Who was Edith Stein?

In October 1998, St John Paul II  declared Blessed Teresa Benedicta of the Cross to be a saint.  Saint Teresa is better known as Edith Stein.  In 1999, he added her to the list of patron saints of the European continent. Her feast day is 9th August, and it is celebrated with the Liturgical rank of Feast in the dioceses of Europe. Who was St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross?  What is her importance for us today?

Edith was the youngest child in a large and talented Jewish family.  She was born on 12th October 1891.  Her family lived in the German town of Breslau, a town which is now known as Wroclaw and is part of Poland.  She rejected her Jewish faith, and describes how from the age of 15 she lived without religious faith.  Edith was amongst the first women to study at German universities.  At Gottingen she was able to study with some of the cleverest philosophers of her generation.  Her attempts to gain a permanent university post were blocked, at first because of the fact that she was a woman but later because of growing anti-Jewish feeling.

Through her studies Edith came to meet a number of people who had embraced Christian faith.  She was led first of all to an awareness of the life of religious faith amongst those around her, then to an awareness of the redemptive power of the cross in the life of a Lutheran friend who had suffered bereavement, and finally to faith in the Catholic Church.  Her conversion came about because of her absolute dedication to the truth wherever she found it.  This dedication was an aspect of her philosophical stance, but at the decisive moments in her conversion, the philosophy was incidental.  Instead, it was the series of personal encounters, culminating in her encounter with St Teresa of Avila in reading her Life, that determined her conversion.

As a lay Catholic, Edith lived out much that was later to be emphasised in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.  She lived a life of intense personal prayer, often spending hours on her knees before the Blessed Sacrament.  She developed a tremendous love of the Liturgy, through her visits to the Benedictine Abbey of Beuron - she once described returning from Beuron to her active life as being “almost like dropping from heaven to earth”.  She used the Divine Office for her prayer - decades before it became common for lay people to do so.  For many years Edith taught at St Magdalena’s, the Dominican sisters school in Speyer.  One of her students remembered her like this: “She succeeded in setting the course not only for my studies but for all my future moral aspirations. With her you sensed you were in the presence of something pure, sublime, and noble, something that elevated you and brought you to its own level”.  In a personal apostolate of like to like, she also influenced the lives of many of the trainee teachers and Dominican novices at St Magdalena’s.  Through her collaboration with Fr Erich Pryzwara, she pursued an intellectual apostolate which gained her an international reputation as a lecturer.

Edith was eventually forced out of public life in Germany because of the rise of anti-Jewish persecution under the Nazis.  In 1933 she fulfilled her goal of entering the Carmelite order as an enclosed nun.  All Edith’s active apostolate is to be seen as directed towards this step - it was  undertaken under obedience in response to the suggestions of others, a form of obedience expressed in its fullness in Edith’s life as a religious. Her life can be summed up as one of preferring the religious life.  Edith was transferred from the convent at Cologne to that at Echt in Holland as anti-Jewish persecution in Germany increased.  That was not enough to keep her safe.  In 1942, the Catholic bishops joined other Christian leaders in Holland in a protest against the deportation of Jews by the German occupying authorities, a protest that was at first not made public.  Subsequently, a pastoral letter condemning the German actions was read in all Catholic parishes.  This led the Germans to retaliate by arresting all Catholics of Jewish descent, Edith and her sister Rosa amongst them.  Edith and Rosa were deported with others to the concentration camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau where they both died immediately after arrival on 9th August 1942.

Edith’s personality combined a very warm love for others with an ability to be severely critical.  Her nephews and nieces adored her - the special aunt who appeared only rarely, no more than twice a year, with a cloud-soft voice and a gentle smile, cool and aloof.  Despite the pain caused by her conversion and entry into Carmel, her family retained a very rich love towards her which she reciprocated.  Edith could kneel for hours in prayer, without moving - and genuinely found it difficult to understand why others could not do the same.  The severe aspect of her character arose from the very high standards that Edith set for herself, rather than any antagonism towards others.  It was also expressed in her implacable opposition to the Nazis - she would have approved entirely of the action of the Dutch bishops which led to her own martyrdom.  At one of her interrogations with the German authorities, before her arrest, she replaced the expected Nazi salute with the words: “Praised be Jesus Christ!”.

