|
ACW Review 80 March 2009
First Line of Defence Fr Paul Crane, S.J.
Living with Mental Illness - Julia Grimer
ACW Review No 79 December 2008
St Gianna Beretta Molla
The Community of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal
ACW Review No 78 September 2008
God doesn’t guarantee that the British Church will last — John Haldane
ACW Review No 77 June 2008
Faithful to the Truth even unto Martyrdom
How women kept the Faith alive in post-Reformation England - J J Scarisbrick
Woman and Man, the HUMANUM in its entirety
ACW Review No 76 March 2008
Homily on the Cross of Christ as revealed by the Holy Shroud - Fr Wilbur Boswell
ACW Review No 75 December 2007
One Year on from the Bishops’ Conference on marriage and family life - Steve and Catriona Herbert
Advent
ACW Review No 74 September 2007
Pope speaks on Traditional Latin Mass
Mary's Virginity and its Significance for our Times - Spiritual Family - The Work
ACW resigns from the National Board of Catholic Women (NBCW).
Letter to ACW from the President of NBCW, Mrs Yogi Sutton
ACW Review No 73 June 2007
Gay Adoption - a Personal View Clare Anderson
ACW Review No 72 March 2007
The Church's Moral Standards are God's Dom Bernard Orchard OSB
ACW Review No 71 - December 2006
The God in the Cave - G K Chesterton
ACW Review No 70 September 2006
Ted Harvey assistant minority leader, Colorado House
Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor
Daphne McLeod
THE DA VINCI CODE Enid Blyton for Adults?
ACW Review No 69 June 2006
Jane Campbell
Stop trying to kill us off!
Eileen Hourihan
Religious Instruction for children
at the International School (Holland)
ACW Review No 68 March 2006
Margaret Nwamadi
Hot Water Bottle
Diogenes
The Problem of the Rigid Seminarian
ACW Review No 67 December 2005
ACW Review No 66 September 2005
Blown clean away by a brush with Benedict - Katie Grant
Josephine Robinson
Catholic Feminism v Equality Feminism
Prof. Janne Haaland Matlary
-------------------------------
Full Texts
Review 80
First Line of Defence Fr Paul Crane, S.J.
We print what Fr Crane wrote nearly sixty years ago so that readers may see how prophetic he was.
".and so, going into the dwelling, they found the child there, with his mother Mary." MATT. 2:11
SOME years ago before the war I was travelling back to London from the country on a Sunday evening in the summer. I was in one of those slow trains, which stopped at every station to pick up those who had travelled into the country from London by cheap day return to pass a day, perhaps, with friends or relatives or, more probably, to spend their Sunday picnicking. I was alone in my carriage-which will not surprise those of you who realise how shy the English are of the Roman collar-until, at one of these country stations, the door of my carriage opened and three people got in—a young working-man, the girl who was his wife, and, in her arms, a baby. They were very young. They were flushed with happiness. Rarely in my life have I seen such deep, radiant joy as I saw on the faces of that family. You know how infectious real happiness is; how it fills you when you see it deep in another; how, at such moments, everything seems to sing. That is how it was with them. They did not say very much, but just kept looking at each other and smiling at each other and then looking at the baby and smiling at each other again. I do remember a word or two of the father-spoken once when he sat looking with pride at the baby after he had made at it one of those rather ineffective "passes", which fathers make at their children, uncertainly and with great devotion, when they are young and in their mother's arms. "My son John," he said smiling, "my son John" and, as he said those words there was a brightness about the three of them and I was taken back to the manger at Bethlehem where the Shepherds found a Baby lying on straw with His Mother beside Him, looking down with her husband on the Son that was theirs. "The
Holy Family," I said to myself, "would have been very like these three."
That thought, added to the quiet attraction of their goodness, gave to the family before me a dignity at once quiet and compelling. At that moment I saw deep-you know those moments. when conviction is burnt in on you; when intuition replaces argument to blind you,. almost, with the brightness of a particular truth. It was like that with me as I watched. the working lad and his young wife sitting on the seat
of a rather dirty railway carriage with their baby between them. "Here," I said to myself, "is something sacred. This is the mainspring of everything. If you destroy it or make life more difficult for it, society will go to pieces. This is something that can never be supplanted without catastrophe. On its fate depends the future of civilization."
A Dying People
That was no sentimental musing. There is, at least, one undeniable and obvious sense in which the family is basic, the first line of defence of those values on whose preservation out society depends for survival. If the family dies out; if children are not born because not wanted, then society will most obviously shrivel and die. That,
surely, is plain. Let parents everywhere carry selfishness to the point where they refuse to have children and then society begins to die out. For it cannot survive unless children are born, and a refusal to have children, therefore, means that a people pronounces sentence of death on itself. That is what this country is doing. We are a dying people, refusing to have children and murdering so many whilst they
are yet unborn; dressing up the murder-as is the habit of the English in a nice sounding phrase to conceal the brutality of the killing; and then, with a high-abortion rate, pointing a sententious finger at Ireland because its infant mortality rate is higher than ours. At least in that country they do not kill the unborn child. But, to return to my theme-we are a dying people and the dying is caused mainly by birth control, which is motivated in most cases by selfishness. To conceal that unpleasant fact from themselves the English call the whole process "family planning". It does not conceal the reality, which is that our nation is rotting away. One estimate has it that by 1971, if present trends continue, there will be 9,500,000 old people in this country to be supported by 29,000,000 men and women of working age. Given the materialism responsible for this state of affairs, is it far-fetched to suggest that, when such a point is reached, propaganda in favour of euthanasia will be stronger than ever amongst the able bodied? Why should it not be so? To a materialist mentality it will come easily as the only alternative to economic collapse and, provided its operation is painless and, tidy, it will square ethically with a mentality that associates immorality with open violence and inhumanity with an existence that is physically uncomfortable.
The decline is upon us: its course is acknowledged by all as due to the practice of birth control, most of which is effected by contraceptives. Catholics, I am afraid, are not free from its taint. As long ago as 1934 the Catholic family in England was barely of a size sufficient to replace itself. The position is still the same today and seems due in many cases to what an English Catholic bishop has called a compromise with conscience. With him Dr. H. P. Newsholme, a distinguished Catholic doctor, at one time chief medical officer of health for the city of Birmingham, appears to be in complete agreement. Writing on this point a year ago he said:-
"There has, in fact, been exposed to our troubled gaze, an ulcer in the body Catholic, an ulcer poisonous to Catholic life in many directions. What is needed is the cautery, whether of human discipline, or of the divine discipline of the Holy Spirit, cleansing, renewing health of outlook, and giving insight and strength of purpose whereby these Catholic couples can recognize and follow the way of married life
which God intends for them"
There is room, therefore, for heart-searching amongst Catholics; for the realization that few things are worse than that act which frustrates nature to deny life, so shutting from the glory of the vision of God the child that can never be born. Those who perpetrate it are the hollow ones, bearing about them the mark of that selfishness, which is their guiding principle. So they become shrivelled even in youth, without the bloom in their lives that fullness brings. Frustration they have chosen and with it restlessness; condemning their own lives to the weariness that selfishness brings and their country to the slow decay that brought France to her knees in 1940 with hardly a blow being struck against her. There is no vision amongst those who practise birth-control, and where vision is lacking the people perish: adventure and enterprise go from their lives and with it eventually the will to survive. Listless and weary they wait for death.
Family Values: Life-giving Love
The process which destroys the family follows the abdication of those very values, which it is the family's task to teach to its members. A nation loses its soul when its people cease to desire that fullness, which the right exercise of freedom brings in its train. Such a decline points to a failure on the part of the family to teach those values, which must be freely adhered to if men would achieve fine living. Thus we see that the teaching role of the family is all-important. It is meant not merely to breed men, but to set them on the path to the good life, which is the fruit of freedom rightly used. For freedom is not an end in itself. It is the means to an ultimate end, which, for each of us, is the fulfilment of ourselves in the service of God.
Home (to put the whole thing in terms that we understand best) is the place where the good things are taught: they can be taught adequately, we know, in no other. And we need the good things-to know them and love them and fully adhere to them-because in doing all three our service of God consists. In a word, we are meant to lead good lives-such that they show by the splendour of their living something of the splendour that is God-and we do that to the extent that we model our own on
the life of Christ Our Lord. If you examine His life in the Gospels you will see that love was its core. He never sought Himself. He never rested whilst others could be helped. He never got irritated and annoyed. You will never find that He thought of Himself. He was always giving Himself to other people. We are meant to do the same, to turn to others and love them as He did and for His sake, which does not mean coldly and with aloofness, but warmly and without thought for ourselves. A person who loves like that stands out amongst his fellows. He is always at peace and his happiness goes very deep, precisely because it is the last thing he thinks about. He has something which the selfish really yearn for, but which they cannot get because they try and find it always in themselves. There is strength about such a one and depth. A nation peopled with men, who try at least to love like that is acquainted with peace and happiness: it will defend its freedom, which it sees correctly as the key to that fullness, which is the source of both. It will hold the family in high regard, striving always to encourage its standards: lacking altogether the arrogant insolence that tries to supplant it. It will see that the Christian family is its strength, breeding the love which gives a people life; without which it will certainly die.
The family is unique in its power to instil love. In its circle you have that beautiful unselfish giving, which draws husband and wife closer and closer together as the years go by; which shows itself in the sacrifices they are always making for each other and for the children, who are the fine fruit of their loving. In such love you have greatness, a kind of living unknown to those who have never known what it is to share joy and sorrow with another loved beyond words, trusted utterly, for whom no gift is too precious. Between Christian parents that love is found and by them imparted to their children. In such a family you find strength and great happiness. A nation composed of such families is a nation at peace, unselfish and without the hate cast by self-seeking. Just think for a moment of the difference that would be made to the life of this country if, in it, one found less selfishness and more of that steady generosity towards others, which is so fine an expression of the love that is found in the Christian home. Take, for a moment, the case of industry itself.
To me it is extraordinary that when men step over their thresholds to go to work in the morning, they drop the Christian attitude taught and preserved in many homes and adopt one that is unworthy of a Christian to say the very least. Behind them at home they leave love and trust and self-reliance. At work they exchange these for active dislike-sometimes, even, hatred -suspicion and a slavish willingness to follow the crowd. At home there is no machinery for the settlement of disputes because disputes there are the exception and not the rule. Why is conciliation machinery found in industry? Because in it disputes are accepted as normal, as the rule and not the exception. And why is this? Because in industry, men regard themselves, not as co-operating together to serve each other, but as belonging to one "side" or other. There are no "sides" in the Christian family. Instead there is a unity that is the fruit of love. There is no unity in industry because in it there is no love and no unselfishness. Thus those who oppose each other on what one is forced to call the industrial battlefield seek to prove by strength there that might is right: In doing so they display a mentality closer to that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin than to that of Christ Our Lord.
In the international field that mentality has led to two wars in my generation. As likely as not it will lead to another. In the industrial field its legacy is perpetual friction and dispute. So class-war is tearing us to pieces at a time when unity (the fruit of loving co-operation) is more important, if possible, than ever before: and this dismal process of industrial strife will go on until men have the courage to take the standards that govern the family into the field of industrial life-until, quite frankly, both sides cease using their strength in a futile attempt to prove who is right and have the honesty and courage to ask themselves what is right and to act accordingly. That is what the family does. That is what capital and labour must do if they would bring peace to industry and, with peace, the freedom that brings fulfilment. That way lies strength, dignity, true greatness-all flowing from the unity, itself the fruit of love, that must be sown, to be lasting, in the quiet of the Christian home. Once again we see that the family is basic, the cradle of liberty because it teaches those values, which must be adhered to if a people is to find fulfilment in the unity of love and, finding: it be resolute in defence of the freedom from which it flows.
The Christian Home: Totalitarian Target
What I have just said is simple and yet, like so many simple points, it is constantly overlooked by the bustling eager reformers of today. So few of them base their so-called programmes on the deep truth that the family is the basis of society. Far from regarding it as fundamental, they tend to regard it as one of many institutions, which they investigate and write about as social curiosities and nothing more. They go further. Their inclination, in the words of a distinguished Catholic commentator on the Population Report is "to treat parents and the family group as a pawn in population-planning, whilst in appearance treating them as an object of solicitude in family planning". According to its terms of reference, the Commission responsible for that Report (which will long stand as a classic example of the secularist approach to public life) determined at 6 per cent the increase in population to be attained by the people of England and Wales. To attain this end and to. keep it at a steady level after attainment, "married couples", in the words of Dr. H. P. Newsholme, "are to be exploited-the word is scarcely too strong-as a convenience for the nation, in fulfilment of a paper concept of what should be the nation's proper size, on an assessment based on purely secular and material considerations". You see the attitude—a population level is decided on as something to be planned for, the implication being that parental desire and duty are secondary to State policy; that the family is meant to serve the State; that it is something to be manipulated by State planners to suit their own design. In this case the design is a level of population to be secured through the cultivation of average-sized families (not big families because it is held that children of large families don't respond satisfactorily to intelligence tests!) and the way chosen to secure this end is a combination of economic and social assistance (to induce the voluntarily childless to have children) and contraceptive practice (to induce those who love children and want plenty of them to have less). The easy arrogance behind all this is devastating. Yet this is not a summary of Soviet population policy. I am not giving you a reading from Huxley's Brave New World. This is a presentation to the British public of an objective considered as desirable (and of the means chosen to achieve that objective) by a Royal Commission on Population. At the head of that Commission stood the present Professor of Economics at Oxford. University. Studying the appalling secularism of the Report for which he and his colleagues are responsible, one cannot but reflect on the remoteness of its conclusions from the motto of the University to which his services are given. You remember it? The words are most beautiful: "Dominus Illuminatio Mea".
In the secularism of the Report on Population you have one instance of an insidious trend in this country that is directed against the family and all it means. Another, in my own personal opinion, is provided by the increasing tendency to legislate for all our needs and requirements from the cradle too the grave. Leaving aside the grave and the thought (so dear to the heart of the planner) of the dull symmetry of the State coffins in which, presumably, we are all to be buried-leaving aside this end of the business, let us turn to the cradle side of the experiment and ask ourselves how State nurseries are to be reconciled with the intimacy of parental care; State intrusion with the rightful privacy of the home; State assumption of responsibility with that which natural law and the whole tradition of the West place on mother
and father and children. I cannot see how reconciliation is possible: nor, presumably, can the Irish bishops; and I am given great confidence by this stand of a whole hierarchy against State intrusion.
To me it seems that the social arrangements of today are tending to rob the family of self-reliance, responsibility and independence and strip it of the very qualities it is meant to foster -qualities, which make for fullness of living, without which a nation grows old and weary and sterile, lacking altogether the will to survive. Yet this is the arrangement we have imposed on ourselves and its advocates claim that, by doing so, we have strengthened ourselves as a people and assumed, in fact, the moral leadership of the world! I find it hard to understand such reasoning, to see that by whittling away spiritual values, you make it easier to withstand the mad onrush of militant atheism; that by taking the heart out of the home, you increase our strength to withstand that totalitarian menace, which, in its hatred of the West and all it stands for, has been quick to see the essential part played by the family in the preservation of both. The first blows of the totalitarian State have always been directed at the Christian family and its way of life. With the Catholic Church they bracket, as the most determined enemy of all they stand for, the Christian home. Always they try to break it; to tear children from their parents so that they may smash the influence of the home and put in its place their foul doctrines of hate, materialism and racial pride. That was done under Hitler in Germany and the attempt is being made to do it now in the new slave States of Eastern, Europe. Listen to a pronouncement from one of them: it is typical of the outlook of those who rule the mall:
"The family is no longer a closed cell, inaccessible, from the outside. Formerly the State intervened between parent and children only if there was a direct clash with the criminal law- for example, if parents maltreated their children. The State today is too vitally interested in its future citizens to let things go at this. The State will intervene if it is felt that a child is not receiving an upbringing likely to make it a useful member of the community. The State can then take the child away from the parents, and place it in an institution, or in the care of an appointed guardian.".
Every time we neglect our own children, we give an opening, not only, to those, who would thrust it on every home in the world, but to those in the West also, who, in the witless materialism of a misplaced humanitarian ideal, would deprive the family of its Christian spirit- of most of what we mean when we talk about home-and open the door wide to the barbarian invader.
Our Task
Our basic task is clear. It is that we should strengthen our homes; living those values learnt at home, which we all know so well- responsibility, reliance, deep trust, integrity; taking on ourselves the responsibilities of family life; sharing with our dearest the sacrifices, the sorrows and the joys given by God to those who are free. Doing that we will find fullness and, with fullness, strength; achieving the fruit of
freedom we will be resolute in its defence.
Taken from the author's Foundation for Freedom (Catholic Social Guild, 1951).
Living with Mental Illness - Julia Grimer
In the March 1999 issue of ACW Review I submitted an article of about my struggle with manic depression since 1987. I thought readers of this review who may recall that article may be interested in an update. I wrote the original article under the pseudonym of Helen Sutherland but now feel confident enough to use my name.
The main change in my life since 1999 is that I am now very happily married with three children. I do still suffer from manic depression though, and getting married has brought new challenges.
I met my husband in the summer of 2000. He is partially deaf and I realised that someone with a handicap himself could be a good partner-it put us on more of an even playing field so to speak. As with previous boyfriends it was always a real dilemma when to tell him about my illness since there seemed to me no easy way to do this.
When he invited me to meet his mother in Bristol in February 2001 it was quite a stressful experience since I had to sleep away from home, in a bedroom that was colder than my own at home (since I keep my bedroom warmer than most people) which meant I had difficulty sleeping. Plus the fact that I still wasn't sure whether I was compatible with Aidan and felt I may be misleading him in going down to visit his mother. My head started spinning and I realised that I had two choices. Either take medication and hope I had no side effects to explain away, or leave! I decided I had to go and realised it seemed very odd to suddenly explain that I had to leave a day early. My excuse was that I suffered from chronic insomnia (which in a way is true) and had to get some sleep at home. I left my future mother in law's house very despondent feeling I'd really messed things up.
However, once I got a good night's sleep I realised that the weekend at Aidan's family home had gone quite well and that our relationship did have potential after all! Aidan finally proposed to me at the end of a sunny Bank Holiday Monday in August 2001 which we had spent together down in Runnymede. I had been in a bad mood with him all day (not that I showed it) since I thought he would never get round to proposing to me and I had actually considered ending our relationship! After the euphoria of being engaged for 24 hours I began to panic. Could I really marry this man? I hardly knew him! I had an awful two weeks at the end of which, on 8th September I gave him the 1999 ACW article in the garden of the National Trust Property, "Carlyle House" I also panicked and gave him his ring back at the same time! I told him I was too ill to get married and he'd see why when he read the article. I wanted to just go home immediately since I felt so embarrassed
but felt I had to agree to get a cup of tea first. I really hoped he hadn't told his work colleagues that he was engaged. I was Aidan's first girlfriend, and I didn't want him to feel he'd been made a fool of.
He said he had told them at work, but I shouldn't worry about that, I should worry about me. I thought this was a very mature and kind way to act and wondered if I'd made a mistake. I felt so much better now and I felt sure it must have been the right thing to do. We walked up to Sloane Street tube and I reflected how strange it was that this was exactly 10 years to the day since I had got engaged to my previous fiancé‚ (on which day I had felt very depressed). As we walked downstairs to Sloane Street tube where we would say our good-byes I told Aidan I was amazed how calmly he had taken things. He said he rarely got angry and I thought "that's just like me, maybe we are not so incompatible after all."
MAYBE THIS IS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE I AM MAKING OF MY LIFE.
As the train pulled in I said, "Look, can you not tell anyone that I've broken off this engagement yet, can you let me think about it over the weekend?". He said, "Do you want the ring back?" and I realised that I did. The bubble of anxiety had burst, but it hadn't come back. I had broken off the engagement for precisely three quarters of an hour but felt I still qualified for that acclamation of Wilde's "an engagement can't be considered important till it's been broken off at least once", or words to that effect!
We got married on 6th July 2002, which was the 100 hundredth anniversary of the death of Maria Goretti (and the actual martyrdom date of St Thomas More to whom I have had a great devotion since university days.) Because of the connection with Maria Goretti we made a special pilgrimage to Nettuno, a few months before and bought our wedding rings in Rome. My private psychiatrist was very pleased I was getting married, but warned me that I was more likely that most to suffer from post natal depression if I had any children. I didn't want to believe this but these words were very true.
Edwin was born in June 2003, and in about October post natal depression set in. It was worse than the depression I had suffered in recent years and I remember thinking I was going to ring social services and ask for them to take Edwin into care since I just couldn't cope. Luckily he was a very good baby and this helped a lot. By my 40th birthday in February I was better and in March realised I was expecting another baby! George was born in December 2004, and this time I realised I should get help before post natal depression set in.
My private psychiatrist in Sutton had told me it was really too far for me now that I had children, to come from Harrow and I thought I would give the NHS another try (readers of the original article may remember that, even though I am not a typical private patient I had gone private in desperation over my NHS treatment). I was put under the post natal depression team and told I would get really good support. How ironic this was!
The psychiatrist assigned to me had no idea about my Catholic beliefs. She seemed to be on a mission to force me to use contraception and didn't at all approve of the fact I could have a third baby. We had flaming rows about it, and her conduct was most unprofessional. She asked me once, what was the point in her coming to see me since I didn't take her advice, and I said frankly that it was because if she didn't come I couldn't get the drugs I needed!
The post natal depression with George lasted a lot longer that with Edwin but a year later I thought I was better.
At Easter 2006 I realised I was expecting again but shortly afterwards the post natal depression (or was it pre natal depression?) came back! This was a tricky situation since I had never been depressed and pregnant before. I really didn't want to take drugs in the first trimester, but realised that if I didn't I could end up in hospital and in no control over the amount of drugs they gave me! It was a horrible situation to be in. Rather than taking haliperidol I took valium, which seemed to me a milder drug, at a low dose for about four weeks. I have since been. told by my former private psychiatrist, that I write to at Christmas, that haliperidol is actually safer to take that valium. The complication is that if I take 5mg of haliperidol I need to take 15mg (three times the normal dose) of procyclidine to counteract the side effects, and there is nothing written up on the effect of procylidine on pregnancy. I hasten to add that during this time I was self medicating (since I had a store of drugs at home). There was no way I was going near the NHS after all the trouble I had had. It was an agonising time since I was really worried the drugs would harm my baby. At one point I almost hoped I would have a miscarriage! When I look at my beautiful little daughter Joanna now, born January 2007, I'm so glad that that didn't happen!
Before Joanna was born providence provided me with a wonderful Catholic pro life G.P who has a sign up in the surgery saying she will not give contraception or abortion advice. This time I was put under the general psychiatric team and not the post natal team since I certainly didn't want to meet the awful lady psychiatrist again. Luckily this time I was visited by a very nice Nigerian psychiatric nurse, though the male psychiatrist that came was as patronising as I have found most psychiatrists (not all) in the NHS to be. After Joanna I not only suffered from severe depression, but also puerperal psychosis. I did things like went for a 2 hour walk over Harrow on the Hill at 4 am in the morning and promised œ1,000 per year to Shelter. This is the first time I had lost control since I was 24, and nearly ended up in an NHS psychiatric ward. Luckily I took Aidan's advice to take a large dose of haliperidol, even though I was convinced I didn't need it! After that it still took me a couple of weeks to come down to reality.
