|
LATEST
31 March 2010
The Association of Catholic Women affirms its full support for our beloved Holy Father, Benedict XVI, and pledges to him full loyalty at this difficult time when he is the target of undeserved attack from many quarters. We thank him for his service to the Church, and especially in the matter of dealing with those who have brought dishonour to the priesthood by evil acts, and we salute his courage.
_____________________________________
Letter to Mr Miliband (when he was Foreign Secretary) 1st May 2010
Dear Mr Miliband
The Association of Catholic Women consists of Catholic women who come together seeking to deepen their Catholic Christian faith with particular concern for the welfare of marriage and families and the defence of human life from conception to natural death. We have no official position in the Catholic Church.
As Catholic women, we were repelled to read the e-mails circulated within Government about the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI's visit to this country in September, at the invitation of the Queen and at the instigation of the Prime Minister. They were puerile and insulting beyond belief We cannot imagine that any other plead of State, let alone a spiritual leader of over one billion people world wide, would have been mocked in this way, by the servants of the government who had invited him. As tax-payers, we utterly reject the government's use of our taxes to fund these insults.
This cannot be viewed simply as a jape by a few ignorant young people. By selecting them to propose some sort of programme for the Pope's visit, the Foreign Office is implicated in a lack of seriousness and courtesy, along with an apparent ignorance of almost anything to do with Catholic Christianity. an ignorance which is disgraceful in the government of a country with a long Christian heritage. during which Catholic Christians suffered persecution and loss of civil rights for the best part of four centuries.
Since the responsibility for this debacle is ultimately your own, we wish you to know the sadness and distress this has caused not only our members but no doubt many other Catholic women and men, along with other people of good will, Christian, Muslims and those of no faith.
Yours faithfully
Reply from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
20 May 2010
Dear Ms Robinson,
Thank you for your letter of 1st May 2010 to David Miliband regarding the forthcoming visit by Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom. I am replying from the department handling the Papal Visit at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
As the FCO has made clear publicly, the memorandum containing the offensive suggestions for the Papal Visit was a foolish document that did not in any way reflect FCO views. It was ill-judged, naive and disrespectful of some key tenets of the Catholic faith. It has caused great offence and done considerable reputational harm to the standing of the Diplomatic Service.
Having considered all the facts carefully, the FCO has taken the decision to ensure that the staff involved in the production of this memorandum undergo urgent diversity training and have no further involvement in the visit. In one case, a member of staff has been suspended pending a misconduct investigation. The FCO has taken robust action in this instance and it would do so again under similar circumstances irrespective of the religion involved.
The FCO very much regrets this incident and is deeply sorry for the offence which it has caused. We strongly value the close and productive relationship between the UK Government and the Holy See and look forward to deepening this further with the visit of Pope Benedict to the UK later this year.
I hope this addresses your reasons for writing.
Yours sincerely,
I Craig
Papal Visit Team
_____________________________________
Letter to Rt Rev Malcom McMahon
Chairman
Catholic Education Service of England and Wales
39 Eccleston Square
London SW1V 1BX
5 May 2010
Dear Bishop McMahon
You may recall that we wrote to you some weeks ago to express our concern that Miss Stannard had not replied to our earlier letter regarding the Sex and Relationships provisions of the Children, Schools and Families Bill then going through Parliament. As you may be aware, we subsequently received a reply from Miss Stannard, proclaiming her conviction that the provisions in the Bill were perfectly acceptable to Catholics.
With respect, that is not the point. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council asserted the rights of parents, as the `primary and principal educators' of their children to act as the `authors of education'; it is the role of civil society `.to protect the duties and rights of parents and others who share in education and to give them aid; according to the principle of subsidiarity, when the endeavours of parents and other societies are lacking, to carry out the work of education in accordance with the wishes of the parents' (Gravissimum
Educationis, 3). We cannot understand, therefore, on what basis the CES presumed to negotiate away the right of parents to determine what Sex and Relationships Education their children should receive.
Catholics might have been forgiven for thinking that the CES would have shared their relief that these provisions were removed from the Bill prior to its passage at the end of the last Parliament. Now, however, we have been astonished and distressed to learn of the appointment of Mr. Greg Pope as Assistant Director of the Catholic Education Service.
How can an applicant who supports the abortion of human beings up to sixteen weeks gestation, when Catholic teaching defends all human life from conception to natural death, be employed by a Catholic institution where he will have influence on the Catholic education of schoolchildren?
It is public knowledge that he has endorsed numerous promotions of contraceptives in Parliament, voted for the Mental Capacity Bill, which passed into law and voted against adoptions limited to heterosexual and married couples. However sincerely he holds these views, the views themselves are incompatible with Catholic teaching. Why has the CES appointed someone whose record as an MP indicates far more sympathy with the government's position than that of the Catholic Church?
When we heard of this appointment, we felt we had no other option but to approach you. Most of our members are mothers or grandmothers, whose principal concern is to pass on the teaching of the Church to their children and grandchildren. They recognise in the Church's understanding of sexuality and marriage the most beautiful affirmation of God's love for men and women and the nurture that children need to grow in faith. They surely have the right to expect the CES, paid for by the contributions of the faithful, to defend that understanding. On what authority does an agency of the Bishops' Conference do otherwise?
Yours sincerely
________________________
Letter to Channel 4
Dear Mr Lee,
We write from The Association of Catholic Women, a group not part of the official structures of the Catholic Church, to express our surprise and dismay at the news that Channel 4 plans to broadcast a programme on Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to this country and has commissioned Peter Tatchell to make it.
Since you must know as well as we do that Peter Tatchell frequently expresses total hostility to the Holy Father and all he stands for, there is no chance at all of a balanced programme. Would you insult any other official guest of the Queen in a similar way? We very much doubt it and indeed hope that Channel 4 would not do so.
Pope Benedict is recognised as a man of holiness and integrity, a great spiritual leader of well over a billion Catholics, world wide. He is much loved. The comparatively few Catholics who choose to accept some Catholic teachings while rejecting others, are overwhelmingly outnumbered by Catholics who accept the successor of St. Peter with love and admiration and support him in prayer.
We would urge you very strongly not to go ahead with this insulting and distressing plan in order not to devalue the ethos of Channel 4 and allow a remarkable and utterly good man to be traduced.
Yours sincerely,
___________________________________
Letter to Advertising Standards Authority
Dear Director
We are an association of Catholic women, who are not a part of the Catholic Church’s structures. We want you to know of our dismay at the advertisement for Marie Stopes International on Channel Four. It is clear that when the Chief Executive of Marie Stopes International is reported as saying that she hopes the campaign, called, ‘Are you Late?’ will encourage women to speak openly about their anxieties, she is seeking to normalise further the idea that to abort a child in formation in the womb is often an acceptable solution to a problem. Abortion takes a life and often inflicts damage, physical and psychological, on the mother. Taking life is not a solution to a mother’s tremendous fears, concerns and anxieties.
Advertising is always intended to promote a product. The product in this case is abortion Any other advice proffered will cost little money – a few names and addresses. Marie Stopes International may not be profit-making, but since its income stands at £100million annually, (much of it from NHS contracts), it must be able to pay those who work for it handsomely. We are particularly surprised at this showing, since a recent public consultation on this issue revealed that TV advertising abortions, however carefully worded, was not supported by many people. Trivialising abortion misleads people as to its true nature and frequent negative consequences.
We find it hard to understand why this advertisement has been broadcast and we urge you to forbid any repetition.
Yours faithfully
_____________________________
Letter to The Prime Minister
20 January 2010
Dear Mr. Brown
We are an unofficial organisation of Catholic women.
We have read with great anxiety about the Human Equality bill and its likely implications for the Catholic Church and for other religious bodies.
If it becomes law, it will, in effect, oblige Christians to put obedience to the laws of the state above the long-upheld laws of Christian teaching, which we, as Christians, hold sacred and many others see as the bed-rock of liberty.
You, yourself, have often spoken of the direction given to your 'moral compass' by your upbringing and the influence of your father and the two great commandments that he taught - to love God and to love our fellow men and women. Our society has been far from perfect, but an individual's freedom to practise that individual's religion is at the forefront of a civilised constitution and has been upheld in this country since the penal laws were repealed.
The bill has implications for the authority of the Catholic Church to require celibate males to be priests and to demand their obedience to the requirements of the faith. It would have crippling indications in matters of recruitment and training of staff for charities and schools. Examples from the twentieth century in other countries show us what happens when this freedom is denied.
We very much hope that you will put your moral authority against this bill.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Robinson Patti Fordyce Ruth Real
Reply received 6 May 2010
Dear Ms Robinson
Thank you for your letter of 21st January 2010 to the Prime Minister about the Equality Act.
I should clarify that the Equality Act 2010 will not change the existing position regarding occupational requirements. Religious organisations such as a Jewish Care Home or an Anglican Pastoral Centre will still be able to require an employee to be a particular religion or belief if it is a requirement of the job. In addition, the requirement must be a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.
For example a religious organisation may wish to require its chief executive to be of that faith because the post holder would need to have an in-depth understanding of the religion's doctrines. This could be lawful but other posts where there is no requirement which may include secretaries should be open to all people regardless of their religion or belief.
The Equality Act 2010 will not alter the scope of the current law which allows an exception in the case of employment for the purposes of an organised religion meaning Ministers of Religion plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion.
The exception allows requirements to be made of these employees related to sex, being married or in a civil partnership, gender reassignment and sexual orientation. For example a church may require a priest to be unmarried and celibate but could not impose similar requirements on other employees such as accountants. The Equality Act 2010 will keep these existing exceptions.
Yours sincerely
-------------------------------------------------
No replies have been received to the following letters
25 February 2010
Dear Miss Stannard
We write to express the concern of many of our members about the Children,
Schools and Families Bill currently going through Parliament. In
particular, there is anxiety about its provisions for mandatory Sex
and Relationships Education, and there is widespread uncertainty about
the role the CES has played in the preparatory stages of the Bill.
A number of questions have been raised with us and we would be grateful
for your response to them:
Would you kindly explain how mandatory sex education for primary school
children from the age of five can be reconciled with Church teaching
as contained in Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, especially,
but not exclusively, paragraph 78?
How can the loss of the right of parents to withdraw their children
from sex education lessons from the age of 15 be reconciled with the
Second Vatican Council's teaching on the role of parents as "primary
educators of their children"?
In your appearance before the Public Bill Committee considering the
Bill, we would ask why you hesitated as between 15 and 16 as the
age for the right of parental withdrawal to be removed, rather than
supporting parental rights up to the age of 19 (as at present)?
During the course of the CES's "extensive negotiations with Government
" (your letter to the Catholic Herald, 2nd February 2010), we would
like to know what consultations with Catholic schools and parents
did the CES undertake?
Given these "extensive negotiations", why was the Secretary of State's
amendment tabled at such a late stage, rather than being incorporated
into the Bill before publication?
What are the practical implications of the amendment, given the Secretary
of State's subsequent statements, not least on the Today programme
of 23rd February?
23/3/10
Dear Bishop McMahon
We have been disappointed that we have not so far received any acknowledgement
of the enclosed letter of 25th February to Miss Stannard, still less a considered response. We trust that this is due to other pressures on Miss Stannard’s time, rather than a calculation that the concerns of our members (all of whom will, within the past few weeks, have been encouraged to contribute to the annual statutory collection in support of the CES) do not matter very much.
In the absence of the hoped for reply from Miss Stannard, we wonder whether you would be kind enough to respond to the questions we have raised. In addition, we have noted your recent statement that “In the face of a Government with a very large parliamentary majority, the CES considers that it gets the best results for the Catholic community
by negotiation.”.
We wonder whether this is a general policy, or if it is one the CES has adopted on this particular issue. If it is a general policy, does that not tend to suggest that there are no matters that are non-negotiable? If it is a policy adopted in relation to this particular issue, has the CES not taken into account that this Parliament is drawing to a close? Would determined opposition to the offending provisions of this bill not have made it an unlikely choice for “nodding through” unopposed in the “washing up” at the dissolution?
We look forward to your response.
-------------------------------------------
Fr Stock General Secretary of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales
4 March 2010
Dear Father Stock
A Practical Guide to the Spiritual Care of the Dying
We write to express our great disappointment that we were unable to take part in the recently concluded consultation exercise relating to the bishops' draft document, A Practical Guide to the Spiritual Care of the Dying.
We note that the press release announcing the consultation, posted on the Bishops' Conference website, is dated 2nd February 2010, and that the consultation ended on 26th February. Leaving on one side the question of whether a press release on the bishops' Conference website is adequate publicity for public consultation on an issue of such importance, we do not consider that less than one month is a sufficient length of time for such a consultation to remain open. The Code of Practice of the Cabinet Office, for example, stipulates a 12 week period for its own written consultations.
We are somewhat concerned that a document relating to spiritual care is so heavily weighted towards physical and medical care. For those of our members who are, statistically speaking, nearer the end of their lives than the beginning, their principal worry is whether a priest will be available to anoint them and administer Viaticum when the time comes.
We also have serious reservations about the unqualified endorsement their Lordships give to the Liverpool Care Pathway. A disquieting number of our members report experiences of friends and family members being left, sometimes for days, without hydration. The tolerance of hydration at a late stage is known to vary from individual to individual. This should be taken into account by the presumption that hydration will benefit the patient. Sedation also inhibits the patient's ability, if not to recover, to benefit from the presence of their loved ones in their final days.
We understand that the LCP has value in the very limited circumstances for which it was devised: for the hospice care of terminally ill patients in the last hours – as opposed to days – of life. For others, the prediction of approaching death (which even palliative care specialists regard as a somewhat inexact science) can be made self-fulfilling by such (lack of) care. For Catholics, the fundamental issue must be whether the LCP has, as its underlying principle, respect for the dignity of the human person until earthly life's natural end.
We note that the consultation document remains on the Bishops' Conference website. We hope that proper consideration will be given by their Lordships to re-opening the consultation for a further period (and for widespread publicity to be given to it), in order that interested bodies and individuals may have a genuine opportunity to give a considered response.
Yours sincerely
_______________________________________
.
|
