Praise where it's due...

I have been following the reaction to Jacob Rees-Mogg's television interview, in which he declared for the teaching of the Church on two of the hot-button issues of the day, with some interest.

Initially, some of us were hugely enthusiastic: here was a Catholic politician who did not duck the issues, and had the courage to say things that he knew were likely to be used against him, in a context in which he was never going to get a fair hearing. That was so refreshing after years of hearing 'I'm a Catholic, but...' from assorted politicians,  and the tactical silence, ambiguity, or downright apostasy from many Catholic prelates and priests.

But then came the criticisms: his arguments were weak, in some cases mistaken, and ceded too much ground, and so on.

I think both responses are appropriate, in the right balance. First and foremost, I think, we should applaud his big-heartedness: his sheer courage in saying what could well end his political career, and what he knew would open him up to the kind of shameless pillorying, mocking and misrepresentation that he has already begun to experience, and which I predict will not abate as long as he is in the public eye. That takes guts, and guts are admirable. His heart is in the right place, it seems, and it is our hearts - what we love - that finally determine who we are and how we will be judged. If he loves Christ and Christ's teaching, then he is on the road to salvation.

However, that does not mean that we should not look at the substance of what he said, and perhaps lament his muddle-headedness (though read on - I have more to say in mitigation, as it were, of this charge).  Joseph Shaw makes a number of valid points in his pieces on the subject, here and here.

However, and this is a big however, unless one has been in the hot seat in a television studio, on live tv and with hostile interviewers, one may not fully understand the situation in which he found himself.

I have been involved with the media training of many academics, over many years. Even on their own topics, in which they are experts, and in a training session that is not actually live, they often talk rubbish or explain their own research inadequately and at times incorrectly, when they are first quizzed by an interviewer who is only moderately challenging.

If the interviewer then leads them off-piste, as it were, onto a broader topic about higher education - something they know a great deal about, but for which they are not so prepared - they frequently talk even greater quantities of rubbish. And these are intelligent experts, used to teaching demanding undergraduates.

Simply put, there is something about the different context and the pressures of a live interview, that make it hard to marshal one's thoughts and express them coherently and accurately in live-time.  In fact, they are trained not to answer questions that are not directly related to their own research. But that is not an option that was open to Rees-Mogg: a politician who does that looks evasive, and on these subjects, the conclusion will be drawn that he holds the views deemed unpalatable but is too scared to say so (as in the Tim Farron affair).

So I think, firstly that Rees-Mogg was courageous in his stance; secondly that some of what he said was wrong; but thirdly that while we should of course seek to promote a better understanding, we should not blame him for that. I notice that on Facebook, a number of intelligent Catholics are trying to find better answers to the questions he faced, and struggling to do so - and that without being subject to all the pressures he was under.

Say a prayer for him, and for all who have the courage to stand up for the Faith in the public sphere: it takes courage and is likely to be thankless in this world; so pray they have the perseverance to ensure that it is rewarded in the next.

Abortion after rape

Today, Jacob Rees-Mogg scandalised the world (apparently - or at least that part of it that comments on social and main stream media) by saying that he disapproved of abortion in even in a case where the woman is pregnant as a result of rape (see here).

The howls of outrage, the astonishment,  and the terms in which it was expressed ('barbaric' and so on) were so intense, you might have thought that he was advocating killing innocent children, rather than standing up for them.

The rape question always comes up, of course. Let us pass over the fact that it is used by those who want to legitimise abortion in all circumstances; and the fact that we know that hard cases make bad law. Let us look it squarely in the face, on its own terms.

If one accepts what science (specifically biology and genetics) tells us - that is that a new and distinct human being comes into existence at the moment of conception - then even if it were proven that a therapeutic abortion might ease the distress for a woman pregnant as a result of rape, it is unjustifiable.

There is no circumstance in which killing an innocent human being in order to ease the distress of another human being can be justified.  We do not have to apologise for that truth.

Having said that, we can then look at some of the other aspects of this hard case. 

Firstly, of course, we deplore the terrible evil of rape, and the trauma that results. But in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that abortion eases that trauma or that carrying a resultant child to full term makes it worse. The evidence we have, as a SPUC post on the topic makes clear, points in the other direction.  And that post is notable, too, for the additional distress caused to the victims of such terrible crimes by those who appropriate their suffering to push for the liberalisation of abortion laws, as described by some of the women interviewed. It is truly wicked to subject women to a second assault on their bodies and their dignity by invading their bodies to abort their children. There is no evidence whatsoever medically or psychologically to justify this, and there are many women who will testify that, whatever one might imagine, having the baby was the one positive thing to come out of that traumatic experience.

Secondly, note the dishonesty of the way in which the debate is often conducted. This hard question is used as a tactic, almost one might say as emotional blackmail, to break down the absolute opposition to abortion that a principled person has. But the person using it has never (in my experience at least) any interest in restricting abortions to such hard cases.

Thirdly, and related, is the rhetorical dishonesty that then follows: 'You mean, you would force a woman to carry her rapist's child?!!' Timothy Brahm, of the Equal Rights Institute dismantles that particular rhetorical device here.

And finally, there is the underlying question of justice and compassion. These must apply not only to the victim of the rape, but also to the child. Justice or compassion applied to either one, without the other, is no justice, and no compassion. And no good will come of it.

