Dangerous Days

As I wrote at the start of the year (see A Momentous Year and What's the Agenda?) the pro-abortion lobby is planning a major offensive this year. 

The date of the next skirmish in the House of Commons has now been revealed: it is 23rd October, when there will be a 10 minute Rule Bill put before the House for a vote.

The vote on 23rd October is the start of the process: and it will give great heart to whichever side wins, influencing when and whether further attempts are made to remove abortion from all specific legal oversight.

What should we do? I have spoken with a number of MPs and former ministers over the years, and they all agree that personal lobbying by individual constituents is the thing that is most likely to influence how they vote on many issues. This has far more influence than (eg) large postcard campaigns organised by lobby groups, which are easily disregarded (I am old enough to remember the huge Mail Maggie A Mountain campaign back in the day: thousands of postcards delivered - and disregarded...)

Of course, the die-hard pro-abortionists will not be swayed, and the die-hard pro-life MPs can be relied on. But they are a minority (in both cases). There is a large 'muddled middle' and these are the MPs who are open to influence.

It is worth noting that an MP need not be pro-life to recognise that the proposed de-regulation is extremely unwise - as long as someone takes him or her through the implications.

So what we must do is make the time to visit our MPs' surgeries, if at all possible, or failing that, to write clear and courteous personal letters or emails, outlining why this is a bad idea.  If you don't know why it's a bad idea, or think that as we have virtual abortion on demand already, then it makes no difference, read my posts linked to above; or better still, perhaps, go to the excellent introductory brief  video by Life, and more importantly, read and use their excellent comprehensive guidance, that gives all the background you need.

If we lose this legislative battle, we risk setting the pro-life cause back by decades in this country, and opening the door to abortion on demand for any reason up to birth, to the indoctrination of our children in schools, to the imposition of abortions as a compulsory aspect of training for medics and nurses, and of course, the continued bullying and exploitation of young or vulnerable women - and worst of all, even more young lives destroyed before birth.

Don't tut and do nothing.  Don't salve your conscience by sending a pre-printed postcard. Take personal responsibility and lobby your MP personally: it is the most powerful political tool we have. Encourage others to do so.

And pray.

--

Lest you be in a position to ask: Lord, when did I see you unborn and fail to protect you?...

Discerning God's Will

It can be hard, at times like these, when Ireland has unleashed abortion on its population by a popular vote, and when MPs in Westminster signal that many are quite ready to remove even what little restraint there is on abortion in England and impose that regime on Northern Ireland as well... it can be hard, I say, to remember that all this is in line with the permissive will of God.

Of course, not His active will; but the price He is prepared to pay for giving mankind free will: the ability to choose to love, and the necessary counterpart to that, the ability to choose not to love. 

But despair at these developments shows a very limited historical perspective; God allowed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and countless others to kill in huge numbers; he has allowed the evil of abortion on a far greater scale, already, than that being introduced at present; and He has paid the price - on the Cross.

Why this is His will - even His permissive will - is always a challenging question; but it is scarcely a new one. One might speculate that the West has to reach a certain depth of depravity in order to recognise the need for conversion, to be re-born as a Christian society. But that is speculation.

What is easier to discern is what His will is for us in this situation. As St Teresa of Calcutta said, our job is not to win, but to be faithful.

Sometimes, of course, when one is feeling oppressed by the World, even discerning God's will for oneself is tough; in those cases, I find it easiest to consider what the Devil wants from the situation (it is sad that I find it easier to discern his mind than God's, but there it is...)  

So the Devil would like me to give up and despair of good ever triumphing (sin against hope); to hate and abuse those who wreak this great evil (sin against charity); to doubt that God is omnipotent or all-good, or that the Church is right on these matters (sin against Faith) and so on.

Which makes my immediate plan clear: I must keep working for life and keep hope alive; I must love and pray for those who have done such evil, as Our Lord loved and prayed for those who crucified Him; and I must keep the Faith, particularly by recourse to the Sacraments, and an active spiritual life, in this terrible time.

--

May our Blessed Mother, St Joseph her chaste spouse, St Michael and all the angels and saints pray for us, for all who promote, procure or perform abortions, for all victims of abortion, and for all who work for the cause of life.

March for Life (2)

Rachel Mackenzie

I have already posted my reflections on Saturday morning. Once we arrived in Parliament Square, we had a pro-Life song from Joy Villa (who famously wore a dress with an image of her unborn child to the Grammy award ceremony), and then some of the most powerful testimonies from British pro-Life women.