The depression which followed the psychosis may have been even worse than that suffered with George on the principle that the higher you go the lower you fall. I did feel suicidal quite often and each day was a terrible trial, but it was also difficult to sleep at night and I would lie there worrying. Writing a diary helped and I promised
myself I would read over the entries when I felt better, but began to worry I would never feel better.
It wasn't until May 2008 that I finally recovered. As I write this in mid January 2009 I wonder how long it will be before depression sets in again and hope it will be better in that next time it won't be post natal depression, but depression caused by manic depression.
Readers will observe I haven't used the term bi polar disorder in this article. It may have its uses but I feel it is trying to hide what my illness is. If I want to do that I just don't mention to people that I am ill!
I hope that this article is of interest and help to readers. The previous one has proved useful on numerous occasions since I have handed it to carers and sufferers alike of mental illness. Shortly after the article appeared I got a letter from a man about my age who was also suffering from manic depression. He had been sent the article by a Benedictine nun friend who is a reader of ACW. We have become firm
friends and he came to my wedding.
If anyone would like to get in contact with me (I am always pleased to give support and advice to anyone in similar situations). Contact me via the ACW.
Review No 79
St Gianna Beretta Molla
St Gianna Beretta Molla was a modern-day working mum whom many parents today could relate to quite easily.
“Her life was a normal life. There was no outstanding thing like some of the other saints like Padre Pio, but she lived the ordinary life in an extraordinary way” said Joseph Cunningham, President of the Society of St Gianna. “She had to juggle a lot of things in her life, being a working mum and wife, and when you read her letters to her husband you’ll see that she encountered the same things we all encounter.”
Gianna Beretta Molla was born in Magenta (Milan), Italy, on October 4th, 1922, the tenth of 13 children. She was raised in a deeply Catholic family. Three of her siblings joined religious orders. After earning degrees in medicine and surgery from the University of Pavia in 1949,
she opened a medical clinic in Mesero, near Magenta, in 1950. She specialised in pediatrics at the University of Milan in 1952 and thereafter gave special attention to mothers, babies, the elderly and the poor. On September 24th 1955, Gianna, who was 33 years old, married Pietro
Molla an engineer 10 years her senior, in St Martin’s Basilica in Magenta. A few days before their marriage she wrote to Pietro “Love is the most beautiful sentiment the Lord has put into the soul of men and women” and then reflecting on their vocation of marriage “With God’s help and blessing we will do all we can to make our new family a little cenacle where Jesus will reign over all our affections, desires and actions ... We will be working with God in His creation, in this way we can give Him children who will love Him and serve Him”. She met the demands of mother, wife, doctor with simplicity and balance. She loved culture, fashion and beauty. She played the piano, painted, enjoyed tennis, mountain climbing and skiing. She went to the theatre, symphony concerts and opera in Milan. She also loved to travel.
In September 1961, towards the end of the second month of pregnancy with her fourth child, Gianna had to make a heroic decision. Doctors diagnosed a serious fibroma in the uterus that required surgery. The surgeon suggested that Gianna undergo an abortion in order to save
her life. Surgical procedures at the time called for removal of her entire uterus. She and her husband insisted that surgeons only remove what was necessary and allow her baby to live and reach term. A few days before the child was due, she was ready to give her life in order
to save that of her child. She said “If you must decide between me and the child, do not hesitate: choose the child—I insist on it. Save the baby”.
On the morning of April 21st 1962, her daughter Gianna Emanuela was born by Caesarean section. Despite efforts to save them both, on the morning of April 28th, amid unspeakable pain and after repeated exclamations of “Jesus, I love you,” Gianna died of septic peritonitis. She was 39 years old. Her other children were 5, 4, and 2 years old at the time. Her husband, Pietro, has described Gianna’s life as “an act and a perennial action of faith and charity; it was a non-stop search for the will of God for every decision and for every work, with prayer
and meditation, Holy Mass and the Eucharist.”
The story of this remarkable woman spread quickly throughout the world. Pope Paul VI paid special recognition to Gianna in an Angelus address in 1973. He called her a mother “who, to give life to her daughter, sacrificed her own with conscious immolation.” On April 24th 1994,
during the International Year of the Family, Pope John Paul II beatified Gianna Beretta Molla saying that her witness was a hymn to life. Ten years later, on May 16th 2004, the same Holy Father canonised Gianna Beretta Molla. offering this new lay saint to the Church as a model of virtue, holiness, motherhood, professionalism and devotion.
In an age when marriage, family life, virtue and holiness are under assault, the life of Gianna Beretta Molla is a striking witness of hope and beauty. St Gianna Molla’s life and final decision were heroic. She reminds the Church and the world of the necessity of a consistent
ethic of life from the earliest to the final moments of human life.
Joseph Cunningham of the Saint Gianna Beretta Molla Society said his organisation is working to bring St Gianna to a wider audience. “There’s a tremendous response to her once people hear the whole story about her life,” he said. “So far we have distributed over 300,000 cards
and we’ve given countless presentations about her life. St Gianna represents an important message for our times. It’s a very strong message our society needs”... “Her daily dedication to prayer, the Rosary, daily Mass and the Eucharist, a terrific dedication to Our Lady and to family life and her husband and being concerned about her family : These are the kinds of things that really touch you, because these are the things we try to incorporate into our own lives and that we try to attend to daily the best way we can ”. The miracle needed for the canonisation of Blessed Gianna was recognised formally during a Vatican ceremony presided over by Pope John Paul II. Presenting the causes, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martina, Prefect of the Congregation for Saints’ Causes, said Blessed Gianna, a paediatrician, “lived her marriage and her maternity with joy, generosity and absolute fidelity to her mission.”
Her husband and the four children Pierluigi, Mariolina, Laura and Gianna Emanuela were present in April 1994 when Pope John Paul II beatified her. The miracle recognised by the Vatican also involved a pregnancy at risk. In early 2000, in the third month of her fourth pregnancy, Elisabete Arcolino Comparini, a Brazilian, was told the baby she was carrying would die because the amniotic sac had broken; she and her husband prayed for the intercession of Blessed Gianna and the baby’s heart continued beating. The following May, Elisabete gave birth to a healthy baby girl.
-------------------------------------------
On the Feast of All Saints in 1999, a stained glass window of Blessed Gianna Molla was installed in the chapel of the Newman Centre of Toronto. The window was unveiled by Pierluigi Molla and Dr Gianna Emmanuela Molla, her son and daughter. In her speech, Dr Gianna said Three days ago, when I was shown the windows for the first time and I saw my
mother smiling, I was filled with joy and so pleased, because I have always imagined her in this way, knowing that the message of her life couldn’t be represented better. Every moment of her entire existence was a real testimony of Christian love and faith, lived concretely and with joy in everyday life: as a young girl. as a fiançée and wife, as a mother and doctor. She always trusted in Divine Providence and she has crowned her exemplary life in the name of a love without measure. She is always with me and since the momentous day of April 24th 1994, I have felt myself to be part of an ever growing family comprised of so many people throughout the world who, like me, pray to her, confide in her, and feel close to her. I believe that this is also the design of Divine Providence, that now I shall never be alone. Dear Mum, I ask you to fill me and all those who suffer and are in difficulty with your own strength of soul, your hope, your courage to live life to the full. Protect and help all mothers, their families
and all who turn to you and entrust their needs to you. In his speech Pierluigi Molla spoke of why he thought it was so important to have the image of his mother placed in the chapel of the Newman centre in Toronto. He said ...even in her earliest youth, my mother fully accepted the gift of faith and an explicitly Christian education received from her excellent parents who, in their vigilant wisdom, knew how to accompany her in her human and Christian growth. Whether it was in her youth, in primary school, in her secondary education, or in her university courses in medical school, Gianna received from exemplary priests, religious.
and from wise professors, a pedagogical formation that was clearly in harmony with Cardinal John Henry Newman’s idea of a university in which theology, the arts and sciences would be taught in dialogue with one another...
God our Father we praise you and we bless you because in Saint Gianna Beretta Molla you have given us one who witnessed to the Gospel as a young woman, as a wife, as a mother and as a doctor. We thank you because through the gift of her life we can learn to welcome and honour every human person.
Some quotes from Gianna’s diaries.
“When one does one’s own duty one must not be concerned, because God’s
help will not be lacking”.
The secret of happiness is to live moment by moment and to thank
God for all that He, in his goodness, sends to us day after day”.
“Lord keep your grace in my heart. Live in me so that your grace be mine. Make it that I may bear every day some flowers and new fruit”.
The Community of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal
The Community of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal or CFR is a mendicant congregation, a refoundation within the Franciscan family which follows the Capuchin Tradition. It was founded in 1987 by eight Capuchin priests in America under the leadership and initiative of Fr Benedict Groeschel, a clinical psychologist and spiritual writer.
The community was founded for a return to the authentic Capuchin way of life and the renewal of the Catholic Church.
The Friars are known for their fidelity to the Holy Father and the Church. The Community characterises itself as Catholic, Franciscan, Capuchin, Contemplative, Prophetic, Apostolic, Fraternal and Pro-Life. They live very simply and work above all with the poor. Evangelisation especially of the young is central to their life. They do not have TV, laptops or mobile phones.
It is a fast growing order with over 120 friars at present .Their houses have expanded to include seven in the metropolitan New York area, one in Texas, a friary in New Mexico and missions in England (in Brentwood and Bradford), in Ireland and Honduras. The Friars of the Renewal wear grey religious habits with hoods, a belt and sandals.
Beards are also characteristic of the order. The ropes they wear round their waists as belts have three individual knots symbolising the vows they take as friars vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.
The lives of the friars revolve around the three fundamental pillars of prayer, fraternity and apostolic service that are rooted in the Gospel and exemplified in the life of St Francis. Following the contemplative tradition of the Capuchins, the Friars spend between four and five hours in prayer each day that includes Mass, Eucharistic Adoration and the Liturgy of the Hours, the Rosary, Lectio Divina, spiritual reading, and personal prayer. One day each week is dedicated to greater recollection and each friar takes a few days each month for prayer in solitude. Each year, friars participate in a weeklong community retreat as well as a personal retreat of the same length.
They live together in common as brothers of one family, praying, sharing, working, serving and recreating together. The brothers strive for honest communication and sincere, mature fraternal support and affection, endeavouring to spur one another on to greater generosity and holiness.
They do not employ any domestic help, and do all of the work of the friary themselves, cooking, cleaning, washing clothes and maintenance. Manual labour is part of their life. Many of the brothers have developed skills and abilities in woodwork, construction and repair, mechanics, tailoring, food preparation, gardening, animal raising. and artistic expression such as music, painting, sculpture and writing that support and enhance their lives. They sincerely strive to live a simple life of poverty, austerity and penance. They do not accept regular income for any of their apostolates, preferring instead to depend on Divine Providence manifested through the generosity of benefactors. As much as possible they beg rather than purchase what they need to live and serve in their apostolate.
The Friars engage in the classic two-fold Franciscan apostolate of evangelisation and hand-on service of the poor. In each of their missions the friars have developed apostolates suited to the specific needs of the context in which they live.
The Community was recognised in the Church as a religious institute of diocesan right on the 28th May 1999, which enabled it to open friaries outside the Archdiocese of New York. At the invitation of Bishop Thomas McMahon and through the encouragement of Mgr John Armitage, the first friary was opened in London in the diocese of Brentwood in June of 2000.
Both are pictured here at the dedication of the friary with Fr Glen Sudano and Fr Richard Roemer
Let the little children come to me, for it is to these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.” (Mt 19:14). On their arrival they were greeted by the children of the neighbourhood. The young ones here with Fr Richard enjoyed many hours of friendship with the friars
The Gospel counsel of poverty, in imitation of Christ, Who became poor for our sakes, means that we live a life which is poor in fact and in spirit. It includes as an essential element, a life of work”
(Rule and Constitution para33). The transformation of the old parish hall of St Margaret’s into St Fidelis Friary took many hours of labour by volunteers and the friars. Behind Brother John Paul you can see one of the youth projects in remembrance of World War II in pictorial graffiti. The building is one of the few remaining in the area from before the war.
Behold the wood of the Cross!” Fr Sylvester here, is finishing the cross which is now atop the friary. It acts as a sign to all who pass by the way or in through the door that daily we must pick up our cross, if we wish to follow Jesus. Following in the footsteps of our holy father Francis, friars daily wear a habit which is in the form of the cross, not only as a witness but also a personal reminder of their discipleship.
The Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal began in 1988 and are based in USA in the Bronx.
The Associates of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal are lay men and women who desire to follow Christ in the way of St Francis of Assisi. The Associate programme began in England in 2000 for lay men and women who are attracted to the lifestyle and works of the friary.
Each of the associates has come to know the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal through events such as parish missions, Youth 2000 retreats, and other activities involving the friars. The Friars seek to offer each Associate assistance in their life of prayer and spiritual growth.
The Associates meet as a group the first Saturday of the month in Canning Town for a day of prayer, service and fellowship. A typical day begins at 12.30 pm with Holy Mass followed by lunch while the Associates exchange greetings with one another and with the Friars.
After lunch, each member is assigned some type of work duty which assists the mission of the Friars. Work assignments include such chores as sorting donated clothing, preparing food, maintaining/cleaning the Kitchen, gardening and other means of serving the poor. At the end of the work period there is a tea break followed by a talk given by a friar, Holy Hour with Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction begins at 5pm.. Following the prayertime, there is time for informal sharing over supper (each person brings a dish). The day is brought to a close with Night Prayer.
In addition to the first Saturdays in Canning Town, the Associates have an annual weekend retreat. Every two years the Associates plan a pilgrimage to a Holy Site
The Friars can be contacted at:-
St Fidelis Friary
Killip Close
London E16 1LX
Tel: 0207 474 0766
http://www.franciscanfriars.com
Review No 78
God doesn’t guarantee that the British Church will last
John Haldane
Of late there have been several press and media stories that might
lead the unwary to conclude that the Catholic Church has moved into
a position of denominational ascendancy in Britain. Even if that were
true, however, it would be imprudent for Catholics to preen themselves
over it. First, assumptions of societal advancement invite the reminder
that “the first shall come last”. Second, they serve to encourage
the view of some other Christians that Catholicism is more concerned
with its social position than with God’s word and work. Third, self-congratulation would have about it something of the character of fiddling while Rome burns, for the plain fact is that participation is declining precipitately. Never mind the issue of which denomination is doing best or worst, Catholicism is ailing.
Why is that? And what might be done to arrest this decline? The formation
and transmission of Catholic consciousness and commitment depend critically on three bases: home, school and parish. It really makes no sense
to think that if home and school are without Catholic identity then
a weekly visit to Sunday Mass can bear the load. Likewise, poverty
of liturgy and of preaching can undermine the work of good parents
and teachers. Also, diocese and religious orders are struggling with
declining numbers, and the priest has become an object of public denigration.
With parents distracted by work, and leisure now a dissociating, rather
than a bonding, force in family life it is unrealistic to think that
the faith is being nurtured in the home. Without that, however, schools
will find it difficult to inculcate habits of Catholic thought and
practice; and they themselves are subject to other demands, including
from Catholic parents preoccupied about secular success. Catholic
schools also have difficulty recruiting teachers knowledgeable about
and committed to the Catholic faith, and are now anxious that being
avowedly Catholic, in the sense of adhering to Catholic religious
and moral teachings, may incur the wrath of secular critics and public
authorities.
Where there might have been a process of mutual support and reinforcement building a whole greater than the sum of the parts, there tends to be an uncoordinated struggle, sometimes involving mutual, if unspoken, frustration and assignment of blame. It is not a happy situation and unless it is addressed directly and unblinkingly it will certainly
worsen. We have long taken assurance from the words of Matthew’s Gospel: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, but this concerns the
mystical institution not a human corporation, let alone any cultural
or national branch. There is nothing in Christ’s promise that guarantees
that Catholicism will not die out in Britain.
Jewish teachers have long distinguished between hope and optimism,
recognising that their own history gives limited scope for the latter,
but that their survival as people of God has rested on the former,
as a response to a divine promise first made to Abraham. We need to
develop a similar confidence in hope; but equally that should not
be an encouragement to pessimistic fatalism. The state of the Church
in Britain is not good, but it is within our power to try to improve
it. The first step towards doing so is providing an analysis of the
principal difficulties.
Here I want to identify three features of British Catholicism that
suggest a loss of faith and knowledge, and about which we each, whether
clerical or lay, need to examine our own thoughts and practices.
First, a pervasive inclination to neo-pelagianism in the form of the
belief that we have the power to save ourselves through our works.
The role of Jesus in this account is not that of securing atonement
but rather one of providing a moral example of what human beings might
aim for. Catholic teaching, by contrast, is that we are saved by grace
and that our works only bring merit to the extent that they are the
fruits of grace, which is itself a free and unmerited gift.
Second, we have become sentimentalist about matters that call for
hard, reasoned thought. Catholic moral theology was once celebrated
for its argumentative rigour which was then communicated to homiletic
and pastoral contexts by a clergy trained in its methods. No doubt
there was some dusty and introverted scholasticism amid that, but
as Chesterton once observed, we can either rely on thought that has
been thought out or on thought that has not. Today we have lost the
habit of philosophical thinking and substituted a sentimental advocacy
of causes without critically assessing their relationship to the faith
that saves.
Third, we have become accommodationist, preoccupied with means of
forestalling secular criticism, rather than engaging confidently with
it, in part by means of ingratiating ourselves with dominant groups
and classes. Time was when “conservative” Catholics craved Anglican
establishment and hoped for conversions from the upper classes of
society, with more than a few prayers being directed to the conversion
of a “royal”. Now “liberal” Catholics crave secular establishment
and hope for conversions from the political, press, or public-service
classes. We are also generally poised to assure the prevailing secular
culture that we share its approved values.
There is a connection between neo-pelagianism, sentimentalism and
accommodationism: it is that these involve the displacement of Catholic
faith and sacramental practice understood in terms of a rigorous theology
of grace and salvation, and their substitution by good works, identified
and sustained typically through emotive rhetoric, with an eye to seeking
approbation or at least minimising exposure to criticism from secular
critics of religion. This is in no way the preserve of one side of
the divided Church. The pro-life movement and those preoccupied with
opposing civil partnerships may be as much prone to substituting works
for faith as those committed to justice and peace and the environment.
The decline of Catholicism in Britain will continue until such time
as it is defended and promoted for what it is, not a social teaching
or a cultural lifestyle, but the truth that without grace we cannot
be saved, that grace comes by Christ’s salvation, and that what Christ
himself taught is that no one comes to the Father save through Him.
Serious re-education in this teaching, through home, school and parish,
would transform the condition of Catholicism in Britain and equip
it to embark on the necessary tasks of engaging the faithless, and
missioning to the unfaithful.
John Haldane is Professor of Philosophy in the University of St Andrews
and Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Culture. He is the author
of The Church and the World (Gracewing) and Seeking Meaning and Making
Sense (Imprint-Academic).
This article first appeared in the 23 May 2008 issue of The Catholic Herald and is reproduced with permission.
Review No 77 June 2008
Faithful to the Truth even unto Martyrdom
How women kept the Faith alive in post-Reformation England
J J Scarisbrick
This talk was give at the Mulieris Dignitatem Conference.
I am going to talk about a particular period in English Catholic history. Why is it relevant to this Conference? Because it is a rare, perhaps unique, story of Catholic lay women exercising their authentic autonomy and dignity, accepting the equality and complementarity of male and female and the complementarity of lay person and cleric. It is a unique story of lay women―as wives, mothers, catechists, evangelists, friends of the poor and protectors of priests―helping to create a Catholic counter-culture over and against a bitterly anti-Catholic prevailing culture. It is a unique display of the genius of women in their lay role.
It therefore has especial relevance to us today. It should inspire in the future.
In 1559 England became officially a Protestant country. The Mass was abolished, Catholic bishops removed and replaced by Protestant ones and an essentially Calvinist religious settlement imposed on the country. The old religion was outlawed and thereafter subject to erratic, inefficient but often savage persecution―indeed, increasingly savage persecution. Catholic laypeople faced exclusion from public life and eventually crippling fines for non-attendance at Protestant services. It was soon a capital offence to harbour a priest or to be reconciled to the Church or to practice the faith, let alone to be a priest.
English Catholicism would have died a slow, quiet death of spiritual malnutrition (which is what Queen Elizabeth in particular intended) but for the following: the survival of a large number of dispossessed priests who continued to serve an increasingly underground Church; the arrival from the 1570s onwards of a growing number of many zealous priests who had been ordained in English seminaries set up on the Continent― secular priests and then religious (notably Jesuits); the constancy of so many English laypeople, male and female, especially the latter. Again and again we encounter this fact: the English lay Catholic recusant community during what English Catholics know as Penal times, everywhere boasted more women than men. I make no attempt here to explain this fact. I merely report it. Let me give some quick evidence for it. In 1606 there was a sudden anti-Catholic purge which resulted in some 820 Catholics being newly indicted, that is, brought before the chief court of the land and charged with recusancy. Of these 820 new offenders, 532 (65 per cent) were women: 284 wives, 37 widows and 211 spinsters. In the county in which I live (Warwickshire―then a notoriously ‘papistical’ part of the land) there were 235 new victims, 172 of them (nearly 70 per cent) women. In Yorkshire, the proportion was even higher: 83 out of 109 (i.e. nearly 80 per cent).
It is important to understand what all this meant in human terms.
All those women faced heavy fines and even prison. Many of those listed were probably servants in those Catholic country houses which played so important a part in sustaining the underground Church. They would have been hand-picked by their mistresses precisely because they would not inform the authorities of the comings and goings to the house of missionary priests, the secret Masses, baptisms and marriages and so on. But married recusant women were in a very daunting situation. If their husbands were still loyal Catholics, their joint recusancy could put everything at risk. If the husbands were Protestants or conforming (as many no doubt were) by not conforming themselves the wives were not only defying their spouses (and this in a society, as we are often told, which was strongly patriarchal) but could ruin them. A Catholic wife could cost a man his job (or public office) and he was liable for the fines for her non-attendance at the parish church. He could be forced to enter into bonds for her good behaviour and even face prison if she defaulted. In short, to be a recusant woman, especially a recusant wife of a non-Catholic could require enormous courage.
It could eventually cost lives. Of the 190-odd English Catholics who suffered martyrdom during the fiercest persecution under Elizabeth I, there are three famous women. Their stories vividly illustrate some of the ways in which the old Faith was sustained by female effort. Margaret Clitherow, wife of a butcher in York, had herself been reconciled to the Church at the age of 18 and was married to a loving, tolerant non-Catholic. Her home became a radiant centre of Catholic activism: seminary priests and Jesuits secretly sheltered there, her children given a wonderful Catholic formation (two of the boys were later ordained). Eventually betrayed, she refused to plead to the charge of harbouring priests for fear of incriminating others and suffered the horrendous punishment for that refusal―being crushed to death by heavy stones laid on her prostrate body.
