Friday, May 24, 2013

Court of Protection orders abortion of 23-week baby


A guest post from Sister Tiberia:

This is a heartbreaking story.

It concerns a woman for whom one can have nothing but the utmost sympathy. She is 37 years old and suffers from bipolar disorder. Don't underestimate what that does to someone - the depths of depressive illness where on the down-swings even getting out of bed is more than the sufferer is reasonably capable of; the days where suicide seems like the only possible choice of a rational mind. If there is truly a hell, then the long-term sufferers of this condition have endured it on earth.

She is also 23 weeks pregnant, and wants to abort the child.

The case has gone all the way to the High Court.

From the Daily Mail:
She said she would try to commit suicide if she was unable to terminate the pregnancy.

'I would seek to kill myself and the baby,' she said. 'I have pretty much had enough of the whole situation. The only way they could force me to have the pregnancy is by tying me down and locking me up.'

Mr Justice Holman heard evidence from the woman, a consultant psychiatrist involved in her care, from a lawyer representing her husband and from her mother.

The psychiatrist said he was '100 per cent certain' that the woman lacked the capacity to make a decision about termination.

A lawyer representing her husband, who was at the hearing, said he agreed with the psychiatrist's evaluation.

Her mother also agreed with the psychiatrist and said she feared that her daughter might later regret seeking a termination."
But the High Court Judge, Mr Justice Holman, has ruled against the doctors, and stated that she is capable of making the decision.

She is 23 weeks pregnant.

Let nobody be in any doubt as to what that means: we are talking about a child which with excellent intensive care is capable of survival outside the womb. And every subsequent week raises the chances of survival. The implication of the article is that the woman has already been sectioned under the Mental Health Act, since it speaks of her distress at imprisonment (her words).

This decision by the judge beggars belief. And the end result may well be two deaths.

Look up the statistics of suicide after abortion. They're grim.

Garfinkel, et al., Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Extension Service, 1986) - researchers found a teenage girl is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if she has had an abortion in the last six months than is a comparable teenage girl who has not had an abortion.

Reardon, A Survey of Psychological Reactions, (Springfield, IL: Elliot Institute, 1987) - this found that 60 percent of women with 'post-abortion trauma' had experienced suicidal thoughts, 28 per cent had attempted suicide, and 18 per cent had attempted suicide more than once.

If you want (or can bear) to read a British Medical Journal article on the subject, try HERE - a 14-day free trial gives access. The writers are looking at the deterioration of mental health after an induced abortion.

Now ask yourself - just what country are we living in? Why is it not possible to support this poor woman for the few more weeks it would take to deliver this pregnancy safely? If she wants then to give up the child for adoption - fine. If she changes her mind (and believe me, people with bipolar disorder do, often) then there are support organisations which will help her if she wants to keep the child.

But dead is dead. And if she goes through with the abortion, then I hope to God they have her on suicide watch for that moment when the realisation hits, together with the post-natal depression.

Poor, poor woman. Poor, poor baby. Is there no way out of this double disaster before it becomes a double tragedy?

201 Comments:

Blogger Albert said...

Excellent post. There are several evils involved in abortion - the murder of the child and the harm done to the mother. If that harm were taken into account, I expect most abortions would be illegal. Then there's the consequences for any other children. What can they think but "I'm glad I was in there"?

24 May 2013 at 08:15  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Thank you , Your Grace, an excellent piece.
What a dreadful waste of life. I agree with YG, surely the system has sufficient resources and flexibility to hold this woman's hand until the baby is safely delivered, after which adoption is possible. Then even if she decides to retain her baby, and it has a considerably below average experience of mothering, it at least it has a chance at life, which is infinitely preferable to death in the womb? And think of her inability to subsequently cope with her eventual recognition of the enormity of abortion.
What a dysfunctional country we have become. All our considerable resources just pointing to death.
May God have mercy on this woman.

24 May 2013 at 08:36  
Blogger laura cosby said...

Take out the fact that she has a bi-polar disorder, would a woman at that stage of pregnancy be allowed by law to abort, if the answer is yes then her decision must take precedent. The fact she has bi-polar is irrelevant, suicidal thoughts wld be likely pregnant or not. Personally I could not abort a child at that stage of pregnancy so I would not have to make that decision.

24 May 2013 at 08:56  
Blogger laura cosby said...

Take out the fact that she has a bi-polar disorder, would a woman at that stage of pregnancy be allowed by law to abort, if the answer is yes then her decision must take precedent. The fact she has bi-polar is irrelevant, suicidal thoughts wld be likely pregnant or not. Personally I could not abort a child at that stage of pregnancy so I would not have to make that decision.

24 May 2013 at 08:58  
Blogger IanCad said...

Let me get this straight:

The husband wants the baby.
The mother is in a pitiful state mentally; most likely temporarily.
The family is supportive.
The baby is growing nicely.
I have little faith in mental health experts but will take things at face value.
We need all the babies we can get.
The baby is a living soul.
The judge is an accessory to murder.
Good Lord help us!
Thanks for this Sister T.

24 May 2013 at 09:04  
Blogger Fiddlesticks said...

I've been there with depression. Not as bad as bipolar disorder, but bad enough. You feel like you can't cope with anything. You want out of everything - your marriage, your job, the flat you're living in, the town you're living in, the supermarket. And you won't listen to anybody who tells you different. You latch onto well meaning people that are going to affirm you in your deluded decisions.

Of course, as soon as you quit your job, your town, your marriage you realise that the problem isn't with your situation - the problem is with you - and you want your old life back. But it's often too late by then.

24 May 2013 at 09:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Making the threat of committing suicide says to me that the woman is primarily demanding attention. If she really wanted to die she would just get on and do it.

The Judge is wrong and is just covering his arse.

24 May 2013 at 09:57  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Dreadnaught, bear in mind she is already in a hospital and presumably under constant watch because of her mental condition. They are making very sure that the opportunity for suicide is not given to her. But yes, suicide and attempted suicide are cries for help, and the help she needs is not an abortion. Poor woman.

24 May 2013 at 10:03  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Your Headline is misleading.
The Judge didn't order an abortion, he said that it could take place, a totally different thing.

24 May 2013 at 10:16  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

The headline choice is His Grace's not mine. I merely wrote the post.

But I think it's semantics. If the court has ordered that the woman be permitted to abort this child, against the advice of her doctors who think she is not mentally capable of making the decision, and the wishes of her husband and family, then the result of the order is a dead baby, however you word it.

24 May 2013 at 10:21  
Blogger Nick said...

For a "civilised" nation we have a very cavalieer attitude to human life. What an odd paradox that we are more concerned about the rights of the sexually disoriented than the life of an innocent unborn child who will be discarded like a piece of useless meat

This does sound like a difficult situation, because of the mothers mental health, but the judgement shows no coompassion to either, it is probably just more convenient and less costly in terms of healthcare.

We have just seen one act of vile butchery on our streets, now it is the turn of the state.

24 May 2013 at 10:25  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Also, bear in mind we do not have "abortion on demand" in this country.

From Wikipedia.

Section 37[39] of the HFEA act, amends the Abortion Act 1967. The section specifies and broadens the conditions where abortion is legal.

Women who consider abortion are referred to two doctors. Each doctor then advises her whether abortion is a suitable decision based on the conditions listed below. An abortion is granted, only when the doctors reach a unanimous decision that the woman may terminate her pregnancy. If an abortion is performed without this decision or under any other circumstance is considered unlawful.

Abortion may be granted under one of the following circumstances if the pregnancy:

Has not exceeded its 24th week (previously lowered from 28 weeks in the Abortion Act of 1967)

Has a heightened risk of injury to the physical and/or mental health of the mother, existing children, or family.

Places the mother's life or mental health in jeopardy

Poses as a risk to the mental and physical health of the mother

Significant risk or evidence that the unborn child would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities, resulting in a serious handicap

In this case, the mother wishes the abortion, and the doctors do not agree.

The judge has ruled that her wishes override the doctors.

That is not what the law says.

24 May 2013 at 10:35  
Blogger Albert said...

We seem to get a lot of bizarre judgements from judges. Doubtless some of these are misrepresented by the media, but does anyone know what happens to judges who get things badly wrong? Do they just carry on?

24 May 2013 at 11:09  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sister Tibs

I'm sure you are absolutely right. At this stage we are talking baby killing and the Judge is not serving the woman, the baby or the law justice.

24 May 2013 at 11:14  
Blogger Simon said...

I don't like abortion either. But all the judge has decided is that she has capacity at this time to make her bit of the decision making process that might lead to an abortion for herself. Nothing more. If the Daily Mail's report is accurate (yes, big if ...) then that was a perfectly reasonable decision.

24 May 2013 at 11:16  
Blogger Nick said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 May 2013 at 11:17  
Blogger Nick said...

Albert 11:09

I suspect that, like most dismal performers in high office they either get a fat golden handshake or a promotion

24 May 2013 at 11:18  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Nic

"For a "civilised" nation we have a very cavalieer attitude to human life"

We are not civilised at all Nic.

Anyway how do you define a civilised nation? Western European?

The guys yesterday chops a guy down in the street and they get to live and the baby dies.

Most nations you might call uncivilised, would get their priorities straight here.

Phil





24 May 2013 at 11:38  
Blogger Masrek Rollin said...

I am also very depressed and want to kill David Cameron - should that be allowed?
I am anti-abortion. I am doctor. Unless the foetus has grave abnormalities most doctors even in the UK would not carry out a termination at 23 weeks. It is murder.
Now she is depressed -so what? In 18 years time she will be very happy, proud and loving her child. Mothers soon come to love the child and it may even be the best thing that makles their life worth living.

24 May 2013 at 12:49  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Masrek,

Well said, and from a doctor makes it especially helpful.
No, as Phil says, we are not a civilised country. Our laws are now the opposite of what Christian morality would advise. The country is a sad mess legally and morally. The Christian heritage has been under direct political and social attack for so many decades now, fifty years I would say, often through stealth and half truths to justify change. Then once the law is changed the brakes come off completely, the true purpose is revealed, and and rapid change is ushered in under a smokescreen. Then the "reformers" celebrate and are onto the next "social improvement", and so it has gone on decade after decade. What is the answer? Probably widespread degradation and suffering, followed by a religious revival, led initially from any mainstream, Trinitarian denomination would get my "vote".

24 May 2013 at 13:06  
Blogger michael north said...


This same judge a few years ago authorised surgery on a schizophrenic woman who denied the existence of her cancer. He ruled that she lacked capacity to refuse treatment that was for her good.

In this case, he ruled that the woman has capacity, in the face of expert opinion.

We have had de facto abortion on demand for all of Holman's working life. Perhaps he is unaware that it is not de jure.

24 May 2013 at 13:40  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Monstrous!
No difference between butchering and
decapitating an innocent man and this. Murder!

24 May 2013 at 15:46  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Any double standards here ?

Chen Guangcheng – a hero for our times, yesterday from Westminster.

Chen exposed systematic forced abortions and sterilisations carried out under the China’s infamous one-child policy. For this, he was sentenced to four years imprisonment, at the conclusion of which he was placed under house arrest. During this time, both Chen and his wife were subjected to beatings, until his well-documented escapeand sanctuary in the U.S embassy, and the subsequent negotiations under which China reluctantly allowed him to live in America.

Chen Guangcheng was presented yesterday with a Award in at Westminster by MP's for his work in promoting human rights, human life and human dignity.

He said, “They are a dictatorship, and the nature of this dictatorship is the destruction of human life… they can take your life as well as your property”. This is expressed most viscerally in the one-child policy, which began in 1979 and “since then any respect for life has disappeared completely from China”. Those who dare speak out against the policy, let alone attempt to have a second child, are subject to penalties varying in severity. Those who, for example, “opposed the one-child policy can never get anywhere in their job, no matter how good they are”. Such punitive measures can take more extreme forms, however. “In 2005, in my city alone, there were over 120,000 forced abortions and sterilisations”. In extreme cases, “women who were 8 or 9 months pregnant were dragged through the hospital to have forced abortions performed on them. Their families, friends & even neighbours were dragged from their homes, tortured for days, and forcibly sterilised”.

Appalling as such abuses of human rights are, even seasoned western observers were shocked when Chen went on to describe examples of Chinese population control at its most brutal. Recounting one case from 2001, his voice quivered as he explained how the mother of a three-year-old girl was arrested and detained for twenty-four days. The police ignored the mother’s desperate pleas to be allowed to return to feed her child, or to arrange for her to be cared for by relatives. When finally released, the woman was devastated to find the toddler dead from starvation, having left tiny footprints of blood around the house, the bone in her forefinger exposed from attempting to break through the doors and windows of the house. Pausing to recover himself, Chen explained that “every time I tell the story of this little girl, I don't want to repeat it. But if this dictatorship had any human nature, it would allow a mother to look after her child”.

William Hague has stated that the promotion of human rights is at the forefront of the coalition Government’s work, as well as one of his own personal objectives as Foreign Secretary: “It is why we hold tyrannical and repressive regimes to account, and it is why we make every possible effort to ensure that we live up to our own values and obligations”.

24 May 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger Willow said...

I've yet to hear anything good of the Court of Protection.

24 May 2013 at 16:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It seems very late for an abortion to happen when another month would result in a viable and healthy baby which could be easily adopted. I hope that option and the support expectations were set out very clearly to the woman.

24 May 2013 at 16:58  
Blogger michael north said...


Naomi King @ 16.36

Whatever liberal hand-wringing there may be about the monstrous evil of China's one-child policy and the violence to women it involves, the one source you will never hear any condemnation from is the radical feminist lobby. They refuse to look under that stone.

24 May 2013 at 17:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Sister Tiberia,

Thanks for bring this mad situation to our attention. Ghastly, absolutely ghastly. And there are families out there who grieve on the death of children who are born premature, but didn't survive, and want more than anything to have children....

24 May 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Michael North,

China's one child policy is an abomination. And is also backfiring in a spectacular way; it seems that whether or not you believe in a deity, nature or whatever corrects human folly in the end.

By about 2020, China will have a demographic crunch as bad as Europe. On top of that is a population imbalance between male and female, because the culture shows a preferences for males babies. Hence a distortion between genders is greater in China than even that experienced by the west after two world wars...

24 May 2013 at 17:27  
Blogger michael north said...


Hannah Kavanagh @ 17.27

What do you think China will do with its vast surplus of young men? Put them in the army, of course. And you can't have all that excess testosterone hanging about at home. Japan, be very afraid.

24 May 2013 at 17:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Individuals who are bi polar should be offered sterilisation. In some cases, it would be appropriate to carry it out anyway, depending on the severity of mental derangement. Not what you might expect from a man who considers himself a Roman Catholic, but what have we got here. A living hell so the condition is.

No doubt this will not be to the taste of the Catholic Taleban who pontificate on this site, but this man sincerely believes that Christ would no more condemn the operation than he would a life saving quadruple bypass. So what’s the bloody difference ?

This man had an acquaintance who suffered from the illness – a qualified engineer in his fifties. Often walk past the multi storey car park he threw himself off.

RIP John W. One knows you now have the peace that was denied you when you were alive.

And anyone who thinks the symptoms can be controlled by taking medication, know this. The medicine side effects can be as bad, if not worse, than the symptoms.





24 May 2013 at 17:53  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Michael North,

Japan and the rest of Asia, if the hot heads in the Chinese military get their way. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail...

24 May 2013 at 18:09  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

How utterly dreadful!

24 May 2013 at 19:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector said ...

"Individuals who are bi polar should be offered sterilisation. In some cases, it would be appropriate to carry it out anyway, depending on the severity of mental derangement. Not what you might expect from a man who considers himself a Roman Catholic, but what have we got here. A living hell so the condition is."

What an utterly contemptible and ignorant comment.

24 May 2013 at 22:50  
Blogger David B said...

It is indeed a heart rending situation.

It does highlight the necessity for abortions which are late term to be looked at judicially.

Personally I feel comfortable enough with abortion being simply a matter of a woman's choice at some stages of development.

The difficulty comes with extreme cases - a manic depressive and ignorant 14 year old impregnated by rape by a priest say, who has suffered in silence until the foetus is pretty well developed, but whose psychological state is suicidal, and who desperately wants the pregnancy to end.

For myself, late though the abortion would be, I would think it inhumane to force her to go through with the pregnancy.

Another can of worms is opened up by instances of miscarriages at that sort of state of pregnancy - and how many scarce resources should be spent keeping a very early and clearly brain damaged early birth artificially alive indefinitely, if there is little or prospect of the infant in question leading a pain free life in which such faculties as sight, speech and hearing will probably never develop.

It ain't easy - but any sort of absolutist keep alive at any cost position seems to me both inhumane and, in a world where there are insufficient resources to do everything that is desirable, not cost effective.

There are insufficient resources for those who could benefit from them.

David

24 May 2013 at 23:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Peter D. Humanity has come a long way in two thousand years. You no longer have to hold onto God’s leg. Walk unaided, you can do it. Of course, if it disgusts God that his creation is getting out of hand, let him destroy it. Perhaps a meteor direct hit, no way could we stop that. Then again, God may well be interested in how humanity deals with awkward situations now and in the future....

As for us, we are born in the morning and we die in the evening, don’t forget that now...


24 May 2013 at 23:33  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

You know nothing of the bi-polar condition and yet you casually suggest sterilisation for all those who may have the condition - either enforced or voluntary .

To think, not only do you claim to be a Catholic but also a supposed member of the Freedom Association!!!

24 May 2013 at 23:53  
Blogger Joe Daniels said...

As somebody with bipolor disorder what keeps me going is that the disease is precisely that: it has two poles. The depression will not last. As much as you face the existential choice when you're at your lowest, you're not going to stay there. This is a heartbreaking decision from all angles, all the more so because the lady is a pawn in governmental anti-life policies.

25 May 2013 at 04:41  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

The difficulty comes with extreme cases - a manic depressive and ignorant 14 year old impregnated by rape by a priest say

Nice touch to throw in the priest to the scenario. But that reference makes it a highly unlikely scenario. As even the Guardian pointed out, in 2001 in the US, there were 5 cases of clerical abuse per 100 000 confirmation candidates (i.e. the rate of actual abuse is much lower as priests have much more access to children than just those being confirmed in a given year). In the same year, there were 788 cases per 100 000 in the Alaskan population as a whole.

Of course, in society as a whole only the majority of abusers are male and therefore the majority of the victims are female. Therefore, one would have thought that in the Church, where all the abusers are male, there would be a much higher rate of abuse of girls (which would support your scenario). But, we know, the opposite is the case, the all male, unmarried priesthood, although it has much lower rates of child abuse than society, nevertheless, where it abused overwhelmingly abused boys aged 11-18.

So your scenario, despite having prima facie plausibility to it, in fact goes right against the evidence.

But I think you probably knew that. Why did you add the priest bit then?

25 May 2013 at 09:09  
Blogger LEN said...

Those who kill their defenceless young will eventually decide to terminate the old, the disabled,and those who have no' relevant input' into society.

Man has become 'god' and decides who lives and who dies.This is the price humanity pays for rejecting Christianity.
Things can only get considerably worse.

25 May 2013 at 11:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Well said, Len.

25 May 2013 at 11:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B.The difficulty comes with extreme cases - a manic depressive and ignorant 14 year old impregnated by rape by a priest say

Highly unlikely. How about impregnated by a morally empty atheist whose only concern is whether or not he can get away with it without being caught. You, for example.

25 May 2013 at 12:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. You miss the point, in that problems we know about today are not solved by whatever the bible has to say about it. In the case of bi polar, that would be nothing.

25 May 2013 at 12:40  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector @ 12.36

A comment we can agree. With all the scandal about celebrities this nasty minded anti-theist still bangs on about Catholic priests to score some imaginary points.

25 May 2013 at 12:43  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector said ...
"Peter D. You miss the point, in that problems we know about today are not solved by whatever the bible has to say about it. In the case of bi polar, that would be nothing."

I fully understood the point. And if you really believe the above comment, forgive me for being so direct, then you lack a basic understanding of Christianity. Really, you do.

25 May 2013 at 18:35  
Blogger Peter D said...

Joe Daniels said...
"As somebody with bipolor disorder what keeps me going is that the disease is precisely that: it has two poles. The depression will not last. As much as you face the existential choice when you're at your lowest, you're not going to stay there."

Respect!

Well said, sir! It might help if you looked upon being bi-polar not as a "disease" but as a condition - a part of who you are and a challenge you face - and bravely by the sound of it.

Some remarkable men and women have been and are bi-polar - Winston Churchill, possibly being one.

Sister Tiberia
A sympathetic and insightful post.

"Don't underestimate what that does to someone - the depths of depressive illness where on the down-swings even getting out of bed is more than the sufferer is reasonably capable of; the days where suicide seems like the only possible choice of a rational mind. If there is truly a hell, then the long-term sufferers of this condition have endured it on earth."

Please don't underestimate the very positive aspects of the 'up-turn' either. Whilst full blown mania and deep depression are sheer agony, a hell on earth, as you say, if one can successfully stay on the edge between the two life can be rewarding and fulfilling.

Bi-polar conditions are as varied as the many people who have it. Some see it as (potentially) a blessing too!

The judge was wrong in this case on so many levels. One prays for this poor woman and her child.

25 May 2013 at 18:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D, it is quite a burden you have there. Taking it upon yourself to run men’s thoughts past what you think is Christianity and to give a yeah or nay, and with the utmost humility at that !

25 May 2013 at 19:00  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector, its no burden at all and we share a common trait of humility.

In all truth, your 'views' on how to respond to people with bi-polar made my blood run cold.

25 May 2013 at 20:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Can’t see why Peter D. Had the woman been offered and accepted sterilisation, she wouldn’t be driving herself insane now over an unwanted pregnancy. This man is all for practical solutions to alleviate suffering. Sometimes, that means going a bit further than saying three Hail Marys every night...

25 May 2013 at 20:35  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Just to remind you, you recommended sterilisation - voluntary or enforced - for all people with a bi-polar condition.

The easy *solution* is not always the moral or appropriate one.

25 May 2013 at 21:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Peter D it probably hasn’t escaped your notice that we no longer lock up the insane or incapable. There are plenty of women out there, including drug addicts, who would benefit from forced sterilisation, as well as society in general. Of course, we could all go home in the evening and pretend these types don’t exist. But some of us see a problem to be addressed, and find a creative solution to it...

25 May 2013 at 21:28  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Your solution is about as 'creative' as Hitler's and Stalin's solutions to issues they faced. Remove 'problems', don't solve them.

It's a totalitarian and inhumane response to complexity - not creative at all. This reqires thought and action above the level of those types with lower IQ's, irascible temperaments and an authoritarian bent who seek quick answers.

25 May 2013 at 21:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

But Peter D, how on earth are we to help people who will not or cannot help themselves ?

25 May 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D, if we are going to instil some order into our dissolute society, quite a few people are going to have to do things they don’t want to do. Rather like it was like before society took the easy way and here we are today. You did realise that, didn’t you ?


25 May 2013 at 23:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector said...
"But Peter D, how on earth are we to help people who will not or cannot help themselves ?"

Not by heavy handed State control, that's for sure! We, collectively, should only become involved in situations where there is tangible harm to themselves or others. And then only at the minimum level required. There are many ways of supporting people that stop short of the authoritarian response you have proposed.

" ... if we are going to instil some order into our dissolute society, quite a few people are going to have to do things they don’t want to do. Rather like it was like before society took the easy way and here we are today."

Yes change is need, granted, but analyse the issues and start with criminal behaviour and not with people suffering from life long conditions they do not choose and who are entitled to lead the lives they want unless or until it threatens them or others.

The moral decline of Western culture is not down to the 10% of people with a bi-polar condition! You never see them marching on the streets demanding society should be moulded around their wants and needs, now do you?

25 May 2013 at 23:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. You’ll get used to it. Take banning abortion. That’s going to make a sizeable number of women bringing their child to term. There’s going to be some {AHEM} ‘demonstration problems’ and we are going to have to break a few heads, or hadn’t you thought about that. By the way, where do you get 10% from ?

25 May 2013 at 23:38  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
The 10% is likely an under estimation as many bi-polar people remain undiagnosed or become involved in alcohol or drug abuse to self-medicate. Its an estimate from some prevalence studies I have read - can't recall the sources - but it is widely accepted.

Making abortion illegal is likely to be a longish project and it is doubtful without a return to Christianity it will ever be achieved. Imposition is unlikely to be effective in this day and age and in the hedonistic climate in which we live.

For now, the approach has to be reducing the time limit for abortion, raising awareness about the suffering caused to children in their mother's wombs by abortion, and also the psychological harm to women who abort. We also need to get the message out that it is immoral.

It also means strengthening the link between sex, fidelity within marriage for life and being clear on the purposes of marriage. That's why I'm so opposed to homosexual 'marriage' and normalising the active expression of this deviancy.

26 May 2013 at 00:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Many years ago, this man read about a group of lefty psychiatrists who had this to say about the population. There is something ‘wrong’ with nearly all people. Presumably, the few who were ‘perfect’ included lefty psychiatrists. You will no doubt have heard of this gang, as another of their pronunciations is there is no such thing as evil in people. Merely individuals who get what they want at any cost, who need to reminded from time to time that actions involved in their pursuit, like killing others, is socially unacceptable.

Anyway, the point is, 1 in 10 of the population is far too high for what we call manic depression. Have you bought into the aforementioned thinking ?

The Inspector himself has the odd and enjoyable period of mania. And the odd and not enjoyable period of depression. WE ALL DO !

It’s called being alive...

26 May 2013 at 00:27  
Blogger William Spring said...

I first came across the NDS (National Death Service) in 1979 when a north London hospital made it a practise of bumping live children on the head after they were delivered. The intent had been to abort them using the prostaglandin drug which did not work in many cases; hence these babies were born in the middle of the night to the distress of nurses who were then told to murder the children, which most of them obediently did. I nurse however told her MP. All hell broke loose for her...from her NDS managers. Of course child destruction is a quite frequent occurence in the BPAS clinics. On its web site BP{AS boasts it is the specialist in late abortions...canauk director

26 May 2013 at 00:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Inspired by Mr Springs post, you better be prepared for drastic measures to end abortion. There will be opposition. We are talking poll tax riot intensity here. The swine that presently inhabit parliament are going to need a campaign similar to what the queer people managed with SSM to get them on side. Don’t tell this man you are a dreamer now, with no stomach for what lies ahead.


26 May 2013 at 01:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Not a dreamer sir, more a realist. You cannot impose right thinking or morality on a population.

As for bi-polar, well maybe you share some of the attributes of the condition in a mild form? There is a spectrum of intensity, you know. Some people do not need conventional treatment.

And I certainly do believe in evil - I've personally encountered it on a few very rare occasions.

26 May 2013 at 02:08  
Blogger David B said...

@ Albert 09.09

Why did I bring in Catholicism?

We are none of us infallible on the inner workings of our own brains, and many accounts of our motivations are confabulations and post hoc rationalisations.

However, when looking at the context of Catholic doctrine, which has done much which many would consider inhumane in what it perceives as the interests of the unborn, while at the same time abusing to the point of suicide, and covering up to the point of maintaining this abuse, significant numbers of those who have been born for years, and when we consider that just before composing that I had come across a self-identified Catholic advocating policies of compulsary sterilisation for people who, despite their problems, are often among the most creative and gifted people, it would be unsurprising if the iniquities of the Catholic Church were somewhat on my mind at that time.

I know that there are people who have been misled into being convinced Catholics but whose basic human decency often shines through.

Not that they are utterly immune from criticism, however. Why do you think it was that you picked up on the dig against the RCC, while ignoring the rest of what I said in that post?

David

26 May 2013 at 08:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


When ‘enlightened men’ like the worthy at 08:04 come to power and close the churches, you will no doubt read reams of that kind of rot as he justifies saving us from ourselves...

26 May 2013 at 14:25  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B said ...

"I know that there are people who have been misled into being convinced Catholics but whose basic human decency often shines through."

So kind of you. Have you always been so self opinionated and patronising, or is it an acquired trait?

26 May 2013 at 22:54  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

From hero to zero in one post!

You railed against a 'gay' nazi type situation in respect of gay marriage... yet here you are advocating a Nazi solution to the mentally disabled??!

SHAME! SHAME SHAME!

(And double standards!).

26 May 2013 at 23:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, so you are dyslexic. You do realise that your university qualifications were thus given to you in pity, as opposed to earned ? Beginning to make sense now...

26 May 2013 at 23:59  
Blogger David B said...

Peter wrt

""I know that there are people who have been misled into being convinced Catholics but whose basic human decency often shines through."

So kind of you. Have you always been so self opinionated and patronising, or is it an acquired trait?"

I have generally been self opinionated, as have, I imagine, all those who contribute to these comments.

I'm sorry that you look upon what I see as simple truth as patronising. which part of what I said do you disagree with, and on what grounds?

David

27 May 2013 at 00:03  
Blogger David B said...

Inspector, you have never seen me advocating closing churches.

Do you mislead deliberately, or are you just monumentally stupid?

The two, of course, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

David

27 May 2013 at 00:06  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Three fingers of mine. Two are brackets...

Now, go and think about your hypocritical stance on the issues.

In posts below :

gays are the Nazi Party.

This post:

Inspector : we should sterilize all people with bipolar disorder.

Fascism in Germany :

'Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses'

27 May 2013 at 00:11  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Or as Peter D said :

"Inspector

You know nothing of the bi-polar condition and yet you casually suggest sterilisation for all those who may have the condition - either enforced or voluntary .

To think, not only do you claim to be a Catholic"

27 May 2013 at 00:13  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B said ...
"I'm sorry that you look upon what I see as simple truth as patronising. which part of what I said do you disagree with, and on what grounds?"?

ROLF ... if you really can't see it then - putting it as kindly as I can - you really are wrapped up in yourself!

"I know that there are people who have been misled into being convinced Catholics ..."

How do you know this? In what way does the Church mislead people?

" ... but whose basic human decency often shines through."

You think being a Catholic is a barrier to to decency? In what way, exactly? And what do you mean by the term 'basic human decency'?

27 May 2013 at 00:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah. at 00:11

The usual hyperbole from you, my dear. One does not agree that what he wrote on those subjects are neatly concised as you have it.

27 May 2013 at 11:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Interesting. You don’t see your constant carping about Christianity culminating in proscription.

Your naivety does so remind this man of the founding ‘fathers’ of communist Russia.


27 May 2013 at 11:53  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector said...
"Hannah. at 00:11

The usual hyperbole from you, my dear. One does not agree that what he wrote on those subjects are neatly concised as you have it."


Well, here's what you said:

"Individuals who are bi polar should be offered sterilisation. In some cases, it would be appropriate to carry it out anyway, depending on the severity of mental derangement. Not what you might expect from a man who considers himself a Roman Catholic, but what have we got here. A living hell so the condition is."

Care to elaborate on the process of selection procedure for those considered severly mentally deranged? And, perhaps you could also elaborate on how any of this this is consistent with Catholicism and the Freedom Association.

27 May 2013 at 15:02  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Just pointing out that you called gay activists as being like Nazis because they were 'bullies'. Then here you are suggesting something which fits in neatly with Nazi ideology (and something which I wouldn't agree with btw). Just trying to connect these two dots, that is all...

27 May 2013 at 15:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah. Well done. We have finally corrected from ‘gays are the NAZI party’ to what this man actually said, to wit, gays are behaving like NAZI bullies. For God’s sake, if you ever decide on a career in journalism, get someone to talk you out of it...

27 May 2013 at 16:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Peter D. One of the necessities for a truly free society, real freedom if you will, is that each and every one us us takes responsibility for ourselves. Now, there are those amongst us who abdicate responsibility. Female drug addicts, for example. If they cannot become clean, they get sterilised, or would you rather a toddler in a bedsit watching on as mummy shoots up.

There are those of us who will never be able to take responsibility. If, for example, the bi polar woman who is in and out of mental health establishments, she gets sterilised, or would you rather a toddler in tow each time she goes in.

Can’t you see, you are freeing these people from responsibilities they cannot handle. Or is that wrong to you, unless of course, there is a chance that YOU might be the toddler. YOU wouldn't want that now, but if it’s someone else, that’s different...


27 May 2013 at 16:29  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Still doesn't explain why you are advocating a fascist policy and apparently suggesting this of another group in society (untrue btw)? But then as others have said your Christianity is very unorthodox.

27 May 2013 at 16:59  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

At the risk of both sides throwing bricks at me...

In a world where there is reliable contraception which is not dependent on the mental state of the woman using it (hormonal implants and at need, the coil though this has other problems) - just why is sterilisation being suggested? Surely it would be far more reasonable to suggest some reliable means of temporarily preventing pregnancy while allowing for a woman's potential eventual improvement and possible future wish to have children?

27 May 2013 at 17:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah. Bloody idiotic statement. A ‘fascist’ policy ???

27 May 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Sister Tiberia. You fancy being the child of a drug addict turned prostitute ? Why wish it on someone else then ?

27 May 2013 at 17:31  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

In actual fact the fascist/Nazi policy was 'Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses' or 'Sterilisation Law' as I said above.