The first was Rachel MacKenzie, who now works for Rachel's Vineyard, the organisation dedicated to helping women to recover from the trauma of abortion. She described her own sad experiences as a young woman, including being awake enough during one of her abortions to see the abortionists counting the body parts of her dismembered baby.  She described her long journey through the classic stages of grief: anger, denial, bargaining, depression, and acceptance; and acknowledged that some of the anger and hostility that we were experiencing from the counter-protestors might indicate that some of them were stuck in the early stages of that process.  Rachel's courageous acceptance of the reality of her choices was very evident in all that she said: about the children she had had aborted, and about her finding meaning through faith and her charitable outreach to others in a similar situation. Rachel's talk may be seen and heard here. 

Clare McCullough

The second was the indomitable Clare McCullough, founder of Good Counsel Network. Clare was very clear about the need for the frontline work she and her volunteers do: reaching women on the very threshold of the abortion clinics. Her testimony gives the lie to the political posturing of Sister Supporter and their fellow-travellers.  If Clare and her team were harassing or abusing women, then women would never trust them; and it would be self-evidently counter-productive. In fact, many women are grateful for their presence, as it offers them a real choice, to turn away from the path they are - often extremely unwillingly - on, and make a positive choice for themselves and their unborn children.

Alina and her daughter

Powerful as Clare's speech was, it was the following testimonies of two of the women that Good Counsel Network have helped that was most moving.  The first, Alina, told us her story, and how one of Clare's volunteers had offered her love and support, and the belief that she could have her baby.  She had the girl - due to be killed by Marie Stopes International on that fateful day all those years ago - with her on stage.  Alina is so grateful for Good Counsel Network that she now volunteers for them, and it is she who is challenging Ealing Council's Buffer Zones in the courts.

Aurelia

The next speaker was Aurelia, another women rescued from the very jaws of the abortuary.  Again, her situation was difficult, and seemed without hope, until a Good Counsel volunteer approached her and said that she could help. And that volunteer was Alina. Like Alina, Aurelia had her daughter with her: you can watch and listen to her testimony here - and in the background at the start, you will see Clare McCullough carrying Aurelia's baby: 'the best thing that ever happened to me, the love or my life' as Aurelia said.

After Aurelia's story, Alina and Aurelia were joined on stage by a number of other women helped by Good Counsel Network, and their babies and young children.  This is why we do what we do.

--

Shortly after this, I had to leave, as the last train North was unreasonably early!  But as I made my way home, I reflected on the start and the end of the day: on Life's fantastic strategy of reaching as many women as possible at the very start of their pregnancies: trying to help them before they are placed on the one-way path to abortion; and then on Good Counsel Network's heroic work at the other end, snatching life from the jaws of death, and hope from the threshold of despair.

Pray for them all.  And act! As Clare McCullough said, it is no good lamenting the draconian actions of Ealing Council if we are not prepared to do something. Prayer is important; but it doesn't let us off the hook of writing the the Home Secretary and our own MP about the travesty of buffer zones (and drawing their attention to the testimony of women like Alina and Aurelia); and of considering what more we can do to support the essential work of Life and Good Counsel Network, both through alms and volunteering.  

If not us, then who?...

--

Lord, when did I see you pregnant and refuse to help you? Unborn, and refuse to stand up for you?...

March for Life (1)

What a fantastic day!

So much to report...

Liz

The first thing I attended was the workshop run by Life's wonderful counsellor, Liz, and Clare, one of the Education Officers.  They described Life's strategy of reaching women before they get on the abortion treadmill, by maintaining a strong online presence, and using analytics to understand what search terms women are searching for, and making sure Life's name comes up when they do.

This is proving extraordinarily successful: Liz shared some stats, demonstrating how this has greatly increased LIfe's reach - and at that crucial stage.  She also shared some of the stories (changed and anonymised to protect confidentiality) of clients, and how LIfe's counselling and support has enabled so many to keep their babies.  Clare also reported on how the education work goes hand-in-hand with this outreach. All in all, a very inspiring presentation.

Clare

Next up was a workshop by the Alliance of Pro-Life Students. This is a wonderful initiative, ensuring that the pro-life voice is heard on increasingly-hostile campuses, and that there is support, guidance and training for students wishing to establish a pro-life presence in their university.  The workshop was on having pro-life conversations, and the essence was: be brave and be kind. 

