Thursday, November 22, 2007

Ruth Kelly forced to vote for Bill condemned by the Roman Catholic Church

The Opus Dei representative to Her Majesty’s Government is about to face a distinct dilemma. It transpires that Labour MPs will not be given a free vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and therefore Ruth Kelly, as a member of the Government, would be obliged to vote for the Bill under a three-line whip.

Traditionally, members are given a free vote on issues deemed to be a matter of conscience, but this appallingly amoral government considers that such issues should be determined not by the collective moral wisdom but by the politics of power. Labour’s Roman Catholic MPs have a particular dilemma insofar as they will defy their church if they vote in favour of the bill.

The legislation regulates animal/human embryo hybrids, allows new cloning techniques to eliminate life-threatening inherited illnesses and updates rules around the use of embryos. It also includes recognition of same-sex couples as legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated sperm, eggs or embryos. Under the Bill, there would no longer be a need for a father before providing IVF treatment. The Bill also states that where a lesbian couple have engaged in a civil partnership, both will be entered as the legal parents. And two men will be able to apply for a parental order to become parents of a child conceived through a surrogacy arrangement.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, ever at the forefront of such criticism, has said that the Bill is ‘profoundly wrong’ because it subordinates the rights of the child to the desire of the women: ‘The bill proposes to remove the need for IVF providers to take into account the child's need for a father when considering an IVF application, and to confer legal parenthood on people who have no biological relationship to a child born as a result of IVF. This radically undermines the place of the father in a child's life, and makes the natural rights of the child subordinate to the desires of the couple. It is profoundly wrong.’

The Pope has made clear the manner in which Roman Catholic politicians are to participate in public life. As Cardinal Ratzinger he issued ‘Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in Political Life’, which leaves one in no doubt as to how Mrs Kelly must vote. But will she obey her Cardinal and Pope or her Whip and Prime Minister?

Mrs Kelly's adherence to the extremist Catholic Opus Dei sect has been the cause of previous controversy, specifically when she was Communities Secretary. She was criticised by gay rights groups for refusing to answer when asked if she believed homosexuality was a sin. And she managed to delay the Sexual Orientation Regulations - rules to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services – while consideration was given to a possible exemption for Roman Catholic adoption agencies.

Cranmer’s hunch is that she is likely to absent herself from the Chamber, and will be away ‘on Government business’.

And, incidentally, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said this on the matter:



Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Ms Kelly again opts for a no-show, I suggest the Opus Dei join the Masons for all the good they are. His Grace has alluded to the Christian character of Gordon Brown. He and his predecessor have a fine way of showing it; by siding against Christian morality at every turn.


22 November 2007 at 09:12  
Blogger Hettie said...

Your Grace

I think I'm going to be sick. I don't even understand how one bill can contain so many very controversial elements. I thought this society is obsessed with children, but it seems that minority pressure groups can easily have their way, no matter what the rest of us think. Is that what is called progress?

22 November 2007 at 09:56  
Anonymous M Burgess said...

“But will she obey her Cardinal and Pope or her Whip and Prime Minister?”

It’s a bit more than that: she will be voting against the ordinary, universal magisterium of the Church – usually considered infallible. There is a good article on it here:

22 November 2007 at 11:17  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Not really a "dilemma" , more a "no-brainer". She should follow her conscience, if she still has one, having been part of that toxic crew for so long.

22 November 2007 at 11:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has acted with noble restraint in not commenting, many feared he might come out in favour of the whole package. In essence silence from Anglicanism is the same message as vocal criticism from the Roman Catholic Church.

22 November 2007 at 13:39  
Anonymous Tapani said...

Washington Post, 21 November: Advance May End Stem Cell Debate - Labs Create a Stand-In Without Eggs, Embryos

Researchers in Wisconsin and Japan said yesterday that they have turned ordinary human skin cells into what are effectively embryonic stem cells without using embryos or women's eggs -- the previously essential ingredients that have embroiled the medically promising field in a nearly decade-long political and ethical debate.

.... Until now, only human egg cells and embryos, both difficult to obtain and laden with legal and ethical issues, had the mysterious power to turn ordinary cells into stem cells. And until this summer, the challenge of mimicking that process in the lab seemed almost insurmountable, leading many to wonder whether stem cell research would ever unload its political baggage.

As news of the success spread in recent days, stem cell scientists seemed almost giddy that their field could suddenly become like other areas of biomedical science: appreciated, eligible for federal funding and wide open for new waves of discovery.

22 November 2007 at 14:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can a Catholic Conservative vote for Boris Johnson, a man who forced his mistress into an abortion clinic?

22 November 2007 at 15:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

By the same argument, how could a Protestant vote for Boris Johnson. I am a natural Conservative, but the morality of those for whom I vote does matter. I would spoil my vote rather than vote for a man who had behaved like Johnson.

22 November 2007 at 16:26  
Anonymous billy said...

She may surprise us and have the courage of her convictions.
If she isn't there at the vote isn't it a sin of omission?

22 November 2007 at 16:44  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

Only this nasty Labour government would not permit a free vote on issues like this. It is like living in a old eastern europe dictatorship.

Why did people vote for them. Could they not see what would happen and that power went to their heads.

22 November 2007 at 17:37  
Blogger prziloczek said...

All this is worrying on two counts.
1. Archbishop Cranmer went to the stake for his convictions, holding out his hand for the flame. And Mrs Ruth (ultra Catholic) Kelly?
2. Not one person has said anything nice about the government. If I were a government minister, I should be very worried by this.

22 November 2007 at 20:33  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Man is homogenous slop to be poured into molds by this lot. The occultists call it the "aquarian age", I call it the liquidation of mankind.

"it seems that minority pressure groups can easily have their way, no matter what the rest of us think. Is that what is called progress?"


22 November 2007 at 20:33  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

His Grace : ....the Archbishop of Canterbury has said this on the matter: ‘______’

I hope your Grace will forgive my vulgar curiosity, but I wonder :

1. How much the current Archbishop is costing to employ [his silence is a very expensive commodity]

2. where there is any accountability for the Archbishops/Bishops/Archdeacons ("these Ecclesiarchs")

* as a Collective Body, these Ecclesiarchs are presiding over an unprecedented numerical decline, such that within the next 20 years we could well see the CofE disappear (along with Christianity) from the Beloved Country

* Yet however lamentable their unbelief & mismanagement, their ecclesiastical Empires grind on unTouched or even expanding in expense WHILE their Job Security and Pensions are guaranteed

* locally, they can bully Parishes for Diocesan contributions into financial insolvency with breath-taking nastiness, while massively cutting the numbers of Clergy for the Parishes

3. What would happen if we sacked all these Ecclesiarchs - would we see a Christian revival, which the dead=weight of these expensive Ecclesiarchs is suppressing

4. The CofE needs its Parish-Clergy to survive - it does not need these Ecclesiarchs

Come back, your Grace, all is forgiven !!!

I have the honour to remain, in Christ, your Grace's obedient servant etc

G Eagle

23 November 2007 at 09:21  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

She probably just won't turn up. That's what she's done in the past.

24 November 2007 at 11:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6 Million Abortions to date, isn't that enough, If we stopped this we wouldn't need immigration....Am I allowed to have logical thought processes like that still.
Probably not, it was obviously racist, I shall turn myself into the authorities for reeducation just as soon as I've finished this sentance.

3 December 2007 at 01:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older