Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts

Thursday, 9 August 2018

"We need to be willing to take a hit for Religious Freedom"

Lord David Alton
This is a full transcript, in the original English, of my short interview with Lord David Alton. It took place in September 2017, at a reception at the Houses of Parliament, which he hosted for participants of the Alliance Defending Freedom Press Symposium.

Esta é uma transcrição integral, no inglês original, da minha curta conversa com Lorde David Alton. Decorreu no passado mês de Setembro, 2017, durante uma recepção no Parlamento Britânico, que ele organizou para os participantes no Simpósio de Imprensa convocado pela Alliance Defending Freedom. A reportagem portuguesa está aqui.


Is religious liberty and freedom of conscience under threat in Western Europe and in the UK specifically?
Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights insists that it is every person's right to believe, not to believe or to change their belief, and all three elements are under attack both here in countries like the UK, where people are discriminated against, or outright persecution in countries like Saudi Arabia, or China, where it is impossible to follow your beliefs in the way you would wish.

So there is a sort of hierarchy. It would be absurd to suggest that in countries like the UK that it is as difficult to be a Christian as it is in North Korea, obviously that is absurd, but nevertheless we should be careful about the erosion of our fundamental freedoms.

The attacks come in a slightly different way. The devil comes in carpet slippers, in a society like this. So you see a harbinger in the dismissal of two catholic nurses, midwives, in Scotland, who refused to collaborate in an abortion. They said they are called to deliver babies, not to take their lives. As a result of that they lost their jobs. If they had been doctors they would have been protected under a conscience clause. But because they are not doctors they weren't, and I think we need to strengthen our laws so that conscience prevails in situations of that kind.

There is one case I know affected you personally, to do with the Catholic adoption agencies, at the time of gay adoption legislation. Are these the types of situation which are mounting up to pose a threat to conscience protection?
Yes, and society loses a great deal when it discriminates against religious communities because it can't accept that they are entitled to have a different view about something such as adoption or marriage. These are fundamental questions that affect people in a very personal way, and people have got to learn to live and let live.

Forcing the closure of adoption agencies hurts children, it becomes part of an ideology, the latest of which is gender ideology. And I think we have got to stand firm against these things and say that you must learn to live alongside us respectfully, and we must learn to live alongside you respectively. Its the dignity of difference.

You mentioned Tim Farron and Reese Mogg in your speech... Is it in fact becoming increasingly difficult, or even impossible, to hold public office and espouse religious beliefs?
Well, it goes up and down. If you think, here we are standing on the terrace of Parliament. If you think back 200 years, there was a young man who was the youngest member of the House of Commons, who was criticised for trying to impose his Christian views on the House of Commons. His name was William Wilberforce. He was opposed to slavery. It took him 40 years to challenge people's belief that it was their right to choose to own another human being as a slave, merely because of the colour of their skin. If he had accepted the criticism that he had no right to argue his beliefs in our House of Commons, we would probably have slavery with us to this very day.

So in every generation you have to be willing to take a hit. People don't like what you have to say, that doesn't mean it is wrong. The beauty of democracy is that you have to win the argument. Why are they so frightened of even hearing the arguments? Why are they saying that someone like Tim Farron shouldn't be able to lead a political party because of his Christian Faith? Why are they saying that someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg shouldn't be a Conservative member of Parliament because he opposes abortion? If they are in favour of choice, let them also be in favour of also hearing alternative views, and let people then choose which one they happen to want to support. It shows a fear, I think, on the part of people who are opposed to things that men like Tim Farron and Jacob Rees-Mogg stand for.

In terms of conscience protection and traditional values, is Brussels an obstacle or a help in this situation?
I think it very much depends on the issue. You take an issue like human embryology, our laws, which permit the destruction of human embryos over the first 14 days of their life, has led to the destruction of 2 million human embryos. We've even permitted the creation of animal human hybrid embryos. This is something that is prohibited in most EU countries and not facilitated by the EU.

Take things like the abortion laws. We allow abortion up to and even during birth, on a baby with a disability, and up to 24 weeks gestation in other circumstances. The EU average term limit is around 12 weeks. So who'se laws are more liberal, and who's are more conservative? But take euthanasia, and in Holland and in Belgium they have permissive euthanasia laws. In Holland more than 4000 people die every year from Euthanasia, 1.000 of which are without the consent of the patient. In this country, the UK, we have prohibited that. So this is a debate which is running at different levels in different jurisdictions. This isn't about left or right, its about right or wrong. Its not about being European or British, its about standing four square in the belief that every human being is made in the image of God, that they are therefore unique and worthy of our protection.

Tuesday, 6 May 2014

“The mindset in Europe is changing in favour of the family”

Full transcript of the interview with Maria Hildingsson, secretary-general of the Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe. Article (in Portuguese) here.

Transcrição integral, no inglês original, da entrevista a Maria Hildingsson, secretária-geral da Federação Europeia das Associações de Famílias Católicas. Ver aqui o artigo.


What brings you to Lisbon?
I have been invited to give a couple of conferences on the challenges to the Family, in Europe today. As is the situation in Portugal, it is in all member states of the European Union: Poverty, family breakdown situation we can see across Europe, and also the demographic deficit. All these things are challenges for the European decision makers, in Brussels, where I am based.

My visit here is an occasion to exchange with Portuguese organizations, associations and other actors working to promote more family friendly policies. Of course this is very important at the point where we are speaking. European elections take place in less than one month, and it is an excellent occasion and opportunity to make a change in European institutions.

Many citizens of EU countries tend to think that the EU Parliament does not affect our lives. That the things discussed there are not binding... So how important is it to avoid decisions that are against the family in the EU Parliament?
Well I would say it’s very important. What you just described is the situation we would find in any member state. There are 28 member states in the EU, and when you go to any of them, families and citizens in general feel that Brussels is something very far away, that decisions will not have a direct impact on their daily lives. But in fact, today, about 70% of national laws actually come from the European level. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, the European Parliament [EP] has more power than it used to have. The EP is in fact the only European institution that has a direct link to the European people. It is directly elected by the European citizens.

There are two other institutions: the EU Commission, which is influenced by the elections. The political denominations and composition of the EUP will have an impact on the commission of the European commission. And of course there is the European Council, which is a council of ministers, which directly reflects the national-political composition. But I do think it is important to underline how much power the EU actually has, although it can seem as if it is very far away, and very abstract.

To use a concrete example, we have heard of the Estrela Report. What would its approval have meant for families?
As you underlined, there are certain reports or resolutions which are adopted by the EP which are binding, and others which are non-binding. Mrs. Estrela's report was a non-binding report. But nevertheless it was important because it is a symbolic act. The EP did vote on a text, an alternative resolution, which states that all these subjects which she wanted to address are not to be dealt with at the EU level, but are the competence of member states. But if the text had been adopted, it would have given a clear position of the EP and even if not binding it is symbolically very important for the battle of ideas which we find at any political level.

Could your group be described as a lobbying group?
Yes. It’s a federation of family associations at the European level.

So you work directly with the European MP's. Is the European Parliament hostile to traditional families, or not?
I would say that there is a great variety. Among the 28 member states there are very different cultural, historical, social heritages that impact on the way we look at the family. In some countries politics will be based on an individualistic perspective, that is the case in my country, Sweden. In others we will see that there is family policy which is actually based on the family as a unit, which is the case in France.

But when we see all these different elected members at the EP, there are, in general, three different groups, which do not always reflect these national contexts. There is a group of members which does want to support the family, based on a marriage between a man and a woman. Another group is hostile to this idea and wants to promote another agenda, where any situation of family life, or any form of relationships are considered equal, not respecting the fact that any child has a mother and a father, and that marriage is an institution intended to protect children and the spouses.

But in between these groups there is a huge group, a majority, which is a group of members who never, perhaps, paid much attention to these issues. Of course no Member can cover all issues, therefore it is important to be in contact with this big group, which is quite willing to listen to arguments, and I do think that when arguments are put forward with common sense, but also using facts and figures, and looking at reality, there are many things we can promote and make present in the European debate.

Manifestação pró-família, em França
You spoke of marriage between a man and a woman. The gay marriage debate is going on all over Europe at the moment. Is that one of the main issues you are addressing? And what are the main threats you are trying to avoid coming out of Europe at the moment?
I would say that one of the main threats is family breakdown. That is a huge problem across Europe. It is a huge problem that does not reflect the desires of the hearts of young people in Europe. Young people want to have family, relationships that last a life time, and they respect adults who have been good parents and kept their families together.

So this is a huge challenge. The EU does not have any direct competence in the area of family policy as such, but it does have competence in the areas of employment policy, maternity leave, for example, and the balance between family life and work is very important. The current strategy of the EU, called the Europe 2020 strategy, wants to create jobs and of course that is very important, but there is no respect paid to the needs of families. Our belief is that you need to put family first. You need to design working conditions in such a way that each family can live decently from its income. It’s a matter of dignity as well.

Then there is this debate which is of a more anthropological character, which is the debate about same sex marriage, and adoption, and surrogacy motherhood, and on this issue I think it is very important to have a look at the map of Europe. If you look at it you will see there is a rift which is growing bigger and bigger, stronger and stronger. There are no member states from the former Warsaw Pact which have legislated in this way. All of the ones which have legislated to open marriage for people of the same sex, to open adoption rights to them as well, these countries have a different cultural mind-set.

Whether we are in Portugal or in Sweden we can see that all these countries are Western. In fact there have been some very big popular protests in countries such as Hungary, which changed its constitution a few years ago, where marriage and family are defined. Croatia, which managed to have a referendum, and we can see that these reactions do not come from the political level, every time, in some cases they do, but in fact it is a popular expression. And I think it is about time that the decision makers at the European level pay respect to those voices and that the richer countries, those of the Western part of the EU, stop putting pressure on those countries which need the financial support. Because this is what is happening. Sometimes there is true bullying.

You spoke of the protests in Hungary, we also saw demonstrations in France, which we don't usually think of as a traditionalist country... Are we seeing a change in the mind-set of a new generation in Western Europe?
I think so, yes. What happened in France is very interesting. I lived in France for 13 years and I can see that there is a change in the minds of people. This would not have happened five years ago, I think. It is a reaction that comes from the grassroots level. There is certainly a change in Europe in general, when it comes to these sensitive issues which concern human dignity, respect for life, respect for family. We can see in 2013 a magnificent example, with the collection of almost two million signatures in favour of the European Citizen's initiative "One of Us", which aims at asking the EU to stop any funding of activities which involve the destruction of the human embryo. The reactions at the political level can be rather strong on these issues, that is for certain, but the main actors here are not necessarily the politicians, it is normal people in the street who are actually starting to realize that they can make a change, they can have an impact.

In France we have seen mayors being fined or threatened with jail for refusing to conduct Gay Marriage. Cases in Britain of clashes between gay rights and freedom of conscience. What can we do to guarantee freedom of conscience for people for whom this is a serious issue? Can it be protected in any way?
Freedom of conscience, freedom of conviction, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, all these are fundamental freedoms, they are enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. I think it is important to make people aware of these rights and to strengthen those rights.

Of course there is, in this case, a clash of rights. If the legislator has given the right for people to marry with others of the same sex, and on the other hand the civil servant who is to carry out the ceremony has another opinion, we do see that there is a clash of rights. We do need to reflect on this, we do need to see how we can reach out to each person so that no one feels that they are not respected. Everyone is worthy of respect. But those individual wishes, which lead to a situation where a single person could have an insemination, where a couple could have a surrogate mother to give birth to a child, these situations do not fully respect the needs of every person. We cannot act from an individualistic perspective; we need to search for the common good.

But you put your finger on one of the main challenges we have ahead, and this also relates to the concept of non-discrimination, which is creating quite some difficulties.

We see many of the people on the other side comparing opposition to gay rights to racism. Is this a solid argument?
I don't think it is. What we need is to understand what marriage is really about. Until now the law has never been based on feelings and emotions. The law that has instituted marriage is there to protect the spouses and the children. Marriage is an institution. Of course there is love, there are emotions, but the state and society, when they create rules, they are there to protect and institution intended to protect the spouses and the children. This is what marriage is about, it is not about the romantic ceremony, the church, or whatever.

We do need to come back to what marriage is really about. We need to value that, but also to understand the needs of young people who want to have stable relationships. One of the main challenges here is education. We should not replace parents in their educational role, they are the first and primary educators of their children. But we should support them. And we also need to develop alternatives, propose and offer ways to support parents in this mission. One of the most sensitive areas relates to sexuality and relationships, but what is commonly proposed in many schools is a more biological, sometimes scientific, or health oriented education, but what youth is really looking for is how to make a relationship last. We need to widen the perspective and make sure we offer education that prepares to love, respect, cherish, forgive, and that takes into account relationships, emotions and sexuality. This is one of the major challenges in Europe, but also in the world today.

You were saying before the interview that the Lutheran Church in Sweden is currently led by a female lesbian bishop who lives with another woman and has adopted children... So I imagine that for many of these established churches in Scandinavia and Northern Europe, you don't necessarily get much support. But I would ask if you count on Muslim and Jewish communities as allies in some of these matters?
There are many Christian churches with which we have common ideas, values and virtues. We cannot put all the Protestants into one bag, and I think we can also get a lot of support from the Orthodox. When it comes to the Jewish community I think we have many things in common, related to family and marriage. To a certain extent that can also be the case with the Muslim community, but of course we do have a different view on women, and also on marriage as such. So on certain things we can work on the political level together, there are perhaps other anthropological aspects where we would have different views.

But in those where there is common ground, do you work together?
We do, but I would say that what I see in Brussels, at least, is that the most active NGO's working on these issues are Christian.

Mainly Catholic and Evangelical?
Yes.

Friday, 3 January 2014

“Obama could stop the fines. He has chosen not to do so”

Full transcript of interview with Kim Daniels, spokesperson for the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, regarding the church’s opposition to the HHS Mandate. News feature, in Portuguese, here.

Transcrição completa no inglês original da entrevista a Kim Daniels, porta-voz do presidente da Conferência Episcopal dos Estados Unidos sobre o braço-de-ferro entre Obama e Igreja Católica. Veja a notícia aqui.


What exactly does the church object to in the Affordable Care Act?
The HHS mandate requires us to facilitate insurance coverage for abortifacients, contraception, sterilization and related counselling, against our deeply held beliefs. That is the problem. It violates our beliefs, it imposes crippling fines on us if we choose not to participate in providing such insurance coverage. We are simply asking for an exemption from that.

The fines kicked in on January 1st. What could this mean for Catholic institutions?
For Catholic institutions the ability of our many social service, education and health care ministries, to live out the fullness of our faith, is now in jeopardy. January 1st marked the date that the Department of Health and Human Services has chosen to begin implementing this mandate against the ministries and it requires them to violate our deeply held beliefs or face crippling fines of 100 dollars per day, per employee, so that is about 36,500 per year, per employee. This would really harm the ability of these ministries to serve those who depend on them.

Has somebody done the math? How many people will be affected by this?
Its 100 dollars per day, per employee or affected person – employee’s spouse or dependant – so that adds up very quickly. For instance in the diocese of Pittsburgh, the court’s decision which prevents the government from enforcing this mandate, specified that Catholic Charities provides 230,000 acts of service for people in need in half of Western Pennsylvania. These are the kinds of acts of service which will be cut off if Catholic Charities has to pay these crippling fines. We don’t have a global number, but we take these fines for each social service ministry and expand it across the United States and you see how many people might be impacted.

Can you foresee a future where they have to close down?
Certainly some groups might have to close down, some will have their services impaired, and the people who depend on those services are the ones who will suffer most. If your services have to be cut because you are paying fines to the Government, then you can’t serve as many people. Though, for instance, the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order which serves the elderly poor, recently won an order from the Supreme Court preventing the Government from enforcing this mandate against them. The Supreme Court will make a further determination on that soon. Groups like them are emblematic of groups around the country which serve the poor, which will face these crippling fines and will have to determine how to react.

Some organizations have had court orders granting them exemptions for now. Could the Administration cancel the fines until the Supreme Court decides on the issue?
We’ve asked President Obama. Just this week Archbishop Kurtz, who is the president of the USCCB sent a letter to President Obama asking him to temporarily exempt religious institutions from these crippling fines which will be imposed by the mandate and he has said that he believes his policy continues to be correct. So yes, president Obama could take such an action, he has chosen not to do so, and so we still face these fines.

If the courts finally decide against the catholic institutions, will the Church give in and comply?
I think the remarkable thing we have seen among the US bishops is first that they stood together throughout this controversy as pastors charged with proclaiming a Gospel in its entirety. They have also stood united in their resolve to resist the heavy burden imposed on our ministries and to protect our religious freedom. Even as each bishop is struggling to address the mandate, they are all striving to, together, develop alternative avenues of response to this difficult situation. As you know, the Affordable Care Act has lots complications to it and, like many other people, bishops and dioceses and Catholic Social Service ministries are trying to figure out how to respond.

So this is more than about contraceptives, you see it as a religious freedom issue…
Exactly. Religious liberty is a priority of the US bishops, because we see issues like this encroaching on our religious liberty and of course the United States sees itself as a beacon to the world as an example of religious liberty. When we have so many problems around the world concerning attacks on people’s religious freedom, we think that government regulations that infringe on our religious freedom here in the US stand as a witness to the fact that we consider this to be a fundamental issue.

Some people are painting this as being the Church against ObamaCare. Is the church against ObamaCare?
No. As a matter of fact the US bishops are longstanding advocates of a shared goal of accessible life affirming health care. Just this November in a special message issued unanimously they reaffirmed this commitment to accessible life affirming health care. But the HHS mandate harshly penalizes those who seek to offer life affirming health coverage in accord with the teachings of our faith. We are simply asking for an exemption of this particular regulation of the Affordable Care Act.

Is the Catholic church alone on this, or has there been support from other religious organizations?
There is broad ecumenical support, not just from religious people but from people across the board who care about religious liberty. This is really part and parcel of an attack on our longstanding common sense bipartisan view of religious liberty in the United States, where people are allowed to live out their faith and witness to their faith, without having the Government place substantial burdens on it. That understanding of religious freedom has been encroached on in recent years and there has been a broad coalition of religious and non-religious groups coming together to stand for religious liberty.

When can we expect a decision from the Supreme Court?
On the Little Sisters of the Poor case, the court should rule quite soon about whether or not to lift the temporary stay that they have imposed against the Government. But there is another case in the Supreme Court that will have oral arguments in March and a decision by June as to whether the HHS mandate could be imposed against private employers as well.

We are strongly encouraged by recent legal developments, in particular by developments in the Supreme Court. We are confident that the courts will vindicate the religious liberty of our schools, hospitals and social service ministries. We continue to seek dialogue with the Obama administration and ask for relief from Congress.

Partilhar