Right to Die?

This morning's newspapers carry the story of a young rugby player suffering as a result of an injury sustained on the pitch 18 months ago. Unable to accept that the future he had planned out for himself was now over, he resolved to kill himself - or, rather to persuade his parents to arrange for him to be killed.
Before saying anything else, let it be quite clear that one does not wish to judge someone who feels so depressed at such an accident, or deny the sense of life being pointless that may ensue. Also, unless one has been in such a situation, one cannot simply condemn parents who went along with what their son repeatedly urged on them.
However, there are questions to be raised.

We had no choice but to let our son die, cries the Daily Mail's headlines. But even the Independent, normally in favour of killing people who are sick, old, or unwanted, found this a little hard to take. Though their approval was clearly with the young man's family, they also ran alongside the story of another young Rugby player who had sufffered similar injuries, and who after three and a half years is rebuilding his life and future on a new basis.

I would argue - as did his physiotherapist and others - that Daniel James had simply not had time to come to terms with his injury, nor to see what kind of life he could look forward to. It is entirely understandable that a young man who sees his future ruined might react in this way - at lesat in the short term. But what Daniel needed was not to be killed but to receive help in seeing how his life could be worthwhile. Eighteen months seems like a long time for a young man, particularly when he is incapacitated. What he needed was the wisdom of those who are older and will no doubt have seen more tragedy and disappointment, and the many different ways by which people cope with it and overcome it.

It is true that at the moment we live in a society where large numbers of young people commit suicide simply because they haven't got any reason for living. But even the Independent sees it as a problem where the groups of suicides of people in their late teens and twenties. Daniel's reason seems to have been much the same as theirs - so where is the logic of saying to some people: We think you have a reason for thinking like this, so we'll kill you - while we say to others: We don't think you've got a good reason so why are you causing all this pain and suffering to those around you.
We live in a society which by and large does not believe in a Right to Live but is coming more and more to push for a Right to Die. Do we not see here the truth of Pope John Paul's description of our society as a 'culture of Death.'

Whether people have physical disabilities or not (and the liberal media are always pushing the idea that the disabled have just as much to contribute s anyone else, and are just as capable of enjoying life as anyone else) if they cannot see any point in living then it is up to those around them - and to all of us, to seek to show them reasons. To give them reasons for living, things they can achieve. Maters of life and death should not be controlled by a 'do as you feel' culture.

Those who are sick, disabled or depressed need help, not killing. Or do we really want to end up in a situation where if we go to the doctor suffering from depression we will simply be told to take ourselves away and die because that will solve our problems? When there is a solution like that available why should we be taking up a doctor's time and precious NHS resources. In modern England, it seems, Ebenezer Scrooge is alive and well - even if many others are dying.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Once again we find in some of the Catholic papers a real enthusiasm for scrapping the Act of Settlement which prevents a Catholic from becoming King or Queen. I'm not sure how many Catholics are queueing up for the job but it sounds good. It sounds as if we are indeed people to be reckoned with - peple who are as good as the next man - or woman. And in our age it is not right to show discrimination.
Of course, the voice of reason is nowhere present in any of this. Nor do any seem to think to question why some of those in the liberal establishment should be lending their support for this. As always we should ask cui bono? It is noticeable that many who are anti-Catholic in so many things will still agree that Catholics should be able to succeed to the throne, and really their motivation is quite clear. And it is not out of love for us!
The one point that nobody seems to want to raise about the Act of Succession is that it is simple common sense. If the Crown is Head of the Church of England, then it follows that the person holding that position must be able to support and defend the Protestant Religion. If we are seriously to try and say that a Catholic should be able to be head of the Church of England, would be as ready to say that religious belief should not affect the choosing of the Pope? This shows us the sbsurdity of the situation. The Act of Settlement should in fact not be repealed unless the Crown is no longer to be head of the Church.
Thus the price to pay (there is always a price) for repealing this largely irrelevant Act would be the disestablishing of the Church of England. Some might consider ways in which this would be a good thing - and they may be right. But if the Church were disestablished then this would be a secular state. The Church of England - with all its faults and difficulties - is still the guarantee that in law this Kingdom is a Christian Kingdom.
The only ones who would really feel a profit from repealing the Act of Settlement are those atheistic secularists who support such a move, and no doubt the Moslems who would then see even more of a religious vacuum that they could fill.
I don't want to be King. I do want this to remain - at least in name - a Christian Kingdom, committed at least in the broadest sense to the values of the Christian Faith. It may not be much, but it's better than the alternatives. Let us, as Catholics, support the Act of Settlement, and support Her Majesty the Queen, Defender of the Faith.