Edith Stein is an example to us of the part that lay people have to play in the Church, both in her life of prayer and in her work with others in the world.  She is at the same time an example to us of the part which  religious (nuns, monks and priests) have to play in the Church.  The thread which links these together is her obedience to God’s grace, which led her from unbelief to the Catholic faith, and on to her life as a Carmelite nun.

[An appreciation of Edith Stein alongside John Henry Newman can be found here: St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.]

The greengrocer's slogan - updated for 2021

 Some five years ago I posted on St Charles Lwanga and companions, on the occasion of their feast day (3rd June): St Charles Lwanga and Companions: an opportunity to comment on recent events.That post included an explanation by Rocco Buttiglione of events which occurred when he was nominated as a commissioner for the European Union.

When we compare the experience of St Charles Lwanga and his companions to that of Rocco Buttiglione, what occurred for the former as a physical persecution has been replaced now by a discrimination at the level of culture. At root, what is at issue is the same - Catholic teaching on homosexuality, explained very clearly by Rocco Buttiglione in my earlier post. But the challenge experienced by Catholics now is in resisting a cultural imposition of an opposite teaching rather than in facing a direct threat to life. The timing of St Charles' feast is surprisingly pertinent, with the annual display of LGBT flags and banners that is currently under way just about everywhere. 

I am reminded of a passage from Vaclav Havel's famous essay The Power of the Powerless, in which the author reflects on the role of ideology in a post-totalitarian society such as that existing in Czechoslovakia (as it then was) during the Communist era. The passage begins at the bottom of page 5 of this post of the essay, and forms section III of the essay. Reading the whole of this section, but with "Pride" flags in mind rather than "Workers of the world unite!" slogans, prompts the thought as to how far Vaclav Havel's essay can be applied to the very different time and context that prevails now. Think about it, especially when you visit your supermarket during this month.

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moments thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? 

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Do follow the link to read the rest of Vaclav Havel's analysis. 

Sex Education and the European Convention on Human Rights: is Damian Hinds right?

According to the BBC report:

In an oral statement to the Commons on Thursday, Mr Hinds said: "We've previously committed to parents having a right to withdraw their children from the sex education part of RSE [relationships and sex education], but not from relationships education, in either primary or secondary school.

"A right for parents to withdraw their child up to 18 years of age is no longer compatible with English case law nor with the European Convention on Human Rights."

But is it true to suggest that the European Convention on Human Rights disallows withdrawal by parents of their children from sex education in the years immediately leading up to age 18?

The consultation document about which Damian Hinds was speaking can be found at the Department for Education website: here. It represents a draft of statutory guidance to which, if it is implemented, schools will have "have regard". The relevant sections can be found on page 12 and following.  My emphasis added in the extract below:

36. The role of parents in the development of their children’s understanding about relationships is vital. Parents are the first educators of their children. They have the most significant influence in enabling their children to grow and mature and to form healthy relationships.

And the relevant article of the Protocol to the European Convention on Human  Rights, which forms a full part of the Convention, with my emphasis added (cf Article 26 n.3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights):

Article 2: right to education  

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

Damian Hinds' consultation document at n.36 represents a clear and blatant derogation from the provision of the Convention to which it has reference.

This derogation is further followed by the suggestion of a good practice which expects headteachers to, in effect, make every effort to dissuade a parent from exercising a right to withdrawal. Given the likely power imbalance in the conversation between a head teacher and an individual parent, the use of the terminology of "discuss" or "discussion" may not accurately reflect the provision of the Convention that the State respect the right of parents with regard to the education of their children.

41. Parents have the right to request that their child be withdrawn from some or all of sex education delivered as part of statutory RSE. Before granting any such request it would be good practice for the head teacher to discuss the request with the parent and, as appropriate, with the child to ensure that their wishes are understood and to clarify the nature and purpose of the curriculum.

42. Good practice is also likely to include the head teacher discussing with the parent the benefits of receiving this important education and any detrimental effects that withdrawal might have on the child. This could include any social and emotional effects of being excluded, as well as the likelihood of the child hearing their peers’ version of what was said in the classes, rather than what was directly said by the teacher (although the detrimental effects may be mitigated if the parent proposes to deliver sex education to their child at home instead).  