Why Catholics should vote to remain in the EU - according to Dr Rupert Beale

Dr Rupert Beale has asked me to post this article by him in favour of remaining in the EU on my blog. I am happy to do so: he clearly feels passionately about it, and is a clever chap, whose honesty and good intentions are beyond question.

I only preface it by saying that I am not convinced (I find that the more remain stuff I read, the more I am minded to vote to leave - and vice versa....) . However, you will judge for yourself.

--

Our earthly rulers falter, our people drift and die;

The walls of gold entomb us, the swords of scorn divide.

I had intended this to be a riposte to the various arguments with a Catholic flavour in favour of the UK leaving the EU, but the words of G.K. Chesterton’s hymn have been swirling round my brain of late. I fear that what I might have written would have been scornful. There’s been quite enough of that. 

What I ask of all people of good conscience who believe that the EU is not a good thing is this: please do not vote for us to leave.

Many people were upset by the death of Jo Cox despite never having met her. I cannot imagine the shock and anguish that her husband must be feeling. Somehow he found the strength to issue a very dignified and fitting tribute to his wife. One poignant sentence stands out for me: “She would have wanted two things above all else to happen now, one that our precious children are bathed in love and two, that we all unite to fight against the hatred that killed her.”

It is love for one another that defines us as Christians. A love that imitates Christ’s universal and self-sacrificial love. That is why we defend all human lives, and why we do not try to make different categories of worth between persons – all are infinitely loved by an infinite God. Value to us is the dignity and flourishing of persons; it is not a number of pounds in a bank, even if it’s the Bank of England.  People to us are equal: born or unborn, young and vigorous or old and dying. They are not different in value for being British or French, Romanian or Bangladeshi.

We can have a debate about the European Union. It’s a human political institution, with all the usual faults. I have argued that Britain benefits from membership (it certainly does in narrow monetary terms). I have also argued that British political influence has been a good thing in the EU as regards an area that’s personally important to me: scientific research. This scientific excellence fostered by the EU promotes economic growth, as well as the health and wellbeing of Britons, Europeans and all humanity. These, we should agree, are good things. Furthermore, it’s very hard to see how the UK could get a better deal outside the EU.

The EU is not an unalloyed ode to joy. There is a point of view that the loss of sovereignty entailed by (for example) allowing an international court primacy over a British court is intolerable. Some believe that the EU is remote and less accountable than it should be. The original noble ideals of the predecessor to the EU – which were couched in rather specifically Christian terms – have to some extent been betrayed.

Personally, I do not see that voluntary submission to the judgements of international courts (not confined to the EU of course) is a regrettable loss of sovereignty, but I think you can have a reasonable debate about it.  There is also a very uncomfortable argument that it is in fact Britain that's bad for the EU (our influence is by no means always for the best).

The EU is a collection of 28 separate nation states, one of which is our own decidedly imperfect one. I agree that the EU has done and continues to do things which go against the high ideals of its founders – but imperfection is to be expected, whatever mechanisms are in place to help smooth relationships between our different countries.

Whatever you think about the EU, it cannot be emphasised enough that the merits or otherwise of the EU are not on the ballot paper. What’s on the ballot paper is leaving the EU. The wider context of this vote is not the impassioned but usually polite discourse between committed Christians. The context is fear of immigrants, lies about money, distrust of foreigners, distrust of economists, distrust of politicians, distrust of journalists, distrust of ‘experts’ – distrust of everybody. 

The context is also a national political debate in which we have the love of money played off against the fear of immigrants. Across continental Europe, the context is many national parties that wish their particular country to break off from the EU (and most of those parties make our own Far Right seem pretty tame). 

The context is also the recent horrible killing of an MP doing her job. The suspect has given his name in court as “death to traitors, freedom for Britain”. Inevitably, the motives and state of mind of the suspect have been subject to speculation, and that speculation has varied depending on the particular views of the speculator.

It’s illustrative of the poverty of the national debate that this terrible tragedy is being used to score points. It’s Jo Cox’s husband’s words that we should take to heart, and not give way to hatred. That means no hatred of foreigners, and it means no hatred of politicians either – even if they are guilty of rabble-rousing and xenophobia (as some most assuredly are). 

The secular debate around the EU referendum has been conducted in terms which are too often bound by entombing walls of gold and the love of money. They are also being conducted in a way that suggests people – some people at any rate – can be cast adrift.

From all that terror teaches, from lies of tongue and pen,

From all the easy speeches that comfort cruel men;

From sale and profanation of honour and the sword;

From sleep and from damnation, deliver us, good Lord!

In a sea of lies and half-truths there is one particular depth of mendacity that I wish to plunge into: the claim that £350m a week can be spent on the NHS if we leave. It is worse than a deliberate lie. It is specially designed to be a lie, because the Leave camp’s spin-doctors have realised that if they lie about it, it will be talked about a lot.

The counter-argument is that the real figure is lower: £136m. This is great for the Leave camp: it still sounds like a large number, and cements the broader untruth that the EU costs us money in the minds of voters. The demographic they are especially targeting – older Labour voters – is tickled by the promise to spend all that money on the NHS. They have told us a small lie to make us believe a bigger one – what clever fellows those spin-doctors are!