Futurechurch

Looking at the Futurechurch website, one is struck by how the name is a misnomer. It looks not to the Future of the Church but to certain present day difficulties, for which it seeks to provide a quick fix.
As Augustine said long ago, much heresy begins with one idea that is good or OK in itself, but becomes concerned with that to the exclusion of all else.

Sr Chris Schenk, of Futurechurch, argues that because the Eucharist is the most precious gift we have been given then it must be the will of Christ that we should all be able to receive it frequently, and that we are therefore justified in doing anything to achieve this laudable goal. This is argument is obviously faulty taken simply as a pice of logic. For example, suppose that something seemed clearly to be the will of Christ but we could only achieve it by some immoral means, then clearly it would not be right to bring it about. We would have to seek other means, or else we would perhaps come to see that although Christ might want it, He might not want it at any cost.

No doubt it is the will of Christ that all His people should benefit from the Eucharist, but time and again throughout history in many parts of the world, the faithful have bee deprived of the Eucharist. We might think of penal times here in England, or of the centuries in Japan when there was no priest in the whole country. At such times the faithful kept faith alive by other means - by obedience, prayer and devotion - not by seeking to change the structure and nature of the Church in order to bring about the end they desired.

Futurechurch does not seem inclined to examine the past any more than it considers the future. A knowledge of what Christians have done in the past is surely likely to be a helpful guide when we find ourselves confronting similar problems. In the pontificate of Innocent III of blessed memory there was a remote village in France that had been without a priest for some years. Eventually the villagers had had enough of this and they appointed the village blacksmith (he being regarded as a man of repute and position in the community) to say Mass for them. Effectively this is the Futurechurch solution. And what was the result? When things came to the Bishop' notice, he asked Rome for guidance. The Pope said that this must stop. Nobody can simply set themselves up as a priest in this way. Yet he also emphasised to the bishop that neither villagers or blacksmith were guilty of sin, since what they had done had been in no way sacrilegious but was born out of a love an desire for the Eucharist.

So, we might ask, faced with a shortage of priests what would be wrong with the Church deciding to ordain men (though I think futurechurch would like to ordain women also) in such situations who could serve as part-time priests while gettin on with their family life and work at the same time. Would this not be a good way of meeting a very real need?

This is where we need to think about the future consequences of our actions. If we were to respond to a fall in vocations by saying that we will ordain anyone on such a basis, many who might like to be priests would think: this is fine. I don't need to make it a commitment of my whole life; I can do it anyway! We would find numbers of vocations falling even faster! It would also totally change the work and role of a priest. A priest is not simply a machine for sacraments. Those to whom he is sent to minister are his family - hence the title of 'Father.' He is there to serve them in a whole range of situations and needs - and frequently at any time of day or night. The work Catholics expect from a priest cannot be done except by a full time and totally committed priesthood.
And there is more in the way of consequenes. With a drastic fall in vocations we would in time find ourselves without bishops - hence the Church would no longer be Apostolic. Without that central bond of communion each community would be reduced to doing its own thing and making its own decisions, and so the church would no longer be One or Catholic. With us all making decisions for ourselves rather than seeking to discern the will of God, the Church would no longer be Holy (that is, belonging to God).
And if the Church of the Future is not to be One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic then what is left?

The people of Futurechurch may not intend or desire such results, and I have no doubt that their love for the Eucharist is as sincere as that of those thirteenth century French men and women, but if we seek a quick fix solution to our problems we may very easily find we have made them worse, even to the point of destroying what we profess to love.

What then is the answer? First, of course, to pray. Second, not to convince ourselves that the results of our prayer are infallible. Listen to others, and to the results of their prayer - because if our insights have come from the Holy Spirit, He will be giving them to others - we can be sure of that. Sr Chris didn't wish to reply to the above points, simply observing that we would not agree. Sadly that sounds so much like a mind that is wholly made up in advance of any argument. Because we don't debate simply in order to win, but in order to clarify our thoughts and test our own ideas - to test spirits so as to discern the one that is the voice of God. And if our thoughts converge into His thoughts then we are all winners!

Multum in Parva...

...is the motto of the County of Rutland, the smallest of all the English Counties and perhaps unsurprisingly one with a very fierce sense of its own identity.