43. Once those discussions have taken place, except in exceptional circumstances, the school should respect the parents’ request to withdraw the child, up to and until three terms before the child turns 16. After that point, if the child wishes to receive sex education rather than be withdrawn, the school should make arrangements to provide the child with sex education during one of those terms.

So is Damian Hinds telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with regard to his proposals and the European Convention on Human Rights?

Boris on Europe

Boris Johnson's remarks (here and here) comparing the present day European Union to the efforts of such as Hitler and Napoleon are quite gratuitously offensive. And the readiness of others to spring to his defence displays an ignorance of the historical origins of the European Union that is incredible to watch.

If you read the biographies of the figures now seen as the "founding fathers" of the European Union two things are very apparent. Firstly, in different ways dictated by their different national origins, they resisted Nazism or Italian Fascism; and secondly their inspiration was that a Europe that had a range of economic and social interdependence was a Europe that would not again be able to be rent by the horror of warfare.

Konrad Adenaur - who refused to decorate Cologne with swastikas for a visit of Adolf Hitler after the Nazis came to power.

Alcide de Gaspari - who was imprisoned by the Italian fascists before the Second World War, and subsequently protected from them by way of an employment in the Vatican library.

Sicco Mansholt - an active and effective member of the resistance movement against the Nazis in occupied Holland during the Second World War.

Robert Schuman - active in the French resistance against the Nazis, who narrowly escaped deportation to Dachau. [Robert Schuman was sheltered for at least part of the time at the Catholic Shrine of La Salette, where a room in the shrine complex is named after him.]

Altiero Spinelli - imprisoned for 16 years by the Italian fascists.

Winston Churchill - whose plea for a "United States of Europe" makes a complete nonsense of Boris Johnson's claim that Churchill would join him in campaigning for an out vote.

It is sad that, given the original inspiration of a shared economic and social life between the different nations of Europe in favour of the promotion of peace between those nations, the present debate before the UK's referendum on membership of the European Union is being conducted almost exclusively in the language of self interest. Our politicians are presenting us with the wrong question, that of which outcome will make the UK more (apparently) prosperous, whereas the right question is that of the common good of all the peoples of Europe.

Pope Francis has reminded us of this original inspiration in his address on receiving the Charlemagne Prize:

The writer Elie Wiesel, a survivor of the Nazi death camps, has said that what we need today is a “memory transfusion”. We need to “remember”, to take a step back from the present to listen to the voice of our forebears. Remembering will help us not to repeat our past mistakes (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 108), but also to re-appropriate those experiences that enabled our peoples to surmount the crises of the past. A memory transfusion can free us from today’s temptation to build hastily on the shifting sands of immediate results, which may produce “quick and easy short-term political gains, but do not enhance human fulfilment” (ibid., 224).

To this end, we would do well to turn to the founding fathers of Europe. They were prepared to pursue alternative and innovative paths in a world scarred by war. Not only did they boldly conceive the idea of Europe, but they dared to change radically the models that had led only to violence and destruction. They dared to seek multilateral solutions to increasingly shared problems.

It is worth reading the whole of Pope Francis' address for its account of a Europe rooted in three capacities - the capacity to integrate, the capacity for dialogue and the capacity to generate .

Sts Cyril and Methodius, Patrons of Europe

Whilst the secular world has requisitioned 14th February as Valentine's Day (is the dropping of the "saint" perhaps significant?), the western Church marks the day as the Feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius. These are two of six patron saints of Europe.

At a time when it is some of the countries in the Eastern part of Europe that face a particular challenge from population movement, it might be appropriate on Sunday to keep in prayer these countries that their governments and peoples might adopt just and compassionate responses to the migrants arriving at their borders. That prayer might also extend to the more prosperous countries of northern Europe that they might be generous in their welcome and support of refugees.

At a time when the representatives of the United Kingdom are seeking to renegotiate that country's relationship with the European Union we might also keep in prayer the discussions due to take place at a summit meeting later this week. We should seek positions based on the common good of all the peoples of Europe, and not the political self interest of individuals or movements in political parties that are largely based on perceptions more or less motivated by selfishness.

When Pope John Paul II declared Sts Cyril and Methodius to be co-patrons of Europe in 1980, he wrote:

Questa proclamazione vuole in pari tempo essere una testimonianza, per gli uomini del nostro tempo, della preminenza dell'annuncio del Vangelo, affidato da Gesù Cristo alle Chiese, per il quale hanno faticato i due fratelli apostoli degli slavi. Tale annuncio è stato via e strumento di reciproca conoscenza e di unione fra i diversi popoli dell'Europa nascente, ed ha assicurato all'Europa di oggi un comune patrimonio spirituale e culturale.

[This proclamation intends at the same time to be a witness, for the people of our time, of the pre-eminence of the preaching of the Gospel, entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Churches, for which the two brothers, apostles of the Slavs, worked strenuously. This preaching became the way and instrument of the reciprocal understanding and union among the different peoples of nascent Europe, and has assured for Europe today a common spiritual and cultural heritage.]

The collect for the celebration of the Feast in European dioceses is, which we might pray to particularly seek their intercession for Europe today that its nations and peoples might respond to the present challenges in a way that respects its common spiritual and cultural heritage rather than selfish interests:

O God, who enlightened the Slavic peoples through the brothers Saints Cyril and Methodius, grant that our hearts may grasp the words of your teaching, and perfect us as a people of one accord in true faith and right confession.

A politics of self interest?..Or a politics worth living? [UPDATED]

A few days before the General Election, a then Parliamentary candidate, now the duly re-elected member, delivered his election letter through my letter box (emphases in the original).

As your M.P., I have dedicated myself to standing up for [constituency name], fighting for our community and looking after the interests of local people....

Parliament also needs M.P.s who are not afraid to speak up for what is right for Britain and for England too, which is something I have always done.....

Let me give you this clear commitment now:

As your M.P., I shall only support a Government that gives the British people a referendum on the European Union and promises to put Britain first!

And from his "top 10 pledges" on the reverse of his letter (again, the emphases are in the original]:

1. Keep working hard for [constituency name] all year round - always putting[constituency name] first!

2. Continue to stand up for Britain as our voice in Parliament.

3. Let the British people vote in a referendum to get OUT of political union with the E.U. - free trade and co-operation is the only relationship we need with Europe.

4. Control immigration, protect our UK Borders and end welfare benefits to foreign nationals who have not contributed to our country.

Now in a political structure which allies membership of the House of Commons to representation of a specific geographical area, there is both a political and moral legitimacy in an MP working in favour of the interests of his constituents. However, the Honourable Member's electoral missive appears to me to do two things that go beyond this legitimate activity. I think it first of all articulates on his own part a politics of interest only in his own town and country, a politics of self-interest in his own community. And secondly, and rather more sadly, it promotes such a politics of self-interest among his constituents as something worthy of electoral support; it encourages them to see political engagement as an activity of self-interest.

There is, of course, another possibility in politics. That is to build one's politics, not on the interest of self or my own group, but on the interests of the other. This is what is meant when the Second Vatican Council taught (Gaudium et Spes n.74):

The political community exists, consequently, for the sake of the common good, in which it finds its full justification and significance, and the source of its inherent legitimacy. Indeed, the common good embraces the sum of those conditions of the social life whereby men, families and associations more adequately and readily may attain their own perfection.

One of the most widespread attempts to live out a politics "for the other" is that of the Movement for Unity in Politics, a work of the Focolare movement. When she visited Britain in June 2004, Chiara Lubich spoke of this movement to a meeting of Parliamentarians at the Palace of Westminster.

What this movement proposes and gives witness to, is a lifestyle that allows politics to reach its goal in the best possible way, that is, the common good in the unity of the social body.

In fact, one would wish to invite all those involved in politics to commit themselves to this lifestyle by making a pact of fraternity for their country, one that puts the country’s good above all partial interests, whether that of individuals, groups, classes or parties.

Fraternity offers surprising possibilities. It helps to give cohesion and value to human demands which otherwise could develop into insoluble conflicts. It harmonizes the experiences of local authorities with the sense of a shared history. It strengthens our awareness of the importance of those international organizations and systems which attempt to overcome all barriers, taking important steps towards the unity of the human family.

And in a section of her address sub-headed "Beyond the Party Divide", Chiara said (my italics added for emphasis):

The politicians of unity become aware of the fact that politics is rooted in love. They understand that others, too, sometimes called political opponents, might have made their choices out of love. They realize that every political group, every political option can be the answer to a social need and therefore necessary to building up the common good. Therefore, they are as interested in all that concerns the other – including his or her cause - as they are in their own cause, and criticism becomes constructive. They seek to live out the apparent paradox of loving the other’s party as their own because the good of the nation needs everyone’s cooperation.

This, summarizing the main points, is the ideal of the "Movement for Unity in Politics", and this is – it seems to me – politics worth living, politics capable of recognising and serving the plan for one’s community, one’s town and nation, indeed that of all humanity, because fraternity is God’s plan for the whole human family.

This is the genuine, authoritative politics which every country needs. In fact, strength comes with power, but only love gives authority.

This is a politics that does not oppose the interests of an MPs constituency to national or international interests, but sees them in unity each with the other. Its implications for my re-elected Parliamentary representative and for the new Conservative government are:

Will immigration policy be rooted in the need of the refugee and asylum seeker, or the self interest of the British people?

Will the debate about Europe be one about how Britain can contribute to the needs of the other nations, or will it be about the self interest of the British people?

Will the debate about savings in the welfare budget be about the needs of the other who is less well off in our society or about the self interest of the ill-defined "hard working family"?

UPDATE: Auntie Joanna (here) has reminded me of David Cameron's farewell speech at the end of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to our country, in which he expressed something of the theme of this post:

...people do not have to share a religious faith or agree with religion on everything to see the benefit of asking the searching questions that you, your Holiness, have posed to us about our society and how we treat ourselves and each other.

You have really challenged the whole country to sit up and think, and that can only be a good thing.

Because I believe we can all share in your message of working for the common good and that we all have a social obligation to each other, to our families and our communities.

And, of course, our obligations to each other – and our care for each other – must extend beyond these shores too. 

Pope Francis speaks to Europe

The early BBC news reporting of Pope Francis' address to the European Parliament is utterly woeful - even to the extent of suggesting the figure of 200 years as the extent of the Christian influence on Europe rather than the 2000 years that appears in the full text. Presumably some correction, and fuller reporting, will follow in due course, but I would not rely on it.

Read the complete text: Pope Francis’s address to the European Parliament in full. I think it will reveal a side to Pope Francis that many have not wanted to recognise. Not for the first time, I have read Pope Francis and been reminded of Pope St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (and this happens before you even look at the footnotes). This is Pope Francis in an absolute line of continuity with his immediate predecessors. Do read the whole, because it is only then that you can really appreciate the import of any small extracts you will see in news reporting - even the extracts below, which I offer in the expectation that they will be missed out of most media reporting:

Men and women risk being reduced to mere cogs in a machine that treats them as items of consumption to be exploited, with the result that – as is so tragically apparent – whenever a human life no longer proves useful for that machine, it is discarded with few qualms, as in the case of the terminally ill, the elderly who are abandoned and uncared for, and children who are killed in the womb....

The family, united, fruitful and indissoluble, possesses the elements fundamental for fostering hope in the future. Without this solid basis, the future ends up being built on sand, with dire social consequences....

A Europe which is no longer open to the transcendent dimension of life is a Europe which risks slowly losing its own soul and that “humanistic spirit” which it still loves and defends.

Taking as a starting point this opening to the transcendent, I would like to reaffirm the centrality of the human person, which otherwise is at the mercy of the whims and the powers of the moment. I consider to be fundamental not only the legacy that Christianity has offered in the past to the social and cultural formation of the continent, but above all the contribution which it desires to offer today, and in the future, to Europe’s growth. This contribution does not represent a threat to the secularity of states or to the independence of the institutions of the European Union, but rather an enrichment. This is clear from the ideals which shaped Europe from the beginning, such as peace, subsidiarity and reciprocal solidarity, and a humanism centred on respect for the dignity of the human person....

The absence of mutual support within the European Union runs the risk of encouraging particularistic solutions to the problem, solutions which fail to take into account the human dignity of immigrants, and thus contribute to slave labour and continuing social tensions. Europe will be able to confront the problems associated with immigration only if it is capable of clearly asserting its own cultural identity and enacting adequate legislation to protect the rights of European citizens and to ensure the acceptance of immigrants. Only if it is capable of adopting fair, courageous and realistic policies which can assist the countries of origin in their own social and political development and in their efforts to resolve internal conflicts – the principal cause of this phenomenon – rather than adopting policies motivated by self-interest, which increase and feed such conflicts. We need to take action against the causes and not only the effects....

 And the concluding paragraph:

Dear Members of the European Parliament, the time has come to work together in building a Europe which revolves not around the economy, but around the sacredness of the human person, around inalienable values. In building a Europe which courageously embraces its past and confidently looks to its future in order fully to experience the hope of its present. The time has come for us to abandon the idea of a Europe which is fearful and self-absorbed, in order to revive and encourage a Europe of leadership, a repository of science, art, music, human values and faith as well. A Europe which contemplates the heavens and pursues lofty ideals. A Europe which cares for, defends and protects man, every man and woman. A Europe which bestrides the earth surely and securely, a precious point of reference for all humanity!

UPDATED: Pope Francis' address to the Council of Europe - also well worth reading in full - is here: Pope Francis’s speech to the Council of Europe in full. I must admit to not having yet fully understood the notions of "multipolarity" and "transversality", but I am going to make sure I do within the next few days!

See also the following recent addresses by Pope Francis, which have not received as much attention as they might have done (Aunty is right again!):

Address to Participants in the International Colloquium on the Complementarity between Man and Woman

[And Lord Sacks' address to the same colloquium: In full: Lord Sacks speech that brought Vatican conference to its feet .]

Address to Participants in the Commemorative Conference of the Italian Catholic Physician's Association

The "margin of appreciation"

.... is a legal term relating to the way in which the laws of the European Union are implemented in individual member countries. We do not hear very much about this concept from those who would rather represent the implementation of European laws in the UK as being "UK law being made in Brussels". It does not usually make its way into the media reporting of EU court judgements on instances of legal determinations that have been the subject of appeal in the European Court of Human Rights, though often the judgement of that European Court is less one that upholds the UK legal decision per se but rather one that says that the UK determination can stand because it lies within that "margin of appreciation". The idea of a "margin of appreciation" allows individual member states to enact legal provisions to implement European Union directives in a manner that reflects their own particular situations. This consideration, for example, can be found in the judgement of the European Court with regard to the Christian registrar who was subject to disciplinary action by Islington Council because she did not feel able to register civil partnerships. One can see the whole of the ECHR judgement, which brought together four different cases of Christians claiming discrimination on the grounds of their religion, here. Whilst is is worth reading the whole (OK, there is a lot of it!), n.106 of the judgement concluded, with regard to the Christian registrar (my italics added):

In all the circumstances, the Court does not consider that the national authorities, that is the local authority employer which brought the disciplinary proceedings and also the domestic courts which rejected the applicant’s discrimination claim, exceeded the margin of appreciation available to them. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 in respect of the third applicant.

What has prompted this reflection is the controversy currently raging in the news media about a legal provision in the Russian Federation which makes it illegal to provide information about homosexuality to those under the age of 18. Some of the BBC reporting can be found here: Russian Duma passes law banning 'gay propaganda',  Q&A: Gay rights in Russia, Stephen Fry calls for Olympics ban over Russia's anti-gay laws. More recent reporting picks up its implications for sport: Yelena Isinbayeva says anti-gay remarks were 'misunderstood' (and the links to other reporting contained in this report).

I would ask three questions about the controversy with regard to the Russian legislation.

1. The BBC reporting readily identifies the legislation as being an "anti-gay law".  As reported, though, the terms of the law seem to have some comparability to Section 28 which used to apply in this country, a law which would now be characterised by the great and good as "anti-gay" but was actually expressed in terms that forbade the promotion of homosexuality by public bodies. The extent of the promotion of homosexual/LGBT culture in our country since the repeal of Section 28 (see, for example, Nick Clegg's observation with regard to the passing of a law allowing same-sex marriage, that he didn't believe we could have gone so far so quickly) is very telling. Does the characterisation of the Russian law as an "anti-gay law" and the mobilisation of the international gay lobby in the media represent an attempt to bring about exactly the same course of events in Russia as has happened here, that is, a legitimisation of a promotion of the acceptability of LGBT behaviours? If that is the case, does not Russian society have some entitlement to resist the promotion of that acceptability if it wishes to do so? [But note: resisting promotion is not to be equated with a campaign of persecution ... the two are not the same thing.]

2. As Stephen Fry suggests in his letter, there may well be a question to be asked about the purpose of those politicians who have taken the lead in enacting the Russian legislation, and its effect as a convenient scapegoating of a minority in Russian society. And there may also be a question about the effective rule of law in protecting all citizens of Russia, something which I expect has implications in other circumstances as well as that of violence directed against members of the LGBT community. If the passing of the law has legitimised this violence, then that needs to be the subject of media reporting and protest. However, to protest these concerns - and to publish the specific evidence of incidents and people as the human rights movement of the 1970's and 1980's did during Communist times - is one thing. To "picky back" on to that the same promotion of LGBT culture that we have seen in the developed nations of the West is something different. Whereabouts within this consideration does the campaign to move the winter Olympics sit? If it sits as a protest against a violation of the human rights of a section of Russian society, then I have no difficulty - or indeed hesitation - in supporting it. However, the added aspect of the promotion of LGBT culture is one that I will not support.

3. The third question is one I cannot answer without an understanding of the details of the Russian legislation, and I do not have that detailed understanding. If the Russian Federation were a member state of the European Union, would a judgement of the ECHR allow the law to stand as being within the margin of appreciation that would allow it as proportionate for the achievement of a legitimate aim in the particular situation of the Russian Federation?

[And, so far as I can tell from the BBC reporting (here and here) and a report on the Telegraph website (here), Yelena Isinbayeva has expressed what Rocco Buttiglione referred to in rather different circumstances as "the principle of non-discrimination" - indicating that the lifestyle choices of individual citizens should not be the subject of public scrutiny. That she has expressed a different view, as her own conviction, than some of her fellow athletes with regard to homosexuality .... why should she not have the freedom to express a different view? As Rocco Buttiglione suggested, the key issue in the public arena for the promotion of equality is that "principle of non-discrimination", not the holding of different views.]

The EU referendum: what should the question be?

One of my sharpest memories of fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is waking up the following day and lying in bed a few moments thinking. What I thought was .... that, almost literally in a 24 hour period, the situation of the world (though I should perhaps have thought Europe in particular) had changed. I have a particular memory of a young girl that night, who had just crossed over into West Berlin for the first time, being asked by a radio reporter whether or not she would go back to the East. She couldn't answer one way or the other, being so completely overwhelmed by the moment. My sensitivity to Berlin comes from the fact that it is the city where my parents first met, when both were serving in the British Army in the decade or so after World War II.

This week, in British politics, the intervention of Lord Lawson calling for Britain to leave the European Union has created a comparable sea change in our perception of the relationship of Britain with the rest of Europe. Lord Lamont has also intervened, arguing that our relationship with Europe should be one that is economic in nature rather than political. He differed from Lord Lawson in arguing for at least an attempted renegotiation of the relationship into a free trade agreement. The possibility has emerged of a vote this coming week on an amendment that regrets that there were no plans for a referendum on the EU built in to the Queen's Speech. There is a hefty element of internal Conservative Party politics in all of this - the Tory Eurosceptics do not trust David Cameron's qualified promise of a referendum, and detect that he really wants Britain to remain in the EU but has to offer something that will gain back support from the United Kingdom Independence Party. Should a vote occur this week, Government ministers are being "guided" to abstain, while other Conservative MPs are likely to have a free vote (or, as the BBC are reporting it: "Other MPs, including ministers' parliamentary aides, will be free to vote with their consciences.")

The events just described have created a sense of a real possibility of British withdrawal from the European Union that did not exist, say, two weeks ago. My own suspicion is that, by and large, the ordinary British citizen would prefer to stay in the EU rather than leave - but that perception has been significantly altered this week. The Telegraph coverage today suggests a growing revolt against David Cameron's approach and in favour of a stronger move towards a referendum that might lead to British withdrawal.

1. I think we should first of all be wary of the way in which interventions from Tory grandees of the past have played in the media, catching degree of publicity out of all proportion to the significance of the respective speakers in the present day political arena. In the light of point 2, I would suggest that there has been a certain amount of manipulation in terms of the media coverage, and we should be aware of that manipulation in our evaluation.

2. If I have understood the interventions of Lord Lawson and Lord Lamont correctly, they have framed the question of Britain's EU membership solely in terms of its economic benefit (or opposite) to Britain. And this, more than anything else in my view, represents a manipulation of the debate.

