Gross Distortion

Well, the pro-abortion media were not long in replying to the Catholic Archbishops' response to the government’s plans to legislate for abortion.  In the Irish Independent today, a missile is thrown across the abyss to the Church and the one throwing the weapon is the Taoiseach himself who claims he was threatened over the Cloyne Report.  Is the story true?  To be honest I do not know, but given the Taoiseach’s propensity to skitter around the truth I am afraid I am not inclined to believe him.  I notice he will not give details of the threat – just as he would not give evidence for the accusations he made against the Vatican last year.  So perhaps that is an indication to the veracity of his claims.  Besides he now needs to attack and undermine the Church as she prepares to fight for the lives of the unborn, so that too may effect his credibility.

According to the Taoiseach the introduction of abortion into Ireland will not create a culture of death, but rather a culture of life.  I think Blessed John Paul II is probably spinning in his tomb.   Of course this is not the first time that the Taoiseach has misquoted or failed to understand Papal teaching.  In his attack on Pope Benedict last year he tried to be smart and quoted some of Benedict’s writing thinking it could be used against the Pontiff – he took the quote out of context and revealed his incompetence.  

And he's revealing his incompetence again on his understanding of the culture of life, and indeed in thinking that he is only legislating for limited abortion.  In every country where “limited abortion” was legalised, a more liberal abortion regime, even abortion on demand, resulted.  As Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro-Life Campaign said a few days ago: “Once it is conceded that some human lives may be directly targeted there is no going back. Inevitably over time the grounds for abortion would be widened.”  The Taoiseach does not seem to get this, or perhaps he does but just won’t admit it.

Reading this article I am inclined to think that perhaps “the red tail wagging the blue dog” may not be entirely true - unless he's skipping over Labour’s threats.   However it is obvious from what he says that Enda Kenny is pro-abortion, and it is also obvious that he intends to force his position on his party, particularly those members of Fine Gael who are pro-life.  He will enforce the party whip and says that the members of the party have a constitutional duty to support his position.  That is a most interesting comment: do the TDs we elect have a constitutional duty to support their leader and his views, or to represent the people of Ireland in parliament?  

It is also obvious that there is no room for conscientious objection; or at least if someone’s conscience disagrees with party policy they are not permitted to object.  This is not constitutional duty, it is tyranny, and Irish governments have shown that they are inclined to such tyranny when it suits them.  The recent imposition of the Civil Partnership Bill without a vote in parliament and its draconian punishments for registrars and wedding services providers who object on grounds of conscience is one such example: a Fianna Fail/Green Party government was responsible for that.   This is ironic given that our Constitution was written in an era of tyrants – when Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Stalin were enforcing their will on their political minions, and it was designed so as to prevent the rise of such a dictator in Ireland.  Somehow our politicians have managed to get around that.

To suggest that the introduction of abortion into Ireland promotes a culture of life is nonsense.  When we can say that a life is unworthy of life, regardless of the situations, then we have decided to use death as an instrument of social policy to further a particular agenda – that agenda is part of the culture of death.  A culture of life will respect the lives of both mother and child and will do everything in a crisis situation to preserve life – the lives of both mother and child.  A culture of life loves both mother and child and does not concede that the child has to be intentionally killed in order to save the mother.  A child may die in the attempt to save both lives, that is a tragic outcome, one which is being used cynically by the pro-abortion lobby to further its agenda.  The death of the child in those circumstances was not intentional, and that is difference. Enda Kenny in his legislation, and pro-abortion advocates, want to kill the child - it is their intention that the baby dies; not naturally, but by a direct act be it poisoning, dismemberment or other grotesque means.  There are many names for this, but in no way can this be considered part of a culture of life. 

In this struggle, we must all remember that abortion is not a Catholic issue: it is a human issue: it is a flesh and blood issue, literally.  It is not just Catholic babies who die - human beings from all races and countries die in abortion.   The media want to make this struggle one between the government and the Church: it is not - the Church should be just one organisation in that struggle.  Ultimately it is a struggle between the government and the citizens of this Republic.  I think the only way to resolve this issue to allow the citizens have their say, and it is the constitutional duty of the Taoiseach and his government to consult us by means of referendum - a clear and concise referendum. 

Bishop John Buckley of Cork and Ross has issued a response to the government's decision, reiterating Church teaching and respect for human life, as he taught clearly in his recent pastoral letter.

The Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Michael Jackson, has also issued a statement regarding the government's decision: however he supports the decision to legislate for abortion, which is disappointing. 

The Problem of Democracy

The recent troubles in the Church of England are very sad – the communion is being torn asunder by the issue of women bishops.  As you know the C of E synod has just rejected the ordination of women bishops and the fallout has been dreadful.  Some Catholics in recent times have hailed the democratic nature of the Anglican synod and urged our Church to adopt it: only in democracy, we are told, can the Church become relevant and have a future.  However, in the eyes of some it seems the democratic nature of the Anglican synod has failed to produce the goods this time, and there is now talk in some quarters of imposing women bishops.  In the fray following the rejection, some MPs say they are going to sue the Church of England for breaching equality laws. 

To be honest I find it all very strange.  Those who speak about democracy within the C of E are not happy with what seems to be a democratic decision according to the model the Anglican Communion has adopted: surely democrats should accept the decision.  Well, it seems not.  Democracy is a strange animal.  Almost worshipped as the only legitimate form of government, it is sometimes seen as a burden to be overcome in secularist nations.   In the last hundred and fifty years we have seen countries in the developed west trying to encourage less developed countries to adopt the democratic model, but when these countries adopt the model many end up being dominated in various ways by the very countries that urged them to democracy.

In Ireland, for example, our ancestors fought for freedom, for the Irish to rule themselves in a democratic way: as the blurb goes: “the people are sovereign”.  But then how many times in Ireland has the democratic will of the Irish people, expressed in a referendum, been put aside by the ruling government and the people forced back to the polls again and again to produce the “right” answer?  This charade became commonplace in the various referendums on European treaties we have had in recent times, but another example, rarely cited now, is also interesting: divorce. 

Over the years we had a number of referendums on divorce in Ireland until it was passed.  Following a rejection the government returned to issue every few years to see if the view of the people had changed, yet now that we have it no government has decided to see if the people still want divorce.  Should the government not be consistent?  After all, having had the experience of divorce for the last number of years, perhaps the will of the people has changed again.

From such experiences one might be inclined to think that democracy is a one way street, veering in the direction of the most powerful and influential in society.  Certainly, as many of us have found, scratch the surface of some of those who appeal to democracy and the people and you find they are not really interested in democracy at all, but rather want to impose their rule and give the impression that the people want it.  A brief look at history reveals this to be the case in many countries from Communist Russia to modern China and North Korea.   I sometimes wonder if democracy is seen by some as such a wild animal that it needs to be chained, sedated, fed only what the elite will concede and only brought out for a walk now and again to impress the neighbours, but always on the leash.

As regards women bishops in the Church of England: first to say that I accept the Catholic Church’s position on the issue of the ordination of women, as taught by Pope Paul VI, Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict, and I believe that is the will of God for his Church.  If the Anglicans want to ordain women ministers it is their concern, but if they see that that is right for the Church of England, then how can they refuse to ordain them bishops?  If women can be priests for them, then they can be bishops: they cannot refuse since the offices of priest and bishop are intimately connected.  They cannot decide to go half way down the road once they have committed themselves.  That may be hard for the opponents of women priests and bishops to hear, but they will eventually have to face the inevitable.  That said: the doors of the Ordinariate are always open – we would be delighted to welcome them home. We should keep them all in our prayers.  On this issue Francis Philips has an interesting article in the Herald which is well worth reading. 

The big news in the Church here in Ireland is the appointment of the new bishop of Cloyne - the new nuncio's first appointment.  The bishop-elect is Canon William Crean from the Diocese of Kerry and was a most unexpected candidate.  Here is the bishop-elect's acceptance speech.  As bishop, Canon Crean will face many challenges - the difficulties that have arisen in his new See in recent years, and the stirrings of renewal in the Church here.  We must keep him in our prayers, as we must remember all our bishops.

Other news.  John Jalsevac over on LifeSiteNews is beginning a series of articles on internet pornography.  In the first article he writes about his own experience as an addict and offers some shocking statistics.   Brandon Vogt has a very good piece on how Blessed John Henry Newman dealt with anti-Catholic bigotry.  As I was reading it I could not help but think of our contemporary situation: good advice for us all.

"Only Have Faith"

Watch this space!  After all the abuse scandals of the past twenty years, is there about to be a subtle u-turn concerning the legitimacy of paedophilia?