Having a day off today, the first for a month, I headed north up the A1 to see what treasures might be found in Rutland and East Leicestershire, to be rewarded by the amazingly sumptuous Norman Chapel at Tickencote. Multum in parva indeed! The little church was restored and partly rebuilt in 1792 when the West Front and South tower were added. The extraordinarily ornate exterior is buttressed in French style rather than English with demi-shafts. The first picture is of the unusual west front, done in a Romanesque style with a touch of Hawksmoor. This is the plainest aspect of the Church. By contrast the East front is highly decorated with intersecting arches, friezes, bland recesses and mouldings. It also reveals a room above the sanctuary - a feature of a number of Norman churches - though it is not certain whether this upper room overlooked the Church as at Compton or Melbourne. Here, the puzzle is, as at Iffley, why was such a sumptuous church built here?

Inside the mystery deepens as we find a sexpartite vault over the chancel. Traditional wisdom is that the sexpartite vault came to England after 1175 with William of Sens - but the church itself seems to be older than that - probably c1160. A clue may be found in those French style buttresses, for sexpartite vaults had been used in Normandy from very early in the century. So this appears to be a French Church rather than an English Norman one, hidden away in a quiet Rutland village.

But the true glory of the interior is the incredible triumphal arch that marks the entrance to the Chancel. This fivefold arch is described by Pevsner as being 'wildly overdone and in addition incompetently executed.'

Church and State

One of the items of 'received wisdom' in our 'liberal' society is the separation of Church and State. In many ways, of course, this is a thing which is good and desirable. We need to recognise that in many - perhaps most - modern states there is no single religious belief which holds a general sway, and it is plainly not right to demand people of one religious belief to live under the sway of another. It is questionable how far a religion such as Islam recognises this truth, but nonetheless it is a truth. Those who are not Christian plainly should not be bound by laws which are made by Christians for Christians.
Of course there are those general laws, based on the concept of natural law, which are to be considered binding upon people of all faiths or none - as the current jargon has it. Prohibitions on Rape or Murder are examples of this.

Our own society, typically, takes things too far. It sees the separation of Church and State as indicating that there is no common standard of morality - and that therefore morality is not the concern of the state, but is something left to the judgement of each individual. Religious opinions, far from being seen as important, are things to be perhaps politely listened to, and then set aside as the enthusiasms of a small minority.

Because this is the 'received wisdom' it can be easy for Catholics to go along with this - not out of any wish to deny the faith, but because we do not wish to be imposing our views on others. The trouble with this view of things is that the result is the secular state ends up imposing its views on everybody. But separation of Church and State has not always been seen in this light. It has not always been seen as a denial of any common basis for morality.

In our society morality is seen as a matter for Church, not State - officially! In practice this is not alwayys the case. Increasingly the state comes to impose its own substitute morality for the morality of religious belief. But this is the opposite of what the true liberal democratic state should be doing.

Consider the words of Alexis de Tocqueville from his study 'Democracy in America' first published in the 1840s, approving the separation of Church and State, but not the isolation of one from the other:
Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of mind. Free and powerful in its own sphere, satisfied with the place reserved for it, religion never more surely establishes its empire than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught beside its native strength.
Liberty regards religion as its companion in all its battles and its triumphs, as the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims. It considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom.'

Inequality

Inequality - it's a thing we all detest - right?
I recently read a review of a book by Polly Toynbee & David Walker 'Unjust Rewards' on this subject. Johann Hari, writing the review, ended his comments by saying that 'no doubt Toynbee [what happened to Walker?] will be showered with right wing abuse for this book.' This is a fairly standard technique of the extreme liberal position, which means that if there is any criticism they don't need to listen to it. I will therefore begin with where I agree with the thrust of Toynbee's & Walker's arguments.

