Monday, July 07, 2008

Ruth Kelly should be excommunicated

Cranmer feels genuinely sorry for Ruth Kelly. When The Daily Telegraph, under Roman Catholic proprietors, carries the headline ‘Ruth Kelly should be ashamed to call herself a Catholic’, and the article is penned by a Roman Catholic journalist, one might reasonably discern that the Secretary of State has irritated a few of her co-religionists. And, in her efforts to be all things to all people, she seems to have done so throughout her ministerial career. It has dawned upon them that there is a gulf between Mrs Kelly’s private religious adherence and her public political expression; between her membership of Opus Dei and her membership of the Cabinet.

The House of Commons votes next Monday on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, but ‘Ruth Kelly's Roman Catholic conscience is clear after securing permission to miss the Commons vote’ yet again. The Prime Minister has permitted her ‘leave of absence’ to ‘attend EU meetings in Brussels instead’.

If Pope Benedict XVI is of the opinion that politicians who vote for legal abortion are subject to excommunication, what of those who conveniently absent themselves from such votes and thereby bring the faith into disrepute through their hypocrisy?

Cranmer is currently awaiting a report from one of his communicants in Brussels on the nature of these crucially important transport meetings which suddenly require the urgent and unavoidable presence of the Secretary of State.

Cranmer has received this from Brussels:

"There does not appear to be any EP meetings scheduled. There is a transport meeting tomorrow in Strasb. Quite what RK is up to remains a mystery."

Fascinating. Perhaps Mrs Kelly would be kind enough to inform us of the nature of these urgent meetings which require her presence in Brussels.

The Telegraph finds it all an appalling hypocrisy:

Let's be clear. If Kelly is true to her beliefs - they are so deeply held that she is a member of the Opus Dei movement - she could not possibly deliberately contrive to miss the vote. She would be in the Commons to make a stand against this legislation, despite the three-line whip for Labour MPs.

It's not just the so-called Frankenstein science stuff, which is directly against church teaching. The Bill also enshrines the right of women to abort a child at 28 weeks and at full-term - 39 weeks - if there is a suspicion of disability such as Down's Syndrome or a cleft palate.

So while Kelly is swanning around Brussels attending meetings that are hardly a matter of life and death, back in Westminster MPs will be voting on issues that are exactly that. Kelly's conscience is as porous as a sponge.

Of course, only Mrs Kelly’s co-religionists could state this; if any Protestant dared, or, for that matter, any Anglo-Catholic, they would doubtless be labelled ‘bigot’ or some such, usually by those who manifest the very essence of the word themselves. In fact, even to quote it, or draw attention to it, is sufficient for some to hurl ad hominem invective, conveniently deflecting from the issue at hand.

And the issue is quite simple: if abortion is a sin against God and a crime against humanity, it must be the duty of all Christians to do all that is within their power to limit its practice. If that includes actively counselling young women in the alternatives, then a fortiori must also include actively voting against legislation in Parliament.

But Mrs Kelly simply cannot sacrifice her status, income, or her ministerial limousine to protest against all the ‘evil provisions’ of this Bill. She manifests all the compromised, liberal attitudes of the average Anglican in Parliament. Cranmer can’t quite see Nadine Dorries playing this sort of game, even were she to rise to ministerial office. And he thought that Opus Dei was more serious about its creed than the Evangelicals.

Several pro-abortion amendments have been tabled for the Bill's Report stage. They include the removal of safeguards on abortion such as a requirement for a second doctor's signature and the specified medical grounds on all early and mid-term abortions. There is also the proposal to permit abortion providers to use nurses and midwives to carry out abortions instead of doctors, and also to allow them in a wider range of health care centres.

Does Mrs Kelly think abortion is the same as any other medical procedure? Does she believe in a woman’s ‘right to choose’? Does she not realise that this Bill with its amendments will lead to even more abortions and should be strongly opposed at every stage?