Then there was St Margaret Ward, a zealous unmarried woman who succoured Catholics in London prisons and helped a priest to escape by boat from one of them. Alas, she was identified by the gaoler, then brutally flogged in an attempt to get her to betray fellow-Catholics and eventually, in August 1588, hanged for high treason at Tyburn (at Marble Arch, London).
In February 1601 St Anne Line, a widow, suffered the same fate at the same place. For years she had kept house for Jesuit priests working in London or coming there for retreats, using her skill with the needle to produce vestments in her spare time, sheltering young women on their way to convents in Flanders, instructing children in the Faith in a neighbouring house. Her faith had cost her her inheritance when her husband died and she suffered poor health. Eventually she was betrayed by a Judas in the Government’s pay, arrested and condemned to death. She was so ill that she had to be taken to the scaffold in a basket.
These three, Margaret Clitherow, Margaret Ward and Anne Line are now canonised saints. There was almost a fourth. Mrs Dorothy Wiseman of Braddocks in north Essex was a key figure in a network of Catholic houses which sheltered missionary priests, secular and Jesuit, when she was eventually arrested and condemned to death even as Elizabeth I lay dying. Her successor, James I, anxious to win Catholic support, pardoned her and she was spared martyrdom.
Yes, it could be argued that these three (almost four) female martyrdoms out of the nearly 200 male ones does little to support my case. But I am going to argue now (and this is perhaps the most important thing I have to say) that this is not fair.
In the first place, consider women like Lady Cowdray in Sussex (south England) or Dorothy Lawson in the North, who more or less openly defied the law and provided havens for priests, old and new, distributed rosaries and Catholic prayerbooks, catechised the young, and visited the sick.
Consider those brave women who presided over the dozens of major Catholic gentry homes from which seminary priest and Jesuits, disguised as schoolmasters or whatever, and protected by priest-holes and elaborate escape routes could minister to the surrounding areas. These women were often running not only complicated households but were largely responsible for ensuring that their resident or visiting priests could safely say Mass and administer the sacraments. They also catechised their children, ensured that staff―even tenants―were safe, and would have to face sheriffs and posses when they arrived to carry out a sudden search of their homes armed with sniffer-dogs and crow-bars. Then consider all the women who went to prison because they had refused to attend their non-Catholic churches and had incurred huge unpaid fines as a result. There were scores of them. I cannot say exactly how many. In 1583 someone complained that there was no room in prisons for thieves and the like because they were full of Papists (Catholics). Many of these prisoners, of course, would have been men. But there were certainly a lot of women. In 1573, for instance, thirty Catholic ladies (all of what we would today call upper-class) were arrested in York and imprisoned in one fell swoop. Now, we must be careful. Most prisons then were privately owned and you paid for what you got. Some were almost incredibly lax. You came and went (and ate) as you could afford. Others were abominable, deadly cess-pits, where a notorious disease called gaol-fever (dysentery?) reigned.
Scores of Catholic women went into such prisons, some in and out several times, because they had refused to conform. For some, such imprisonment was not very onerous. For others it was lethal. They died there. I cannot give you exact figures. I can only make responsible guesses. I estimate that scores of Catholic women (maybe as many as 200) were imprisoned for the Faith between 1559 and 1603 by a regime which, on the whole, was not bloodthirsty and did not want to make martyrs―not least because it knew that, in those famous words, “blood of martyrs is seed of the Church”. Of them, perhaps a third or maybe a quarter died in prison or as an immediate result of imprisonment.
Is that a lot or a little? I do not know.
All I do know is that it would greatly increase the list of English Martyrs if these Catholic heroines could meet the stringent requirements of Rome’s Congregation for Saints. Unfortunately, so little is known about them that they will never qualify for beatification, let alone anything higher.
I end with two remarks. First when a hatmaker’s Catholic wife in prison in York was asked why she would not attend Protestant services she replied ‘because there is neither priest, altar or sacrifice there.’ I cannot think of a more succinct and accurate statement. Any professional theologian would have been proud of it.
Finally, consider the achievement of one of the many Catholic families which owed so much to the women in charge of their households, namely the Bedingfields, a Suffolk dynasty. Eleven daughters of Frances Bedingfield (died in 1644) became nuns. By the time of the French Revolution 29 Bedingfield girls had done so―and many of their brothers had become priests. Such was the Catholic culture which a great recusant family could produce, thanks above all to the women who inspired it.
Report on Rome Conference Mulieris Dignitatum 20 Years on
WOMAN AND MAN, THE HUMANUM IN ITS ENTIRETY
Introduction
Twenty years after the publication of Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter, Mulieris Dignitatem a conference was held in Rome set up by the Pontifical Council for the Laity, on the 7 – 9 February 2008 under this
title. Mulieris Dignitatem is a seminal document, the first Papal letter devoted to a consideration of the role of woman in God’s plan and a wonderfully enriching consideration of Christian anthropology.
Over the three days of the Conference, these themes were explored by a wide variety of women speakers and attended by representatives of 49 bishops’ conferences, and 17 women’s organisations of which The Association of Catholic Women of England and Wales, whom I represented, was one.
Cardinal Stanslaw Rylko, President of the Council for the Laity, spoke of the conference as a ‘positive event’ in recognition of woman’s specific value in face of a ‘gender revolution’, which on the one hand presented women’s identity as a struggle for power against men, ‘a version of the class struggle’, commented the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and on the other deconstructed the concepts of the different sexes to the point where one’s sex becomes a matter of choice for the individual. God created men and women equal in his sight and complementary, not identical, to each other.
It is to women, that God has entrusted the human person. Safe-guarding the human person is important for the culture of societies. It is pre-eminent in a time where, as one of the speakers said, the most dangerous place for a human being to be is the womb.
Christ’s Openness to the Women He Encountered
As Pope John Paul II wrote, ‘We must open the doors to Christ’. In Mulieris Dignitatem, he reflects on the dignity of men and women, based on Christ Our Redeemer. In this conference, we considered Christ’s evident love of women that we see in the Scriptures. It was to the five-times married woman, living with a lover, and a Samaritan at that, that he first revealed that he was the Christ. We know how he loved Martha and Mary and, indeed, it was not Peter, but Martha who was the first to say ‘You are the Christ’. He allowed the women who ‘went round with him’ and supported him with their money, to set aside their domestic and family duties for that time, in order to perform this specific work.
In the Beginning
The Old Testament tells us that God was not in the wind. It is in men and women that we find him. God, however, is not a monolith. The Three Persons of the Trinity are also a unity. They are different but equal, loving and intimate. Mulieris Dignitatem goes back to the beginning of creation, to Genesis, and discovers for us the solitude of Adam in the garden with the animals and his ecstatic cry when Eve is created ‘This, at last is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh’. They delight in each other, in a ‘unity of the two’, there is no holding back in their happiness. They learn, later, that sin negates that happiness and they cover themselves up, physically and emotionally. The male’s tendency to dominate derives from the broken equilibrium of life in the garden. Men and women in every age have to seek to restore the openness between them. John Paul II, incidentally, speaks of the books of Genesis as a symbolic narrative.
The Need for an Adequate Anthropology
The two, in unity, become three and the family is born. Blanca Castilla de Cortazar, quoted Vatican II that ‘man is the only being in the Universe whom God loves for himself.’ She continued, ‘[Christ] loves me and gave himself for me. Therefore I have value.’ She said that we must overcome sociology to produce an adequate anthropology, an understanding of man, as created by God. Bodies are the expression of the family – changed bodies mean changed people. In sex, men generate life outside their bodies; women generate life within their bodies. In sex the man gives himself and remains in the woman. She keeps his gift within her. Men and women have different gifts to give.
A questioner asked Castilla de Cortazar, why women are not ordained to the priesthood. She replied that it was because women already mediated God to mankind in their actual or (I would add) potential motherhood.
Another speaker considered the ways in which Christianity has promoted women. In the ancient world, they were without rights. In some Eastern religions that believe in re-incarnation, a woman has first to be re-incarnated as a man, before she can exit from life. Whereas the Greek gods raped or took women while they were unconscious when they wanted offspring, God the Father, respecting Mary’s dignity, sent the angel Gabriel to tell her of the future Incarnation of his Son, in order to give her the freedom to assent or dissent. If God had spoken himself, she would have had to obey.
When Christ taught that a man who leaves his wife and marries another commits adultery, marriage gave women equal status, which they had not had before, even in Judaism. As Christianity grew, women received education as religious in convents, which also enabled them to study and deepen their vocation. From this, came the understanding of spiritual motherhood, which indeed can include unmarried women and widows in the world. Women doctors of the Church , St. Teresa of Avila and St. Thérèse of Lisieux are read and loved more than many male doctors of the Church! They speak to people from the heart, with emotion.
Faithful Women under Persecution in England
The conference was given in Italian, Spanish, French and English, with instantaneous translations. One of the few English speakers and one of only two men (apart from the Cardinals) was Professor Jack Scarisbrick, historian and founder of LIFE, who spoke about the contribution of women to the defence of the Catholic faith during the Elizabethan persecution. Not only were there heroic women martyrs, now St. Margaet Clitherow,
St. Margaret Ward and St. Anne Line, but there were many women, who hid priests in their houses, so that the Mass could be celebrated, and supported them financially, but as they refused to attend Protestant services, which was against the law, they suffered heavy fines for non-attendance and were sometimes imprisoned . Professor Scarisbrick estimates that between 70% and 80% of the people in gaol for non-attendance at Protestant services were women. Some prisons were lax, others severe and riddled with ‘gaol fever’, possibly dysentery, and many prisoners died. Other women taught children clandestinely and in the larger houses, which tended to be centres of Catholicism, looked after their servants and their households and prayed in secret.
Women in France after the Revolution
Sr. Grazia Leparco, a Salesian sister, who herself helped to hide Jews during the Second World War, spoke of the new religious orders that were founded in France after the Revolution. At a time when many men gave up the faith, its survival depended on women. The new orders concentrated on working with the poor and deprived. The sisters lived simply and many women joined them. They took Our Lady as the model of the religious life and turned outwards from their convents, focusing less on spiritual perfection and more on helping those in need. Sr. Grazia described female religious life as caring for the human person throughout the world.
Current Threats to Women
Among the many excellent lectures, there was one by Helen Alvare, the representative of the US Bishops’ conference, who spoke of consumerism and the objectification of women, which fosters individualism and minimises the value of family and motherhood. She stressed the need to live above contemporary culture.
Gender ideology, a world culture spread via neo-colonialism from the west to even small villages in Africa was a deep concern of all at the conference. Margherite Peeters from Holland, spoke incisively on this
topic. She noted the growing gap between culture and the Church. Many Christians have lost awareness of the mystery of God, and reduced it to a humanist presentation.
The devaluation of motherhood, where individual autonomy leads to a rejection of openness to life, was a topic that was of great importance to all of us. Maria Elena Lugo’s examination of this subject showed the way in which the organic perspective of unity existing within the person, equally in virginity and in the love between people, can be lost. Pregnancy is underestimated as a phase of maternity. Pregnancy can never be a punishment, because of the baby’s own dignity. The contraceptive model perverts sex from its actual objective. The embryo is seen as human but not ontological, not in relation with God. The conception of a child includes a gift, a gift to the parents from God himself, as he allows them to collaborate with him in the creation of their child. It is a religious collaboration with God.
In our time, ‘the genius of women’ in Pope John Paul II’s phrase is much needed. Women often work quietly, seeing the logic of things with the ‘eyes of the heart’ working to build a society of love.
Group Discussions and Praying Together
In summing up, every continent was seen to suffer from the same problems, though in widely different social contexts. Everyone reported on the importance of women in transmitting the faith and upholding standards of love, through prayer and the sacraments. There are things to unlearn – motherhood and bringing up children are natural acts, where we can depend on God’s grace. In the rich world, they are sometimes seen as strange and almost impossible tasks. The beauty of Catholic teaching was clear to us all and we had, as the delegate from Jerusalem said ‘spent a rich time together.’
The three days of the Conference were bounded by prayer, Morning
Prayer and, of course, Holy Mass. Praying together was deeply moving, we all shared so much in our faith and became a loving sisterhood.
Audience with the Holy Father
We also had the joy of a private audience with our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. He spoke of the ‘macho mentality that ignores the novelty of Christianity, which recognises and proclaims the equal dignity and responsibility of women with respect to men. There are certain places and cultures where women are discriminated against and undervalued just for the fact that they are women. …God entrusts to women and to men… a specific vocation in the mission of the Church and in the world. I think here of the family, community of love, open to life, fundamental cell of society.’ He also strongly stressed the obligation of governments to ensure that all children have a father and a mother, and that it is the state’s role to ‘sustain with adequate social policies’ all that is necessary for the stability of marriages, the dignity of husband and wife and their right to educate their children.
We left the Holy Father and the Conference greatly encouraged, and determined to try again to live our Catholic womanhood, seeking God’s grace.
Review No 76 March 2008
Homily on the Cross of Christ as revealed by the Holy Shroud - Fr Wilbur Boswell
The Gospel according to Our Lord Jesus Christ which is His Holy Shroud is a visual aid of another of His vital doctrines: the Cross of Christ.
Gazing at the Shroud we are struck by the sight that the whole image of Christ is covered from top to bottom by no fewer than 600 wounds, 120
of them caused by the flagrum - the Roman scourge, which itself is the torturer’s weaponry. The back and front of the Shroud are one mass of scourge wounds. They are so clear we can not only tell the ones that have been delivered from the right and from the left, but we can also tell they have been delivered in a fan-shaped fashion from the shoulder to the calves of the legs. They reach a climax on the vastly extended chest and remind us very clearly of the words of Isaiah: “He was a leper and no
man, an outcast cursed by God, who bore the sins of the world.”
The Shroud recreates for us the enormity of sin: that it is an offence not against our neighbour but an offence against God; only a person of equal rank can atone for sin. It brought the Son of God down from heaven. The image of Christ is as taut as whipcord; every muscle in the body is clearly visible. It is the appearance of rigor mortis.
Doctors tell us that when a man is crucified the lacerations of the nerve ends around the nails are continually aggravated by the movements of the body gasping for breath. This so irritates the muscles, that they
result in continuous compulsive spasms that rise to a peak while the victim is still fully conscious and end in a crescendo of demented pain. The complete exhaustion of the body, the extreme high temperature and the cramping of every muscle ends in the sudden expulsion of all air, death by suffocation and the immediate onset of rigor mortis.
Cicero, who lived about the time of Christ, called it, “The most cruel and horrible of deaths”. St Augustine tells us: “Nothing is worse than this death”. It is the visual aid of Christ carrying His Cross - His way of bringing home to us that it is only by embracing the Cross that we shall ever triumph over suffering and death. We need to sing again the St Patrick’s Day hymn: “His banner the Cross which we glory to bear. ”
There are two aspects of the Cross - the passive and the positive. The passive is expressed by the words of Christ: “Come to Me all you who labour and are overburdened and I will give you rest.” Pain and suffering need to be borne with the Spirit of God that brings fortitude and cheerfulness to all who pray for it. “The pathway of sorrow and that path alone, leads to the land where sorrow is unknown”. The positive side is expressed by the words: “If you seek to be a follower of Mine you must deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me.” It points very clearly to our struggles to grow in virtue, to cultivate good habits, to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect; our response to the challenge of living the high ideals of Christianity. St Francis de Sales tells us: “About the only good thing we can do is suffer. An ounce of patience is worth a ton of action.” In nearly all our actions there is an element of self-love. And no-one can enter heaven till purified of selflove. Through the Cross alone are we sure of achieving this.
The Committee of ACW were invited to attend the Union of Catholic Mothers Annual Mass at Westminster Cathedral on 15 March 2008 with Bishop George Stack as Chief Celebrant. Mrs Josephine Robinson, our Chairman, along with another committee member attended and on arrival they were warmly greeted by UCM’s Diocesan President, Norrie Fox, and Diocesan Secretary, Brigid Hegarty. The procession to the High Altar was led by members of the various branches of the Diocese, each proudly carrying their own colourful banner, which was then placed at the bottom of the High Altar and remained there during the Mass.
The Mass was extremely joyful commemorating the Feast of St Joseph with the Kyrie and Agnus Dei sung in Latin and a rousing Gloria in English. At the end of the Mass Bishop George Stack presented certificates to individual members in appreciation of their years of commitment and service to the UCM. Four members received certificates for 50 years service and seven received certificates for 40 years service. We were all cordially invited to take refreshments afterwards in a nearby hall. The colourful banners were again taken up by individual members and all processed out of the cathedral singing a hymn to St Joseph. It was a truly joyous occasion.
Chrism Masses - thank you to our Priests
Members greeted priests as they arrived for the Chrism masses at the following locations:- Tuesday 18th March - Westminster at 10.30 ; Wednesday 19th March - Arundel at 10.30 ; Thursday 20th March - Southwark at 10.30.
Review No 75 December 2007
One Year on from the Bishops’ Conference on marriage and family spirituality - Catriona and Steve Herbert
A year ago we attended the Bishop's Conference international symposiumentitled Releasing Formidable Energy, to launch Home is a Holy Place and celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Papal Encyclical on marriage, Familiaris Consortio. To achieve:
1. ‘a wider understanding of home centred spirituality by inspiring,informing and inviting the collaboration of those in positions of leadership within the Church’
2. The development of ‘practical strategies by which the parish churchcan both nourish and harness the holiness of the home’.
We have never heard the exhortations on marriage given in Familiaris Consortio promoted within any parish church. And having experiencedthe difficulty of finding information on natural methods of fertility management we felt that any practical strategy should make the provisio of such information a priority (at the time we were expecting our seventh child).
The symposium was organised by the Marriage and Family Life Project Office run by Elizabeth Davies under the direction of Bishop Hine. The Project Office had orchestrated Listening 2004 in which one million questionnaires had been issued in an attempt to gauge the pastoral needs of Catholics. Only 15,000 were returned (1.5%). None of our friends throughout the country knew of Listening 2004 let alone received a questionnaire. So who did the 15,000 represent?
A debate on the validity of Listening 2004 to represent Catholic families appeared in the Tablet, after which Bishop Hine published a letter inviting married couples to join the theologians and pastoral leaders at the symposium to help determine the pastoral strategy of the Bishop’s Conference toward marriage.
Families were invited as an afterthought. The main intention was to accommodate delegates from the following organisations:
Anglican Mothers Union.
Association of Interchurch Families
Association of Separated & Divorced Catholics
Catholic Children’s Society
Catholic Education Service
Catholics for a Changing Church
Marriage Care
Rainbows (peer support group)
Retrouvaille (marriage counselling service)
The ecumenical associations and non-Catholic Christians voiced no concern over the condemnation made by Familiaris Consortio of artificial contraception. They don't need to. Over 500 Anglican clergy have joined the Catholic Church and many are parish priests. We know of two who have been married for over twenty years and each priest has two childre Neither priest has been known to support the teaching of the Church on contraception and the example they give of married life is quite different from the vocation which Familiaris Consortio urges married couples to live.
Other associations such as Catholics for a Changing Church openly despise Familiaris Consortio and campaign loudly in favour of artificial contraception and married priests.
The various children’s societies represented the needs of vulnerable children who are relatively rare in Catholic families. However, the Bishop’s Conference has pledged to support the campaign to outlaw smacking. This will result in the criminalisation of a great many good parents who realise that the physical relationship they have with their children plays as vital a part in discouraging bad behaviour as it does in rewarding good
behaviour.
We looked around at the delegates and couldn't’ see any couples actually holding hands; we held the only child present. The representative of the Anglican Mother’s Union, Fleur Dorrell, drew attention to this and asked the symposium why other married Catholic couples had not been invited.
The three speakers from the USA placed strong emphasis on inclusion of all people regardless of whether they lived by the teaching of the Church. This message was put across in an extremely emotive way by author Kathy Chesto and formulated academically by Dr Knieps-Port le Roi of the University of Leuven, Belgium who said that the theology of marriage promoted by Pope John Paul II was completely new and had no precedent in Catholic tradition. He called for a new theology of marriage in which we acknowledge:
a covenant spirituality for spouses and families, rooted in the notion that first of all we are brothers and sisters of Christ and thus brother and sister to each other, before we are husband and wife or son and daughter of our father and mother.
According to the speakers a family was not confined to husband, wife and children. It was important to be inclusive of all variations.
However, this concept of inclusivity is in contrast to Familiaris Consortio which says ‘the fundamental task of the family is to serve life, to actualize in history the original blessing of the creator—that of transmitting by procreation the divine image from person to person’.
Putting our heads over the parapet we asked why the teaching of the Church on birth control was not being promoted at parish level. The answer from Elizabeth Davies was that this was an irrelevant question. This disregard of the spiritual consequences of contraceptive behaviour was reiterated by others. In Letters subsequently published in the Tablet, the Chief Executive of Marriage Care, Terry Prendergast, claimed that contraception had no bearing on the breakup of marriage. However Pope John Paul II encouraged the use of fertility awareness as a means of developing a holy life.
25 years ago Familiaris Consortio stated ‘The necessary conditions (for marriage) also include knowledge of the bodily aspect and the body’s rhythms of fertility. Accordingly, every effort must be made to render such knowledge accessible to all married people and also to young adults before marriage, through clear, timely and serious instruction and education given by married couples, doctors, and experts’.
None of this was presented at the symposium and Familiaris Consortio has not once been quoted in any of the e-mails sent to delegates in follow up correspondence. So where are the symposium's practical strategies through which Home can be made a Holy Place? Why is Familiaris Consortio not the basis of ministry to families? Has it been superseded by political concerns?
A year after the Nolan report on Child Abuse every parish in the country had child protection measures to ensure that the policy was implemented, protecting the reputation of the Bishops. Familiaris Consortio was published in 1981 for the spiritual benefit of families, the Church and society: we are no longer holding our breath waiting for the Bishops to implement it in our parish churches and schools.
ADVENT
The words of a priest Fr Alfons Wachsmann written on December 23rd 1943 can perhaps help us get things into perspective. He was writing to his sister from his prison cell. He had been arrested on June 23rd 1943 on a charge of undermining the morale of the armed forces.
Berlin-Tegel, December 23rd 1943
... For me the frame of the festival is clearly defined - the walls of my prison cell. Never have I knelt at the manger in such poverty as I do this year; everything has been taken away - my home, my honour, my life. So I want to kneel at the manger of Him who had no place on earth to lay his head, who as a friend of His people was condemned to death. who poured out his blood like a libation, in sacrifice for the salvation of His people and of the entire world.
As gifts I bear to the manger hunger and cold, loneliness and forlornness Shining chains are my only ornament. So I want to give my life, previously in the service of the King of Christmas, to him who saved me with his precious blood. With copious tears of penitence I want to wash away everything that has turned to guilt and remorse in me. It is in this spirit that I am going to make my pilgrimage to the manger.
I hope through grace to celebrate Christmas deep within my heart and mind as I never have before in my life. No gift, no festive meal will distract me, no candle will gleam, no fir tree will emit its fragrance; not even a holy Mass is granted me. But the Infant Jesus in the Eucharist will, as a glorious reality of Christmas, irradiate me with internal light and fill me with the warmth of compassionate love. I shall recite the breviary so slowly, so inwardly, that I shall taste the sweetness of every word; quietly I shall chant the Primo tempore. I shall say many prayers of the rosary and read in the Holy Scriptures. In this way, I hope, the peace of Christ will be my portion and his grace will be my glory. I am without any bitterness; I bear everything with the patience that only Christ gives. I hope that my prayer and the prayers of so many others will be heard. I hope that I may at some time intone the Gloria at the altar once more. I wish you the grace of Christ, so that you may with strength and love drink with me the myrrh that God’s love offers us this year.. Be assured that I am always with you and that I implore God hour by hour to reward you bounteously for everything that you have done and borne for me in loyalty and love. You are the only human being who never for one second has failed me. And so, rich blessings on your heart. The thorny crown of sorrows entwines our hearts inextricably.
Fr Wachsmann was executed on February 21, 1944, in Brandenburg-Görden
Taken from “Dying we Live” published by The Harvill Press Ltd, 1956.
Review No 74 September 2007
Pope speaks on Traditional Latin Mass
After months of confusion caused by the sometimes wild speculations of commentators in the media, the Holy Father issued on 7 July 2007 his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum regarding the use of the classical Roman rite, as a Motu Proprio, a letter written on his own
initiative, together with a Letter to the Bishops. He was motivated to take this step by his earnest desire to avoid entrenched opinions causing divisions in the Church.
In his letter to the Bishops, the Holy Father says "Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus it has become necessary for clearer juridical regulations."
He decrees that the older form of Mass in universal use before the liturgical changes that followed Vatican II was never abrogated. There are thus two approved forms of the Roman Missal identified as two expressions of the lex orandi (law of prayer) of the Roman Catholic
Church. The Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI as amended by Pope John Paul II is the `ordinary' expression and the Roman Missal promulgated by St Pius V and reissued by Bl John XXIII is to be considered as an `extraordinary' expression of that same lex orandi and "must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage". He hopes that these "two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching".
Any priest of the Latin rite may celebrate according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal privately and with the possibility of faithful being present, for which permission from the priest's bishop is no longer required. In the case of public celebration according to the
1962 Missal, permission is required from the authority under whom the priest operates. In the case of a diocesan parish, that authority would be the parish priest, in the case of a religious community, the local superior, in the case of an oratory, the rector. People in authority are exhorted to accede willingly to the requests of those desiring to use the 1962 rite.
Celebrations according to the old rite may take place on weekdays while on Sundays and feast days there may be one such celebration. as well as in particular circumstances such as funerals and pilgrimages etc. Permission may also be granted for the administration of the sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance and the anointing of the sick. Confirmation may also be celebrated using the 1962 Missal.
If the requests of a group of lay faithful for masses following the extraordinary rite, are not granted, they should inform the diocesan bishop. If it cannot be arranged for such celebrations to take place, they should refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia
Dei.
In his letter to the Bishops the Holy Father says "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and
it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered
harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place." The Holy Father orders that these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered "established and decreed", and be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever
there may be to the contrary.
Members have contacted us about Summorum Pontificum. The following is typical of their reaction: "Pope Benedict has spoken clearly, courageously and with the full force of his God-given papal authority (the use of "We" rather than "I" emphasising the solemnity of the utterance).The clarity of his expression couched in careful and diplomatic language
demonstrates his compassion for the flock entrusted to his care. Thus the introductory resume of the growth and development of both forms of the celebration of the eucharistic Sacrifice serve to reassure both those who follow the 1962 Roman Missal and those who follow the
Missal of Pope Paul VI 1970 that parochial unity is thus assured.
The ultimate aim of offering a worthy ritual to the praise and glory of God and "to the benefit of all His Holy Church" is thereby both guaranteed and maintained. Thanks are due to Pope Benedict for the promulgation of this long-awaited "Motu Proprio" from Feedback Section of ACW Review No 74.
Mary's Virginity and its Significance for our Times
Some time ago a firm producing detergents advertised a product with the slogan: "The strength of purity permeates everything." Listening to that advertisement, a Christian would not just think of clean clothes, but he might be reminded of a deeper meaning of purity. In a world often soiled with lies, sullied by greed, violence and licentiousness, a person of pure heart, honesty and unassuming character is a powerful force indeed. Our world is in need of purity. We Christians have the mission to open up our minds to truth and to be honest in everything, letting our passions be ruled by the Spirit of truth and love. There, the Virgin Mary is our model.
In the charism of the Spiritual Family The Work, virginity is of great importance—in the comprehensive sense, virginity of faith, of mind, of heart, and of body. Some members of the Body of Christ are chosen by the Lord to practice chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. God's grace gives them the strength to renounce marriage and to give the full power of their love to Christ while devoting themselves to the Kingdom of Heaven in the world. All Christians, however, are called to live virginity of faith, of heart and of mind, and are to live the virtue of chastity in accordance with their own state of life. What does that mean? Does such a vocation have meaning in our world today? Looking to Mary, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin, we hope to answer these questions.
Virginity of Faith
Saint Luke, the Evangelist, tells us of a woman, who was fascinated by Jesus Christ. Struck by what he said and moved by the miracles he worked, she spontaneously thought of his mother, exclaiming: "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!" (Lk 11:27). She admired his mother for having given birth to such a son, for having nurtured him and for having brought him up. The Lord, however, pointed out to her the true greatness of Mary, when he answered, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it" (Lk 11: 28). It was certainly an honour for Mary, that the Son of God took flesh in her womb. Yet her true greatness lay in that she opened her heart to the Word of God. Mary is the first one to whom that beatitude applies. She, more than any other human being, listened to God, bringing His word to fruition in her life. Therefore Saint Augustine says of her: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ." (De virg. 3). Mary's faith was "unadulterated by any doubt" (LG 63). In her heart there were no mental reservation, no fear, and no inner proviso towards God.
All of us should desire to be open to God like Mary. To have virginity of faith means to accept the message of the Gospel unconditionally as it is proclaimed by the Church and ought to be practised in our lives. There may be moments in our lives, in which we might want to say: "I do not understand that. The Church just demands too much. I think differently in that matter." But if in those moments we remain open hearted, in conscience, to the truth, we will come closer to God and find peace in our hearts. Truth makes us free and is the warrant of true happiness. Many today seem to think that you can be a good Catholic, even if you do not accept certain doctrines of faith and of moral law. They claim that their own understanding and their own conscience is the last resort in making moral decisions. Virginal faith, however, listens to God. It is a faith that has become loving trust in God, knowing that He cannot deceive us.
There will always be truths of faith, which cannot be reconciled with the spirit of the age. Many believers in today's pluralistic society, for instance, have difficulties in acknowledging that Christ Jesus is uniquely different from the founders of other religions, and accepting that our faith is not just one of the many ways to God, but the only true way. Others, for example, take offence at the teaching of the Church, that artificial insemination and fertilization outside the womb of the mother are to be considered morally unacceptable, as these are not in agreement with the order of love and of procreation willed by God and therefore not permissible. To love the Lord implies to be ready to accept in gratitude the teaching of the Church in its undiluted entirety. Virginal faith has the strength to say with St Paul: "For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth" (2 Cor 13:8).
Virginity of the Mind
The dialogue between the archangel Gabriel and the virgin from Nazareth gives us a glimpse of Mary’s thinking. We recognize how in her, reason and faith worked together. When God's messenger announced that she should give birth to a son whom she was to name Jesus (see Lk 1:30-33) she asked: "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" (Lk 1:34).(Jerusalem. New Revised Standard Edition) Her question shows first of all that Mary did not merely accept passively the message of the angel. Faith does not replace human thinking, but challenges it, widening its scope, and opening it to the mind and plans of God. Believing Christians use their reason to serve in the work of salvation. When Mary heard the words of the angel, she was confronted with the seemingly contradictory difficulty of a twofold vocation. She felt the inner call to a virginal life, yet the angel informed her that she would give birth to a son. Her pure and believing mind is manifested by her reaction. She did not reject the announcement of the archangel, she did not say, this is impossible, she only asked:
"How shall this be, since I have no husband?" (RSV Catholic Edition) This how, gives us a glimpse of her virginal thinking. She did not react with the no of disbelief, but in her believing request: how she opened up to the work of God in her. The angel met her difficulty by pointing out that, beyond any human expectation, Elisabeth had in her old age conceived a child. This reminder of the fact that God can do what seems humanly impossible was enough for the humble handmaid in Nazareth. She offered herself unreservedly to God and to His plan for mankind.
Mary's thinking was simple and deep. Her mind was neither naive nor complicated. She was not caught up in thinking about herself, but her self was fully open towards God's plan with her. Mother Julia writes about her: "Mary is completely free from that conceitedness, which manifests itself in constant self-analysis and tends to produce a split personality and mental confusion. There is nothing in her, which does not bring forth life, nothing that has not come to maturity; on the contrary: the whole of her wonderful and immensely great vocation to be the Mother of God, as well as all her co-operation as bride and mother in God's plan of Redemption, is based on the inviolate and virginal fidelity of her pure and immaculate heart, on her lifelong attitude of being in all simplicity a child of God."
From Mary we can learn to unmask the "father of lies" (Jn 8:44). She helps us to avoid lame excuses, pretensions or half-truths, not to let pride or jealousy rule us and not to fall into a lack of trust in God. To have a virginal mind implies that we watch what we think, not permitting our thoughts to run wild. St Paul invites us to "destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:4-5). There are true and good thoughts opening up new worlds for us and keeping us orientated towards God, our highest good. But there are also dangerous thoughts, which undermine our faith and loyalty to the Church, or endanger our love for our spouse or for the vocation to priesthood or to consecrated life. As St Paul feared that the thoughts of the Christians in Corinth "will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ"
(2 Cor 11:3).
Virginity of mind requires one humbly to fix one's mind continually upon God and His truth. Persons of such a mind are open to every inspiration of truth touching them. They are honest and pure in their intentions, in their words and in their deeds. They listen to the voice of their conscience and use their intellect, will and feeling in the service of the kingdom of God. If we are such persons, we receive God's wisdom and may count on His help and His blessing.
Virginity of the Heart
Ever since the first sin of Eve and Adam, the heart of man has been divided. Sin disrupts our inner harmony, our being one with God, with ourselves, and with others. With Mary it was different, she was free from original sin and from any personal sin. Her whole life belonged to God. When the Lord called her, she offered herself to Him unconditionally. At no moment in her life would she have revised her assent or not have lived it to the full. She helps us to attain to a pure and full self-surrender to God.
Jesus tells us in the Gospel: "No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth" (Lk 16:13). Thus the Lord warns us against any kind of idol-worship, of compromise and of dishonesty. The world needs men and women, who let the light of the Gospel illuminate and govern their lives, and not half-hearted Christians. The world today needs true and trustworthy witnesses. We are dishonest, if we expect others to live a virtuous life but do not strive for virtue ourselves; if we criticise the faults of others but do not work continuously at our own character; if we accuse others of wrongdoing but find excuses for our own sins. If parents pray that their children will be graced with a strong faith, they must not put obstacles in their paths, should God call them to the priesthood or religious life.
To guard the virginity of our hearts, we have to struggle against the desires of the flesh and senses. Here clear eyes and a healthy discipline of our emotions, feelings and imaginations help us, as does our rejecting of any pleasure in unclean thoughts, which would lead us astray from God's commandments (cf. CCC 2520). Also important is a healthy modesty which protects the intimate centre of the person and her/his mystery. It encourages "patience and moderation in loving relationships", and invites the choice of decent clothing and of appropriate discretion and reserve (cf. CCC 2521/2). Mother Julia writes in a prayer to Mary: "You have accomplished everything God expected of you." This should be our desire: to accomplish what God expects of us-with joy and the full self-giving of a virginal heart.
Virginity of the Body
From the beginning the Church confessed that Mary conceived in her womb the Son of God by the working of the Holy Spirit, and without the involvement of any man. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church confirms "Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation" (CCC 503) and "Jesus is the new Adam, who inaugurates the new creation"
(CCC 504). The Son of the Virgin Mary comes from God and all, who want to become his brothers and sisters, have to be born anew, from above. "Participation in the divine life arises ‘not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God' (Jn 1:13)"
(CCC 505).
In our society we are widely confronted today with a strong and even unhealthy over-stress on sexuality. The alleged hostility of earlier times against the body is to be overcome and the ecstasy of love, especially in its sexual dimension, is to be fully tested and consumed. But in this way the human body is not respected in its God-willed dignity. Pope Benedict XVI writes in his encyclical letter Deus Caritas est: "the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure `sex' has become a commodity, a mere `thing' to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great `yes' to the body" (5). The human person who is body and soul can only then attain true happiness and genuine love, if he is ready to go on "a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing" (5). The virtue leading us along this path is chastity. It helps us so that we do not let sexual passions rule us, but integrate sexuality into our lives in a mature way, as a precious gift of the Creator which belongs to our being man or being woman. What does this mean in practical life?
Every baptised person is called to chastity. For a married couple this implies that they remain united with one another in genuine love and keep faithful to one another, until death separates them. They are called to give themselves to one another "in holiness and honour, not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God" (1 Thes 4:4). This implies that in responsible parenthood they may make use of the natural methods of fertility management towards the possible conception of a child and even against it, should they have serious reasons within God's commands. However, they deliberately renounce contraceptives, as demanded in the encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI. When acting in this way, they will become aware how their love for one another becomes stronger and more sincere. Such couples are a true encouragement for young, single people, be they unmarried or widowed, to live continent lives. By their example and by their witness they can help couples preparing for matrimony with God's grace to remain chaste until they marry. Young people may find help in groups and movements like True Love Waits, which encourage them to develop an intimate friendship with Jesus and to pledge virginity before marriage. Consecration to Mary, a custom maintained or re-awakened in some places, is also a great help for the young who want to live up joyfully to the virtue of virginity. Nowadays, when the media, school and even kindergarten are flooded with often one-sided information on sexuality, parents need to be vigilant in the formation of their (even young) children to help them at the right time.
The witness of Christians, who live lives of celibacy and virginal love, is needed more than ever. In every age the Lord has chosen men and women who have voluntarily renounced, "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12) the great good of marriage to give their love fully to Christ committing themselves to spiritual fatherhood and motherhood for the good of their fellowmen. Their life is a gift of God for the Church and a strong, sign for the world, that cannot be overlooked. If priests and religious live their vocation in joy, then they have great influence on the people around them and give evidence, as it were, that in Christ true and lasting happiness are to be found.
Growing in Love
Our Lady encourages us in whatever vocation we have. The beatitude "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God" (Mt 5:8) came to fulfilment in the Virgin and Mother of God: In the Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this explained: "`Pure in heart' refers to those who have attuned their intellects and wills to the demands of God's holiness, chiefly in three areas: charity; chastity or sexual rectitude; love of truth and orthodoxy of faith. There is a connexion between the purity of heart, of body and of faith" (CCC 2518).
Mary can and will help us as we strive to emain pure in heart or to regain that purity. We shall then be able to adore God in spirit and in truth and to see His goodness on the face of Jesus Christ. To see God forever we will need a pure heart. Already here and now it enables us to see the world in the light of God, to recognize the image of the Creator in others, and "to perceive the human body-ours and our neighbours- as a temple of the Holy Spirit, a manifestation of divine beauty" (CCC 2519).
Mary wants to help to transform us into people who love. The virginity of her faith, her mind, her heart and her body invite us to surrender fully to God's love as she has done, always growing in love until we breathe our last. Mary's life is a gift of God's mercy to mankind. With Mother Julia we want to ask her: "Make my soul ever more thirsty for your love."
The Holy Father writes in his encyclical letter on Christian love, that we should look to Mary and ask her to help us: "Mary has truly become the Mother of all believers. Men and women of every time and place have recourse to her motherly kindness and her virginal purity and grace, in all their needs and aspirations, their joys and sorrows, their moments of loneliness and their common endeavours. They constantly experience the gift of her goodness and the unfailing love which she pours out from the depths of her heart. .Holy Mary, Mother of God, you have given the world its true light, Jesus your Son-the Son of God. You abandoned yourself completely to God's call and thus became a wellspring of the goodness which flows forth from him. Show us Jesus. Lead us to him. Teach us to know and to love him, so that we can become capable of true love and be fountains of living water in the midst of a thirsting world" (Deus Caritas est, No. 42).
Article by members of The Spiritual Family The Work,
Copies available from Ambrose Cottage, 9 College Lane, Littlemore,
Oxford OX4 4LQ 01865 779743 www.thework-fso.org
Reproduced with permission
ACW Review No 73 June 2007
Gay Adoption - a Personal View Clare Anderson
Among the controversy about gay adoption and the Catholic agencies, one aspect seems to have received little attention; the rights of the women giving up their children. It has never been easy to part with one's biological child, however difficult the circumstances. I have often wondered how I would feel if I had had to do it; if I would worry that the home was not a happy one, that the child would be loved less because that couple hadn't produced it themselves. I admire the selflessness and courage of all women who hand their children over to strangers, in the trust that it will be better off with them.
In the past, Catholic adoption agencies were a means whereby mothers could place their babies in the knowledge that their children would be brought up in Christian homes, taken to Mass, taught Godly values, etc. What now of the rights of these women, their hopes and dreams? Does a mother not have the right to request a certain lifestyle of the people who wish to adopt her child? Does her right not override the social theories of a clique of government ministers? And are we really to live in a society where a childless married couple is denied the chance to adopt because a gay couple is higher up in the queue?
What has been known for some time is that homosexual relationships, `married' or not, tend to lack the permanency of heterosexual unions. It's true that more marriages end in divorce today but same-sex unions are notorious for breaking up even more frequently. One can produce contrary instances - Benjamin Britten seems to be the one more quoted, but it's hard to go against the weight of evidence. In divorce cases the children almost always stay with their mother, unless she is a drug addict or proven unfit, but when gay couples split, who will have the child? Or is it now superfluous to requirements?
With the increasing use of abortion as a form of contraception, there are fewer babies for adoption and more childless couples desperate for a family. I would never join those who seek to victimise homosexuals or to see them humiliated, but in the history of human development, there has never been an example of two men or two women making a baby. If everyone were homosexual, there would be no babies anywhere, let alone available for adoption. In fact, the human race would have died out before it had the chance to invent the wheel. But I digress. Homosexual people, celibate or not, are entitled to human rights the way all people are, but it is quite another thing for legislators to insist that two men, or two women, can provide the same kind of parenting as a man and wife. There are surely cases where a gay household is happier and more loving than many married ones - I don't doubt that, but the law cannot make equal what is not equal in nature. What the government has done is to legalise a social experiment, and one which risks tragic consequences in the next twenty years.
Even if the Guardian-reading enclaves of Islington consider that there is no intrinsic differences between men and women that cannot be explained away by anatomy alone, I doubt that the average woman with a surprise pregnancy would agree. Pregnancy, as any woman who has had a child will know, can greatly affect a mother's emotions and fears. A woman who is carrying a child she had not wished for will have plenty of fears anyway, and her vulnerability deserves understanding and support. I am aware that not all homosexuals are interested in the young, but some are, and if popular perception is that a child is potentially at greater risk in a homosexual household, what of the fears of a biological mother? We know that in many schools, playground bullying is rife and that any suggestion of homosexuality, whether direct or indirect, is a subject for torment and cruelty. Yes, this should be stopped and punished, but in truth how often is it? No government minister would be seen dead sending a child of theirs to the sort of school where this kind of bullying is common but many people have no choice.
Maybe I am being unduly pessimistic here, but could this 'one size fits all' legislative sledgehammer cause a rise in abortions among the more vulnerable? If a pregnant woman were to worry that her child might be taken into a home where it would not be safe, would face playground bullying then, yes, I can imagine that some of these desperate women might reject adoption and struggle to raise the child alone, or consider abortion as a better 'option'. There is already a great dearth of children available for adoption, will this legislation now make the numbers even fewer?
In the past, Catholic agencies have specialised in `difficult cases' - finding loving families for the more hard to place children. It's hard to see how shutting down these agencies will help these needy children, and given that gay couples are not likely to seek help via the Catholic Church anyway, what other motive can there be than spite? We are constantly told that we are a society which values `diversity' - but not in faith and morals, it seems.
ACW Review No 72 March 2007
The Church's Moral Standards are God's Dom Bernard Orchard OSB
The headline of the leading article in The Times of 11 July, 1992
under the name of a leading Catholic journalist reads as follows:
The Church should not set such high standards for our sexual behaviour.
Now this headline certainly represents accurately the main tenor of the article. I find it shocking. Why?
Because of its forthright demand that our Church, the one true Church of Christ, should lower its moral standards. The pretext of course is that they are impossible to keep in this present age, at least with respect to sexual behaviour, i.e. that the standards laid down in the Old Testament and subsequently confirmed and strengthened by Jesus Himself should be lowered arbitrarily in the specious hope ofmaking life easier.
It is not the Church that sets the standard of Christian morality, but the Lord Jesus Himself. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and its function is to carry out the commands of its Head; it has no authority to change any of His commands. If it were to do so, it would be betraying its trust; the Body would be acting contrary to the dictates of its head. In matters of Faith and Morals our Church is infallible and it is gravely wrong to try to water down its teaching.
The Church only teaches what it has received from Christ Himself. Furthermore, there can only be one standard, the true standard, which is indivisible, namely what we ought to do. For example, the deliberate taking of an innocent life is murder, and this is the real wickedness of abortion. Again, a lie is a lie, whether it is a big one or a small one; theft is wrong whether it is a big theft or a small one. Fornication and adultery are always wrong and so is pre-marriage cohabitation.
Contraception is also grievously wrong, though many people practise it today, as indeed they have done throughout history; it is just made easier nowadays by modern devices. There are of course often extenuating circumstances that minimise guilt, and the good confessor makes full allowance for the weakness of human nature. But the objective badness of these sins always remains. How can the modern Christian resist the easy way out and practise chastity consistently? For chastity and abstinence are the only certain ways of overcoming sexual sin, not condoms. (I say this though I am aware of the problem of AIDS) The practice of chastity is the only true way of reforming and overcoming the weakness of human nature. Unless we Christians keep the ideal in mind always, we shall be lost. It is of course the same in every discipline in both work and study and sport. Unless we have an ideal to aim at, we shall be sunk in the mire and unable to get out and will be drowned. Unless the Church were seriously to proclaim the ideal of perfect chastity for all lay people, and also-for those who can take it-of perfect virginity and celibacy, the world would soon become another Sodom and Gomorrha. I think it is true to say that many other Christians besides Catholics are shocked at the very suggestion that the Church should lower its standards. On the contrary it must shout them out still louder from the house-tops and point out how the top standard can be achieved by very ordinary people with the help of God's grace and proper previous training. For we must never forget that we cannot enter into Heaven until we have fully regained the perfect control over our bodies and minds that was enjoyed by Adam and Eve before the Fall. And of course what applies to the Sixth Commandment applies to our behaviour towards all the other Commandments.
