This Leftie/Liberal Love-In For The Pope Has Got To Stop

I can't claim to be an expert on Catholicism. I've grown up a cultural Anglican (though thankfully I've been spared a religious upbringing) whose interest in other religions has never stretched to the Roman Catholic church. I think this is perhaps because the Roman Catholic church is so complicated and has so many different organisations, styles and, above all, saints that it would require a lifetime's study to do it justice. And as I believe it is all make-believe I'm not interested in expending the time on it that I instead give to New Religious Movements (those are the things evangelical Christians call "cults"). So this post isn't really about Catholic doctrine, it is instead about the weird and rather disturbing reaction of some needy liberal types out there to media reports on Pope Francis. 

I've got to give Pope Francis credit. He's certainly shaken up the media's perception of the Papacy. Pope Benedict's reign was overshadowed by the child abuse scandals. Pope Francis has managed to change the narrative ever so slightly. Feel good pieces about him responding to an Italian teenagers letter by picking up the phone and having a chat. Stories of him shunning some of the more obvious trappings of wealth normally reserved for the Pope abound. But what the media are really lapping up are snippets of conversations, press releases and interviews that hint at some sort of "liberalising" of Catholic doctrine.

When I say "hint at" what this actually means is "if you read them out of context" or "if you read them and don't quite understand religion at all".

Just take this week's stories on Pope Francis suggesting the Church should "obsess" over gay marriage, contraception and abortion. These stories sprung up from this interview and, more specifically, this paragraph:

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

What Pope Francis was saying is the Church has a more important mission, preaching the Gospel, and it shouldn't get bogged down in a strict focus on certain moral issues. That isn't to say it is changing its mind on those issues, just that it needs to ensure the main message of the Church isn't overshadowed. This is, from a Christian perspective, a bit like saying "I believe Jesus is the Son of God" (sorry Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists, I know you don't quite support that...). I.e. this is a no-brainer, a given, a non-story.

But the reaction on Twitter, both on my personal feed and on my saved "Gay Marriage" feed, was overwealming positive from non-believers and liberal sorts. You'd think he'd come out in support of abortion and marriage equality if you judged by the tone of some of these folks. And some actually believe he did!!

This has got to stop. @michaelcarre described this as people willing to "accept crumbs" and I have to agree. And, this will be controversial I'm sure, it wouldn't matter to me if the Catholic church suddenly supported every social issue I support. It is still NOT TRUE. The Pope is the head of an organisation based on a false belief. Just because a homeopath supports marriage equality I wouldn't suddenly welcome medical assistance from said homeopath. I'd still think they were mistaken.

Whilst you've all been having your love-in over the Pope, the Catholic church has ex-communicated a former priest for setting up an organisation that supports the ordination of women and equal marriage.

Wake up and stop being taken in by poor reporting of a media-savvy Pope. The Pope is, still, a Catholic. 

SPUC Take Coalition For Marriage Positions Off The Deep End

Today I've seen something that made me laugh and then gape in shocked amazement. It was a picture on Twitter of an anti-marriage equality poster.

I laughed because it seemed so outlandish as to suggest a fake, but then I found it was actually a real thing which stopped the laughing quite quickly. So before we break down its arguments let us just check we all know what we are dealing with.

The SPUC is the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children which, it goes almost without saying, is a pro-life organisation. Last year, according to its about us page, it decided marriage equality was related to its goals of protecting the unborn.

Now let's look at the flyer:

Firstly note their use of a wedding photo ripped in half. What are they implying with that picture? That marriage equality would lead to actual marriages being destroyed? It seems bizarre to have that picture there to be honest as if I marrying Jim might lead to someone getting a divorce. 

Now let's move on to what they say. "Don't let politicians destroy real marriage" is very misleading. In what way does marriage equality undermine, let alone destroy, "real marriage" (which they define as the marriage between one man and one woman)? Can someone please explain this to me? There is nothing, not one thing, in the current marriage equality proposals at Westminster or Holyrood that would lead to men and women not being able to marry each other. 

Now what I would assume is that this just a highly emotive way of saying that marriage equality will somehow lead to an increase in divorce and broken homes. That is a testable hypothesis. Let us look at one study, which you can see in full here:

The results above show that laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, the percent of children born out of wedlock, or the percent of households with children under 18 headed by women. Laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions may even raise marriage rates, and reduce abortions and the percent of female-headed households with children, even after controlling for many confounding variables and state and year fixed effects. Laws banning same-sex unions, if they are of long duration, generally appear also to have beneficial effects since they are associated with fewer abortions and female-headed households with children, but the seemingly beneficial effects of these laws appear to complement the effects of permitting same sex unions. (There is also evidence that short duration bans are significantly but weakly related to fewer divorces.)  

