This weekend just gone, I managed to get Monday off as well as Saturday and Sunday so I tootled up to Hull for a few days. It was great that it coincided with the Hermeneutic's first ever visit to the banks of the Humber to deliver a first-class Hull Faith Forum talk on why the Church is right on contraception.
On Monday afternoon, myself and friend, Phil Cunnah, picked him up from Paragon Station. As it was Fr's first trip to Hull, we took him for a brief visit to the oldest (and by a country mile the best) Catholic Church in the city - St Charles Borromeo, Jarrat Street.
Its history, pulled from the parish's website reads: "Around 1774 Fr. Charles Howard came from Marton to serve the small number of Catholics in Hull. In 1779 a chapel was established in Posterngate but it was destroyed in the Gordon Riots of 1780. Following the loss of the chapel Catholics were forced to meet in private until in 1798 when Fr Pierre Foucher arrived in Hull, fleeing the French Revolution. He was a wealthy man, possibly an aristocrat. He paid for a small chapel in North Street to be built from his own funds. He returned to France in 1820.Fr. John Smith was appointed to replace Fr Foucher. He obtained a site in Jarratt Street and began the construction of the present church. The church opened on 29 July 1829. The building of the church was begun by the architect John Earle (b. 1778- d. 1863). It was remodelled soon afterward by J.J. Scholes (b. 1798 - d. 1863).In later years the aisles were added and the present decor seen in the church was undertaken in 1899 under the stewardship of Canon Sullivan."
We then went on to Fr William Massie's presbytery in west Hull for a lovely home-made spaghetti carbonara.
Then it was onto the Endsleigh Centre in the north of the city for the talk. There was an excellent attendance, with many there being of teenage years or in their early 20s. Fr's talk was pitched at a level that could be understood by the Secondary school pupils - and therefore by everybody else. Despite the rather direct title (Why the church is right on contraception), he tackled the wider subject of chastity. Recounting some of the things he had picked up from the Good Counsel Network, he explained that many women who find themselves in a "crisis pregnancy" are already on one form or another of contraception - completely crushing the theory that there is such a think as so-called "safe sex". He also said that research showed the divorce rate in the UK is way higher among couples who lived together before they were married compared with those who didn't. Fr Tim emphasised that this was not his or the Church's assumption - it was fact.
The Hermeneutic went onto explore the difference between love and infatuation, the vocation of mothers and fathers, the sanctity of marriage and the purpose of sex - i.e. for procreation. Infatuation is an emotion, it's something you "fall into", an unreasoned passion based on physical attraction and popularity. This kind of relationship is temporary. But love is a devotion, it's something you "grow into". It is a lasting relationship, one that is a growing experience based on mutually shared interests, beliefs, attitudes and goals.
Based on his years of experience of pro-life work, of various families in his south London parish, of theology and of marriage preparation to name but a few, Fr Tim was able to give sound advice to the youngsters present, who clearly took to heart what he was saying. He encouraged us to pray for chastity on a daily basis, asking God to teach us to love others with the purity of His holy Mother. After the talk and a break for refreshments, Fr answered some often delicate questions from the teenagers very well.
After the forum finished with night prayer, I took Fr to the pub and stayed for a quick drink before heading back down to Northamptonshire for work the next day. Little did I know until I got to Derbyshire that I had Fr Tim's bag in the back of the car! All of us had forgotten about it being in the boot and the first I knew of it was when I stopped at a motorway service station and found I had 11 missed calls from Fr Massie. I arranged to drive back towards Yorkshire and meet one of Fr William's parishioners, Michelle Robertson, along with Phil, at Doncaster services to get the bag (which contained Fr Tim's train ticket for the following morning) back to its rightful owner. Despite being grumpy at the time by the faffing around, I think I have just about managed to see the slightly amusing side of it by now! Apologies once again Fr Tim. One of those things...
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Monday, 23 June 2008
The Eucharist
I don't often quote chunks of Vatican Information Service news briefings. Anyone who's online can get them and have a daily digest on what's going on in the Vatican as well as reading the wise words of the Holy Father. However, these few lines stood out to me on today's news release. These words were taken from Pope Benedict's homily, transmitted by satellite from the Vatican, to thousands of faithful gathered on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec, for the closing Mass of the 49th International Eucharistic Congress. They sum up perfectly what the Eucharist means:
"The Eucharist is our most precious treasure. ... It is the Sacrament par excellence ... It contains all the mystery of our salvation, it is the source and the summit of the activity and the life of the Church...
"The Eucharist is not a meal among friends. It is a mystery of alliance. We are called to enter this mystery of alliance, conforming our everyday lives to the gift received in the Eucharist."
"The Eucharist is our most precious treasure. ... It is the Sacrament par excellence ... It contains all the mystery of our salvation, it is the source and the summit of the activity and the life of the Church...
"The Eucharist is not a meal among friends. It is a mystery of alliance. We are called to enter this mystery of alliance, conforming our everyday lives to the gift received in the Eucharist."
Westminster Cathedral's first parish priest
On Saturday I was in London and went to the Saturday evening Vigil Mass at Westminster Cathedral. A large part of Fr Michael Archer's homily was dedicated to Saint John Southworth, effectively the cathedral parish's first parish priest. His feastday will be celebrated this Friday. In my ongoing series on the 40 martyrs, I've already posted on St John. Fr Archer spoke passionately about him, emphasising his witness to Christ even to his last breath on the gallows. He emphasised that St John would have walked the streets of London that we walk today, even the area that the marvellous Byzantine-style Cathedral now stands. Fr Archer told the congregation about how the martyr's body was discovered in France and its journey back to Westminster Cathedral, where it now lays in a see through case in the Chapel of St George and the English Martyrs. It lays in a glass cabinet, with St John wearing red vestments. His body was so disfigured after his hanging, drawing and quartering his head is a gold mask and his hands are represented by a gold shape as well.
After Mass, it was very moving to see lots of people - young and old, both parishioners and visitors - go to look at St John's body, light candles beside it and venerate the martyr by kissing the cabinet. Although a lot of people know that the courageous martyr lies in the church, it's incredible what a simple but powerful homily on one of our own saints can do to increase the veneration of them, especially when they have links to a particular parish. One can only pray that local areas with a special connection to one or more of the martyrs makes a big deal of them.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
40 Martyr Reflections: Saint Henry Walpole
Famous multi-millionaire footballer David Beckham captained his country again against Trinidad and Tobago recently. The Real Madrid midfielder is seen by society as a great model for young children, especially those mad about soccer. But it is the son of another Beckham, Margery to be precise, who is unquestionably one of the greatest role models young people today could have. This is despite the man in question barely being known.
Beckham was Saint Henry Walpole’s mother’s maiden name. Henry was born in 1558 to Christopher and Margery. He was the eldest of a large family of boys from Docking, in Norfolk. Henry was educated at Norwich Grammar School, founded by Edward VI. After graduating from Gonville College, Cambridge, he entered Gray’s Inn to study law. This is one of the four Inns of Court around the Royal Courts of Justice in London to which barristers belong and where they are called to the bar. The Inns of Court at that time were reported to be full of papists, meaning that Walpole, a Protestant at this time, would have been closely watched. It is in these circles that he got to know Edmund Campion, the pioneer of the Jesuit mission in England. Henry was impressed by his zeal and preaching. It was the example, and ultimately the brutal martyrdom of Fr Campion that drew Henry to the Catholic faith in the most dramatic fashion.
On December 1 1581, Henry was at Tyburn to witness the grusome hanging, drawing and quartering of Campion. He stood so close to the gallows that he was splattered with some of the martyrs blood during the execution. For the young law student, this seemed to be a direct call from God to walk in his friend’s footsteps. Before converting, he wrote a poem on the "life and death of the most famous clerk and virtuous priest, Edmund Campion". Word spread quickly of the literary work and the authorities began looking for Henry. But the young writer hid himself in Norfolk and eventually made the voyage across to the English College at Rheims, arriving on July 7 1582. He was described on entry as a "discreet, grave and pious man".
He stayed there for a year before being sent to Rome where he entered the Society of Jesus in April 1583. On completion of his studies, Henry was ordained on December 15 1588. Shortly after entering the priesthood, he was appointed to be chaplain to the multi-national force serving under the Prince of Palma in Belgium. He spiritually served many of his fellow countrymen serving as soldiers in Holland. It was during this mission that he fell into the hands of Calvinists who were then fighting against the army. He was imprisoned at Flushing for a year before one of his brother managed to secure his freedom from the prisoner of war camp.
After this experience, he felt a great urge to return to his homeland. But his superiors had other ideas – he was sent to Spain to teach at seminaries. Fr Walpole was vice-rector at Seville and then at Valladolid – a seminary where English students are still sent to train today. He then returned to Flanders to help establish another seminary before finally getting permission to go on the English mission. He sailed off from Dunkirk on a kind of pirate ship. He traveled with his brother – also a priest – and another companion. The vessel ran the risk of being hijacked by pirates and its passengers thrown overboard. But Fr Walpole’s prayers got him safely to the east coast. On a cold, dark winter’s night (December 6 1593) he landed at either Flamborough Head or just down the Holderness coast at Bridlington, both in East Yorkshire. Less than 50 years before, Bridlington manor and priory had been hit by the dissolution of the monasteries.
Barely 24 hours after landing, the group were arrested as suspects and taken to York. Henry freely and proudly admitted to being a priest. He was imprisoned in York until February 1594, when he was sent to London and kept in the Tower of London for a further year. Fr Walpole was tortured 14 times, racked time and time again in attempt to get from him details of alleged plots that Catholics were preparing against the monarch. His graffiti can still be seen in the Salt Tower today. He wrote lengthy letters to a fellow Jesuit at a monastery in Yorkshire about his ordeal. In one of them he said: "…I hope, through the merits of my most sweet Saviour and Lord, that I shall be always ready, whether living or dying, to glorify Him, which will be for my eternal happiness."
Henry was sent back up north to York for trial in Spring 1595. During proceedings, Fr Walpole challenged the notion that he was guilty of treason by being a priest. Using is legal knowledge, he outwitted the judge by exposing a loophole in the law. The judge said: "…a priest who returns from beyond the seas, and does not present himself before a justice within three days to make the usual submission to the Queen’s majesty in matters of religion, shall be deemed a traitor." Henry replied: "Then I am out of the case, who was apprehended before I had been one whole day on English ground."
But, when questioned, Henry admitted he was unaware of the changes in the law or what submissions these required. He turned to the jury, who were directed to find him guilty, and confessed to being a priest. On April 7 1595, he was drawn with Fr Alexander Rawlins to the Knavesmire, just outside York. This was the place where he was to suffer what he had witnessed to Fr Campion – a life changing experience. But this was not a life-ending experience. His witness and suffering made him a martyr – he entered into the Communion of Saints and the promise of salvation. Upon reciting the Our Father and the Angelical Salutation, Fr Walpole was hanged, dismembered, disemboweled and quartered for all to see. His arms, legs and genitals were cut off and committed to the flames. Finally, he was beheaded. Fr Walpole's death was said to be a great boost for Catholicism in the north. The Earl of Huntingdon, known as a great persecutor of northern papists, died shortly afterwards - apparently in great remorse.
Saint Henry Walpole was a convert, a seminarian, a priest, an army chaplain, a seminary vice-rector, a preacher, a lawyer, a poet and a missionary all in his short 37 years. For those praying earnestly for the conversion of a friend or relative, Saint Henry is your man. He had the most dramatic conversion experience – being splattered with the blood of a martyr. Saint Henry also brings great strength and comfort to seminarians and college rectors. He is an ideal saint to pray to for the success of the English seminaries both home and abroad in fostering courageous, orthodox and pious men capable of converting a secular country. In these worrying days of pernicious laws curbing the Catholic Church’s role in public life and attacking the sanctity of human life, lawyer Saint Henry is who we should pray to for Catholic lawyers who challenge, and who no doubt will continue, to contest laws that are an ass.
Beckham was Saint Henry Walpole’s mother’s maiden name. Henry was born in 1558 to Christopher and Margery. He was the eldest of a large family of boys from Docking, in Norfolk. Henry was educated at Norwich Grammar School, founded by Edward VI. After graduating from Gonville College, Cambridge, he entered Gray’s Inn to study law. This is one of the four Inns of Court around the Royal Courts of Justice in London to which barristers belong and where they are called to the bar. The Inns of Court at that time were reported to be full of papists, meaning that Walpole, a Protestant at this time, would have been closely watched. It is in these circles that he got to know Edmund Campion, the pioneer of the Jesuit mission in England. Henry was impressed by his zeal and preaching. It was the example, and ultimately the brutal martyrdom of Fr Campion that drew Henry to the Catholic faith in the most dramatic fashion.
On December 1 1581, Henry was at Tyburn to witness the grusome hanging, drawing and quartering of Campion. He stood so close to the gallows that he was splattered with some of the martyrs blood during the execution. For the young law student, this seemed to be a direct call from God to walk in his friend’s footsteps. Before converting, he wrote a poem on the "life and death of the most famous clerk and virtuous priest, Edmund Campion". Word spread quickly of the literary work and the authorities began looking for Henry. But the young writer hid himself in Norfolk and eventually made the voyage across to the English College at Rheims, arriving on July 7 1582. He was described on entry as a "discreet, grave and pious man".
He stayed there for a year before being sent to Rome where he entered the Society of Jesus in April 1583. On completion of his studies, Henry was ordained on December 15 1588. Shortly after entering the priesthood, he was appointed to be chaplain to the multi-national force serving under the Prince of Palma in Belgium. He spiritually served many of his fellow countrymen serving as soldiers in Holland. It was during this mission that he fell into the hands of Calvinists who were then fighting against the army. He was imprisoned at Flushing for a year before one of his brother managed to secure his freedom from the prisoner of war camp.
After this experience, he felt a great urge to return to his homeland. But his superiors had other ideas – he was sent to Spain to teach at seminaries. Fr Walpole was vice-rector at Seville and then at Valladolid – a seminary where English students are still sent to train today. He then returned to Flanders to help establish another seminary before finally getting permission to go on the English mission. He sailed off from Dunkirk on a kind of pirate ship. He traveled with his brother – also a priest – and another companion. The vessel ran the risk of being hijacked by pirates and its passengers thrown overboard. But Fr Walpole’s prayers got him safely to the east coast. On a cold, dark winter’s night (December 6 1593) he landed at either Flamborough Head or just down the Holderness coast at Bridlington, both in East Yorkshire. Less than 50 years before, Bridlington manor and priory had been hit by the dissolution of the monasteries.
Barely 24 hours after landing, the group were arrested as suspects and taken to York. Henry freely and proudly admitted to being a priest. He was imprisoned in York until February 1594, when he was sent to London and kept in the Tower of London for a further year. Fr Walpole was tortured 14 times, racked time and time again in attempt to get from him details of alleged plots that Catholics were preparing against the monarch. His graffiti can still be seen in the Salt Tower today. He wrote lengthy letters to a fellow Jesuit at a monastery in Yorkshire about his ordeal. In one of them he said: "…I hope, through the merits of my most sweet Saviour and Lord, that I shall be always ready, whether living or dying, to glorify Him, which will be for my eternal happiness."
Henry was sent back up north to York for trial in Spring 1595. During proceedings, Fr Walpole challenged the notion that he was guilty of treason by being a priest. Using is legal knowledge, he outwitted the judge by exposing a loophole in the law. The judge said: "…a priest who returns from beyond the seas, and does not present himself before a justice within three days to make the usual submission to the Queen’s majesty in matters of religion, shall be deemed a traitor." Henry replied: "Then I am out of the case, who was apprehended before I had been one whole day on English ground."
But, when questioned, Henry admitted he was unaware of the changes in the law or what submissions these required. He turned to the jury, who were directed to find him guilty, and confessed to being a priest. On April 7 1595, he was drawn with Fr Alexander Rawlins to the Knavesmire, just outside York. This was the place where he was to suffer what he had witnessed to Fr Campion – a life changing experience. But this was not a life-ending experience. His witness and suffering made him a martyr – he entered into the Communion of Saints and the promise of salvation. Upon reciting the Our Father and the Angelical Salutation, Fr Walpole was hanged, dismembered, disemboweled and quartered for all to see. His arms, legs and genitals were cut off and committed to the flames. Finally, he was beheaded. Fr Walpole's death was said to be a great boost for Catholicism in the north. The Earl of Huntingdon, known as a great persecutor of northern papists, died shortly afterwards - apparently in great remorse.
Saint Henry Walpole was a convert, a seminarian, a priest, an army chaplain, a seminary vice-rector, a preacher, a lawyer, a poet and a missionary all in his short 37 years. For those praying earnestly for the conversion of a friend or relative, Saint Henry is your man. He had the most dramatic conversion experience – being splattered with the blood of a martyr. Saint Henry also brings great strength and comfort to seminarians and college rectors. He is an ideal saint to pray to for the success of the English seminaries both home and abroad in fostering courageous, orthodox and pious men capable of converting a secular country. In these worrying days of pernicious laws curbing the Catholic Church’s role in public life and attacking the sanctity of human life, lawyer Saint Henry is who we should pray to for Catholic lawyers who challenge, and who no doubt will continue, to contest laws that are an ass.
Sunday, 25 May 2008
Hull City in the Premier League
Yesterday was one of the most enjoyable days of my life.
Hull City AFC - my hometown football team that I have supported since a kid - won promotion to the top flight of English football for the first time in its 104 year history after beating Bristol City by a goal to nil at Wembley yesterday. And I was lucky enough to be there, among 37,500 others. It has been a remarkable season, and I've been fortunate enough to go to quite a lot of games, both home and away.
Hull has famously been dubbed the biggest city in Europe never to have had a top flight football. Apparently that was drummed up by some journalist who wanted to describe how awful the team was after a game when the club was close to dropping out of the football league altogether. Whether accurate or not - that piece of football trivia is now obsolete.
10 years ago, the club was at the bottom of Division Three, in financial administration and locked out of its own football ground. Yesterday, all that became a distant memory as thousands of us dressed in black and amber went absolutely barmy when referee Alan Wiley blew the final whistle at the home of football.
The stunning winning goal, a volley from the edge of the penalty area, was scored by Dean Windass, Hull born and bred, 39-years-old, a former pea packer. In footballing terms, he's an old age pensioner. Sports writers in today's Sunday papers have had a field day in scribbling about "a fairy tale", Windass scoring for his home town club to send it into the Premier League for the first time ever. At the end of the match, "Deano" sprinted from the bench (where he had been substituted) towards us. But all he could do was collapse to the ground and weep with emotion.
For a fan, the goal (scored just before half time) was sensational. But from then on, watching the match was agony as time and time again Bristol City had chances to score an equaliser. But we went absolutely mental when that final whistle went - a moment I will never forget. When I first started going to matches at the club's old, run down Boothferry Park, I paid £6.50 to watch a standard of football bordering on the horrific. Yesterday, I paid £65 to watch City win at Wembley - fantastic.
It was a great day out. Two of my friends came down to Kettering on Friday night and we travelled to London yesterday morning. After hanging around the King's Cross/St Pancras area to soak up the atmosphere as Tigers fans arrived on trains from Hull, we made our way to Wembley Park station. It was a friendly atmosphere, with both sets of fans mingling. After a pint it was time to go through the turnstiles. "Breathtaking" is the word I would use to describe the first glimpse inside the stadium. The face of a young boy when he climbed the steps and looked out over the pitch for the first time said it all.
Today I've made my way back up to Hull to continue the celebrations for the rest of the Bank Holiday weekend. Tomorrow, there's an open top bus of the city, giving a chance for the fans to see the players close up.
It will be a minor miracle if we manage to stay in the Premier League next season, but for the moment, we all just want to savour and celebrate the moment. Teams like Manchester Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool will be entertained at the Kingston Communications Stadium next season. Bring it on!
Hull City AFC - my hometown football team that I have supported since a kid - won promotion to the top flight of English football for the first time in its 104 year history after beating Bristol City by a goal to nil at Wembley yesterday. And I was lucky enough to be there, among 37,500 others. It has been a remarkable season, and I've been fortunate enough to go to quite a lot of games, both home and away.
Hull has famously been dubbed the biggest city in Europe never to have had a top flight football. Apparently that was drummed up by some journalist who wanted to describe how awful the team was after a game when the club was close to dropping out of the football league altogether. Whether accurate or not - that piece of football trivia is now obsolete.
10 years ago, the club was at the bottom of Division Three, in financial administration and locked out of its own football ground. Yesterday, all that became a distant memory as thousands of us dressed in black and amber went absolutely barmy when referee Alan Wiley blew the final whistle at the home of football.
The stunning winning goal, a volley from the edge of the penalty area, was scored by Dean Windass, Hull born and bred, 39-years-old, a former pea packer. In footballing terms, he's an old age pensioner. Sports writers in today's Sunday papers have had a field day in scribbling about "a fairy tale", Windass scoring for his home town club to send it into the Premier League for the first time ever. At the end of the match, "Deano" sprinted from the bench (where he had been substituted) towards us. But all he could do was collapse to the ground and weep with emotion.
For a fan, the goal (scored just before half time) was sensational. But from then on, watching the match was agony as time and time again Bristol City had chances to score an equaliser. But we went absolutely mental when that final whistle went - a moment I will never forget. When I first started going to matches at the club's old, run down Boothferry Park, I paid £6.50 to watch a standard of football bordering on the horrific. Yesterday, I paid £65 to watch City win at Wembley - fantastic.
It was a great day out. Two of my friends came down to Kettering on Friday night and we travelled to London yesterday morning. After hanging around the King's Cross/St Pancras area to soak up the atmosphere as Tigers fans arrived on trains from Hull, we made our way to Wembley Park station. It was a friendly atmosphere, with both sets of fans mingling. After a pint it was time to go through the turnstiles. "Breathtaking" is the word I would use to describe the first glimpse inside the stadium. The face of a young boy when he climbed the steps and looked out over the pitch for the first time said it all.
Today I've made my way back up to Hull to continue the celebrations for the rest of the Bank Holiday weekend. Tomorrow, there's an open top bus of the city, giving a chance for the fans to see the players close up.
It will be a minor miracle if we manage to stay in the Premier League next season, but for the moment, we all just want to savour and celebrate the moment. Teams like Manchester Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool will be entertained at the Kingston Communications Stadium next season. Bring it on!
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
HFE Bill Committee stage
As you will know, yesterday and today there were heavy defeats for the pro-life lobby in parliament.
Tonight, amendments to lower the time limit for social abortions have been comprehensively defeated. This blog thought it was the wrong approach to go for such amendments. The reasons were clear: many of those in support of a reduction in the time limit are also in favour of liberalising the law for earlier abortions. Movers of several of the amendments tonight to lower the time limit are self-confessed pro-choicers, such as Nadine Dorries. The closest vote was an attempt to lower the time limits for social abortions to 22 weeks. This would have hardly made a difference if it was passed anyway in saving lives. Instead, attention now turns to the third reading where rumours suggest that moves to further liberalise the law (such as the removal of the need for two doctors' signatures) could be tabled. Let us pray that these are resisted. If not - then the numbers of abortions are set to increase still further well past the 200,000 mark.
For clarification, here are the results of the votes tonight:
To cut the time limit for social abortions (bearing in mind that abortion is still legal up to birth if the unborn child has a "severe" handicap) to:
12 weeks - Ayes 71 Noes 393
16 weeks - Ayes 84 Noes 387
20 weeks - Ayes 190 Noes 332
22 weeks - Ayes 233 Noes 304
A move to require women seeking an abortion to be offered advice and counselling (again moved by a pro-choice MP) was defeated by 173 to 309.
It is clear from these votes that abortion laws have no chance of being made stricter in the current parliament.
The most concerning thing about the debate on abortion tonight was that the deputy chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, Claire Curtis Thomas, is quoted by the BBC as saying she believes in a woman's right to choose. I missed her speech, but if this quote is the case, then surely she must resign from her post with immediate effect? This illustrates how warped many MPs' views on abortion is. She pushed for a reduction in the time limit but said she was still pro-choice. She has tonight exposed her own position on the floor of the House. There have been other suggestions over the years that she is not fully pro-life. This makes her position in the APPLG a farce and she should either resign or be removed from the post as soon as possible.
I've been off and at home for the last couple of days and watched most of the debate yesterday on the issues of human/animal hybrids and saviour siblings and have been watching/catching up with today's debates on the removal of the need for a father and amendments to the abortion act. An amendment to ban the use of admixed embryos was defeated by 176 votes to 336. An attempt to ban the creating of saviour siblings was lost by 342 votes to 163 whilst an amendment by Iain Duncan-Smith against the removal of the need for a father was lost by 217 to 293.
Three Roman Catholic cabinet ministers – the defence secretary, Des Browne, the transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, and the Welsh secretary, Paul Murphy - voted in favour of the unsuccessful attempt to ban hybrids. The majority of the shadow cabinet - including the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, and the shadow home secretary, David Davis - also backed the ban although David Cameron voted against. Paul Murphy and Ruth Kelly voted to ban saviour siblings as well as the amendment against the removal of the need for a father.
Yesterday, the debates were conducted very amicably with some technical scientific points being explored. There's obviously a few MPs from both sides of the argument who were in the House throughout the debate on the two issues. Regular interventions were made by Dr Evan Harris, the leader of the pro-choice, pro-embryo research, generally the pro-killing young innocent human beings in the Commons. He butted in on almost every speech made by an MP and gave a lengthy speech full of speculative hopes about the possible benefits of human animal hybrids. Bucking the trend of a lot of Conservative MPs is John Bercow, member for Buckingham. During the Second Reading and yesterday, he made numerous interventions and seems to be the Tory allis of Dr Harris.
I actually thought that yesterday, very few of the speakers on the so-called "pro-life" stance were particularly telling. I would pick out Edward Leigh, who moved the admixed embroys ban. He said: "We believe that the move is a step too far and should therefore be banned. Indeed, the Government support the contention that some things are so ethically dangerous that they should be banned.
"The public have been misled—cruelly, in many cases—into thinking that such research could lead to early and useful cures by exaggeration, misinformation and hyperbole.
"We should ban what 21 other countries have banned. No other country in Europe is going down this route yet. In terms of embryonic research, we will almost be like a rogue state.
"My conscience tells me that an embryo is not a thing. It has been fertilised, and I believe that human life begins at conception."
Sir Patrick Cormack was one of the MPs both today and yesterday to tell it how it is: the moves in the HFE Bill are just plain wrong. This evening, in support of IDS's amendment, said:
"When I entered this House in 1970, if somebody had told me that nearly 40 years thence, the House would debate the need for a father, I would have thought that that person had taken leave of his senses. What we are talking about is the natural order of things, and I make no apology for standing up for what I believe to be the natural order of things.
"It is one thing to defend and advance the proper human rights that, for instance, the people of Burma, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham stands up with great vigour, are completely deprived of. It is another thing entirely to extend and distort that concept of human rights, so that some people in this place are afraid to say—many outside this place are afraid to say—that it is a natural thing for a family to consist of a man and a woman who have children, and who give those children a natural and a proper home.
"When I listened this afternoon to some of the surreal exchanges that took place, I could not help but remember the immortal words of Mr. Bumble, who said:
'If the law supposes that…the law is a ass'."
One of the most profound points of the whole two days was made by Sir Patrick. It is one that we, as Catholics, will all agree to: "... we should not, out of a misguided concept of equality and fairness, pretend that there is an automatic right for anyone to have a child, regardless of sex."
I've been impressed by Geraldine Smith (Lab) who voted against the whole bill at second reading last week and has remained an opponent of her own government's bill. It was interesting to see today how health minister Dawn Primarolo continually rejected interventions by Mrs Smith, who was literally sitting behind her, because she obviously knew she was in for a pasting from one of her own colleagues about, what the backbencher rightly sees as the need for a father for a child.
In an passionate intervention earlier today she said: "To most people outside the House, the right hon. Gentleman [IDS] is simply talking common sense—they must wonder why we are even having this debate. Is it any wonder that people think politicians are out of touch with ordinary people when we have such debates? It is nonsense to suggest that we should not take into account the need for a father. We are not insisting that single women or lesbians do not have IVF treatment; the only thing we are saying is that there should be a father figure somewhere, who may be a grandfather or another relative. Many single parents depend on father figures, whether they are grandparents or other relatives. It is just pure common sense, and the fact that we are even debating it is ridiculous."
I think this was one of the strongest points of the whole two day's debating.
In her speech, she said: "I cannot see what harm is being done by saying to a lesbian couple or single woman who goes for IVF treatment, “For the welfare of the child, can you consider the need for a father? If there is not a father, is there a potential father figure?” Even having that discussion must do some good, and must make people think.
"... this is about common sense and what is in the best interests of the child, and it is also about saying that fathers have a role to play."
One of the shortest, and best, speeches in favour of the need for a mother (and father) clause was made by DUP MP Iris Robinson.
Here it is in full: "I speak tonight saddened by the approach taken by right hon. and hon. Members who wish to airbrush out the role of fatherhood. I notice that there are many grins on faces, but I stand by my faith and the word of God that man was created in the image of God and that woman was created from the rib of Adam to be his helpmeet and companion. That is the natural progression of procreation.
"I am so sorry that hon. Members are abusing my position as a Christian and that they will not listen to me or give me due respect. I ask where the rights of the Christian people of this country are, because they have spoken. A recent poll reported in the press here showed that 80 per cent. of people recognise the need for the traditional family. Hon. Members can all breathe sighs of relief or indignation, but I am telling the House that the word of God says that procreation is through a man and a woman. We are moving mountains to facilitate immorality and to bring the rights of lesbians above all others in this country. It is a shame, and hon. Members ought to hang their heads in shame." Amen to that.
I think the father debate today was the most significant of the whole lot. As I warned at Christmas, this vote today now means that in our society in legal terms, the makeup of the family is no longer exclusively headed by a mother and father. This is simply sickening.
Tonight, amendments to lower the time limit for social abortions have been comprehensively defeated. This blog thought it was the wrong approach to go for such amendments. The reasons were clear: many of those in support of a reduction in the time limit are also in favour of liberalising the law for earlier abortions. Movers of several of the amendments tonight to lower the time limit are self-confessed pro-choicers, such as Nadine Dorries. The closest vote was an attempt to lower the time limits for social abortions to 22 weeks. This would have hardly made a difference if it was passed anyway in saving lives. Instead, attention now turns to the third reading where rumours suggest that moves to further liberalise the law (such as the removal of the need for two doctors' signatures) could be tabled. Let us pray that these are resisted. If not - then the numbers of abortions are set to increase still further well past the 200,000 mark.
For clarification, here are the results of the votes tonight:
To cut the time limit for social abortions (bearing in mind that abortion is still legal up to birth if the unborn child has a "severe" handicap) to:
12 weeks - Ayes 71 Noes 393
16 weeks - Ayes 84 Noes 387
20 weeks - Ayes 190 Noes 332
22 weeks - Ayes 233 Noes 304
A move to require women seeking an abortion to be offered advice and counselling (again moved by a pro-choice MP) was defeated by 173 to 309.
It is clear from these votes that abortion laws have no chance of being made stricter in the current parliament.
The most concerning thing about the debate on abortion tonight was that the deputy chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, Claire Curtis Thomas, is quoted by the BBC as saying she believes in a woman's right to choose. I missed her speech, but if this quote is the case, then surely she must resign from her post with immediate effect? This illustrates how warped many MPs' views on abortion is. She pushed for a reduction in the time limit but said she was still pro-choice. She has tonight exposed her own position on the floor of the House. There have been other suggestions over the years that she is not fully pro-life. This makes her position in the APPLG a farce and she should either resign or be removed from the post as soon as possible.
I've been off and at home for the last couple of days and watched most of the debate yesterday on the issues of human/animal hybrids and saviour siblings and have been watching/catching up with today's debates on the removal of the need for a father and amendments to the abortion act. An amendment to ban the use of admixed embryos was defeated by 176 votes to 336. An attempt to ban the creating of saviour siblings was lost by 342 votes to 163 whilst an amendment by Iain Duncan-Smith against the removal of the need for a father was lost by 217 to 293.
Three Roman Catholic cabinet ministers – the defence secretary, Des Browne, the transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, and the Welsh secretary, Paul Murphy - voted in favour of the unsuccessful attempt to ban hybrids. The majority of the shadow cabinet - including the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, and the shadow home secretary, David Davis - also backed the ban although David Cameron voted against. Paul Murphy and Ruth Kelly voted to ban saviour siblings as well as the amendment against the removal of the need for a father.
Yesterday, the debates were conducted very amicably with some technical scientific points being explored. There's obviously a few MPs from both sides of the argument who were in the House throughout the debate on the two issues. Regular interventions were made by Dr Evan Harris, the leader of the pro-choice, pro-embryo research, generally the pro-killing young innocent human beings in the Commons. He butted in on almost every speech made by an MP and gave a lengthy speech full of speculative hopes about the possible benefits of human animal hybrids. Bucking the trend of a lot of Conservative MPs is John Bercow, member for Buckingham. During the Second Reading and yesterday, he made numerous interventions and seems to be the Tory allis of Dr Harris.
I actually thought that yesterday, very few of the speakers on the so-called "pro-life" stance were particularly telling. I would pick out Edward Leigh, who moved the admixed embroys ban. He said: "We believe that the move is a step too far and should therefore be banned. Indeed, the Government support the contention that some things are so ethically dangerous that they should be banned.
"The public have been misled—cruelly, in many cases—into thinking that such research could lead to early and useful cures by exaggeration, misinformation and hyperbole.
"We should ban what 21 other countries have banned. No other country in Europe is going down this route yet. In terms of embryonic research, we will almost be like a rogue state.
"My conscience tells me that an embryo is not a thing. It has been fertilised, and I believe that human life begins at conception."
Sir Patrick Cormack was one of the MPs both today and yesterday to tell it how it is: the moves in the HFE Bill are just plain wrong. This evening, in support of IDS's amendment, said:
"When I entered this House in 1970, if somebody had told me that nearly 40 years thence, the House would debate the need for a father, I would have thought that that person had taken leave of his senses. What we are talking about is the natural order of things, and I make no apology for standing up for what I believe to be the natural order of things.
"It is one thing to defend and advance the proper human rights that, for instance, the people of Burma, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham stands up with great vigour, are completely deprived of. It is another thing entirely to extend and distort that concept of human rights, so that some people in this place are afraid to say—many outside this place are afraid to say—that it is a natural thing for a family to consist of a man and a woman who have children, and who give those children a natural and a proper home.
"When I listened this afternoon to some of the surreal exchanges that took place, I could not help but remember the immortal words of Mr. Bumble, who said:
'If the law supposes that…the law is a ass'."
One of the most profound points of the whole two days was made by Sir Patrick. It is one that we, as Catholics, will all agree to: "... we should not, out of a misguided concept of equality and fairness, pretend that there is an automatic right for anyone to have a child, regardless of sex."
I've been impressed by Geraldine Smith (Lab) who voted against the whole bill at second reading last week and has remained an opponent of her own government's bill. It was interesting to see today how health minister Dawn Primarolo continually rejected interventions by Mrs Smith, who was literally sitting behind her, because she obviously knew she was in for a pasting from one of her own colleagues about, what the backbencher rightly sees as the need for a father for a child.
In an passionate intervention earlier today she said: "To most people outside the House, the right hon. Gentleman [IDS] is simply talking common sense—they must wonder why we are even having this debate. Is it any wonder that people think politicians are out of touch with ordinary people when we have such debates? It is nonsense to suggest that we should not take into account the need for a father. We are not insisting that single women or lesbians do not have IVF treatment; the only thing we are saying is that there should be a father figure somewhere, who may be a grandfather or another relative. Many single parents depend on father figures, whether they are grandparents or other relatives. It is just pure common sense, and the fact that we are even debating it is ridiculous."
I think this was one of the strongest points of the whole two day's debating.
In her speech, she said: "I cannot see what harm is being done by saying to a lesbian couple or single woman who goes for IVF treatment, “For the welfare of the child, can you consider the need for a father? If there is not a father, is there a potential father figure?” Even having that discussion must do some good, and must make people think.
"... this is about common sense and what is in the best interests of the child, and it is also about saying that fathers have a role to play."
One of the shortest, and best, speeches in favour of the need for a mother (and father) clause was made by DUP MP Iris Robinson.
Here it is in full: "I speak tonight saddened by the approach taken by right hon. and hon. Members who wish to airbrush out the role of fatherhood. I notice that there are many grins on faces, but I stand by my faith and the word of God that man was created in the image of God and that woman was created from the rib of Adam to be his helpmeet and companion. That is the natural progression of procreation.
"I am so sorry that hon. Members are abusing my position as a Christian and that they will not listen to me or give me due respect. I ask where the rights of the Christian people of this country are, because they have spoken. A recent poll reported in the press here showed that 80 per cent. of people recognise the need for the traditional family. Hon. Members can all breathe sighs of relief or indignation, but I am telling the House that the word of God says that procreation is through a man and a woman. We are moving mountains to facilitate immorality and to bring the rights of lesbians above all others in this country. It is a shame, and hon. Members ought to hang their heads in shame." Amen to that.
I think the father debate today was the most significant of the whole lot. As I warned at Christmas, this vote today now means that in our society in legal terms, the makeup of the family is no longer exclusively headed by a mother and father. This is simply sickening.
It has been interesting to see MPs, not only from the same side of the house but also sitting next to each other, vociferously disagreeing with their "honourable and right honourable friends". It's refreshing to know that, on some issues, party politics does not play a part. That said, Sky News reported earlier today that Labour whips were going round saying vote for the status quo on abortion, in particular, to allow Gordon Brown to breath easier given the pressures on her in recent weeks.
But what the votes on all these issues show is clear - this is the most anti-life parliament ever. Let us urge as many Catholics and pro-lifers as possible to get involved in their local political party - whatever their political persuasion - in an attempt to get elected and repeal this hideous law that now seems certain to become law.
This is a sad day for our country.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
HFE Bill 2nd Reading coverage
According to reports, there are nine Labour rebels in the "noes" list above.
Out of the speeches from the "pro-life" side (I err on the side of caution in calling all who spoke or voted against the bill completely pro-life because I do not know all their voting records, early day motions, comments etc and I know for a fact that some are dodgy on abortion especially) I thought the pick of them were from David Burrowes, Iris Robinson, Claire Curtis-Thomas, Gereldine Smith, Alistair Burt and David Amess.
Summaries of each of these speeches are to follow in installments. First up is Mr Amess (Con, Southend West), a loyal and self confessed pro-lifer. In a debate on a hidious bill like this, you need someone who speaks passionately and with a strong voice, slags off the government, and is not afraid to label himself as a pro-lifer (which others did as well).
He started with: "The Secretary of State, in introducing the Bill, described it as “flagship” legislation. I can now well and truly see why this Government are on the rocks, because the Bill is deeply flawed."
"We are being asked to take so much on trust—but where has trust got us in the House, given what Tony Blair told us about the weapons of mass destruction, not to mention so many other things?"
Then came a joke which I don't quite know how he got away with, but one that I found funny for obvious reasons, not least because I am still registered as a constituent for Hull East: "I do not claim to be an expert in the natural sciences, but if the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) can be bulimic, there are clearly many aspects of the human body that I do not understand. None of us should hide behind a façade of scientific objectivity."
Continuing, he said: "The Bill deserves to be opposed on Second Reading, because the principles enshrined in it are unjust and contrary to human rights.
"There is no prospect of the Bill’s being amended to a state in which it might protect the rights and welfare of early human life. The Government intend to quash any saving amendments. What right does this House have to impose an arbitrary social experiment on the lives of thousands of unconsenting children?"
He said the bill reduces the status of the human embryo to a commodity to be abused, which thus dehumanises all human beings. Mr Amess also condemed the saviour siblings element of the bill and called the proposal to allow scientists to create embryos that are half-human, half-animal "a radical violation of human dignity".
Concerning the removal for the need for a father, the Tory MP said: "At present, infertility clinics have to consider the need of a child for a father. The law should give recognition to fathers and encourage them to take responsibility for their children. The Bill needs to recognise the natural right of a child to a father and mother."
In conclusion, he had a poignient but straight forward explanation of what is commonly know as the "slippery slope": "I believe that the public are being fed the same false hopes as they were in 1990. In 1990 the arguments were all about human embryo research. In 2001 they were about embryonic stem cell research. Now, we are told that the creation and destructive use of human-animal hybrid embryos will lead to cures for diseases. I fear that that will not be the case. The answers to parliamentary questions given by the Minister’s Department reveal that since 1990 there have been no such cures derived from human embryo research or embryonic stem cell research. I see no reason to believe that we will get any cures from so-called admixed embryos."
Putting his cards on the table, Mr Amess added: "Yes, I am a pro-lifer, so if I am going to err, I will err on the side of life. I believe that the message the House needs to send out to the scientific lobby is that it should forget about these unethical proposals and concentrate on adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells, which represent areas of research that have resulted in a number of cures. I hope that hon. Members will vote against this deeply flawed Bill."
Out of the speeches from the "pro-life" side (I err on the side of caution in calling all who spoke or voted against the bill completely pro-life because I do not know all their voting records, early day motions, comments etc and I know for a fact that some are dodgy on abortion especially) I thought the pick of them were from David Burrowes, Iris Robinson, Claire Curtis-Thomas, Gereldine Smith, Alistair Burt and David Amess.
Summaries of each of these speeches are to follow in installments. First up is Mr Amess (Con, Southend West), a loyal and self confessed pro-lifer. In a debate on a hidious bill like this, you need someone who speaks passionately and with a strong voice, slags off the government, and is not afraid to label himself as a pro-lifer (which others did as well).He started with: "The Secretary of State, in introducing the Bill, described it as “flagship” legislation. I can now well and truly see why this Government are on the rocks, because the Bill is deeply flawed."
"We are being asked to take so much on trust—but where has trust got us in the House, given what Tony Blair told us about the weapons of mass destruction, not to mention so many other things?"
Then came a joke which I don't quite know how he got away with, but one that I found funny for obvious reasons, not least because I am still registered as a constituent for Hull East: "I do not claim to be an expert in the natural sciences, but if the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) can be bulimic, there are clearly many aspects of the human body that I do not understand. None of us should hide behind a façade of scientific objectivity."
Continuing, he said: "The Bill deserves to be opposed on Second Reading, because the principles enshrined in it are unjust and contrary to human rights.
"There is no prospect of the Bill’s being amended to a state in which it might protect the rights and welfare of early human life. The Government intend to quash any saving amendments. What right does this House have to impose an arbitrary social experiment on the lives of thousands of unconsenting children?"
He said the bill reduces the status of the human embryo to a commodity to be abused, which thus dehumanises all human beings. Mr Amess also condemed the saviour siblings element of the bill and called the proposal to allow scientists to create embryos that are half-human, half-animal "a radical violation of human dignity".
Concerning the removal for the need for a father, the Tory MP said: "At present, infertility clinics have to consider the need of a child for a father. The law should give recognition to fathers and encourage them to take responsibility for their children. The Bill needs to recognise the natural right of a child to a father and mother."
In conclusion, he had a poignient but straight forward explanation of what is commonly know as the "slippery slope": "I believe that the public are being fed the same false hopes as they were in 1990. In 1990 the arguments were all about human embryo research. In 2001 they were about embryonic stem cell research. Now, we are told that the creation and destructive use of human-animal hybrid embryos will lead to cures for diseases. I fear that that will not be the case. The answers to parliamentary questions given by the Minister’s Department reveal that since 1990 there have been no such cures derived from human embryo research or embryonic stem cell research. I see no reason to believe that we will get any cures from so-called admixed embryos."
Putting his cards on the table, Mr Amess added: "Yes, I am a pro-lifer, so if I am going to err, I will err on the side of life. I believe that the message the House needs to send out to the scientific lobby is that it should forget about these unethical proposals and concentrate on adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells, which represent areas of research that have resulted in a number of cures. I hope that hon. Members will vote against this deeply flawed Bill."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)