On which values should a new Europe be based?

In March, 2007, The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, COMECE held a conference in Rome to mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of the European Community.

For the occasion, COMECE appointed a committee to produce a report on the values of the EU. The name they gave to their Committee was “The Group of the Wise” and it consisted of 25 prominent Europeans, among them Pat Cox and Peter Sutherland.

The publication of The Group of the Wise’ initial report, brought with it considerable disquiet because, notwithstanding the Report’s title A Europe of Values, it made no reference to issues such as abortion, euthanasia and Gay marriage.

Some of this disquiet found a voice in the President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Angelo Benasco of Genoa. As reported by Vatican Radio (23/3/2007), Archbishop Benasco reminded the Conference that, “The Catholic Church’s main concern is that the dignity of the human person remain the ethical centre of the Union. He said that human life must be protected from conception until natural death. He also said, the family must be respected.”

However, neither the Archbishop’s words nor his sentiments made their way into the final version of the Report which COMECE later presented to the European Commission.

So what does all this mean? It seems clear that there are two competing visions for Europe here, each having its own distinct set of values. One vision seems to involve the belief that “peace” in Europe can be successfully built (without putting too fine a point on it) on euthanised sick and elderly people; on an ‘anything goes’ attitude to marriage and sexual morality and; even, on the bodies of millions of aborted children. The other vision might be represented in the words of Archbishop Benasco, or, to quote the present Pope, in a timely address which he delivered for the 2008 World Day of Peace, “Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman…is an objective attack on peace.” (emphasis added)

The Treaty of Lisbon, if approved by the people of Ireland, would establish for the very first time a new supranational state, a State which would have a working Constitution explicitly based on the shared values of the Member States — values to which we will be giving our approval, if we vote ‘YES’ on October 2nd.

And what values are these? Well, 24 of the Member States effectively treat abortion as a “human right”, for starters. Euthanasia is also practiced.

More explicitly within the Constitution is the requirement that there may be no discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (Article 10, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) –the word ‘orientation’ is not here meant to mean a disposition (over which a person may have no say) but rather an openness, for example, to homosexual behaviour.

The requirement that there be no discrimination of this nature would seem to imply that homosexual, bisexual and other harmful behaviour must be valued at least equally with the sexual relationship that is proper to the marriage between a man and a woman.

There is also no right to life for unborn children in the proposed Constitution but, ironically, the fact that a right to life is mentioned at all, as it is in Article 2.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, would seem to preclude the recognition of a right to life for unborn children as this right is recognised in almost none of the Member States.

Article 53, of the Charter, in particular could lock a country irreversibly into its tragic abortion regime and we would be turning the key! It is amazing to think that with our votes here in Ireland we have the power to establish such a potentially monstrous supranational state and consign 500 million Europeans to be citizens of that state, without them having any individual say in the matter. It is as if the people of Britain were being required to vote on setting up the old Soviet Union and on making the people of Ireland its citizens!

In the words of German Constitutional expert Prof. Dr. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, “Ireland is now the most important country in the world.” If the Irish people vote YES on October 2nd they will be voting YES to this Superstate, YES to its Constitution and YES to the values contained in that Constitution.

In effect, they will be giving much more than ‘a nod anda wink’ to the killing of millions of children in the EU every year. No, the Irish people will be signing their names to a Charter which by protecting the false “rights” already being practiced in these countries will strengthen the hold that the culture of death has over our European brothers and sisters. Christian charity demands that we stay our hand!

The Jewish people had it right. After one of their Kings had sacrificed (his) children to the false god Molech, the site of the sacrifice (the valley of Hinnom from which Jesus derived His name for hell, Gehenna) was
effectively turned into a rubbish dump situated outside the City walls. How terrible it would be for us and for the people of Europe if we were to build our city on our very own Gehenna.

In an interview with Cosmopolitan magazine out tomorrow, actress Jennifer Aniston spoke about the “pressure” people felt to have a relationship that will last. “Whoever said that everything has to be forever? That’s unrealistic or hoping for too much. I don’t think it’s worth all that pressure,” Aniston told Cosmo!

Now, hold on a minute there, ‘friend’! Let’s just unpack this awhile! First of all, where is this “pressure” you’re referring to coming from? Surely, these days, to quote Cole Porter, “Heaven knows, anything goes”?

What does a modern western society care about who should be allowed to marry, how long a marriage should last or, if, indeed, anyone should get married, in the first place?

Well, perhaps the answer is, that despite all the noise to the contrary, ’society’, actually, does care about these things and ’society’, actually, cares a lot.

But, why? Why does society care so much? Given the way the ’free love’ commandment (’do unto others and do and do and do’) is regularly genuflected to in our media, why is society resisting the ’slime directive’ and stubbornly putting poor people like Jennifer under this pressure to have a relationship that will last?

Could it be that it is actually written into our nature, and Jennifer’s, too, to seek out lasting relationships? Why? Because, ultimately, we know, deep within our genes — or wherever — that that is what we should do because that is what will make us happy or happi-er, in any case ( I mean, only God can make us truly happy, right? )

Only yesterday, Trinity College’s leading Neuroscientist, Professor Ian Robertson (I hope I haven’t trod on anyone’s toes here) told Newstalk’s Orla Barry that to break the values you hold (in that case, honesty — the discussion was about a taxi driver who had found $32,500 and returned it to its rightful owners) is to damage yourself.

These inconvenient values, along with our requirement to act in accordance with them, are built into our genes or something over millions of years and you can’t just jettison them because you feel like it or because some other psychologist says you should (jettison them, that is).

You see, looking at it again, Jennifer’s call to hopelessness – for that is what it is – seems like the tail of that trojan horse which an old atheist and pseudo-psychologist named Albert Ellis deposited in our lives many years ago. Ellis ‘observed’ (psychologists always say they ‘observe’ when they want to avoid being contradicted) that what makes us mentally ill, in the shape of anxiety and depression, is our beliefs about what we should do when what we do do contradicts those beliefs.

That makes a lot of sense, in a way, I suppose, but instead of suggesting that people change their behaviour and follow their consciences ( the reasonable thing to do, surely ), Ellis proposed that the word ’should’ itself was the problem — Ellis used to speak about his patients ’shoulding’ all over themselves! The word ’should’, according to Ellis, should be taken out of the English language.

I think the first thing one should notice here is that the old Ellis idea which, at one point, enjoyed almost universal approval in pseudo-psychological and, I’m afraid, Church and religious circles too, seems to contradict what Prof Robertson said — it also contradicts the latest scientific research, by the way! You can’t just shake off your ’shoulds’ as if they were some acquired and otherwise inexplicable social ‘construct’. No, they come straight from, wait for it, this is going to hurt, the Natural Law, yes, the old Ten Commandments themselves. Surprise, surprise, there’s no real getting away from your conscience.

Secondly, just think about it for a minute: If you took the word ’should’ out of the English language, how many of the Ten Commandments would you be left with? But that was the whole point, wasn’t it?

Amazing, really: that intelligent, often religious people fell for this ruse from the author of The Case against Religion: the Psychotherapist’s View; that an atheist activist who who liked to refer to Christianity as “an irrational belief system” which he taught was at the core of many mental health problems – particularly among Catholics – was allowed a powerful place in the heart of many a Christian counselor! So much for John Paul II’s exhortation “duc(ere) in altum” ( “put out into the deep”). For goodness sake, forget about the deep, all you have to do is barely scratch the surface and you see this anti Christian / anti monotheistic idea for what it is.

What’s really ironic is that the exhortation to ‘be your best’ seems to have near universal approval in every area other than morality. The one area that offers life ( “the flesh has nothing to offer” –  John 6:63 — after all ) only offers life if we love to the end, to the utmost, with our whole heart, our whole mind, our whole strength — assuming we want to be happy. St Paul (a word for him as we approach the end his year) talked about Christians running in a race looking for an imperishable wreath (1 Corinthians 9: 24-27). So let’s hold out for excellence in the moral life and for one expression of that, the pursuit of permanent lasting relationships. Let’s not be taken in by Jennifer’s and Albert’s ‘call to hopelessness’ because it is “by hope we are saved” (Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007).

And, on the day, more or less, that the Pope visits Mt Nobo where tradition states that God gave Moses a view of the Promised Land from afar, let’s hear it for Moses, let’s hear it for perseverance and let’s hear it for the hope that the word ’should’ should point to!

This blog has been brought to you today by the number 10 and by the word ’should’!

North Korea’s decision to go ahead with their rocket launch, may just simply be their attempt to join the satellite race but it could also be a statement of intent. A statement that Kim Jong-il is ready to take on the rest of the world for power and that is a frightening prospect.

If you arrest people’s rights and put them into a situation where their lives are in jeopardy then no one can claim that they win.  It’s not something I want to be in the middle of and it always makes me wonder why we have in our nature the want and desire to destroy the things we work sohard to create.

There is also the want to have something that others have and maybe Jong-il has looked towards other countries like America, Japan, Korea China and all of Europe and said “why can’t I join in?”

This needs to be stopped, whoever has their finger on the button needs to stop and think about their actions and the subsequent reactions because that horrible word revenge has been used for centuries as justification for too many actions in the name of what is right.

Usually it is not the case.

But then I have often wondered exactly what planet politicians are on because the real world must seem like a distant memory to them.

The story that has broken in the expenses row of the British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in relation to pay per view films appearing on her house expense sheet, paid for by the British Government. Subsequently Ms Smith was criticised for claiming more than £116,000 in allowances for her family home in the West Midlands after nominating her sister’s property in London – where she stayed several nights a week – as her main residence.

I understand there are instances where their profession can cause politicians to be away from their main residence. But there is always something that is a step too far.

How is it that Ministerial offices are nearly always revamped yearly at a huge cost to the tax payer. How is it when the Dáil is not in session it still costs us, the taxpayer, money?

How can we justify Minister Cullen’s St Patrick’s Day trip to Miami and Houston that cost €10,500? The two flights cost €7,850, accommodation €1,607, local transport €600 and “sundry expenses” €285.

Last year the total cost of St Patrick’s Day trips for 33 Ministers cost €523,621 and I suppose as a courtesy to the public only 17 went this year.

Is there really a need for so many to go in the first place? How much do you really need to promote Ireland on March 17th? It’s the day when everyone claims to be Irish.

Are the hours long? Are the days tough? Both answers are obviously yes but as in a lot of professions, some work harder then others. In days where people across the world are struggling, it seems like a smack in
the mouth to the voting public, as we start to see where our hard earn money goes.

It isn’t a pretty picture.

Advent is a season of light, goodness, comfort, peace, and joy. It’s fitting that the American holiday of Thanksgiving comes at the end of the liturgical year and the beginning of the season of Advent. Our practice of “giving thanks” for the blessings we’ve received over the past year opens our hearts to receiving the love of Christ born during this time of waiting and hopeful anticipation. Thanksgiving helps us enter Advent with an “attitude of gratitude” – a thankfulness that comes from being loved by God and witnessing his presence working in our lives. We’re thankful for our families, who support and encourage us through life’s big ups and downs; our friends, who make us laugh and help us relax and have fun; our significant others, who teach us about love and selfless giving; our jobs which provide financial security and hopefully allow us to do good in the world; our health, especially in a time of high health care costs; our safety and security, when much of the world experiences extreme poverty or violence. Whether it’s big or little things, we have a lot to be thankful for this year and every year.

Last night I heard a talk by Claire Noonan, who runs the Siena Center at Dominican University in Chicago. The topic was “being called by our baptism.” She and other responders shared about God’s love being enough. Our baptism calls us to accept that love within ourselves and to share it with others; that is our mission, and that is enough. As we enter Advent, we begin reflecting on Mary’s choice to accept and share God’s love. She was grateful for the blessings of her faith, and she chose to follow God’s call by being mother to Jesus. In turn, Jesus accepted God’s love and shared it with others during his public ministry, to the point of death on the cross, which we celebrate in Lent/Easter.