The Telegraph continues:

Of course Kelly would be forced to resign from the Cabinet if she voted against the Bill. But, on a personal level, her standing would have soared above the civil liberties martyr David Davis, because she would be giving up a Cabinet job rather than the expectation of one.
And much more importantly, she would have been speaking up for the millions of voters who are in despair that, despite the advances in medical technology since the last abortion vote in 1990, MPs have refused to change the upper limit.

I'm sure Ruth Kelly takes her Cabinet responsibilities seriously. But her trip to Brussels makes a mockery of her so-called convictions.

I'm equally sure that she is a good and loving mother. But the next time she talks to her children about what is right and what is wrong, I wonder if she will feel at least a pang of guilt.
After all, she has put her Cabinet job before the other children. The unborn ones.

And another Telegraph journalist continues the theme here

What is the point of having Christians in Parliament if, when the faggots are lit,* they are not prepared to place their hands in the fire?

*This is not a reference to gay Christians.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Bill also enshrines the right of women to abort a child at 28 weeks and at full-term - 39 weeks - if there is a suspicion of disability such as Down's Syndrome or a cleft palate."

Even as an atheist I couldn't stomach this if I was a Dr.

If I understand correctly 28 weeks is survivable, not recommended but survivable.

As for full term abortions, that's just euthanasia isn't it?

It would be nice to believe in God, then one might have hope that evil people would be punished rather than dying of old age in their beds and slipping into non existence.

7 July 2008 at 08:45  
Blogger Henry Crun said...

Anon, a full term abortion is not euthanasia at all - it's murder, plain and simple.

PS I am not an anti-abortionist.

7 July 2008 at 09:43  
Anonymous Stonemason said...

Abortion, Euthanasia, they are important issues yes, but is not the big issue hypocrisy.

Unless this aspect of life is addressed by those who have been voted by you and I to govern,what is the point of politics, we might as well vote for a Mugabe.

If Ruth "Opus Dei" Kelly, and her hypocritical colleges, from all sides of the houses of Commons and Lords, are not big enough to be counted in the national counting house it is time for a spring clean.

7 July 2008 at 10:40  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Is it for the excommunicated to call for the same ferendæ sententi, canonical punishment under which he was convicted all those centuries ago to be applied to another, no I think not. His Graces excellent blog is breath of fresh air in these overtly anti-Christiance, PC times in which we live, but in matters Roman, his opinion is just that and its influence fortunately it does not carry to Rome.

In matters of duplicity and honour was it not Your Grace who in March 1533 before is enthronement as archbishop of Canterbury secretly took a special oath before the ceremony in a side chapel to the effect that the oath he made to the Pope was effectively just for show to get his hands on the influence, authority and wealth which came with the position and that he didn’t mean a word of it, yes I think it was.

What is the point of having an Archbishops of Canterbury if, when the faggots are lit, he still can’t make his mind up, was it 6 or 7 recantations, the last, 7 hours before the cremation. Lest we forget you joined the hundreds of Protestants and Catholics sent to the same fate by your very own seal, if anything it was poetic justice. Pot, kettle!

7 July 2008 at 10:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Point of information for anon

I know from personal experience that 26 weeks is survivable

7 July 2008 at 10:52  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

You appear to have acquainted yourself with an unfavourable biography of His Grace.

Things were not as black and white as you suggest. And let us not forget the assurances His Grace was given by his accusers which were nothing but lies.

This hardly compares to the duplicity manifest by a representative of the people in Parliament.

7 July 2008 at 11:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was the first Anon.

The reason I descrived it as euthanasia is because it is, a particularly nasty form of murder, a form of genocide.

What do you expect from a National Socialist party?

7 July 2008 at 11:08  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Mr Henry Crun - there's even worse around, if you can conceive of degrees of evil. Partial birth abortion involves bringing out the child feet first, while its head is still in the womb, killing it by piercing the skull and sucking its brains out. It's a method practised in some states in the US, and it's claimed this is not practised in the UK...

Clinton vetoed a ban on this evil practice when he was in office, but the much reviled George Bush made it his business to ban it in 2003, for which he should be praised.

But returning to your Grace's point, I don't understand how politicians have the stomach to stand by and acquiesce in practices which they claim to oppose. Politics is supposed to be the art of the possible (they say) but only up to a point. Recall that wonderful quote by Thomas More to Richard Rich in 'A Man for all seasons', reminding him 'Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?'

The HFE bill is due to due to come back to the HofC on 14 July (according to this morning's calendar of business). Your Grace has pointed out the amendments proposed by the prochoice MPs. Your communicants still have the opportunity to write to their MPs and make their views known.

7 July 2008 at 11:25  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

"actively counselling young women in the alternatives"

We could counsel young men to keep their trousers on as well.

7 July 2008 at 12:30  
Blogger Unsworth said...

@ Homophobic horse

"We could counsel young men to keep their trousers on as well."

As well as what, exactly?

Anyway, counselling young men to do or not do anything at all is usually completely ineffective.

7 July 2008 at 12:43  
OpenID curly15 said...

Well blow me, I must be a bigot too!

7 July 2008 at 12:43  
Blogger Unsworth said...

@ Homophobic horse

"We could counsel young men to keep their trousers on as well."

As well as what, exactly?

Anyway, counselling young men to do or not do anything at all is usually completely ineffective.

7 July 2008 at 12:43  
Anonymous i spy strangers said...

I hope, were I in Mrs. Kelly's shoes, that I'd have the courage of my convictions and return to Westminster in order to vote against the bill. That said, this is of course not an issue on which there should be a whipped vote at all. Every MP, of whatever party affiliation, should be free to vote in accordance with their conscience.

Mrs Kelly's behaviour is pusillanimous, but the greater sin surely lies with the PM - or whoever decided that the bill should not be subject to a free vote at this stage. I am constantly amazed by the ungodly actions of this 'son of the Manse'.

7 July 2008 at 15:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this Damian Thompson writing? His Telegraph blog consists of nothing but propaganda for the Latin Mass Society - racist, sexist, totally intolerant of other faiths or denominations, and always very smug and self satisfied.

7 July 2008 at 15:46  
Anonymous i spy strangers said...

Actually, come to think of it, a 'whipped' vote might hold some attractions for a member of Opus Dei ...

7 July 2008 at 17:11  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

whilst ruth kelly has not been outspoken enough , i doubt very much any of the cabinet would survive an excorism , i am cheered along by the thought of members heads revolving lizard tongues lashing out and vile language when sprinkled with holy water , perhaps even a combustion or two or eight .

you never know your grace the lord has his own ways !!

7 July 2008 at 21:55  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

As regular readers here know, I am not anti-abortion. However, I entirely agree with Henry Crun on the issue of full-term or near full-term abortions. They are not abortions, they are murder.

Having said that, I would be content to agree to a policy of all new-borns having to survive their first week with no medical attention at all - only the attention of the parents.

Is that bad of me? If so, why? I can be persuaded otherwise, but it has to be rational persuasion - emotional persuasion wont do the trick. My view is a naturalistic one.

7 July 2008 at 23:11  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

I cant find any reference in the Bible about shagging at will and ripping babies out of your womb willy nilly, strange?
It must be me, dyslexia or something?
I also seem to be getting the totally opposite message about sticking your cock up men's arses etc (not inclined to this anyway), but the holy spirit seems to suggest these very things to many people?
Opus Dei, a trendy club for well-to-do self righteous superior types: can't say I expected much from what I have read (no I don't mean Dan Brown).
I can't accept that Jesus wanted any of this. If he did know and want this world the way it has turned out, as the Son of the Creator, he could have achieved this cess pool existence in a much shorter period of time with far fewer and less confusing parables, and lived a long and prosperous life simply by keeping his thoughts to himself.

7 July 2008 at 23:35  
Anonymous i spy strangers said...

I see that our illustrious government has now decided to postpone further consideration of this Bill until the autumn, out of deference to the faithful in Glasgow East. One assumes that Mrs Kelly will still be detained by her important engagement in Brussels next week.

10 July 2008 at 16:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older