"War of words risks wiping women from our language"

 ... is the title of the Weekend Essay in the London Times newspaper for Saturday 23 January. In this piece, Janice Turner argues that the language of biological sex should be retained rather than being entirely replaced by a language of "gender" and gender neutral terms such as "parent", or even "birthing parent" to replace "mother".

The article starts by citing a ruling by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, which removed terms such as "mother", "father", "daughter", "brother" and other gendered words from the House rules, and replaced them with gender neutral terms such as "parent", "child" or "sibling". It then refers to an executive order of President Biden that extended a Supreme Court ruling referring to discrimination "because of sex" so that its provision also apply on the basis of gender identity.

What Ms Turner points out as a consequence of this is that

... with zero debate or legislative scrutiny, biological sex as a discrete political and legal concept has gone.

One might also add that, without a language to describe those distinctive relationships within a family between a father and daughter, father and son, mother and daughter, the specific dynamics of these different relationships will over time be erased from everyday experience.

At one point in her article, Ms Turner recognises a denial of science in the idea that an understanding of a person's gender, and access to facilities based on that gender, might contradict the plain sense of the biological sex of the person when that is opposite to their identified gender. Whilst one can recognise that a person can have a deeply felt internal sense that can be termed "gender", it does not make scientific sense to assimilate this, to a greater or lesser extent subjective, sense of self to the objective physiology of a human body that is termed "sex". Towards the end of her article, Ms Turner characterises it like this:

No semantic shifts can change what ordinary people see: activists who deny biology sound like flat-earthers...

The bulk of Ms Turner's article describes how, firstly, the abolition of the idea of biological sex denies significant areas of women's experience of life: menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, birth. It cites the words of J K Rowling's tweet, which led to her vilification:

If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased.

Secondly, it describes how the resulting use of language as it filters down through commerce, charities, health care providers, and public bodies, acts predominantly to the disadvantage of women and not to the disadvantage of men. In some respects it can undermine efforts to address maternal mortality, for example, if data is recorded against gender identification rather than biological sex. 

Ms Turner is not by any means "on the side of the angels", but her reference to the divide between trans rights activists and feminists contains a truth that can be applied more generally for those who would oppose what Pope Francis terms an "ideological colonisation" of the family, namely the necessity of maintaining a conversation about biological sexual difference and complementarity:

There is no need for this rancorous divide between trans activists and feminists. Yet peace depends upon an agreement that sex exists, that in certain limited circumstances it overrides gender, and that language to describe biological reality is valid.

[As an aside, in a way that I suspect was not intended by the writer, the following part of Janice Turner's article might provide a jumping off point for a wider discussion of the part that a father of an unborn child might play in a decision for abortion on the part of a woman:

...if reproductive rights are no longer women's rights but people's rights, "a woman's right to choose" dissolves. It follows that "people" should determine the outcome of a pregnancy, including men.]

 

Pope Francis: meets Pope Emeritus and cancels his papers

Until recent events unfolded, today's meeting in Castel Gandolfo would have been beyond anyone's imagination. It is almost impossible to know quite how the moment should be described.

In the chapel, the Pope emeritus offered the place of honour to Pope Francis, who instead responded “We are brothers” and wanted them to share the same kneeler.

Vatican information service news report: FR. LOMBARDI: “THE MEETING WAS A MOMENT OF PROFOUND COMMUNION BETWEEN THE TWO”

Photographs: The Meeting at Castel Gandolfo.

Video (and, as noticed here, see just how frail Pope Emeritus Benedict is): Lunch with Two Popes.

The following report appears on page 18 of the Times newspaper today, underneath a photograph of a smiling Pope Francis:

Stop Press: Pope cancels his papers

He took the name St Francis to signal his humility, and the new pontiff has shown a common touch by cancelling his own papers. Daniel del Regno, the son of a news stand owner in Buenos Aires, received the call: "It's Jorge Bergoglio, I'm calling you from Rome". The Pope explained that due to a recent change in his address he would no longer require daily delivery. Mr Del Regno told La Nacion: "I was in shock".

One assumes that the Times applied due journalistic diligence before deciding to run this story from another newspaper. Though one is also tempted to think that they have instead breached the embargo on a story due out on 1st April.

Are we gaining a glimpse of Pope Francis' sense of humour or that of Mr del Regno?

Why I shall stand firm ...

.. in the Anglican catholic tradition" is the heading of the Credo column in yesterday's Times newspaper. It was written (the column, that is, not necessarily the headline) by Rt Rev Geoffrey Rowell, the Anglican Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe. It is a very articulate explanation of why an Anglo-Catholic might wish to remain in the Church of England after the double impact of the prospective ordination of women as bishops in the Church of England and the establishment of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the Roman Catholic Church. It is of interest because it argues from theological principle and does not speak at the political level of "staying and continuing the fight". It is also an extremely courteous article in every respect.

I was interested to read how Bishop Rowell understands the departure of five Anglican bishops to join the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and therefore how he understands the idea of the ordinariate itself. He writes of

..the ordinariate set up by Pope Benedict for Anglicans who wish to give priority to the quest for unity and reconciliation between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, which Anglicans as a whole had welcomed warmly in the days of Archbishop Michael Ramsey..

Bishop Rowell views the welcoming of Anglican patrimony in the ordinariate as an affirmation of the work of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission and a challenge to Anglicans to identify exactly what that patrimony is and was. He goes on to suggest that the Anglican Covenant (and the Declaration of Assent required of Church of England clergy - see foot of the page linked) defines the nature of Anglicanism and that it is never a matter of an "anything goes" idea of Anglicanism. In essence, it is suggesting that the Anglican Communion is a part of the wider, universal Church of God expressed in different ecclesial bodies. It is very cogently argued, but there is a distinct feel that it is about giving a Catholic interpretation to something that would equally bear a Protestant interpretation. It is classical Anglo-Catholicism in the tradition of the Tractarian movement, with the plea that goes with that:

Ever since [the English Reformation] Anglicans have held that those ordained as bishops, priests and deacons, are ordained as bishops, priests and deacons of the Church of God. Change in that ordering of ministry is therefore a matter not just for the Church of England or the Anglican Communion but for all those Churches who claim to share that ministry. Developments in faith and order need this wider reference.

