Thursday, 27 January 2011

A March for Life in the UK ? Sure ! But we need an authentic 'Catholic Church for Life' first....


The Catholic Herald has proposed we start a British version of the US March for Life

http://www.marchforlife.org/


http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/01/26/let%E2%80%99s-take-courage-and-hold-a-march-for-life-in-britain/

A brilliant idea !
Something we should have been doing for decades

But alas it brings with it some home truths we MUST address:


{I'll post here what I commented on the Catholic Herald site - because I doubt it will last very long on there - I don't exactly blame the Herald - understanding they have a very narrow tightrope upon which to walk - but the distateful, awkward and uncomfortable does need to be said on occasion - and it's rather sad that it doesn't say it more...}

March for Life ?
Well ? How do you define 'for life' or 'Pro-Life' ?

In the US it's simple: it's a march against Roe vs Wade and all the other exigents trail along behind - embryonic experimentation, partial-birth abortions, the Terry Schiavo case etc - and the population [mainly religious] will declare that they're pro-Life - but usually this means they aren't really pro-Life - they're merely anti certain forms of the taking of human life. Take a look at many pro-Life websites and you'll discover that even when they're anti abortion-on-demand many advocate abortion in the case of rape or incest or a handicapped foetus or one infected with hiv or a drug-addiction or even one born to a drug addict/special needs mother...

How many of the vehemently professing pro-Life US citizens have no reservations in advocating Capital punishment and illegal unjust wars of aggression ?

But all this can be swept aside and they gather as one for a March for Life - and all credit to them!
ANYTHING which counters this culture of Death is to be jumped at...

But in this country ?
Things are a little more complicated...

Yes I can see the major pro-Life groups overcoming their differences - I can see a wide oecumenical force of evangelical Christians, Catholics, Muslims etc gathering together under the umbrella of being 'pro-Life' - even if what they mean by it has very different definitions and exemptions...

But as Catholics ?
We have a few hurdles:

a] The severe rupture in Catholic pro-Life activism - the 1998 debacle has never been resolved - and the pig-headed leaders on both sides are unforgiving and resolutely unwilling to accommodate each other - to the extent that by their antipathy they continue to breed dissent - thus those involved become partisan - and their young indoctrinated acolytes on both sides are following suit - bearing the grudges onto a second generation.
To the extent that some major pro-Life bloggers/commentators/advocates refuse to even acknowledge the existence or the activities of the other side unless they really have to....
It's scandalous - shameful - disgusting !
I don't care who's to blame - or who did what - or who disappointed whom or betrayed whom or acted shamefully...
At present - the fact that Right to Life and the SPUC are not a combined force utilising all talents and capabilities is an unmitigated SCANDAL upon us all.

To those who are involved : The price is too high to not get it sorted - NOW!

b] So-Called Pro-Life Politicians [including Catholic MPs]
need a list?

http://catholicactionuk.blogsp...

They're supposed to be Leading the political fight for the Pro-Life cause - but their version of Pro-Life is on occasion highly divergent from authentic Catholic teaching - and I'm sorry but it is the Apostolic duty of these people's Bishops to direct them to not cause public scandal by advocating anti-Catholic positions in a public forum.

Now yes - we do appreciate and value ANY support [however limited] to the Pro-Life cause - But we can't continue in this abject denial of reality that what is considered to be a politically pro-Life approach is definitely NOT the Catholic position. It's ridiculous for Nadine Dorries to publicly denounce the catholic hierarchy for their ineffectualness when her version of pro-Life is directly contrary to Catholic teaching at the most basic level...


c] The Bishops' Conference of England & Wales - irrespective of what it claims and teaches - is NOT PRO-LIFE!!!
It's a terrible accusation to make - one that fills me with shame, anger and sorrow : But it cannot be denied.

i] The CESEW has agreed with the Connexions programme to allow it access into every Catholic Secondary School - this involves sexual advice/counselling to the underage, the provision of contraceptives and referrals for abortions and the provision of abortifacients. Conference is fully aware of this - and at present that which knowingly involves the murder of the unborn is a stated policy position. Given that the CES also helped draft the last government's proposed health and sexual education bill , and appointed Greg Pope as deputy?
http://spuc-director.blogspot....
Conference has made it pretty clear that it cares very little for defending either the sexual safety, security and health of Catholic teenagers or the life of the Unborn.

ii] Conference has signed off on the Liverpool Care pathway [June 24 2010] which considers Clinical Nutrition and Hydration as medical treatment which can validly be removed - This can only be described - irrespective of the florid sentimental comments of those advocating this [e.g Fr James Mulligan in the Herald] - as euthanasia by starvation and dehydration.

http://www.catholicchurch.org....

Which directly contravenes CDF directive on the mandatory retention of all forms of normal care due to a dying patient:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...

iii] Conference's Department for Christian Responsbility and Citizenship formed the CEDAR initiative against domestic violence - a worthwhile cause one must admit until one sees the links and formal co-operation with specific pro-Euthanasia and pro-Abortion organisations.
http://spuc-director.blogspot....
l
iv] The Intervention of Conference's 'Ethics Spokesperson' - Chairman of the Christian Responsibility and Citizenship group - Archbishop Peter Smith in parliamentary bills dealing with major life issues such as the Mental Capacity Act and the HFE Bill - Archbishop Smith might feel proud of himself [as he stated in his interview in the Herald with Anna Arco] - but Catholics should be outraged!

http://spuc-director.blogspot....
http://spuc-director.blogspot....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_...
Mental Capacity Act http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/...
http://spuc-director.blogspot....

[clarification by Prof Finnis over specific wording which inadvertently indicts Archbishop Smith even further] http://spuc-director.blogspot....

Now I'm sorry - But Conference truly needs to clean up its act - and please note I didn't even refer to all the dodgy environmentalist documentation advocating sustainablity [i.e. population control] - the links with CAFOD's far-from-Catholic positions on certain issues etc...but we can't ignore the fact that Conference has conspired and is conspiring with the Culture of Death.

I care less about a March for Life - and more for a Catholic Church in England and Wales that is incontrovertibly for Life!!!
Which is something at present to which none of us can attest.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Very useful write-up! Always makes complete perfect sense. And also had been clear to see as well.

Marc said...

Care to make a brief explanation of '1998 debacle' for those of us following from abroad whose contemporary UK history is lacking?

Jackie Parkes MJ said...

Sorry..my comment should have gone here!

On the side of the angels said...

A google of spuc 1998 resignations will explain most of the details Marc.

Ttony said...

From a comment in Fr Z's blog tonight:

Pope John Paul II’s precise and unambiguous statement on this issue in March, 2004, to a group of physicians in Rome:

“I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.

The obligation to provide the “normal care due to the sick in such cases” (1) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (2). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission. “