We know that in the Sixties and Seventies various organisations in the West, including some here in Ireland were working towards the normalisation of paedophilia in society.  The American Man Boy Love Association was one of the most prominent of these organisations.  To put it in official language, the aim of these associations was to reduce, or get rid of, the age of consent so as to enable inter-generational sexual contact.  Such opinions were uttered as recently as last year here in Ireland. It was the abuse scandals in the Church which led to a stalling of these organisations lobbying: the public were rightly horrified, so the climate was not favourable to lobbyists.  However, are they getting the campaign cranked up again?

Here is an article on CNN's website by James Cantor asking if paedophiles deserve sympathy?  It is an article looking at the nature-nurture debate.  Chelsea Schilling offers a few reflections on the article here.  The question one might ask: if they are saying someone is born that way, can we assume, then, that it is wrong?  If people begin to answer that question in the affirmative, then interested parties may well be laying the foundation for the new "civil rights issue of this generation".  Watch this space.  We may soon find ourselves trying to argue against the tide of those who believe "minor-attracted" people should be allowed to live as they see fit.

In related news, here's a good article by Michael Kelly on the abuse crisis in Ireland - how canon law was not the problem - it was not to blame for the Church in Ireland's pitiful response to child abuse, but rather its being ignored.   It was the liberal attitude that rules and laws do not matter anymore that created a climate in which a false view of love and compassion neutralised the Church's strict laws and punishments due to offenders. 

And here's another example of secularists's tolerance with regard to those who disagree with them.  Jane Pitt, Brad Pitt's mother, is pro-life and pro-marriage, as are many millions of Americans. She expresses her opinion, as is her right in a democracy, but she is attacked, reviled and even threatened, and the media hang her out to dry and paint her as a bigot.   Jane said that she will not be voting for Barack Obama because he is pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion (which he is) and she advised Christians not to dismiss Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon (which is correct and fair).   Journalism worthy of Pravda during the darkest days of Soviet oppression.

I was in a book store yesterday and I saw the pornographic novel Fifty Shades of Grey was number one in the store's bestseller chart.  I have heard a few debates about the novels and it seems some of our secular feminists have no problem with them - the books tell the story of what is, in all intents a purposes, an abusive relationship in which a man uses a woman for his own pleasure.  Some would say it is not abusive since the woman consents: well, that's the subject of the debates.  Pia de Solenni has a few interesting points to make on this issue.

And here is an interesting article on democracy, tyrants and the role of constitutions in keeping public order.  In recent years we have come to see constitutions are pliable - they can be changed.  Of course they can be amended; but as they are, we need to be careful and ask the simple question: in changing parts of a constitution are we undermining the whole?  If, as Fr Schall in this article points out, a constitution is there to help keep public order, can we constantly subject it to human whims which may, in the end, create disorder and chaos?  Have we not been a little flippant with the constitution in Ireland in recent years?  The present government has initiated a constitutional reform process in which a number of amendments will be considered among them gay marriage and the abolition of the upper house of parliament (this, I think, is a bad idea too - reform the Senate, make it more democratic, but do not abolish it - we need an upper chamber to keep an eye on the lower).

Fr Schall also reminds us of what Plato and Aristotle teach us - something which is undeniably true today because we can see it happening before our eyes: "[A] tyrant arises out of a democracy when the citizens have little or no inner principle of order other than what they will for themselves. The tyrant becomes the “leader of the people” and, finally, their master. He can impose on them his cure for their well-being. But he is seen as a savior because the people, no longer in contact with the rationale of their own tradition, have little else in their souls with which to judge him. Hence, the loyalty and enthusiasm [to] follow the “leader.”" The sidelining of religion to the private sphere coupled with the establishment of an secular "church" and a selfish concentration on individualism and personal desires is a perfect breeding ground for tyrants.

And today is the feast of St Benedict, patron of Europe.   A man who helped preserve the Christian faith in Europe, and the best of European culture and civilisation with it, he is a worthy patron of these times.  We pray that he will watch over all of us and help us in our needs; given the issues above, we certainly need his intercession.  One thing the Holy Patriarch teaches us is that we must never lose hope. Looking at the attack on the Church, and indeed on what is best in humanity, I see the devil at work, and he seems to be desperate.  He must know something great is coming, a great flowering of faith, and he is doing what he can to stop it.  As followers of Christ we must always remember that the victory is already won.  So we must not be afraid and we must have confidence.

Here's a video on Pope Benedict's visit to the tomb of St Benedict in 2009 - the Holy Father has some interesting things to say: