain to conduct its mission. There is no sanction whatsoever in the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian tradition for gay marriage. I cannot see how anyone who claims to be a Christian can possibly justify what you are intending to do.

I know you have spoken of the 'quadruple lock' and other legal safeguards. Yet for me many grave concerns remain about the brave new world you are fashioning in the name of the false gods of equality and diversity. For example, will I as a Christian have to support your ideology when preaching? Will you exempt the Church, its resources and premises, from charges of discrimination if it declines to host same-sex social activities? Will Catholic schools, Catholic societies, Catholic charities and Catholic institutions be free (and legally protected) to teach the full truth of Christ and the real meaning of life and love?

I appreciate how politically difficult it can be to undertake a U-turn and to sustain the attendant criticism such would bring. But when it is a matter of the truth, and the reasons are cast-iron clear, a U-turn would be hailed by history only as brave and courageous. This is why, like a Thomas a Becket appealing to Henry II, I do not hesitate to ask you to consider doing what is the right and just thing to do. Otherwise, will we ever be able to forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party (sic) who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?

I assure you of my respect, best wishes and prayers.

Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan
Bishop of Portsmouth
CC: Priests and People of Diocese of Portsmouth

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. )

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Cross-party parliamentary alliance launches campaign against same-sex marriage

An interesting letter opposing British Government plans to legalize same-sex marriage, signed by Conservative, Labour, Democratic Unionist, and independent MPs and Peers, is published this morning in The Daily Telegraph.

• It begins by emphasising the nature of marriage in the complementarity of a man and a woman in a child-centred loving and committed union
• It points out the democratic deficit in the government's proposals and, indeed, that none of the three main parties included the legalization of same-sex marriage in their manifesto
• And the letter points out that half a million British residents have been completely ignored in the government consultation whilst anonymous submissions "from anyone anywhere in the world" have been taken on board

The letter reads:

SIR – As parliamentarians from different political parties and none, we are united in supporting the institution of marriage defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. We recognise the value of a loving and committed relationship and we respect civil partnership, but affirm the distinctive value of marriage reflecting the complementarity of a man and woman often evidenced in parenthood.

At the last election, none of the three main parties stood on a platform to redefine marriage. It was not contained in any of their manifestos, nor did it feature in the Coalition’s Programme for Government. These facts alone should have led to extreme caution on the part of those calling for this change to be made.

Instead the Government is ignoring the overwhelming public response against the plans. The consultation has ignored the views of 500,000 British residents in favour of anonymous submissions from anyone anywhere in the world. We believe that the Government does not have a mandate to redefine marriage.

We recognise these are issues of conscience which will be given free votes in Parliament. We will be seeking legal guarantees of the same freedom of conscience for our constituents and religious organisations to teach, preach and express a traditional view of marriage.

We are sceptical that the proposed protections will prevent the erosion of liberties of religion and conscience. The proposed redefinition of marriage is unnecessary, given the legal rights established through civil partnerships. We understand some parliamentarians support freedom for same sex couples to marry, but we support a freedom from the state being able to redefine the meaning of marriage.

David Burrowes MP (Conservative)
Joe Benton MP (Labour)
David Davis MP (Conservative)
Mary Glindon MP (Labour)
Lord Hylton (Crossbench)
Nigel Dodds MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)
Fiona Bruce MP (Conservative)
Jim Dobbin MP (Labour)
Lord Carey of Clifton (Crossbench)
Rehman Chishti MP (Conservative)
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Conservative)
Sir Gerald Howarth MP (Conservative)
Tim Loughton MP (Conservative)
Peter Bone MP (Conservative)
Jeffrey Donaldson (Democratic Unionist Party)
Andrew Selous MP (Conservative)
John Glen MP (Conservative)
Sir Jim Paice MP (Conservative)
Stewart Jackson MP (Conservative)
Lord Edmiston (Conservative)
Jim Shannon MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Lord Palmer (Crossbench)
Andrew Bingham MP (Conservative)
Lord Shrewsbury and Waterford (Conservative)
Julian Brazier MP (Conservative)
David Simpson MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Pauline Latham MP (Conservative)
Nick de Bois MP (Conservative)
Richard Drax MP (Conservative)
Lord Tombs (Crossbench)
Jonathan Evans MP (Conservative)
Sir Roger Gale MP (Conservative)
Ian Paisley (Democratic Unionist Party)
Gordon Henderson MP (Conservative)
Philip Hollobone MP (Conservative)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)
Marcus Jones MP (Conservative)
Lord Swinfen (Conservative)
Baroness Fookes (Conservative)
Jeremy LeFroy MP (Conservative)
Lord Vinson (Conservative)
Karl McCartney MP (Conservative)
Dr William McCrea MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Anne McIntosh MP (Conservative)
Stephen Metcalfe MP (Conservative)
Anne-Marie Morris MP (Conservative)
David Nuttall MP (Conservative)
Matthew Offord MP (Conservative)
David Davies MP (Conservative)
Mark Pawsey MP (Conservative)
David Ruffley MP (Conservative)
Lord Marlesford (Conservative)
Henry Smith MP (Conservative)
Baroness O'Cathain (Conservative)
Bob Stewart MP (Conservative)
Ben Wallace MP (Conservative)
Craig Whittaker MP (Conservative)

Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. Like Cardinal O'Brien, let's not be intimidated by charges of 'homophobia' as we seek to uphold the institution of marriage, which is the faithful lifelong union between one man and one woman, which is the foundation of the family and the fundamental group-unit of society.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Abortion and same-sex marriage seriously damage peace: Pope Benedict

Pope Benedict's message, published on 8th December by the Vatican, for "the celebration of the world day of peace, 1st January 2013" could not have been more appropriately timed in view of  current developments in both Ireland and Britain.

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, said:

"Those who insufficiently value human life and, in consequence, support among other things the liberalization of abortion, perhaps do not realize that in this way they are proposing the pursuit of a false peace. The flight from responsibility, which degrades human persons, and even more so the killing of a defenceless and innocent being, will never be able to produce happiness or peace. Indeed how could one claim to bring about peace, the integral development of peoples or even the protection of the environment without defending the life of those who are weakest, beginning with the unborn. Every offence against life, especially at its beginning, inevitably causes irreparable damage to development, peace and the environment. Neither is it just to introduce surreptitiously into legislation false rights or freedoms which, on the basis of a reductive and relativistic view of human beings and the clever use of ambiguous expressions aimed at promoting a supposed right to abortion and euthanasia, pose a threat to the fundamental right to life. 

"There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union; such attempts actually harm and help to destabilize marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society. 

"These principles are not truths of faith, nor are they simply a corollary of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity. The Church’s efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation. Efforts of this kind are all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, since this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tablet story about Swiss bishops on abortion challenged

A few hours ago I published a blogpost, citing a story in The Tablet, a weekly magazine marketed amongst Catholics, which alleged: "Ahead of a coming referendum on abortion financing in Switzerland, the Swiss bishops have declared that individuals should vote according to their conscience on whether its universal health-care system should cover the costs of abortions, writes Christa Pongratz-Lippitt".

I also wrote:

"I hope and I pray that The Tablet story is not correct, does not tell the full story in some way or another. If this proves to be the case, and I hear about it, I will, of course, let visitors to this blog know immediately."

I am grateful to Nicolas Bellord, a visitor to my blog, who has just written to me as follows:

"The document by the Swiss Bishops can be found at:

"http://www.eveques.ch/documents/communiques/priorite-a-la-protection-de-la-vie

"Nowhere does it say that voting in the referendum is a matter of conscience. What they do say is that accepting public financing of abortion leads to a normalisation of abortion. They are saying that it is not enough just to vote against this particular aspect but society needs to fight against abortion generally.

"They are a sorry lot at The Tablet."

I will return to this important matter as soon as I have a good translation of the Swiss bishops' communication.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Gay marriage: Children sacrificed on altar of adults' happiness

In an article in Taki's Magazine, Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications' manager, has provided a new and penetrating critique of the pro-gay marriage proposal being championed by members of the Conservative Party and in the Government’s response to the Equal Marriage Consultation published this month.   In this article Anthony McCarthy makes the following important points:

• Absent from the Tory proposal is any reference to a child or to children. Children have been airbrushed from the revised notion of marriage being promoted by these Tories.
• The Tory proposal reduces ‘marriage’ to a contract between two parties. Since these parties may be persons of the same sex there can be no place in the marriage contract for children. Marriage is just something that affects adults. It has nothing to do with raising the next generation, or with providing a stable environment in which children are raised.
• The new definition of marriage being proposed by these Tories would, if adopted, be the abolition of marriage as it has always been understood as far as the civil law would be concerned.
• In seeking to do this, these Tories are invoking a power which belongs to neither Church nor State. Marriage and family existed before the Church and the State. In fact the State is a coalition of natural married couples and their children. The family is the fundamental group unit of society, not “couples” of any kind.

Anthony McCarthy develops these ideas and more besides. He accurately identifies children as the ones whose interests are to be sacrificed on the altar of some adults’ arrogant claim for personal happiness. In this sense does Anthony use the term ‘child sacrifice’ to devastating effect. “This revolutionary move will”, he says, “harm the most vulnerable members of our society ... by making more likely ... the breakdown or avoidance of marriage, the contracting of marriage to involve only the couple, the refusal to see in the nature of man and woman a special complementarity inviting a binding relationship - one which can turn a person into a parent as opposed to a mere sperm or egg donor.”

Read SPUC's comments on the government's statement earlier this week - and our briefing notes for lobbying - and write and urge others to write today to MPs.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

European Life Network analyses Irish Expert Group on Abortion report

"By defining abortion as necessary medical treatment, and by undermining the absolute prohibition on abortion in the Irish Constitution and Irish statute law, the expert report sets the scene for legislation which will lead to ever-wider permissions for abortion." [European Life Network]

In a considered analysis of the Ireland's Expert group on abortion, Pat Buckley sets out clearly why it must be completely rejected by Ireland's legislature (Oireachtas). [Legislators] "must find a way to overturn the X case judgment and any other element of law or public policy in Ireland which fails to apply Ireland’s constitutional and statutory ban on intentionally ending the lives of unborn children from the point of conception onwards", Pat Buckley points out.

Read what he says carefully and, if you are an Irish citizen, tell your political representatives to stand firm against the pressure to legislate along the lines of the seriously flawed 'X' case judgement.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Government ignores the child-centred nature of marriage

Maria Miller

SPUC has accused the Conservative-led government of ignoring the child-centred nature of marriage, following the government’s proposals detailed today regarding so-called same-sex marriage.

We pointed out that the government’s response to its consultation, the comments in Parliament by Equalities minister Maria Miller (pictured), and the Freedom To Marry website all fail to address the truth that same-sex marriage lacks basic elements of true marriage - the complementary sexual difference between spouses necessary for the procreation and healthy upbringing of children.

As I told the media earlier today, the assumption running through the government’s approach is that marriage is simply a stable, long-term relationship. This ignores the specific identity of marriage as a child-bearing and child-centred institution, fundamentally different from homosexual relationships. There has been not one single direct statement by the government, either in its response to the consultation results nor in the last two days’ parliamentary debates, on the intrinsic link between marriage and children.

Similarly, the Tory-composed Freedom to Marry group makes no reference at all in its published material to the terms ‘child/ren’, ‘parent/s’, ‘family/-ies’, ‘father/s’, ‘mother/s’, ‘husband/s’ or ‘wife/-ves'.

Same-sex marriage represents an attempt to redefine marriage, thus undermining marriage. This undermining lessens the protection for unborn children which true marriage provides. The family based on real (i.e heterosexual) marriage is the safest place for children both born and unborn.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples ruptures the intrinsic link between marriage and children, thus reducing marriage to a mere contract of cohabitation. Yet marriage is a pre-political institution, and the State does not have the moral right to seek to redefine this natural institution in law.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

"It's not too late to stop same-sex marriage bill" say Catholic archbishops: Pass on the message

Archbishop Peter Smith (l) and
Archbishop  Vincent Nichols

We must pray that the excellent message from England's Catholic leaders, Archbishop Vincent Nichols  and Archbishop Peter Smith - that it's not too late to stop the government's same-sex marriage bill - is promoted by the bishops' conference staff urgently amongst fellow-bishops, amongst Catholic parishes, and amongst national and local faith leaders, the length and the breadth of Britain.

The Catholic archbishops have spoken clearly and those who believe in prayer should pray for them personally, and that they remain strong and prophetic. We must also pray that a coordinated lead is given by church leaders of all denominations - together with coordinated action in which  everyone plays a vital part.

Please forward this post to others you know. There is no time to waste as the government increases in its arrogant determination to sweep marriage aside as a child-centred institution, to sweep the results of its own consultation aside (see the archbishops' statement below), without any electoral mandate to pursue their destructive legislation.

Read SPUC's comments on the government's statement today - and our briefing notes for lobbying - and write and urge others to write today to MPs.

Archbishop Nichols and Archbishop Smith said:

The meaning of marriage matters. It derives that meaning from its function as the foundation of the family. The union of one man and one woman for love and mutual support and open to procreation has over the centuries formed a stable unit we call the family. Marriage is the enduring public recognition of this commitment and has been rightly recognised as unique and worthy of legal protection.

The government has chosen to ignore the views of over 600,000 people who signed a petition calling for the current definition of marriage to stay, and we are told legislation to change the definition of marriage will now come to Parliament.

We strongly oppose such a Bill. Furthermore, the process by which this has happened can only be described as shambolic. There was no electoral mandate in any manifesto; no mention in the Queen’s speech; no serious or thorough consultation through a Green or White paper, and a constant shifting of policy before even the government response to the consultation was published today.

We urge everyone who cares about upholding the meaning of marriage in civil law to make their views known to their MPs clearly, calmly and forcefully, and without impugning the motives of others. We urge all parties to ensure their Members have a free vote. It is not too late to stop this Bill.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Catholic and Anglican leaders speak out against David Cameron's same-sex marriage agenda

Bishop Philip Egan

In response to the Cameron government's announcement on Friday regarding its same-sex marriage plans, Catholic and Anglican leaders have spoken out.

Philip Egan (pictured), the new Catholic bishop of Portsmouth, has issued a statement saying (inter alia):

"[B]y attempting to change the natural meaning of marriage, he seems utterly determined to undermine one of the key foundations of our society ... If the prime minister proceeds with his intentions, he will pervert authentic family values, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations ... The institution of marriage has its ups and downs, but will we ever forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?"

Joseph Devine, the Catholic bishop of Motherwell, has written a two-page letter to David Cameron which says (inter alia):

“I suspect it is only a matter of time before you go one step further and outlaw the teaching of Christian doctrine on sexual morality on the grounds of discrimination.”

The Church of England has issued a statement, saying (inter alia)*:

"[T]he meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted ... [T]he uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.

To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.

We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage."

*Readers should note that the Church of England's statement contains a number of other comments which differ from Catholic teaching regarding the homosexual agenda.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Please support vigil for life on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe

Next Wednesday, 12 December, is the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn. The Helpers of God's Precious Infants are holding a vigil for life on this special day for the pro-life movement and for all unborn babies and expecting mothers.

The vigil will be led by Father Samuel Medley. They will meet for Mass at 10am at Saint Francis' Catholic Church, Week Street, in Maidstone. After Mass they will process with an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe to the nearby abortion centre and spend time there praying for the closure of the abortion centre, the conversion of those involved with abortion and for mothers who are considering abortion to choose life their children.

The Church is just opposite Maidstone East Station. Trains run regularly to Maidstone East from London Victoria. The easiest way to get there by road is to take the M20 and come off at Junction 6. Follow the signs to the town centre and then to Maidstone East Station. There is a car park at the station and also 2 car parks in Brewer Street and 1 in Wheeler Street, both of which are accessed by Lower Boxley Well Road.

These vigils save many lives all around the world. Please attend this event if you can.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Same-sex marriage bill imminent - SPUC warns government MPs

Following indications that the Cameron government plans to launch its bill for same-sex marriage next week, SPUC has written to government MPs warning them against the move.

The letter slams the government's railroading of its proposals as "dishonest", "high-handed" and "shoddy". SPUC points out that the family based on real (i.e heterosexual) marriage is the safest place for children both born and unborn. The letter ends by warning that at the next general election SPUC will highlight MPs' voting records on same-sex marriage.

The full text of SPUC's letter to MPs is below.

SPUC's position paper on the same-sex marriage issue can be read at http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/ssm201201

Letter to government MPs regarding same-sex marriage, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), 5 December 2012

"Dear [name of government MP],

I write regarding a story that the Government plans to launch its bill for same‐sex marriage next week.

If the story is correct, it is consistent with the thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable way the government and its allies have attacked real marriage. In the marriage consultation exercise earlier this year, Mr Cameron sought in a high‐handed manner to discuss only “how” to achieve his aims, and not to consider whether they have merit or public support. To hang his proposals on a non‐manifesto plan to “consider the case for changing the law” on civil partnerships is another shoddy manoeuvre.

Marriage is embedded in the fabric of society. Marriage is unquestionably the best setting for children to be conceived, born and raised and to receive their first education. The marriage‐based family is also (and critically for us who defend unborn children) the safest social context for new life.

Contributors to the consultation exercise drew attention to the evidence of the benefits of real marriage, the support for it, its ancient pre‐political heritage, its worldwide status, and the approach of mainstream religions. However, drawing attention to the enormity of his folly only seems to have made Mr Cameron more determined.