3. And, in the light of point 2, to describe an unwhipped vote on the matter as "allowing MPs to vote according to their consciences" is misleading. To vote simply on the basis of a judgement of economic benefit for Britain only seems to me instead to be a complete abdication of conscience in favour of blatant self-interest.

So what is the real question?

4. From the point of view of Catholic social teaching, the question of EU membership is one in the area of prudential judgement rather than one in the area of absolute right and wrong. It involves a prudential judgement, not about what is in our own self-interest, but a prudential judgement about what constitutes the "common good". As Gaudium et Spes n.26 teaches (though I have slightly adapted the translation from that on the Vatican website):

Every day human interdependence grows more tightly drawn and spreads by degrees over the whole world. As a result the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members full and ready access to their own fulfilment, today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family.

It is worth reading something of the original inspiration for what subsequently became the European Union during the years immediately following World War II to gain some idea of what the notion of the "common good" means for the current debate. Try the Schuman Declaration and this history of the development of the European Union. [Aside: Robert Schuman's hiding place from the Germans during part of World War II was the shrine at La Salette ...] One can readily see the solidarity among European nations encouraged by the European Union as reflecting this teaching.

The history of the European Union clearly indicates that to reduce the present debate to an exclusively economic level is to misunderstand the nature of the entire project of the European Union. The European Union, in its most fundamental inspiration, sees matters of economics as being at the service of a wider solidarity between the peoples of Europe. Only a generation that is so far separated from the events of 1939-1945, and indeed from the events of 1945-1989, by their own blinkered self-interest and/or immersion in decadent materialism can give the contributions of Lord Lawson and Lord Lamont (at least as they have been reported in the media in recent days) any credence.

[I have not seen it raised in the debate in recent days, but the question of economic migration as a consequence of the provisions for freedom of  movement within the EU sits within this discussion of the "common good". There is a prudential judgement to be made about appropriate levels of such migration, but, again, that judgement, if it is to be ethically just, cannot be reduced just to its economic aspects. There is an element of solidarity with the person who is less well off -even at a cost to a host country - that represents a part of the wider sense of the "common good" referred to by Gaudium et Spes.]

6. If a free vote is also to be a vote "according to their conscience" with regard to EU membership, MPs should, in deciding how they are going to vote and in discussing that with their political colleagues, the media and their constituents, give due regard to the whole substance of what constitutes the "common good", and that not just for the people of Britain but for all the peoples of Europe. MPs might well come to different prudential judgements, and the economic arguments will form a part of that. But concentrating only on the economic arguments will not constitute a vote "according to conscience" in any real sense.

7. And, finally. The question on the ballot paper of any referendum that we might or might not eventually get is likely to be expressed in the stark terms of "in" or "out". But the real question on the ballot paper is one with regard to the "common good". But will the typical voter actually answer that question?

A blessed feast day, Europe

Today is the feast day of St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein). In Europe, it has the Liturgical rank of a Feast, as St Teresa Benedicta is one of the six patron saints of Europe. Catholic Mom of 10 has posted a biographical account of her today.

St Teresa Benedicta is my favourite saint, perhaps because I find myself able to identify with many aspects of her personality. Ten years ago this October, I spent a weekend in Rome for her canonisation. I remember during the offertory of the Mass running in my mind's eye through the places associated with St Teresa Benedicta - and I could visualise a number of them, either because I had visited them or from photographs - and finding it quite a moving moment.

The icon above tries to show aspects of St Teresa Benedicta's life. The books represent her search for the truth, and you should be able to spot St Teresa of Avila's Life, the book she read that finally brought St Teresa Benedicta to the Catholic Church. The Cathedral of Speyer, very close to which St Teresa Benedicta spent a number of years as a teacher/teacher trainer is in the background. The prison huts of Auschwitz-Birkenau are also there. The Carmelite habit represents her religious vocation, and the palm her martyrdom. On the habit you can also see the Star of David, representing her Jewish background and the harrassment she suffered from the German authorities in Holland before her arrest.

God of our fathers, you led the holy Martyr Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Edith Stein, to a knowledge of your crucified Son and called her to follow his example in death. By her prayers, bring all to recognise their Saviour in the Crucified Christ and through him, to arrive at the vision of your glory.