I missed some of the other talks as I was collared to hand out leaflets about Life's new campaign to STOP abortion on demand. This is incredibly important: the abortion industry have been lining this up for years - to exempt them from any proper legal framework...

The march itself was vibrant: lots of singing, chanting and camaraderie.  There was a small and vociferous counter-protest, but nothing could dent the good humour of the thousands marching for Life.

More follows...

Alfie Evans

I have forborne to comment on the tragic case of Alfie Evans, so far, for a few reasons.

One is the general principle that in such cases, the information widely available is rarely complete and almost always inaccurate to some extent, so it is foolhardy to rush to judgement.

Allied to that is my natural sympathy with Alfie's parents: I was intuitively on their side (and indeed have been praying for them and for Alfie over the last few weeks). The risk, of course, is that such sympathy over-rules one's reason.

Moreover, it was not clear to me what good it would have done to add to the furore, from a state of relative ignorance; and it did seem to me that much of the commentary on all sides added more heat than light to the debate.

Now that the dust has settled, I suggest that there are two issues at the heart of the case, from a Catholic point of view.

One is the rights of the parents as primarily responsible for their children's wellbeing.  That is a well-established principle in Catholic teaching; but it is clearly not an absolute. If a parent is deranged, or patently wishes to harm a child, it is both appropriate and proportionate for others - the state if necessary - to intervene to look after the child's best interests.  But I maintain that the bar for this must be set very high: it must be clear and unarguable, evident to the reasonable man, that such is the case - and that criterion was not met in the case of Alfie Evans. I believe the hospital and the state (in the judiciary) over-reached their authority.

The second is the principle of treating nutrition and hydration as 'medical care' which can then be withdrawn at the decision of medical experts. Again, we need to be careful about not making an absolute out of this: there are times, when somebody is actually dying, and when providing nutrition and hydration are causing suffering, when ceasing to provide them is the correct thing to do. However, as Joseph Shaw points out, the principles established in the Tony Bland case have taken that far too far; and that seems also to be what happened in the case of Alfie Evans, at least temporarily.

Please remember Alfie's parents in your prayers at this terrible time; Alfie himself, of course, is in no need of prayer: having been baptised and not yet reached the age of reason, he is clearly in heaven. May he pray for us all here below.

Fear and Abortion

The driver behind many abortions is fear.  Time and again, women speaking to counsellors say that they are afraid that they will not be able to cope, that their relationship will be put under too great a strain, that their parents will be unsupportive (or worse), that their education or career will suffer if they have a baby at this time, and so on.

All of these fears are about imagined futures.  But we do not know the future.  And further, if we choose one course of action (say, an abortion) we will never know what would have happened if we had not.  Moreover, we have a psychological investment in validating our decision, so we will tend to assume that all that we feared would indeed have come about, had we not had the abortion.

So we now have huge numbers of women in society who have a need to believe that their fears were well-founded, and that their abortion(s) saved them from some terrible fate.

But experience suggests that is not the case. Women who proceed with their pregnancies, even in very difficult circumstances, do tend to cope. Hardly any seem to regret their decision, and large numbers look back and say with hindsight that the (at the time unwanted) pregnancy was in fact a blessing in disguise.

This is an example of a larger phenomenon: very often we think in advance, that we won't be able to cope with some new change or challenge; yet more often than not, we do, when the occasion arises. As my mother used to say, we never get the grace until we actually need it...

But the abortion industry and its advocates thrive on fear.  Young women are taught to believe that an unintended pregnancy is the worst possible disaster; that a handicapped child would be impossible to cope with; that they will know when it is the right time to have a baby, and that any other time is the wrong time and will wreck their lives.

If we are to win the war against abortion, we need to discover how to combat these fears. In part, that means continuing to provide  (and better publicise) the support that so many women have already benefitted from. But we also need to challenge educational projects that inculcate these fears, and protect girls and young women from those aspects of popular culture that indoctrinate them. And, which will be even more difficult, we need to find ways to enable those who have had abortions to view them differently, and to be allowed to confront their loss and their grief.

For unless we convert hearts as well as the minds, we will never make real progress on this issue.

The urgent task, as I have blogged recently (here and here), is to resist the abortion lobby's push for Abortion on Demand; but we will also need to turn our minds to the truly important longer-term task of making abortion both (demonstrably) unnecessary and completely unthinkable, rather than the apparently easy option it appears to be today.