"For God will render to every man (and woman) according to his works" (Rom.2:6).
How do we aim to reach this state of perfection? As in ordinary human affairs, if we want to attain a certain goal we must consciously aim for it. For if we do not aim for it, we shall never attain it. That is certain. Therefore, in the first place, we must ask for an increase in our Faith both in Jesus Christ and in the infallible teaching of His Church. For without Faith we shall not make any progress and we need proper motivation. Our God is not only the God of Love, but also the God of Justice; and a little fear of the Omnipotent is also required to stimulate us. We are all too often inclined to gloss over His words in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.7:13):
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and feware those who find it."
At the same time Jesus teaches that His "yoke is easy" and His "burden light" (Mt.11:30). But there is no real contradiction. It is simply that the practice of discipline is always hard at the beginning, as we all know from experience. But provided that we have the ideal in mind, i.e. the ultimate goal, we are able to persevere in faith and hope of all success. Secondly, the practice of asceticism is essential for all Christians-as it is for the athletes who compete in the Olympic Games. By asceticism I mean the prudent exercise of control over allour faculties, over our imagination, over our five senses, sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, and over our thoughts. All parents have the duty of practising asceticism in their married life- a practice that, experience proves, brings the deepest and most lasting joy to the couple-and also the duty of instructing their children from their earliest years in self-control and obedience and self-denial. Parents will have no difficulty in imparting such ideals to their children if they first practise them themselves and also apply them with love and compassion to their children from their earliest years. Thirdly, we have to convince ourselves that heaven is the only important goal-the only prize worth striving for, the pearl of great price, a thing worth selling up everything to obtain-as much for you laity as for the clergy and monks and nuns. St Benedict, in the Prologue to the Holy Rule points this out beautifully when he says:
"If a little strictness is required for the correction of faults...do not at once take fright and fly the way of salvation which can be begun only through a narrow entrance... Then as we progress... the heart expands and we run along the way of God's commandments with a delight of love that cannot be described." In this St Benedict is only quoting the Gospel, where Jesus said:
"If you then who are evil, know how to give your children what is good, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" (Lk.11:13).
Let us then thank God that we are members of His Church which points out to us uncompromisingly the struggle we have to face to win the heavenly reward, and tells us in no uncertain terms not what we would like to hear but what we ought to do.
(A homily preached at Ealing Abbey on 26 July 1992. It was reproduced in Sceptre Bulletin February 1993. Reproduced here by permission of Ealing Abbey and Sceptre Bulletin.)
ACW Review No 71 - December 2006
The God in the Cave - G K Chesterton
This sketch of the human story began in a cave; the cave which popular science associates with the caveman and in which practical discovery has really found archaic drawings of
animals. The second half of human history, which was like a new creation of the world, also begins in a cave. There is even a shadow of such a fancy in the fact that animals were again present; for it was a cave used as a stable by the mountaineers of the uplands about Bethlehem; who still drive their cattle into such holes and caverns at night. It was here that a homeless couple had crept underground with the cattle when the doors of the crowded
caravanserai had been shut in their faces; and it was here beneath the very feet of the passersby, in a cellar under the very floor of the world, that Jesus Christ was born. But in that second creation there was indeed something symbolical in the roots of the primeval
rock or the horns of the prehistoric herd. God also was a Cave-Man, and had also traced strange shapes of creatures, curiously coloured, upon the wall of the world; but the pictures that he made had come to life.
A mass of legend and literature, which increases and will never end, has repeated and rung the changes on that single paradox; that the hands that had made the sun and stars were too small to reach the huge heads of the cattle. Upon this paradox, we might almost say upon
this jest, all the literature of our faith is founded. It is at least like a jest in this, that it is something which the scientific critic cannot see. He laboriously explains the difficulty which we have always defiantly and almost derisively exaggerated; and mildly condemns as
improbable something that we have almost madly exalted as incredible; as something that would be much too good to be true, except that it is true. When that contrast between the cosmic creation and the little local infancy has been repeated, reiterated, underlined, emphasised, exulted in, sung, shouted, roared, not to say howled, in a hundred thousand hymns, carols, rhymes, rituals, pictures, poems, and popular sermons, it may be suggested that we hardly need a higher critic to draw our attention to something a little odd about it; especially one of the sort that seems to take a long time to see a joke, even his own joke.
But about this contrast and combination of ideas one thing may be said here, because it is relevant to the whole thesis of this book. The sort of modern critic of whom I speak is generally much impressed with the importance of education in life and the importance of psychology in education. That sort of man is never tired of telling us that first impressions fix character by the law of causation; and he will become quite nervous if a child's visual sense is poisoned by the wrong colours on a golliwog or his nervous system prematurely shaken by a cacophonous rattle. Yet he will think us very narrow-minded if we say that this is exactly why there really is a difference between being brought up as a Christian and being brought up as a Jew or a Moslem or an atheist. The difference is that every Catholic child has learned from pictures, and even every Protestant child from stories, this incredible combination of contrasted ideas as one of the very first impressions on his mind. It is not merely a theological difference. It is a psychological difference which can outlast any theologies. It really is, as that sort of scientist loves to say about anything, incurable. Any agnostic or atheist whose childhood has known a real Christmas has ever afterwards, whether he likes it or not, an association in his mind between two ideas that most of mankind must regard as remote from each other; the idea of a baby and the idea of unknown strength that sustains the stars. His instincts and imagination can still connect them, when his reason can no longer see the need of the connection; for him there will always be some savour of religion about the mere picture of a mother and a baby; some hint of mercy and softening about the mere mention of the dreadful name of God.
But the two ideas are not naturally or necessarily combined. They would not be necessarily combined for an ancient Greek or a Chinaman, even for Aristotle or Confucius. It is no more inevitable to connect God with an infant than to connect gravitation with a kitten. It has
been created in our minds by Christmas because we are Christians; because we are psychological Christians even when we are not theological ones. In other words, this combination of ideas has emphatically, in the much disputed phrase, altered human nature. There is really a difference between the man who knows it and the man who does not.
It may not be a difference of moral worth, for the Moslem or the Jew might be worthier according to his lights; but it is a plain fact about the crossing of two particular lights, the conjunction of two stars in our particular horoscope. Omnipotence and impotence, or divinity
and infancy, do definitely make a sort of epigram which a million repetitions cannot turn into a platitude. It is not unreasonable to call it unique. Bethlehem is emphatically a place where extremes meet.
Here begins, it is needless to say, another mighty influence for the humanisation of Christendom. If the world wanted what is called a non-controversial aspect of Christianity, it would probably select Christmas. Yet it is obviously bound up with what is supposed to be
a controversial aspect (I could never at any stage of my opinions imagine why); the respect paid to the Blessed Virgin. When I was a boy a more Puritan generation objected to a statue upon a parish church representing the Virgin and Child. After much controversy, they compromised by taking away the Child. One would think that this was even more corrupted with Mariolatry, unless the mother was counted less dangerous when deprived of a sort of weapon. But the practical difficulty is also a parable. You cannot chip away the statue of a mother from all round that of a new-born child. You cannot suspend the new-born child
in mid-air; indeed you cannot really have a statue of a new-born child at all. Similarly, you cannot suspend the idea of a new-born child in the void or think of him without thinking of his mother. You cannot visit the child without visiting the mother; you cannot in common
human life approach the child except through the mother. If we are to think of Christ in this aspect at all, the other idea follows as it is followed in history. We must either leave Christ out of Christmas, or Christmas out of Christ, or we must admit, if only as we admit
it in an old picture, that those holy heads are too near together for the haloes not to mingle and cross.
Living Lent 2007
Everywhere we look in our world we see sadness, division, hunger, sickness, cruelty, war. In our own land, we experience an increasingly materialistic view of life, coupled with hostility to the Catholic Church.
This Lent, let us pray together for our own country and for all countries of Europe that the teaching of Christ will come to be accepted, so that we are all moved to love and help others in their needs, remembering that prayer is a way of helping those who do the work that we are unable to do. When we pray, Lord hear us.
Let us not forget other lands where the people endure terrible sufferings. When we pray for them, Lord hear us.
We pray that all people will come to cherish lives from conception to natural death. Lord hear us.
We pray for all married couples and their families, that they may grow in the love that is God’s plan. Lord hear us.
We pray for children looking for a family, that they may find husbands and wives who will nurture them as their own. Lord hear us.
We give thanks and pray for the Church, for the Holy Father, and for our bishops and priests who give themselves as generous and loving shepherds to us all. Lord we thank you for their labours and we pray for them.
ACW Review No 70 - September 2006
Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor
Ted Harvey assistant minority leader, Colorado House
She sings the anthem to applause, then her secret is revealed to stunned silence.
I want to share with you an awesome experience I had in the Colorado House of Representatives on May 8. It is a humbling experience to look back and realize that God used me to play a role in His divine orchestration.
I was leaving the House chambers for the weekend when our Democrat speaker of the House announced that the coming Monday would be the final day of this year’s General Assembly. He went on to state that there were still numerous resolutions on the calendar which we would need to be addressed prior to the summer adjournment. Interestingly, he specifically mentioned that one of the resolutions we would be hearing was being carried by the House Majority Leader Alice Madden, honouring the 90th anniversary of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
As a strong pro-life legislator I was disgusted by the idea that we would pass a resolution honouring this 90-year legacy of genocide.
I drove home that night wondering what I could say that might pierce the darkness during the debate on this heinous resolution.
On Saturday morning, I took my 8-year-old son up to the mountains to go white-water rafting. The trip lasted all day. As we were driving home, exhausted and hungry, I remembered that I had accepted an invitation to attend a fundraising dinner that night for a local pro-life organization.
One of my most respected mentors had personally called me several weeks earlier and asked me to attend, so I knew I’d have to clean up and head over.
After our meal, the executive director of the organization introduced the keynote speaker. I looked up and saw walking to the stage a handicapped young lady being assisted to the microphone by a young man holding a guitar.
Her name was Gianna Jessen.
Gianna said “Hello,” welcomed everyone, and then sang three of the most beautiful Christian songs I have ever heard.
She then began to give her testimony. When her biological mother was 17 years old and seven and a half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to have an abortion. As God would have it, the abortion failed and a beautiful 2-pound baby girl was brought into the world. Unfortunately, she was born with cerebral palsy and the doctors thought that she would never survive. The doctors were wrong.
Imagine the timing! A survivor of a Planned Parenthood abortion arrived in town just days before the Colorado House of Representatives was to celebrate Planned Parenthood’s “wonderful” work.
As I listened to Gianna’s amazing testimony, the Lord inspired me to ask her if she could stay in Denver until Monday morning so that I could introduce her on the floor of the House and tell her story.
Perhaps she could even begin the final day’s session by singing our country’s national anthem!
To my surprise she said she would seriously consider it. If she were to agree, she wanted her accompanying guitarist to stay as well. A lady standing in line behind me waiting to meet Gianna overheard our conversation and said that she would be willing to pay for the guitarist’s room. Gianna then said that she would think about it.
As I was driving home from the banquet, my cell phone rang. It was Gianna, and she immediately said, “I’m in, let’s ruin this celebration.”Praise God!
When Monday morning came, I awoke at 6 a.m. to write my speech before heading to the Capitol. As I wrote down the words, I could sense God’s help and I knew that this was going to be a powerful moment for the pro-life movement.
Following a committee hearing, I rushed into the House chambers just as the opening morning prayer was about to be given.
Between the prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, I wrote a quick note to the speaker of the House explaining that Gianna is an advocate for cerebral palsy. I took the note to the speaker and asked if I could have my friend open the last day of session by singing the national anthem.
Without any hesitation the speaker took the microphone and said, “Before we begin, Representative Harvey has made available for us Gianna Jessen to sing the national anthem.”
Gianna sang the most amazing rendition of The Star Spangled Banner that you could possibly imagine. Every person in the entire chamber was completely still, quiet and in awe of this frail young lady’s voice.
Due to her cerebral palsy, Gianna often loses her balance, and shortly after starting to sing she grabbed my arm to stabilize herself, and I could tell that she was shaking. Suddenly, midway through the song, she forgot the words and began to hum and then said, “Please
forgive me; I am so nervous.” She then immediately began singing again and every House member and every guest throughout the chambers began to sing along with her to give her encouragement and to lift her up.
As I looked around the huge hall I listened to the unbelievable melody of Gianna’s voice being accompanied by a choir of over 100 voices. I had chills running all over my body, and I knew that I had just witnessed an act of God.
As the song concluded the speaker of the House explained that Gianna has cerebral palsy and is an activist to bring awareness to the disease.
“Let us give her a hand not only for her performance today, but also for her advocacy work,” he said. The chamber immediately exploded into applause—she had them all in the palm of her hand.
The speaker then called the House to order, and we proceeded as usual to allow members to make any announcements or introductions of guests. For dramatic effect, I waited until I was the last person remaining before I introduced Gianna.
As I waited for my turn, I nervously paced back and forth praying to God that he would give me the peace, confidence and the courage necessary to pull off what I knew would be one of the most dramatic and controversial moments of my political career.
While I waited, a prominent reporter from one of the major Denver newspapers walked over to Gianna and told her that her rendition captured the spirit of the national anthem more powerfully than any she had ever heard before.
Finally, I was the last person remaining. So, I proceeded to the microphone and began my speech.
Members, I would like to introduce you to a new friend and hero of mine—her name is Gianna Jessen. She is visiting us today from Nashville, Tennessee, where she is an accomplished recording artist. She has cerebral palsy and was raised in foster homes before being adopted at the age of four.
She was born prematurely and weighed only 2 pounds at birth. She remained in the hospital for almost three months. A doctor once said she had a great will to live and that she fought for her life. Eventually she was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care.
Because of her cerebral palsy, her foster mother was told that it was doubtful that she would ever crawl or walk. She could not sit up independently.
Through the prayers and dedication of her foster mother, she eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. Shortly before her fourth birthday, she began to walk with leg braces and a walker.
She continued in physical therapy and after a total of four surgeries,she was able to walk without assistance.
She still falls sometimes, but she says she has learned how to fall gracefully after falling for 29 years.
Two years ago, she walked into a local health club and said she wanted a private trainer. At the time her legs could not lift 30 pounds.
Today she can leg press 200 pounds.
She became so physically fit that she began running marathons to raise money and awareness for cerebral palsy. She just returned last week from England where she ran in the London Marathon. It took her more than eight-and-a-half hours to complete. They were taking down the course by the time she made it to the finish line. But she made it nonetheless. With bloody feet and aching joints, she finished the race.
Members would you help me recognize a modern-day hero—Gianna Jessen?
At this point the chamber exploded into applause which lasted for 15-to-20 seconds. Gianna had touched their souls.
Ironically, Alice Madden, the majority leader and sponsor of the Planned Parenthood resolution, walked over to Gianna and congratulated her.
As the applause began to die down, I raised my hand to be recognized one more time.
Mr. Speaker, members, if you would allow me just a few more moments I would appreciate your time.
My name is Ted Harvey, not Paul Harvey, but, please, let me tell you the rest of the story.
The cause of Gianna’s cerebral palsy is not because of some biological freak of nature, but rather the choice of her mother.
You see when her biological mother was 17-years-old and 7-and-a-half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to seek a late-term abortion. The abortionist performed a saline abortion on this 17-year-old girl. This procedure requires the injection of a high concentration of saline into the mother’s womb, which the fetus is then bathed in and swallows, which results in the fetus being burned to death, inside and out. Within 24 hours the results are normally an induced, still-born abortion.
As Gianna can testify, the procedure is not always 100 percent effective.
Gianna is an aborted late-term fetus who was born alive. The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.
Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood...”
BANG! The gavel came down.
Just as I was finishing the last sentence of my speech—the climax of the morning—the speaker of the House gaveled me down and said, “Representative Harvey, I will allow you to continue your introduction, but not for the purposes of debating a measure now pending before the House.”
At which point I said, “Mr. Speaker, I understand. I just wanted to put a face to what we are celebrating today.”
Silence.
Deafening silence.
I then walked back to my chair shaking like a leaf. The Democrats wouldn’t look at me. They were fuming. It was beautiful. I have been in the Legislature for five tough years, and this made it all worthwhile.
The House majority leader wouldn’t talk to me the rest of the day.
Was it because I introduced an abortion survivor, or was it because we touched her soul? She could congratulate an inspirational cerebral palsy victim and advocate, but was outraged when she discovered that the person she congratulated was also an abortion survivor.
The headline in The Denver Post the next day read “Abortion Jab Earns Rebuke.” The majority leader is quoted as saying, “I think it was amazingly rude to use a human being as an example of his personal politics.”
Yes, Representative Madden, Gianna Jessen is a human being. She was when she was in her mother’s womb, and she was when she sang the national anthem on the floor of the Colorado House of Representatives.
The paper went on to quote Gianna, stating she was glad I told her story.
“We need to discuss the humanity of it. I’m glad to be able to speak up for children in the womb,” she said. “If abortion is about women’s rights, where were my rights?”
All I can say is, “Glory to God!” He orchestrated it all, every minute of it, and I was so honoured to have been chosen to play a part. May we all continue to be filled with and to fight for the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ!
If you’d like to contact Ted Harvey, you may e-mail him at ted@tedharvey.com.
He would welcome your comments
ACW Review No 70 - September 2006
THE DA VINCI CODE” Enid Blyton for Adults?
Daphne McLeod
Many of you will remember the enormous popularity of the books Enid Blyton wrote for children and how they were nearly all about an elitist group who discovered a Secret by cracking a Code, so far unrecognised by anyone else. I couldn’t help thinking of Miss Blyton, who also made a vast fortune from the sale of her books, when I came across The Da Vinci Code.
There are two important differences of course. Miss Blyton never tried to pretend her books were factual and she had no hidden agenda to discredit anybody. Unfortunately, Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, does try to pretend that his fiction is fact, (unsuccessfully, as I hope to demonstrate below,) and he also has a very definite agenda, which is to attack both the Person of Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. However, both authors offer an enticing escape from the real world and this led, eventually, to Enid Blyton’s books being removed from most of our libraries. Responsible adults decided that it was not good for children to wallow in this make-believe world because truth keeps us in touch with reality. Truth is just as important for adults which is why fiction dressed up as fact in The Da Vinci Code should be shown to be the fraud it is.
Some of Mr Brown’s ‘economies with truth.’
Remember that Dan Brown prefaces his book with a “Fact Page” which claims that the astonishing and totally unsubstantiated assertions in his book are based on detailed research so let’s look at some of these assertions.
1. The Dead Sea Scrolls are ‘early Christian documents’ but they are not. They are Jewish documents which don’t mention Christ or Christianity.
2. The Divinity of Christ was only established by the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century but this fundamental Truth is firmly established in the Gospels (John 1, 1; 8,57; 20,28); the Acts (17,23); the Epistles (2 Peter l); the early Church Fathers’ writings (St Ignatius of Antioch, martyred 110 A.D. constantly refers in his letters which are still extant to “Jesus our God” also St Irenaeus 2nd century martyr names Christ as God in Against the heresies). These are just a few examples, but perhaps even more compelling is the evidence of the first century historian Pliny the Younger who was not a Christian. He wrote in response to a query from the Emperor Trajan that “The Christians worship their leader Christ as God”. The fact that Jesus is definitely God made Man is too important to us all to allow it’s denial to go unchallenged.
3. The Council of Nicea 325 was called to “make” Jesus Divine. Actually it was called not to decide Jesus’ Divinity, already well established for nearly three centuries, but to decide how to articulate it in the storm caused by Arius’ heresies. Its findings are in the Nicene Constantine Creed still recited by most Christians every Sunday.
4. Silas, the book’s assassin is an Opus Dei monk. But Opus Dei is an association of lay Catholics who dedicate their everyday work to God. It has no monks though it does have some priests and bishops. Neither does it have any Cardinals though Dan Brown mistakenly describes its founder, St Josemaria Escriva, as a Cardinal. Also Opus Dei, which is meant to have guarded the secret from the beginning was only founded in 1928. The caricature of Opus Dei in the book and the film is not only utterly false it is very offensive.
5. Mona Lisa the title of the famous painting by Leonardo Da Vinci is an anagram for the two pagan gods Anam and Isis but this title was never used by Leonardo Da Vinci who called his painting La Giaconda because it was of a Mrs Lisa Giaconda, whose husband, Francesco da Giacondo, a wealthy Florentine business man, commissioned it. The nickname Mona Lisa was given to it hundreds of years after Leonardo’s death.
6. The Priory of Sion is shown as a secret society dating from 1099 and numbering several well known historical characters among its members but the Priory of Sion was only registered in Paris in 1956 by Andre Bonhomme and Pierre Plantal, who is a convicted con-man. Later M. Bonhomme admitted it was all a forgery and described it as “only a bit of fun”.
7. The Vatican guarded this secret from the 3rd century but the Vatican, the Catholic Church’s ‘civil service’ only came into existence in the 12th century.
There are more anomalies but these seven are enough to show how
totally unreliable Mr Brown’s ‘detailed research’ is. When we remember that Mr Brown is no historian or theologian but an ex-prep school English teacher we will treat his assertions with the contempt they deserve, even when he tries to lend them credibility by putting them in the mouth of his, fictional, wise man, Sir Leigh Teabing. This character, played in the film by Sir Ian McKellan, tells two younger characters that everything they have been told about Jesus Christ is false! This astonishing assertion is never substantiated in any way and is therefore worthless for, as St Thomas Aquinas pointed out long ago, “That asserted without proof can be denied without proof’. Mr Brown’s picture of Christ’s Church as an organisation containing secret information only given to an elitist few is obstensibly false. Christ’s Church is for everyone for, as St John shows us in his Gospel Ch 18.37, Christ declared before Pontius Pilate, “For this was I born, for this came I into the world, that men might know the truth”—
the truth he commissioned His Apostles “to go and teach to the whole world.”,(Matt 28). Mr Brown’s picture resembles not Christ’s Church but the first century heresy Gnosticism which, as its name meaning knowledge suggests, teaches about elitists who pass on secrets. Although this heresy has been condemned, it recurs frequently through history.
A word about St Mary Magdalen, alleged by Mr Brown to be seated next to Jesus at the Last Supper because St John, who was next to Him according to the Gospel, looks rather effeminate. No art historian has ever suggested this before because, being better informed than Mr Brown, they know that at that time very young men, and St John was very young were depicted in this way. A mere glance at contemporary pictures of the Crucifixion will show St John looking much the same and St Mary Magdalen who was also there, looking quite
different. Mr Brown is no art historian as his constant use of the words “Da Vinci” show. These words only mean ‘from Vinci’ and they no more describe Leonardo da Vinci than `from Calcutta’ would describe Mother Teresa! Genuine historians always say ‘Leonardo’ even if they omit ‘da Vinci’. As to the blasphemous and totally unsubstantiated assertion that Jesus Christ was married to St Mary Magdalen, who was expecting His child—well, where’s the evidence? All the evidence shows the contrary. For instance, when He was dying on the Cross, Jesus gives his Mother into St John’s care. St Mary Magdalen was also present but He made no provision for her as anyone who was dying would for their wife and child. Finally, all down the centuries thousands of people have recognised the Truth of the Gospels and died as martyrs rather than deny it.
Would any of those who profess to believe the wild allegations in The Da Vinci Code die as martyrs for them? Or is their belief merely based on the desire to believe them because it releases them from accepting Christ, His Church and His teaching?
ACW Review No 69 - June 2006
Stop trying to kill us off! Jane Campbell
Assisted dying is not a simple question of increasing choice for those of us who live our lives close to death. It raises deep concerns about how we are viewed by society and by ourselves. I have a severe form of spinal muscular atrophy, and require 24-hour assistance. Many people who do not know me believe I would be "better off dead". Even more argue: "I couldn't live like that." And some suggest that advances in genetic screening should be used to enable parents to choose whether to have a child with disabilities. Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill, Lord Joffe's private member's bill, which was debated in the House of Lords, feeds into that lack of knowledge (some might call it ignorance, others prejudice) by endorsing such views and legalising the killing of terminally ill and disabled people. The bill has the backing of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (recently renamed Dignity in Dying) and, according to their polls, the support of the British public.
Yet it has failed to get the endorsement of a single organisation of disabled people. Three major national charities have condemned it, and leading campaigners have united under the banner of ‘Not Dead Yet UK’ to make the voice of disabled people heard. The very people the bill is intended to help, the terminally ill and disabled, are frightened by what it seeks to achieve.
Proponents of the bill claim that such criticisms are nonsense: the bill is only intended to help that small minority who, in a similar situation to me, do not think as I do but want to die. While conceding my right to choose life, Lord Joffe deliberately ignores the factors that contribute to my choice. I benefit from excellent medical care. I live in an adapted bungalow, and my local authority provides proper care support that enables me to choose my own personal assistants. I am not dependent on family and loved ones. I love my good life. Lord
Joffe, it appears, does not. In 1999, as a member of the royal commission on long-term care for the elderly, he issued a minority report with one other member, saying that social care support should not be free at the point of delivery.
When I think about this, I shudder. To get an image of what it might be like, one has only to think of Diane Pretty. Her life was very different from mine and I would have liked to know the reasons for that. Did she choose to live confined in a downstairs room rather than have adaptations to her home or be rehoused? Did she want her husband to be her full-time carer rather than accept more support from social services? Why was she not fully confident about how her medical team would take care of her as her illness progressed?
This is the third time that Lord Joffe has tried to get doctors to turn their backs on the Hippocratic oath that requires them to "do no harm". Following each rejection, he has returned with a more restrictive bill. This time, we are told, the bill contains two important safeguards.
First, it will apply only to the "terminally ill"- the "disabled" are excluded, so have nothing to fear. Second, the doctor will only be permitted to prescribe the lethal dose. The patient must self-administer, so protecting anyone who requests assistance to die but then has a change of heart.
A moment's thought will show that these are not safeguards but devices to silence objectors. The more restrictive the bill, the easier it is to argue for its scope to be expanded once it has passed into law.None of us will be safe. Consider two patients lying side by side in hospital: both ask their doctor to prescribe lethal medication. Although their symptoms and prognosis are similar, one has a terminal illness whereas the other is classed as disabled. One gets the drugs; the other does not. Or will the second patient be reclassified?
Consider the two patients again: one has the strength to swallow the poison; the other does not, so it remains by the bed. The message: "die now-before it's too late."
Legalising premature death as a treatment option will place pressures on people near the end of their lives. It will be the cheapest, quickest and simplest option-all more attractive to health and social care services than developing and providing expensive, and potentially
long-term, services. The relationship between care givers and receiver will be irrevocably damaged.
Fortunately, disabled and terminally ill people aren't going to let that happen without a fight. Lord Ashley, the life-long campaigner for disabled people, is introducing a bill on the right to independent living later this year to guarantee the services that people like me need to participate fully in society. If Lord Joffe really wants to help, he should start listening and stop trying to kill us off.
Jane Campbell MBE, chair of the Social Care Institute for Excellence from 2000 to 2006, is a Disability Rights commissioner and Not Dead Yet UK convener.
Her website is Livingwithdignity.info
"Living with dignity is what we ask for ourselves and for others. We all deserve to achieve it and not to have it taken from us." It requires us to both take control of our lives and to enable others to do the same by offering and receiving the right support when needed.
Life presents many problems, solutions are seldom easy but they are always there when we are willing to look hard enough. This web site is dedicated to making that process a reality.
Religious Instruction for children at the International School in
Eindhoven ( Holland ) Eileen Hourihan
The priest was in Heaven for an hour.
A very good Irish friend of mine looked around for a Dutch priest willing to celebrate Holy Mass in English at least twice a month in Eindhoven. So many families come over here because of the husband's work. She wanted to have a guarantee that there would be no problems when the time came for First Confession for the children.
To cut a long story short I was a volunteer for the religious instruction of eight children from America, Mexico, Spain, Poland and Ireland. These children were gems and are seeds for the future. Maybe it's nice to hear the depth of some of these children's comments now and then.
Pope John Paul II had just died so I suggested: What if the new Pope, no matter who he is, finds a store of little sacrifices which we could all do this week as a gift for him when he is elected.
The following week we had already the joy of Pope Benedict XVI and I asked: "Well, Mark, did you have a chance to do something for the new Holy Father?" "Yes, I cleared up the dog's mess every day without moaning."
"And you Diane, did you also have a chance?" "Yes, you see my Mum loves to wear slippers after dinner and I went upstairs every day to get them for her without her having to ask me."
"And you, Julia, were you lucky.did you remember?" "Yes, I tried not to shout at my younger sister when she was about to break my toy."
I myself thought: how very beautiful at such a young age to live a little sacrifice and only God knowing about it during the week. First Confession Day was approaching rapidly.
During the year I had an extra book (a real gem) called Guidebook for Confession for Children (from Sinag-Tala Publishers, Manila). I have never seen such a good examination of conscience as the one here with very practical photos. So for the whole year my little ones
had seen the child on the cover kneeling on one side of the confessional with the priest on the other side. About two weeks before the planned day I heard from another Mum that the priest had mentioned that all his confessionals were used for storage but that he would have to see if he could clean up one for the children.
In the meantime I prayed a lot to Saint Josemaria Escriva begging him that the children would not be confused and that they could have personal confession. The day came. Mums were outside the church with their children and then something very beautiful happened. The priest
led the children to the confessional and told them that today was a special feast day for him that from this moment on he represented Jesus for the children in Confession. The children went to confession without any trouble whatsoever and afterwards this very holy priest
said to me and my Irish friend: `Today I can honestly say I "lived" my priesthood. It has been a special experience for me. It's as if I were in Heaven for an hour. Thank you very much for this opportunity'.
But the story doesn't end here. The priest told all his parishioners at the next Mass that `the storage' was going to continue as a normal confessional. I could imagine the devil prancing as he missed the goal this time thanks to the little ones. I thanked St Josemaria also as I know he, as a young priest, heard thousands of children's confessions.
ACW Review No 68 - March 2006
Hot Water Bottle Margaret Nwamadi
The story was written by a doctor who worked in South Africa.
One night I had worked hard to help a mother in the labour ward; but in spite of all we could do, she died leaving us with a tiny premature baby and a crying two-year-old daughter. We would have difficulty keeping the baby alive, as we had no incubator (we had no electricity to run an incubator). We also had no special feeding facilities. Although we lived on the equator, nights were often chilly with treacherous draughts.
One student midwife went for the box we had for such babies and the cotton wool that the baby would be wrapped in. Another went to stoke up the fire and fill a hot water bottle. She came back shortly in distress to tell me that in filling the bottle, it had burst (rubber perishes easily in tropical climates). “And it is our last hot water bottle!” she exclaimed. As in the West, it is no good crying over spilled milk so in Central Africa it might be considered no good crying over burst water bottles. They do not grow on trees, and there are no drugstores down forest pathways.
“All right,” I said, “put the baby as near the fire as you safely can, and sleep between the baby and the door to keep it free from draughts. Your job is to keep the baby warm.”
The following noon, as I did most days, I went to say prayers with many of the orphanage children. I gave the youngsters various suggestions of things to pray about and told them about the tiny baby. I explained our problem about keeping the baby warm enough, mentioning the hot water bottle, and that the baby could so easily die if it got chills. I also told them of the two-year-old sister, crying because her mother had died. During prayer time, one ten-year old girl, Ruth, prayed with the usual blunt conciseness of our African children. “Please, God” she prayed, “send us a water bottle. It’ll be no good tomorrow, God, as the baby will be dead so please send it this afternoon.”
While I gasped inwardly at the audacity of the prayer, she added, “And while you are about it, would you please send a dolly for the little girl so she’ll know you really love her?” Often with children’s prayers, I was put on the spot. Could I honestly say, “Amen”. I just did not believe that God could do this. Oh, yes, I know that He can do everything, the Bible says so. But there are limits, aren’t there? The only way God could answer this particular prayer would be by sending me a parcel from my homeland. I had been in Africa for almost four years at that time, and I had never, ever received a parcel from home. Anyway, if anyone did send me a parcel, who would put in a hot water bottle? I lived on the equator!
Halfway through the afternoon, while I was teaching in the nurses’ training school, a message was sent that there was a car at my front door! By the time I reached home, the car had gone, but there, on the veranda, was a large twenty-two pound parcel. I felt tears pricking my eyes. I could not open the parcel alone, so I sent for the orphanage children.
Together we pulled off the string, carefully undoing each knot. We folded the paper, taking care not to tear it unduly. Excitement was mounting. Some thirty or forty pairs of eyes were focused on the large cardboard box. From the top, I lifted out brightly coloured, knitted jerseys. Eyes sparkled as I gave them out. Then there were the knitted bandages for the leprosy patients, and the children looked a little bored. Then came a box of mixed raisins and sultanas —that would make a batch of buns for the weekend. Then, as I put my hand in again, I felt the…could it really be? I grasped it and pulled it out—yes, a brand-new, rubber hot water bottle. I cried. I had not asked God to send it; I had not truly believed that He could. Ruth was in the front row of the children. She rushed forward, crying out, “If God has sent the bottle, He must have sent the dolly too!”
Rummaging down to the bottom of the box, she pulled out the small, beautifully dressed dolly. Her eyes shone! She had never doubted! Looking up at me, she asked: “Can I go over with you and give this dolly to that little girl, so she’ll know that Jesus really loves her?”
That parcel had been on the way for five whole months. Packed up by my former Sunday school class, whose leader had heard and obeyed God’s prompting to send a hot water bottle, even to the equator. And one of the girls had put in a dolly for an African child—five months before, in answer to the believing prayer of a ten-year-old to bring it “that afternoon.”
The Problem of the Rigid Seminarian DIOGENES
In their zeal to find seminarians who aren’t rigid, the seminary gatekeepers are weeding out the positive attribute of tenacity.
Over the past thirty years or so we’ve often heard concern expressed by bishops, theologians, seminary rectors and vocation directors that many candidates for the priesthood are unsuitable on account of their rigidity. In these circles it goes without saying that rigid is bad.
However, suppose that in place of the word rigidity we substituted the word tenacity. Immediately we see that tenacity can be a positive quality, something martyrs and confessors had, something laudable in any believer and eminently desirable in a priest. Whereas rigidity is kind of a directionless term, negatively descriptive of its subject, tenacity is incomplete until we ask, tenacious of what? In the context of discipleship we mean tenacious of principles, values and standards: in short, the truths of the Faith. So how is it that a Catholic who would have been commended as tenacious before, say, 1945 has come to be disqualified as rigid?
The kind of officer who excels in wartime often founders in times of peace; finding himself at a desk, he lacks the suavity, affability and fondness for compromise that mark the managerial bureaucrat as promotable. When the game is no longer victory on the field of battle but cutting deals with patrons and rivals, the combat veteran turned office hack appears uncouth, awkward, and sometimes counter- productive in the eyes of his smoother colleagues. Since the Council, the Catholic clergy in the prosperous West has effectively transformed itself into a peacetime army, concerned not with fighting threats to the Church but with making life comfortable and consolidating political gains. The term rigidity belongs to the negative vocabulary of a peacetime army, tenacity to the positive vocabulary of a wartime one. The qualities that made Edmund Campion a hero in anti-Catholic England would make him a pastoral liability in Malibu. Or so it may have seemed.
The psychoanalyst Karl Stern, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany who converted to Catholicism, remarked how the experience of the concentration camps falsified many assumptions of pre-war psychology. Stern says it was the conservative Catholics, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the ultra-Orthodox Jews who endured extremes of stress without selling-out, going mad, or collapsing, whereas the enlightened bourgeois typically lost all sense of selfhood and integrity in the maelstrom. Stern’s point was that his fellow psychiatrists didn’t realize the extent to which their model of psychological health was conditioned by the context of peacetime upper-middle class urban life, so that the types judged by agnostic academics “most likely to succeed” crumbled disastrously in the camps, while non-adaptive persons, well accustomed to marginalisation through tenacious—did someone whisper “rigid”?—adherence to principle, maintained their equanimity and character.
The Church in the West has enjoyed a half-century of comparative ease, in which the agenda has largely been set by professorial Catholic clergy, men who dress, dine, recreate and vote in ways indistinguishable from their heathen faculty colleagues, men who have had almost no price to pay for their highly adaptive Catholicism. It’s not surprising that they should be alarmed by “rigidity” in their juniors. It’s not surprising to read Father Richard McBrien lamenting a survey of seminarians that finds “many students resist ‘the learning enterprise’ because it threatens their ‘preconceived ideas about theology.’” Yet, with some few exceptions, it is the professorate, not the students, that feels threatened. The source of the threat is not the students’ inflexible ideas about theology (indicating rigidity), but their stubborn adherence to Catholic doctrine (indicating tenacity). These aren’t 18-year-olds arriving dewy-eyed from a 1950s high school sodality; they tend to be college grads, sometimes converts, with personal experience of the false promises of the secular world, who have made an existential alignment with Catholic teaching. Regardless of theological maturity or naivete, they know what they’re saying No to.
We have to admit that some seminarians, by temperament, are wrapped too tight and cannot handle conflict. I wouldn’t call them rigid, but brittle. Many are conservatives, but many are not. Brittleness is a characteristic of one’s psychological endowment rather than one’s convictions. Few would argue with the contention that brittle candidates are unsuited for the priesthood; but most of the men disparaged as rigid earned the label because they refused to join their professors and superiors in the doctrinal compromises that have guaranteed them such a comfortable life—perhaps the most comfortable life any Catholic clergyman has ever enjoyed. Like the blunt language of the combat veteran, the intractability of the doctrinally tenacious Catholic is both an embarrassment and a threat to the accommodationist. Just as academic psychiatrists gauged mental health by adaptivity to their own bourgeois environment, so the seminary gatekeepers have measured “fitness for ministry” by the standards of success current in the faculty lounge, the theatre lobby or the embassy reception. Blessed Rupert Mayer held his own in KZ Sachsenhausen but he wouldn’t go down well at Georgetown Law.
We are preparing contemporary American men for contemporary American ministry, someone might object, and Malibu isn’t Dachau. True; but Dachau wasn’t Dachau until 1933. It was just a drowsy Munich suburb. Times change and times now are changing. Has hatred of Christianity faded in the last twenty years or increased? Has the secular world grown fonder of Catholic doctrine or less so? Are your grandchildren likely to find their faith easier to live, or more difficult? Having answered these questions, ask yourselves which quality is more necessary in the priests who will minister to your grandchildren—tolerance or tenacity?
ACW Review No 67 - December 2005
Experience of Gastrostomy Feeding over a period of 12 years Anne Rogers
On 1 January 1987 my only son James was travelling to Daventry as the front seat passenger in a car driven by one of his friends. In an overtaking manoeuvre, the driver lost control causing a head-on collision. James was severely injured and was rendered unconscious on impact. He was taken by ambulance to Northampton General Hospital where, on arrival, he was intubated. It then became necessary to resuscitate him three times. In addition to a severe head injury, he had sustained other life-threatening injuries. After a few hours, he was transferred to the neurosurgical unit at the Radcliffe Infirmary at Oxford,where a CAT scan was carried out. A diffuse cerebral injury was revealed by the scan and we were subsequently informed that there was no treatment available that would improve this condition. A pneumothorax was diagnosed at Oxford and this was treated. After four days, he was transferred back to Northampton General Hospital. Up to this time he had been fed intravenously. Once James condition had been stabilised in ITU he was transferred to a trauma ward where, initially, the intravenous feeding continued. Later, when he became able to digest food, a naso-gastric tube was inserted. Almost from the outset, I could see that this was going to prove unsatisfactory. Despite his condition, James managed to remove the tube during the night and it had been found lying on his bed in the morning. My nursing experience made me aware that infections and ulceration of the nose and pharynx can result from prolonged use of naso-gastric feeding. Furthermore the constant presence of a tube in this position is both uncomfortable and undignified. I therefore decided that the naso-gastric tube must be removed and a better way found to provide nutrition for my son. As I was attending the hospital every day to assist in James' care, I set myself the task of feeding him orally. I found this procedure very time consuming and it caused a great deal of coughing as James' reflexes were reduced and the hospital food not always of ideal texture. Despite this, it was clear that he enjoyed the variety of flavour and the satisfaction of taking food more or less by the normal process. I continued to persevere for the full term that James remained at NGH. In the December of that year, we obtained a place for James at the newly opened brain injury treatment centre at The Royal Hospital and Home, Putney. I rented a flat near to the hospital so that I could continue to play a significant part in James' nursing care. On the subject of feeding, I had hoped that Putney would support me in my efforts to feed James orally. However, it soon became clear that this was not to be the case.
After making several observations of my feeding procedures, the nutritionist at Putney warned that in her opinion there was a strong risk of aspiration, because of the way that James tended to choke on his food. Although I had fed him orally for ten months, without any sign of a chest infection, I was persuaded to accept their opinion that a change to gastrostomy feeding would be in his best interests. I was introduced to the leading surgeon in this field and remember feeling elated that the insertion of the necessary feeding tube could be carried out in such a simple way. I was also excited to think that this less time consuming and convenient feeding method would allow more time for the therapeutic work which we were still hopeful would improve James' condition. The tube end was neat and discreet, tucking inconspicuously under his T-shirt. He immediately started to gain weight and his life became more pleasant and ordered. A regime of night time feeding via the tube was started, giving greater flexibility to the range of activities that could now include visits to the garden and to the pool for hydrotherapy. It also provided a simpler method of administrating the anti convulsive drugs that he needed for the epilepsy resulting from his injury. The gas that builds up in the gastric system could be easily released by venting the tube. It was quite easy to keep the site around the stoma clean by normal hygiene methods during bath time. It was pleasing to be able to give a little food, of suitable texture, by mouth to allow James to continue to experience the pleasure of taste. This would not have been possible if the naso gastric tube had remained The nursing staff was relieved of the time consuming work involved in oral feeding. We were able to adjust his fluid intake to correspond with the warmer weather and to variations in urine concentration. During his stay at Putney the tube needed exchanging for a new one and once again this procedure proved to be perfectly straightforward and without any problems. From February 1991 we cared for James in accommodation at our home, built in such a way as to provide for his severely disabled condition. With a team of nurses and carers, we continued with the methods of managing his condition that we had learnt at Putney, making improvements as we became more confident. We also continued with PEG feeding and the daily maintenance routine proved to be quite straightforward and well within the capabilities of a reliable carer. We established excellent relations with the gastric clinic at NGH and on the occasions that the tube needed replacing, this was done smoothly and on a day visit basis.
As further development in tube design came about, it became possible later for us to replace the tube at home, thus removing the necessity for a journey into hospital and relieving the clinic and the surgeon of this work. James survived thirteen years after the accident that changed his life so dramatically. Despite the fact that some neurologists had diagnosed him as being in PVS, others saw, as we did that there was much more to this part of his life than mere vegetative existence. The members of his care staff grew very fond of him and surprisingly they were able to recognise the sort of friendly compassionate person that typified the seventeen years of his pre-accident life. During the thirteen years in which my husband and I helped our son through his difficulties, we naturally made many sacrifices, socially and recreationally and to the detriment of my husband's business. Despite this, we are absolutely sure of the abiding worthwhile nature of the time that we spent. In the five years that we have now lived without James we have not faltered once in this conviction. When it was finally decided after all the processes of the law had operated that the administration of food and fluid should be regarded as `treatment' and could therefore be denied to patients in certain circumstances, I became very concerned. My fears centred on the thought that if James should live long enough to survive my husband and myself, his life might be terminated in a very different fashion. Instead of leaving us, as he did in March 2000, peacefully and comfortably in his own home surrounded by the loving care of his family and carers, he could have been subjected to the cruel and undignified process of death by starvation and dehydration.
We are most grateful to ALERT (Against Legalised Euthanasia—Research and Teaching) for permission to reproduce the above article from their August 2005 Newsletter. By a vote of 53% to 47% the Medical Ethics committee of the British Medical Association voted for "neutrality" on the question of assisted suicide at their AGM in Manchester on 30th June 2005.
30th March2009
SHOCK, HORROR – EXPERTS AGREE WITH THE POPE ON CONDOMS AND AIDS!
Will the heavens fall? It appears that the Holy Father was right about condom use as a means to eradicate AIDS!
Some years ago, there were press reports of a campaign in one state of the U.S. to promote the use of motor-cycle helmets, which were not obligatory at that time. The campaign was very striking, so that many more people, attracted by the advert,, started to ride motor bikes, mostly using helmets. Unfortunately, the result was an increase in the number of accidents involving motorcyclists. There were more of them and as a group they believed that their helmets kept them safe, however they cycled. In social science terms, this is known as ‘risk compensation’. In other words, inhibition is reduced because risk is believed to be reduced – in this case, by motorcycle helmets. Studies have found that the same effect is produced by encouraging condom use in a population at risk from the AIDS virus.
Changes in behaviour, that is, a reduction in the number of sexual partners, an increase in faithfulness, have resulted in a fall in the number of AIDS sufferers in parts of Africa, where it has been promoted. In other countries in Africa, where there has been much advertising of condoms and large increases in their use, the number of sufferers has, in some cases, increased.
A large and rigorous study was carried out at the University of California for UNAIDS and found that condom use had not been responsible for any real reduction of AIDS infections in African epidemics. It is said that UNAIDS tried to alter the findings and then refused to publish. The researchers then published them in another, peer-reviewed journal.
Dr. James McEvoy, of Yale University Chemistry department refers to the work of the UNAIDS researchers that the health benefit of condom promotion has not been established and indicates that Uganda, for one, curbed the epidemic by explaining the importance of reducing the number of individuals’ sex partners rather than promoting the use of condoms. The Pope’s recommendations are therefore medically correct. The Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies has also confirmed that the Pope is correct in his assessment that the use of condoms can exacerbate the problem of AIDS.
The response of, perhaps many, African countries to the press agitation following the Holy Father’s words (which were part of a considered statement on the greater effectiveness of education about the need for faithfulness) was well set out by the Cardinal Archbishop of Dakar, Senegal, who reflected the Pope’s teaching and observed ‘It is increasingly necessary that the West and Westerners stop thinking that they alone are the depositories of truth, that only what they conceive as the way of seeing and behaving is valid.’ Neo-colonialism can take many forms.
It is obviously vital that these findings are widely known for the health of thousands of people. And a few apologies to the Holy Father are surely in order.
The Holy Father’s Press Conference on the plane to Africa:
How the media were only interested in one question!
The Holy Father was quite clearly excited to be going to Africa. ‘I love Africa’ he said in answer to a question and he went on, speaking of his many African friends, ‘I love the joy of their faith, the joyful faith that is found in Africa.’ He had already cheerfully dismissed the idea that he was ‘lonely’, saying that ‘this myth of my loneliness makes me feel like smiling… I am really surrounded by friends in a wonderful collaboration with bishops, with collaborators, with laymen and I am grateful for this.’
The penultimate question was about AIDS and the Holy Father said that ‘this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with publicity slogans’. The scourge cannot be removed by handing out condoms: on the contrary there is a risk of increasing the problem. The solution, he sees, can only be found in a ‘humanisation of sexuality’, which will involve a spiritual and human renewal that brings with it a new way of behaving with one another; and secondly a true friendship, also and above all, for those who suffer, the willingness – even with sacrifice and self-denial – to be with suffering.
This demands a double effort to renew man ‘interiorly’, in order to give spiritual and human strength to behave properly ‘ with regard to one’s body and that of another’ and to suffer with those who suffer, . It is true, as the Holy Father said that ‘the Church does this’ and in doing so makes a ‘very great and important contribution’. The Holy Father thanks all who do this.
This was such a clear and beautiful statement of the obvious truth that AIDS cannot be overcome through techniques. Most sexual infections are caused by the use of multiple partners. If a husband and wife are faithful to each other, they will not become infected. (There was some years ago a dreadful case where men were given infected blood in transfusions.) Children can, alas! be infected by their mothers, who may themselves be innocent victims.
Being faithful may be difficult, but it is also beautiful, because husband and wife need to know that their love is for each other, as equals, and will not be damaged by treachery.
It is certainly true that if someone is offered a talisman to protect them when they think about engaging in risky behaviour of any sort, and they trust it, they are more likely to take the risks. Condoms, though no doubt perfect when they leave the factory, are subject to failure in practice – as anyone who has worked in a crisis pregnancy centre knows. A lady from Gabon said that the heat in her part of Africa often damaged the latex in condoms.
Sex to be ‘safe’ needs the sanctuary of marriage. Marriage needs mutual fidelity to be successful. Barriers between spouses deny their confident freedom in face of each other. Where one spouse is infected with this terrible disease, he or she should not risk the other spouse’s health. If condoms fail, in practice, even ten per cent of the time, that translates as a life and death sentence for one in ten persons.
The reaction of the press and even some governments was gleeful, as if they had caught the Pope personally committing a terrible crime. They need to look again at all the Holy Father said.
25th March 2009
Mrs. Blair’s Banner — a response from ACW
In her remarks on a recent Channel 4 television programme on Christianity, Mrs. Cherie Blair appeared to be raising a banner emblazoned with the slogan, ‘Equality for Women’, behind which she seems to think Catholic women should rally. In reality, it is hard for many Catholic women to feel other than dismayed on reading Mrs. Blair’s strictures on the Catholic Church to which she gives her allegiance. She accuses the Church of ‘marginalising’ women, by which she seems to mean not giving them the most prestigious and showy jobs. Personal fulfilment is never the primary goal of the saint – and we are called to be saints. Ask any bishop, resplendent in purple, whether he feels he has won the lottery of life. If they did, would they ask so insistently for the prayers of us foot-soldiers in the pews?
Christ promised that his Church would be built on a rock, so that we could trust the truth of what the Church teaches. If anything seems inexplicable to us, we really need to look at the teaching again, in prayer, rather than demand change.
In the course of an interview with Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, Mrs Blair said ‘Until the traditional churches fully resolve their relationship with the female half of the population, how can they expect Christianity to have a future in the modern world?’ What did she mean by that? The thrust of her concern appears to be a desire for contraception to be accepted as the way to liberate women to pursue self-fulfilment, including ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy.
In her long history, the Church has acknowledged many women as saints and leaders in widely different contexts. One thinks of St. Catherine of Siena, who implored and finally convinced the Pope that he should return to Rome from exile in Avignon in 1377, or St. Teresa of Avila, who founded many convents in the sixteenth century, which provided education and development for women, who wished to give their lives to God. The intense spiritual loving of St. Thérèse of Lisieux within the enclosed convent was discerned by the Church. Those three women are all recognised today as Doctors of the Church. In our own day, Blessed Mother Teresa became one of the best-known and admired women in the world for her devotion to God through devotion to the dying. There are married women saints, too, St Bridget of Sweden, St. Margaret of Hungary, St. Gianna Molla, our near contemporary.
Most women are called to the vocation of marriage. It is the Catholic Church who defends women by upholding marriage as a life-long union of a man and a woman, in which they express their mutual love sexually and the child is the fruit of their love. Sex is, in the neat phrase, ‘for bonding and babies’. It is not for putting barriers, whether latex or chemical, between the two. Within the amazing complexity of the woman’s body, lie indicators that tell her of her cycle of fertility and infertility, so that she and her husband can manage fertility in a mutual, natural, God-given way, if there is a need for them to do so.
Contraception is not another benefit in marriage. For both men and women, it trivialises sex. It reduces the risks arising from adultery (though this can be an illusion, because contraceptives can fail for a number of reasons). Sex comes to be seen as a recreation, a pastime and marriage as hardly worth the cost of the reception. The child becomes an optional extra of the union. As it is recreational, sex is no longer seen as essentially part of marriage; it is seen as open to anyone, in any combination of persons.
Relationships become easily broken; children, sensing some of this, embark on their own sexual adventures, with disastrous results. Because contraception can fail, a back-up is needed, so abortion becomes the accepted method of dealing with the consequences. Killing pre-born children becomes the norm, although women often suffer after abortion.
The Catholic Church has not made all this up to thwart modern woman. She has taught it from the beginning, even when the mechanics of human reproduction were not really known. When faithful theologians wondered when life began, they accepted the Church’s position.
The Roman Empire, before the coming of Christianity, shared many of the present day views, adding infanticide to them. The killing of girl babies by exposure, was widely practised. Christianity stopped it.
In the same programme, Mrs. Blair acknowledged that “traditionally, it was women who passed religion on to their children and who kept the Church going through good times and bad”, before complaining, “when it comes to the public face of Christianity, women are virtually invisible.” Sadly, in her eyes, “passing on the faith to their children” and “keeping the Church going through good times and bad” seem not to be really important roles when set against influential positions from where, she seems to think, Church teaching might be changed.
Mrs. Blair’s banner can be lowered. It is not relevant.
Josephine Robinson Patti Fordyce Ruth Real
25th March 2009
Web-Site Consultation of ACW Members on Our Response to the `REVIEW OF THE HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY ACT - A PUBLIC CONSULTATION'
We introduced our response to the questions asked by stating that:
The ACW, an independent organization not under the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, is concerned not only with the human being at the embryo stage, but also with the importance of marriage as a life-long bond between one man and one woman for their mutual love and support, and for the welfare of their children, leading to the well-being of society as a whole.
2/3. The paper states that the Government believes that the independent statutory authority working under Parliamentary parameters works well, but that legislation should be more explicit and that the role of the regulator should be clarified
We replied: As an Association, we feel that the HFEA should not be used as a means of changing Parliamentary legislation. There should be no use of Statutory Instruments. Prohibitions and parameters have not been set tightly enough and proposed changes should regularly be debated by Parliament.
4. `The Government believes that legislation should make clear that all human embryos outside the body are within the scope of regulation and subject to the control of the statutory licensing authority regardless of the manner of their creation.'
We replied: We hold that the status of the human embryo should be protected as the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child demands. Each human being at the embryo state is entitled to the full protection of the law and this should be paramount. [This answer covers our response to many of the questions put by the Department of Health.]
7. 'The Government believes that the potential use of artificial gametes raises safety issues and that some uses may also raise ethical concerns. ...'
We replied: Our Association is puzzled by the use of the term "artificial gametes" and would seek clarification.
9. 'The Government intends to make the operation of internet services which involve the supply of gametes subject to regulation. Should the law (a) prohibit the operation of such services, (b) regulate the safety and quality aspects of such services, (c) regulate safety and quality and remove any anomalies with other methods of gamete donation?'
We replied: The supply of gametes through internet services should be forbidden.
10. ‘The Government seeks views on whether moving toward the transfer of a single embryo during a treatment cycle should (a) be a matter for legislation, (b) be a matter for the regulator, (c) be a matter for the professional bodies only.'
We replied: Our comments on the rights of the embryo, stated above, should stand.
12. ‘The Government invites comments on the desirability of making the regulator's licensing powers more flexible, for instance (a) the ability to licence clinical trials, and (b) explicitly allow training of clinicians and researchers.'
We replied: Parliamentary control of licensing in this field should remain.
20. `The Government proposes that the law should allow the storage of gametes without the consent of a person lacking capacity where the gametes were lawfully removed. Do you agree?'
We replied: We can see no circumstances in which the removal of gametes from a person unable to give consent can be ethical.
31. `The Government invites views on whether legislation should set out the general criteria under which embryo screening and selection can be undertaken. If so, what should those general criteria be.'
We replied: Any screening of the human embryo should be for the benefit of that embryo alone, including implantation screening. The procured death of a human being at the embryo stage should never be seen as beneficial to that individual human being.
35. `What are your views on the regulation of PGD [Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis] with tissue typing? Should the legislation set out criteria under which this should be allowed? If so what should they be? Beyond that should particular uses need to be approved by the regulator - or should patients with their clinicians be free to make their own decisions?'
We replied: Creation of any embryo for the benefit of another is, we consider, unethical.
37. `The Government seeks views on sex selection for non-medical reasons. In particular, should this be banned? Or should people be allowed to use sex selection techniques for family balancing purposes as the Science and Technology Committee suggests? If so, how many children of one gender should a couple already have before being allowed to use sex selection techniques to try for a child of the other gender?'
We replied: The inherent value of each individual at whatever stage of human development must take precedence over any desire to have a child of a particular sex.
38. `The Government proposes that the prohibition in the HFEA Act on genetic modification of embryos for reproductive purposes should continue and be extended to gametes used in treatment. We invite views as to whether the legislation should include a power for Parliament to relax this ban through regulations (rather than primary legislation) if assured of safety and efficacy.'
We replied: We refer you to our comment on 37.
60. `The Government invites views on whether the law should permit altering the genetic structure of an embryo for research purposes, subject to licensing.'
We replied: The good of the human being at the embryo stage must remain paramount.
61. `The Government invites views on whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal hybrid or chimera embryos for research purposes only (subject to the limit of 14 days culture in vitro, after which the embryos would have to be destroyed).
We replied: The law should never permit the creation of any human-animal hybrid or chimera for any purpose.
62. The Government invites views on whether the current list of legitimate purposes for licensed research involving embryos remains appropriate.
We replied: WE reject any suggestion that licensed research involving embryos, except for the good of that individual embryo, is permissible.
65. The Government invites comments on the desirability of allowing the creation of embryos for the treatment of serious diseases (as distinct from research into developing treatments for serious diseases which is already allowed.)
We replied: Our earlier comments stand: any treatment should only be for the good of the individual human being at whatever stage of development..
FINAL COMMENT
We judge that the regulatory suggestions in this paper are inadequate in the face of the major issues, regarding the unique value of each human life at whatever stage of development, in the context both of the family and of society as a whole.
To obtain a copy go to http://www.dh.gov.uk/Home/fs/en then click on Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act which will take you to the appropriate site.
or the Act can be obtained by post : DH Publications Orderline, Ref: 269640
PO Box 777, London SE1 6HX or phone 08791 555455
Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Deadline 25th November 2005
A Touch of Frost — the answers
Anyone who procures an abortion (mother, doctor etc) incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. This is an automatic excommunication as opposed to a ferendae sententiae excommunication which is declared by the Bishop.
To incur a latae sententiae excommunication, the person must have committed a mortal sin in terms not only of grievous matter (obviously assumed in the case of abortion) but also perfect knowledge and full consent. For many mothers who have had abortions, the full consent of the will may be judged to be lacking because they were under "moral blackmail" or some other element of force or fear which influenced their decision to have the abortion. The person must also know that the offence incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. The person must also be over 18.
In England and Wales, priests have been given faculties by the Bishop to absolve from the censure and impose a penance according to their own judgement. Therefore there is no recourse to the Bishop.
If someone incurs a latae sententiae excommunication and the priest does not have faculties to absolve, the priest would go to the Bishop or the Holy See, stating that "a penitent" had incurred the censure and asking for permission to absolve. In no circumstances is the name of the penitent ever revealed.
In fact, also, there is a developing pastoral practice with regard to women in this situation. This was shown in Pope John Paul's compassionate words to women who have had an abortion:
"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life." (Evangelium Vitae n.99)
And finally, there are no circumstances in which the seal of confession may be broken by the priest. If he does so, he incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Holy See!
ACW Review No 66 - September 2005
Blown clean away by a brush with Benedict - Katie Grant
Reproduced with the author's permission from the THE SCOTSMAN 6 Jun 2005
I KNOW, I know, so many things going on, but perhaps I could just tell you that on the Feast of Corpus Christi, I almost literally bumped into the Pope. In Rome for a few days, that Thursday afternoon I decided, by chance, to visit the cathedral of St John Lateran, Omnium Urbis et Orbis Ecclesiarum Mater et Caput, to give it its grand title, a title which, believe you me, it deserves.
The present vast basilica was built over the ruins of other basilicas, the first of which was constructed by the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. I wish I could describe the glories of the inside, but I never actually made it through its ancient bronze doors, since
I found them firmly shut.
I was cross, but since I had got all the way there, I decided to walk round the outside. The east front, with its two-storeyed portico surmounted by 16 colossal statues of Christ and the Apostles, looks like a film set. But the only thing I saw was a man with a vacuum cleaner. Now vacuum cleaners mean carpets. Carpets mean important people. There were barriers, too, through which I slid, along with two grey-veiled German nuns, one almost immovably fat, the other stick thin, both clutching campstools. They growled at me like a couple of rottweilers
as I sat down in the sun as near to the steps as I could get. Eventually the fat one leaned over. "Please," she said, in tones reeking of disapproval, "sit nicely. Don't you know the Pope's coming?"
And indeed he was. For the next three hours I waited, a tiny piece in a vast jigsaw which slowly put itself together. Above the steps, a golden altar was set up and a carpet rolled out-the vacuum cleaner man set to work at once-and people began to trickle, then pour into
the square: monks and nuns of every age and nationality in habits of every hue; plump Italian matrons, all wrinkles and deep black; families; students; the pious; the curious and endless people suffering from nameless infirmities. All made a bee-line for the same spot-my
spot-for an uninterrupted view of Pope Benedict XVI.
Thank goodness for Sister Immovably Fat. Seeing that I was in danger of being squeezed to a pancake between a podgy teenager in a football strip and a solid mamma with a face like a wild boar, she barked loudly. Signora Wild Boar barked back, but the rottweiler barked
loudest
At the altar, all was chaos. An archbishop appeared, clearly trying to instruct a gaggle of confused altar servers on papal etiquette. An organ gave a few blasts, then choked. The white papal chair was moved hither and thither. And all the while, wave upon wave of priests,
all in black cassocks and carrying neatly pressed surplices over their arms, materialised as if from nowhere. You couldn't believe how many. The crowd swelled and swelled. Now children in cheap Daz-white first communion dresses, papal knights in swirling cloaks or tabards, Catholic
dignitaries and red-sashed cardinals began to jostle for position on serried rows of chairs.
Lots of pieces of the jigsaw got into the wrong place. Nuns got a rosary going, to which people bellowed their responses while talking on their mobiles. The police chewed gum, making no attempt to impose order or to rescue unwitting passers-by swept into the throng, never to escape. I couldn't help remarking to myself, with the cynicism of the detached observer, that all this bedlam and plastic piety was not at all British.
Then, quietly, the door of St John Lateran opened and something extraordinary happened. As the tops of the halberds carried by the Swiss Guard swam into view, every bit of cynicism and detachment deserted me. I found myself breathless.
The halberds moved forwards and, suddenly, the Pope was before us. He himself made nothing of his entry, but, as one, we swayed towards him. Tears streamed down the cheeks of the rottweiler nun, and, to my enormous surprise, down my own. Here was the living successor of St Peter, the guardian of the spirit at the heart of all Rome's gilded worldly treasures. Here was the Holy Father. When people clapped, I willingly joined in.
Astounded at my reaction, I expected it to pass. It did not. During the entire lengthy mass, with its mainly commonplace liturgy and dodgy singing, I remained moved in a way I did not find at all comfortable. I wanted my detachment back, but I couldn't find it.
And it did not end there. As it was Corpus Christi, when mass was over, the Pope, holding aloft the monstrance containing the blessed sacrament, came slowly down the steps to get into an open-topped Popemobile, a prie-dieu protected by a golden canopy settled on its flat-back. He was very close and looked very serious.
Then Signora Wild Boar called out his name - "Benedetto!"-and as he turned to acknowledge us, his face lightened and he smiled a smile of delighted sweetness before raising his arm to indicate that the blessed sacrament was more worthy of our attention. If Signora Wild
Boar had not been quite so bristly, I'd have kissed her.
By now it was almost dark, and candles collared with variously coloured tissue paper were handed out. We passed the light, one to another, and began to process slowly behind the Pope, away from St John Lateran, towards the equally grand Santa Maria Maggiore. In the windows of the houses along the street, hundreds of candles had been lit to reflect
our own, and small religious banners were draped for display. Men and women coming home from work knelt as the Popemobile passed. Children were held up.
I glanced behind me as I walked. With our candles raised, we looked like a great tide of flickering flowers, as if a luminous, murmuring garden was on the move. At Santa Maria Maggiore, we bowed our heads and were blessed. Then, just as quietly as he had arrived,
the Pope was gone.
As I made my way home, gallantly offered a scarce taxi by three tipsy Irishmen, I tried to reflect on what this experience actually meant. Was it, for me and the tens of thousands of others, a manifestation of genuine Catholic spirituality? Were we just star-struck by the
place and the spectacle? None of my emotions seemed remotely intellectually coherent. Yet I know that as I sang the Salve Regina under that warm Roman sky, with Signora Wild Boar singing wildly out of tune next door, I was filled with a faith as strong as the childish faith of
those wide-eyed first communicants, but much deeper, as if all those roots put down in my childhood had suddenly been watered. You may find this laughable. You may even find it disturbing. All I can say is that I found it utterly refreshing.
And this feeling of refreshment seems to have remained. I did many things in Rome and saw many sights. But even though I visited countless magnificent churches, an amphitheatre or two and several impossibly fashionable shops, the thing that remains sharpest is my chance encounter with an elderly man sporting bright white hair and the fisherman's ring. Pope Benedict XVI may not be blessed with the charisma of his predecessor, but my goodness, he still packs an Almighty punch.
September 2005
Josephine Robinson looks at:
THE CHURCH AND WOMEN
A priest saw a little boy sitting dejectedly on his church doorstep. ‘Hello!’ he said ‘Are you a Catholic?’ ‘I’m small for my age’ said the boy ‘and I haven’t got a dad. Isn’t that enough?’ Catholic women are often said to echo that sentiment. ‘We’re exhausted: we do most of the housework: the glass ceiling at work is bearing down on us and you expect us to be Catholic too?’ Catholic women are characterised as marginalised, angry, kept from the best jobs, and saddened. What is the reality of the Church’s attitude to women and of most Catholic women’s attitude to the Church?
First of all, it lies in the equality of men and women. ‘Equality’, some women may cry, ‘when the Pope, the Bishops and the priests are all men?’ Equality goes deeper than functions. Equality is about our creation, ‘Male and female, he created them’ (Gen.1: 27), and it is also about how we stand before God. Furthermore, equality is not the same as identity and we, as Catholic women, can say ‘Vive la Difference’.
THE WOMAN NEXT TO GOD THE SON
In the New Testament, the figure nearest to God the Son is Mary, the Woman, his mother: the perfect woman, but one whom we can love, who in the most real, most giving sense, is the mother who understands our hurts and our hopes. Her acceptance of the extraordinary request made to her is immediate and trusting. However disturbing his appearance, she knows an angel of God when she sees one. Her only question is how this divine child is to be conceived, since she is a virgin. When her question is answered, she accepts from the bottom of her heart. ‘I am the handmaid of the Lord’. She knows who she is and she knows who created the sun, moon and planets, who gave oceans and rivers, nature and animals and who created her and all mankind and it is in this profound knowledge that she places herself at his feet as his handmaid. There is no dichotomy between devotion to Our Lord and devotion to Our Lady. At the marriage at Cana she told the servants to ‘Do whatever he tells you’ and that is her command and that is what we must obey.
THE EARLY CHURCH DEFENDS GIRL BABIES
Women under the Roman Empire were better off than women in Athens but they had no status. For most of the Roman centuries, females were non-persons, without rights, legally subject to their fathers or husbands. This is clearly shown by the fact that a father could have his baby daughter exposed, that is left to die, often in open fields, if he did not want her for any reason. He could also get rid of infant sons, but only if they were weak or malformed — the Roman state was always hungry for future soldiers. The Early Church did not permit infanticide, in any circumstances, so that Christian families reared their baby daughters, baptising them, like their brothers and giving them a Christian name. Roman pagans sometimes did not even give the one daughter most families reared a particular name. They often had to make do with a feminine version of the family name; a daughter of the Cornelius family might be called Cornelia, whereas her brother might be called Publius Cornelius. The difference that Christianity made to women is shown by the fact that many young women in those early centuries became almost intoxicated with the love of Christ, sometimes defying pagan fathers, many of them accepting martyrdom, rather than deny him. They chose the freedom that came with their faith.
WHY PRIESTS CAN ONLY BE MEN
What are the two actions that are at the heart of the work of priests? They are the actuation, the making present, of Christ himself by the consecration of bread and wine at Mass and the power to forgive sins through the sacrament of reconciliation (confession).
The Church discerned as sacraments actions of Christ himself, which are related in the Gospels and this discernment is paramount. If we postulate some sort of conspiracy theory, that women, seated at the Last Supper also received the command ‘Do this as a memorial of me’ (Luke 22:19) and that later on the Church suppressed it in order to discriminate against women, we are left with a Church we cannot trust. If the Church had lied about Christ’s intentions, what else would she have lied about?
It is sometimes alleged that Christ only chose men as his apostles, those who were to be ‘sent’, because of the social structures of his age. Jesus was respectful of the social order only in as far as it reflected God’s laws. He threw out the moneychangers in the Temple, he healed on the Sabbath, and he encouraged the apostles to pick wheat in the fields to nibble, on the Sabbath day. Indeed, his assertion that he would destroy the Temple in three days, by which he meant the temple of his body, was to the Jewish authorities an outrageous statement. The Gospels give us no reason to believe that Jesus was, in any way, constricted by merely social conventions.
Priestesses were part of all religions at the time, except for Judaism. Jerusalem was an international city under the Roman occupying power so the concept was not unfamiliar.
The poet, T.S. Eliot, an Anglican, wrote that the Mass is the greatest of all dramas. There is a truth in that statement. The Mass is a drama, not in the sense of play-acting, not in the sense of moving to an ending we do not know, but in the exploration of the deepest interaction between man and God. Christ as the protagonist of the drama was a male. Therefore, it is fitting that the priest, standing in his place at the altar of the Last Supper of Calvary and of the Easter Garden, should be male. St Thomas Aquinas pointed out that a symbol needs to resemble as closely as possible, what is symbolised. It is no use using earth as a symbol of liquidity. That is also why a priest’s duty is to be like Christ in his love of God and his fellow men (‘men’ here is inclusive).
Official Letters sent
Catholic Herald 11/4/08
From the chairman of the Association of Catholic Women
SIR – All members of the Association of Catholic Women will endorse, your, excellent leading article (March 28) on our English and Scottish cardinals' response to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Their words give us courage.
May we put in a plea that everyone in the pro-life cause speaks or writes of "human beings at the embryo stage", rather than "human embryos", thus emphasising their humanity? We cannot forget that when human beings at the foetal stage were simply called "foetuses" , it sounded as if they were less human and less valuable and it is not surprising that the number of human beings aborted at the embryo and foetal stages has subsequently risen.
Yours faithfully,
JOSEPHINE ROBINSON
Letter to Bishop Hollis
Please forgive us for responding robustly to your words, reported in the Catholic Herald (November 16th 2007). We accept, of course, that you do not approve of prostitution, butwe are, nevertheless alarmed by your approval of licensed brothels. It is evident that support for the 'lesser evil' has limited application.
The 'lesser evil' of cannabis being downgraded as a dangerous drug has led to an increase in its use, similarly the removal of a definite closing time for pubs has led to increased alcohol consumption, with disastrous results for individuals, and the health service and its staff.
There is an assumption that whatever is allowed is acceptable. In the case of the legalisation of brothels, the result would almost certainly be more trafficking of women, more women dependent on drugs to get them through working days and nights and more men availing themselves of the use of women's bodies with whom they had no other relationship. Prostitution is sinful and demeaning to women or men and to the men and (few) women who employ them. Many women prostitutes find themselves in situations that they have not chosen - we are not pointing any fingers at prostitutes, but we feel every attempt should be made to minimise, rather than increase, the use of human beings in these ways.
A clarification was received
Bishop Hollis and the legalising of brothels - A clarification
My remarks on the question of legalising brothels were made in answer to a request from
The Portsmouth News to comment on the unanimous decision of the Hampshire Women's institutes to support such legislation. Their decision represented a response to things as they are, a situation in which prostitution, sadly, exists. Prostitution, and all that goes with it, is dehumanising and can be vicious. Women engaged in it are open to exploitation and victimisation. It is also associated with violence, the drug culture and the tragedy of worldwide human trafficking.
A way of life that involves such things is immoral and can never be justified, and there are serious issues at stake which must be addressed. Some say that the legalising of brothels may afford some measure of protection to a very vulnerable group of women. If this is true, such legislation could be useful. It was with this in mind that I made my comment; otherwise, I could not support its promotion.
My original comment made it very clear that I am totally opposed to any form of prostitution.
A time for embracing and a time to refrain
MRS ELIZABETH PRICE (Letters, The Catholic Times, January 21, 2007), interpreting the Rite of Marriage, writes that "there is no caveat that at such times [negative times ... when conception should not occur] intercourse must be suspended".
The Rite of Marriage also includes a question to bride and groom as to whether they will accept children with love as a gift from God.
That means that their sexual intercourse is to be open to life at all times. It does not just mean that they should not abort. Nor does it mean that a sort of semi-intercourse, with barriers raised between husband and wife against the possibility of conception, is the same as the gift of self in marriage.
With mutual consent, husbands and wives hold back from intercourse in cases of sickness or where the conception of a child would be inappropriate. It may not be easy at first, but then, what is? Latex barriers, which can slip or fear - and-in practice they do, ask any Crisis Pregnancy Centre worker - or pills which may have serious side effects? They know, with the writer of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, though in a different context, that "there is a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing".
The history of the acceptance of contraception is not an encouraging one.It was promoted at the beginning of the 20th century by 'progressive' members of the middle classes as a way of keeping the poor down in order to discourage them from "breeding like rabbits", as the phrase went.
It was permitted by the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 for married couples only, as if such limits could be maintained.
It made adultery no big deal and thus weakened marriage as an institution.
It was the first time that any Christian community anywhere had endorsed birth control.
Since contraceptives have a risk factor, not widely publicised by the manufacturers, pressure for permissive abortion legislation grew in order to deal with contraceptive failure.
After the Abortion . act was passed in 1967, Governments of both colours looked at the evidence of increasing family breakdown, which in turn, aided by the media, was leading children into early: sexual relationships. They decided that the way forward was to give children contraceptives and abortions without consulting their parents.
The position today, which includes the 185, 000 abortions a year, carried out on girls and women of all ages, is- too well known to require comment.
And all the time, God,. Through nature, had arranged that a woman's fertility was limited to a small part of her cycle and that her body gave signs that she;, and" her husband could interpret hold back their loving intercourse for a few days each month, if it really was the wrong time for a baby!
An excellent DVD called The Joy of God's Plan was launched last week in Westminster Cathedral Hall by Archbishop Kevin Macdonald of Southwark and Bishop Bernard Longley, Assistant Bishop of Westminster.
In it, couples talk about their own experiences of natural fertility management and how they have deepened their faith and increased their happiness. It can be obtained from: The Catholic Truth Society, 25 Ashley Place, London SWI.
Mrs Josephine Robinson,
Letter to ACW from the President of NBCW, Mrs Yogi Sutton
12 January 2007
Dear Madam
I write to you as President of the ACW at the unanimous request of members present at the NBCW Board meeting on 30 September 2006.
Under ‘any other business', an article written by a member of the ACW was brought to the BOARD's attention. As the article appeared following her attendance at the last NBCW Board meeting, I would like confirmation from you, on behalf of the ACW, that your organisation supports the function of the NBCW as a Consultative Body of the Bishops Conference.
If you write in the affirmative, I feel it appropriate to remind you that your subscription has not been paid for two years. Membership of NBCW is £40 per year and an invoice was sent to your Treasurer in 2005 and 2006. As a member you are entitled to send one representative
to the NBCW Board meetings. I would be grateful if you would send your subscription immediately or we will assume that your membership has lapsed.
I also ask you to confirm the name of your one representative to the NBCW Board.
I look forward to receiving your written response prior to the next NBCW meeting on the 10 March 2007, so that we may address the position of the ACW within the NBCW Board.
Yours in Christ
Mrs Y Sutton
President
The President
National Board of Catholic Women
11 June 2007 - Reply to Mrs Yogi Sutton
Dear Mrs Sutton
Thank you for your letter of 12 January 2007, a copy of which I have only just received. It is very unfortunate that it must have gone astray - possibly with other letters.
We do, of course, support the function of the NBCW, as a Consultative Body of the Bishops Conference. We feel that it is immensely important for the Bishops to be informed of the specific and often local concerns of Catholic women in the sphere of support for marriage and family life, the education of children in both faith and morals, in the well-being of women in employment outside the home, as well as migrant and enslaved women and others.
Our various representatives at the Board and I have all felt, however, that in practice we have had no opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the work of the Board and therefore the Steering Committee of the Association of Catholic Women decided unanimously with regret, that we would not renew our membership.
With best wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. Josephine Robinson
25 January 2007
Dear Mr Aston
re ACW ID cards
Thank you for your letter.
We do not agree that we are showing ourselves ‘lacking in compassion’ and ‘irresponsible’ in the wording of our card. We are aware that there may be cases where tubal feeding is inappropriate―it is impossible to state every possible eventuality on a card. We talked to many people before producing the card, and, of course, included doctors among them. Our intention is to indicate the presumption of good nursing care and the lack of any document or expressed opinion indicating that the patient would be happy to be starved and dehydrated to death. We can discern no compassion in that form of treatment. We do not pretend that this card has any legal status. We hope that the goodwill of doctors and nurses will see that it is taken into account.
There is a long tradition of carrying cards like these. I carry one myself. It is only changes in nursing practices that seemed to us to demand an elaboration of the wording beyond that of indicating that the patient would like to see a Catholic priest.
Yours sincerely
Mrs JosephineRobinson
Letter to The Tablet
8 January 2007
Dear Editor
We are puzzled by the comment in the leader, headed “Human rights revisited” (30 December 2006), that it would be a ‘huge step forward’ if the Church were ‘ to admit that the claim to life of a foetus, say in the earliest stages of its existence, was a right to be balanced along with the rights of the woman concerned’. Life is life and it begins at conception, otherwise two cells would not become four and so on. However, far developed an adult life may be, to award it rights against those of, as yet, undeveloped yet developing life, is also to favour the large over the small, the strong over the weak, the healthy over the sick, the educated over the ignorant.
The life of the pre-born human being is balanced against the rights of the woman who is mother about 180,000 times a year in this country alone, and all those babies are the losers.
The‘huge step forward’ your leader writer hopes for would be a stride away from Christianity.
Yours faithfully
Josephine Robinson (Chairman), Ruth Real (Secretary), Patti Fordyce (Treasurer)
Letter to Lord Adonis, House of Lords - similar letters were sent to The Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition
Lord Adonis
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
24 October 2006
Dear Lord Adonis,
The Association of Catholic Women is an independent organisation not under the immediate authority of the Catholic Bishops' Conference. Like our bishops, we are extremely concerned to hear of the proposals whereby new Roman Catholic schools will have to accept 25% non-Catholic children as pupils.
Catholic schools were set up in order that Roman Catholic parents could be confident that their children are being grounded in the Catholic faith, as a continuation of their parents' teaching, since parents are the primary educators of their children in matters of faith and morals. The 1944 Education Act reflected this.
The Church of England as the established, national church, by contrast, provided schools for children in this country just as it provides other services, weddings and funerals for example as a matter of course.
Catholic schools are so successful at the present time, largely because of the Catholic commitment of parents and staff, which they transmit to the children. This commitment runs through all social classes and ethnic differences . The one constant and unifying factor is their Catholic faith.
That is not to say that other schools cannot succeed in educating children well -- of course not. But it is clear that Catholic schools are very popular and sought after. A quota system would diffuse and weaken the very ethos that makes the schools so successful, academically and with regard to good behaviour. Many Catholic schools take many children who are not Catholic, if they have extra space, but a quota would mean that Catholic parents would not be able to find places for their children in schools which are set up for that very purpose. As it is now, there are simply not enough places for Catholic children in Catholic schools in many, though not all, parts of the country.
We strongly urge the government not to go ahead with this proposal which is both unfair to Catholics and inherently self-defeating in the aim of improving standards of education across the whole spectrum.
Yours sincerely
Letter to Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC
Mr Thompson
Director General
British Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcasting House
London W1A 1AA
2 October 2006
Dear Mr Thompson
Our members have already made known to us their disgust at last night's
Panorama programme entitled "Sex Crimes and the Vatican". It was
a very poor piece of work for a programme that used to have a high
reputation.
If the BBC had wanted to explore how the Magisterium had dealt with appalling cases of sexual abuse of children by priests, they should surely have begun by consulting priests in good standing in the Catholic Church and not rely on the testimony of one ex-priest and one ex- Benedictine. Or, at least, they should have read the documents. That would have saved them from the error of misunderstanding the subject of the document "Crimen Sollicitatem", which refers to attempts to misuse the seal of the confessional, not crimes of abuse of children. The Church has never sought to inhibit access to the law in these ghastly cases. Why was the material selected so random? Why were few (if any) dates given ? Why was a disgusting and prurient sequence shown of the degenerate Irish priest describing how he would seduce a little girl? No wonder that Rome would give no official assistance.
The BBC has an enormous responsibility to be honest and without prejudice. This is yet another failure on both counts. As Catholic women, living in the real world, we know that many people take their understanding of contemporary life from broadcasters. Once again the BBC has let them down.
Yours sincerely
Email to The Holy Father
20 September 2006
Your Holiness
We, members of the Association of Catholic Women of England and Wales, your devoted daughters in Christ, humbly wish to assure you of our love and prayers for your ministry to the whole world at this difficult time.
Josephine Robinson, Chairman.
The following letter was sent to both Cardinal Arinze and Cardinal Levada in Rome
14 September 2006
Your Eminence
Please forgive us approaching you directly in this letter.
We are an organisation of Catholic women in England and Wales who try, through prayer and study, to deepen our faith and to express our ' glad assent to the teachings of the Church '. We are enclosing a copy of our mission leaflet.
Our members are deeply disappointed that some Holydays of Obligation are to be moved to the nearest Sunday. The days themselves emphasise most beautifully the richness of the faith and each one highlights a specific teaching. Their transference flattens the profile of the faith and the days of the Epiphany, the Ascension and Corpus Christi convey to us as the people of God, a proper feeling of involvement and excitement. It also effectively means that the catechesis of three Sundays is lost including that of the Baptism of the Lord. The Sunday obligation of Mass is, of course, a most important duty of Catholics, but the celebration of feast days adds so much, it seems to us, and fires our imagination as well as our faith. The 'obligation' adds solemnity to the day.
We realise that some people find it impossible to attend Mass on a Holyday, but this is mostly in rural areas. In big cities, Holyday Masses, especially lunch time ones, often provide a real witness to the faith in the community at large and an opportunity for evangelisation.
We have written to the Secretary of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales and received a courteous answer from him, supporting the Conference's decision. We know that many Catholics, both priests and people, are disappointed by the Bishops' decision and very much hope that it is not final and that in other years, these wonderful feasts will be re-instituted as Holydays of Obligation.
May we ask for the blessing of your prayers for ourselves and for our Association?
We remain your Eminence's devoted daughters in Christ.
The Daily Telegraph
15 August 2006
Dear Editor
Your leader (August 14th 2006) is headed "The Pope should slow the spread of AIDS". That is exactly what the Holy Father and his predecessor have done by upholding the teaching on chastity which goes back to Christ. It is rich that instead of being grateful to the Catholic religious orders and charities which provide 25% of the care of sufferers from this ghastly disease, your leader writer makes it a matter of reproach because they do not distribute condoms.
Many of us have worked in crisis pregnancy centres in this country and we know from clients that condoms are far from being one hundred per cent effective in the real world, however perfect they are in the factory. They slip and come off and they tear. The climate in sub-Saharan Africa is unlikely to be ideal for latex, which keeps better in cool temperatures. Poor people may well be obliged to use a condom twice, if they use it at all. As a contraceptive, a condom only has to be effective in use for about eight days in a woman's cycle. Against AIDS, it would have to be effective every day of the month.
As we have seen with sex education for young people in this country, the encouragement of condom use has not reduced the conception rate amongst adolescents and rates of chlamydia and other STIs are rising significantly in all sexually active age groups. It is very seductive to be told that there can be no untoward outcomes if condoms are used. It is something that people are likely to want to believe. The result is more casual and extra marital sexual activity: the result is more infections and in the case of AIDS fatal ones.
Cardinal Danneels is, of course right in saying "Thou shalt not kill". His prescription, however, is counter productive and will increase the very outcome you are seeking to avoid.
Sincerely
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note from ALERT
The Liverpool Care Pathway is good as care for the dying, as Dr. Lamerton explains.
The problem only arises when elderly people who are not close to death are put on it; it can then become a self-fulfilling prophecy. A hospital consultant has said "I can stab you in the chest, or throw you out of a high window, and you may not die. But if I deprive you of water, you will certainly die."
See ACW Card
LIVERPOOL CARE PATHWAY FOR THE DYING PATIENT
Some members of Alert have expressed concern about this care system because its author, Professor John Ellershaw, has developed a protocol about hydration and sedation of dying patients which could shorten life. I used to visit the Marie Curie Hospice in Liverpool regularly and never felt unease about the care of the patients by Dr. Ellershaw.
The Liverpool Care Pathway is intended for use in the final days or hours of life.
On the question of hydration: The patient will suffer if doctors get it wrong in either direction. Under-hydration means the patient dying of thirst. Over-hydration means patients drowning in their own lung secretions, because if intra-venous fluids are given to a failing heart, it can't cope. Back-pressure develops as the heart's pump cannot push through all the fluid being sent to it. In the body this manifests as oedema — swelling of the feet and hands, but in the lungs it means a steady build-up of fluid leaking into the lungs. The eventual outcome is the "death rattle" due to water bubbling up and down in the bronchi as the person struggles to breathe. Many many times, in hospital wards, I have had to stop excessive intra-venous fluids being pushed into dying patients.
Of course, if a person can drink they should do, assisted by a nurse if needs be. But if they can't and are not immediately dying, this needs to be watched. A little water in the mouth (e.g. ice cubes melting in a gauze cover) might be sufficient, but if someone is semi-conscious for a long time, and their mouth and eyes are obviously dry, it is kind to rehydrate them. As Dr. Gillian Craig is pointing out wherever she can, the best way to do this is by letting the body absorb fluid at its own rate, very gently, by an infusion either under the skin with a subcutaneous needle or into the rectum with a tube. These are procedures that nurses can do without having to find a doctor to put a needle into a vein.
Richard Lamerton
Melanie Phillips writing in the Daily Mail 14 January 2008 said
The news that Gordon Brown has thrown his weight behind a move to register everyone automatically as an organ donor unless they opt out has all the hallmarks of a major spin operation.
The Sunday newspapers ran prominent stories about the proposal, which is piggy-backing on tomorrow's ' government review aimed at boosting the number of organs donated for transplant.
Mr Brown himself penned an article arguing that voluntary organ donation should be replaced by an opt-out system. Similarly, the BBC had clearly been primed with information to promote the story` pride of place.
If this is supposed to assist Mr Brown's new year campaign to restore his waning political fortunes, it's a pretty rum way of going about it.
To begin with, the idea is not even new. England's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, first proposed such an opt-out system last summer.
Maybe Mr Brown thinks he can humanise his image by capitalising on the distress of people suffering or dying for want of a transplantable organ.
Threatening
Undoubtedly, the impulse to give people the gift of life after one's own death is a noble one. But if Mr Brown really imagines that he will win popular acclaim by saying that the state will whip out people's hearts or kidneys without their consent, his advisers undoubtedly need a brain transplant.
For the implications are truly terrifying. There is no more fundamental human right than control over our own bodies and what is done to them, both in life and death.
The inescapable implication of a donor opt-out is that we no longer possess such control. The presumption instead is that the state controls our bodies and can do what it likes with them after it declares us to be dead.
If the medical profession alone were to suggest this—as its leadership most lamentably is doing—it would be alarmingly coercive. For the Government to be backing it, however, deepens coercion into something even more threatening.
Volunteering to donate your organs is one thing. Making it compulsory unless you opt out transforms an act of altruism into state oppression.
Sir Liam attempts to defuse public hostility by saying soothingly that opting out would be an `inalienable right'. On the contrary— being forced to opt out of automatic donation destroys our inalienable right to control what happens to us.
It is a weaselly, back-door means of trapping people into having something done to them when they are declared to be dead which may be unacceptable to them in life. Opting out requires an effort. Many will simply .forget to do so. That is the cynical calculation behind the scheme. In addition, what will happen—as inevitably as night follows day—is that people will be put under great pressure not to opt out. Patients who have done so may well be discriminated against.
Chillingly, hospitals are to be rated according to the number of dead patients they `convert' into donors. It is hard to imagine a more sinister incentive for the wholesale abuse of vulnerable patients.
There is, however, a yet more fundamental objection to the opt-out proposal. This is the serious doubt whether people whose organs are harvested are indeed dead.. All the evidence suggests that organs are harvested not from the dead but from the dying. In other words, at the time the organs are removed the patients are still alive.
This is because, in these cases, the criterion doctors use to decide that someone has died is the death of the brain stem. This is said to be ‘brain death', and thus death itself.
However, it does not follow at all that the rest of the brain has also ceased to function. Yet no tests are carried out on other parts of the brain to establish whether all activity there has actually ceased or not.
Nourished
As a result, people are declared dead while their heart is still beating unassisted and blood is still circulating round the body. Most of us would think such patients are not dead but very much alive.
Indeed former transplant doctors, who became so horrified by the implications of what they were doing that they abandoned the practice, say that organs for transplant are only viable if the donor is still alive— since when the body is really dead the organs become useless to anyone else, as they die too.
Brain stem death is in fact merely a convenient definition that allows surgeons to remove organs from a living body while they are still being nourished by its blood supply.
Such observations provoke outrage in transplant doctors who claim there is no basis for such ‘scaremongering', which will cause more people to die because potential organ donors will be unreasonably frightened off. But among such doctors, their own behaviour gives the game away.
Some give ‘brain stem dead' patients a general anaesthetic before removing their organs.
But whoever heard of anaesthetising a corpse?
The reason they do it is because. of a sharp rise in blood pressure during the organ removal. Some doctors claim they administer the anaesthetic simply because it stops the excessive bleeding caused by this blood pressure rise.
But a rise in blood pressure during any surgical procedure is an indication that the body is experiencing physical distress.
Dr David Hill, a retired anaesthetist who has long expressed deep concern about organ donation, has written that if patients react in similar fashion when their organs are being removed, the most logical conclusion is that they are not in fact dead.
In recent years, ‘brain stem death' has been increasingly questioned as we realise how little we know about the brain. Doctors are discovering that, among patients in a persistent vegetative state whose brains are presumed to have stopped functioning, there is in fact a large amount of brain activity. The implications for what patients presumed to be ‘brain dead' might be experiencing are simply unknowable.
Amoral
More and more experts have been expressing increasing concern about brain stem death and organ donation. Three doctors wrote in a medical journal last year that declaring patients dead for the purposes of harvesting their organs was in effect a fiction, and that prospective organ donors were not being told the truth.
And a professor of philosophy and expert in medical ethics, Michael Potts, has drawn the horrifying conclusion: ‘Since the patient is not truly dead until his or her organs are removed, it is the process of organ donation itself that causes the donor's death.'
In Britain, however, the medical establishment backs organ donation and the proposed opt-out scheme. This is because the British Medical Association and the medical royal colleges long ago lost their own ethical plot. Renouncing the core medical precept, ‘First do no harm', they have come to believe instead in the amoral doctrine that the end justifies the means.
As a result, from abortion, embryo research and cloning to starving. and dehydrating ‘dispensable' patients to death, respect for human life has been replaced by the belief that individual lives are merely instrumental to the creation of the happiness of the greatest number.
This way lies the most alarming infringement of human rights and a descent into tyranny.
A system the public believes embodies the highest form of altruism rests instead on deception and unlawful killing. Far from being forced into an automatic/opt-out donation system, people should finally be told the truth.
|