It’s fitting that the liturgical season starts after Thanksgiving, and that it follows a circle between Christ’s birth and Jesus’ death. During Advent, we are called to reflect on the light of Christ, the love of God, and the call of our birth and baptism – let us do so with open and grateful hearts.

19th Century England had a crisis of masculinity. In a very short space of time, mechanisation, the gift of the Industrial Revolution, changed the way people lived and worked. The majority of society was involved in agricultural work, which was undoubtedly made simpler by the advent of more complex machinery and tools – industrial processing soon became the new common labour throughout the country.

This change in labour styles led to an alteration in physique – manning machinery was not half as taxing as the work people had been used to; coupled with poor working conditions in the factories, the working male population, step by step, became weaker and sicker than they had been before.

The ease of labour also made it viable for women to enter work. In most cases women could perform equal to or better than men. Man, in a sense, became redundant. With a tumultuous political situation, and the threat of war looking all the more real, the crisis became apparent – a generation earlier had been chiselled from stone, tough as nails…and man now was flabby, useless and impotent.

The solution to the problem came in a strange shape. An oval. Through public schools there was a huge push on sporting activities, chief amongst them, rugby. Rugby, it was argued was a way to make a boy into a man. Of course, it would alter the player physically, making them rugged and tough, but also it was an important moral tool. It was viewed so, as a rite of initiation, one which would teach young boys good moral and physical breeding, fairness in retaliation, and the importance of the team over the individual. In short, it would prepare them for war.

Muscular perfection became equal to moral perfection. Ancient Greece, where the gymasium was just as valid as the school in terms of educational importance, became a model for Victorian schools to aspire to. An unconscious criticism crept into the mindset of the people – to be fat, slovenly, lazy, meant to be corrupted and morally crippled. If a man could not master his own body, how could he succeed at anything else, let alone succeed on a battlefield.

Today, the picture is very much the same. Technology has brought us further along the road we started on in the 19th Century – working in artificial environments and typing away at screens (that do not even buzz anymore), even the mechanised factory work of 100 years ago seems to be far more rooted in masculinity than we can imagine. God forbid we could fathom what the time before that was like. Our bodies continue to become fat, flabby and impotent – and many complain that we have reached a new low in terms of morality. There is the constant threat of war looming on the horizon.

It could be argued, that while women are now firmly established in the workplace; both sexes could be made feel redundent by youth. When technology is changing so rapidly, experience doesn’t count for much. Skills that once required dedication and training, can now be readily accessed by anybody, and indeed, changes in education mean that children are leaving schools more fully equipped to immediately get by in their profession.

The harshest effects of this ongoing crisis can be seen in the stupendous increase of male suicide in recent years – it is food for thought, whether we are simply on an unstoppable downward roll towards redundancy – or whether in our time we will develop a new rite of initiation…a last desperate attempt to brake something which is beyond our control.

Croagh Patrick in Co Mayo receives ample press coverage each July – the last Sunday of the month, ‘Reek Sunday’ marks the call to ascend the holy mountain for tens of thousands of people. Even on any given weekend, hundreds of pairs of feet, booted and bare, make their way to the summit.

Similarly, pilgrimages to Lough Derg and along the Camino de Santiago receive plenty of positive focus in the media. In a time where religion and all that goes with it are lambasted as faded relics of the past, are pilgrimages carving their way into popular culture?

Having walked the Camino de Santiago last year, and fallen most of the way down the side of Croagh Patrick this weekend, I can safely say that the majority of people I spoke to on both pilgrimages did not consider themselves religious.

It seems, as always, that there are a small number of people on each fringe - the devout who may regularly perform the journeys to bring themselves closer to God or atone for sins; and strictly secular people who walk or climb simply for the sense of achievement. In the middle there lies the majority, from what I experienced these were people of all ages, with very varied beliefs, who set out to in some way better themselves – to try to understand more about life’s mysteries. Thus, the pilgrimage becomes less religious and more ’spiritual’.