Mendacity is not the special vice of the Leave campaign. It has long ago infected our whole political discourse. If all truth is relative, a lie can surely be a legitimate tool used in pursuit of a political goal. In those circumstances, where to tell a lie is neither considered wicked nor shameful – and is in fact admired for its ability to shift public opinion – it is little wonder that people have lost trust.

Truth and truth-telling are essential to Christian values. Of course, there is nowadays little or no reference to Christianity in public life. But truth-telling is important to secular humanists and people of other faiths too. Can we not replace Christian values with ‘Enlightenment’ values? I don’t see much evidence of that happening.

The secular debate – even if conducted in terms that don’t abandon the concept of truth altogether – is dominated by narrow self-interest. Will Britain be better off? Will I be better off? Will we be able to keep the foreigners out? It’s not exactly the universal brotherhood of man. The Enlightenment owes far more of a debt to Christianity than is generally admitted. The philosopher that atheists don’t much like to talk about is Nietzsche. Right now, it’s his abyss that’s staring into us.

  

I could see myself voting for Brexit under certain circumstances. For example, if it became a condition of our continued membership that we join the Euro (this would by law be subject to a referendum). The procedure there would be for an elected government to carefully build global alliances and put us in a position to negotiate an orderly withdrawal (we have no such alliance in place, and all our trading partners, allies and EU neighbours are against us leaving). We would need to ensure that any exit did not produce a severe economic shock.

At present, we have no credible scenario to achieve a successful negotiated settlement, and a substantial economic shock is certain if we leave. (I accept that some economists believe we could recover in a decade or so, while others don’t – but that there will be an initial shock is agreed by all.) A severe economic shock to Britain and to the EU at this time would give rise to the perfect conditions for bigotry and hatred to flourish. This we must not allow.

If you, like me, believe on balance that Britain is good for the EU and the EU is good for Britain I expect you will vote to remain. If we do vote to leave, we give succour to the very worst elements of our national politics and the national politics of the other EU members, and we must endure the national humiliation that will follow as best we can.

Take not thy thunder from us, but take away our pride.

Grumpy about the referendum...

I realise that I am feeling very grumpy about this whole referendum.

I remember when Wilson called a referendum, my father remarked what a stupid thing it was to do - not part of the way we ran the country. At the time I didn't really understand what he was on about. Today I think I do rather better.

This referendum is costing £142.4m of taxpayers' money. It was called to help Cameron win the last election. It will resolve little - on present showing, about half the population will think it has delivered the wrong answer. It has promoted argument of the worst political kind: demagogues have flourished, and the politics of self-interest and economic benefit have been the dominant lenses through which the debate is framed.

When the vote is cast, vast numbers will be voting on the basis of large swathes of ignorance - my children told me recently they thought it was a vote on whether you were racist or not...

What it conceals, or perhaps reveals, is how broken our parliamentary democracy is. The Tories no longer stand for traditional conservative values - witness Cameron's destruction of traditional marriage, for example. Traditional Labour voters likewise feel that their party does not represent the best traditions of the Labour party. The Lib Dems are a joke in rather poor taste... Again, that opens the path to demagogues of the Farage kind.

The common ground seems to be that the EU is desperately in need of reform - the CAP being a glaring example - yet few seriously believe that we can achieve substantial reform. 

My own professional life would be very much easier if we were out, (it is untrue that the 'red-tape on small business' problem is a fiction) but that seems a very poor reason to cast a vote.

My preferred solution would be for an effectively functioning parliament to make a wise and principled decision. Given that is not going to happen anytime soon, why should I believe that our influence on the EU will be either effective or principled?

I am deeply and profoundly disillusioned with the whole political process.

And I still don't know which way I am going to vote.

Still undecided

I envy so many of my friends. They are clear and resolute in their decision about the forthcoming referendum.  Many, like Rupert Beale, are convinced that we would be mad to leave the EU.  Rupert argues the case here, for example. Others, like Mark Lambert, are equally clear that we are better out; see Mark's facebook page for many arguments. (See Update below!)

And then there are the politicians...

I have found the paucity of the political debate particularly depressing, if I am honest. It is almost all predicated on economics and self interest, as though these are the most important things. 

Rupert Beale, to his credit, makes some appeal to the common good, but I am not wholly convinced.

For me, the choice is difficult, but I see the issues at stake differently. (It's all the others who are wrong, of course, as the mother watching the parade said, when her son was marching out of step...)

But for me, the main reason to consider voting to leave the EU is the relentless ambition to construct a European Empire. I think this an ill-founded and dangerous ambition. I also dislike the profligate waste (typified by the Strasbourg -Brussels-Strasbourg move every month at vast expense - but there are many other examples, and all beyond hope of reform, as far as I can see) and the contempt for tax-payer implicit in that. And I have a natural preference for smaller and more local power structures.

On the other hand, the thought of giving succour to the Little England (and sometimes racist) views of so many on the Out side is wholly repugnant. More serious still is the fear that a UK exit would lead others to seek to leave, and the potential balkanisation of Europe with all the risks implicit in that.

My preference is for a reformed EU - a reversion to a trading group, shedding the ambitions to political and fiscal union. But that seems a pipe dream - and certainly a vote to remain seems to me to be in practice a vote for the direction of travel.

But on the other hand, would a vote to leave give us any influence? It is conceivable that it would: that both the British political establishment and the EU would be so shocked that they would work to cobble together some real reform... But I doubt it.

So what to do?

I really don't know...