Inequality is a contravention of natural law, of divine law. This is if we assume that we are talking about inequality in the way people are treated, or the opportunities they are given. Even here, of course, we inevitably make distinctions. If somebody is unable to learn how to fly an aeroplane we do not insist that British Airways should give them a job as a pilot. And quite rightly so. What we should be concerned with is finding ways of establishing equal opportunities for all. This would mean that every person who thinks they would like to be an aeroplane pilot has the opportunities to move towards that goal. Nobody should simply be told: You're too old, you're too young, you're from the wrong family, the wrong address etc. etc. Yet even here we have difficulties. If somebody in their seventies decides they want to train to be an aeroplane pilot, is it wrong to refuse them? It might be that their health might not suffice to exercise the role. It might be that the years of flying time they would be able to put in would not justify the expense of training them. Already we can see that equality is not as simple a matter as we might wish it to be.
And we know that to be the case. If we imagine two people, and we give each of them £500,000 and leave them to get on with things, it is quite possible that in ten years time one of them will be doing very well while the other has drunk himself (or herself) to death. If we are concerned about equality of opportunity, we do need to be very clear about exactly what we mean.
Mr Hari presents us with two children on the Clapham bus (thank God, apart from the headline he refrains from calling it an omnibus) One is from a wealthy family, the other from a poor family. The child from a poor family is three times more likely to die in an accident, more likely to die young and less likely to 'achieve'. Toynbee argues from this that it is up to Government to do something to correct this iniquitous state of affairs. Parental income, she argues, determines who will run the banks and who will sweep the floors.

This simplistic argument has so many flaws that it is difficult to know where to begin. For instance, in an ideal society, the work of those who sweep the floors would be valued just as highly as the work of those who run the banks - but this ideal society is not what Toynbee is arguing for. She seems to believe the patent nonsense that everyone should be running the banks. But if there is then nobody to clean the floors, what happens? Equality at this level does not insist that everyone should be doing the top jobs, but should recognise that in a complex society the work of each member is work of value. If we deny this then we are condemning those who for whatever reasons are not able to run banks to a life of being regarded as worthless, having nothing to offer. A true sense of equality of worth recognises the principle that each person should contribute to society according to their means.

Where Toynbee examines disparity of income between rich and poor she is exposing a well-known inequality and what is at times an injustice. It does seem obscene that some have annual bonuses of millions whereas others struggle to get by on next to nothing. But her answer simply will not do. She suggests a High Pay Commission to recommend a 'suitable national average'. This sounds not unreasonable at first sight. But in fact what she is suggesting is that Government should be empowered to tell us what to do with our money. If a company gives huge bonuses to its chairman that may be immoral, but it is difficult to see in what circumstances it could be called illegal. Do we really want government to decide how much should be paid to people? Do we really want government to decide what is just payment - not just for the super-rich, but for me? The point of principle is important here. Do we want to live in a free society or in a society where goernment decides on all the details of our lives and our social interactions. We might have a government we can trust today, but will we have such a government tomorrow? We need to think very carefully before giving away such sweeping powers.

Toynbee also seems to overlook one of the reasons for children remaining in the lower echelons of education. She seems to think that government can and should handle all the problems, but while it may be debatable whether government should it is certain that government cannot solve this problem. Now, there may be areas where government can do something useful, but an awful lot depends on a child's upbringing.
We do not need to question, for the sake of this argument, whether a parent loves their child. But the fact is that our education system does not distinguish between children from wealthy or poor backgrounds. The same opportunities are given to each. Where then is the problem?
A child from a family (rich or poor) that encourages that child to work, to do well, to gain results, is likely to do better than a child from a family (rich or poor) that does not give such encouragement. Encouragement in this sense is not a matter of wealth or resources. A generation or two ago there was a sense among most families that it was a good thing of their children could 'better themselves.' This has been lost, and many of the poorer sections of our society do not see the advantages enjoyed by those better off as things that are desirable, or worth working for.

The problems of inequality are not capable of being solved by government alone, but need also the active help of parents who desire to see their children succeed better than they themselves have. Without this, any givernment programmes will be doomed to failure. It is not a situation we can buy ourselves out of.

Toynbee is right to highlight the problems presented by glaring social inequality. Where she errs is to suggest that government alone can find a way out of it. The only way out of the problems that beset us is through a conjunction of enlightened government and concerned parents - both of which seem to be in short supply in a society which has as its main aim the right of the individua lto do as they like and be valued for what they are.

Bleak Liturgies

As promised, some RS Thomas - an excerpt from his 'Bleak Liturgies, published in 1992

Shall we revise the language?
And in revising the language
will we alter the doctrine?

Do we seek to plug the hole
in faith with faith's substitute
grammar? And are we to be saved

by translation? As one by one
the witnesses died off
they commended their metaphors

to our notice. For two thousand
years the simplistic recipients
of the messag epointed towards

the reductionist solution. We devise
an idiom more compatible with
the furniture departments of our churches.

Instead of the altar
the pulpit. Instead
of the bread the fraction
of the language. And God
a shadow of Himself
on a blank wall.


The whole published in Thomas' Collected Later Poems by Bloodaxe Books.