Both Croagh Patrick and the Camino de Santiago have a history of pilgrimage that predates Christianity – spanning back some 5000 years. Obviously the sense of wonderment is a timeless and universal thing. As is the sense of comradery that pervades a group after trauma or exersion. I wonder, just as Christianity spread, assimilating and creating pilgrimages throughout the centuries; whether with the increasing secularisation of society, could it one day happen that these ancient sites become purely spiritual, as opposed to religious, places of reverence?  

Regardless of their future, I believe it is an unquestionably beautiful and positive thing that these places exist and offer, through hardship, a unique, uplifting and rewarding experience. Human suffering has always been a great unifier of people, and pilgrimages, in a secular world, offer a path that bridges gaps between faiths, and indeed between the faithful and the faithless.

I have some wonderful news! I was wrong. Not that this is a rarity, but this particular mistake is really quite sweet. The Poor Clare community in Ennis celebrated their golden jubilee this week and the celebration was marked by a visit from our belovéd President Maire McAleese. Last week I wrote with dismay at how this great woman seemed to have fallen into the secular trap set for every aspiring Irish politician today – don’t dare mention religion in public. Thank you Madam President for breaking free from these Christo-hostile bonds.

In the monastery Mrs McAleese wished “a very happy birthday to all the Poor Clares for 50 wonderful years and I particularly thank you for 11 of those years”.

Our president of the people, for the people, went on to admit that she spends three days in the monastery on retreat every year…while president of Ireland…shock, horror! The Irish Times and Irish Independent once again take their impartial stance to the world: “President tells of days spent living with nuns in Ennis”…“President spends yearly retreat with enclosed nuns”…”cloistered away in prayer”…etc

“You can’t take the burden of sorrow from them and people do come in great sorrow, but you can go in a journey of light with them and that matters so much; the courage, the faith, the hope that your prayers give them. That little bit of energy to keep them focused for tomorrow – that is so important to bring the joy of Clare and the joy of Christ into their lives.” It is so heartening to hear a lay Irish public figure speak about the “joy of Christ”…so heartening.

This approach by such a well respected figure does trickle down. The Irish Times went on to explain that the Poor Clares “dedicate their lives to God through the vows of enclosure, chastity, obedience and poverty.” No “scandal”, ”falling church attendence”, “disillusioned Catholics” or jibes about “wafers”. This is some of the best press the Church has gotten in Ireland since the scandals ten years ago!

A signed photograph of President McAleese hangs on the wall of the main corridor: “Much love to my dearest sisters, Mary.” In the visitors’ book yesterday she wrote: “Congratulations on 50 years of prayful loving care of so many people whose sorrows you shared, whose joy you enchanced.” and ended with those wonderful words “God bless this lovely community”. I don’t know when I last heard an Irish politician say the words “God bless”.

The remnants of a ‘Catholic Ireland’ can often be seen when Irish politicians attend Catholic services as a government representative in special circumstances. When the President and her husband joined the Poor Clares and local friars for midday prayer in the monastery chapel there was a sense that this was the real thing. After her enlightening the nation on her commitment to her faith she read from the book of the prophet Hosea…and one can’t help but feel that she believes the words she reads. Rare in a politician really!

This is extraordinary news and consider it recognised. A respected figure in Ireland has come out and proclaimed that she has a soul…and that she cares. The skys haven’t opened. She hasn’t been impeached….but this Irishman is cheering.

The bishops’ pastoral reflection concerning the Lisbon Treaty, on the theme “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labour in vain” (Ps 127:1) has provided voters with some valuable food for thought.

In the opening section of their reflection, the bishops draw our attention to the fact that “this is a referendum on the merits of a particular treaty; it is not a referendum to assess our views on membership of the European Union…”

By its very existence, the group, EUReform demonstrates the accuracy of the bishops’ observation in that it is both opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and pro Europe.

Contrary to much of the propaganda from the yes campaign, I believe it is not only possible to combine opposition to Lisbon with support for Europe, but it is actually necessary to take this position, if we are also to take seriously our obligation to respect the people of Europe whose voices are deliberately not being heard.

The people of Europe, the true heart of Europe, rejected this constitution in its earlier pre Lisbon ‘wrapper’.

But, their democratic decision became the stone rejected so contemptuously by the builders of the Lisbon Treaty – if Christianity is not at the heart of Europe, then don’t expect derived Christian principles like respect for the democratic rights of others to be there either, in anything but name!)

To add insult to injury, the Chairman of the Convention which drew up the original form of the Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, openly admits that Lisbon contains “all the earlier proposals (from the earlier form of the Constitution)” … “that we dare not present to them directly” … “but (they are) hidden and disguised in some way.” (The Independent, London, 30 October, 2007)

Surely, deceit and the rejection of democracy are no basis on which to construct “the new European home which will be a good place for all to live only if built on the basis of authentic values which are founded on the universal moral law written on the heart of every person.” (Pope Benedict XVI, quoted in the bishops’ reflection). Deceit is clearly not an authentic value!

Surely, this is not how the Lord would “build the house,” to quote the bishops in their reference to Psalm 127 (above), on a foundation of deceit, a ‘foundation of sand’.

The unwillingness of some ‘yes’ campaigners to tolerate conscientious objection and the attempts by others to silence voices within the Church – which in some cases amounted to a form of interference in the Church by the state – has been a feature of this campaign.

It is to the bishops’ credit, therefore, that they have not been intimidated into calling for a ‘yes’ vote but have spoken out against such ‘bully-boy’ tactics, which are surely a sign of what we could expect from any post-Lisbon EU: “Conscious of the pressure from powerful interest groups in Ireland and in other parts of the EU to influence the outcome of the referendum, we ask also that the right of people to exercise their franchise freely be respected.”

Finally, the bishops ask the question, “what kind of Europe do we want for our children?”

Yes indeed! This question should be at the centre of our hearts when we cast our vote this Thursday. What kind of Europe do we want for our children: one that is “built on the basis of authentic values which are founded on the universal moral law written on the heart of every person” or one that is built on deceit and and which therefore lacks democratic authority (as noted by pro European journalist Adrian Hamilton writing in the Independent – Thursday May 29)?

The heart of Europe is not a treaty. The heart of Europe is its people! Let us not bypass them to build a Europe based on sand. Vote ‘No’.

The Bishop of Oxford has recently started a campaign with the aim of encouraging more people to attend church in the area.

Rt Revd John Pritchard started the “Tell Bishop John” scheme to help discover why residents in Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire have stopped going to mass services and those who wish to talk about their absence can leave comments on his website.

We know people fall out of the habit of coming to church for all sorts of reasons…A bereavement, for example, can leave someone feeling uncomfortable about coming on their own. Sometimes people are simply embarrassed because they’ve missed a few Sundays. Whatever the reason, I’d like to try and understand and to say they are always welcome.

Rt Revd John Pritchard

The Bishop’s campaign coincides with the UK campaign called Back to Church Sunday. Back to Church Sunday was pioneered in 2004 by the Diocese of Manchester  where churchgoers invite friends and neighbours to come to church with them. It will be held this year on the 30th September.

In Cardiff, the nightclub Solace which dubs itself the “church in a bar” invited the Archbishop of Wales to debate religion with around 50 revellers at Dempsey’s.

Dr Barry Morgan conducted the question and answer session entitled Is Religion Bad? Over a drink and admitted that some of the questions he faced were “quite hard-hitting”.

If the church can reach out to people who ordinary churches can’t reach then that’s a very good thing…There were some people there who were certainly on the fringes, some people who professed to be atheists, some people had come from the pub downstairs.

Archbishop Barry Morgan

The Archbishop was invited by Wendy Sanderson from the Church Army. She is an evangelist and better known around the area as Sister Wendy, even though she is not a nun. In 2003 she began offering support of a spiritual nature to clubbers.

It seems to me this is something that could help bring different religions in the modern consciousness by bringing the church to the people rather then the other way around. There is a message to be given and it would appear there are those who are willing to listen to the ideals without committing there and then.

People have to be allowed to make up their own minds as to the path they follow and during this trial they will look for information on all sides. With that in mind is it not natural to think that they may turn to a more modern thinking church?