Towards the end of his article, Bishop Rowell gives an account of a meeting in November last with Pope Benedict XVI.

At the end of November I was privileged to have an audience with Pope Benedict, and was able to say to him that, as an Anglican bishop, standing in the catholic Anglican tradition, I - with others - wished to continue to witness to the catholic identity of Anglicanism, and received his encouragement to do so.

It would be something quite interesting if, in a kind of mirror to the beginning of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, there were to be a renewed witness to the catholic tradition within the Church of England. Clearly, in the historical context, this should be looked for at the level of charisms, the level of testimony, rather than that of the structures of the Church of England. Such a witness would be an impulse towards unity and it is this that enables us to understand why, in addition to his natural courtesy, Pope Benedict gave the encouragement to Bishop Rowell that he did.

It must be true, it was in the Times

From the "Dr Mark" column, on page 9, in the bodysoulhealth section of the Times on Tuesday 1st February 2011. The punchline comes at the end, and still amuses even though I have had a few days to reflect on the possibility that the claim made in the last sentence has some sort of basis in reality. However, there are at least two other points that are worthy of noting in addition to the punchline. Do try and spot them.

Q/A
The doctor at my daughter's university has suggested that she switch from the contraceptive pill to a long-term implant because it is more effective. But I have been worried by recent reports of high failure rates. Is it really the better option?
There is no single best option for everyone - good contraceptive advice involves tailoring it to the individual - but there has recently been a move away from the Pill for younger women because of the high failure rate (if you put 20 teenagers on the Pill, at least one will get pregnant every year).
Implanon (or Nexplanon as it is now called) has a number of advantages over the combined pill: it can't be forgotten, it is not affected by other medicines, or by sickness and diarrhoea, and it doesn't contain any oestrogen (the hormone associated with health problems such as blood clots and breast cancer).
As to recent publicity involving failure rates, I am afraid these were blown out of all proportion. No contraceptive is 100 per cent effective, but Implanon is as close as you can get. Even taking into consideration recent failures (often due to incorrect insertion), it is on a par with, if not better than, sterilisation.

At the time of media coverage of the legal cases with regard to Implanon, I recall hearing a representative of the legal team who had represented women successfully claiming against their medical service providers being very careful to say that the successful claims were all based on evidence of incorrect insertion.

The Times 1st January 2011 (3)

This report comes from the World News, on page 35.

Each year, the restaurant tables in the Piazza Navona in Rome have been creeping towards the Bernini fountain in the centre of the square.

Now a member of the Borghese family is leading a campaign to rout the advancing tables. Flaminia Borghese, a descendent of the 17th-century Pope Paul V, dukes and cardinals, is the head of the residents association. She accuses the local authorities of allowing the spread of alfresco dining from the pavements into the middle of the square to besmirch "historic centre".

"We need decorum because this is not decorum", she told The Times ...

The Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on Pope Paul V does not suggest that he was profligate in his lifestyle, and neither does the Wikipedia article about him. He would appear to have been guilty of nepotism in appointing family members to positions of influence.

Is Flaminia really a descendent of Pope Paul V himself? After all, we need decorum don't we?

The Times 1st January 2011 (2)

"Pioneering gay fathers set up advice service on surrogacy" is the headline of a piece on pages 26-27.

The millionaire British fathers whose experiences paved the way for Elton John and David Furnish to become parents are to set up an advice service which will help other homosexual couples...

"It is not for same sex couples only. Tony and I have now helpted 38 couples to become parents over the space of six years using surrogacy and apart from those 38 families who have had children, we've helped even more people by putting them in touch with other agencies. I would say 80 per cent of the people have been heterosexual couples."

[Hyperlink not in the Times original report!]

The article portrays the existence of a surrogacy market place in California, which can be used by couples in the UK to work round the illegality of commercial surrogacy here.

Mr Drewitt-Barlow said that he would expect to pay American egg donors, who are often recruited from the country's top universities, between £10 000 and £25 000 for one round of egg harvesting.

"A first-time surrogate costs £20 000 to £25 000", he said. "And what they call a 'proven surrogate', who has had several successful surrogate pregnancies, might get up to £65 000." Then there is the additional cost of IVF, he added.

The figures being quoted are staggering. The wealth of those seeking to use surrogacy to have children is also a cause to stop and think. And, hidden away in the process, is the eugenic implications of choosing egg donors from among those attending top universities.

It would appear that somewhere in this process there is a lot of money to be made.

UPDATE: Paulinus' post here adds something to this coverage.

The Times 1st January 2011 (1)

On page 3, there is coverage of the reception of former Anglican bishops and religious into full communion with the Catholic Church, which has taken place today at Westminster Cathedral. In an "Analysis", Ruth Gledhill includes the observation:

It is almost as if the Catholic hierarchy is embarrassed by the prospect of mass defections. It is possible that they do not want to upset the established Church of England and particularly its Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom they esteem only slightly less than the Pope.

Apart from the unfriendly use of the word "defections", which gives an edge to these events that I do not believe any of the different stakeholders really share, this curious paragraph can be read at four different levels. It might be the outcome of the hazards of sub-editing. It might be the outcome of Ruth Gledhill's own interpretation of events, which interpretation might well be at variance with the actualite, as one might say. This second appears the most likely to me.

It might be trying to say that the Catholic bishops of England and Wales give an esteem to the office (in the sense of official position, status) of the Church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury only slightly less than they give to the office of the Papacy. If this is what it is trying to say, then it does of course need to be expressed with a very careful qualification. The nature of an esteem that would be given to the See of Canterbury by a Catholic bishop is not the same as the nature of the esteem that would be given to the See of Rome, though it might be in the same quantity; it's a bit like an apple and a pear having the same mass (sorry, I am a science teacher) but being still essentially different as the one is an apple and the other a pear.

Or it might be trying to say something about the esteem given to the incumbents of the two positions concerned, that is, the esteem given to their persons rather than to the offices that they hold. At this level, I for one am quite happy to give a good level of esteem to the Archbishop of Canterbury. As Ruth Gledhill also observes, perhaps with greater accuracy than in the observation quoted above, I think Rowan Williams has understood the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury as being a ministry of unity in the Anglican communion, and has acted in accord with that understanding at the cost of misunderstanding. I think this has an importance for ecumenical dialogue, lived out in the ordinary practice of the Church of England and therefore forming part of a "dialogue of life". I also appreciated how he stood by Pope Benedict XVI in the remarks he made welcoming Pope Benedict to Lambeth Palace, when, in the light of the media criticism of Pope Benedict, it would have been very easy to keep a certain distance. In addition, one of the books that has been in my possession from the earlier days of my building up a personal library is a collection of essays about the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. It contains an essay by one Rowan Williams, who was then Professor of Theology at the University of Oxford.

The Times: Caitlin on Ann

Caitlin Moran writes on television in the review section of Saturday's Times. Her banner tells us she is "Columnist of the Year". This is what she has to say about Ann Widdecombe's participation in BBC One's Strictly Come Dancing, on 4th December.

On Strictly, Widdecombe has become the new John Sargeant: voted for, week after week, by the public despite her dancing style sitting somewhere on the spectrum between "Volvo getting a push-start" and "wardrobe being knocked over".

So, far very much in the spirit of Strictly and on a par with the accounts that some of the judges have given of Ann Widdecombe's dancing. But fast forward three paragraphs, and:

Widdecombe's continuing public popularity is bizarre. All current data indicates that her moral system works at the outermost limits of most of modern society's: she opposed the repeal of Clause 28; denies climate change; is anti-abortion; opposed the ordination of female priests: and, when Minister for Prisons, insisted that even pregnant prisoners be shackled.

I'm not sure how much of this is just simply true and how much of it has been "enhanced" or "spun".

One can only presume that the viewing public don't really know anything about her career at all, that they just think she's the cute old granny with the massive knockers who looks a bit like a Flump.

Well, ageism and sexism are both writ large here! This is not in the spirit of even the most robust comment on Strictly.

I really hope that is the case. Because if the public do know what Widdecombe's parliamentary record consisted of - essentially, voting "Yes" on any legislation that wouldn't have looked out of place in the court of Henry V - her popularity establishes a worrying precedent. On the back of her success we might presume that, even as we speak, the agents of Nick Griffin, Abu Hamza al-Masri and that couple who christened their baby "Adolf Hitler" are all being asked how their clients feel about sequins, fake tan and the cha-cha-cha.

If dear Caitlin is comparing the views of Ann Widdecombe to those of Nick Griffin et al - and I can't see that this last paragraph does anything else - then that is quite offensive. And a quite untrue comparison.

From what I have seen on Youtube, Ann Widdecombe has put herself fully into the Strictly experience and, in my view, has been treated very well by the makers and other participants in the programme. Now that she has been voted out she has had the opportunity to say just how much she has enjoyed herself on the programme. Her departure has, of course, made the news headlines on BBC Radio this evening.

Of Gods and Men: on release in UK

This film opened on general release (ie selected cinemas, so don't expect it at your local Vue!) in Britain yesterday. My previous blogging about this film can be found here. Zero and I are planning to see it next weekend.

The coverage in The Times yesterday was interesting. The film review itself (p.13 of Times 2) is quite fair, though the use of the word "drudgery" in the following phrase describing the monks life style, that "their routines of devotion and drudgery are reflected in the rhythms ad repetition within the picture", did not match my impression. The review rightly identifies the key scene of the red wine taken with an evening meal, accompanied by the music to Swan Lake played on a tape. Though I believe this scene is invented, but with some basis in the reality that the monks did listen to classical music during their recreation, its meaning in the context of the film is profound.

The interview with the director and writer on p.15 of Times 2 gives an account of the care taken in the making of the film. It is interesting that the producer says that "I never wanted it to be a Catholic film" and the writer also observes, talking abut the way in which the film came about and grew from his original idea, that "No, no God involved". We have here film professionals without any religious faith of their own almost resisting the profoundly religious implications of the story that inspires their film and the profoundly religious content of their own film. And yet their account of how the story of the monks of Tibhirine fascinates and draws them, and their care in trying to tell the story accurately and fairly, shows a genuine integrity on their part. According to the interview:

What the director wanted to explain was the religious calling, and the film becomes gripping as each monk decides whether to stay and almost inevitably become a martyr, or to go.

And, in a telling comment, the director is quoted as saying:

"You don't often see people on screen being sincere and noble".

The review posted at Independent Catholic News has as its first paragraph:

Xavier Beauvois' Of Gods and Men opens in the UK today. If you only go to one more film this year - see this one. It is Catholic cinema at its best - beautifully filmed, with a haunting soundtrack, sensitive performances and a gripping human story that deals with faith, community, ecumenism, and the meaning of vocation.

I do not actually see a contradiction between Jo Siedlecka's identification of it as "Catholic cinema" and the director's denial that it is such. That the same film can be characterised in both ways is an indication of its nature as an authentic instance of  dialogue between those without religous faith and a religous subject. (It would be more accurate to refer to inter-religious dialogue, though, rather than ecumenism).

Whilst I would praise this film wholeheartedly as an engagement of the professional environment of cinema with the environment of religious faith, and praise the integrity with which the cinema professionals have undertaken that engagement, the Times coverage yesterday left me with a touch of disappointment. I can understand that the writer and director should approach their subject understanding it as a secular subject (in a good sense) rather than a religious one, and that gives the film its appeal to a wider audience; but they seem to be leaving their subject understanding it as a secular subject, and asserting its nature as a secular subject, where one might ask of them, not a religious conversion, but at least to have learnt from their subject its essentially religious nature.

The paradox at the heart of Benedict

This is the title of a piece by John Haldane in today's Times. It can be found on p.119, in the section dedicated to Faith. The piece combines being a review of "the book" and a commentary on how Pope Benedict is viewed by others. Given the hostility of much writing in the media about Pope Benedict XVI, it is a remarkably beautiful piece of writing.

As one reads the interviews in total, however, it becomes clear that Benedict wants to reassert orthodoxy while offering it with gentle gestures and outspread hands. Whatever the subject ... Benedict quietly but firmly restates the old teachings while recognising the need to find ways of re-expressing them for a complex and often confused world. It is as if, finding it impossible to pass unnoticed or to avoid major controversies, he has reconciled himself to the nature and burdens of his office and set about the task of evangelisation.

..in affirming unambiguously the authority of the papal role he also disavows its accumulation of princely grandeur, and distinguishes sharply the office and the occupant. He speaks often of his limitations but also of the conviction that he is supported by God. This feeling goes back, I think, to the day of his election as Pope when in the course of minutes his own weakness began to be replaced by the strength of another. He says: "Even at the moment when it hit me, all I was able to say to the Lord was simply: 'What are You doing with me? Now the responsibility is Yours. You must lead me! I can't do it. If you wanted me, then You must help me!'"

It is clear that Benedict believes that his prayer on that day of election is being answered: "Now I entrust myself to the Lord and notice, yes, there is help there, something is being done that is not my own doing. In that sense there is absolutely the experience of the grace of office".

I think that this experience of the grace of office puts into context the "obvious irony in Pope Benedict's remarkable capacity to attract attention" to which John Haldane refers in the first sentence his piece (and the adverse or misleading nature of much of that publicity) and the reference towards the end of John Haldane's piece to the "humiliation heaped upon [Pope Benedict] and his Church" providing a fresh compulsion to the Holy Father's preaching of "Gospel Catholicism".

Perhaps we, too, should try to have the same confidence in the grace of office, in that grace given to Pope Benedict and also in that grace which is proper to ourselves as Catholic lay people, priests and religious.

What did the Pope really say?

If you want to see what the Osservatore Romano actually published from Pope Benedict's forthcoming book interview, you can find it here. I quote below just the part that the media seem to have latched on to, with my own translation:

Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati, ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico, e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione, un primo atto di responsabilità per sviluppare di nuovo la consapevolezza del fatto che non tutto è permesso e che non si può far tutto ciò che si vuole. Tuttavia, questo non è il modo vero e proprio per vincere l'infezione dell'Hiv. È veramente necessaria una umanizzazione della sessualità.

There may be individual justifiable cases, when for example a prostitute uses a condom, and this might be the first step towards a moral action, a first step of responsibility for developing anew the awareness of the fact that not everything is permitted and that it is not allowed to do everything that one wants. Nevertheless, this is not the true and proper way to overcome infection by HIV. A humanization of sexuality is truly necessary.

There is a delicate nuance hidden in the Italian potere, a nuance between a suggestion of possibility and one of certainty. In English, it is the difference between "there may be" (as I have chosen to translate it) and "there can be". Given the simultaneous publication of the Pope's book in different languages, it will be interesting to see how this sentence is translated in the different languages. The English translation of the relevant passage - in full - can be found here, at the site of Catholic World Report. Do read this so that you can see the full context in which Pope Benedict made his remarks.

A post on the website of the American National Catholic Reporter offers a fuller analysis of what has happened here, and of the sense of Pope Benedict's words. This post offers a similar translation to mine above, a fuller explanation of the context of the Osservatore Romano's breach of an embargo and the unfortunate partiality in the selection of the extracts published. It also points out that, in being interviewed for a book, the Holy Father was not in any way undertaking an act of Church teaching. Let me offer one extract from this post, with my emphasis added:

Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

So, actually, Pope Benedict says that, even in the situation in which he has speculated about a positive evaluation of condom use, "it is not a moral solution". The exact opposite of what the media are making of it all!

So, headlines like "Pope relaxes Vatican ban on condoms" and opening paragraphs like "The Pope has reversed decades of Roman Catholic teaching by saying that it is acceptable for some people to use condoms" [Ruth Gledhill on the front page of today's Sunday Times, though it could by any one of a number of other commentators] are less than fully consonant with the actualite of what Pope Benedict said.

And the delight of liberal Catholic commentators and pro-condom AIDS/HIV activists is going to look rather silly when the truth is out. I wonder whether they will admit that they got it wrong on what the Pope was actually saying?

H/T to Young Fogeys.

UPDATE: the full text of the clarification issued by the Vatican has been posted at Protect the Pope. It is a very careful exposition of the what the Pope has said. It has been quite amusing having BBC Radio on during the afternoon, and seeing, in successive news bulletins, a gradual shift away from the earlier reporting which suggested a major change in Catholic teaching towards a more qualified and nuanced comment.

PS: There is another discussion to be had around Pope Benedict's words quoted by Osservatore Romano under the heading "L'Humanae Vitae", though I am aware that the Osservatore Romano quotation might not give the full context. In the quoted passage, Pope Benedict observes first that the perspectives of Humanae Vitae remain valid, but that there is another question which is that of how to find a way of following that teaching in the human situation. The Holy Father suggests that those who follow this teaching provide an example that others can follow, and then says (sorry, my translation here is a bit shaky):

Siamo peccatori. Ma non dovremmo assumere questo fatto come istanza contro la verità, quando cioè quella morale alta non viene vissuta.

We are sinners. But we must not assume this fact as an argument against the truth, so that the high morality is not lived out.

Which is, of course, a very important qualification on the part of the Holy Father of any argument of "gradualism" in living the moral life that might be read in to his remarks.

A letter to the Press

BBC Radio 4's Today programme, commenting on today's English newspapers, comments that CAFOD, Tearfund and Theos have written a letter (I think to the Times, though I can't recall for certain which newspaper) supporting yesterday's suggestion from the UK Government that a new, less strictly economic, measure of human wellbeing should be used. There is further relevant comment at Bridges and Tangents.