--

Update

I have clearly misrepresented Mark (albeit inadvertently) - see his comment below.

When Rights Collide

The story of Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland is well worth following.  A homosexual activist approached this Christian company and asked them to decorate a cake with a message in support of same sex marriage. They politely declined. The full weight of the system is now being brought down on them, via the Equality Commission.

Here you can see and hear the general manager of this family firm explain their position, and ask for prayers, both for them and those who persecute them.

If you wish to sign a letter in support of the bakery and their principled position, you may do so here.

This case opens up a fascinating, if fraught, legal minefield. According to the Christian Institute (here) Aidan O'Neill QC states that if Ashers loses there would also be no defence to similar actions being taken against other businesses in any of the following scenarios:

• A Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed
• An atheist web designer refusing to design a website presenting as scientific fact the claim that God made the world in six days
• A Christian film company refusing to produce a “female-gaze/feminist” erotic film
• A Christian baker refusing to take an order to make a cake celebrating Satanism
• A T-shirt company owned by lesbians declining to print T-shirts with a message describing gay marriage as an “abomination”
• A printing company run by Roman Catholics declining an order to produce adverts calling for abortion on demand to be legalised.

At issue here is a conflict of perceived rights. The court is being asked to declare that the right to act in accordance with one's conscience, in a way that does no harm to another beyond denying approval of a belief system, is less important than the right of someone with a particular point of view not to have to confront the reality that some people disagree with him.

My fear is that it will do so.

So pray for the bakers, the court, and the litigants.

Fiat voluntas tua.

Suis-je Charlie?

In the wake of the dreadful events in Paris, it is hard to know how to react. In the first instance, of course, we pray for the dead. We pray that grace was triumphant at the moment of their death, and that on meeting the Risen Lord, no doubt to the surprise of many of them, they find it in themselves to recognise Him and accept the forgiveness He offers, and for which He took flesh and surrendered His life.

An immediate emotional response, of course, is one of sympathy and solidarity with the victims. In its easiest form, that is with the police officers, one a Muslim, and one defending a Jewish school, who were murdered in the course of their duties, and the people in the supermarket murdered for being Jews.

And then there are the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. The huge outpouring of solidarity that was exemplified by the #JeSuisCharlie hashtag that swamped Twitter and other social media was a completely understandable response. The idea of being murdered for drawing cartoons, and the associated idea that free speech is under attack, clearly - and rightly - struck a nerve with vast numbers of people.

Then there has been a small backlash, not least from Catholics, of people busily pointing out that they do not identify with Charlie Hebdo, as it has viciously blasphemed the Blessed Trinity, and attacked the Holy Father, the Catholic Church - and also Jews and anyone else whose beliefs they did not like.

In truth, I don't recall having been aware of Charlie Hebdo before this week; I may have seen their stuff, but am likely to have wiped it from my memory as distasteful. The more I see of it, the less I like it. But that is not, of course, to say that they should be murdered for drawing or publishing it.  It may be that I would not die for their right to trample on the sensitivities of others in a brutish and largely humourless way, but that may be a moral failing in myself. There are probably far more worthy causes I would not die for, and that may say more about my lack of moral vision, and my cowardice, than anything else.

However, it does strike me that in one respect - and one respect only - the people who drew such cartoons and the people who murdered them had something in common; and that is a complete failure either to sympathise with, or to see the legitimacy of, a worldview that differed from their own.  That lack of perspective is truly dangerous: the Other becomes the Enemy. And whilst I think it is probably right that society tolerates a publication predicated on such an offensive approach as Charlie Hebdo's, (as the alternative of censorship of ideas is far worse) I do not think that people should necessarily avail themselves of such rights.

Our instinct, quite naturally, is to distance ourselves from the outrage of the murders; quite rightly and understandably. That, I think, lies behind the #JeSuisCharlie outpouring. For some our secondary instinct is also to distance ourselves from the bile of the cartoons. That is also understandable.

But for the Christian, and indeed for the true humanist (and I am not using those words as mutually exclusive, of course) I think the responsibility is to look in the mirror.

If it is wrong, as I believe it is, to trample on the sensitivities of others, I must look to myself: do I ever do that?  If it is wrong to cultivate a system of thinking that is predicated on the hatred of the Other, do I ever do that? 

Suis-je Charlie Hebdo? 

Suis-je Said ou Cherif?

--

Pray for them all.

What are the right mechanisms for censorship?

Oddly, in one respect (and in one respect only) I find myself more in agreement with Tim Squirrell and Niamh McIntyre than with Brendan O'Neill.

That is, I do believe that there is a place for censorship in a civilised society. We limit freedom of speech when it threatens the public good (such as shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema) and when it incites to criminality (such as calling on people to riot) and rightly so. Until recently, recognising the dangerous potency of material inciting blood-lust and sexual lust, we placed limits on 'entertainment' that incited these, too.

Joseph Shaw makes the point that 'I would not accept an invitation to debate whether Jews should be massacred, for example, even to argue that they should not be, because this is not a topic which should be open for discussion, and having a formal debate about it legitimises, to some extent, the side in favour.' And again, I think he is probably right here. But a debate, and in particular a debate in a University, is the last thing that should be censored: precisely because it is a debate, and it is a University (as Joseph Shaw also points out, here.) Such censorship should only be exercised in extremis.

Free speech is one of those things, like democracy itself, which is a secondary good; making it into an ultimate good is heresy - or even idolatry, setting it up as a False God. 

Everyone, in practice, except the extraordinarily unreflective or the ideologically extreme, agrees with some censorship.

The question is, what are the right mechanisms for censorship, and ultimately, who gets to decide.

In a parliamentary democracy, the idea is that an elected parliament is the least worst solution to that problem. It is not ideal - and our current parliamentarians who seem dedicated to pushing the voting public into the arms of rabble-rousing populists by their unprincipled approach exemplify why - but it is certainly better than students whose intellectual development seems to be limited to slogans that can be printed on a Student Union T-shirt - and the Christ Church censors who caved in to their threats.

Slippery Slopes

Whenever 'liberalising' laws are passed, or campaigns are pursued, and backwards folk like me point out the possible next steps and consequences, we are accused of a fallacious 'slippery slope' argument.

So it was with interest that I read Johamn Hari's piece in the Guardian online which is the start of a campaign to break the 'taboo' against incest.

I remember back when Section 28 was being debated, I thought it was probably unnecessary.  After all, we were assured, nobody would want to promote homosexuality in the classroom: this was simply the stuff of bigotry.  Yet what followed? 

When the Civil Partnership legislation was proposed, we were told that nobody would then campaign for same sex 'marriage'.  Yet what followed?

So incest (along with polyamory and all manner of other 'taboos') will soon be found to be acceptable to all but old bigots like me…

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

A Lifestyle Choice

I don't often read Peter Hitchens (or indeed anything in the Mail or Mail on Sunday, you will be shocked to learn) but somebody pointed me at this column and it set me thinking.

I am not sure precisely what the Chancellor meant in calling full-time motherhood 'a lifestyle choice'; but then I suspect that he wasn't sure either, so that's OK.  It sounded, at least, somewhat disapproving.

Antonia was born some 22 years ago, and we were younger and (a little) more in tune with the spirit of the age. Anna (Mrs T.) was a successful professional: a Finance Director at the age of 30. She earned about the same (on a regular basis) as I earned erratically from my freelance work.  So it seemed sensible for her to keep working (she enjoyed her work) and arrange for childcare for Ant.  We did that: it was a bit stressful taking her to a nursery which she clearly enjoyed less than our company, and it was hard for Anna, who felt guilty when at work, thinking about her baby, and guilty when at home, thinking about her work...

Then Bernadette arrived, a couple of years later.  Anna decided to go part-time, and we got a nanny for the girls.

It didn't work. Her employer was very supportive, but nonetheless, Anna was expected to do exactly the same in part-time hours as she had been doing in full-time hours, for rather less pay.  The nanny, though a delightful girl, was not as intelligent or as stimulating, or as fun for the girls to be with, and certainly was not passing on the kinds of values and lifestyle (there's that word again) that we wished. A simple example was that she rarely read them any stories...

So Anna quit, and has been a full-time mother (more or less) ever since.  I say more or less, as she has done some part-time short-term jobs, and also a significant amount of voluntary work, once all the kids were at school - but nearly all during school hours.

The benefits have been significant: her relationship with all of the children is excellent; they have all grown up happy, healthy, confident and secure.  They all practice their Faith.

But of course there has been a cost. Whilst we are not impoverished, we have an income of about 50% of that which we would have had if she had stayed in employment, and with no security attached to it either (and indeed it has fluctuated fairly dramatically over the years: it can be feast or famine here...) She has no pension of course (and as the one I have paid into for three decades is worth almost nothing, that is significant).

As a result, we tend to go easy on things like holidays: for many years, camping in Scotland was the family holiday. Last year and this, we have pushed the boat out and hired a cottage for a week. But it is a long time - more than a decade - since we had a holiday abroad as a family.

That, I think, is a lifestyle choice; though in fact we see it more as living our vocation. It is a choice we made about how we thought we should live our lives. It was not without costs, including a certain amount of social disapprobation,  but it is one we are both happy with; and we appreciate that it is a choice that we were lucky to be able to make.

But why the Chancellor should look down his nose at it, which seems to be the drift of his remarks, is a mystery to me.

Slippery Slopes...

It is curious how slippery slopes only work one way.

That is to say, when I approve of a proposition, the slippery slope argument used against it seems tendentious, fear-mongering and not a real refutation.

However, when I disapprove, the slippery slope risks are apparent, real and imminent.

So if I am what is (inaccurately in my view) frequently labelled as a social liberal, I will decry as scare tactics any consideration of slippery slope arguments when discussing the legislation designed to promote societal approval of homosexual relationships; yet when the government seeks to make internet porn censorship available as a default, then I see state control of the internet, mass censorship of the freedom of expression and the collapse of all civil liberties just around the corner

But I am not, of course. I occupy a different place.  I see the mendaciously-labelled 'equal marriage' legislation as proof positive of a slippery slope that we have been sliding down for a long time, and I have no doubt that we will slide considerably further down it, with grievous consequences for individuals and society.

I wish I could believe that the proposals to attempt to stem the flow of pornography into households were the start of a slippery slope, reversing the trend of decades, but I fear that will not be the case.

But the broader phenomenon is interesting: how governed our perceptions and interpretations are by our underlying philosophy.  It reminds me, once again, of one of my favourite quotations from C S Lewis (from Miracles):

What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question.