27 May 2013 at 17:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Other fascist policies included effective law and order and taxation. You can’t take one policy and label it purely fascist...

27 May 2013 at 17:42  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Why do you think it was that you picked up on the dig against the RCC, while ignoring the rest of what I said in that post?

Because I had already commented on the general thrust of the whole post. I think abortion is murder, I think that you advocate the murder of innocent children, while complaining about child abuse. Not that I disagree about the latter, I just find that position somewhat contradictory. But that is evident from what I had already written. There was no need to comment on your post.

Now, as to the Inspector's views on sterilisation, they are clearly contrary to the explicit teaching the of the Church.

As to child abuse in the Church, words are not fit to speak of how terrible it is. But that does not alter the fact that child abuse in the Church "took off" in the 60s because of the general rise in abuse in society as a whole (itself a consequence of the liberalisation of sexuality), that child abuse in the Church remained at much lower levels than in society, and that it declined much more quickly than in society as a whole.

You mention cover-ups. Again this is reprehensible, but not particularly Catholic. We now know that most of the abuse wasn't covered up by the bishops, because most of it wasn't known.

Meanwhile, more and more abuse keeps coming out of other areas (where it had been similarly covered-up) - the BBC, problems in the CofE etc. The attempt to land this on the Catholic Church, though rhetorically effective, is increasingly detached from the actual evidence - and, in my opinion, puts children at risk in other areas (I think the self-confessed child protection chaos in the CofE is evidence of this).

I am interested that you did not comment on the actual evidence I cited.

27 May 2013 at 19:35  
Blogger Peter D said...

Sister Tiberia
Well yes, but chasity belts and their male equivalent would be just as efficient!

You really want to pass to a secular, atheist State the right to determine who has contraception imposed upon them? Besides, it would contravene medical ethics as they currently stand in the treatment of psychiatric conditions.

The above is quite apart from Catholic teachings on the morality of contraception - which don't, in the majority of cases, actually prevent the conception of new life. Remember the basic theological premise: do nothing evil that some good may result.

The exercise of compassion has to take place within a moral framework.

Inspector
Talk about hyperbole!!!!

So now women with bi-polar conditions are drug addicted prostitutes! Do get a grip, man.

I'm clear that if any parent is unable to meet the needs of infants, or incapable of meeting them, then they are failing in their responsibilities and parental rights can and should be removed. Every avenue of support for parent and child must be explored and exhausted first, before and after the birth. Thereafter, if a child is or is likely to suffer significant harm, then adoption or more permanent kinship care atrrangements become reasonable options. The key is moving early and decisively.

27 May 2013 at 19:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Inspector may well change his name to Galileo. Peter D, not you too, twisting this man’s words. Mock if you need to...

Interesting though, you can deprive a mother of her child, but absolutely deny her sterilisation. Very Interesting.

27 May 2013 at 19:50  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

We are discussing whether or not mentally ill people should be sterilized or not.

I don't agree with that. I point out that this is a fascist approach. You deny that. Yet you call gays 'fascists'.

Catholics would say 'abortion' also includes using condoms in sex. So forgive me if I get a bit hyperbole over your comments. Could it be your Catholicism ONLY applies when it involves gay bashing?

27 May 2013 at 19:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Furthermore Inspector, you constantly gloat about how the loving Jesus compares to our Jewish deity. Yet your posts are among the least loving or compassionate on this blog.

27 May 2013 at 20:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, least loving or compassionate ! What’s that got to do with the price of fish ?

27 May 2013 at 20:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Hannah,

Catholics would say 'abortion' also includes using condoms in sex.

What's your evidence for that?

27 May 2013 at 20:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, at one time RCs were not allowed to be cremated. Presumably, the oft worn out cadaver was required for the resurrection. They are now. Same thing will happen with birth control...

27 May 2013 at 20:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert, where is the evidence for most of what she comes out with...

27 May 2013 at 20:24  
Blogger Albert said...

That's as may be Inspector. Where is your evidence for this claim:

Same thing will happen with birth control... ?

I regret the change on cremation, but I think arguments of the type "the Church has changed X therefore the Church can change Y" to be somewhat lacking! Accordingly, I think the "If the Church disagrees with me today, she will agree with me tomorrow" is rather dated.

I don't think it is at all likely that the Church will change her teaching on birth control. Even if there was a moral case for it (which there isn't), even if Natural Family Planning were hopeless (and it isn't), the social effects of artificial contraception (not to mention the fact that it seems to have resulted in more unwanted pregnancies and abortions), will be sufficient to keep the Church faithful.

27 May 2013 at 20:35  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Oh nothing. Just keep on posting as you usually do. I am sure your chum will be around shortly trying to 'redeem' you as your the lost sheep or whatever.

27 May 2013 at 21:14  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Albert,

OK, my evidence is from the posts here on this blog. I guess you are going to tell me I am wrong and that is it OK for Catholics to use condoms whilst having sex? If so, I do apologise, but that is not the impression I get from the discussions between you all here.

27 May 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Inspector,

I don't have a problem with cultural Catholics at all. I just question why you seem to hold being- anti-gay, as the only tenant of your faith. Everything else is up for discussion or your own interpretation, as far as you are concerned, it seems.

So if your Church can change its position on cremation and also 'birth control', I guess you will look forward to the day when it allows women Priests and gay marriage? (:

27 May 2013 at 21:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Hannah,

It was not the opposition to condoms I was referring to, but the idea that using condoms is included under abortion.

Beyond that, I think you comment against the Inspector is well taken. It makes no sense for a Catholic to be pro-contraception and anti-gay.

27 May 2013 at 21:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Even if there was a moral case for it (which there isn't),”

Oh Lord. Not that one Albert. You know damn well that if Pope Francis lifted the ban on contraception this very minute, before the night is out you’ll be posting “And now that the ban on contraception is lifted...”


27 May 2013 at 21:29  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert
"I don't think it is at all likely that the Church will change her teaching on birth control."

If it did, it wouldn't be the Catholic Church and the teaching would be invalid.

Inspector
" ... you can deprive a mother of her child, but absolutely deny her sterilisation. Very Interesting."

I'm arguing against the uninformed and prejudiced opinions you express in advocating the compulsory sterilisation of the mentally ill. As it happens, morally and ethically, I would also have objections to voluntary sterilisation too.

"Hannah, least loving or compassionate ! What’s that got to do with the price of fish ?"

It has everything to do with our approach to proclaiming and living by God's revealed purposes for us.

Hannah

I think you're confusing oral contraception with condoms. Both are morally unacceptable because they unnaturally break the link between love making and procreation. Many of the oral contraceptives also act as methods of abortion in that they do not prevent conception but prevent the fertilised egg from surviving.

"I am sure your chum will be around shortly trying to 'redeem' you as your the lost sheep or whatever."

Ummmm .... its not for me to redeem anyone - that's between the person and his response to Christ.

27 May 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. On the RCC allowing contraception “If it did, it wouldn't be the Catholic Church and the teaching would be invalid.”

What do you know. You are just an amateur theologian, and if the pope said Jump, by Christ you would, and you wouldn't ask any questions either.

27 May 2013 at 22:51  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

That just goes to show what a poor judge of character you are. The Pope has no authority to break with established infallible teaching - Paul VI recognised this, thank God.

The teaching on contraception is woven into the fabric of Christianity and Catholicism. Should Pope Francis make an ex-cathedra statement along the lines you suggest, then he would be teaching heresy and would become infamous as an anti-pope.

But then, you don't think the Church should say anything on sex, do you? So, answer me this, on what basis are you opposed to homosexuality?

27 May 2013 at 23:06  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Albert/Peter D,

I'll readily admit that I only get snippets about Roman Catholicism from this blog; I'm more familiar with Anglican and Protestant forms of Christianity.

I did try and google, but I felt that your faith is as Judaism on the net- easily misinterpreted and open to vicious websites.

So, I guess I have used the wrong terms, but that it stands that usage of condoms is not on as far as the Catholic teachings go? I have no points to score on that, but am interested in how this 'fits in' with your belief system. Again, I might be confused but if life starts when a sperm and an egg fuse, then surely that is destroying life and so isn't right (from your POV?). So that is like abortion? Or have I got the logic wrong (from your POV?).

27 May 2013 at 23:26  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D,

I thought Inspector was a lost goat or something? I understand you need to draw him back to his own faith.

Good luck and G-d bless with that (meant in a nice, not a horrid way, btw).

27 May 2013 at 23:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Peter D. “The teaching on contraception is woven into the fabric of Christianity and Catholicism.”

Bullshit. The RCC had nothing to do with bedroom activity until lately. Why do you lie ? What do you hope to gain from it ?


27 May 2013 at 23:55  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

You do have very interesting views. One minute you are soooo right wing it makes me cringe and the next you are quite liberal?!

But all to good, so if the Church shouldn't have a say in 'bedroom activity' why do you oppose gay marriage so much? I guess it isn't to do with your religion?

28 May 2013 at 00:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

You really are a dunce - go and stand in the corner!

28 May 2013 at 00:17  
Blogger Peter D said...

Hannah

The Church teaches that the gift of human sexuality is for the expression of love between man and woman and for the procreation of human life.

Contraception - any unnatural method of preventing conception - and all unproductive sexual acts between heterosexuals and homosexuals are, on this basis, considered to be immoral. So too, for that matter, is masturbation.

Abortion is considered to be murder and a direct affront to God.

28 May 2013 at 00:23  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ps

Not 'unproductive' in the sense that a person might not conceive or be able to, but acts that in their very nature cannot produce human life.

28 May 2013 at 00:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

Not that one Albert. You know damn well that if Pope Francis lifted the ban on contraception this very minute, before the night is out you’ll be posting “And now that the ban on contraception is lifted...”

Not at all, I suspect that if that happened, I would respond as PeterD has suggested. But I note with interest that the ban was not lifted last night, that's because it won't be lifted.

Jesus said: When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Now if the Holy Spirit can only teach what he hears, how can the Holy Father teach what he likes? The Pope does not have a ministry over the Church's teaching, but rather, to proclaim the Church's teaching. That teaching (contrary to what you say at 2355) has remained the same: sex is immutably connected with procreation.

Now of course, in situations in which the Church's teaching is unclear, the Pope has a particular role of discernment, but that is not the case here. The Church's teaching is clear and explicit, and the Pope can only hand on this teaching which he has heard.

As Vatican II makes clear:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

In order to be Pope, the Pope must first submit to the teaching of the Church - what he hears of the Spirit speaking through his predecessors. As he is doing this, he can hardly then change the teaching without being open to the accusation of being a false pope.

And if the Pope does submit to the teaching of his predecessors, why don't you?

The RCC had nothing to do with bedroom activity until lately.

That's just plain wrong. To quote the highest authority:

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man

28 May 2013 at 09:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Hannah,

Thank you. Yes, the internet seems to be a place where people can write anything to discredit anything!

I might be confused but if life starts when a sperm and an egg fuse, then surely that is destroying life and so isn't right (from your POV?). So that is like abortion? Or have I got the logic wrong (from your POV?).

I think Peter has answered this: there is a fundamental moral different between artificially preventing life and destroying it once it has started. Both are wrong, but only the latter is an abortion.

28 May 2013 at 09:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Albert. the internet seems to be a place where people can write anything to discredit anything!

Oh dear, to think that the Inspector has had the audacity to comment on the holy of holies, sex. He craves your indulgence on this issue…

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man

You know damn well it’s nothing to do with the teaching of the church on adultery and fornication, or come to that, homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, all of which this man agrees with. Still, you thought it no harm to drop that line in. Presumably, it will help to bounce opinion, do you think ? And anyway, what of “The teaching on contraception is woven into the fabric of Christianity and Catholicism.”. Is that the extent of it, that comprehensive teaching on for out of the heart. Nothing else ?

This man repeats himself. The church had nothing to do with what a married couple did in their own privacy, with the exception of buggery therein. It is only recently the genitals have been raised to divine status – there was a time the church was more interested into getting souls into heaven. The body was considered a mere carriage of the soul. Now apparently, we have the keys to the kingdom of heaven between our legs, of all places.

Sperm is not sacred, and eggs are not divine. They are mere instruments of the body, like saliva is to the digestive process. The continued alienation of the faithful by mother church on this issue is a bigger sadness than the blasted reformation ! The apparent view of the magisterium that each individual is the sum of two parts, soul and genitals, is grotesque.



28 May 2013 at 19:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

You know damn well it’s nothing to do with the teaching of the church on adultery and fornication

I was simply answering the point you made:

The RCC had nothing to do with bedroom activity until lately.

If by that you meant, it had nothing to do with contraception, as opposed to "bedroom activity", why didn't you say so? Anyway, you're still wrong. As the so-called "Minority report" stated in the 1960s:

One can find no period of history, no document of the church, no theological school, scarcely one Catholic theologian, who ever denied that contraception was always seriously evil. The teaching of the Church in this matter is absolutely constant. Until the present century this teaching was peacefully possessed by all other Christians, whether Orthodox or Anglican or Protestant.

Writing in 1972 GEM Anscombe, one of the most important moral philosophers of the last century (and a convert to Catholicism) came to the defence of Paul VI on this. Not only did she defend the teaching philosophically and morally, she defended it historically:

From '64 onwards there was an immense amount of propaganda for the reversal of previous teaching. You will remember it. Then, with the whole world baying at him to change, the Pope acted as Peter. "Simon, Simon," Our Lord said to Peter, "Satan has wanted to have you all to sift like wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith should not fail: thou, being converted, strengthen thy brethren." Thus Paul confirmed the only doctrine which had ever appeared as the teaching of the Church on these things; and in so doing incurred the execration of the world.

But Athenagoras, the Ecumenical Patriarch, who has the primacy of the Orthodox Church, immediately spoke up and confirmed that this was Christian teaching, the only possible Christian teaching.


You might find her article interesting, precisely because of the link she makes between contraception, tradition, homosexuality and abortion.

Now knowing that Church teaching on this has always linked sex and procreation, knowing that artificial contraception has gone hand in hand with rising unwanted pregnancies and abortions, knowing that the whole contraceptive movement was founded by Hitler loving eugenicists, like Stopes, and knowing that the whole thing undermines the coherence of the Church against homosexual acts, knowing that this has been solemnly and repeatedly taught by the Church, how can you dissent from it? Instead, you join with the execration of the world against the pillar and bulwark of truth.

28 May 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger Albert said...

BTW Inspector, my comment about the internet was not directed to you, but to Hannah's comment on how misleading the internet can be.

28 May 2013 at 19:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Thank you Albert, could this be the truth of it....

knowing that artificial contraception has gone hand in hand with rising unwanted pregnancies and abortions,

Obviously, allow contraception and the Catholic world would collapse. Formerly devout men and women will be visiting other peoples house on a regular basis thereafter. Lots more to say on this but somewhat tired, so not tonight.

By the way, if you have an argument, try to keep the queers out of it. If you need to justify the ban on contraception by continually referring to those odd balls, you are on bloody thin ground...


28 May 2013 at 20:02  
Blogger Albert said...

By the way, if you have an argument, try to keep the queers out of it. If you need to justify the ban on contraception by continually referring to those odd balls, you are on bloody thin ground...

But I don't need to, Inspector. I keep referring to homosexuality as a kind of ad hominem tu quoque. Your position - in favour of contraception, but fiercely opposed to homosexual acts - strikes me, and more importantly, it seems, the Church also - as inconsistent. This point has been picked up by Peter and Hannah as well. That's my point: if you think sex can be put asunder from the procreation to which God joined it, why have such worries about homosexuality? From the other end of the argument, Robert Runcie once admitted that the CofE changed her teaching on homosexuality in 1930, when she changed her teaching on contraception.

28 May 2013 at 20:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. Your position - in favour of contraception, but fiercely opposed to homosexual acts - strikes me, and more importantly, it seems, the Church also - as inconsistent.

Are you barking, Sir ?

This man has met many an academic firmly up their own behind, but admits that until now, he never considered you of that ilk...

28 May 2013 at 20:40  
Blogger Albert said...

I would simply ask you to look at the evidence, Inspector - Runcie's take on the CofE is instructive.

28 May 2013 at 21:45  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

You religious beliefs are up to you, but I can't quite respect your positions. I think that if you were attacking gay marriage (as others here do, including me) on the basis of religious conviction then I could respect and appreciate that.

But you clearly don't hold to your own religion's views when it comes to other issues.

Putting aside the whole issue of condoms and what the Churches says or does not say about the 'bedroom':

1.If you don't want the Church to comment on sexual activity, why claim as a Roman Catholic your opposition to gay sex and gay marriage? Surely if the Church shouldn't talk about hetrosexual sexual activity, it shouldn't on gay issues either.

2.I certainly cannot see why the Catholic Church would endorse sterilization for people with Bi-polar disorder. For the record I have a dear Christian friend who is bi-polar and has brought a baby to term and mother and daughter are fine.

28 May 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D/Albert,

Thank you for 'filling in' my missing gaps with regards to these issues. I don't see the problem with masturbation, but I don't want to go there...on this thread.


28 May 2013 at 22:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah. Male homosexuality is based around the veneration of the penis and anus. It is disgusting, as it involves faecal matter and the haemorrhaging of the lower intestine. Do you know where the Pink from Pink Triangle comes from ? It comes from mixing blood with semen.

Now look, you may be a starry eyed lesbian, but bloody well grow up. If you cannot appreciate the strong feelings red bloodied men have about homosexuality, then butt out...


28 May 2013 at 22:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

{AHEM} Was that strong enough ?

28 May 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

It is disgusting, as it involves faecal matter and the haemorrhaging of the lower intestine.

That may be disgusting to you (and me), but is a purely emotional response a moral argument? Evidently, it is not disgusting to those who indulge in it, and what about a homosexual who does not indulge in that particular act? On the other hand, heterosexuality can be disgusting to homosexuals. There's got to be something more objective than just our emotional responses.

28 May 2013 at 23:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Ah, there you are Albert. Back to contraception. One is reminded of the priests that call it ‘mutual masturbation’, but when the article concerned is the contraceptive pill, this argument is nullified.

One is gratified you find the homosexual act equally as disgusting as this man, and rather a shame our MPs haven’t, but answer this. Haven’t you Catholic taleban types enough ammo against contraception without needing to drag homosexuality into it. If you are on a sticky wicket, admit to it...


28 May 2013 at 23:39  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector said ...

"Hannah. Male homosexuality is based around the veneration of the penis and anus. It is disgusting, as it involves faecal matter and the haemorrhaging of the lower intestine."

Your objections are based on feeling of disgust alone and not on any sense of sexual morality.

"Now look, you may be a starry eyed lesbian, but bloody well grow up. If you cannot appreciate the strong feelings red bloodied men have about homosexuality, then butt out..."

Interestingly, I consider myself a red blooded male but the physical aspects of homosexual sex really don't bother me too much as I tend not to dwell on the detail of them. Believe me, I've seen and witnessed far greater obscenities. Granted, anal penetration - man on man or man on woman and even woman on man (don't ask Hannah!) - is depraved and should attract censor. For most people this means a feeling of disgust too. However, that's a reaction, similar to witnessing a murder, it isn't the reason they are immoral.

So are other forms of homosexual sex that avoid anal penetration acceptable to you? If so why? If not, why not?

Tell me honestly, do you consider lesbian genital contact/sexual play as disgusting as male homosexuality? Is it therefore as acceptable? Is it moral?

28 May 2013 at 23:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I have no intention of butting out.

I see you haven't actually addressed any of the issues I have raised, although I can see that your response to gay people is based around nothing more than prejudice, rather than any kind of genuine religious belief on your part...

hence the 'red bloodied males' comment, hence your dislike of discussing your religion's other beliefs with regards to sexual practices. And hence your beliefs with regards to sterilizing people who suffer from mental illness.

You said on another thread I was mocking Christianity. Isn't that what you do all the time?

28 May 2013 at 23:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

there you are Albert. Back to contraception.

But this whole discussion arose because you said:

at one time RCs were not allowed to be cremated. Presumably, the oft worn out cadaver was required for the resurrection. They are now. Same thing will happen with birth control...

So of course I'm going to talk about Catholic teaching on birth control. That's the topic - or to be more precise, your rejection of Church teaching on the subject.

One is reminded of the priests that call it ‘mutual masturbation’, but when the article concerned is the contraceptive pill, this argument is nullified.

Well I really don't see how.

Haven’t you Catholic taleban types

You say the nicest things...

enough ammo against contraception without needing to drag homosexuality into it. If you are on a sticky wicket, admit to it...

As I have said, I do not appeal to homosexuality to defend my views on contraception. On the contrary, following the teaching of the Church, I hold the views I do on homosexuality because of what I believe about contraception, not the other way around. But the issue here is your rejection of Church teaching and the contradictions that arise in your position as a result. So far as I can see, your position has been based on a wholly unCatholic approach to the Magisterium and a quite false grasp of Church history.

As a matter of interest, what would it take for you to believe the Church is right on this matter?

29 May 2013 at 08:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What’s the point in continuing this Albert. Your obstinacy on the subject has seen to that. You’re a Catholic convert alright. You’ve no compassion for anyone else who doesn’t fly the flag and who have to live their lives to the constraints of their income and usually small dwelling. Frankly, if there is sin in the air, it’s bringing into this world human life raised in stressful conditions. But then, that’s not your problem, is it ?

29 May 2013 at 19:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Obstinacy Inspector? That word is used in Catholic circles to describe those who do not accept Church teaching. In any case, you miss the fact that Natural Family Planning, if used properly is more effective than condoms (so says the abortion promoting National Family Planning Association website). So it seems that every point of fact you have raised in this discussion has been wrong. So will you now repent of your obstinacy?

29 May 2013 at 19:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Damned cheek ! Certainly not. Now be off with you, lest you find this fellows boot at your pants...

29 May 2013 at 19:53  
Blogger LEN said...

Those who do not subscribe to 'Catholic teaching' could I suppose be called 'the enlightened few' who prefer to follow Christ rather than the Catholic religion?.

29 May 2013 at 20:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

Certainly not.

