Talk at Ampleforth

I've finally managed to obtain a copy of my talk. It was given a few weeks ago at a 6th Form retreat at Ampleforth College. It was on pro life issues: Matters of life and death: Abortion and Euthanasia.

As Hermeneutic of continuity pointed out yesterday, I was also delighted to see that the Pope on Monday mentioned the Visitation and the recognition of Christ by St John the Baptist to illustrate the sanctity of the human embryo. I included a bit about this in my talk.

This year marks the 40th Anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act in the UK. It was passed by a half-empty House of Commons on Friday 14th July 1967 after an all- night sitting by 167 votes to 83. The main argument used in favour of changing the law was the claim that there were up to 200,000 back street illegal abortions being carried out every year, and thousands of women were dying as a result. This couldn’t be further from the truth. For example, in 1967, the real situation was that there were about 32 maternal deaths due to abortion – including those due to miscarriages as well as deliberate abortions.

Technically, the Act did not decriminalise abortion but ensured immunity from prosecution under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act as long as certain conditions were met when performing an abortion. The 1967 legislation permitted abortion initially up to 28 weeks gestation, a limit which was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990. The Abortion Act listed four statutory grounds, one of which has to be met by the agreement of two separate doctors for a termination to take place. The conditions include:

That termination is necessary to prevent grace permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman

That the continuation of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the mother (Abortions carried out for this reason are few and far between)

­That there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped

The reason for which most abortions are carried out under British law is:

That the continuation of pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the woman or any existing children of her family

During the debate in the House of Commons, the bill’s architect, David Steel claimed “it was not the intention of the promoters of the bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on request”. But this is precisely what has happened.

In those forty years, more than 6 million babies have been killed through legalised abortion in Britain. That is around 180,000 a year on average, or 500 per day. It means that we effectively have abortion on demand, even though the law states otherwise. It is a staggering number and one that this country should be ashamed of.

We have a situation every single day in our hospitals where, in one part of the maternity unit, midwives are helping to bring new life into the world, whilst, in another, unborn children are being forcibly extracted from a woman’s womb and killed. The only reason for this is that one baby is deemed “wanted” and the other is seen as an “inconvenience”

In 1990, there was a further nail in the coffin for those opposed to abortion and now those concerned about the rights of the disabled. Despite cutting the legal limit for “social” abortions to 24 weeks, the government successfully passed an amendment to the Abortion Act to allow abortions up to moment of birth for unborn children who were strongly suspected of having a serious handicap. Yet we now have late term abortions being carried out on women whose unborn children have a hare lip and cleft pallet, a relatively easy condition to treat. In any case, to abort a child (which is at an age where it could survive birth after 24 weeks gestation) just because it is disabled, is totally against the Catholic Christian concept of the value of every human person. It also fails to recognise the incomparable value of to society if disabled people who are part of wider society.

There is no morally acceptable reason for innocent human life to be aborted. All unborn children - whether disabled or not – are, from the moment of conception, a genetically new, genetically complete and unique human being and now only has to grow to be ready for birth, childhood and adolescents to become fully formed adults. The baby’s sex, the colour of the eyes, colour of hair, future gifts and talents and eventual height as an adult is all determined at that first moment of existence.

The Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life". (EV 60)

Pope John Paul II tells us in Evangelium Vitae that all human beings, from their mothers' womb, belong to God who searches them and knows them, who forms them and knits them together with his own hands and who gazes on them when they are tiny shapeless embryos. (cf. Ps 139: 1, 13-16)

After the embryonic stages of development, at about 18-21 days the heart begins to beat, the nervous system is developing the foundations of the brain and the spinal cord are present. The liver starts to produce blood cells for the heart to pump. Also at this stage, brain waves can be detected using an EEG machine. The child has head, primitive eyes, ears, developing brain and the presence of small kidneys and the liver. Yet whilst all this is going on, the mother may still not even know she is pregnant.

About 45 per cent of abortions each year are carried about between 9 and 12 weeks gestation. At this stage, a baby is usually fully formed – everything is present that you find in a full term baby – all they have to do now is to grow and mature. The baby can kick, wave his or her arms, do summersaults and drink some of the amniotic fluid which surrounds them.