What's the Agenda?

Further to my recent post about the concerted effort to 'De-Criminalise' abortion, I want to consider what the real agenda may be here.

Since I wrote that, we have witnessed the fury of BPAS and their allies at the appointment of Maria Caulfield as CCHQ Vice Chair for Women.  The ostensible reason for their fury is that she 'supports the criminalisation of women who end their own pregnancies.' The charge arises from her opposition to the bill to 'De-Criminalise' abortion.

In fact, the number of prosecutions of women for ending their own pregnancies is miniscule. The abortionist apologists' efforts are disproportionate: so what is their agenda?

I think there are a few things, some defensive and some aspirational (if one can use that word in this context).

On the defensive side of the ledger, I think there are (at least) three issues that worry them.

One is that very few doctors want to perform abortions. This is a problem they discussed at the meeting in the Royal College of Obstetrician and Gynaecologists last year. One doctor there, who performs abortions, said that no doctors want to do this; and his proposed solution was simply to pay them more.

But if they can get 'De-Criminalisation' through, they will be much better placed to enforce abortion practice on trainee doctors and young doctors - 'normalising' it for the next generation. They will also remove all conscience clauses (as these are part of the hated 'legislation') and thus be able to compel compliance by medical and nursing staff - and keep those horrid Catholics out of the professions.

A second is that, for all their noise, they are not winning the debate. ComRes polling last year suggests that most people, and women in particular, think that there should be more, not fewer, restrictions on the availability of abortion.  This Bill is quite out of step with public opinion.

So I think that they are trying to use legislation to change social attitudes (as happened with so-called Gay Marriage).

Their third worry is a sub-set of the second, but quite focused: the pro-life movement, and in particular the younger generation of the pro-life movement, is getting strong.

So they want both to curtail its activity, and impose an educational framework that indoctrinates children early about the 'good' of abortion: 'De-Criminalisation' is a step towards that goal.

On the aspirational side, of course, the abortion providers would love to be free of all constraints on their businesses.

And there are those, such as Ann Furedi, who seem genuinely to believe that it is an essential element of women's rights, and so want to ensure no legislative interference. It is worth engaging with Furedi's thinking, as she is coherent and consistent: she is quite clear, for example, that what she wants is the right to abortion up to birth, for any reason, with no restrictions whatsoever.  She is also clear that this involves killing living human beings, but believes that the self-determination of women is more important than the right to life of their unborn children.

And as I mentioned previously, there is a desire to use the UK as an exemplar to the rest of the world, and so export our murderous practices to all countries, with the weight of the UN and many wealthy countries behind this drive.

So for those who may be wondering why this is a big issue, given that we already have, in practice, abortion on demand in this country, those are some of the issues at stake.

A Momentous Year

2018 promises to be a momentous year in the UK, and one with global ramifications.

I am not thinking here of Brexit or other (relatively) trivial political issues. Rather, it is the year that the abortion industry has been planning for - the year in which they plan to push for Abortion on Demand.

As a clever piece of marketing, they are using the expression 'De-Criminalisation' to describe their aspirations. After all, who wants to 'criminalise' either women in desperate circumstances, or doctors?

They have also ensured that the various Colleges (of doctors, nurses, midwives etc) are all lined up - regardless of the wishes of their members.

There is a draft bill ready and waiting, and a huge campaign ready to be launched.

So we need to understand what 'De-Criminalisation' is likely to mean, and to consider what we can do to oppose it.

'De-Criminalisation' will mean that there is no legal framework surrounding the provision of abortion in this country.  It will be treated purely as a medical procedure, and any guidelines will be at the discretion of medics and in practice (judging by the way the Colleges have operated recently) based on the wishes of the abortion providers.

The probable consequences of this will be:

• Abortion on demand, up to birth, for any reason.  That will include abortion for being the 'wrong sex' (typically female), as well as for any reasons of social convenience.  
• The removal of any rights of conscience for medical or ancillary staff to refuse to participate in abortions.
• The inclusion of abortion as a compulsory part of medical training for medics entering Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
• The removal of safeguards for those taking abortifacient medicines: ie DIY abortions, at home.
• The inclusion of aggressive pro-abortion 'education' in our schools

It is quite conceivable that the work of pro-life organisations will be dubbed 'hate crime' and made illegal. The current campaign for 'buffer zones' around abortion clinics, in the absence of any evidence of intimidation or harassment, shows the direction of travel here.

In a country where abortion has already been implicated in various Serious Case Reviews as facilitating the abuse of young girls in Rochdale etc, removing abortion from any kind of legal framework seems particularly perverse.

And the UK is being used as the pace-setter: the goal is to use the UK as an exemplar to all other countries in the world, and make abortion a universal right, the denial of which will lead to severe sanctions (again, we can see the ground work being laid for this already).

So it is imperative that all people of good will, who believe that human life is inviolable, should do whatever they can to oppose this evil movement this year.  I hope and expect that the various pro-life organisations in the UK will be mounting various educational and political campaigns; and they will need as much support as we can muster.  If we fight, it will be hard work, but we may conceivably stop the spread of this evil. If we do nothing, we are sacrificing future lives not only in this country, but globally.

Beyond the rhetoric

Those who style themselves pro-choice are fond of rhetoric. 

Some is simply silly (Keep your rosaries off my ovaries being a prime example).

But some sounds as though it might mean something. Who could argue with A woman's right to choose? But of course, that sentence is never finished. For most could argue with a woman's right to choose to kill a child.  And that is the choice in question.  Indeed, when people are audacious enough to offer other choices to women, as the Good Counsel Network does, they must be prevented, and the full weight of Officialdom will be brought to bear on them.

Listen to these women, who thought their only choice was to abort their babies, but who were offered an alternative:

 And of course, women who choose, as Clare McCulloch and her brave associates do, to offer such a choice to women in distress... why their choice is not valid at all.

And the reality of choice exposed by videos like this is that many women 'choosing' abortion are forced into it, whether by the circumstances of their life, or by the men in their life...  Some choice...

The other slogan that is particularly popular at present is Trust Women.  But of course, they are only to be trusted if they are doing what the abortionists and their fellow-travellers want them to do .  They are not to be trusted to offer support to other women in distress, to help them to find other solutions than the killing of their children. 

When confronted with reality, the rhetoric rings rather hollow...

Pro-Life at Freshers' Fair...

It is that time of year again: when new undergraduates are turning up at University for the first time, and are presented, at Freshers' Fair, with a huge array of clubs, societies, sports, causes and activities which would like them to get involved.

Rightly, various pro-life groups take stands at Freshers' Fairs around the country. It is an important opportunity to get young people to think about the realities of abortion, and the implications of those realities for their own behaviour. And, of course, to recruit the more sane students to the pro-life cause.

But in more than one case, I am hearing reports that the pro-life groups are being subjected to inquisitorial meetings by the Student Union reps. This is after they have gained permission for, and frequently paid for, their stand.

The SU reps have, for example, quizzed them on their counselling - is it non-directive, and is it BACP accredited? And they ask them to remove the models of the developing child from their display, in case they should upset anyone.

The models, of course, are both medically accurate and entirely inoffensive, as the attached pictures (from Life's successful London roadshow) make clear. Of course, if someone has had an abortion, she might find them disconcerting or upsetting: but that says more about the reality of her abortion than it does about the models.

But my questions are: do these same SU Reps ask all other organisations who offer advice about non-directionality and BACP accreditation?  And do they ask any other stalls that have images that might upset someone (say the Amnesty group, or the Anti-Hunting group...) to remove them?

And to ask the questions is to answer them. We know that these are prejudicial demands made of pro-life groups for political reasons. And that is unjust.

--

Pray for all the brave pro-life students, volunteers and workers who run these stalls; whilst the majority of students seem interested and prepared to engage in a civilised way, even when they disagree, there are a few ideologues out there whose compassion for women is so great that they feel the need to abuse women who run these stalls for the crime of disagreeing with them. It can be extremely stressful.

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.

A Better Way

In my last post, I highlighted the evils of the BPAS's pushing of abortion. Today, I am delighted to highlight the alternatives.

Life has just launched its new website, following its successful re-launch event, Ignite, last weekend. The site is modern and user-friendly. More importantly, it offers a range of responses to the evil of abortion.

Life is now organised into two main divisions: Pregnancy Matters and Life Matters. Pregnancy Matters offers support of many types,  for women in many different situations. This ranges from pregnancy information and advice, through counselling for women who are pregnant unexpectedly, support for pregnant women who are homeless, post-abortion support, and so on.  Life Matters is the home of the educational and campaigning work: school and university talks, research, campaigns and media work.

