Neonatologist: fight against abortion reflects end of humankind

A French neonatologist involved in the pro-life movement has commented that  the fight against abortion is “eschatological,”, that is, a reflection of the end of the world, the destruction of mankind. LifeSite News reports Dr. Xavier Dor's comments which followed violent attacks by pro-abortion counter-protesters on a legal and peaceful pro-life protest outside a Paris Hospital which has recently re-started performing abortions. The pro-life protesters had to be defended by the police who were forced to charge the counter-protesters twice in order to prevent them harming the pro-life group. The pro-lifers, a group called, SOS Tout-petits (SOS Tiny-ones), managed to pray a complete Rosary under police protection before being escorted away by the police for their own protection. 


Dr Dor commented that the well organised and violent reaction to his group's protest shows how seriously the power of prayer is taken, even when only a few people gather to pray the Rosary for the victims of abortion - babies and mothers - as well as for those who participate in this evil. Apparently there have been no violent reactions to pro-life demonstrations by SOS Tout-petits in the last 12 years, but Dr Dor fears that things are changing. 


His comments remind me of what Mary Wakefield wrote in the Spectator a couple of weeks ago about the change in social attitudes towards abortion : "that abortion is not just a necessary evil, but a jolly good thing. That being pro-choice no longer means just accepting that a woman has a right to decide, but that abortion must be celebrated and all doubters deemed religious nut jobs". This sort of attitude gives protesters a perverse permission to attack pro-life demonstrations as the pro-lifers are seen as "beyond the pale", expressing socially unacceptable opinions. The debate about abortion is changing - the pro-abortion lobby is finding it harder to make any argument based on logic or science (there aren't any), and has to resort to subjective  "rights" and "choices". This makes the pro-abortion reaction "personal" and emotional. I hope and pray that we do not see scenes like those in Paris here in London. Given the current disproportionate bias against Christian belief in the public sphere, I wonder whether our police would protect the legal pro-life protesters or see them as trouble-makers and ask them to move on?

I never thought I'd like a bouncy-castle church...

...but this inflatable church, made in Poland to be used in Russia is absolutely brilliant! Father Krzysztof Kowal the Catholic parish priest of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in the far East of Russia had requested permission to build a Catholic church in the area but had been turned down repeatedly by the uncooperative local government. A novel solution was proposed by a Polish friend, Robert Wojcik, whose usual business is  building inflatable toys for children in Kolobrzeg, Poland. Wojeck created an inflatable gothic-style chapel, weighing 100 pounds and easily transportable. Being a temporary structure and inflatable means that Fr. Kowal can dodge the planning restrictions that have thus far thwarted his efforts. The inflatable chapel will be the first Catholic church on the Kamchatka Peninsula. 


"This is a real Gothic structure which stirs a lot of interest. Many people are unaware that there is a Catholic priest in the city, as there is no real Catholic church; and when we get together at home people think we are some kind of a sect," the priest said. Before the arrival of the inflatable church local Catholics gathered in homes, hotel rooms or outdoors near rivers or lakes for Mass. Because the inflatable chapel is portable Fr. Kowal will be able to move it to suit the needs of his congregation in the winter months when the weather is often -40'C. I can only guess that there aren't many Catholics in the region, as the inflatable church appears to be tiny.


Clearly this isn't an ideal scenario -  you can only imagine the potential for abuse in the wrong environment - but the various news reports about this consistently point to a local government unwilling to allow the construction of a Catholic church, simply because it is a Catholic church. This isn't an unusual situation in Russia -- two days before the inflatable chapel arrived in Kamchatka, a chapel boat carrying the relics of eight saints began a voyage down the Volga in an attempt to reach communities where there is no church. The chapel boat is an ecumenical project between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church and carries the relics of John the Baptist, Anne, Bartholomew the Apostle, the martyrs Stephen and Lawrence, George, John Chrysostom and Cyril, the missionary to the Slav people, all of whom are important to both Churches. The relics are a gift from the Catholic Church to the Russian Orthodox Church, and the boat has been paid for by Aid to the Church in Need who help the persecuted church with both practical and spiritual aid. Help them to help priests like Father Kowal.


Hopefully the publicity generated by this story - and by Father Kowal's novel solution to bureaucratic intransigence - will encourage the authorities to allow the construction of a dignified, permanent church for the Catholics of the Kamchatka Peninsula. Things could be much worse -- and much more expensive: an inflatable church might not be your cup of tea, but at least it looks like a church unlike this

or, closer to home, this.

Photo Credits: AsiaNews.it (inflatable church),  and Wikipedia (Liverpool and LA Cathedrals)

Who says traditional habits aren't cool?

OSB: The original hoodies

Photo: BroDavidOSB

We've had a really nice Benedictine Brother visiting our parish recently, much to the interest of my eldest son who is 9.   After Mass this morning I reminded my son -- as always -- that it's anti-social to walk around with the hood of his jumper worn up.

"Sorry mum, you can't ask me to put my hood down any more..." was his reply "...I'm practising to be a Benedictine."

Indeed!

Friday Menu ideas 1

I'm delighted by the reestablishment of the Friday penance. Although we've been observing the traditional meatless Friday since the children were small only a few Catholic families that we're friends with have done the same which has lead to comments ranging from "ooooh, aren't you good" (not particularly, actually, but we do make an effort to do the penance)  to "isn't that a bit old fashioned" (your point is?) and "my Granny used to do that". Now we're not the only Friday fisheaters on the block, and I'm really glad -- not because the silly comments will cease, but because my children will see their friends doing as we've always done which will reaffirm and confirm a small part of their Catholic identity.

Given how expensive a lot of fish is, and how gloriously tasty a good vegetarian Indian take-away can be, we've added a few other rules over the years. We try to keep things simple, modest and inexpensive on Fridays in addition to cutting out meat, although as I've had to point out to one of my  sons, this doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to enjoy our food ("Mum, this soup is too tasty for a Friday!" Oh dear!)

I'm going to try to share a few easy Friday meal ideas over the next weeks -- take them or leave them, change them or adapt them. The best recipes are the ones that you try and tweak to make your own. Bon appétit!

Spinach Soup (it's a meal in itself with some good bread).
(serves 10 as main meal - reduce proportions for smaller number or save the rest: it freezes beautifully):

Ingredients:
1 kg frozen spinach
500g onions
6 med/lg sized potatoes peeled and quartered
6 crushed garlic cloves (or to taste - we all like Garlic)
pepper
salt *or* Marigold vegetable stock powder
glug of olive oil

Sweat onions and garlic in olive oil until soft in large casserole, then add potatoes and cover with water (approx 2l). Simmer for 20 minutes until potatoes coming apart. Add spinach - cook for 4-5 minutes, gentle simmer. If using frozen spinach, stick it straight into the pot (don't bother to defrost) add a few minutes cooking time. Add salt and pepper to taste. Or add pepper and  Marigold vegetable stock powder to taste.

If you have a stick blender (hand blender) whizz up the soup until it is smooth. Otherwise do the same with a potato masher. It's thick, tasty and satisfying and, unbelievably, children (even sceptical visiting ones) love it.

Speedy method for cheats: buy your spinach, onions and garlic pre-chopped and frozen (Waitrose or Sainsbury's both do decent chopped onions and garlic). If you keep these in the freezer you'll have a potential meal ready with the addition of a few potatoes.

Cost for 10 people: less than £5; considerably less if you buy your potatoes at Lidl, chop your own onions and garlic and use frozen spinach. Practically free if you grow the stuff yourself.
.

A tale of two murders: where the logic of abortion leads

Dead seals: not as shocking as dead babies 

Two news stories about murder caught my eye this week, both in western Canada. One was, thankfully, a non-murder -- the abduction of a young child from his home in the middle of the night -- everyone feared the worst, but he was returned unharmed to the family home. The other case was that of a newborn, strangled after birth by his mother, and his body dumped over a neighbour's fence. This, as reported by Lifesite News,  was also a non-murder, at least according to the judge who downgraded the mother's sentence from Infanticide (4 years) to a suspended sentence last Friday in the Alberta Court of Appeal. The sentence had already been downgraded from murder (with a maximum life sentence) to Infanticide (with a maximum of five years in jail) last May. The most recent downgrading of the sentence means that the mother will serve a maximum of sixteen days in jail for the crime of disposing of her baby's body by dumping it over a fence, but no punishment at all for the murder itself. 


The judge, Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, explained that the logic behind this relates to Canada's lack of abortion laws which, she said, reflects that  "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support," and went on to say that "Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant's death, especially at the hands of the infant's mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother."


Ahhhh. So this is basically just a late term abortion then? And that makes it OK. And abortion is a "less than ideal solution"? A solution for whom? And "less than ideal" for whom?  


You'd imagine that this shocking case would be all over the Canadian media, and that there might even be a debate about whether or not abortion and infanticide are legally equivalent, and perhaps whether or not it might just be a good idea to consider implementing some abortion laws just in case somebody decides to, say, "abort" their pesky teenager when they get fed up with them. But no. I've just done a cursory search of several national and regional Canadian papers, and unless you actually search for this case by name, nothing appears. What there *is* a lot of is "what if" and "wouldn't it have been awful if..." articles about the abducted child. 


I'm not trying to minimise the awfulness of having a child abducted, nor the horror of what might have happened. But I'm rather shocked that there isn't at least as much furore about what just happened in a courtroom where the murder of a born child was swept under the carpet because, hey, people don't mind killing the unborn here in Canada so we need to be a little more understanding of those mothers who can't cope with their born children. Presumably if the abducted toddler's mother had simply decided to strangle him and dump his body in a neighbour's garden, then it wouldn't be a news story at all. 


And before I'm accused of having no compassion for the mother who killed her child, I can assure you that I do, and that I have prayed and will pray again for both her and her child. However this does not change the fact that she murdered her child and that a judge, echoing the views of Princeton Bioethicist Peter Singer ('Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.'') decided that murder of a newborn simply isn't murder. 


Lifesite News has a good angle on the argument that cases of postpartum depression should excuse infanticide:

Post-partum depression, this decision would seem to indicate, serves as an excuse to strangling your newborn. If you can prove you were depressed, killing your child is something that is understandable and if you listen to this judge, acceptable. If abortion advocates actually believe that women are so fragile after childbirth that strangling their child is understandable, I wonder what they would say if the same judge proposed that new mothers have to prove their sanity before taking custody of their newborn children? It is absurd to simultaneously claim that women are strong enough to do anything they choose in the world, but that childbirth, something they are biologically designed to do, will result in a spasm of murder. The only natural instinct abortion advocates believe women lack is the maternal instinct.

None of this should be surprising:  if you allow abortion without restriction, the next logical step is to legalise infanticide. I mean, you could argue, theoretically, that any baby could possibly have been born a few days later, which would mean that they could, theoretically, have still been in utero when they were killed, so it's not infanticide, right? Wrong. Just plain wrong. 


Pro-life advocates have warned about this sort of slippery slope thinking for years, and have been called alarmists. How could abortion possibly lead to infanticide? It's easy when you can make the argument that infanticide is more ethical than abortion. Two bioethicists have published an enthusiastic defence of the Groningen Protocol, and in 2005 a pair of Dutch doctors belonging to a team who use the Groningen Protocol to end the lives of newborns reported that 600 of the 1000 babies each year who die in their first 12 months in the Netherlands die as a result of a deliberate medical decision: either passive (withdrawl of treatment) or active euthanasia. 


Welcome to the Brave New World.


...And if you're wondering why there's a photo of a seal hunt at the top of this post, it's because if you google "Canada's shame" you get loads of stories about why it's wrong to kill baby seals. But not one about why it's wrong to kill baby humans. 

Photo credit: Russiablog

Unambiguously Pro-Life cover story in this week's Spectator magazine

There's an interesting article on abortion in this week's Spectator. Assistant Editor, Mary Wakefield outs herself as a "religious nutjob" (read: "Catholic") but makes a cogent argument for the the pro-life case without recourse to her religious belief, thereby making it accessible to anyone with a scrap of logic or humanity in them. She points out that "you don’t have to be Catholic, or even Christian, to think it odd to adopt a completely cavalier attitude towards the unborn."

Science is on the side of the pro-life movement. Presumably this is why the pro-abortion movement's rhetoric circles with great sophistry around the false mantra of "choice" (for whom?) and avoids the stark realities of icky science bit. You know, the bit that makes it impossible that the pre-born are not human. The bit that shows what happens to those tiny human beings who don't have a "choice" but who are the victims of somebody else's "choice". This week James Preece makes the point that the Wikipedia account of the abolition of the slave trade does not "tell the charming story of how William Wilberforce suggested abolishing the slave trade and everybody said "what a jolly good idea" but of "a long protracted campaign that had to contend with vested business interests and even claims that those who opposed slavery were traitors in the war against France. It tells of lost vote after lost vote after lost vote." He draws an acute parallel with the campaign to bring an end to abortion. I think that ending abortion is an even more difficult battle as the multifarious vested interests permeate all levels of society on a global scale, and the victims are easier to push "out of sight". The parallel still holds though, and the difficulties in the struggle are no reason to let up the pressure to end the mass slaughter of millions of innocents every year.

There is a personal twist to Mary Wakefield's article. She and her twin brother were born at 29 weeks, she writes, at a time when the upper limit for abortion was 28 weeks. " I was a premature baby, my twin brother and I were born over two months early, at around 29 weeks. We were tiny and I was covered in hair like a spider. As we fought for our lives in incubators, at that time in the mid-Seventies, the abortion limit was just a week earlier: 28 weeks. As we struggled to breathe, elsewhere, a few of our tiny, spidery peer group were being killed. And so I feel this one personally, from the perspective of the voiceless pre-born."

She attacks the "strange and unpleasant consensus which has risen up .... not just on the left, but across the centre too, and throughout Westminster ... from the debate about [Nadine Dorries’s ill-fated abortion bill] ... that abortion is not just a necessary evil, but a jolly good thing. That being pro-choice no longer means just accepting that a woman has a right to decide, but that abortion must be celebrated and all doubters deemed religious nut jobs".

The article describes the commentariat's hysterical reaction: [they said] "first of all, it’s absolute nonsense to say that we need fewer abortions. Second, those who frown on abortion might be awarded contracts. Christians for example." Oh the horror. We have come to a place in human history where believing that killing a child in the womb might not be the best outcome for both mother and child is controversial and would exclude anyone holding it from being involved in counselling women with "crisis pregnancies". Have mercy on us!

Wakefield acknowledges that most Catholics were against the Dorries proposal anyway, but wonders why the simple act of publicly questioning whether it might be a good thing to reduce the abortion rate is so controversial, citing the hounding of Dr Liam Fox for stating that he would support any measure that reduced the number of abortions in the UK: "I think the level is far too high" he said. What ensued was what Wakefield calls a "Fox hunt": "Instead of commending him on an uncharacteristic burst of common sense, a Halloo! went up across Fleet street and spread across the Twittering classes. What on earth does Fox mean, ‘too high?’ What a bigot! What a misogynist!"

I was surprised and pleased to see such an unambiguously pro-life article as the cover story of an influential mainstream publication: Mary Wakefield deserves praise for this. She makes many interesting and logical anti-abortion arguments including the ethical/utilitarian (adoption), politically correct (father's rights), neuroanatomy (if scientists think that dolphins should be "given rights", how much more deserving are unborn humans?), and blunt ("so how do you feel about killing kittens then?").

Wakefield's overarching point is that "it doesn’t make you a bigot to be melancholy about the considered killing of 200,000 embryos a year ... it just makes you human". It's worth going over to Spectator.co.uk and reading it now before it goes into the subscriber's archive.

Litaniae Beatae Virginis Mariae