But the Church says that even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion. (EV 60)

It’s also worth pointing out briefly how abortions are carried out, to show the truth about what the procedure is really like. The most common form of surgical abortion procedure is vacuum aspiration. The mother is given an anaesthetic, the doctor opens her cervix and inserts a thin plastic tube (or a catheter) which is connected to a vacuum pump. The suction force is 10 times stronger than a domestic vacuum cleaner. The baby is sucked apart and the body parts pass along the tube into a glass jar. So, not only is abortion a murderous act, it is also a brutal act of violence against a defenceless child. They are defenceless even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence, the power of a newborn baby's cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated.

But, it’s very important to say at this point, the Church and its members are quick to come to the aid and comfort woman who have had abortion experiences. In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul said the Church understands the many difficult factors which may have influenced a woman to undergo and abortion. He talks directly to these women in his encyclical saying: “the wound in your heart may not have healed. The Father of mercies is ready to forgive you and give you his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.” (EV 99)

Many women who have an abortion are victims of abortion themselves. They can be under great pressure from partners, friends, family and doctors and are often panicked into have an abortion which they later come to bitterly regret.

Rather than ignoring or judging anyone involved in an abortion, the pro-life movement comes to the aid of them. The British Victims of Abortion was set up in 1987 by Margaret Cuthill and others who had had abortions and were still feeling pain and regret after their abortion experiences. I’ve heard many of these women break down into tears when speaking about how they went through an abortion after being told little or nothing about the development of their baby and the possible physical and psychological risks of abortion to themselves. The charity LIFE also does fantastic work, focusing in particular in helping women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies.

Jumping to the other issue we’re exploring briefly today - euthanasia is undoubtedly going to be the next massive battle which the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement is going to have to fight against the legalisation of in the near future. In fact, in one sense, it has already been legalised.

The Mental Capacity Act passed last year, which comes into force this year, has effectively legalised euthanasia by omission. It was an incredibly poorly drafted piece of legislation, but without going into the details, the act basically allows a specially appointed relative or friend of a patient who has lost capacity to make decisions on behalf of that person, including the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. “Treatment” includes the provision of food and fluids. So, even if doctors think it is in the medical interests of the patient to receive a particular treatment, they could be overruled with the backing of the law if a “power of attorney” says that their relative expressed a desire to have such treatment withdrawn when they could communicate. It is a potential legal minefield and is a law which could lead to euthanasia by the back door when it comes in to force in October. It will probably also lead to further calls for the legalisation of active euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The danger here is this. Dying by starvation or dehydration is a slow, uncomfortable and inhumane death. Apart from it being a complete denial of basic care (giving somebody some food and water) it often leads to its victims becoming dehydrated and sometimes the lining of the mouth becomes so dry it starts to peel away. Once people see this kind of death, they will think of it as indeed brutal and inhumane and will say: “Well let’s just bump them off quickly.” Then the pressure upon politicians to legalise the killing of patients by lethal injection or an overdose of drugs will increase. It’s a logical progression. Once you legalise euthanasia by omission, it leads to a greater acceptance in society that the sick, disabled, the elderly, the dying are a burden to society and are using up health service resources.

So in both the horror of abortion and euthanasia, this is the problem we’re up against and this is why, as Catholics, we are all called to fight these attacks on life.

But how has the situation, which John Paul II described as the culture of death, happened? And why are the issues so relevant and so important for Catholics?

The legalisation of abortion (and in some cases euthanasia) in many countries is the significant cause of the great moral decline we experience in our world today. It stems from a cultural relativism which has crept into societies particularly over the last 50 or so years. It is the notion that there is no absolute truth and that moral values are a matter of personal choice. The notion that life begins at conception is subjective. It is up to the individual to decide when life begins.

Then we have the individual consciences of people themselves. They find it difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life. We therefore have a situation where prominent politicians, such as Tony Blair, say they are opposed to abortion personally but consistently vote in favour allowing these grave attacks on life. This is a prime symptom of relativism which Pope John Paul, and even more so now Benedict XVI is warning against.

There is then a profound crisis of culture, which generates scepticism in relation to the very foundations of knowledge and ethics, and which makes it increasingly difficult to grasp clearly the meaning of what man is, the meaning of his rights and his duties.
In a sense it is a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. (EV 12) A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of "conspiracy against life" is unleashed. (EV 12)

The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception. (EV 13)

These attacks go directly against respect for life and they represent a direct threat to the entire culture of human rights. It is a threat capable, in the end, of jeopardizing the very meaning of democratic coexistence: rather than societies of "people living together", we risk becoming societies of people who are rejected, marginalized, uprooted and oppressed. (EV 18)

This is the result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" to life stops because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person. In this struggle between the "culture of life" and the "culture of death", we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse idea of freedom. (EV 20) The heart of the problem being experienced by modern man is the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism, which succeeds at times in putting Christian communities themselves to the test. (EV 21)

So how can we counter this “culture of death”? And why do we have an obligation to defend life at all stages?

John Paul II says we should promote the Gospel of Life throughout our lives, the Gospel of life being a great gift from God and an vital task for humanity. In giving life to man and therefore being the “author of life”, God expects and demands that man loves, respects and promotes life. The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of life is always morally evil and can never be justified either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is a “grave act of disobedience to the moral law and to God himself who is the creator of that law”. (EV 57)

The Gospel of life is Jesus Christ himself, the Word of Life. Think about Christ’s own coming into the world. The “Word was made flesh” not when Jesus was born, but at the Annunciation when Our Lady bore Christ in her womb. Notice that the feast of the Annunciation is exactly 9 months before Christmas Day, 25th March. This of course is the length of time the mother and family usually waits for a child to be born.

Also note the first encounter we have of Christ is not his birth, but when Mary goes to visit Elizabeth, whose child leaps for joy at the realisation that the child Christ is present as the “blessed fruit” of Mary. These first encounters of Christ make us realise the humanity of the unborn child, who is a child of God.

Then lets look at the Sacrifice of Christ on the cross. We are told that "there was darkness over the whole land ... while the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two" (Lk 23:44, 45). This is the symbol of a great cosmic disturbance and a massive conflict between the forces of good and the forces of evil, between life and death. Today we also find ourselves in the midst of a dramatic conflict between the "culture of death" and the "culture of life". (EV 50)
But John Paul tells us that the glory of the Cross is not overcome by this darkness; rather, it shines forth ever more radiantly and brightly, and is revealed as the centre, meaning and goal of all history and of every human life. At his crucifixion, Jesus experiences the moment of his greatest "powerlessness" and he is mocked, jeered at, and insulted (cf. Mk 15:24-36). And yet, precisely amid all this, having seen him breathe his last, the Roman centurion exclaims: "Truly this man was the Son of God!" (Mk 15:39). At the moment of his greatest weakness, that the Son of God is revealed for who he is: on the Cross his glory is made manifest. By his death, Jesus sheds light on the meaning of the life and death of every human being. (EV 50)

So, in this clash between the culture of life and the culture of death which we find ourselves in, we all have an inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life. We must use the Gospel of life as our light and strength to bring a culture of life to our society. As Benedict XVI tells us in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, we must not “impose on those who do not share the Catholic faith” but use to help purify reason and to contribute to the attainment of a just society.

She cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. Because of this, we are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity. In this way we can help form consciences in political life.

Please God some of you will be the next politicians, journalists, medics who will help to bring this culture of death down. Because as John Paul II said, there can never be true peace unless life is defended and promoted.

Greetings to readers in Dorset

I recently discovered that readership of this blog has now streched as far down as the beautiful village of Lytchett Matravers, Dorset. I've spent several great days down there over the past couple of years when visiting a good friend from university. Greetings!

Calling blogging experts

As you know, I'm pretty new to this blogging malarkey. Every time I blog, the time of blogging at the bottom of each entry seems to be about 10 hours before the actual time of posting. Anyone know how to programme this thing to GMT?

10-Minute Rule Bill: Catholics (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill: John Gummer

On Tuesday, as you may have heard, Catholic MP John Gummer presented his Ten-Minute Rule Bill to the House of Commons. It primarily aims to repeal the law that prohibits the heir to the throne marrying a Catholic. It also touches on other ridiculous laws such as the one which says a Catholic diocese may not be given the same name as an Anglican diocese (Whereas a new Anglican diocese may be given the name of an existing Catholic diocese; for example Southwark and Liverpool). You can watch Mr Gummer's speech at Gummer speech (fast forward the video to 1 hour 4 minutes). Despite his very disappointing agreement with homosexual couples adopting children (against the Church's position), the rest of his speech was fantastic.

I particularly liked the following quotes:

"It is pretty ridiculous that the king could be a Scientologist, which is manifestly intellectually difficult and religiously rubbish, but cannot be a Catholic, which is intellectually difficult and religiously correct. This is wholly unacceptable, and I do not think that anybody believes otherwise."

"I do not believe that there can be any hon. Member who does not find it odd that the Prime Minister was unable to explain why in 10 years of anti-discriminatory legislation he did not find time to add on the bottom of any one of those Bills "and Catholics".

"It is important—as you, Mr. Speaker, in your persona, as against your public office, know perfectly well—because it says something about Catholics that was not true to start with and is not true today, and ought not to be part of our law."

"This is about what Henry started and what Elizabeth did, which was to say that orthodoxy was determined not by the faith of the citizen but by the decision of Parliament and the state. That way lies totalitarianism—a refusal to accept that toleration means realising that people feel passionately about important things and that in a free society they ought to be able to uphold those things."

It's much better if you can try to watch these things as opposed just to reading Hansard because you can join in with the traditional "here here" cheering which is often amusing. In addition, you can see exactly who is enthusiastic in their endorsement and agreement with the introducer of the bill. Notice that Ann Widecombe uses that crafty trick of "doughnutting", a tactic employed by MPs since television cameras were introduced into the Commons. This is where a particular MP who wants to associate himself or herself with a scheduled speaker will sit as close to their colleague as possible so as to get on television and therefore get noticed. (As a "point of order", my dissertation was on the nature of parliamentary reporting, a large part of which focused on the consequences of the introduction of cameras to the Commons on the behaviour of MPs.) Widdy is particularly vociferous in her agreement with several of Gummer's points.

At the end, as Gummer is doing that funny thing where he has to bow three times before the speaker to present his bill, some unidentifiable member shouts "burn him" which I hope was a polite joke. Also listen in just after Catholic Speaker of the House Michael Martin begins to deal with the next business on the agenda. Another MP, who sounds as though he is on the Conservative benches, says very enthusiastically "that was convincing".

Incidentally, don't get your hopes up. This Bill, like most other Private Members and Ten Minute Rule Bills, will have no chance of becoming law. They are only successful, as in the case of the pernicious Abortion Act, if the government of the day is in support and gives it parliamentary time. And let's face it, William Hill's won't be doing any kind of trade on that possibility.

However, it was a day that for 10 minutes (at least for most of it) a Catholic MP stood up in parliament to defend the Faith and to attack "historical discrimination and guard against the insidious future discrimination that arises from political correctness, which is itself a kind of fascism". It's not often the right to live our lives according to our Faith free of state interference is so robustly defended in parliament.

Ampleforth: Retreat

I went to Ampleforth College to give a pro-life talk to students as part of their 6th Form Conference. I stayed for the duration of the retreat primarily led by the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. The experience was certainly an eye-opener.

First, a word on the retreat overall. To have the Franciscan Friars leading adoration and worship as opposed to the resident Benedictines was a bit of a shcok to the system of many of the 6th Formers. They were clearly not used to the Youth 2000 way of doing things. They are more comfortable with filing into the Abbey Church for Mass en masse, singing traditional hymns very loudly. So, for the Franciscan Friars to invite one of their Youth 2000 musicians, Hannah, along with my good friend Andy McIntosh, to lead “Praise and Worship”, was a bit of a culture shock for them. One of the monks told me that to have the Celtic Alleluia at the closing Mass of the retreat in the Abbey Church was “radical”!

On the first evening, the Franciscan Friars led a Eucharistic healing service, something that they are keen on. It was held in a large hall usually used as a study. The Monstrance was initially placed on the top of a “wooden tree” like structure for brief adoration followed by a talk by a Franciscan priest, Fr Sylvester.

Then the service began. They base it on the story of the woman with the haemorrhage, touching the cloak of Jesus and being healed. After the reading of this passage, the Blessed Sacrament was processed around the room by Fr Sylvester. I carried a cross in front of him to guide him around. He stopped in front of every single 6th Former in the room (well over 200 of them) for about 10 or 15 seconds to give them all a personal encounter with Christ and a chance to touch the humeral veil.

Processing around with him, I made two observations, completely at odds with each other. On the one hand I was horrified at the lack of reverence of quite a few of the youngsters. Many of them were laughing and sniggering, laying and slouching on the floor, and a couple even swearing out loud when the Blessed Sacrament was near them. I understand it took almost an hour to process around with the Monstrance and that there are about 20 per cent non-Catholic students, but I was still disappointed at the lack of respect.

On the flipside of that, there were clearly some students (particularly lads) who were deeply moved by the experience and showed incredible reverence compared with some of their contemporaries. Some of them looked up with profound adoration at the Blessed Sacrament and whispered prayers to themselves when it was their personal time to adore the Lord. Many remained kneeling and turned around to await the passing of the Monstrance at the other side of their row.

All in all, it was a fascinating experience of the development of faith amongst students of a prestigious Catholic public school.

Turning to my talk, I was again surprised at the fact that there were clearly at least three pro-choice students amongst the half a dozen or so that contributed to the discussions after my speech. Despite a no-doubt excellent Catholic education, some were still coming out with the usual “woman’s right to choose” arguments which I thought they would have got over by now. Nevertheless, there were some interesting discussions on the principle of double effect with reference to euthanasia and some important contributions made by a Polish girl who was telling us many stories of anti-life pressures urging people in her own country to push for a liberalisation of the abortion laws.

I wrote the last half of my talk at Ampleforth on my good friend Fr Sebastian’s computer and forgot to email myself a copy of the text to put up on the blog. But I’ll try to get it from Fr Sebastian and upload an edited version as soon as possible.

In the meantime, I leave you with some beautiful pictures of two weeks ago at Ampleforth in the snow.

Back from my travels

A couple of people have complained at my lack of bogging. I apologise. I’ve been on my travels to various places in the last couple of weeks. Here’s the first in a series of updates on what I’ve been getting up to

On my travels

Tomorrow, I'm travelling up to Ampleforth in North Yorkshire to give a pro-life talk at a retreat for the 6th Formers at Ampleforth College. The chaplain of the College, Father Sebastian, is a good friend of mine. He joined us on our diocesan pilgrimage to the World Youth Day in Cologne and we were next to each other on the banks of the Rhine to vociferously greet the Pope on his arrival via boat.

It's really the first proper talk I'm going to give and it's really daunting, particularly as I'm by no means an expert on many of the fields accossiated particularly with abortion and euthanasia. I'm focusing the talk on the political side of things, within the context of Pope John Paul II's teaching on the Gospel of Life in Evangelium Vitae. With the help of the Holy Spirit, I'm sure it will go well and hopefully I can generate some interest and get yet more young people involved in fighting the pro-life cause.

The talk is on Thursday - but I'm staying from Wednesday hopefully till Friday. It is forcast to snow whilst I'm there and, if so, it should be a stunning sight.

Then on Friday it's the short trip down to the south of the county to have a bit of a reunion of university friends in Sheffield. The trip is going to inolve a visit to the Chaplaincy, probably my second home whilst at university. I've been invited to the (belated) Burn's Night, which will involve plenty of Haggis, whisky and stories of Robbie's antics. More importantly, thought, a chance to catch up with people.

I'll try and blog a bit whilst I'm away and will aim to put a copy of my talk up as well.

The Beautiful South - RIP

As I emotionally write tonight, I am listening to my favourite ever album, 0898 (1992) by the Beautiful South, who regrettably split up after 19 years of fabulous pop music yesterday. A sad day.

The best musical talent ever to come out of Hull, the Beautiful South arose from the ashes of the 1980s band the Housemartins. Paul Heaton and David Hemmingway were the band's most prominent vocalists.

They've had ten top ten albums, six top ten singles and one number 1 (A Little Time) over the years. A staggering one in seven households own a copy of their first album of greatest hits, Carry on up the Charts (1994).

Despite associations with Socialism and the occasional naughty lyric, they are by a country mile the best band ever (in my opinion). The lyrics that Heaton and Hemingway came up with were genius. My favourite song is Pretenders to the Throne (which mentions Hull as having "musical flair" in one of the verses).

Citing a typical tounge-in-cheek comment, the South amusingly said in a statement they had split up because of "musical similarities".

Let's hope that Heaton and Hemingway go on to launch excellent solo careers. But, as far as the Beautiful South go, may they rest in peace.

Opus Dei update and interview with Jack Valero

The Prelature of Opus Dei in Britain has renewed an official complaint it made to the BBC claiming that the crime drama series Waking the Dead depicted members of the Catholic organisation as “pious hypocrites and murderers bent on wealth and power”.

Last week, Opus Dei lodged an official complaint against the BBC saying that “The Fall” episodes of the programme broadcast on 21 and 22 January were a “defamatory portrayal” of their organisation and that the plot was lifted directly from the Da Vinci Code.

Earlier this week, they received a response from the producer of the programme who said he was sorry “that the programme caused you and your organisation offence”.

In a response to Opus Dei’s initial complaint, executive producer of Waking the Dead, Colin Wratten, said: “The focus of the story centred very much on the individuals rather than their affiliations. We take our own editorial guidelines very seriously and have worked closely with them to ensure balance across the piece.”

But in response to the producer’s comments, Opus Dei announced it was asking the corporation’s Editorial Complaints Unit to investigate the incident.

The letter of complaint to the Unit states: “The crux of the matter is the portrayal of Opus Dei as a shady organisation, ‘made up of murderers, thieves and adulterers who justify and cover up evil actions while hiding behind a veneer of hypocritical piety and penitential rituals of self-flagellation’, as we said in our original letter.”

Earlier this week, I interviewed Jack Valero, of the Opus Dei information office, about Waking the Dead.

How has the Opus Dei community reacted to the programme?

Most people haven’t seen it and couldn’t care less about it. Very few people have seen it. Most people are just busy trying to run a family or get ready for the week or whatever. There’s very little television watched I think.

Those who have seen it or have been asked about it have said, “What’s happening” so I’ve sent them the letter. But basically not much impact. And also I didn’t take it very seriously. In a sense, it came as a surprise because we’ve had two years of people looking in and saying we’ve heard about the Da Vinci Code lets find out what’s true about it. And after two years we felt that the vast majority of people in the country knew what we were about. So to suddenly find a BBC programme that takes the old picture and uses that picture that is false several times over is a bit of a surprise. We’re just surprised. We’re just telling the BBC look “come and see”. If you’ve seen the thing it’s like saying well we’ve got this network of killers from the Salvation Army, it’s just ludicrous. Or there’s some suspicion as to whether they’ve organised 9/11. I mean it’s absurd.

Do you think it’s another example of what Catholic’s refer to it these days as the “anti-Catholic BBC”?

Well I didn’t know whether that was the case although somebody told me a previous episode had featured a nun who had taking/hijacking babies. So that’s pretty bad isn’t it?

So maybe there is an idea not so much to bash Catholics but to just say this is an easy thing to put in the background without batting an eyelid. It could be that the atmosphere is just that. Generally I’ve found that the two years I’ve been working on this subject that journalists are open and interested in finding out the truth. So it’s just a surprise to have something like this going on like this without previous notice or anybody looking in or finding out whether this is accurate in any way.

On the flipside of things, do you actually ever get any hate mail or people complaining about you?

No, we don’t get any hate mail.

So in that sense, people aren’t really taking it seriously?

I wouldn’t think so, no. I mean it just contributes to the full picture. I mean, we’ve spent two years trying to deny it successfully we hoped and suddenly he’s some guys who say O well this is just how some things are. And you say well no, it’s not how things are. It’s the opposite of how things are.

Because if we were a political organisation you could say well there’s something seedy about it and we could discuss it. But actually we’re not into any of the things that they say. We’re just helping people to pray, you know. It’s really sinister. We’re helping people to say some prayers and go to mass and all that.

Do you think it was a worse portrayal than the Da Vinci Code?

It was very similar but probably not as bad. I mean the thing was that the Da Vinci Code was very anti-Christian, spoke against Christ. So in that sense, this is fairly inane.