We will continue to point out the hypocrisy of asserting that “equal marriage” will not interfere with church weddings. Those planning the legislation know full well that churches which refuse to co‐operate will be denied civil recognition of their marriage rites or face worse persecution.

The recent by‐election results have proven disappointing for both Conservative and Lib‐Dem parties. This is not surprising, given the usual run of mid‐term contests. What was most notable was the strong showing by UKIP, which broadly supports real marriage. SPUC has never taken a party political line, but we do tell people where individual election candidates stand, and our activists have highlighted the position of UKIP candidates alongside others in these contests. We will continue to inform electors of candidates’ voting records and voting intentions on a wide range of issues in future elections.

I urge you to ask Mr Cameron to reconsider and to withdraw his plan.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Tully
General Secretary
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC)
London"

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pro-abortion motion fails at Queen's University Belfast

Liam Gibson, SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer who blogs at Pro-Life Belfast, has kindly sent me this exclusive report:

"In an extremely close vote a motion calling for the legalisation of abortion in the Republic of Ireland was narrowly defeated at the meeting of the Students' Union Council, of Queen's University Belfast on Tuesday 27 November. The motion stated:

'This Council notes that, last month, a woman died 17 weeks into her pregnancy as a result of being denied an abortion. Savita Halappanavar was miscarrying and was denied a medical termination over two and a half days because the unviable foetus still had a heartbeat.

This Council also notes the great tragedy that this is for Savita's family and friends.

This Council recognises that the X case, a case ruled on by the Irish Supreme Court 20 years ago and never acted upon by Government, called for abortion if a woman's life was at risk due to pregnancy. Council further recognises that, if X case legislation was made into law, then many women in Savita's position would not be exposed to the same fate.

This Council resolves to express a message of condolence for Savita, her family and friends. This Council also agrees to send a message of support to the group 'Action on X', which actively campaigns for X case legislation in Ireland and to actively support the efforts of activists likewise fighting for abortion rights on the island of Ireland.'

In an unexpected victory for pro-life members of the council, an amendment to delete the last two paragraphs was adopted. In the debate that followed on the amended motion Ciaran McKinley, the president of the university's pro-life society, argued that it was too soon to draw definitive conclusions regarding the events surrounding Mrs Halappanavar's death and therefore the motion was potentially defamatory. He also asked if the council was going to adopt such a motion on other equally tragic cases.

With 17 votes in favour, 17 against and 17 abstentions, the motion fell when the speaker also abstained.

After such a close fought debate pro-life members of the council expect the motion to be re-introduced. However, doubts are growing over the accuracy of the initial media reports and even the basic facts are now in question. In a less impassioned debate attempts to link Mrs Halappanavar's death to calls for the legalisation of abortion may look increasingly like the cynical exploitation of a tragic loss of a young woman and her unborn baby."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

10,000 join Vigil for Life outside Ireland's parliament

Last night at least 10,000 people joined a Vigil for Life outside Dáil Éireann (Ireland's parliament) in Dublin to tell the Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach (prime minster), to keep his pre-election promise not to legislate for abortion. Watch the video below from Youth Defence. It's wonderful to see so many fresh-faced young people speaking out for the protection of human life in Ireland.

Pat Buckley, who represents SPUC in the Republic of Ireland, has blogged:

"All pro-life groups that make up Ireland’s pro-life movement united together and turned out in force today in response to the Irish Government’s recent announcement that it intends to legislate for abortion in Ireland along the lines of the X case judgment. The unprecedented turnout which included 5 Bishops ... The groups and many other pro-life individuals came together in order to send an unequivocal message to the Irish Government that legislation on the X case will lead to abortion on demand and is "absolutely unacceptable to the Irish people".

Pro-lifers on Facebook have started a novena that Ireland will be protected from abortion. They ask everybody willing to do so to:

• pray the Rosary each day
• some kind of personal fast each day, whatever it might be
• go to Mass on December 12th for this intention.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Mon 3 Dec

Top story:

Please respond urgently to consultation on mitochondrial disease
An important consultation, by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), will close next Friday (7 December) on the genetic manipulation of embryos with mitochondrial defects. Researchers want to create human embryos in the laboratory that have genes from one man and two women. Alternatively they want to make a new embryos by combining two IVF embryos. This would extend the scope for destructive exploitation of human embryos, and in particular for more genetic experimentation on embryos, including human cloning. These processes reinforce the attitude that human embryos are things to be used, not early human beings. Embryos will increasingly be treated as mere commodities, ripe for commercial exploitation, and denied their proper status and respect as members of the human family. Please respond urgently to the consultation. We have produced a briefing with simple points that can be made in response to this important issue: http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/alerts/2012/mitochondria20121130 Please make a submission by going online and submitting your responses at: http://mitochondria.hfea.gov.uk/mitochondria [SPUC, 30 November]

SPUC calls for widespread resistance to Irish expert group abortion report
SPUC which was officially represented in the A, B & C case before the European Court of Human Rights, has called for "widespread resistance" to the report published by Ireland's Expert Group on abortion. SPUC describes the report's recommendations as "unconstitutional" and "a door to mass abortion on a British scale". John Smeaton, SPUC director, commented: "We call upon all people of good-will in Ireland, including the Catholic bishops, to back an all-out campaign to defeat - not just amend - any options allowing abortion. This will require widespread resistance to be mobilised. Ireland's politicians should be put on notice that they will lose their seats at the next election if they vote to legislate for abortion." [SPUC, 27 November]

Other stories:

Abortion

• Head of European Parliament's women's committee pressures Ireland to legalise abortion [Irish Times, 1 December]
• Pro-abortion reporter Savita says story may be 'muddled' and there may be 'no request for a termination' [Life Institute, 2 December] Reporter claims that Irish Times "never suggested that a termination of pregnancy might have saved [Savita]'s life" [RTE, 3 December]
• Abortion and mental health - a psychiatrist's experience [Youth Defence, 1 December]
• Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) publishes terms of reference of Savita inquiry [BreakingNews.ie, 30 November]
• I receive a beautiful gift at meeting about new abortion clinic in Preston [John Smeaton, 30 November]

Embryology

• Doctor charges governments with ignoring causes of infertility [CNA, 2 December]

Euthanasia

• Islamic Sharia Council urges Muslims to lobby against presumed consent to organ donation [John Smeaton, 30 November]
• Why opinion polls supporting euthanasia are a waste of space [Peter Saunders, 1 December]
• RCGP Chairman Clare Gerada moves to gag doctors on 'assisted dying [Peter Saunders, 30 November]

General

• Obituary: Richard Wilkins, pro-life and pro-family champion [Pat Buckley, 3 December]
• Congratulations to MaterCare International founder Dr. Robert Walley [MaterCare International, 29 November]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

The Islamic Sharia Council urges Muslims to lobby against presumed consent to organ donation

The Islamic Sharia Council, a panel of scholars which provides advice and guidance from an Islamic Sharia perspective, has issued a statement (pictured) against the proposed bill in Wales for presumed consent to organ donation. The statement says:

"We oppose the forced/compulsory taking of organs without consent at time of death (as in presumed consent)

We are dismayed to hear about the proposed bill in Wales on presumed consent which will allow doctors to take organs by force at the time of death and without giving our written consent or permission before.

We in Sharia Council absolutely oppose strongly this proposed bill.

We are aware that the present law is adequate in that anyone wishing to donate organs may do so by giving consent in writing before death. In absence of this, how can it be assumed that the deceased has consented? On the contrary it can be assumed that the deceased did not consent at all.

We therefore, not only oppose the proposed bill but also urge all the Muslims in Wales/UK to write to the members of the Welsh Assembly to drop and stop this bill."

This statement is a very welcome sequel to the fatwa (Islamic ruling) issued by Hizbul Ulama in the UK (Association of Muslim Scholars/UK) earlier this month.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Please respond urgently to consultation on mitochondrial disease

An important consultation, by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), will close next Friday (7 December) on the genetic manipulation of embryos with mitochondrial defects. Researchers want to create human embryos in the laboratory that have genes from one man and two women. Alternatively they want to make a new embryos by combining two IVF embryos. This would extend the scope for destructive exploitation of human embryos, and in particular for more genetic experimentation on embryos, including human cloning.

These processes reinforce the attitude that human embryos are things to be used, not early human beings. Embryos will increasingly be treated as mere commodities, ripe for commercial exploitation, and denied their proper status and respect as members of the human family.

Please respond urgently to the consultation. We have produced a briefing with simple points that can be made in response to this important issue:
http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/alerts/2012/mitochondria20121130

Please make a submission by going online and submitting your responses at: http://mitochondria.hfea.gov.uk/mitochondria

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy