March for Life

It is interesting to note that the BBC have given coverage to this year's March for Life in Washington DC, both on the website and on the radio. Coverage I heard on Radio 4's Today programme earlier this week was less edged than this on the BBC website: Thousands gather for first post-Roe March for Life. Though a very significant demonstration, it has not in previous years gained much coverage in this country. The Today report was in some ways more interesting, referring to how pro-life activists recognise a change of focus to legislative activity in individual states; and to how abortion providers are trying to reach women on states where abortion has been restricted since the overthrow of Roe v. Wade (eg by posting abortion pills to locations near state boundaries for women to collect).

Pope Francis words, in a wide ranging address to diplomats accredited to the Holy See in early January, showed a good understanding of the implication of the overturning of the Roe v Wade judgement in America, in its reference to an "alleged right to abortion":

Peace requires before all else the defense of life, a good that today is jeopardized not only by conflicts, hunger and disease, but all too often even in the mother’s womb, through the promotion of an alleged “right to abortion”. No one, however, can claim rights over the life of another human being, especially one who is powerless and thus completely defenceless. For this reason, I appeal to the consciences of men and women of good will, particularly those having political responsibilities, to strive to safeguard the rights of those who are weakest and to combat the throwaway culture that also, tragically, affects the sick, the disabled and the elderly. States have a primary responsibility to ensure that citizens are assisted in every phase of human life, until natural death, and to do so in a way that makes each feel accompanied and cared for, even in the most delicate moments of his or her life.

Roe v. Wade overturned: what next?

I have not been able to keep track of all the reactions to the overturning of the Roe v. Wade judgement by the US Supreme Court. I also have my usual wariness of commenting on a situation whose details are beyond my own immediate knowledge - it is too easy to respond to the reporting of what someone said and to then find out that either they said something slightly different or that the fuller context of the remarks gives the quoted part a rather different sense.

What of President Biden?

His original remarks in response to the Supreme Court judgement can be found on the White House website: Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade. These remarks have worrying aspects to them, and reading them in full adds to that sense concern.

It was three justices named by one President — Donald Trump — who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country. 

Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law.  It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.

It is the idea that a judgement in law that opens the way to pro-life legislation to take effect in states of the US represents an "extreme ideology" that should give cause for thought. First of all, we should resist the idea that to be pro-life is to be an advocate of an "extreme ideology" - and in this phrase, the word "ideology" is as significant as the word "extreme". An ideology takes an aspect or part of a reality, and absolutises it at the expense of the complete picture; and, in doing so, it adopts a position that separates itself from objective reality itself. To be pro-life on the contrary recognises a reality - that abortion takes the innocent life of an unborn child, an unborn child who would otherwise be able to live their dignity as a human person. To argue, on the other hand, that abortion represents health care is to misrepresent the genuine meaning of the term health care as it would be applied in the wider generality of medical practice.

President Biden's reference to Donald Trump, though, highlights a hazard of that style of pro-life activity that allies itself to a particular political stance, a politics that can be fundamentally ideological in its real intent rather than having a genuine concern for the common good. More is needed to build a genuine culture of life in America than the legislative actions of Republican administrations, and too close an alliance to those legislative actions will be counter-productive to the wider building of a culture of life.

It is also interesting to contrast President Biden's narrative that:

The Court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized.

with the rather different narrative from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops statement:

“America was founded on the truth that all men and women are created equal, with God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This truth was grievously denied by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized and normalized the taking of innocent human life. We thank God today that the Court has now overturned this decision. 

So far as I can tell, the essential import of the judgement to overthrow Roe v. Wade is that abortion should not now be seen in the United States as some form of right guaranteed by the constitution, and should never have been seen in such a way. And yet the barrage of criticism of the decision, following the lead of politicians such as President Biden, ignores this and continues to talk in terms of abortion as some form of human or constitutional right.

What of the culture?

In both the United States and here in the UK, abortion has been legally permitted for so long that it has embedded in medical practice and in the wider culture. The legal permission is only an aspect of that cultural embedding; the widespread hostility shown to the overthrow of Roe v. Wade exemplifies how deep this cultural embedding now is. I have thought for some considerable time now that our conversation about abortion should no longer be one characterised by "a woman's right to choose" or a "woman's right to have control over her own body". The stories of women who have had abortions - both those gathered by supporters of legalised abortion and those opposed - demonstrate the range of constraints that influence their decisions. In many stories, the experiences are such that the word "freedom" (in the full, philosophical sense of the term as applied to human actions) is difficult to apply as a descriptor of the decision making process. I cannot help but feel that, if our public conversation were to focus more clearly on the different narratives of  women seeking abortions, the practice of abortion in our society would change significantly. That conversation would need us to reflect more deeply on the nature of freedom in human acting, and how women seeking abortions can be supported to make decisions that manifest a fuller freedom of choice rather than expressing instead determining constraints. 

Perhaps the jolt given to the idea of abortion as a constitutional right by the recent Supreme Court ruling will enable this wider conversation to take place.

Different narratives: abortion

As I have followed the coverage of the leak of a draft decision of the US Supreme Court with regard to the Roe vs Wade judgement on abortion, a number of thoughts have come to mind.

The first has been about the way in which the relationship between the notion of the rule of law and the exercise of political office is perceived. So for, example, President Biden has very quickly expressed his concerns (or, more honestly, opposition?) to the striking down of Roe vs Wade that the leaked draft seems to foreshadow. And Vice-President Kamala Harris has been even more explicit. It seems legitimate that those in high public office should attack a possible court ruling, rather than indicating their compliance with the rule of law that might result. 

The public narrative - and it is there in both President Biden's and Vice-President Harris' remarks - speaks in terms of women having a right to choose, and in their having a right to have control over their bodies. This right to choose is seen as a "women's right" to be defended. There is a literature, from authors on both sides of the debate about legalized abortion, that describes the experiences of women who have had abortions. The examples of this literature on my own bookshelves are not particularly recent, but the themes involved were referenced by a speaker towards the end of BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, who cited a book she had viewed in a visit to an abortion clinic where women had written their thoughts about their experiences. There are a wide range of reasons that lie behind women deciding to have abortions, some examples being family pressures, financial pressures, unsupportive partners or partners with addictions, effect on education or career prospects; and there can be very different emotional responses arising from those decisions. 

In other words, there are multiple narratives, not one single narrative. And in many of those narratives there are one or more constraints being exerted on the woman's freedom in choosing for or against abortion; they are not exercising a right to choose in the real sense of that phrase. Our conversation about abortion, if it is to respect and reflect the real experiences of women, cannot be one about a "right to choose". It has to include the full range of narratives; and, even remaining neutral with regard to the rights and wrongs as such of abortion, that wider conversation could be expected to lead to change in the practice of abortion.

Interestingly, the pro-life speaker in this morning's Today programme interview (Melanie McDonagh) was insistent on our talking about abortion as the "killing of a foetus" rather than using a term like "healthcare procedure", and in recognising that the foetus is a human being in various stages of development. Our conversation needs to reflect that there is this foetus as well as the woman in the situation. From my own reading, the difficult emotional responses that some women experience occur from precisely this recognition.

The full interview from the Today programme can be found here, beginning at 2:22. It will be available for the next 29 days. The BBC news website has a page in which six women from America give their responses to the Supreme Court leak: Roe v Wade: US women divided on leaked abortion ruling. Perhaps Catherine Nix's observation that, whether abortion is legal or not, there will still be women with unexpected pregnancies who need help and support is the most thoughtful response.

A final thought. One of my take away points from the #MeToo movement, and from recent concerns here in the UK about violence against women, has been that the safety of women requires men to take an increased responsibility for the behaviour that they show towards women. And yet the language of a "woman's right to choose" in terms of abortion appears to take an opposite stance, suggesting an autonomy of women from men's behaviours. (As do adverts for the morning after pill, with a strap line "It's my morning after".)

Novena for Pentecost: Baptism in the Spirit, Ecumenism and Social Action

 Recognising that the Holy Spirit can act outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church does not in any way compromise belief about the necessity of the Church for salvation, and belief that, once we come to know the Church as founded by Jesus Christ, we have an obligation to join that Church. As Catholics came to experience Baptism in the Spirit, they were able to recognise that same gift in Pentecostal and Protestant communities and to be influenced by them. Baptism in the Spirit has thus had an inherently ecumenical impulse from the start. The sense of spiritual fellowship with Christians of other denominations is based on a common experience of deeper conversion to Christ, expressed principally in worship and prayer, leading to a love for the Holy Spirit's work for reconciliation and unity. From the Catholic point of view, it has involved a positive regard for what can be seen to be good in the life of other Christian communities.

Many of the communities and prayer groups founded in the Charismatic Renewal have initiated vibrant programmes of outreach to the poor, such as soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Many are also involved in pro-life ministries or other activities in favour of more just and loving conditions in society. The strength of this commitment to charitable action follows immediately from the experience of a faith that "has come alive" and therefore needs to be lived in the situations of every day life. It also provides an opportunity for Christians of different denominations to engage together in activity rooted in a common conversion to Christ.

Together, these impulses for ecumenism and social action are an example of what might be termed "spiritual ecumenism" - a shared experience of life rooted in a common conversion towards the Father, through the Son in the Spirit.

Pope Francis address to the Diplomatic Corps: two points

 Pope Francis' address during his delayed annual encounter with the diplomatic representatives accredited to the Holy See is lengthy and wide ranging. A full text can be found at the website of the Holy See: Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See. The address, at various points, demonstrates an interest and familiarity of the Holy See with a wide range of international situations.

The implications of the coronavirus pandemic for healthcare is addressed at an early point in Pope Francis' address:

The pandemic forced us to confront two unavoidable dimensions of human existence: sickness and death. In doing so, it reminded us of the value of life, of every individual human life and its dignity, at every moment of its earthly pilgrimage, from conception in the womb until its natural end. It is painful, however, to note that under the pretext of guaranteeing presumed subjective rights, a growing number of legal systems in our world seem to be moving away from their inalienable duty to protect human life at every one of its phases.

The pandemic has also reminded us of the right – the right! – of each human being to dignified care... I thus renew my appeal that every person receive the care and assistance he or she requires. To this end, it is indispensable that political and government leaders work above all to ensure universal access to basic healthcare, the creation of local medical clinics and healthcare structures that meet people’s actual needs, and the availability of treatments and medicinal supplies. Concern for profit should not be guiding a field as sensitive as that of healthcare.

If one reads this in an exclusively American context, one might see push back against President Biden's measures in favour of access to abortion (note Pope Francis' not insignificant reference to "the pretext of guaranteeing presumed subjective rights"), and a cautious support of President Biden's moves on affordable health care in the United states (qualified by the preceding remarks on the value of human life from conception to its natural end). As addressed to other parts of the world represented by the diplomats in his audience, the implications will differ.

[See here for a summary of President Biden's intentions in these regards.]

Later in his address, Pope Francis refers to the impact of measures to control the coronavirus pandemic on religious freedom:

The need to halt the spread of the virus has also had implications for a number of fundamental freedoms, including religious freedom, restricting public worship and the educational and charitable activities of faith communities. It must be recognized, however, that religion is a fundamental aspect of the human person and of society, and cannot be eliminated. Even as we seek ways to protect human lives from the spread of the virus, we cannot view the spiritual and moral dimension of the human person as less important than physical health.

Freedom of worship, furthermore, is not a corollary of the freedom of assembly. It is in essence derived from the right to freedom of religion, which is the primary and fundamental human right. This right must therefore be respected, protected and defended by civil authorities, like the right to bodily and physical health. For that matter, sound care of the body can never ignore care of the soul.

 Whilst measures that limit public gatherings can be seen as qualifying the right of assembly in favour of the general welfare in limiting the spread of the coronavirus, measures taken have at times banned public religious worship as if it comes under the same title as the right to freedom of assembly. Pope Francis points out that it is, in fact, a distinct right from that of freedom of assembly, and is deserving of protection in a way that differs from the protection due to the right of assembly. 

[Article 29 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains the provision that allows for limitations on the rights contained therein in order to meet the "just requirements of the general welfare in a democratic society".]

Abortion and Disability

 While Poland experiences street protests against a judicial determination that abortion on the grounds of disability of the unborn baby is unconstitutional, the BBC has carried a report of the experiences of mothers of Down's Syndrome children. The headings of the three testimonies in the report are:

'The support was only there if I chose an abortion'

'At 38 weeks, I was told I could still terminate'

'I started to ask myself what is so wrong with him having Down's Syndrome'

The last testimony is, in some respects, the most challenging but at the same time the most instructive:

When Tom was born, Nicola was euphoric. But the following day, a paediatrician asked her if she thought he looked normal.

Tom was diagnosed with Down's syndrome and Nicola's world fell apart.

"I was offered absolutely no support to rebuild it," she says. "I felt complete and utter despair and devastation. Gone was this gorgeous baby and instead he was replaced with this unknown entity." .....

..... Nicola's maternal bond had been "severed" and it took her more than a year to fall back in love with her son.

"I started to ask myself, 'what is so wrong with him having Down's syndrome?'"

Tom, now 16, is a pupil in mainstream education. Nicola describes him as "charming, witty and charismatic". A West Bromwich Albion fan, he also enjoys golf, snorkelling and kayaking and hopes to get a job and get married.

Nicola says cancelling the amniocentesis was the best decision she ever made.

"I am terrified I would have terminated Tom's life. I was led to believe he would have a negative impact on our lives but he has enriched them and we are without doubt better people for having him in them."

The BBC report demonstrates clearly a presumption on the part of health care professionals to encourage mothers to consider abortion where there is risk of a baby having Down's Syndrome. It is difficult to read the BBC report without actually feeling that that encouragement is close to, if not in fact, undue pressure. The BBC report links to the page on the NHS website page - here - that offers advice for women with regard to the outcome of pre-natal screening tests. It would be interesting to know how much, in the light of the advice on this page, the experience of mothers has changed compared to the testimonies in this report (the advice has been changed as a result of campaigning by Nicola).

The BBC report prompts two thoughts:

Is an abortion a truly acceptable option in the case of a disability that still leaves the new born baby with a life expectancy of between 50 and 60 years (according to the BBC report), and where, during their lifetime, they can be expected to contribute much to the lives of those around them?

The fact that such an abortion is legal in the UK means that every woman who is expecting a child who may be disabled is put in the position of having to make a decision for or against that abortion. Is the challenge/difficulty, or even the degree of trauma, involved in that decision really in the best interests of every woman, particularly given the apparent presumption in one direction of the surrounding medical care? Is this a choice that women should really be asked to make?

Life: A Mystery

 ... is the title of a session at the 2020 annual Rimini Meeting organised under the auspices of Communion and Liberation. The link to the video of the session is here: Life: A Mystery. The first and third presentations are in English; the second presentation is a simultaneous English translation from Italian (there may be one or two infelicitous translations, where an English phrase may not fully reflect the Italian original). Total length is just over an hour.

The first presentation gives a survey of the experience of euthanasia in the Netherlands by Theo Boer, an ethicist who had originally supported legislation in favour of euthanasia but subsequently resigned from one of the regional oversight committees that exist in the Netherlands. The second is given by the doctor responsible for leading on the intensive care provision in Lombardy province during the COVID-19 emergency earlier this year. He describes his experience during that time. The third presentation is from Elvira Parravicini, describing her work in Neo-natal Comfort Care. She ends her talk with a very moving account of one of her cases. 

I think the video is worth watching, not just because of its content, but also because of the encounter it engenders with the presenters, and the sense it gives of how they have responded to the challenges of their professional lives.

Mitochondrial DNA transfer

As I drove home yesterday with the radio on in the car, I heard Andrew Miller, the Labour MP who chairs the Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology and who has a well known parliamentary engagement with questions of science and technology, observe that, in respect of the vote in favour of three-parent IVF by the House of Commons:

"Scientific evidence triumphed over belief".

That comment gains some context from part of  his contribution during the Parliamentary debate itself:

The ethical basis on which science is conducted in this country is world leading. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should be immensely proud of the successes—again—of our scientific community in a range of life science disciplines....

We are in a society where people are entitled to have their beliefs, and I respect those beliefs; everyone should be entitled to express their opinion. But this is about focusing on the needs of that small part of the population that I mentioned. I urge the House, in coming to a conclusion this afternoon, to think about those families, to focus on their needs and to set aside general beliefs in the overwhelming interest of that small part of the population who have suffered immensely and who have an opportunity at their disposal because of the extraordinary science that has been advanced. 

[In parentheses, The BBC News website also reports, under the headline MPs say yes to three person babies views like the following:

Proponents said the backing was "good news for progressive medicine".

"This is world leading science within a highly respected regulatory regime." (Public Health Minister Jane Ellison )] 

I am clearly citing only two dimensions within yesterday's debate in Parliament, but they do strike me as being a very worrying dimensions. The first represents what one might call a "scientific ambition", in which, for some at least, the wish to go ahead with the techniques of mitochondrial DNA transfer is informed and/or motivated by a sense of pride in UK science. That references are made by two  Parliamentarians with particular prominence in the field of health and science to "world leading science" and "extraordinary science" when, for the families involved, the question at stake is not the status of the science as science but rather the efficacy of the science as a treatment, seems to me to have been exceptionally misguided.

The second dimension is the way in which Andrew Miller refers to "beliefs" as if they should be of no account in the debate. He indicates his respect for the beliefs that others hold, but then goes on to say that those "general beliefs" should be set aside. "Beliefs" can be respected; but they should not be allowed to influence the outcome of the debate or of the practice of science and medicine that will be consequent upon that outcome. It is, of course, an exaltation of the knowledge that is gained by scientific study over and above that knowledge that is gained through other fields of study - scientism. In so far as Andrew Miller's position has any ethical content, it is simply that of consequences that are expected to be positive in the respect of offspring born to the families affected - consequentialism. That in itself represents an ethical "belief"; but other ethical methodologies that examine what is right or wrong from an understanding of persons and the good of persons and might come to a different conclusion than a consequentialist approach are to be set aside.

Just as Andrew Miller believes his own belief - in scientific evidence - should be allowed a play in society, so should the different belief of others also be allowed a play. That is the quintessential British value of democracy (though I would suggest that its value does not arise from anything British but from the nature of democracy itself). And to play off scientific evidence against ethical or religious belief as if they conflict is also wrong. Reason, of which scientific endeavour forms a dimension, and what Andrew Miller denotes by the word "belief" should go alongside each other in the search for what is morally right.

When Pope Benedict XVI spoke in Westminster Hall, within the same precincts in which yesterday's debate took place, he observed:

The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles....

Religion (is) .... a vital contributor to the national conversation....

I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life. 

Perhaps Andrew Miller might like to take note.

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.

Dying

I posted yesterday about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). Before Mass this morning I spoke with a nurse who works in our local hospital, and discussed the LCP with her. That conversation reminded how much the words that we use in describing the end of a patient's life communicate messages about how we value - or do not value - that time in a patient's life. Different words that we used in our conversation were "difficult", "horrible", "cruel", "existing, not living".

I was comfortable with the word "difficult" - reaching the end of your life, or accompanying someone else as they reach the end of their life - can be difficult. But I think a major part of the problem in being pro-life in the context of the end of life is that we do not promote a positive and hopeful language to talk about that time of a person's life. The experience of hopelessness, both on the part of the patient and on the part of those accompanying the patient, seems to arise simply because no-one challenges a language that enshrines a hidden agenda of despair.

I then saw this post at Diakonia - and was very struck that here the moment or time of a person's dying was seen as being worthy of a photographic record. Yes, accompanying someone as they are dying is difficult. But it is also, like other great moments of life, an irreplaceable moment, a moment that should be lived in its full meaning rather than being abandoned to despair.

Pro-abortion conference gets rough ride in Ireland

Having just visited Ireland, I am quite happy to link to this report at John Smeaton's blog.

This blog supports Salt and Light TV

I have come late to the spat that has been taking place between Salt and Light Catholic TV Network and others in relation to the funeral of Senator Edward Kennedy. If I have understood the situation correctly, Salt and Light were approached by Lifesite News (and perhaps others) to join a lobby/campaign to stop Cardinal O'Malley's participation in the funeral and Cardinal McCarrick's participation in the interment. When they did not join in such a campaign, heated exchanges (well, very heated exchanges) followed through e-mail and blog posts.

The original texts are, so far as I can see, these:

Fr Thomas Rosica's strongly worded post of 3rd September, which reproduces the text of Cardinal O'Malley's own blog post. Fr Rosica is the Chief Executive of Salt and Light Catholic TV.

Lifesite News commentary of 4th September responding to Fr Rosica's post.

A radio interview by Fr Rosica, broadcast on 9th September. The transcript is here, posted on 15th September.

A Lifesite News editorial of 14th September, responding to Fr Rosica's Sirius interview.

A Lifesite News editorial of 17th September, responding to Fr Rosica's contributions.

1. Lifesite News
Quite some time ago now, I had reason to read a Lifesite News report in looking up a story. I found a problem then that I have found with every attempt since to use a Lifesite News report. That problem is one of being able to distinguish the hard news content of the report from the spin or emphasis being added to the hard news content. It makes Lifesite News unusable as a reliable source of news reporting - you always have to go and find another report of the same story elsewhere in order to check that you really know what is going on. This is why I do not link to Lifesite News, and why I would only very cautiously base a post on a report from Lifesite News.

What purpose is, then, served by Lifesite News reports? There is, of course, some purpose served in providing news, or at least giving a head up on a story. And there is probably also some political value in terms of indicating a clear opposition to those who support abortion. But, as with most public voice politics, is the essential audience Lifesite News' own supporters? Is it most effective in building its own standing with its own supporters? I make this as a morally neutral observation - the building of status with your own constituency is a perfectly legitimate part of the process of politics and is the ordinary bread and butter of seeking election to office. But issue politics, as opposed to party politics or the politics of electoral office, needs to be successful in influencing those outside your own constituency - and my question is about how far Lifesite News can do this or, indeed, if they want to do this.

Fr Rosica has posted an account of a meeting he had with young people on 10th September, in the context of this controversy, which provides a good example of what I am trying to say is needed here.

2. Internet lobbying
I have posted previously (I'll insert the link to that post when I find it!) about using blogs to encourage others to e-mail or protest to people. Even if the resulting communications are courteous and considered, there is still a point at which this becomes a form of cyber-bullying. It is a modus operandi which takes advantage of the ease of electronic communication to get people to lobby over something in which they may not have a direct stake. A much more appropriate way of doing things seems to me to be one which encourages others to post on their own blogs their views about an issue.

The following, at the bottom of Lifesite News editorial of 14th September, is, in my view, quite out of order, despite that word "respectfully":

To RESPECTFULLY contact Fr. Rosica: info@saltandlighttv.org

3. Conclusion
To say that the kind of spat between parties who should be allies which has occurred here is the work of the devil isn't to blame either of the parties as if they were directly undertaking the work of the devil. Somewhere in it all we might accept that the devil has worked his mischief and that the parties involved might need to keep their eyes open to try and see where this mischief is present.

But, that having been said, this blog is declaring on the side of Fr Rosica on this one, and a link to Salt and Light TV Network can now be found on the links list.

President Obama and funding for embryonic stem cell research

A guest from America's scientific community spoke on BBC Radio 4's PM programme this afternoon, welcoming President Obama's decision to rescind the ban on public funding of embryonic stem cell research.

It is interesting to read the presentation of this decision here on the White House website. I reproduce it below, as I am not expecting the link to be permanent.

“A debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates”
Moments ago President Obama marked a monumental moment for hope with an audience of Nobel Laureates, leaders of the faith community, and patient advocates.

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

The President acknowledged that there are those who strongly oppose this research, and insisted that even as he had come to a different conclusion those opinions deserved full respect. He explained that the American government has not only a role but a responsibility to keep the country at the forefront of medical science. But he also made clear that his decision was not made based on his belief in science alone: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease
human suffering."

The President said that a false choice has often been presented between science and faith, and that corrupting, shielding, or shying away from the facts science lays bare benefits nobody:

That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals – to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.

One of the President’s closing notes was to pay homage to those who dedicated so much of their time and energy, often in their last days when both were short, to the cause of allowing this research to see its full potential:

As we restore our commitment to science, and resume funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don’t know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting – even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause –
people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.

The text raises some interesting questions:

1. The claim is that politics has been removed from decision making about science. But, if we read the last paragraph of the release above, there is a clear acknowledgement of the political campaigning that has led up to this decision by President Obama. The decision itself is profoundly political. And, let's be clear, the promise to appoint scientific advisers on the basis of their scientific credentials and not their ideology is probably one sided .... anyone who is pro-life will be considered ideological/political and not be appointed, while those not on the side of the angels (as I would view it!) will be non-ideological and non-political and so be appointed.

2. It is also interesting to notice the interest in the aim that America might lead the world in the discoveries to which this research might lead. At the press conference, President Obama also referred to the potential for scientists to leave America to work in countries where the research was allowed. An interesting motivation, which does not seem to leave much room for properly ethical considerations.

3. In so far as any moral consideration comes into this decision, President Obama cites the possibility that the research might help in developing cures for certain illnesses, and that we have a duty to care. The line of argument is purely consequentialist, and leaves out any consideration of a moral value or disvalue intrinsic to the pursuit of the research itself.

4. But of greater significance is an unstated underlying principle. Decisions about science are to be made based on science. With little or no reference to objective moral considerations. The presentation above seems to portray a separation of scientific endeavour from moral endeavour. On BBC Radio 4's PM programme (the evening current affairs programme that partners the morning Today programme), for example, an American scientist welcomed President Obama's decision, saying that the decision had been made on the basis of science and not of ideology. There is a certain obfuscation in President Obama's talk that "a false choice has often been presented between science and faith"; radio coverage is quoting him as opposing a "false choice between sound science and moral values". This all seems to speak of an abandoning of a sense of the moral responsibility of the scientific enterprise, and of the idea that religious belief can contribute to the moral nature of this enterprise.

I must re-read C P Snow's article on "The Moral Un-neutrality of Science" ...

Bishops, laity and politics

The following is from a recent ZENIT news report:

After being criticized by the secular media for being reticent on moral issues, the archbishop of Quebec acknowledged that the country's bishops really should speak out more.

Peter Kavanaugh of CBC radio admitted last week at the International Catholic Media Convention in Toronto of being envious of the United Kingdom, where the bishops there are willing "to actually engage in public, in the fiercest of terms, an issue that they saw as being vital to the future of the nation and the future of humanity," reported LifeSiteNews.com.

I have found it quite interesting to reflect on the role taken by the Catholic Bishops of the United Kingdom during the recent debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Over quite a long period of time, briefing material was produced on their behalf and circulated and posted on their website. Speeches were made by a number of Bishop and press statements released by them; lay Catholics were encouraged to lobby their Members of Parliament. The Bishops deep seated opposition to key points of the Bill was made clear by those four or five bishops who acted as spokesmen for the others.

Thought 1: it is quite right that the Bishops should "teach" and "give a lead" on these issues.

Thought 2: the fields of politics, and of science and technology, and of medicine could rightly be seen as areas of lay engagement, where lay Catholics take their (secular) professional expertise into action in the light of faith, so it is really up to lay people to take the lead on these sorts of issues.

There is clearly a balance to be achieved between these two thoughts, and also a reflection to be made on whether that balance was correctly and effectively achieved during the recent events surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

I think the balance of the two thoughts could be reflected in two role models. My role model for the "Thought 1" approach would be Archbishop Oscar Romero. His pastoral letters are profoundly rooted in the Magisterium of the Church, and then apply that Magisterium to the situation in El Salvador at his time. His Sunday homilies, broadcast to the nation by radio, spoke out the truth about violence and injustice that otherwise would not have been admitted or generally known. However, he incessantly called for an end to violence and for an end to injustice; and while these calls may have most often been addressed to those in Government, they were in principle equally applicable to opposition groups as well. So, I think the Bishop's role is to teach the truth of the Catholic faith, applied to the current local situation, and be willing to express judgements as to whether or not particular actions or proposed policies are in accordance with truth and justice as taught by Catholic faith.

My role model for the "Thought 2" approach is Rocco Buttiglione. He was proposed by Italy as a commisioner for the European Union in 2004 (I think!). At a pre-appointment hearing, he was put on the spot about the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality, since he had been nominated for the Commission portfolio that would have included equalities issues. As result of making a very cautious and carefully expressed statement of that teaching and refusing to deny that it was what he believed (but at the same time clearly defending the principle of non-discrimination in public life, which is what mattered to his holding public office), Rocco Buttiglione became the subject of considerable public criticism. Eventually, the withdrawal of his nomination as a European commisioner was forced on Italy. What is of interest here (and, I suspect, in other areas of Rocco Buttiglione's political and academic career too) is that, as a lay person, in the area of his own professional expertise and experience, he made a stand for a point of Catholic teaching that cost him a prestigious politcal appointment. For me, Rocco Buttiglione is the outstanding contemporary lay witness to Catholic teaching on homosexuality. So, I think the lay person's role is to use their professional expertise to judge when and how to act in witness to the content of Catholic teaching, and to do this on their own initiative and not just at the direction of the Bishops.

To evaluate the recent approach by the Catholic Church towards the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, we can perhaps ask some questions.

Question 1: Did the Bishops do more than teach the content of faith and apply it in making known their judgements as to whether the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill were compatible with truth and justice as expressed in Catholic teaching? Did the Bishops engage in a politcal campaign that might have more appropriately been led by lay people?

Question 2: Did Catholic politicians, particularly Cabinet members, really
act in witness to the judgements expressed by the Bishops and rooted in Catholic teaching? Or did they fudge it? Did other lay Catholics really run with political and media campaign that was properly theirs, rather than relying on the public stance of the Bishops?

On a more personal note that reflect this discussion, I was a Parliamentary candidate for the ProLife Alliance during the 1997 General Election (a fascinating experience which taught me a lot about the electoral process). At the time, my parish priest received some criticism from others for not coming out in support of my candidature. But it had never occurred to me that he should (or could) endorse the particular approach to pro-life politics represented at that election by the ProLife Alliance. I considered it to be up to me a as a lay person to make the decision about what I was doing and how I was going to translate pro-life principles into political action. If I recall correctly, not everyone who was pro-life thought that the ProLife Alliance activity at that election was appropriate, and it clearly had great potential for mishap.