So you admit that you are refusing to repent! :-)

29 May 2013 at 20:44  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I am not sure why you are attacking Albert because he 1) doesn't have any compassion and 2) Is a convert*

Because you asked me on this thread, when I said you yourself did not show any compassion, you replied :

'least loving or compassionate ! What’s that got to do with the price of fish ?'

So it is strange how you decry albert:

' You’ve no compassion for anyone else who doesn’t fly the flag '

Of course it is entirely compassionate to attack other races, gays and people with mental illness.

And the convert bit. I often find converts to religions are often more devout and stick to their beliefs, than those 'born' into it.

*what is it with Catholics and converts? Bloody hell, if it wasn't for mass conversion by the RCC, it would be a big culturally European, but not global religion.

29 May 2013 at 20:45  
Blogger Albert said...

I'm just wondering who you had in mind Len. Those who do not subscribe to Catholic teaching would seem to cover rather a lot of people - not just our own Inspector.

29 May 2013 at 20:45  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Len,

Inspector is one of the 'enlightened few'?

LOL!

I am sure that Jesus of yours would mirror the views of Inspector, if he were around today...

29 May 2013 at 20:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Albert,

As I understand it, from reading Len's posts :

Len is an honest bible believing, jesus loving christian, rather than being part of a 'religion', per se, as pure christianity is not a religion, but has been corrupted into one by the Roman Church. In addition he and everyone else must be 'born again', to be 'saved' (I think that's a fair description of our Len!).

29 May 2013 at 20:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Hannah,

I think that's a fair description of our Len!

Yes I agree (just not a fair description of either Christianity or those with whom he disagrees!).

29 May 2013 at 21:13  
Blogger Albert said...

I am sure that Jesus of yours would mirror the views of Inspector, if he were around today...

That's an interesting one. I wonder what Len thinks Jesus would have to say about artificial contraception.

29 May 2013 at 21:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, you would make a bloody awful wife. A fellow doesn't want his rants scrutinised, you know !

29 May 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

LOL!

OK I guess you've been through enough today, especially if you watched the bbc news and the item on France's first gay marriage and a gay couple kissing each other... poor old you. Be brave!

29 May 2013 at 23:08  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Albert,

Hmmm, my comment was somewhat sarcastic, noting Len not being able to help himself with a little against Catholicism there.

And I cannot really say, one way or the other if Len's views are correct or not. But the whole thing about being 'born again' is something I just don't get, even when I went to the Alpha Course.

29 May 2013 at 23:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
"You’re a Catholic convert alright."

Well, I'm not and I agree with every word of Albert.

LEN
"Those who do not subscribe to 'Catholic teaching' could I suppose be called 'the enlightened few' who prefer to follow Christ rather than the Catholic religion?."

So, you believe the Inspector's views are "enlightened"?

Just to be clear on this, do you agree or disagree with Catholic teaching on artificial birth control, abortion and homosexuality? They are all interrelated logically consistent.

In the West, the Catholic Church alone has stood consistently against all of these great evils of the 20th and 21st centuries. Is it wrong to do so?

30 May 2013 at 00:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Peter,

Well, I'm not and I agree with every word of Albert.

It's funny isn't it? Last week, a certain blogger was accusing converts of never really getting the idea of truth, this week, what makes me a convert is the fact that I actually believe what the Church teaches.

I thought that's what made a Catholic - the pick and mix approach being the mark of Protestantism.

30 May 2013 at 09:32  
Blogger Albert said...

Hannah,

Don't worry, I did spot the irony. Yes, Len may well be being torn. All his instincts will force him to side with the Inspector and disagree with Catholicism and at the same time, all his instincts will force him to agree with Catholic teaching.

Come on Len! Don't leave us in suspense!

30 May 2013 at 09:34  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I would be interested to know what you think makes a Catholic Albert?

30 May 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

Well for starters, I would say communion with the Holy See through the local Catholic bishop and by submitting to the teaching of the Church.

What do you think it means?

30 May 2013 at 13:24  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

Really aren't we all converts to Catholicism?

Your definition is the outcome of some earlier first steps, surely? These being a relationship with Christ and an acceptance of the scriptural basis for the authority of the one universal Church. You're right though, it is communal membership of the Catholic Church and acceptance of its teachings that is the defining outward appearance.

As s 'cradle Catholic' these steps tend to merge and I, for one, accepted the authority of the Church, then rebelled, before my fuller 'conversion', so to speak.

For a convert from another denomination or faith - a brave decision given the general protestant downer on the Church - these steps will be more discrete.

Let's remember all the Apostles were 'converts' led by Jesus through a journey of spiritual growth. Now, my father used to say the early Jewish Christians were actually authentic Jews because they understood and accepted Jesus.

And, of course, Saint Paul was the most dramatic early convert!

30 May 2013 at 14:36  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Yes Albert I did say last week that your grasp on truth left a lot to be desired and this week according to Hannah's opinion makes you a convert because you are upholding the teachings of the Church.As a former Anglican and born again Jew I do not regard her opinion as informed particularly with matters pertaining to the Catholic Church.She is anti Catholic (well at the moment anyway.)

I know what it does not mean. It does not mean being a robot. I was not raised as a submissive slave fearful of questioning the Church's teachings.From my experience most of the Church's values are based on generosity truth common sense and decency. A Catholic must have intrinsic concept of truth.. not lying to yourself because you cannot lie to God.As much as I disagree strongly with some of the Inspector's unacceptable views there is no doubt about what he means and states. He is straight communicator because he was raised in this way.
Peter is not a theologian but his expression of Catholic teaching far surpasses yours in the terms of catholic essence even though you have more knowledge on the subject.
The " how to be a Catholic " books cannot teach you that..it is an honesty, a kind of sincerity even spirituality which you are lacking. It is quite a contrary thing to being submissive and obsequious.
I live with a fully fledged Anglican and we have had a lot of discussion about these matters. He went to an Anglican Church school and his grandfather was a vicar.I will not elaborate on his views because it would be too offensive to the Anglicans here.I know you wont have any idea what I am talkng about...but Albert..I spotted you almost immediately as being a convert...there has to be a reason for that and also Darter Noster.
Maybe one of the other Catholics might have a better way of enlightening you.

30 May 2013 at 14:54  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Cressida,

'according to Hannah's opinion makes you a convert because you are upholding the teachings of the Church'.

Um. I not sure I commented upon how Albert got his faith; I made a general comment about why the negative attitude towards converts, especially in a religion that is based upon conversion; ironically I think that when you people claim Peter as the first of your Popes, he was ironically a CONVERT from the Jewish religion. I'm not a Catholic and yet Albert seems to state things in a manner which is in line with the Catholic Church and is always there to robustly defend that view and backs it up with evidence, so it seems impressive enough to me, but as I'll admit later I'm no walking library of the Catholic Church.

'As a former Anglican and born again Jew I do not regard her opinion as informed particularly with matters pertaining to the Catholic Church'.

Sorry dear, I've always been a Jew, albeit one who became secular to atheist and who has Christians as part of her family as well. But attending a Church does not make one an Anglican or a Christian- even I know that. Specifically I went to an alpha course. Which is as close as I got to being a christian (which isn't very).

Secondly, if you read my post at 27 May 2013 23:26, I freely admit that my knowledge of Catholic teaching is limited. In fact it has been Peter D, who has said numerous times Inspector's positions are not orthodox or in line with Christian, let alone Catholic teachings.

'She is anti Catholic (well at the moment anyway.)'

Not quite sure how you deduce that, although I guess it depends on what you mean by that term. I can't see that I've said anything that is particularly shocking here, given I am not a Catholic.

30 May 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

That's interesting. I agree that one should not be a robot with regard to Catholic teaching. But there is a clear difference between questioning Church teaching to understand what the Church means and how it applies and questioning as if one is one's own Magisterium. As the Church teaches:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

Would you agree with that?

It does seem to me that you do just have it in for converts. You objected (quite viciously, yet falsely as it turned out) to Darter Noster's position. On your reasoning, it is very hard to see how a convert can really become part of the Church - they will always be second class citizens, it seems to me. Not only is this uncharitable, it is plainly contrary to the Church's claim to universality and to actual experience (as Peter's most recent post helpfully points out).

Yes, I have read a lot of books, but more than that, I have learned from members of the Catholic clergy and laity. True, I am probably more fiercely orthodox than most cradle Catholics, but last week your complaint seemed to be that Catholics do not have an adequate view of unchangeable truth - i.e to be orthodox enough. Can you see why I find your posts confusing and disturbing?

30 May 2013 at 16:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good for you Cressida 14:54

No one should be forced to lie to themselves to fit in with Catholic dogma. We must proclaim what we think, if such thought has been considered over a long time. On the issue of sensible family planning, if may upset the Vatican, but one feels it would not upset your priest, or his bishop. Of course, if there are too many issues where you disagree with Catholicism, it may be that Catholicism is not for you. Haven’t come across too many Catholics who feel aggrieved on multi issues, just the one where they want to limit their family to within their means, while the Vatican pulls the rug from under them. And for what ? Well, if contraception within marriage was allowed, the biblical ban on gay sex would collapse, apparently. Damn bizarre if you ask this fellow…



30 May 2013 at 18:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
"No one should be forced to lie to themselves to fit in with Catholic dogma."

Agreed - you're free to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.

"We must proclaim what we think, if such thought has been considered over a long time."

Of course; and in doing so, you'll make a fine protestant.

"On the issue of sensible family planning, if may upset the Vatican, but one feels it would not upset your priest, or his bishop."

May be so, then this is how heresy spreads as a rule.

"Of course, if there are too many issues where you disagree with Catholicism, it may be that Catholicism is not for you."

Not sure you can pick and mix in this way here. You'll need to be clear on the issues. I seem to recall you ignore weekly Church attendance too. Have you run this one past your locl Priest and Bishop yet?

"Haven’t come across too many Catholics who feel aggrieved on multi issues, just the one where they want to limit their family to within their means, while the Vatican pulls the rug from under them."

There is a perfectly legitimate and effective way of responsibly planning one's family that is permitted by the Church.

"And for what ? Well, if contraception within marriage was allowed, the biblical ban on gay sex would collapse, apparently. Damn bizarre if you ask this fellow…"

Which suggests your IQ is actually lower than the alleged 120 you claim! You rally are rather dim if you've been unable to follow the logic on this one.

It seems to me you are obsessed with male homosexuality and not really opposed to it on theological grounds but rather on the basis of some deep felt disgust and a rather bizarre fixation on the mechanics and health risks associated with sodomy.

30 May 2013 at 20:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Next...

30 May 2013 at 20:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

Hannah said ...
"I think that when you people claim Peter as the first of your Popes, he was ironically a CONVERT from the Jewish religion."

Not strickly true from a Christian perspective. Most orthodox Christians believe that Christ fulfilled Judaism and as the Messiah all Jews should accept Him. So Petet and the early disciples were not converts in the strictest sense but, as my father used to say, the genuine Jews.

Cressida

Perhaps I'm more intuitive and speculative than Albert that's why I have a tendency to be somewhat impolite to others. Not always good. The calm, reasoned and logical presentation of Catholicism he makes is extremely helpful and, alongwith OldJim and others, has made me appreciate my faith more.

And you'll find some of the most profound thinkers in the Church have been converts.

As for the Inspector - yes he speaks his mind - but ..... his views in many areas most certainly are not Roman Catholic!

30 May 2013 at 20:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. This man is left wondering where the good news about a saviour and a church dedicated to him was supplanted by man’s thought on contraception to such a degree that responsible Catholics are told they act in shame. Where did it all go wrong ?



30 May 2013 at 20:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

This man is left wondering where the good news about a saviour and a church dedicated to him was supplanted by man’s thought on contraception to such a degree that responsible Catholics are told they act in shame.

Spoken like a true Protestant!

30 May 2013 at 21:43  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Let's be honest, its you who is apparently obsessed by homosexuality. Yet you seem unaware or ignorant of the Catholic moral objection to it.

And do look around. Society is collapsing because we're departing from God's will for us. Sexual *liberation* has effectively undermined the family. Why? Because the gift of sex is being misused because its two purposes (selfless giving and procreation) have been separated.

30 May 2013 at 21:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Listen you couple of whatevers, this man has only ever campaigned for contraception WITHIN marriage. If you don’t think Catholics are ready for that responsibility, just bloody well say so. Of course, it would mean a break from mindless obedience.

Don’t hide behind dubious doctrine foisted upon the church by bachelor priests....

“Sexual liberation” my arse. You are referring the godless world out there, not the faithful...

30 May 2013 at 22:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It's not a bloody gift - It's vital !

30 May 2013 at 22:32  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

When the Pill was first introduced it was available only to married women. That lasted about twenty minutes. Within a few months the teenage pregnancy rate was rising, and within a few years abortion was made legal. Meanwhile rates of births to unmarried women continued to rise. Now, according to today's paper, if you strip out the immigrants, the minority of children are born within wedlock (this despite the fact that marriage is the best institution within which to bring up children). Meanwhile, the rate of births within marriage declines, so that we have to import our manpower to keep our economy going with the result that we have home grown terrorists to blow us up on the underground and stab our soldiers to death. Finally, with the separation between sex and procreation completed in the popular mind a Conservative PM abolishes marriage as we know it to allow same-sex couples to marry. Most people it seems are in favour.

Given these numerous problems stemming artificial contraception (within marriage in its inception), how on earth can you have sufficient reason to depart from the teaching of the Church?

it would mean a break from mindless obedience.

As I've asked before, what evidence would break you from your obedience to the world on this? Everything you say you care for has been damaged by contraception!

Don’t hide behind dubious doctrine foisted upon the church by bachelor priests....

I came to the view that contraception was wrong before I became a Catholic - and, as a married man, it is a life enhancing teaching.

30 May 2013 at 22:54  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Albert

The reason I challenged DN initially was because I knew that he was not a cradle Catholic because of his original ignorance about the importance of confession. I do not think my treatment was unfair...too restrained if anything.

If contraception for you as a married man is a life enhancing experience then is not shared by the majority of Catholics.as the inspector says priests at the local level are not hammering this home h as you do Albert. I actually think this is wrong of them not to do so.I think Catholics who do take contraception and who engage in premarital sex and cohabit before marriage should not partake of the sacrements Even after marriage I do not think they should because most would have no remorse for having done so beforehand.And that is the key to forgiveness you actually genuinely have to be remorseful for what you have done,

Catholics are permitted to have sex within marriage during the woman's infertile cycle and even when she is menstruating. This seems hypocritical to me because sex is taking place without the intention of procreation.

No one is disagreeing that promiscuity is a result of the pill.
Other medication is strictly regulated with regard to dispensing it. In Moslem countries the pill is only available to married women.There was no reason why this could not have been the same. Anyway it is not a pertinent argument the Church does not allow any artificial contraception in any circumstances.

This may change in the future if the millions of Catholics stop being hypocrites and acknowledge this is Church ruling and stop taking communion...I do not think the contraception ruling is ex cathedra so it may well be changed in the future.I think I remember you saying this a long time ago Peter.

Peter ..Albert may have strengthened your faith but he has had the opposite effect on me regarding mine.I will continue to support most of Catholic dogma and if this makes me a quasi/cultural Catholic so be it. Generations of fine Catholics have been imprinted on my pysche and I am the result.







31 May 2013 at 00:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

Cressida

Don't take my comments personally. I know where you are coming from and understand your views. However, I could not accept a change in Church teaching on contraception whatever a future Pope might say or decide.

I've thought about it long and hard and really its the same basic Catholic principle: you cannot do evil that good might result from it. And so far as I'm concerned artificial contraception is against God's will for us.

Really, what does it mean for a married couple? A week or so of abstinence from love making during the period when conception might take place.

31 May 2013 at 01:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ps

Cressida - have you heard of the concept of "imperfect contrition" within Catholicism?

31 May 2013 at 01:05  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The Rhythm Method is not fool proof at all. Besides sex is for procreation so it is cheating if that is what you believe.This would also mean that infertile couples should not have sex.
We know that is not a ruling of the Church...so there must be another purpose to sex as well.. not just procreation if the Church is going to be consistent.Also to draw distinction between artificial and natural contraception is inconsistent if one is to believe that the purpose of sex is solely for procreation.

I have not heard of imperfection contrition. I have only heard of an act of perfect contrition.

I am not taking your comments personally. I know you are basically a compassionate person and that you must wrestle privately with some of the the Church's teachings unlike someone like Albert whose icy robotic disposition
would have no difficulty in doing so at all. I have not met many English converts..the ones I have met are just like Albert.Protestant baggage sticks somehow. I know many Hindu and Moslem converts and they are quite different.

31 May 2013 at 02:06  
Blogger Peter D said...

Cressida
The Church doesn't require couples be fertile or that every time they make love it must be with the intention of procreation. What it teaches is that sex has two purposes - selfless, unitive love and that it be open to the possibility of procreation.

An infertile couple can of course enjoy sex as there's no artificial barrier to procreation. So too love making can take place during the 'safe period' as, again, there is no artificial barrier to procreation. It is the wilful use of artificial methods to prevent pregnancy that is regarded as sinful. And I don't see this as splitting hairs or using the 'safe period' as equivalent to condom usage as some argue.

It's a while since I've thought about it and I hope I'm right here, but in Catholic teaching one can obtain forgiveness for serious through confession if one has sorrow for sin driven by a supernatural motive that is less than a perfect love of God.

Some of the motives for imperfect contrition are the fear of the hell, of losing heaven, of being punished by God in this life for one's sins, of being judged by God; a sense of disobedience to God or of ingratitude toward him; or the realisation of lost sanctifying grace.

Imperfect contrition is sufficient for remission of sin in the Sacrament of Confession. The remorse felt is imperfect in the sense that it is driven by an awareness of separation from God and/or fear of the consequences of sin.

Perfect contrition means detesting sin because it offends God. Its motive is founded on God's own personal goodness and not merely his goodness to the sinner or to humanity. This motive is what constitutes perfect sorrow. A perfect love of God, which motivates perfect contrition,

I'm no Priest nor theologian, but the reason I say this is that I believe it is possible to accept one has been disobedient to Church teaching, accepting the teaching as valid because of the authority given it by Christ, and ask for forgiveness because of the potential consequences of having sinned and wanting to restore one's relationship with Christ through His Church. Of course, there would have to be a firm intention not to repeat the sinful behaviour too.

31 May 2013 at 10:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

If you do not find my posts helpful, I suggest you do not read them.

31 May 2013 at 10:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Excellently put Peter. I would say that my own experience is that when I disbelieved Catholic teaching it was because I did not understand it. With hindsight, part of that misunderstanding was culpable - Protestants are brought up not to allow Catholicism a fair hearing. But my experience of allowing Christ to speak to me through the Catholic Church is joy beyond all expectation.

As Newman put it:

WHEN we consider the beauty, the majesty, the completeness, the resources, the consolations, of the Catholic Religion, it may strike us with wonder, my brethren, that it does not convert the multitude of those who come in its way.

When we consider what Newman says here and the inhumane soul destroying squalor of our age, the wonder of our own time is that the Catholic Religion does not even seem to convert Catholics.

31 May 2013 at 10:25  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

OK, I can't really comment on the what makes a Catholic argument, but I can undertstand where Cressida is coming from on the convert issue.

I have no dobut that Albert seems to think hard about his faith as does Darter, so it isn't a dig here against any individuals.

My experience on Christian conversion, or at least the protestant variety, is that is it all too easy for a person to convert in a click, sometimes,in the heat of the moment manner or if you've have pants scared off you with the stories of hell and damnation.

I don't know if this is a particular Protestant way of doing things, but it is all well and good having a full building, but is it that good if your converts haven't got a clue about the faith or if you've been swept up in the emotion of it all, what happens when 'real life' intrudes and things are not so rosey or wonderful and disallusion and lack of faith step in to fill the void?

Perhaps Catholicsm is different in that respect to Protesant evangelism; in Judaism it does take a fairly long time to convert, with you having to go before a Rabbincial court of at least 3 Rabbis, near the end of the process and I think our faith is better for it.

PS-

My second wife is a convert to Judaism and it took a couple of years to do so, but that worked well.

One of my step sons, who isn't Jewish, got involved in one of those 'free churches' and I wasn't impressed because he ended up being hurt by it and that was a result of one of those 'conversion' events.

And unfortunatley it has put him off the Christian faith, although he does like our Shabbat meal on a friday,as to him drinking wine and eating a meal with friends at home as well as praising G-d makes 'more sense'.

31 May 2013 at 11:17  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

PPS-

Peter, I sometimes wonder if Inspector is a Professor at a former poly, whose research is 'gay studies'. He seems to know more about the 'gay scene' than gays themselves?

31 May 2013 at 11:21  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

You are talking someone going from no faith to suddenly being "born again" in the Protestant sense. I am talking about being an Anglican (as was DN), worshipping, growing in faith, studying (I have two degrees in theology, DN seems to be more qualified than me) and eventually, after a long period of time coming to the conclusion that Catholicism is true. I think these are two quite different things.

The experience of converting is of great joy: like coming into port after a rough storm, as Newman said (and he had experienced that in the 19th Century, so we get a sense of his real joy at becoming a Catholic). Overwhelmingly, Catholics are very welcoming, but a very few (actually one in my entire experience as a Catholic), even though they do not believe the Church properly themselves, nevertheless look down on us, complain that we do not believe properly or that we believe too strictly.

31 May 2013 at 11:46  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 12:08  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 12:09  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Testing

31 May 2013 at 12:09  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Come judgement day Albert.. all your theological degrees will amount to nothing...you are hardly recognisable as a Christian let alone a Catholic..you do not have the faintest idea what it is to be a Catholic.
You do not have a compassionate bone in your body.Just remember this.. no one can fool God..not even a smart arse like you!

31 May 2013 at 12:17  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Albert thanks for that post. I think if you are being attacked being not orthodox or too orthodox enough then you are probably on the right track. Note also that i was at pains that my thoughts were not aimed at people personally. I agree that conversion takes time and is a leap. But i do feel i have to pinch myself, you catholics and protestants are the same religion? (one of my brothers dated an irish protestant and the first question was are u catholic, i guess the kippa gave that one away..)

31 May 2013 at 12:18  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

For the record DK Catholics and Protestant are not of the same religion and do not have the same belief system . There are many differences.

31 May 2013 at 12:38  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

CDN, appreciate that there differences there, despite the overall name 'christian'. I think mormons say they are christian, every other christian says no. Peter says you lot are the real jews, but british israelities claim the english are the real jews or at least a lost tribe. A very lost one me thinks. And me? Just a humble frum, whose being trying to get his side hair to curl without using a curler without much success. Funny old world isnt it?

31 May 2013 at 12:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

I was not boasting about my degrees in Theology, I was stressing the difference between my conversion and those which are, as David said, rather sudden "in a click".

you are hardly recognisable as a Christian let alone a Catholic..you do not have the faintest idea what it is to be a Catholic. You do not have a compassionate bone in your body.Just remember this.. no one can fool God..not even a smart arse like you!

As I have said, if you find my posts unhelpful, do not read them. Perhaps the gospels would be more suitable:

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

31 May 2013 at 13:07  
Blogger Albert said...

I think if you are being attacked being not orthodox or too orthodox enough then you are probably on the right track.

Thank you David. You can see the kind of nonsense one gets down here sometimes!

31 May 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Peter

Your explanation of imperfect contrition sounds like gobbldegook. You are starting to sound like Albert.
I do understand what imperfect contrition is except that I have not heard it called by that name...it is called an act of contrition.You do not have to be a theologian to understand Catholicism. I certainly understand it. I also understand that the majority of white middle class Catholics use artificial contraception.

Try this for a fairly common situation..John and Mary have been having sex for two years.They are Catholics and they both want a Church wedding. Mary needs to go to confession because she wants to take communion and reconcile to the Church. The question of reoffending is not pertinent because she will be married in a few days..She is not sorry that she has slept with her fiance even though she knew it was a sin . She wants to start afresh as a married Catholic. Do you think she has fulfilled the conditions for forgiveness?






31 May 2013 at 13:24  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

No we are not real jews DN.Peter has obviously been hanging out with Albert for too long.We have left you behind..moved on and upwards so to speak.Get Albert to tend to your curly sideburns.He is good at twisting and styling things into shape. You never know - he could be a hairdresser in real life.

31 May 2013 at 13:35  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Ah CDN, payot are optional, as based on leviticus 19, 27.... But i just thought i'd make the edl 'happy'. Albert as a hairdresser? What next? Inspector as an acas officer ? Im told curly hair is quiet a speciality to cut (according to my sisters). Now as we are on sin senarios, should i get a cool beer and sit in the garden? Or should i help mrs K in the kitchen, in hope i'll get shooed out with one? Its only coors light afterall and the kids are with their aunt for another hour....

31 May 2013 at 13:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Before this gets completely out of control, perhaps I can clarify for David a few things about Christian views on Jews. Firstly, to our shame, our behaviour towards Jews has often by profoundly sub-Christian.

As to what we believe, I think we can express it by appealing to scripture. Referring explicitly to the Jews, St Paul (himself a Jew, of course) says:

For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

So the Church has not displaced the Jews from the promises he gave to them. The call God gave them remains firm. However, St Paul also makes clear that

we [Christians] are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus

In that sense, we are also inheritors of the promises to Abraham, indeed it is of us that they spoke ("Father of a multitude" etc.). The fullness of God's Word is given in Jesus, but what God spoke and promised to the people of Israel remains true and valid.

The full quotation is:

As regards the gospel they [Jews - keep in mind they were persecuting Christians at the time] are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. Just as you [Gentile Christians] were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy. For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!

I hope that helps!

31 May 2013 at 13:56  
Blogger Albert said...

And no, I am not a hairdresser!

31 May 2013 at 13:57  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

CDN, yes i did see that as strange POV...

31 May 2013 at 14:25  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Looks like my dilemma has been solved. Aunties hannah and rachel are back with the kids. Theyve made a miniture to scale solar system. Got to get a tape measure so they can be laid out. Ooo and it looks like the water feature is being pilfered for the asteriod belt...

31 May 2013 at 14:37  
Blogger Albert said...

I am delighted David, that your dilemma has been resolved!

31 May 2013 at 14:50  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Ah albert thanks for that, i appreciate it. I have gathered, though, that there is a significant discussion between christians and in between prot and catholic; in february we a guy called thomas wood, who said i'd got to hell and damnation as wasnt a catholic... I have no idea what mormons think. I did have a few jws come round once. Not sure if the offer of salted herrings , lamb tagine, kiddush wine and scotch, put them off, or that invited them in for shabbat dinner, but i did most of the talking. And they didnt even stay.... Just got a leaflet with a michael york, circa logans run looking jesus on it.

31 May 2013 at 14:51  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

I would, as a conclusion that there is a similar emphasis on the family, between our faiths. I think most of our festivals have a big family friends house meal somewhere along the line, except yom kippur. And there is our weekly sabbath meals...

31 May 2013 at 15:03  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

When thinking about judgement a Christian should begin with oneself. Rather than answer the question "Can non-Christians go to heaven?" straight off, I should ask "Will I go to heaven?" Once the question of judgement against me is raised, the answer to any other question is contextualised properly.

With that in mind, let us move on to what the Church teaches:

God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

...

Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.


You can already see how carefully this reflects the teaching of the NT. Popes have referred to the Jews as "our elder brothers". Pope Benedict apparently did not like this because Esau was the elder brother and he was rejected, so a phrase intended to convey warmth and respect risked giving the wrong impression. He therefore preferred the more exalted and theologically accurate expression that Jews are "our fathers in the faith."

31 May 2013 at 15:16  
Blogger Albert said...

David (continued),

The Church says elsewhere, reflecting on the question of salvation:

Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God [i.e. the Church].(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Now given what else the Church says about Jews, it is pretty clear from this that the Church believes the net of salvation is flung well beyond Jews, our fathers in the faith.

Does this mean you will go to heaven? No it does not (but remember the caveat I gave about myself). You and I together have to do our best to respond to the grace of God that we receive, with the best light that our conscience has. If we do that, then according to my understanding of the Catholic Church, neither of us will miss out on heaven for making an honest mistake (but that does not excuse either of us from earnestly seeking the truth).

31 May 2013 at 15:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Yes, I agree about family and faith. Personally, I wish we had hung on to your beautiful family Sabbath traditions. If we had done that, perhaps the country would not be in the mess it is.

31 May 2013 at 15:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

Cressida

Yes I do believe Mary would meet the conditions for absolution through the confessional.

Her contrition is imperfect. She would have to accept her behaviour was sinful, was against God's law and the teaching of the Church and be sorry because it draws down God's punishment, risks eternal damnation, seperates her from His Grace, and places her outside of communion with the Church.

Perfect contrition, on the other hand, would be remorse based entirely on an acceptance that the sin offended God, who is Love, rather than fear of the consequences.

I may be wrong ... but that's my honest opinion. Mary would be advised to chat to a Priest about this.

31 May 2013 at 15:54  
Blogger Peter D said...

Cressida said ...
"No we are not real jews DN.Peter has obviously been hanging out with Albert for too long."

Albert's completely innocent on this one!

It was actually my father, a 'convert' from modern orthodox Judaism, who told me this. And he meant the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ before the gentiles were admitted as the people of God because of their rejection of the Messiah.

31 May 2013 at 16:01  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Albert thanks for those detailed posts, i will have to re read them on the big screen later on. I do recall there was an interesting discussion on this subject between me ,carl, old jim, peter and thomas wood, with various viewpoints.

31 May 2013 at 16:17  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Peter I would disagree that Mary would meet the conditions for absolution because she has no remorse for what she has done.She is not sorry for what she has done. It always amazes me how many Catholics do not understand that you have to actually acknowledge what you have done to be wrong doing and sinful and you must be sorry.Because she is now married she is not capable of reoffending.So if she genuinely cannot feel remorse and cannot honestly say that if she had her time over again she would have saved her virginity for the wedding night...she can never be forgiven.

31 May 2013 at 16:24  
Blogger Peter D said...

Cressida

As said, it is just my opinion.

You have made some strong and valid points. However, surely if she wants to go to Confession then she must know her actions were wrong and wants to get back into a relationship with God through the Church? And her sorrow need only be imperfect contrition as I outlined above in my "gobblydegook".

So far as having her time over and doing the same thing again, that might be an issue, I agree. But not, I think, a deal breaker with God. It's tomorrow He's interested in, not yesterday. Jesus just said: "Go and sin no more", He didn't say: "Go, sin no more and agree you'd never sin again if you could relive your life over."

Bottom-line - if she shared her thoughts openly and honestly with the Priest in Confession then he, in the place of Christ, is charged with dispensing absolution or not.

31 May 2013 at 17:27  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

I wonder if they teach these dilemmas at priest school?

31 May 2013 at 18:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Looking at the Catholic Encyclopedia I think the principles of imperfect contrition are quite clear - the person need not be sorry because they love God, only because they fear him or some consequence of the sin.

How does this apply to Mary? Cressida's example is clever and difficult. On the one hand, Mary is not sorry - that seems to mean her confession is invalid. On the other hand, she confesses because she wants a fresh start and wants to be right with the Church - that would imply imperfect contrition, as it relates to punishment and a consequences of sin.

So it all comes down to what it means when Mary is not sorry. Is she sorry that she has incurred the punishment of excommunication and wants it lifted? If so then the path is clear. Is she just going through the motions purely because Fr O'Reilly knows what she's been up to and refuses to give her communion on her wedding day unless she confesses? If so, then I the case seems a lot less clear.

But the point about imperfect contrition is that something is lacking - this will have to be made up later, but it is sufficient to restore friendship with God.

31 May 2013 at 19:47  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Albert and all others here,

My time is almost up as Shabbat will soon be upon us. I do appreciate the warm words in respect of our Sabbath traditions.

I also note that the
Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem, has been vandalized by a bunch of yobs and extremists in the name of my faith, by a bunch of eejit extremists. Disgusting and wrong. I hope that the Israeli authorities will tackle these crimes will the full force of the law.

Shabbat Shalom, or a peaceful Sabbath to you all. See you on Sunday.

31 May 2013 at 20:31  
Blogger Peter D said...

david kavanagh said...
"I wonder if they teach these dilemmas at priest school?"

All seminarians are taught Catholic doctrine and moral teachings and the nature of the Sacraments - in addition to a whole lot more. They have Canon Law and the Cathecism too. I'm sure ardent trainees at "priest school" discuss these matters amongst themselves too.

Armed with this background, these situations aren't so much dilemmas but more about discerning the dispositions of those approaching the confessional. Once this is understood, the rest follows. Helping them through the process where there appears to be doubt would be very important.

In the case of Mary this clarification would be the key to the Priest giving or withholding absolution.

Confession is not about going into the 'box', rattling off a list of sins without much forethought, saying "sorry" and then being forgiven. On occassions withholding God's forgiveness is as loving as granting it.

31 May 2013 at 20:32  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Peter,

I thought 'Priest school' was better than saying they went to a Yeshiva... I see the correct term is 'seminarians'. Thanks for the other bits of information as well.

Shabbat Shalom !

31 May 2013 at 20:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older