On top of all that, there is Life FertilityCare, offering alternatives to IVF, and the Zoë's Place network of hospices, offering respite, palliative and end-of-life care to babies and children.

So go over to Life's new website, and familiarise yourself with their new approach and the wide range of work they do in support of women and children - you never know when you may need to tell someone about it.

And then consider what you are doing for the unborn - and what more you should be doing.

Keeping Your Kids Catholic (xii)

Here are the latest links to my old series of posts on the Catholic Dads' wwwsite, on Keeping Your Kids Catholic.

Memento Mori

Raising Them as Pro-Lifers

Children of Mary

Right Relationships

A Sacramental Life

I was particularly interested to re-read the one about raising children as Pro-Lifers, given that Bernie started work as an education officer for Life this week...  Remember her - and them - in your prayers.

The Just War argument

The comment by Ttony on my blog about lying to save lives, seems to me to be the nearest we have yet come to a solution to this dilemma.  He uses the Just War argument as an analogy.

To tease that out a little further, it seems clear to me that just wars were possible before Just War theory was properly articulated.

By the same token, perhaps what we see in the exposure of Planned Parenthood's evil, by way of means involving subterfuge, is a just lie, even though we have not yet been able clearly to argue a Just Lie theory.

Just as it seems clear to most people that the war against the Nazis had to be fought, for to fail to do so would have been collusion with a great evil, so one could argue that exposing the deception of Planned Parenthood had to be done, to avoid colluding with a worse evil.

I'm nearly there.

But I'm not quite.

Interestingly, it seems that in the original draft of the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, the version that was first published in French, it included in its definition of a lie that a lie was committed when one deceived someone who had a right to the truth. That would have settled it.  However, when the official Latin text was released, that clause had been removed. Clearly, in the editing and checking process, it had been found that there was not a sufficient consensus that such a clause accurately reflected Catholic teaching.

So, perhaps a straw in the wind, but on the other hand, one that was rejected...

My moral intuition tells me that no sin was committed in the deception of  Planned Parenthood staff to reveal the evil at the heart of the organisation, but my intellect still isn't sure.  And taking the Just War argument a little further may help to explain why.

The Second World War, I think most would agree, met the criteria for a just war, from the point of view of the Allies. However, that does not mean that all that the Allies did was justified. I think the dropping of the atom bombs was morally illegitimate, as was the blanket bombing of Dresden.

Moreover, there is always the risk, inherent in war, I think, that we demonise the enemy, when our instructions are to love our enemies.

And I further believe that the Allies' damaged themselves by the way in which they conducted some aspects of the war; a moral compromise that has borne bad fruits in Western Europe and the USA ever since. But again, that is more an intuition than something I can make a strong rational case for.

So I remain conflicted: I still feel that lying in this case was probably justifiable, though I cannot quite see how to justify it, theologically. I remain deeply convinced that lying is dangerous and normally damaging to the one who lies, and that any sin, however trivial, is simply wrong. Further, I am very wary of the precedent we set when we lie for a good cause, and the risk of a slippery slope if we erode our fundamental understanding of the natural law. And there is that risk that in order to justify our actions we demonise Planned Parenthood as the enemy...

Let me be quite clear: I am not condemning the actions of those who made the films: I am exploring my own moral understanding and the limitations thereof - and anyone who can help me clarify it further will be very welcome!

Further moral floundering...

So, further to yesterday's post about the morality or otherwise of lying to save lives...

Firstly, Hugh of Avalon on Twitter asked for 'that chilling Newman quote.' (NB, for the pedants [well, really for myself in that role], I have now amended my original with 'quotation' for 'quote'). 

This is the one I had in mind:

"The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse."

Of course, Newman says 'without excuse.' But does that clause apply only to the stealing of one poor farthing (and we do have a clear Catholic understanding that a starving man may steal a loaf of bread for his family) or to all the preceding clauses?

The main thrust, however, is clear: that sin is a far worse evil than death or suffering, and I think it is easy to lose sight of that perspective. But for Catholics it is foundational.

A second consideration: in the comments, Sig Sønnesyn raised the very important issue of the impact of telling a lie on the one who does so. Sin does not leave us unchanged. We all (I assume) know from bitter (and in my case, repeated) experience the easy progression from occasion of sin, to venial sin, to mortal sin. And as St Peter warns us: 'Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.' We may be quite sure that the devil is keen to exploit our legitimate anger at the evil of abortion to our own destruction.

As an inveterate and habitual liar, I am particularly sensitive on this point. 

And I think that there is a real risk that we end up, to justify both our anger and our tactics, demonising those whom we oppose. We see the almost unthinkable evil being committed by abortionists, and (understandably) characterise them as evil people. For example, if we use just war theory (an interesting proposal by the estimable Ttony  in yesterday's comms box) to justify our tactics, then we see them as the enemy waging war on the unborn and indeed on civilisation (and we are right, in one way). But we have clear commands about how we are to deal with our enemies: we must love them.

And really, that is the third consideration that was in my head as I awoke this morning. It is easy to see the unborn as the victims of abortion; it is not a great stretch to see their mothers (at least in many instances) as the victims, too. But what we should never lose sight of is that the primary victims of abortion are the abortionists: it is their eternal souls that are at most risk.

This paper by Anthony Ozimic of SPUC is well worth reading, about the effects of abortion on the abortionist.

So at least a secondary goal of all (Catholic) pro-life activity should be the conversion and salvation of the abortionists: it is our duty in charity. The work of Abby Johnson et al seems exemplary in this regard.

Quite how that informs this debate, I remain unclear; but we lose sight of it as a consideration to our great peril.

At the very least, we should pray for the abortionists as fervently as we do for the other victims in this terrible business: for our real enemy here is the devil, and it is his work, both through them, and in us, that we must oppose.

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, 

contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. 

Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: 

tuque, Princeps militiae caelestis, 

Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, 

qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, 

divina virtute, in infernum detrude. 

Amen.

Is it right to lie to save lives?

So a rather trenchant discussion has been taking place on Twitter (and what have I told you before about Twitter? Really not a good medium for such discussions...) about whether it is right to tell a lie to save lots of lives.

The context is the sting operation by the Centre for Medical Progress which has resulted in three (so far) chilling videos exposing Planned Parenthood's practice of selling parts of aborted unborn children (or foetuses, if you prefer the technical term - it means the same thing) for profit - and discussing the whole business in the most callous terms.

Clearly we should fight the evil abortion culture of deadly lies with every legitimate weapon available to us. But is lying a legitimate weapon?

I feel torn both ways  on this. On the one hand, I can see (and have seen) very strong arguments against lying. On the other, I can see (and have seen) very strong arguments in favour of what CMP has done. I have also seen very poor arguments marshalled, and indeed some ad hominem, which add heat rather than light to the debate.

People on either side of the debate see why their own side is right so clearly, and see how the other side is wrong with equal clarity; but I do not.

So this blog is an attempt to articulate some of my thinking; I do not necessarily expect to reach a definite conclusion (though I may, of course, surprise myself).

On the one hand, it seems to me that lying is a particularly serious type of sin. It is not just an offence against God's law, and normally an injustice to our neighbour; it is also an attack on God, in so far as it is an attack on the truth, and God the Son said: I am [...] the truth. Likewise, it is a siding with the Devil, who is the father of all lies. So even a relatively trivial lie, a venial sin, is (I think) a particularly serious type of venial sin, and therefore very dangerous for the person who commits it.

And any sin, mortal or venial, is to be avoided. It is a first principle of Catholic moral philosophy that we must not do evil in the hope of achieving good ends. Or to put it the other way around, for an action to be good, both the means and the end must be good.

Further, based on the Natural Law, St Thomas Aquinas makes it quite clear that every lie is sinful.

On the other hand, our duty to the truth is not, perhaps, as simple as it first appears. There are certainly occasions when it would be wrong to reveal the truth - the most obvious being the seal of the confessional. So withholding truth is not, in itself, always sinful.

Further the moral theologians allow deception (in certain circumstances) as legitimate, and it is hard to see the moral distinction between deception by devious means and a lie direct.

And then there is our fundamental moral intuition. It seems self-evident that to tell a lie in order to save lives is not a terrible thing to do. The example of hiding Jewish people from the Nazis and lying when you get the knock on the door is hard to refute without great moral discomfort.

Because of concupiscence (that is the damage to our natures left by Original Sin) I am wary of appeals to moral intuition. As I have observed before it is too easy to make excuses in sin.  But in this case, the moral intuition is inclining us to do something dangerous, not easy, so the question of it being disordered by self-interest seems less obvious, and therefore the moral intuition more worthy of respect.

So my heart pulls me in the direction of allowing the lie to save lives.  But then my head rebels: I consider St Thomas More, for example. He could easily have argued to himself that by a small lie, he could do far more good, both politically, and with regard to his vocation as a husband and father, than by sticking to the truth and dying, with no chance of achieving anything. Yet we revere him as a saint, a martyr and a hero for his witness to truth: and who would dare to say that no good came from it?

So perhaps a strict adherence to the truth, even if it prevents us from taking actions which we believe might well save lives, is what God wants: and He will use it according to His infinite wisdom and love, in ways that we cannot foresee.

Moreover, where does it end? If I will tell a small lie to save lives, would I tell a big one (eg falsify research, or lie on oath)? And if I would, what else would I do? Threaten an abortionist? Kidnap his child? Bomb his clinic? Murder his child as a warning (for after all, if taking one innocent life could save thousands...)? Where does one draw the line?  And how does one decide where to draw it?

The moral basis for our pro-Life beliefs is surely that there are some actions that are inherently wrong: if I don't adhere to that, on what basis do I proceed?

And then my heart revolts: are you not playing the Pharisee? Posing as virtuous, when you know the truth is quite other? You say you refuse to sully your purity to save lives, when you casually sin on a daily basis, with no greater purpose than your own comfort or whims?

And of course, my head knows the answers to that, not least the chilling quotation from Newman, and so it goes on.

And then people are quoting Rahab and all that, and I think, what about Abraham, who was ready to kill the innocent Isaac because God told him to do so? Obedience to God's law is foundational, not Pharisaical, surely? And so it goes on and on.

And part of me knows what I would do, but I am also clear that we cannot deduce what we should do from what we would do: that indeed would be arrogance, implying that all my behaviour is virtuous...

So I admire the clear-headed logic and rigour of those who insist that we cannot sin to do good: they are surely right.

And I admire the compassion of those who insist that lying to the likes of Planned Parenthood in order to stop the slaughter of children is legitimate: how can they be wrong?

And I cannot find any authority in the Church to support the notion that not all lying is sinful (if anyone can, please let me know!)

And I know in my head and my heart that there cannot, finally, be any conflict between Caritas and Veritas: for they are one and the same Person. 

And I remain unsure.

--

And why does it matter?

It matters because both truth and love matter.

It matters because in fighting abortion we are fighting a spiritual battle: so we must ensure that we are fighting it in ways that do not collude with the Father of Lies, but rather are taught us by the Father who is Love and Truth.

It matters because our vocation as humans is to know, love and serve God.

It matters because to sin is cataclysmic: whether that sin is lying, or failing to do all we legitimately can to save innocent lives.

And on a very practical note, it matters to me, as it reveals a huge gap in my own education, and the need to study this issue further.

--

As ever, I welcome comments: feel free to put me right, point out where I am an idiot, etc. 

However, I will not post comments that are unduly disparaging of others.

Investors Wanted

With my astounding business acumen, I am putting together a business plan for a new, very profitable business which I plan to launch shortly. 

For a limited time, there is an opportunity for the forward-looking investor to get in on the ground floor of this innovative and highly lucrative enterprise.

Here's the scam. Very shortly, it will be both legal and lucrative to persuade people to commit suicide. 

It will be legal, because they will keep bringing the euthanasia legislation before parliament till they get the answer they want, and will then gradually extend the scope of it (to include the elimination of any opt-out clauses deemed necessary in the first instance, and then the removal of all the restraints and safeguards...)

It will be lucrative, because very soon the accountants will be able to demonstrate the annual cost of people living into their 80s (say) to the NHS and DWP; not to mention those living with any special needs. So to save NHS/DWP funds, voluntary euthanasia will be a very pragmatic option. And in the spirit of free-market enterprise, anyone helping some reach a decision should be remunerated with a small commission. 

So I plan to start an enterprise to be in pole position as soon as this becomes legally viable. We will have trained sales people, who will have a wonderfully euphemistic job title (suggestions welcome; though I am currently inclined to End-of-life Care Experts). They will use a completely non-judgemental approach to help people think through their options (ever-increasing pain and debility on the one hand, or a quick and easy end on the other) and reach the right decision. And they will collect the commission, whilst bathing in the virtuous glow of saving the NHS money.

Any takers?