Same Sex "Marriage"

Today is a very thought provoking day. The Same Sex Marriage Bill has been given Royal Assent and is now the Same Sex Marriage Act.

I worry about this for many reasons.

One is, as I have blogged previously, that this is one step further along a path to the destruction of marriage and family life, which we should not be taking.

A second is that it represents a worrying precedent politically.  This was not handled well in terms of democratic process; the political purpose seems to have been an attempt to de-toxify the Tory brand; the quality of the debate was lamentable and frequently dishonest; the outcome leaves many important issues unaddressed. That is poor government by any standard.

A third is the intrinsic dishonesty of the whole process. Purportedly about equality, the Act delivers nothing of the sort: homosexual 'marriage' is (necessarily) treated differently in law from marriage.

But I have other, longer term worries. I see two equal and opposite dangers which society now faces.

On the one hand, many people clearly believe the propaganda (and thus, inadvertently perhaps, swallow the accompanying philosophy) about 'equal marriage.'  That will increase the likelihood of more people getting sucked into the gay lifestyle.  It will erode a correct understanding of marriage, and therefore anybody's chances of being able to contract one.  It will further weaken family life and result in a higher number of damaged children and dysfunctional relationships. It will encourage some to push further for 'liberal' reforms to the laws that are designed to protect the vulnerable: reduction in the age of consent, de-stigmatisation of other types of irregular relationship, including polyamorous and incestuous, and so on.  It will also encourage those who wish to impose approval to take further steps against those who hold to a traditional understanding of marriage.  We will very shortly see Churches being prosecuted for not allowing people to hire Church Halls for 'Gay Weddings' and so on, in an attempt to suppress all opposition.

On the other hand, I think there is another danger, and one which perhaps people like me need to pay most heed to. That is that at some stage, in the face of all this, normal people will revolt, suddenly, viscerally and potentially violently against the fundamental lies and depravity, and homosexuals will again be viciously persecuted.  That is why I think anyone who overstates the case against the gay political agenda is profoundly misguided.

The Lords debate Same Sex Marriage

I listened to some of the debate in the House of Lords last night, and poor stuff it was.  In fairness I only listened for a couple of hours, missing the start and with a gap, so perhaps all the wisdom, insight and facts were discussed then.  What I heard was superficial and largely ill-informed.  But they were very self-congratulatory about the quality of the debate.

I heard no serious discussion of marriage as an institution, its meaning and function in society, and the consequences of changing it.  

The arguments pro were largely around a presumed need for fairness and equality, the inevitable march of history, and the inadvisability of the Lords rocking the boat; the arguments contra were largely about the dangers of ill-thought out and hasty change and lack of proper process  - reasonable concerns, but scarcely the main issues.

Two speakers particularly stuck in my mind. One was Lord Deben (John Gummer, as was).  He is, apparently, a convert to Catholicism.  His speech was a travesty, referring to his Catholic Faith, but his higher calling as a legislator...  He did not express any understanding of a Catholic view of marriage, but made explicit that he could lay any such understanding to one side for the sake of people who are not Catholics.  I suppose it is not his fault that his catechesis was so inadequate, but it was highly disturbing to see him lending credence to the idea that any Catholic could support this measure in good conscience.

The other was Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the chap who used to be the Legal Eagle on the radio for many years.  He is always an entertaining and individual speaker.  He recognised the strength of feeling on both sides of the debate and suggested that a simple solution would be to re-name SSM as 'Espousal;' this would confer full and equal rights, but avoid pretending an equivalence between SSM and marriage, which is what so many antis feel so strongly about.

He had the intellectual honesty to be clear that SSM and Marriage are different - but completely missed the point.  This legislation is not about equal rights: that was what Civil Partnerships were for. This is about precisely the lie he nailed: pretending that SSM and Marriage are in fact the same. It is designed to do a few things: to bestow societal approval on same-sex partnerships; to move public opinion further towards the complete acceptance of them; and to ensure that anyone who disputes this new orthodoxy can be persecuted and punished.  His 'espousals' proposal will be deemed homophobic as it would subvert those ends.

As I understand it, we already have legislation on the books that makes truth-telling illegal in some situations (eg re someone who has had their 'gender' 'changed').  This legislation seeks to extend that Orwellian practice to make it de facto a hate crime to maintain that Marriage and same sex relationships are different in any way: despite the fact that the legislation implicitly acknowledges and sustains some of those real differences.

This is dangerous and pernicious.  At some stage there may well be a backlash, and that too I fear.

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

The Architecture of Civil Society

I have mentioned before, in another context (Liturgical change) a very wise architect with whom I once spoke. He pointed out that if, in renovating an ancient building, he comes across some part of the structure that he does not understand, he proceeds with great caution.  If there is something ugly, or apparently pointless, or random, then it is foolhardy to pull it out. It is almost certainly there for a reason, and until you have understood that reason, you risk causing great damage by simply removing it.

It seems to me that, as a society, we have been removing structural elements without fully understanding their purpose for some time; and that the structure of society is substantially weakened as a result.

An obvious example is marriage.  The debate about the re-definition of marriage has been so superficial and unthinking, that it can scarcely be dignified with the name of debate.  There has been no understanding shown by those imposing this change that they have any understanding of the structural role of the institution of marriage in society. It is as though they are saying: 'Hmm, don't like the look of that old-fashioned pillar in the middle of the room, and it's a real inconvenience to many: let's pull it out.' And because the ceiling doesn't look as thought it's coming down immediately, they imagine they are doing no harm.

But that is only the latest in a long line of such changes.

I am not only talking about the obvious moral issues, such as the de-stigmatisation of divorce, contraception, promiscuity and abortion; but also about other social habits and taboos: respect and deference for the elderly, mothers staying at home to raise children, stigmatisation of 'the undeserving poor,' and so on... and on.

I am not saying these are all good things to which we should return; rather I am saying that they were there because they served a purpose; to remove them without understanding the purpose they served is folly.  To return to the architectural analogy: that rusty bit of corrugated iron in the corner may be very ugly, and even a hazard.  However, unless we determine why it was placed there (to keep rats out of the larder?...) it is unwise simply to remove it; and it is arrogant and idiotic to declare ourselves more enlightened than our forebears, when we do so without making other provision for the good end it once served.

Mandatory Thatcher Post

I learn that a post about the late Baroness Thatcher is compulsory (I was going to say mandaTory...)

Given my distaste for party politics, and my inability to disentangle in my own mind her many undoubted qualities from her many undoubted failings, I will restrain myself to two observations.

One is this - my favourite Mrs Thatcher Joke.  The scene is Chequers: she has the Cabinet seated around the table for lunch.

Waiter: Do you want the British Beef or the New Zealand Lamb, Prime Minister?
Mrs Thatcher: The British Beef, of course!
Waiter: And the vegetables?
Mrs Thatcher: They can have the Beef, too!

--

The other is the observation that she and her husband inspired one of the monuments of modern British comic and political writing: the Dear Bill letters.

--

May she rest in peace.

In Praise of Equal Marriage

Of course I am in favour of Equal Marriage; that is why I do not want the law changed.

At present, we have a fundamental equality in our marriage laws: any adult may marry any other consenting adult of the opposite sex (providing they are not closely related, already married etc). Marriage is consummated in the marital embrace, in all cases.  That seems pretty equal to me.

There are proposals afoot to mess with that equality. Suddenly, some marriages will be deemed valid without consummation; what constitutes infidelity will be different in different cases, and so on.

Moreover, marriage will no longer be the social institution it has always been before: the foundation of a family on the basis of the mutual love and permanent commitment of a man and a woman to each other, and to their children.  Children will no longer have the equal right and expectation of a mother and a father, each contributing, in their complementarity to the stability and wellbeing of the children. Instead, by design, some children will have different, unequal arrangements which are tantamount to a giant social experiment.

If we are to argue on the basis of equality, I say that marriage should not be further eroded by re-definition, but rather strengthened in our traditional understanding of it.

God bless our bishop

Our bishop, +Michael Campbell, has just sent an excellent letter to the Prime Minister.

In it, he makes several important points, including that marriage was not created by, and therefore does not belong to, either the State or the Church.  Rather it is derived from the natural order, and to try to change its fundamental nature by legislation is simply to lie.

He also points out that laws play a role in determining what is and is not socially acceptable: so the mantra that allowing 'gay marriages' affects nobody else is palpably dishonest: in fact it will mean that very soon, anyone holding to beliefs about marriage which everyone held to till very recently, will be seen as a bigot, with concomitant consequences.

He also points out the Church's teaching and practice that we love people suffering from same sex attraction; and also the fact that 'the Church offers the means to live chastely in all circumstances, as the love and grace of God both obliges and makes possible.'

It is an excellent, measured and well-reasoned letter.  Let us hope and pray that David Cameron pays it some heed.

A reply to my MP

In the next instalment of this exciting saga (for previous episodes, see here and here) I have written back to my MP, as follows:

Thank you for your reply: I do appreciate the time and thought that went into it.

However, I have a number of questions and concerns that remain unanswered.

1   You refer to ‘equal civil marriage.’  However, as I wrote previously:

‘Much has been made of the alleged distinction between Civil and Religious Marriage, and it has been asserted that this applies only to Civil Marriage, leaving Religious Marriage untouched. That is a very curious claim, as there is no such distinction in English Law. There are civil or religious ceremonies, but only one institution of Marriage.’

Am I right or wrong in believing that there is no distinction in law between civil and religious marriage?  If I am right, is it proposed to introduce such a distinction?

2   Based on that understanding, I continued: ‘ It is very hard to see any protection that could be offered to religious organisations who refuse same-sex weddings if challenged at the European level, once same-sex marriage is legalised.’

I think you were seeking to address that when you wrote:

“That said, the Conservative Party are not proposing to make anybody do anything that goes against their conscience. Religious organisations will not be forced to host same-sex marriages. Indeed, current proposals would make it illegal for any religious organisation to conduct a same-sex marriage in a place of worship.”

However, that does not really address my concerns about European jurisdiction, nor those raised at point 5 in my original letter: ‘Once the state believes it can re-define marriage, what is to stop it being re-defined further? That is not a fanciful question, as we are already witnessing cases in Brazil, the Netherlands and Canada striving to legitimise polygamy. ‘

Likewise my concerns at point 6: ‘We are already seeing hotel and B&B owners being prosecuted for following their consciences as Christians, and upholding standards which were, until very recently, the law of the land. Legal advice from senior QCs indicates that we will soon find that Christians who believe in marriage as always heretofore defined are thereby barred from many occupations and organisations, including education, many public services, and so on. Likewise Churches will be obliged to let their halls be used for ceremonies which are against their beliefs, or not let them be used at all; and so on.” For although current proposals do not intend to do so, they lay the ground for progressive legal challenges and of course further legislation which will undoubtedly take us further and further down that path, once the very meaning of marriage, which we have inherited as part of our civilisation, has been altered.

3   You also wrote:

“The Prime Minister, as you are aware supports equal civil marriage, on the grounds of the importance of commitment in strengthening our society.”

However, there is no evidence that introducing same sex marriage will in fact have that result.  Such evidence as there is (which is admittedly scanty, given the novelty of this phenomenon) seems to point the other way; or is their evidence of which I am unaware?

4   You also wrote:

“But the Government has rightly consulted widely on this issue before making any changes to the current position.”

However, the consultation was deliberately framed as a consultation about how, not whether, to introduce this radical change to the institution of marriage, which rather undermines your point. It was made clear that the government wished to present the change as a fait accompli. Nonetheless, it does seem clear that large numbers of people are indicating their concerns, and I trust these will be heeded.

5   You also wrote: 

“The consultation included a question asking people whether they agree or disagree with enabling all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.”

Given the lack of any legal meaning to the concept of ‘civil marriage’ that is a rather misleading way of framing the issue.  A more honest question would have been: ‘Do you agree that marriage should be re-defined to include partnerships between people of the same sex?’

6   I note that points 1, 2 and 4 of my letter were not addressed in your reply: I hope and trust that is because you are thinking further about them.

I hope that once you have concluded your deliberations, you will let me and others know your decision and voting intentions.  Unlike you, I am not at all reassured by the government’s claim that ‘this proposal will have no effect on religious marriage’ as I think that claim has no credibility whatsoever.

Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my earlier letter: it is no part of my intention to bombard you with correspondence, but this issue is simply too important for me to remain silent.


--

As Patti F. pointed out in a comment on his reply to me, it is also important to meet MPs and lobby them (as Laurence and others did theirs) 

False Gods of Our Time 2: Politics

Politics is essential, of course.  As man is made to live in community, we must have ways to organise and govern ourselves, and that is the essence of politics. In particular, it is the art of recruiting people to a particular point of view or programme of action, in order to advance it.  

It is potentially a noble art, and has indeed had many noble exponents. It is also, when corrupted, potentially very evil, but that is not the aspect I wish to focus on here.

Rather, as with my previous post on Choice, I wish to consider the problems that arise when we elevate politics from being something important to being the only important thing.

I think there are at least three types of problem that arise from this:

One is that people start to see everything through political lenses.  Thus we read of issues in the Church being of the right or of the left.  That is usually a flawed analysis, which not only oversimplifies ecclesiastical issues, but also reduces theological discussion to politics.  The C of E’s current discussions around ‘women bishops’ are enmired in politics, for example.  Likewise social issues are debated at an incredibly superficial level along almost tribal political lines: private education is ‘bad’ if you are on the left, and ‘good’ if you are on the right - often with no pause to consider what education is meant to be, what the Church teaches us about it, and what kinds of private and state education we are actually comparing.  Further, any idea proposed by political opponents is automatically seen through a prejudicial mist of suspicion, with an eye to making political capital out of presenting it in as unsympathetic light as possible, regardless of any real merit it may have.  That then leads to all the dishonesty of spinning that has helped bring politics into serious disrepute.

A second is that people start to behave from political motives when spiritual motives are required.  I have come across a number of instances recently, particularly in discussions re abortion and euthanasia, where some things are deemed unsayable or undiscussable for fear of the way in which those with a different agenda might manipulate the debate.  I would rather that the criterion we use is truth. If some truths are open to misunderstanding, there is a second-level question about how to put them across, but to say we should not say something we know to be true because it may be used against us strikes me as wrong-headed.

The third is that people get so attached to political theories and indeed political causes or alignments that they treat religious and moral issues as secondary, where they should be primary.  Thus they end up doing all sorts of harm in the pursuit of political goods: they attach themselves to (and justify themselves by) the notion that a mandate from the people justifies a whole programme of action, when it is just as likely to be an expression of fed-upness with the other scoundrels.  So we get disastrous policies for the most vulnerable in society, such as children in need of adoption, in pursuit of some sort of political ideology; we are witnessing the progressive destruction of the institution of marriage as a result of a number of policies, each seemingly benign in intent, and so on - because the big moral questions have been obscured by the political questions.

His Grace responds

Further to my recent post, His Grace has now posted a fuller response to the ludicrous interference of the Advertising Standards Agency in his right to free expression.

Given that the allegedly 'offending' advertisement is in favour of the (current) law of the land, it would be quite extraordinary were this to be pursued any further.  But that doesn't mean it won't be.  In these days of austerity, there is still plenty of resource behind various branches of the unofficial thought-police whose job it is to make sure we think the way our political and social masters think we should think.

It is perhaps comforting to realise that the only real impact of the ASA's intervention - apart from causing undue stress on Cranmer, which is of course lamentable - has been to get the advertisement spread all over the web, by those like me who take an I am Spartacus approach to such bullying.  Stuart at eChurch blog carries a list of many such sites, though it is not comprehensive, and there are more being added daily.