This is not an opportunistic response on the part of these three organisations, as they have just published a paper on precisely this topic: Wholly Living: a new perspective on international development. This can be downloaded from CAFOD's website. The notion of "human flourishing" that it develops has relevance to the Pope Paul VI lecture this year, though, without seeing the original text of that lecture, I am not sure that it was this paper that was being referred to. I expect that the letter will welcome the idea that the measurement of human well being is more than a question of economic indicators - but the paper itself goes further than just recognising this point.

The media, of course, will make of the letter what they want. To ridicule the intention of the letter as supporting some sort of "happiness indicator" is a serious instance of mis-representation. Whether the Government's proposal really does come up to the idea of "human flourishing" being developed in the CAFOD/Tearfund/Theos paper is yet to be seen, but the paper itself suggests much more than a superficial measure of happiness. Indeed, it refers to a rather different notion in talking about "human flourishing", though that notion might be seen as having an aspect that can be termed "happiness". And the context of the paper is that of overseas aid programmes, and how they should be undertaken and evaluated.

Without a detailed study of the CAFOD/Tearfund/Theos paper, I offer the following quotation from the Foreword:

If now is not the time to look beyond material indicators of well-being to an inclusive economic system that improves the quality of our relationships and embeds the practice of virtue in its intellectual and religious forms - then when?

We believe an economy re-stitched with the old, failed concepts of individualism and self-interest will continue to fail the people. We call for a new fabric which weaves into its global patterns the right social conditions for human flourishing.

And the following from the executive summary (in which the explicit reference to the religious forms of virtue of the Foreword is absent - though, of course, that the religious dimension is a vital part of "human flourishing" might well be a key part of a Christian understanding of that idea):

While recognising that money, freedom and choice are important, the report contends that our obsession with them has resulted in a radical devaluation of the social, cultural and environmental relationships that form us and that enable us to flourish as human beings. Human beings are not disconnected atoms, floating free in society, unencumbered by personal commitments, whose only good is to get the best deal for themselves. To treat them as such is to do them and the planet they inhabit a gross disservice. We need a more satisfying and more realistic vision of human flourishing on which to base our political and economic thinking.

Wholly Living argues that this can be located in the Christian understanding of human nature and of what it is to live well. This is a vision in which all humans are intrinsically creative and productive; all have the potential to contribute to our common good; all are relational, formed and fulfilled by a complex web of relationships; all are moral, with an ineradicable responsibility for one another; and that all have a vocation to cultivate the natural world conscientiously and sustainably. Ultimately, we flourish as humans when the conditions that allow us to live in right relationship and contribute generously to our common good are met.

P-5: "Benedict grasps a lot of the nuances of modern Britain"

There are some nice pieces of media coverage today about Pope Benedict and his forthcoming visit to Britain.

The Times has published, on its Faith page, an account of an interview with the Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Campbell.  A snippet:

Having to calm the Vatican a few months ago over the infamous "Foreign Office Memo"... was "not a good moment", he says. "It is not every day you have to apologise for the stupidity of your colleagues".

I am looking forward to Pope Benedict's address in Westminster Hall, and agree with the Ambassador's assessment that this will be the number two highlight of the visit, after the beatification of John Henry Newman. I am certainly expecting that it will provide much food for thought and discussion. The place and the occasion are so full of different resonances.

The article does discuss something that I believe lies at the heart of the visit, and at the heart of the address in Westminster Hall:

The Pope, however, does not want to return "to some golden era in which the Catholic Church has some unique position in the constitutional order. He draws a distinction between the Anglo-Saxon version of the Enlightenment, which was about freedom for religion, and the French or continental version, which was about freedom from religion". Consequently the Vatican does not see Britain as a rabidly secular state hostile to Christians in general and Catholics in particular.

Benedict's 2004 dialogue with the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas confirmed his belief that "faith and reason must have a conversation. What he would object to is not atheism or humanism, they have their place and are part of the dialogue with faith. What he objects to is the irrationality of some of those on the polemical militant fringe who want to impose their order to the detriment of everything else."

The analysis of the way in which the Enlightenment relates to the situation of religious belief in Britain today is not one that all may follow. My own sense is that life in Britain is more profoundly secularised than, say, in France, where there might be a greater polarisation between belief and secularism but there is a greater public "presence" of religious belief. But the essential question being raised here is a key one. It is the question of what constitutes a rightful secularity ("laicite" in the French or Italian contexts) of the state with regard to religious belief, and the rightful place of religious belief and practice in civil society.

I am, in passing, fascinated by the post to which Ambassador Campbell will move after he finishes his posting at the Holy See. It is to be Deputy High Commissioner in Pakistan.

The Daily Telegraph is carrying this comment in its print edition today:  Can't we set aside old hatreds, and simply welcome the Pope?  There is also an interview with Archbishop Nichols, which is set in a somewhat combative tone and, as published, devotes a lot of space to the question of clerical sexual abuse: "He is a man of real poise, with an inner peace". But the following passage from the interview with Archbishop Nichols describes, quite elegantly and with a turn of phrase of which I think Pope Benedict himself would be proud, a point that is complementery to that made by Francis Campbell:

Is it difficult defending a man regarded by so many as reactionary?

"That's unfair. He is out there intellectually and spiritually. He engages with the contemporary world but retains an inner peace and a rooted spiritual life. He is a man of real poise, gentle and respectful.

"His view is that the Church should not be a closed place, trying to preserve tradition, but that it should be a luminous place. And he believes the only way the Church can shine is by being deeply rooted. People try to construct him as a conservative pope, but he's not. What he's trying to say is that, as a society, we need deep roots from which to draw this luminosity."

UPDATE: Some critical comment is being offered on this passage, which I think arises from reading it in too narrow a context. I think it is alright, and quite nicely expresses how the Church, precisely in its engagment with the wider world, seeks to make its tradition live. It also brings to my mind the remarks that Pope Benedict was going to make at La Sapienza about the contribution of a religious tradition to a dialogue in a secular university.

The important thing in this assertion, it seems to me, is the acknowledgment that down through the centuries, experience and demonstration – the historical source of human wisdom – are also a sign of its reasonableness and enduring significance. Faced with an a-historical form of reason that seeks to establish itself exclusively in terms of a-historical rationality, humanity’s wisdom – the wisdom of the great religious traditions – should be valued as a heritage that cannot be cast with impunity into the dustbin of the history of ideas.

Humour from the Times letter pages

Sir, I am not alone among British Catholics in viewing the impending visit of Pope Benedict XVI with mounting disquiet.... In much of what has been said and done this papacy does not represent the Church of which I have been a member all my life. I do not accept the Pope's authority to redefine my Church beyond recognition and relevance.

Thus writes, in part, a correspondent in the letters page of the Times newspaper today. Not surprising that, if you do not accept the Pope's authority and you do believe in the existence of "my Church" (sounds rather like those pastors of a strongly evangelical leaning who establish their own community churches and do not have any real source of authority beyond their own natural abilities), the Pope's forthcoming visit does not enthral you.

But the humour comes in the headline above this letter, a humour which might be lost on the correspondent himself. That headline reads: Pope not Catholic?

The debate about God - continued

At The Emperor has no clothes, Paulinus comments on coverage by the BBC of Stephen Hawkings denial of God. This makes a useful read. I offered my own first comments here.

Prompted by the following paragraph from the Times leader yesterday, I have since reflected on the place that reason has - or should have - in this debate.

The ground for religious faith in the modern age cannot be a misguided insistence that science is the path to God: that way lies intellectual chaos. It is more likely to lie in the pull of emotion and - in the title of a famous essay by William James - the will to believe. Because proof of God's existence is ultimately lacking only a decision of the heart will suffice.

The first sentence suggests a disjunction between the use of reason (intellect) that belongs with science, and knowledge of the existence of God; the one is reasoned while the other is "intellectual chaos". It should really be clear that reason, intellect, has a part to play both in the study of the physical sciences and in the study of the question of God's existence. Reason might be deployed differently in the two spheres, but it is to be deployed in both. Science can rightly contribute to the way in which someone comes to religious belief, while for another person it might not so contribute. The difference is made by the particular play of reason in the circumstances of the life of the individual. It is "intellectual chaos" to limit the legitimacy of the range of human reason to the physical sciences only - that form of irratinality known as scientism.

The last two sentences of the leader also indicate a denial of the part played by reason, though this is hidden behind a rightful recognition of other factors at play alongside that of the intellect. A decision for religious faith is certainly an act of the will; but it is also an act of the intellect. There might be an attraction that might be characterised by the term emotion; but that is not to say that there is not at the same time an exercise of reason. It is one of the contributions to our thought of John Henry Newman to present the profoundly rational character of the way in which people come to knowledge, a way that embraces other aspects of human being along with the intellect. It would be most unfortunate if the reference to a "decision of the heart" in the last sentence quoted - resonant as it is with Cardinal Newman's motto and the theme of the forthcoming Papal visit, "Heart speaks to heart" - were to be seen as attributing irrationality to any knowledge outside of the area of the physical sciences. There is nothing irrational about the way in which Newman would understand a "decision of the heart", quite the contrary.

Stephen Hawking seems to me to be denying the possibility of reason outside of the realm of the physical sciences. A little ironically, he has in the last two or three days displaced from the media headlines the militant secularists, who deny the possibility that a kind of collective reason might be expressed in a religious tradition.

Both of these styles of the denial of reason are not very skilled. They are rather like gentle full tosses being bowled down the wicket towards Pope Benedict XVI, ready to be struck over the bowlers' heads into the stands for six runs in two weeks time. And that John Henry Newman might well provide the thought that Pope Benedict uses as he swings his bat on both aspects of this denial of reason is quite exquisite!

God: Hawking did not create the Universe

The headline occupies the lower centre of the front page of today's Times, in large print:

Hawking: God did not create Universe

and then in smaller print:

Britain's most eminent scientist rejects divine intervention

Now, at first reflection, one is tempted to substitute Stephen Hawking for Tony Blair in The Catholic Whistle's story of arrivals at the pearly gates, not intending thereby to be unpleasant to Stephen Hawking in any personal way, but rather to point out something of the view that he represents.  There is more substance to suggesting that Stephen Hawking is laying claim to God's seat than to the idea that Tony Blair occupies that chair!

The definiteness of some of the media reporting of Stephen Hawking's view is not necessarily accurate to the extract from his forthcoming book that appears in the Eureka supplement with today's Times. There are some interesting appearances of the word "if" in that extract. A comment on the notion of multiple universes (this is, if I recall correctly, derided by Stanley Jaki as the most un-scientific notion imaginable - science as science is not able to assert a notion such as this that is by its own definition beyond the possibility of empirical observation), is followed at the beginning of the next paragraph with "But if it is true ..." It is in paragraphs qualified by this "if it is true ..." that Stephen Hawking writes what is the subject of much of today's media coverage:

But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit....Spontaneous creation is the reason why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.

The last paragraph of the extract in Eureka is somewhat alike to the last paragraph of Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time. Compare this, from A Brief History ..

However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, by able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.

to this from the extract in Eureka:

M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find. The fact that we human beings .... have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our Universe is a great triumph. But perhaps the true miracle is that abstract considerations of logic lead to a unique theory that predicts and describes a vast Universe full of the amazing variety that we see. If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3 000 years.

We will have found the grand design.

One of the lessons of science, particularly in the most recent stages of its history, is that the ultimate understanding for one generation is simply the launching point for the explorations of the next generation. Even at this level, the claim for M-theory that it might be the final step towards man's understanding of the Universe, whole and entire, is breathtakingly arrogant. And it is amusing to see the reference to "confirmed by observation" of a theory part of which is to suggest completely unobservable parallel universes.

But the key point on which the argument turns is that of "spontaneous creation", the idea that the Universe is in some way self-creating. This isn't actually that new an idea, and doesn't appear to me to be particularly linked to a new M-theory of everything. From the point of view of the scientists first proposing it, the idea of the anthropic principle (that our Universe is in some way very finely tuned to provide the conditions for reasoning observers to come to live in it) implicitly contained  an idea of a self-explaining universe, and it is but a small step to move from there to a self-creating Universe. [Some Christian apologists take up this idea of the anthropic principle and see it as supporting an idea of humankind's special place at the highest point in the order of the Universe. I think it can be understood in this way, and this is in some way a part of the insight contained in this principle. But we should recognise that, in understanding it in this way, Christian apologists are adding a sense of extrinsic meaningfulness, of directed purpose, that the original scientist proponents of the principle would not share.]

I had originally intended giving this post the title "I am, you are, but is Stephen Hawking?", meaning thereby to draw attention to the idea of being, the idea of existing rather than not existing, and the understanding of the idea of creation philosophically understood as having to do with the bringing into and sustaining of being as such. The history of the development of the physical/material aspect of being that is rightly the study of the physical sciences isn't able to touch on this question of creation, except through the mediation of a philosophy of being. The term "creation" as it is used by Stephen Hawking is therefore quite empty of meaning ... and, in reality, he isn't able to draw any real conclusion, one way or another, about the existence of a God who is the creator of the Universe. And that is even if his M-theory is true ....

Further comment: at Musings of a Pertinacious Papist and The Telegraph.

The Shock of the Bomb

Underneath this title, a lead article in today's Times proclaims:

Hiroshima was a terrible act of war but no crime, in a just and necessary fight

The lead article comments on the annual commemoration of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, taking note of the first time participation in the commemoration in Hiroshima itself of the US Ambassador to Japan.

The American commemoration symbolised humanitarian concern and President Obama's commitment to building a peaceful world order. It was not an apology to the people of Japan. Neither this administration nor any other is ever likely to give one. That is not obduracy but recognition of historical truth. The bombings of Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki were a terrible act of war. But they were no crime. ...

Was there no alternative? There was: a conventional invasion of the mainland and a blockade. It does not settle the ethical debate over the A-bomb, but that course would have cost many more lives and provided a glimpse of hell...

America's use of the A-bomb ended a necessary war against a totalitarian power. That memory places an historic obligation on the US and its allies to reflect with humility, but not with contrition, on destruction wreaked in a just cause.

Wasn't the dropping of the two atomic bombs itself a "glimpse of hell"? Doesn't the anxiety to avoid civilian casualties in current conflicts rather contradict the attitude of disregard to civilian casualties caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And if apology and contrition is considered appropriate in other contexts, why not in this one?

From the point of view of Catholic teaching, few statements are as solemn as that contained in Vatican II's condemnation of total war in its constitution Gaudium et Spes n.80:

...this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,(2) and issues the following declaration.

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

The unique hazard of modern warfare consists in this: it provides those who possess modern scientific weapons with a kind of occasion for perpetrating just such abominations; moreover, through a certain inexorable chain of events, it can catapult men into the most atrocious decisions. That such may never truly happen in the future, the bishops of the whole world gathered together, beg all men, especially government officials and military leaders, to give unremitting thought to their gigantic responsibility before God and the entire human race.

Two letters

On 17th July, the Times published a letter from Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP. One should perhaps recognise that Fr Radcliffe may not have chosen the heading under which it was published.

Clarifying Vatican line on priestesses

Sir, The Vatican did not declare that "female priests are as sinful as child abuse" (report, July 16). That would be absurd. The papal press office direction, Father Lombardi, SJ, explained that they are completely different. The attempted ordination of a Roman Catholic woman raises different issues.

The priest presides at Holy Communion, the sacrament of our unity in the Church, and so an ordination that is productive of division would be a contradiction in terms. Many Catholics believe that women should not be excluded from ordination, but this will only be possible with the concensus of the communion of the Church. Excommunication is not a punishment, nor exclusion from the Church, but recognition that communion is seriously damaged and needs to be repaired. One might not think that this is the best way to do so, but it is a position that is perfectly comprehensible.

FATHER TIMOTHY RADCLIFFE OP
Blackfriars, Oxford

And today, the following letter appeared:

Female priests

Sir, Father Timothy Radcliffe ("Clarifying Vatican line on priestesses", letter, July 17) rightly points out that the illicit ordination of a woman, being productive of division, would be a contradiction in terms. He then interestingly suggests that the ordination of women might be possible "with the concensus of the communion of the Church". Is he suggesting, perhaps, that women's ordination could be considered in those countries, possibly including England and Wales, where such a move would be largely accepted by Catholics? It would certainly be a means of easing relations with the Anglican Church.

It is certainly and unfortunately the case, however, that the Vatican's description of the ordination of a woman as "a grave delict" inevitably reduces its credibility when pronouncing on other matters.

ALAN PAVELIN
Chislehurst, Kent

Fr Radcliffe does clarify that the Holy See did not equate the attempted ordination of women with the sexual abuse of minors. From then on, though, he does anything but clarify the position of the Holy See with regard to the ordination of women. The ecclesiology underlying Fr Radcliffe's second paragraph looks, not just decidedly Anglican, but decidedly that of a particular school of Anglicanism, a school that has been pretty much put to death by the recent decisions of the General Synod. Communion as social consensus seems to be Fr Radcliffe's notion of the theology of "Church as communion". There is a fudge of the Roman Catholic position, fudge in large quantity, too. What do "should not be excluded from ordination" and "consensus of the communion of the Church" mean? Let alone the infallible magisterium expressed by the "Many Catholics believe ..".

Alan Pavelin takes up the implication that the position of the Holy See is that an ordination of a woman is limited to being illicit - it isn't so limited, being that such an attempted ordination would be invalid, it just wouldn't "happen" despite the words being said and the actions undertaken. He also reads the consensus ecclesiology in a localised context - which Fr Timothy Radcliffe and the Anglican school he reflects would certainly not do - though I am not at all convinced that the ordination of women would be "largely accepted by Catholics" in England and Wales.

Ah, bless.

Can't read; Won't read

The letter below appeared in the Times today. My comments are inserted.

Sir, I write as someone who has no hostility to the modern Catholic Church and respects the faith it represents and its progress since Vatican II [Rabbi Romain is, as evidenced by his chairmanship of ACCORD and other interests, of a not illiberal tendency in Judaism - which is why he may not appreciate that the modern Catholic Church is also the ancient Catholic Church] . However, there is no doubt that Archbishop Williams was correct in his comments (“Church in Ireland has ‘lost all its credibility’,” Report, Apr 3) about its colossal trauma. The number and global spread of paedophile cases means that it is no longer possible to blame a few rogue priests, but the whole institution is under scrutiny.


Moreover, it is not yet possible to talk about “a new future”, as some Catholic bishops do, while past misdemeanours and cover-ups are still coming to light. [This doesn't readily square with the assertion of the writer that he "has no hostility to the modern Catholic Church"]

A papal missive is not enough to restore the Church’s moral credibility. What is needed is a large and highly public act of contrition, with a week of sorrow being declared, culminating in a day of fasting by all Catholics. [Oh dear, the poor Rabbi has not read the papal missive to which he refers! In that letter, Pope Benedict asks Catholics in Ireland - and many Catholics in countries other than Ireland will no doubt join with that initiative to make it an international one - to offer their Friday penances for a whole year, a whole year, do you get that, a whole year, that's 52 days, one Friday for every week of the year, that's 7 and a half weeks of Fridays, and not just one week ... for precisely the purpose that Rabbi Romain suggests.]

It would both demonstrate the Church’s deep regret and be a powerful act of self-cleansing.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain

In a similar vein, see the reports of Rocco Buttiglione's interview on Radio 4 this morning. He is one of my heros, as an outstanding model of how one brings Catholic faith into encounter with the political and cultural milieu of the 20th and 21st centuries, so I am rather disappointed I missed his interview. The BBC website is currently carrying a recording of the interview, though I am not sure how long it will remain on the Today programme site. If you are able to listen to the recording, you will find that Rocco Buttiglione is suitably robust, as exemplified by his concluding words:

There is a criticism that continues, because the anti-Catholic prejudice is the only prejudice that is fashionable in the world of today.

Mis-reporting ....

A headline in The Times today: "This Pope does not do mea culpas, but it may prove his only way out". And the last paragraph of the report to which that is the headline: "It is not in the Pope's nature - he abhorred the 'mea culpas' issued by John Paul II, his predecessor - but it may be the only way out".

In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel. At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope. [Pope Benedict XVI's Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, n.6]

From a report in The Times today: "But instead of being defrocked and the police called in, it is alleged that Father Murphy avoided justice and remained a member of the Church after a key intervention by the Pope - then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger".

At the time Archbishop Rembrandt Weakland wrote to the Vatican in connection with the case of Father Murphy, the civil authorities had already investigated Father Murphy and had not proceeded to a prosecution or conviction. So the suggestion of "non-reporting to the police" is a complete red herring, and one that it is quite incorrect for victims groups to be taking up and promoting in the media (cf reporting on p.6 of today's Times). It would be interesting to know whether or not there are any criticisms being addressed to the police and legal authorities who dealt with the civil investigation, as, prima facie, there seems to be questions that could be asked about that investigation.

I listened to Archbishop Rembrandt Weakland's interview as broadcast on Radio 4's "PM" programme yesterday. For the next six days, you can listen to it on the BBC i-player, from this page. I found Archbishop Weakland's words to be largely an account of the events involved, and not in any way an attempt to attack the Pope. His interview, and the statement from the Vatican, give a clearly compatible account of the events.

Neither of them, either together or separately, justify the accusation (which was not made by Archbishhop Weakland in his PM interview, and has not been made by him so far as I am aware in any other context) that Cardinal Ratzinger knew about the case and took no action, and thereby engaged in an action of covering up of abuse. What Archbishop Weakland sought from the canonical process at the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine was the laicisation of Fr Murphy, and his motivation for that, expressed very carefully in his PM interview, was a pastoral concern for the feelings of the deaf community to which Fr Murphy had exercised his priestly office (this is an interesting aspect of Archbishop Weakland's interview to listen to). Archbishop Weakland does not articulate it in his interview, but there is also a sense that this would have been an act of justice towards those who had been affected by Fr Murphy's abuse. The outcome of the canonical process, described more fully in the statement from the Vatican than in media outlets, was NOT a lack of action. It was not the laicisation that Archbishop Weakland sought, but neither was it inaction. The outcome was to ask the diocesan authorities to reinforce ecclesiastical restrictions that were already in place against Fr Murphy. According to ZENIT's report of the Vatican statement:

The meeting participants noted that there were also "not enough elements to instruct a canonical trial," but nonetheless stated that the diocese should remove the offending priest from the celebration of the Eucharist and consider "penal remedies."

So what are the criticisms that are implicit in the account of events in Archbishop Weakland's interview? One is delay in response from the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine to his letters and request for a canonical trial - but Archbishop Weakland recognises that everyone involved in those times failed to act as quickly as they should have done, including Archbishop Weakland himself, who recognises in the interview that he should have moved on Fr Murphy something like ten years earlier than he did.  It is also apparent in his PM interview that Archbishop Weakland would have liked Fr Murphy to have been laicised before his death because of the pastoral implications of this for the deaf community, but that the Vatican dicastery chose to suggest other penalties instead. But all of this is taking place many years after the civil authorities have decided not to prosecute a case against Fr Murphy.

In his Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, Pope Benedict refers to a need to establish the truth of events that have occurred (n.5). I listened to Archbishop Weakland's interview with this sense of what he was doing in that interview.

PS. Another aspect of today's media coverage is opportunistic efforts by liberal minded Catholics to attack the hierarchical structure of the Church, in favour of lay authority. According to a letter in today's Times: "If the Church in Europe and North America is to survive, never mind prosper, the laity need to throw off clergy-induced infantilism, raise their heads above the parapet and demand a new reformation". I have been a Catholic for more years than I can remember (decode: cradle Catholic who didn't lapse in teenage years), and have yet to really encounter the infantilism referred to here. Perhaps someone could show me some of it ...