We cannot say that we have disproved the existence of a link between laws permitting gay marriage and a negative impact on ‘‘family values’’ indicators, but we can say that no such link is demonstrated in the data that we analyzed here. Permitting gay marriage does no harm, and making it legal may even be beneficial, since it seems to raise marriage rates, reduce abortions, and reduce the chance that children grow up in single-headed households. We believe it is incumbent upon those that posit a link between permitting gay marriage and harm to families and children to put forth evidence that supports their claims about same-sex marriage rights, especially when confronted with evidence that directly refutes their claims.

Perhaps they have access to other studies. A quick check of their background paper and position paper on the issue reveals nothing to suggest they have used them. These papers in no way reflect their claims in this flyer!

Now on to the claim at the bottom "Defending marriage defends unborn children". This implies, quite clearly in this setting, that marriage equality will lead to more abortions. Their background paper says this:

Weakening marriage is in no-one’s interests. Strengthening marriage is in everyone’s interests: the moral environment in which children are conceived and grow up will have a lasting effect on their stability and happiness – and indeed on their survival. Abortion figures reveal the importance of marriage as an institution oriented towards the care and protection of children: in the UK babies conceived outside of marriage are about 4-5 times more likely to be aborted than those conceived inside marriage. Children after birth face greater risks of harm in non-married situations.

Yet again they make claims in their flyer that their papers don't support with data. This paragraph in no way suggests how equal marriage will lead to more abortions and the study I've quoted above shows that there was no link found!

This flyer has little, if any, rational basis. It distorts the issues and does not present the arguments SPUC make on their website against marriage equality **UPDATE, the back of the flyer does present those arguments but my problems with the assertions on the front remain unchanged*** (which are more moral/religious issues and have little to do with incidents of abortion). If this is what the Coalition for Marriage partners are putting out, we need to be very concerned indeed about their commitment to reasonable debate and against homophobic discourse. 

Absolutely disgusting. 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

My Feelings On.... Abortion

I'm embarked on a project of reflection on my political and moral beliefs and how they fit into my liberal and libertarian beliefs

Abortion is one of those subjects I always try to avoid in just about any situation. The one time I attempted to articulate my feelings in a blog (a post I've yet to unearth I'm afraid, it's not listed by Google anyway) I alienated and upset several online friends, which was never my intention. And so since then I've kept my head below the parapet. But if I am to be honest with myself and open with others on my beliefs, I think it's time to really put down in words where I stand.

I can see where both the pro-lifers and the pro-choice folks come from. The commonly stated views that the pro-lifers are just set on having control over women and pro-choice supporters are supporters of murder are simplistic and unfair. There are good people, with good intentions, on both sides.

Personally, and I truly hope you understand the difference between personal opinion and my feelings on other's freedom, I find the concept of abortion abhorrent. I feel this way for two, very different, reasons

1) Because I have an irrational sensitivity when it comes to life. I come from the perspective of being an atheist who believes there are no second chances. Any destruction of life is final. Just because I also believe life to be utterly pointless does not mean I don't hold an irrational love of it. When a foetus is aborted, who may have been born successfully and lived a full life (or may not, I accept) then it is being denied it's very existence; it's only reason for being. This I cannot accept.

2) More rationally, I believe in individual liberty. Now one can certainly argue that a foetus is not an individual. But I believe, certainly in the later stages of development, it is. And aborting it destroys it's "potential" liberty.

Now both of those points are based on nothing more concrete than "personal belief", which is not a good basis for a political belief. And there other considerations. Thankfully, in the personal realm, I am gay and I am a man. Abortion is an issue that is extremely unlikely to ever require me to make a decision on a personal basis. I'm not the one who has to make the tough choices and I appreciate that does have a bearing on my position.

And what of the personal liberty of the mother? It's all very well having high-minded political beliefs, but our very biological nature makes it difficult for a "one size fits all" political belief, such as individual liberty, to be applied uniformly. Should a woman be forced to accept a future laid out for her by events or should she be empowered to control her own destiny? There's no easy answer to that but I cannot be so heartless as to believe it would be right to use Governmental force to stop a woman having an abortion if that is what she believed was right for her.

And there is the crux of the matter. A woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases. It is not the realm of Government to enforce others morality on to women. I must be pro-choice for otherwise I am nothing but an authoritarian.

So I find myself being a supporter of the right to an abortion.

I still struggle with this position. I feel strongly that there should be limits on when, in terms of development of the foetus, an abortion can be done. If a foetus is, according the opinion of attending physicians, "viable" (a minefield of it's own) then I do not believe an abortion would be justified (except in the usual extreme circumstances). But that leaves us all open to a dangerous situation (and one many less reluctant pro-choice supporters who also believe in this seem not to deal with)  whereby with continued scientific progress this "viability" becomes possible ever earlier in a pregnancy. What then? I really don't know.

It's a moral, legal and emotional maze. There is no easy answer and, realistically, I don't think there is a satisfactory answer for everyone. I am at once pro-life and pro-choice and have so many conflicting caveats in my logic and illogic that I think I could be easily flipped to one side or the other without much effort (and then back again).

Fundamentally, we should keep our noses out of other people's, rather sad, personal business and let those who want to have an abortion have one and those who don't well, not.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist